The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment M -Draft EIR Vol II1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 | Riverside, CA 95207 951-787-9222 | www.migcom.com V O L U M E II | MAY 2 0 1 7 CITY OF ROSEMEAD Draft Environmental Impact Report Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan GARVEY AVENUE CORRIDOR S PEC I F I C P L AN EDRAFT NV IRONMENTA L I MPAC T REPOR T MAY 2017 VO LUME 2 -This Document is Designed for Double-Sided Printing – Please note: the reader is to assume that any pages left blank are as such with specific intent by the document preparers. APPENDIX A SCOPING MATERIALS Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc AGENCY DISTRIBUTION LIST Environmental Review Project Title: Location: Notices Mailed Date: Comments Due Date: MAILED AGENCY DATE RECEIVED/ COMMENTS City Manager, Jeff Allred  Assistant City Manager, Matt Hawkesworth Community Development Director, Michelle Ramirez Associate Civil Engineer, Rafael Fajardo Building Official, Jim Donovan County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Subdivision, Water & Access Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040-3027 Attn: Inspector Claudia Soiza County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040-3027 Rosemead Public Safety Center Attn: Lt. Iggy Somoano Michael Reyes, Public Safety Supervisor 8301 Garvey Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 County of Los Angeles Public Works Land Development Division P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 Attn: Conal McNamara County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Land Impact Division 320 West Temple Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90040 Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc County of Los Angeles Sanitation District 1955 Workman Mill Road PO BOX 4998 Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Attn: James Stahl County of Los Angeles Health Department Mountain & Rural/Water, Sewerage, & Subdivision Control Programs 5050 Commerce Drive Baldwin Park, CA 91706 Attn: Patrick Nejadian, Chief EHS County of Los Angeles Public Health 750 S. Park Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Attn: Maria Kreimann State Department of Fish & Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 CALTRANS District 7 Office of Regional Planning and Public Transportation Mail Station 16 100 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attn: Cheryl J. Powell  For projects with Southern California Edison California Public Utilities Commission Nico Procos CPUC – Energy Division 505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-5289 AT&T California Right of Way Department 600 E. Green St. Room 300 Pasadena, CA 91101-2020 Charter Communications Environmental Review 4781 Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Attn: Domonie Telford, Construction Coordinator Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc Southern California Edison Planning Department 1000 Potrero Grande Drive Monterey Park, CA 91755 Attn: Elias Bermudez, Planner Tel: (323) 720-5280, Fax: (323) 720-5252 Email: Elias.Bermudez@sce.com For Minor Exception Projects, submit to: Alejandro "Alex" Ramirez - Right of Way Agent Southern California Edison Company Real Properties | Land Management - Metro Region 2131 Walnut Grove Ave. | G.O.3, 2nd Floor | Rosemead, CA 91770 Tel: (626) 302-4160 | Fax: (626) 302-8160 | Email: Alejandro.Ramirez@sce.com Consolidated Disposal Service 12949 Telegraph Rd., Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Attn: Greg Nordbak, City Representative Tel (562)663-3526 Southern California Gas Company 1919 S. State College Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806 Attn: Planning Department– M.L.8321 Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company Environmental Review P.O. Box 6841 Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn: Victor Ybarra or Dominic Cimarusti (626) 444-6050 Amarillo Mutual Water Company Environmental Review PO Box 6932 3404 Burton Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn: John Holzinger Tel: (626) 571-7533 California American Water Company Environmental Review 8657 Grand Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn: Jeff Williamson (626) 614-2531 Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc San Gabriel County Water Company Planning/Environmental Review PO Box 2227 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Attn: Jim Prior (626) 287-0341 San Gabriel Valley Water Company Planning/Environmental Review 11142 Garvey Avenue El Monte, CA 91733 Attn: Matt Yucelen, Engineering V.P. (626) 448-6183 Golden State Water Company Planning/Environmental Review Foothill District 401 S. San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, CA 91773 Attn: Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) CEQA Review Mail Stop 99-23-2 One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Attn: Bill Lundgren Regional Planning Program Manager Southern California Association of Governments Planning/Environmental Review 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Southern California Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Planning/environmental Review 21865 Copley Drive PO Box 4939 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0939  Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778  Gabrieleno Tongva Nation San Dunlap, Chairperson PO Box 86908 Los Angeles, CA 90086 Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067  Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors 27475 Ynez Road #349 Temecula, CA 92591 Applicable School District: ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT 3907 ROSEMEAD BLVD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ATTN: DR. AMY ENOMOTO-PEREZ, SUPERINTENDENT  GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2730 N. DEL MAR AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ATTN: BILL LOOSE Applicable City: City of Montebello Attn: Planning Department 1600 W. Beverly Blvd Montebello, CA 90640  City of Monterey Park Attn: Planning Department 320 W. Newmark Ave Monterey Park, CA 91754  City of Pico Rivera Attn: Planning Department 6615 Passons Blvd. Pico Rivera, CA 90660  City of South El Monte Attn: Planning Department 1415 Santa Anita Avenue South El Monte, CA 91733  City of Alhambra Attn: Planning Department 111 S. First Street Alhambra, CA 91801  City of San Gabriel Attn: Planning Department 425 S. Mission Drive San Gabriel, CA 91776 Updated 7-16-13 C:\Users\Christopher\Downloads\drive-download-20161216T041402Z\Agency Review Distribution List (NEW).doc  City of Temple City Attn: Planning Department 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780  City of Walnut Attn: Planning Department 21201 La Puente Road Walnut, CA 91789  City of El Monte Attn: Planning Department 11333 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731-3293  City of Westminster Attn: Planning Department 8200 Westminster Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683  City of Diamond Bar Attn: Planning Department 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765  City of Arcadia Attn: Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Other:  Gil Lopez 1st District Supervisorial District 5264 E Beverly Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90022  Senator Gloria Romero 149 S. Mednik Avenue, Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90022  Assemblywoman Judy Chu 1255 Corporate Center Drive, # PH9 Monterey Park, CA 91754  John Getz 16042 Ballad Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (Retail over 50,000 sf) County of Los Angeles Fire Dept Fire Prevention Division Subdivision, Water & Access Unit Attn: Inspector Claudia Soiza 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040-3027 California Public Utilities Commission Nico Procos CPUC – Energy Division 505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 San Gabriel County Water Company Planning/Environmental Review Attn: Jim Prior PO Box 2227 San Gabriel, CA 91778 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040-3027 AT&T California Right of Way Department 600 E. Green St. Room 300 Pasadena, CA 91101-2020 San Gabriel Valley Water Company Planning/Environmental Review Attn: Matt Yucelen, Engineering V.P. 11142 Garvey Avenue El Monte, CA 91733 Rosemead Public Safety Center Attn: Lt. Iggy Somoano, Michael Reyes, Public Safety Supervisor 8301 Garvey Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Charter Communications Environmental Review Attn: Domonie Telford, Construction Coordinator 4781 Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Golden State Water Company Planning/Environmental Review Foothill District Attn: Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer 401 S. San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, CA 91773 County of Los Angeles Public Works Land Development Division Attn: Conal McNamara P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 Southern California Edison Planning Department Attn: Elias Bermudez, Planner 1000 Potrero Grande Drive Monterey Park, CA 91755 MTA-CEQA Review Attn: Bill Lundgren, Regional Planning Program Mgr Mail Stop 99-23-2 One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Land Impact Division 320 West Temple Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90040 Southern California Edison Company Real Properties, Land Management - Metro Region Attn: Alejandro Ramirez - Right of Way Agent 2131 Walnut Grove Ave., G.O.3, 2nd Floor Rosemead, CA 91770 Southern California Association of Governments Planning/Environmental Review 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District Attn: James Stahl 1955 Workman Mill Road PO BOX 4998 Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Consolidated Disposal Service Attn: Greg Nordbak, City Representative 12949 Telegraph Rd., Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Southern California Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Planning/environmental Review 21865 Copley Drive PO Box 4939 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0939 County of Los Angeles Health Department Mountain & Rural/Water, Sewerage, & Subdivision Control Programs Attn: Patrick Nejadian, Chief EHS 5050 Commerce Drive Baldwin Park, CA 91706 Southern California Gas Company Attn: Planning Department– M.L.8321 1919 S. State College Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 County of Los Angeles Public Health Attn: Maria Kreimann 750 S. Park Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company Environmental Review Attn: Victor Ybarra or Dominic Cimarusti P.O. Box 6841 Rosemead, CA 91770 Gabrieleno Tongva Nation San Dunlap, Chairperson PO Box 86908 Los Angeles, CA 90086 State Department of Fish & Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Amarillo Mutual Water Company Environmental Review Attn: John Holzinger PO Box 6932 3404 Burton Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 CALTRANS District 7, Office of Regional Planning & Public Transportation Mail Station 16,100 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attn: Cheryl J. Powell California American Water Company Environmental Review Attn: Jeff Williamson 8657 Grand Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors 27475 Ynez Road #349 Temecula, CA 92591 ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTN: DR. AMY ENOMOTO-PEREZ, SUPERINTENDENT 3907 ROSEMEAD BLVD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 City of El Monte Attn: Planning Department 11333 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731-3293 GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTN: BILL LOOSE 2730 N. DEL MAR AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 City of Westminster Attn: Planning Department 8200 Westminster Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683 City of Montebello Attn: Planning Department 1600 W. Beverly Blvd Montebello, CA 90640 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Planning Department 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Monterey Park Attn: Planning Department 320 W. Newmark Ave Monterey Park, CA 91754 City of Arcadia Attn: Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 City of Pico Rivera Attn: Planning Department 6615 Passons Blvd. Pico Rivera, CA 90660 Gil Lopez 1st District Supervisorial District 5264 E Beverly Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90022 City of South El Monte Attn: Planning Department 1415 Santa Anita Avenue South El Monte, CA 91733 Senator Gloria Romero 149 S. Mednik Avenue, Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90022 City of Alhambra Attn: Planning Department 111 S. First Street Alhambra, CA 91801 Assemblywoman Judy Chu 1255 Corporate Center Drive, # PH9 Monterey Park, CA 91754 City of San Gabriel Attn: Planning Department 425 S. Mission Drive San Gabriel, CA 91776 John Getz 16042 Ballad Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City of Temple City Attn: Planning Department 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 City of Walnut Attn: Planning Department 21201 La Puente Road Walnut, CA 91789 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF L OS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-7411 , FAX : (562) 699-5422 www.lacsd. org Ms. Sheri Bermejo, City Planner Planning Division City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms. Bermejo: GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Chief Engineer and General Manager May 20, 2015 Ref File No.: 3293597 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on April 20, 2015. The majority of the proposed project area is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15 with a small portion with the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 2. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The Districts own, operate, and maintain only the large trunk sewers that form the backbone of the regional wastewater conveyance system. Local collector and/or lateral sewer lines are the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which they are located. As such, the Districts cannot comment on any deficiencies in the sewerage system within the City of Rosemead (City) except to state that presently no deficiencies exist in Districts' facilities that serve the City. For information on deficiencies in the City sewerage system, please contact the City Department of Public Works and/or the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2. The Districts should review development and redevelopment projects within the boundaries of the proposed project area in order to determine whether or not sufficient trunk sewer capacity exists to serve each project and if Districts' facilities will be affected by the project. Please forward information on individual development projects within the boundaries of the proposed project to the undersigned. 3. The wastewater generated by the proposed project area will be treated at one or more of the following: the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 263.4 mgd; the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located near the City of South El Monte, which has a design capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 8.3 mgd; and/or the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos, which has a design capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 21.2 mgd. DOC: #3321401.002 15 •" Recycled Paper ".1 Ms. Sheri Bermejo -2-May 20, 2015 4. In order to estimate the volume of wastewater a project will generate, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table l, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link for a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors. 5. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate proposed projects. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727. 6. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion ofthe Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. AR:ar DOC: #332 1401.00215 Very truly yours, Grace Robinson Hyde Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department May 11, 2015 Sheri Bermejo, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 RE: Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Dear Ms. Bermejo, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. This letter conveys recommendations from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) concerning issues that are germane to our agency’s statutory responsibility in relation to our facilities and services that may be affected by the proposed project. Metro bus lines operate on Garvey Avenue, adjacent to the proposed project. There are several Metro bus stops on the Oxnard Street in the project area. The following comments relate to bus operations and the bus stops: 1. Although the project is not expected to result in any long-term impacts on transit, the developer should be aware of the bus facilities and services that are present. The existing Metro bus stop must be maintained as part of the final project. 2. During construction, the stop must be maintained or relocated consistent with the needs of Metro Bus Operations. Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator should be contacted at 213-922-4632 regarding construction activities that may Impact Metro bus lines. (For closures that last more than six months, Metro’s Stops and Zones Department will also need to be notified at 213-922-5188). Other municipal bus may also be impacted and should be included in construction outreach efforts. 3. LACMTA encourages the installation of bus shelters, benches and other amenities that improve the transit rider experience. The City should consider requesting the installation of such amenities as part of the development of the site. 4. Final design of the bus stop and surrounding sidewalk area must be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and allow passengers with disabilities a clear path of travel to the bus stop from the proposed development. Beyond impacts to Metro facilities and operations, LACMTA must also notify the applicant of state requirements. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), with roadway and transit components, is required under the State of California Congestion Management Program (CMP) statute. The CMP TIA Guidelines are published in the “2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County”, Appendix D (attached). The geographic area examined in the TIA must include the following, at a minimum: Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan – LACMTA COMMENTS May 11, 2015 Page 2 1. All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on/off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour (of adjacent street traffic). 2. If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Within the study area, the TIA must analyze at least one segment between monitored CMP intersections. 3. Mainline freeway-monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour. 4. Caltrans must also be consulted through the NOP process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system. The CMP TIA requirement also contains two separate impact studies covering roadways and transit, as outlined in Sections D.8.1 – D.9.4. If the TIA identifies no facilities for study based on the criteria above, no further traffic analysis is required. However, projects must still consider transit impacts. For all CMP TIA requirements please see the attached guidelines. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Nareh Nazary at 213-922-4163 or by email at DevReview@metro.net. LACMTA looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR. Please send it to the following address: LACMTA Development Review One Gateway Plaza MS 99-18-3 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Sincerely, Nareh Nazary Development Review Coordinator, Countywide Planning Attachments: CMP Appendix D: Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County Important Notice to User: This section provides detailed travel statistics for the Los Angeles area which will be updated on an ongoing basis. Updates will be distributed to all local jurisdictions when available. In order to ensure that impact analyses reflect the best available information, lead agencies may also contact MTA at the time of study initiation. Please contact MTA staff to request the most recent release of “Baseline Travel Data for CMP TIAs.” D.1 OBJECTIVE OF GUIDELINES The following guidelines are intended to assist local agencies in evaluating impacts of land use decisions on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) system, through preparation of a regional transportation impact analysis (TIA). The following are the basic objectives of these guidelines: Promote consistency in the studies conducted by different jurisdictions, while maintaining flexibility for the variety of project types which could be affected by these guidelines. Establish procedures which can be implemented within existing project review processes and without ongoing review by MTA. Provide guidelines which can be implemented immediately, with the full intention of subsequent review and possible revision. These guidelines are based on specific requirements of the Congestion Management Program, and travel data sources available specifically for Los Angeles County. References are listed in Section D.10 which provide additional information on possible methodologies and available resources for conducting TIAs. D.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS Exhibit D-7 provides the model resolution that local jurisdictions adopted containing CMP TIA procedures in 1993. TIA requirements should be fulfilled within the existing environmental review process, extending local traffic impact studies to include impacts to the regional system. In order to monitor activities affected by these requirements, Notices of Preparation (NOPs) must be submitted to MTA as a responsible agency. Formal MTA approval of individual TIAs is not required. The following sections describe CMP TIA requirements in detail. In general, the competing objectives of consistency & flexibility have been addressed by specifying standard, or minimum, requirements and requiring documentation when a TIA varies from these standards. APPENDIX GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS D APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-2 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County D.3 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO ANALYSIS In general a CMP TIA is required for all projects required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) based on local determination. A TIA is not required if the lead agency for the EIR finds that traffic is not a significant issue, and does not require local or regional traffic impact analysis in the EIR. Please refer to Chapter 5 for more detailed information. CMP TIA guidelines, particularly intersection analyses, are largely geared toward analysis of projects where land use types and design details are known. Where likely land uses are not defined (such as where project descriptions are limited to zoning designation and parcel size with no information on access location), the level of detail in the TIA may be adjusted accordingly. This may apply, for example, to some redevelopment areas and citywide general plans, or community level specific plans. In such cases, where project definition is insufficient for meaningful intersection level of service analysis, CMP arterial segment analysis may substitute for intersection analysis. D.4 STUDY AREA The geographic area examined in the TIA must include the following, at a minimum: 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). If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections (see Section D.3), the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Within the study area, the TIA must analyze at least one segment between monitored CMP intersections. 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. Caltrans must also be consulted through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the state highway system. If the TIA identifies no facilities for study based on these criteria, no further traffic analysis is required. However, projects must still consider transit impacts (Section D.8.4). D.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The following sections describe the procedures for documenting and estimating background, or non-project related traffic conditions. Note that for the purpose of a TIA, these background estimates must include traffic from all sources without regard to the exemptions specified in CMP statute (e.g., traffic generated by the provision of low and very low income housing, or trips originating outside Los Angeles County. Refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3 for a complete list of exempted projects). D.5.1 Existing Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic volumes and levels of service (LOS) on the CMP highway system within the study area must be documented. Traffic counts must APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-3 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County be less than one year old at the time the study is initiated, and collected in accordance with CMP highway monitoring requirements (see Appendix A). Section D.8.1 describes TIA LOS calculation requirements in greater detail. Freeway traffic volume and LOS data provided by Caltrans is also provided in Appendix A. D.5.2 Selection of Horizon Year and Background Traffic Growth. Horizon year(s) selection is left to the lead agency, based on individual characteristics of the project being analyzed. In general, the horizon year should reflect a realistic estimate of the project completion date. For large developments phased over several years, review of intermediate milestones prior to buildout should also be considered. At a minimum, horizon year background traffic growth estimates must use the generalized growth factors shown in Exhibit D-1. These growth factors are based on regional modeling efforts, and estimate the general effect of cumulative development and other socioeconomic changes on traffic throughout the region. Beyond this minimum, selection among the various methodologies available to estimate horizon year background traffic in greater detail is left to the lead agency. Suggested approaches include consultation with the jurisdiction in which the intersection under study is located, in order to obtain more detailed traffic estimates based on ongoing development in the vicinity. D.6 PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Traffic generation estimates must conform to the procedures of the current edition of Trip Generation, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). If an alternative methodology is used, the basis for this methodology must be fully documented. Increases in site traffic generation may be reduced for existing land uses to be removed, if the existing use was operating during the year the traffic counts were collected. Current traffic generation should be substantiated by actual driveway counts; however, if infeasible, traffic may be estimated based on a methodology consistent with that used for the proposed use. Regional transportation impact analysis also requires consideration of trip lengths. Total site traffic generation must therefore be divided into work and non-work-related trip purposes in order to reflect observed trip length differences. Exhibit D-2 provides factors which indicate trip purpose breakdowns for various land use types. For lead agencies who also participate in CMP highway monitoring, it is recommended that any traffic counts on CMP facilities needed to prepare the TIA should be done in the manner outlined in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. If the TIA traffic counts are taken within one year of the deadline for submittal of CMP highway monitoring data, the local jurisdiction would save the cost of having to conduct the traffic counts twice. D.7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION For trip distribution by direct/manual assignment, generalized trip distribution factors are provided in Exhibit D-3, based on regional modeling efforts. These factors indicate Regional Statistical Area (RSA)-level tripmaking for work and non-work trip purposes. APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-4 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (These RSAs are illustrated in Exhibit D-4.) For locations where it is difficult to determine the project site RSA, census tract/RSA correspondence tables are available from MTA. Exhibit D-5 describes a general approach to applying the preceding factors. Project trip distribution must be consistent with these trip distribution and purpose factors; the basis for variation must be documented. Local agency travel demand models disaggregated from the SCAG regional model are presumed to conform to this requirement, as long as the trip distribution functions are consistent with the regional distribution patterns. For retail commercial developments, alternative trip distribution factors may be appropriate based on the market area for the specific planned use. Such market area analysis must clearly identify the basis for the trip distribution pattern expected. D.8 IMPACT ANALYSIS CMP Transportation Impact Analyses contain two separate impact studies covering roadways and transit. Section Nos. D.8.1-D.8.3 cover required roadway analysis while Section No. D.8.4 covers the required transit impact analysis. Section Nos. D.9.1-D.9.4 define the requirement for discussion and evaluation of alternative mitigation measures. D.8.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis. The LA County CMP recognizes that individual jurisdictions have wide ranging experience with LOS analysis, reflecting the variety of community characteristics, traffic controls and street standards throughout the county. As a result, the CMP acknowledges the possibility that no single set of assumptions should be mandated for all TIAs within the county. However, in order to promote consistency in the TIAs prepared by different jurisdictions, CMP TIAs must conduct intersection LOS calculations using either of the following methods: The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method as specified for CMP highway monitoring (see Appendix A); or The Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) / Circular 212 method. Variation from the standard assumptions under either of these methods for circumstances at particular intersections must be fully documented. TIAs using the 1985 or 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis must provide converted volume-to-capacity based LOS values, as specified for CMP highway monitoring in Appendix A. D.8.2 Arterial Segment Analysis. For TIAs involving arterial segment analysis, volume-to- capacity ratios must be calculated for each segment and LOS values assigned using the V/ C-LOS equivalency specified for arterial intersections. A capacity of 800 vehicles per hour per through traffic lane must be used, unless localized conditions necessitate alternative values to approximate current intersection congestion levels. APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-5 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County D.8.3 Freeway Segment (Mainline) Analysis. For the purpose of CMP TIAs, a simplified analysis of freeway impacts is required. This analysis consists of a demand-to-capacity calculation for the affected segments, and is indicated in Exhibit D-6. D.8.4 Transit Impact Review. CMP transit analysis requirements are met by completing and incorporating into an EIR the following transit impact analysis: Evidence that affected transit operators received the Notice of Preparation. A summary of existing transit services in the project area. Include local fixed-route services within a ¼ mile radius of the project; express bus routes within a 2 mile radius of the project, and; rail service within a 2 mile radius of the project. Information on trip generation and mode assignment for both AM and PM peak hour periods as well as for daily periods. Trips assigned to transit will also need to be calculated for the same peak hour and daily periods. Peak hours are defined as 7:30- 8:30 AM and 4:30-5:30 PM. Both “peak hour” and “daily” refer to average weekdays, unless special seasonal variations are expected. If expected, seasonal variations should be described. Documentation of the assumption and analyses that were used to determine the number and percent of trips assigned to transit. Trips assigned to transit may be calculated along the following guidelines: Multiply the total trips generated by 1.4 to convert vehicle trips to person trips; For each time period, multiply the result by one of the following factors: 3.5% of Total Person Trips Generated for most cases, except: 10% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 15% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 7% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 9% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 5% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 7% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 0% if no fixed route transit services operate within one mile of the project To determine whether a project is primarily residential or commercial in nature, please refer to the CMP land use categories listed and defined in Appendix E, Guidelines for New Development Activity Tracking and Self Certification. For projects that are only partially within the above one-quarter mile radius, the base rate (3.5% of total trips generated) should be applied to all of the project buildings that touch the radius perimeter. Information on facilities and/or programs that will be incorporated in the development plan that will encourage public transit use. Include not only the jurisdiction’s TDM Ordinance measures, but other project specific measures. APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-6 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County Analysis of expected project impacts on current and future transit services and proposed project mitigation measures, and; Selection of final mitigation measures remains at the discretion of the local jurisdiction/lead agency. Once a mitigation program is selected, the jurisdiction self- monitors implementation through the existing mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA. D.9 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATION D.9.1 Criteria for Determining a Significant Impact. For purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00); if the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02). The lead agency may apply a more stringent criteria if desired. D.9.2 Identification of Mitigation. Once the project has been determined to cause a significant impact, the lead agency must investigate measures which will mitigate the impact of the project. Mitigation measures proposed must clearly indicate the following: Cost estimates, indicating the fair share costs to mitigate the impact of the proposed project. If the improvement from a proposed mitigation measure will exceed the impact of the project, the TIA must indicate the proportion of total mitigation costs which is attributable to the project. This fulfills the statutory requirement to exclude the costs of mitigating inter-regional trips. Implementation responsibilities. Where the agency responsible for implementing mitigation is not the lead agency, the TIA must document consultation with the implementing agency regarding project impacts, mitigation feasibility and responsibility. Final selection of mitigation measures remains at the discretion of the lead agency. The TIA must, however, provide a summary of impacts and mitigation measures. Once a mitigation program is selected, the jurisdiction self-monitors implementation through the mitigation monitoring requirements contained in CEQA. D.9.3 Project Contribution to Planned Regional Improvements. If the TIA concludes that project impacts will be mitigated by anticipated regional transportation improvements, such as rail transit or high occupancy vehicle facilities, the TIA must document: Any project contribution to the improvement, and The means by which trips generated at the site will access the regional facility. D.9.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). If the TIA concludes or assumes that project impacts will be reduced through the implementation of TDM measures, the TIA must document specific actions to be implemented by the project which substantiate these conclusions. APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES FOR CMP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE D-7 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County D.10 REFERENCES 1. Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development: A Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. 2. Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. 3. Travel Forecast Summary: 1987 Base Model - Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS), California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), February 1990. 4. Traffic Study Guidelines, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 1991. 5. Traffic/Access Guidelines, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. 6. Building Better Communities, Sourcebook, Coordinating Land Use and Transit Planning, American Public Transit Association. 7. Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities, Orange County Transit District, 2nd Edition, November 1987. 8. Coordination of Transit and Project Development, Orange County Transit District, 1988. 9. Encouraging Public Transportation Through Effective Land Use Actions, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, May 1987. Marissa Castro-Salvati Local Public Affairs 1000 East Potrero Grande Monterey Park, CA 91755 May 20, 2015 Sheri Bermejo, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 RE: Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (NOP) Dear Ms. Bermejo: Southern California Edison (SCE) appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identified the long-term vision and objectives for land use development and public improvement along a 1.2-mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western portion of Rosemead. The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land use designations/zoning districts supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. It is estimated the Specific Plan would support development of over 1.18 million square feet of commercial development, 892 dwelling units, and 0.77 acres of open space. SCE’s Electrical Facilities SCE is the electric service provider for the City of Rosemead and maintains electrical transmission and distribution facilities, as well as substations in the City. As illustrated in the attached map, SCE has the following transmission lines:  66 kilovolt (kV) subtransmission line along the east side of Del Mar Avenue  SCE has an existing utility corridor adjacent to the eastern edge of the project area. The corridor contains two 220 kV transmission lines and two 66 kV subtransmission lines. Encroachment of SCE’s Rights-of-Way The proposed project should not impose constraints on SCE’s ability to access, maintain, and operate its current and future facilities. SCE’s rights-of-way and fee-owned properties are purchased for the exclusive use of SCE to operate and maintain its present and future facilities. SCE will review any proposed use of SCE’s right-of-way on a case-by-case basis. Approvals or denials will be in writing based upon review of the project’s and compatibility with SCE right-of- way constraints and rights. Please forward five (5) sets of plans depicting SCE's facilities and associated land rights to the following location: Real Properties Department Southern California Edison Company 2131 Walnut Grove Avenue, G.O.3 – Second Floor Rosemead, CA 91770 General Order 131-D If the proposed project requires construction, modification, or relocation of electrical facilities that operate above 50 kV, then the project may be subject to the California Public Utility Commission’s (CPUC) General Order 131-D1. As a state agency, the CPUC is also required to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, any potentially significant impacts that may result from the construction, modification, or relocation of a 1 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/589.PDF May 20, 2015 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (NOP) Page 2 of 3 transmission line should be addressed in the DEIR. Otherwise, SCE may be required to pursue a separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC, which could delay approval of the SCE transmission line portion of the project for two years or longer. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at marissa.castro@sce.com or (323) 720-5213. Regards, Marissa Castro-Salvati Local Public Affairs Region Manager Southern California Edison Company May 20, 2015 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (NOP) Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Initial Study Prepared for: City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Prepared by: MIG | Hogle-Ireland, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 April 2015 - This document is designed for double-sided printing - Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of CEQA ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Tiering ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Availability of Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Title..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................................................................................ 5 General Plan Land Use Designation .............................................................................................................................. 5 Zoning District ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ........................................................................................................ 7 3 Determination................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................................................. 17 Determination ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .......................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 30 4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 32 4.6 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 34 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 41 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................................... 42 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 45 4.10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 51 4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 52 4.12 Noise .................................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................................................... 54 4.14 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................ 56 4.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 57 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................................... 59 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................................................... 61 5 References..................................................................................................................................................................... 63 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................... 63 Persons and Organizations Consulted ......................................................................................................................... 63 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 63 List of Tables Table 1 Development Potential ........................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 2 Planning Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table of Contents ii City of Rosemead Exhibit 3 Proposed Land Use/Zoning Plan ....................................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 4 Catalytic Project Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 5 Photographic Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 6 Fault Zones ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 Exhibit 7 Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards .................................................................................................................. 39 Exhibit 8 Dam Inundation Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix Appendix A CNDDB Map and Data Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 1 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) is preparing a Specific Plan to guide the long-term growth and development of the Garvey Avenue corridor. The adoption of the Specific Plan constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.). This Initial Study has been prepared to identify potentially significant impacts related to the implementation of the proposed project. This report has been prepared to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include:  A description of the project, including the location of the project (See Section 2);  Identification of the environmental setting (See Section 2.10);  Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (See Section 4);  Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (See Section 4);  Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (See Section 4.10); and  The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (See Section 5). Purpose of CEQA The body of state law known as CEQA was originally enacted in 1970 and has been amended a number of times since then. The legislative intent of these regulations is established in Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code, as follows: The Legislature finds and declares as follows: a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the State takes immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to: h) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. Introduction 2 City of Rosemead i) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. j) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history. k) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. l) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. m) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality. n) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment. A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval, is found in Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code, quoted below: The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof. Tiering Section 15152 et al of the CEQA Guidelines describes “tiering” as a streamlining tool as follows: (a) “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. (b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. (c) Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. (d) Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to affects which: Introduction Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 3 (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. (e) Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering. (f) A later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. A negative declaration shall be required when the provisions of Section 15070 are met. (1) Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR or negative declaration, and need not be discussed in detail. (2) When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probably future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i). (3) Significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that: a. They have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; or b. They have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project. (g) When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR. (h) There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) General Plan EIR (Section 15166) (2) Staged EIR (Section 15167) (3) Program EIR (Section 15168) (4) Master EIR (Section 15175) (5) Multiple-family residential development/residential and commercial or retail mixed-use development (Section 15179.5) (6) Redevelopment project (Section 15180) (7) Projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183) The results of the analysis in this Initial Study will be used to inform the preparation of a Program EIR for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Planning Area. The Program EIR will be used by the Lead Agency to minimize or eliminate the need for future environmental review of development projects within the Planning Area. The necessity for the future environmental review will be determine on a project-by-project basis considering the size of the project, the proposed use, and the project’s consistency with the analysis provided in the Program EIR. Note that minimizing or eliminating the need for future environmental review is in context of CEQA only and does not preclude the potential need for technical reports or consistency analysis in the future. Introduction 4 City of Rosemead Public Comments Comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this Initial Study. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the Initial Study are to be submitted to: Sheri Bermejo, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Following a 30-day period of circulation and review of the Initial Study, all comments will be considered by the City of Rosemead prior to adoption. Availability of Materials All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review. To request an appointment to review these materials, please contact: Sheri Bermejo, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 626-569-2144 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 5 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Lead Agency Name and Address City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Project Location The project “planning area” is located generally along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the south in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (see Exhibit 1, Regional Context and Vicinity Map). The intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue is the approximate central point of the plan area located at Latitude 34° 3' 45" North, Longitude 118° 5' 58" West. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 General Plan Land Use Designation The majority of the planning area is designated for Commercial uses as identified in the 2010 Amended General Plan. A portion of the western edge of the planning area is designated for Residential-Commercial Mixed-Use and the Richard Garvey Intermediate School is designated as Public Facilities. Zoning District The majority of the planning area is zoned for commercial uses. Approximately three fourths is zoned C-3 (Medium Commercial) with ten percent zoned as C-3 with a Design Overlay. Eight percent of the planning area is comprised of the former Los Angeles Auto Auction site and is zoned as C-4 (Regional Commercial). The remainder of the planning area is zoned as R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), P (Automobile Parking), and PD (Planned Development). Project Characteristics The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan identifies the long-term vision and objectives for land use development and public improvement along a 1.2 mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western portion of the City of Rosemead. The Specific Plan will establish site planning, building, parking, architectural, and open space standards and guidelines for development within the planning area (see Exhibit 2, Planning Area). The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land use designations/zoning districts supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. Table 1 (Development Potential) summarizes the currently estimated development potential of the proposed Specific Plan (see Exhibit 3, Proposed Land Use/Zoning Plan). It is estimated the Specific Plan will support development of over 1.18 million square feet (SF) of commercial development, 892 dwelling units (DU), and 0.77 acres of open space. These estimates represent a realistic building of the planning area based on an analysis of existing development that will persist through the life of the proposed Specific Plan plus anticipated redevelopment. It should be noted that Specific Plan development potential estimates are subject to change as the Specific Plan is refined through the public review process. Additional information on each proposed land use/zoning district is provided herein. Note that the zoning districts identified in the Specific Plan include a potential for increased development potential based on the provision of community benefits within a project. Project Description 6 City of Rosemead Table 1 Development Potential Zone Permitted Land Uses Area Non-Residential Area Dwelling Units Existing* Proposed Existing* Proposed GSP Commercial Open Space 27.10 180,658 278,681 2 0 GSP-R/C Residential Commercial Open Space 12.00 0 14,388 0 44 GSP-MU Mixed-Use Commercial Open Space 39.50 90,502 611,246 0 846 GSP-OS/P Open Space Parking 0.77 -- -- -- -- Subtotal 79.37 271,160 904,315 2 890 Total Development Potential 1,175,475 892 * GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICT The purpose of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) zoning district is to facilitate and support a vibrant neighborhood commercial district that accommodates a diverse range of retail, service, and office businesses, with a focus on businesses that support the needs of the local community. The GSP zoning district is intended to encourage the development of attractive retail areas where people can walk for dining, groceries, shopping, limited personal services, community and social services, and social activities and gatherings. The GSP zone will permit a maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.75 (FAR of 1.0 with community benefits). GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN – RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Residential/Commercial (GSP-R/C) zoning district, the smallest new zoning district in the Specific Plan area, makes some modifications to the development standards of the existing R-2 zoning district to be more specific to the planning area and facilitate greater opportunity for development approaches that includes either residential or commercial development. The GSP-R/C zone will permit a maximum FAR of 0.75 and up to seven dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) (1.0 FAR and 30 DU/AC with community benefits). GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN – MIXED-USE The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) zoning district will transform key areas of Garvey Avenue into active pedestrian and retail areas with a mix of uses and horizontally mixed uses to serve a variety of needs and stimulate a range of environments. The new zoning district allows for the greatest possible flexibility in development choices and allows for a new model of development along the corridor, with residential uses carefully integrated into buildings with active ground-floor commercial frontages. The GSP-MU zone will permit up to 30 DU/AC and an FAR of 1.6 in mixed-use development (60 DU/AC and FAR of 2.5 with community benefits). FAR is limited to 0.75 for commercial only projects. GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN – OPEN SPACE/PARKING The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Open Space/Parking (GSP-OS/P) zoning district will allow for open space and parking development on key areas of Garvey Avenue, such as Alhambra Wash. Currently zoned for parking, Alhambra Wash is envisioned in the Specific Plan to become a major open space amenity. Re-zoning this area to allow open space and parking is designed to encourage the development of open space along the Wash. CATALYTIC PROJECTS Project Description Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 7 Although the Specific Plan is designed to guide long-term development for the entire 88-acre planning area, it is not anticipated that the entirety of the plan area will recycle and redevelop within the next 30 years (the typical life of a planning document). The Specific Plan therefore focuses on realistic opportunities for redevelopment based on existing vacant and underutilized properties (see Exhibit 4, Catalytic Project Sites). Particularly, the former LA Auto Auction site, the Landwin Property site, the West Gateway site, and the Prototypical Development sites identified in the Specific Plan receive special attention from a use and design perspective due to the unique opportunities presented at these sites. The Specific Plan also provides guidelines for the redevelopment of the Garvey Avenue streetscape. The catalytic sites will also receive detailed attention in the environmental analysis considering the detail of development potential outlined in the Specific Plan. Surrounding Land Uses The planning area is primarily surrounded by multiple-family and single-family residential development. The City of Monterey Park is located adjacent to the western boundary of the planning area. Environmental Setting The City of Rosemead is among the 88 cities that comprise Los Angeles County and is located in the San Gabriel Valley approximately eight miles east of downtown Los Angeles and 12 miles due south of the 6,164-ft San Gabriel Peak in the San Gabriel Mountains. Garvey Avenue is primarily an east/west corridor with the Specific Plan portion located in southwest Rosemead adjacent to the city boundary with Monterrey Park. Interstate 10 (I-10) is situated about half a mile north of Garvey Avenue and has entrance/exit ramps at New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard, all providing access to Garvey Avenue. Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 2.5 miles south. State Route 19, better known as Rosemead Boulevard, runs north-south between the two freeways, just east of the project area boundary. The planning area encompasses 88 acres with 153 parcels of varying land uses. A majority of land uses (37 acres) within the project area are commercial or retail uses. There are also a large number of vacant parcels that make up approximately 27 acres of the total project land area. Other portions of the planning area are used exclusively for surface automobile parking. Minimal open space is located along the corridor. Required Approvals Specific Plan General Plan Amendment Zoning Code Amendment Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required None Project Description 8 City of Rosemead  Project Description Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 9 Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map Project Description 10 City of Rosemead  Project Description Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 11 Exhibit 2 Planning Area Project Description 12 City of Rosemead  Project Description Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 13 Exhibit 3 Proposed Land Use/Zoning Plan Project Description 14 City of Rosemead  Project Description Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 15 Exhibit 4 Catalytic Project Sites Project Description 16 City of Rosemead  Determination 18 City of Rosemead  Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 19 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? A) No Impact. According to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, Whittier Narrows Golf Course to the south, and the La Puente Hills to the south constitute the potential scenic views from within the City.1 From within the planning area, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are prevalent (see Exhibit 5, Photographic Survey). Whittier Narrows Golf Course and the La Puente Hills are not visible from within the planning area due to distance and obstruction by existing development. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from within the planning area are intermittently obstructed by existing development but generally prevalent from all vantage points. Existing development within the planning area is generally one- to two-stories in height intermixed with occasional mid-rise structures. The proposed Specific Plan will permit development up to 80 feet in height (with incentive) and supports high intensity, mixed-use development. Redevelopment of the planning area pursuant to the development standards of the Specific Plan will result in increased height and mass in the planning area and therefore will result in increased obstruction of views of the San Gabriel Mountains from within and outside of the planning area. The General Plan EIR recognized that long-term redevelopment of the City would result in increased intensity and height when compared to existing conditions and recognized that the City is transitioning from single to two-story development to higher intensity, taller development. No impacts to scenic vistas were found in the General Plan EIR because development potential supported by the General Plan will be consistent with the transitioning character of development in the City. Similarly, the proposed Specific Plan supports mid-rise (4 or more stories) development at greater intensity consistent with the General Plan and the analysis of impacts to scenic vistas provided in the EIR. Pursuant to the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR under which this discussion is tiering, no impact to scenic vistas will occur. No further analysis of impacts to scenic vistas will be required for development proposed within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. B) No Impact. A scenic resource is defined as an isolated source of aesthetic value such as an old oak tree, a unique rock formation, or a historic structure visible from a scenic highway. The planning area is urbanized and generally developed with urban uses. No site within the planning area contains any scenic resources that could be impacted by development supported by the Specific Plan. There are no scenic highways within or outside of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 20 City of Rosemead the planning area. No impact to any scenic resources could occur. No further analysis of impacts to scenic resources will be required for development proposed within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. C) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines to guide long-term development within the planning area. Recycling and redevelopment of properties within the planning area subject to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan will result in changes to the visual character of the planning area. Potentially significant impacts could occur if these visual changes degrade the character and/or quality of development within the planning area. Potential impacts related to visual character and quality will be evaluated in an EIR. D) Potentially Significant Impact. Long-term development within the planning area will result in new light sources including the potential for pedestrian lighting, electric signs, security lighting, parking lot lighting, and street lights. Development within the planning area will be subject to Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.88 (Lighting) to ensure that lighting does not impact adjacent properties and associated day or night views. Exterior lighting is required to be low intensity and shielded to prohibit spill over onto adjacent properties. This will ensure that development within the planning area is adequately illuminating on-site uses for security purposes without impacting adjacent properties. When necessary a photometric survey will be required to verify that light spillover is not occurring. Impacts to day and night views from lighting will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. No further analysis of impacts related to lighting will be required for development proposed within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. Glare is defined as light that enters the eye but is not helpful to sight. Glare is generated during the daytime from reflective surfaces such as glass, polished metals, or snow. Halos (rings of light around a light source) occur at night. In relationship to development, glare can be generated from projects using reflective building materials. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards for building construction within the planning area. Potentially significant impacts related to glare could occur if building materials or techniques are permitted that could generate glare. Glare can impact people by scattering light in the eye and inducing temporary blindness. In extreme cases glare can also cause surficial heating at the terminus of the reflected ray. Potential impacts related to glare will be evaluated in an EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 21 Exhibit 5 Photographic Survey Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 22 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 23 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 24 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 25 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 26 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 27 4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? B) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? D) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? E) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? A-E) No Impact. The planning area is completely urbanized and void of any agricultural uses or native open space. There is no farmland of any importance, Williamson Act contracts, or timberland within the planning area.2 3 No impacts to any of these resources could occur. No further analysis of impacts to agricultural or forestry will be required for development proposed within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 28 City of Rosemead 4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? B) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) 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)? D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? A-C) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan will support long-term redevelopment of the planning area with higher intensity development and uses. Pollutant emissions will be generated from area and mobile sources within the planning area. Depending on the nature of growth anticipated in the planning area and ability for the proposed Specific Plan to accommodate such growth, conflicts with the assumptions used in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) may occur and result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Long-term development within the specific plan area will result in constriction and operational emissions that could exceed daily thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for assessing regional and local impacts. Potentially significant impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions will be evaluated in an EIR. D) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan does not include uses that could result in substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as warehouses, heavy industrial, or manufacturing facilities; therefore, no impacts to sensitive receptors due to TAC emissions will occur as result of adoption of the proposed Specific Plan and no further analysis of such impacts for future development within the planning area will be required. A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections.4 CO hotspots have the potential to violate state and federal CO standards at intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The proposed Specific Plan supports long-term redevelopment of the planning area that will result in an increase traffic in the project vicinity that could result in or contribute substantially to CO hotspots in the project vicinity. Potentially significant impacts related to CO hotspots will be evaluated in an EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 29 E) No Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.).5 The proposed Specific Plan does not support any of these types of uses. No impact could occur and no analysis of impacts related to odors will be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 30 City of Rosemead 4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? B) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? D) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? A) No Impact. The planning area is completely urbanized and lacks any native habitat. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was consulted to determine the potential for occurrence of sensitive species within or in vicinity of the planning area (see Appendix A, CNDDB Map and Data).6 The result identified three sensitive species that have occurred within the project vicinity: the bank swallow (Riparia riparia), the pallid bat Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 31 (Antrozous pallidus), and the coast horned lizard (Phynosoma blainvillii). The bank swallow requires vertical banks/cliffs with riparian habit to nest. This habitat does not exist within the planning area; therefore, the bank swallow will not occur within the planning area. The pallid bat roosts in rocky areas in open, dry habitats. This habitat does not exist within the planning area; therefore, the pallid bat will not occur within the planning area. The coast horned lizard is typically found in lowland, sandy washes with scattered brush. This habitat does not exist within the planning area; therefore, the coast horned lizard will not occur within the planning area. Considering the lack of habitat supporting sensitive species in the planning area, no impacts will occur and no further analysis of impacts to sensitive species or their habitat will be required for future development within the planning area. B-D) No Impact. There is no riparian habitat, wetlands, wildlife corridors, wildlife nurseries within the planning area that could be impacted by long-term development supported by the proposed Specific Plan. No impacts related to these environmental issues could occur and no further analysis regarding these issues will be required for future development within the planning area. E-F) No Impact. There are no local or regional plans or policies in place protecting biological resources. There are no habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) In effect in the planning area. No impact could occur and further analysis of consistency with these types of plans will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 32 City of Rosemead 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? D) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? A) Potentially Significant Impact. Historical resources typical become of concern when a structure is 50 years or older. Considering the age of development within the planning area, many structures are 50 years or older. Potentially significant impacts could occur if a structure meeting the definition of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA is damaged or destroyed during redevelopment of the planning area. Potential impacts to historical resources will be evaluated in an EIR. B) Potentially Significant Impact. Archaeological resources are buried cultural resources from historic or pre-historic eras. Surficial and near-surface archaeological resources in the planning area would have been destroyed or recovered as a result of past development and redevelopment; therefore, it is unlikely that archaeological resources are located in these locations under existing development. However, some archaeological resources may have been left in place which is the preferred treatment pursuant to CEQA. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan supports high-intensity development that could include multiple-story subsurface parking, resulting in the disturbance of soils at depths not previously disturbed by existing or past development. Future development could result in impacts to such archaeological resources if not treated properly. Potential impacts to archaeological resources will be evaluated in an EIR. C) Potentially Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are buried fossil remains. Surficial and near-surface paleontological resources in the planning area would have been destroyed or recovered as a result of past development and redevelopment; therefore, it is unlikely that paleontological resources are located in these locations under existing development. However, the proposed Specific Plan supports high-intensity development that could include multiple-story subsurface parking, resulting in the disturbance of soils and bedrock at depths not previously disturbed by existing or past development. Future development could result in impacts to such paleontological resources if not treated properly. Potential impacts to paleontological resources will be evaluated in an EIR. D) Less than Significant Impact. There are no cemeteries within the planning area. Considering planning area is developed, surficial and near-surface human remains would have been destroyed or recovered as a result of past development and redevelopment; therefore, it is unlikely that human are located in these locations under existing development. In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered, future proponents of development within the planning area and the City will be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, including Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 33 halting construction activities until a County Coroner can evaluate the discovery and potentially consult with a Native American Representative if the remains are of Native American Origin. Impacts to buried human remains will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and no further analysis of impacts to buried human remains will be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 34 City of Rosemead 4.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? E) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? A) Less than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within the planning area; however, the General Plan does identify three Fault Hazard Management Zones (FHMZ) extending through the planning area. These are probable fault traces inferred from groundwater data and other geomorphic indicators that to date have not been considered sufficiently active or well-defined to be zoned under the criteria of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (see Exhibit 6, Fault Zones).7 Per the City’s General Plan, a critical facility cannot be built within a FHMZ unless a detailed fault investigation has been conducted to determine that the area of the proposed project is not underlain by an active fault. The planning area is subject to strong ground shaking due to seismic events generally prevalent throughout California; however, given that the area is underlain by soft sediments to significant depth, seismic shaking in this portion of the San Gabriel Valley may be amplified. The eastern portion of the planning area is subject to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 35 liquefaction defined as the loss of soil strength during ground shaking (see Exhibit 7, Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards).8 The planning area is not subject to landslides because the area is flat and urbanized. Chapter 15.04 (Building Code) of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code formally adopted the Los Angeles County-amended 2013 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC requires adequate design of structures to prevent collapse during seismic events. Seismic hazards can be mitigated through a variety of solutions including soil excavation and replacement, use of piles, post-tensioned foundations, and other geotechnical and structural options. Future development within the planning area will be subject to building and safety review and approval pursuant to the CBC; potential seismic hazards will require correction through standard foundation and/or structural design. Impacts related to seismic hazards will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts related to seismic hazards pursuant to CEQA will not be required for future development within the planning area. Note that this does not relieve future project proponents from the requirement of submitting faults studies for critical facilities proposed within a FHMZ or liquefaction studies as part of required geotechnical analysis. B) Less than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. Large areas underlain by native topsoil are unlikely to occur in the planning area because most of the planning area is expected to be underlain by fill soils associated with existing and past development. Future development within the planning area will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to prevent loss of any soil located within the planning area due to wind. Water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code such as silt fencing or sandbags. Impacts related to loss of topsoil will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts related to loss of topsoil will not be required for future development within the planning area. C) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.6.A, impacts related to seismic and geotechnical issues are subject to the requirements of the CBC to prevent structural failure. Impacts related to geology and soils will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts related to geology and soils pursuant to CEQA will not be required for future development within the planning area. Note that this does not relieve future project proponents from the requirement of submitting geotechnical analysis with recommended design measures. D) Less than Significant Impact. The planning area is completed urbanized and any expansive soils that were underlying the planning area have likely been removed in place of fill materials used for past and existing development. Should expansive soils be present in the planning area, they will be required to be addressed prior to construction through removal, watering and compression, foundation design, or other recommendation provided by the project civil/geotechnical engineer pursuant to the requirements of the CBC. Impacts related to expansive soils will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts related to expansive soils pursuant to CEQA will not be required for future development within the planning area. Note that this does not relieve future project proponents from the requirement of submitting geotechnical analysis with recommended design measures. E) No Impact. No development within the planning area will require septic systems because there is a fully functional sewer system serving the planning area. No impact could occur and impacts related to septic systems will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 37 Exhibit 6 Fault Zones Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 39 Exhibit 7 Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 41 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? B) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? A–B) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan supports long-term development of high-intensity uses within the planning area that will generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy demand, mobile, water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation sources. GHG emissions could contribute considerably to the cumulative impacts of climate change. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions and efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be evaluated in an EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 City of Rosemead 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? E) 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? F) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? G) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? H) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? A-C) Less than Significant Impact. During construction of future development within the planning, there will be some level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This will typically include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery and coating materials (e.g. paints) and asbestos. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up will be as required by state and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 43 federal regulations will be implemented to ensure that construction activities do not unduly expose people or the environment within or outside of the planning area to significant hazard. Asbestos. Activities associated with the demolition of the existing structures in the planning that were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, may pose a hazard with regard to asbestos containing materials (ACM). ACM were used on a widespread basis in building construction prior to and into the 1980s. Asbestos generally does not pose a threat when it remains intact. When asbestos is disturbed and becomes airborne, such as during demolition activities, significant impacts to human health could occur. Construction workers completing demolition activities, as well as surrounding uses, have the potential to be exposed to airborne asbestos emissions due to the potential presence of ACM. SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) requires work practices that limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and disturbance of ACM.9 This rule is generally designed to protect uses and persons adjacent to demolition or renovation activity from exposure to asbestos emissions. Rule 1403 requires surveys of any facility being demolished or renovated for the presence of all friable and Class I and Class II non-friable ACM. Rule 1403 also establishes notification procedures, removal procedures, handling operations, and warning label requirements, including HEPA filtration, the glovebag method, wetting, and some methods of dry removal that must be implemented when disturbing appreciable amounts of ACM (more than 100 square feet of surface area). Lead-Based Paints. Exposure of construction workers to lead-based paint during demolition activities is also of concern, similar to exposure to asbestos. Specific testing is required to determine if paint or other materials used in the construction of buildings within the planning area contains significant levels of lead. Exposure of surrounding land uses to lead from demolition activities is generally not a concern because demolition activities do not result in appreciable emissions of lead. The primary emitters of lead are industrial processes. Improper disposal of lead-based paint can contaminate soil and subsurface groundwater in and under landfills not properly equipped to handle hazardous levels of this material. If lead-based paint exists in structure proposed for future demolition within the planning area, 8 CCR Section 1532.1 (California Construction Safety Orders for Lead) is applicable requiring exposure assessment and compliance measures to keep worker exposure below actionable levels. Future demolition within the planning area will also be subject to Title 22 requirements for the disposal of solid waste contaminated with excessive levels of lead. The proposed Specific Plan does not support uses that would result in substantial use, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes typically associated with industrial uses. Operation of future commercial and residential uses within the planning area as supported by the proposed Specific Plan will result in the use of widely used hazardous materials common to these types of uses to include paints and other solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste (HHW) that includes used dead batteries, electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Regular operation and cleaning of future uses will not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Based on the preceeding analysis of future construction and operational activities within the planning area, impacts associated with the routine transport, use of hazardous materials or wastes will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts related to hazardous materials will not be required for future development within the planning area. D) Potentially Significant Impact. No property within the planning area is identified on the Cortese List that includes hazardous waste and substance sites listed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), leaking underground storage tank (LUFT) sites as listed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), hazardous solid waste disposal sites as listed by the SWRCB, Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) sites as issued by the SWRCB, or hazardous waste facilities subject to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 City of Rosemead corrective action by the DTSC. 10 11 12 13 14 It should be noted that there are three leaking underground storage tank sites within or next to the Planning Area, and at least two more up gradient. Although four of these cases have been closed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), there is the potential for some contamination to be exposed during redevelopment activities. In the event of such exposure, potentially significant impacts dependent on the type of contaminant, level of contamination, location of the contaminant, and potential risk of exposure. Risk of upset due to contaminated site3s will be further evaluated in an EIR. E-F) No Impact. The planning area is not within the influence area of any public airport or private airstrip. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to airport hazards will not be required for future development within the planning area. G) No Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes no road closures or other feature that could physically impact rescue and evacuation efforts within or surrounding the planning area. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to conflicts with emergency responses and evacuation will not be required for future development within the planning area. H) No Impact. The planning area is not located in an area susceptible to wildland fires.15 No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to wildland fires will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 45 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? F) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? H) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 City of Rosemead A) Less than Significant Impact. Future development within the planning area will be subject to the provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect downstream water quality pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges into stormwater drains or channels from construction sites of one acre or larger are regulated by the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ)) issued by the State Water Quality Control Board. The General Permit was issued pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the General Permit involves developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifying best management practices (BMPs) that a project will use to minimize pollution of stormwater. The SWPPP BMPs will follow the guidelines set forth by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Proponents of future projects within the planning area will be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities. The City implements NPDES requirements through Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 (Storm Water Management). Impacts to water quality due to construction activities will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts water quality due to construction activities will not be required for future development within the planning area. Operationally, future development and uses will be required to prepare a water quality management plan (WQMP) to implement measures as outlined by the Los Angeles RWQCB in the Los Angeles Countywide Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) that typically includes, but is not limited to: 1) guidance, operation and maintenance for all source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs; and 2) operation and maintenance activities, which include maximizing canopy interception and water conservation, landscape planning, roof runoff controls, efficient irrigation, storm drain system signage, trash storage areas and litter control, employee training/education program, protect slopes and channels, common area catch basin inspection, energy dissipaters, pervious concrete/alternative materials, and storm filter filtration systems (see Municipal Code Section13.16.030.B.5, Water Quality Management Plan). Standard conditions of the WQMP will also include providing a thorough description of operation and maintenance activities, and providing a schedule of the frequency of operation and maintenance for each BMP. The potential impacts to water quality resulting from operation of future development within the planning area will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of impacts water quality due to operational activities will not be required for future development within the planning area. B) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan supports high-intensity development within the planning area that will accommodate an increase in growth beyond that contemplated in the City’s General Plan. This growth could result in a substantial increase in the use of groundwater resources that could ultimately result in the lowering of the water table, thereby impacting operation of existing wells. Impacts to groundwater levels and well operations will be evaluated in an EIR. C-D) No Impact. The planning area is completely urbanized with a fully functional storm drain system. The drainage pattern of properties within the planning area have been engineered through past and present development to not result in on- or off-site erosion or flooding as all properties convey storm water to the existing storm drain system. Future redevelopment of the planning area will be subject to entitlement and building permit requirements to submit grading and drainage plans that identify on-site drainage design and the provisions for cross-lot drainage and/or conveyance to off-site facilities (see Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, for specific drainage requirements based on zoning district and proposed development type). Implementation of existing requirements will ensure that on- and off-site erosion and flooding do not occur and analysis of impacts related to on- and off-site erosion or flooding will not be required for future development within the planning area. E) No Impact. The planning area is fully urbanized and generally constructed with impervious surfaces. Future redevelopment of the planning area will result in high-intensity development that could increase impervious surfaces and result in additional stormwater runoff to local and regional storm drain and flood control facilities. Pursuant to NPDES requirements and current focus on Low Impact Development (LID) standards, no increase Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 47 in stormwater runoff from any development within the planning area will be permitted. Any calculated increase in stormwater runoff, as identified in the project WQMP, will be required to be absorbed and/or retained on site; therefore, no increase in stormwater runoff could occur and storm drain capacity will not be impacted. Analysis of impacts related to storm drain capacity will not be required for future development within the planning area. F) No Impact No other impacts related to water quality will result from development supported by the proposed Specific Plan. Analysis of miscellaneous impacts related to water quality will not be required for future development within the planning area. G-H) No Impact. The planning area is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No impact to housing or flood elevation levels could occur. Analysis of impacts related to flood hazards will not be required for future development within the planning area. I) Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, a portion of the planning area north of Garvey Avenue and the majority of the planning area south of Garvey Avenue are subject to dam inundation in the event that containment of the Garvey Reservoir located southwest of the planning area were to fail (see Exhibit 8, Dam Inundation Areas).16 If the north dam failed, the planning area would be inundated up to approximately five feet of water. Based on the analysis in the General Plan EIR, potential impacts related to dam inundation are less than significant. The Garvey Reservoir is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and under jurisdictional review by the California State Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams that conducts mandatory inspections to verify the integrity of the dam. The National Dam Safety Act authorized programs to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure by establishing a safety and maintenance program. The program requires regular inspection of dams to reduce the risks associated with dam facilities. Based on the analysis documented in the General Plan EIR and the regulatory requirements for dam safety, potential impacts related to dam inundation will be less than significant and analysis of impacts related to dam and levee inundation will not be required for future development within the planning area. J) No Impact. The planning area is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because conditions that could result in these hazards do not exist within or in vicinity of the planning area. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 49 Exhibit 8 Dam Inundation Areas Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 City of Rosemead  Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 51 4.10 Land Use and Planning Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Physically divide an established community? B) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? A) No Impact. There are no established communities within the planning area and the Specific Plan does not propose and land use or zoning changes that could result in the long-term division of any community. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to division of communities will not be required for future development within the planning area. B) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan will include new goals and development standards for long-term redevelopment of the planning area. There is potential for the provisions of the Specific Plan to conflict with the policies of the existing General Plan that were identified as mitigating in the General Plan EIR. Potential impacts related to conflicts with mitigating policies will be evaluated in an EIR. C) No Impact. There are no habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) In effect in the planning area. No impact could occur and further analysis of consistency with these types of plans will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 City of Rosemead 4.11 Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? B) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? A-B) No Impact. The planning area is designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 4 indicating that there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.17 As identified in the General Plan and certified EIR, the City is completely urbanized with no capability or permission for mineral extraction activities. Any opportunity for extraction of underlying mineral resources has been lost due to urbanization. The General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources within the City. No impact to state, regional, or local mineral resources could occur and future analysis of impacts to these resources will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 53 4.12 Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) 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? B) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? E) 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? F) 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? A-D) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities and operation of development within the planning area will generate temporary, periodic, and permanent sources of noise and vibration. Temporary noise and vibration will be generated by construction activities. Periodic noise will be generated from common urban sources such as delivery loading and unloading, landscape maintenance, and special events. Permanent increase in ambient noise will result from incremental increase in traffic volumes as the redevelopment of the planning area result in more intense development. Increases in noise levels could result in exceedance of General Plan and/or Municipal Code noise standards. Potential impacts will be evaluated further in an EIR. E-F) No Impact. The planning area is not within the noise contours of any public airport or private airstrip. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to airport noise will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 City of Rosemead 4.13 Population and Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? A) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan is designed specifically to encourage growth in the planning area through the development of high-intensity, mixed-use development. This could result in previously unanticipated and unplanned for growth in the planning area. Potential impacts related to substantial growth will be evaluated in an EIR. B-C) No Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes no physical changes to the planning area and does not include any provisions that would remove housing in the planning area. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to guide the natural recycling and redevelopment of the planning area. The proposed Specific Plan supports housing over the long-term and includes zoning district for residential and mixed-use development. No impact could occur and analysis of impacts related to displacement of housing or people will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 55 4.14 Public Services A) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? A) Less than Significant Impact. The planning area is within the existing service areas of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Garvey Elementary School District, the Alhambra City High School District, and the County of Los Angeles Public Library.18 Because the planning area is within the existing service area of applicable public services, service areas will not need to be expanded to serve the planning area. Fire, police, and library services are funded through taxes and will be incrementally funded as new development occurs within the planning area. Schools are funded through development impact fees (DIF) pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act and are paid prior to issuance of building permits. Facilities will be expanded or renovated incrementally as growth in the planning area and greater service area increases. Construction of public facilities will be subject to standard environmental review processes to determine if potentially significant impacts would occur and appropriate mitigation incorporated, as necessary, pursuant to CEQA. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and analysis of potential impacts related to the construction of public facilities due to incremental growth within the planning area will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 City of Rosemead 4.15 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Would the project increase 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? B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? A) Less than Significant Impact. Long-term redevelopment of the planning area will result in new residential units resulting in the incremental need for local and regional park facilities. As recognized in the General Plan EIR, long-term redevelopment of the City will result in the need for parks and recreation facilities that may not be able to be met due to the urbanized character of the City and the lack of developable space and impacts related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities were found to be significant and unavoidable. Failure to provide adequate parks and recreation facilities result in the accelerated deterioration of existing facilities due to use by higher concentrations of people. The proposed Specific Plan includes incentives for providing community benefits, such as open space, in development projects within the planning area. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan includes 0.77 acres of open space. Additionally, future residential development within the planning area will be subject to Municipal Code Section 12.44.020 (Park and Recreation Impact Fee) requiring payment of fees for parks and recreational facilities. The design features of the proposed Specific Plan coupled with the development impact fee requirements of the Municipal Code will compensate for the incremental increase in need for parks and recreation facilities resulting from long-term redevelopment of the planning area. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the analysis in the General Plan EIR and will result in less than significant impacts related to the accelerated deterioration of parks and recreation facilities with implementation of project design features and existing regulations. Analysis of potential impacts related to the accelerated deterioration of parks and recreation facilities will not be required for future development within the planning area. B) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes incentives and standards for the provision of open space and recreation facilities within the planning area. Construction and operation of such facilities do not result in substantial impacts to the environment. Considering open space in the planning area is limited to less than one acre and on-site recreation facilities would be accessory to primary development efforts on individual sites, impacts would amount to nominal construction activities such as fine grading, pouring of concrete, installation of playground and other activity facilities, minor construction of accessory buildings such as bathrooms, and installation of landscaping and outdoor lighting. These types of construction activities do not result in significant impacts to the environment and are common in urban environments. Impacts will be less than significant and analysis of potential impacts related to the construction of parks and recreation facilities will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 57 4.16 Transportation and Traffic Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? B) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? E) Result in inadequate emergency access? F) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? A-B) Potentially Significant Impact. Long-term growth within the Specific Plan area will result in increased trip generation that could potentially impact the performance of local and regional intersections and freeway ramps. A traffic impact analysis is currently being prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Specific Plan on local and regional roadways. Potential impacts will be evaluated in an EIR. C) No Impact. The project is not located within the imaginary surfaces or influence area of any airport where height restriction are in place to avoid obstruction of air traffic routes. The project will accommodate growth in the planning area and a portion of that growth will utilize air travel in the future. Air travel trip generation is a regional, nation, and international concern and cannot be significantly impacted by local plans for growth and development management. No impact to air traffic patterns will occur and analysis of potential impacts related to air traffic will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 City of Rosemead D) No Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes no street alignments or roadway configurations that could result in hazardous traffic conditions. The proposed Specific Plan includes no land use designations or zoning districts that support uses that could conflict will normal traffic operations. No impact will occur and analysis of potential impacts related to hazardous traffic conditions will not be required for future development within the planning area. E) Less than Significant Impact. Future development within the planning area will be subject to fire code requirements and Fire Department review and approval ensuring adequate emergency access. Adequate emergency access is provided in the forms of primary and secondary ingress and egress, adequate driveway width and slope to accommodate emergency vehicles, fire hydrant placement, and/or access requirements for gated facilities. The proposed Specific Plan includes no development standards that would interfere with implementation of emergency access requirements. Impacts will be less than significant and analysis of potential impacts related to emergency access will not be required for future development within the planning area. F) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards, design guidelines, and streetscape improvements designed to promote pedestrian mobility and alternative transportation modes in the planning areas. The potential impacts and/or benefits of these features as related to consistency with local and regional transportation plans and policies will be evaluated in an EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 59 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) 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? D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? F) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? A-B, E) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan will support growth in the planning area that will result in an increase in water demand and wastewater discharges. These increases could overwhelm current and/or future facilities resulting in the need for new construction and or expansion of conveyance facilities and changes in associated permits. Potential impacts to water and wastewater facilities will be evaluated in an EIR. C) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9.E, the planning area is fully urbanized and generally constructed with impervious surfaces. Future redevelopment of the planning area will result in high-intensity development that could increase impervious surfaces and result in additional stormwater runoff to local and regional storm drain and flood control facilities. Pursuant to NPDES requirements and current focus on Low Impact Development (LID) standards, no increase in stormwater runoff from any development within the planning area will be permitted. Any calculated increase in stormwater runoff, as identified in the project WQMP, will be required to be absorbed and/or retained on site; therefore, no increase in stormwater runoff could occur and storm drain Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 City of Rosemead capacity will not be impacted. Analysis of impacts related to storm drain capacity will not be required for future development within the planning area. D) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan will result in an increase in water demand in the planning area that may not have been contemplated in the local water districts’ Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) and thus could require acquisition of new or expanded supplies. The need for additional water supplies will be evaluated in an EIR. F-G) Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan, solid waste within the City is primary disposed of at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill and secondarily disposed of at the Puente Hills Sanitary Landfill.19 In reality any number of landfills will serve the City and the planning area over the long-term depending on daily intake limits and annual capacity limitations. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalREcycle), annual and lifetime capacity in Los Angeles County is sufficient to meet long-term demand. Annual disposal in the County is limited to approximately 14.7 million tons. Landfill estimates between 2015 and 2025 are estimated at 7.1 million tons and 7.5 million tons, respectively. This is approximately half of the annual allowable disposal amount; therefore, there is sufficient annual disposal capacity to serve the uses resulting from the long-term development of the planning area. By 2025, remaining capacity in landfills throughout the County is approximately 32 million tons; therefore, there is sufficient lifetime capacity to serve the uses resulting from the long-term development of the planning area. All uses within the planning area will be subject to applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste disposal and recycling and no portion of the proposed Specific Plan will conflict with implementation of such regulations. Impacts will be less than significant and analysis of impacts related to solid waste will not be required for future development within the planning area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 61 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan could result in significant impacts related to visual character, light, and glare. The proposed Specific Plan could result in significant impacts related to local and regional emissions of criteria pollutants. The proposed Specific Plan will have no impact on any biological resources. The proposed Specific Plan may impact historical, cultural, and/or paleontological resources. The proposed Specific Plan could result in significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and groundwater levels. Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 4.1 through 4.17, evidence is presented that this project could degrade the quality of the environment. The City hereby finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources are potentially significant and an EIR will be prepared. B) Potentially Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts can be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes involved in the project. Based on the preceding analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.17, the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to contribute considerably to short- and long-term cumulative impacts at local, regional, and global contexts. The City hereby finds that cumulative impacts are potentially significant and an EIR will be prepared. C) Potentially Significant Impact. The analysis documented in Section 4.1 through 4.17 identify potential direct and indirect impacts to human beings related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. The City hereby finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings are potentially significant and an EIR will be prepared. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 City of Rosemead  Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 63 5 REFERENCES List of Preparers City of Rosemead (Leady Agency) Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770  Sheri Bermejo, City Planner  Tania Gonzalez, Contract Geologist MIG | Hogle-Ireland (Environmental Consultants) 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 951-787-9222  Christopher Brown, Director of Environmental Services  Lisa Brownfield, Director of Planning Services Persons and Organizations Consulted None Bibliography 1 City of Rosemead. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. October 2008 (Amended April 2010) 2 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2012. January 2015 3 California Department of Conservation. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report. October 2013 4 California Department of Transportation. Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. 1997 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov [March 25, 2015] 7 California Department of Conservation. Special Studies Zones: El Monte Quadrangle. November 1991 8 California Department of Conservation. Seismic Hazard Zones: El Monte Quadrangle. March 1999 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. Amended October 5, 2007. 10 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO. www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CDOCAOList.xls [March 27, 2015] 11 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf [March 27, 2015] 12 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov [March 27, 2015] 13 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp [March 27, 2015] 14 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Facilities Subject to Corrective Action. www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm#Facilities [March 27, 2015] 15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention. Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_losangeles.php [March 27, 2015] 16 City of Rosemead. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. October 2008 (Amended April 2010) 17 City of Rosemead. General Plan. 2010 18 City of Rosemead. General Plan. 2010 19 City of Rosemead. General Plan. 2010 APPENDIX A CNDDB MAP AND DATA 3/25/2015 IMAPS Print Preview https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 1/1 California Natural Diversity Database (com ed) [ds85] Selected: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ELEMENT CODE OCC NUMBER MAPNDX EONDX KEYQUADCODE KEYQUADNAME KEYCOUNTYCODE ACCURACY PRESENCE OCC RANK SENSITIVE SITE DATE ELM DATE OWNER MANAGEMENT Federal Status State Status GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK RAREPLANTRANK Other Status AVLCODE Ripariariparia bankswallow ABPAU08010 105 84246 85270 3411812 LosAngeles LAX 5 miles Extirpated X N 18940704 18940704 UNKNOWN None Threatened G5 S2 BLM_S;IUCN_LC 21001 Antrozouspallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 187 66533 66650 3411811 ElMonte LAX 1 mile PresumedExtant U N 19310502 19310502 UNKNOWN None None G5 S3 BLM_S;CDFW_SSC; IUCN_LC;USFS_S;WBWG_H 20901 Phrynosomablainvillii coasthorned lizard ARACF12100 49 02272 28120 3411811 ElMonte LAX 1 mile PossiblyExtirpated X N 19540715 19540715 UNKNOWN None None G3G4 S3S4 BLM_S;CDFW_SSC; IUCN_LC 20901 Sources: SCH92R0001 SCHLORFF, R. (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE) - RECOVERY PLAN: BANK SWALLOW. DFG NONGAME & MAMMAL SECTION REPORT 93.02 1992-12-XX WFVNDS0001 WESTERN FOUNDATION OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY - EGG SET DATA FOR MULTIPLE SPECIES (RECEIVED IN 1981). XXXX-XX- XX Map Index Number:84246 EO Index:85270 Key Quad:Los Angeles (3411812)Element Code:ABPAU08010 Occurrence Number:105 Occurrence Last Updated:2011-11-10 Scientific Name:Riparia riparia Common Name:bank swallow Listing Status:Federal:None Rare Plant Rank: State:Threatened CNDDB Element Ranks:Global:G5 State:S2 Other Lists:BLM_S-Sensitive IUCN_LC-Least Concern General Habitat:Micro Habitat: COLONIAL NESTER; NESTS PRIMARILY IN RIPARIAN AND OTHER LOWLAND HABITATS WEST OF THE DESERT. REQUIRES VERTICAL BANKS/CLIFFS WITH FINE-TEXTURED/SANDY SOILS NEAR STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES, OCEAN TO DIG NESTING HOLE. Last Date Observed:1894-07-04 Occurrence Type:Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date:1894-07-04 Occurrence Rank:None Owner/Manager:UNKNOWN Trend:Unknown Presence:Extirpated Location: VICINITY OF ALHAMBRA. Detailed Location: LOCATION STATED AS "ALHAMBRA." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED TO THE AREA OF ALHAMBRA INCLUDING PORTIONS OF ARROYO SECO, LOS ANGELES RIVER, AND ALHAMBRA WASH. Ecological: NEST OF STICKS AND GRASS LINED WITH OAK LEAVES, HAY, PEPPER TREE LEAVES AND HORSE HAIR, PLACED IN A BANK 1.5 FEET FROM MOUTH OF HOLE. Threats: General: WFVZ EGG SET (3 EGGS) COLLECTED BY C. H. RICHARSON, JR. ON 21 MAY 1902. CONSIDERED EXTIRPATED AS A BREEDER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (SCH92). PLSS:T01S, R12W, Sec. 20 (S)Accuracy:5 miles Area (acres):0 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude:34.07395 / -118.16318UTM:Zone-11 N3770966 E392673 Los Angeles El Monte (3411811), Los Angeles (3411812), Mt. Wilson (3411821), Pasadena (3411822) Quad Summary:County Summary: Query Criteria:BIOS selection Report Printed on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Page 1 of 3Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/3/2015 Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Sources: MAN04S0028 MAMMAL NETWORKED INFORMATION SYSTEM (MANIS) - PRINTOUT OF ANTROZOUS PALLIDUS SPECIMEN RECORDS FROM MANIS. INCLUDES RECORDS FROM MVZ, CAS, KU, UWBM, UMNH, LACM, MSB, FMNH, TTU, MSU. 2004-12-09 Map Index Number:66533 EO Index:66650 Key Quad:El Monte (3411811)Element Code:AMACC10010 Occurrence Number:187 Occurrence Last Updated:2006-10-02 Scientific Name:Antrozous pallidus Common Name:pallid bat Listing Status:Federal:None Rare Plant Rank: State:None CNDDB Element Ranks:Global:G5 State:S3 Other Lists:BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFS_S-Sensitive WBWG_H-High Priority General Habitat:Micro Habitat: DESERTS, GRASSLANDS, SHRUBLANDS, WOODLANDS & FORESTS. MOST COMMON IN OPEN, DRY HABITATS WITH ROCKY AREAS FOR ROOSTING. ROOSTS MUST PROTECT BATS FROM HIGH TEMPERATURES. VERY SENSITIVE TO DISTURBANCE OF ROOSTING SITES. Last Date Observed:1931-05-02 Occurrence Type:Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date:1931-05-02 Occurrence Rank:Unknown Owner/Manager:UNKNOWN Trend:Unknown Presence:Presumed Extant Location: 2 MI W OF EL MONTE. Detailed Location: EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED ACCORDING TO THE LAT/LONG COORDINATES GIVEN IN MANIS, WITH UNCERTAINTY OF 1609.344 M. INCLUDES LOCALITY "VALLEY BLVD., 1 MI W EL MONTE." Ecological: Threats: General: 1 MALE AND 1 FEMALE COLLECTED BY L. LITTLE ON 1 NOV 1930, MVZ #71656-71657. 2 MALES AND 1 FEMALE COLLECTED BY L. LITTLE ON 2 MAY 1931, MVZ #71658-71659 & KU #9418. PLSS:T01S, R11W, Sec. 19 (S)Accuracy:1 mile Area (acres):0 260Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude:34.06926 / -118.07215UTM:Zone-11 N3770355 E401067 Los Angeles El Monte (3411811) Quad Summary:County Summary: Report Printed on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Page 2 of 3Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/3/2015 Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Sources: LAC06S0001 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM - PRINTOUT OF LACM PHRYNOSOMA CORONATUM SPECIMEN RECORDS FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 2006-01-23 Map Index Number:02272 EO Index:28120 Key Quad:El Monte (3411811)Element Code:ARACF12100 Occurrence Number:49 Occurrence Last Updated:2012-11-01 Scientific Name:Phrynosoma blainvillii Common Name:coast horned lizard Listing Status:Federal:None Rare Plant Rank: State:None CNDDB Element Ranks:Global:G3G4 State:S3S4 Other Lists:BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern General Habitat:Micro Habitat: FREQUENTS A WIDE VARIETY OF HABITATS, MOST COMMON IN LOWLANDS ALONG SANDY WASHES WITH SCATTERED LOW BUSHES. OPEN AREAS FOR SUNNING, BUSHES FOR COVER, PATCHES OF LOOSE SOIL FOR BURIAL, & ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF ANTS & OTHER INSECTS. Last Date Observed:1954-07-15 Occurrence Type:Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date:1954-07-15 Occurrence Rank:None Owner/Manager:UNKNOWN Trend:Unknown Presence:Possibly Extirpated Location: 3 MI SE OF SAN GABRIEL. Detailed Location: 1954 LOCALITY GIVEN AS "3 MI SE SAN GABRIEL." 1953 TOPO USED TO DETERMINE LOCATION OF SAN GABRIEL CITY CENTER CIRCA 1954. Ecological: COMPARISON OF 1953 TOPO MAP W/CURRENT TOPO & AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS THAT REMNANT OPEN SPACE EXTANT IN 1953 WAS REPLACED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT & A GOLF COURSE. HABITAT MAY STILL EXIST IN THE WHITTIER NARROWS REC AREA TO THE SOUTH (2012). Threats: DEVELOPMENT. General: LACM #4284 COLLECTED BY F DURHAM ON 19 JUL 1954. PLSS:T01S, R11W, Sec. 19 (S)Accuracy:1 mile Area (acres):0 250Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude:34.06389 / -118.07257UTM:Zone-11 N3769758 E401022 Los Angeles El Monte (3411811) Quad Summary:County Summary: Report Printed on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Page 3 of 3Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/3/2015 Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database PROJECT SITE CNDDB Map -- Rosemead, CA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Plant (80m) Plant (specific) Plant (non-specific) Plant (circular) Animal (80m) Animal (specific) Animal (non-specific) Animal (circular) Terrestrial Comm. (80m) Terrestrial Comm. (specific) Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific) Terrestrial Comm. (circular) Aquatic Comm. (80m) Aquatic Comm. (specific) Aquatic Comm. (non-specific) Aquatic Comm. (circular) Multiple (80m) Multiple (specific) Multiple (non-specific) Multiple (circular) Sensitive EO's (Commercial only) March 25, 2015 0 2.5 51.25 mi 0 4 82 km 1:144,448 Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.govAuthor: S. Richards APPENDIX C TECHNICAL MEMORANDA COMPENDIUM c Plan Technical Memoranda Compendium October 2, 2014 Presented by: Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page TOC-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1-1 2. Land Use ......................................................................................... 2-1 3. Urban Design ................................................................................... 3-1 4. Traffic and Circulation ....................................................................... 4-1 5. Sewer ............................................................................................. 5-1 6. Water ............................................................................................. 6-1 7. Storm Drainage ................................................................................ 7-1 Appendices A. Traffic Analysis, August 1, 2014 KOA Corporation B. Sewer Area Study Report, July 2014 Land Design Consultants, Inc. C. Water Infrastructure, July 2014 Land Design Consultants, Inc D. Storm Drainage Infrastructure, August 2014 Land Design Consultants, Inc Table of Contents Page TOC-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium List of Tables 2.1 Garvey Avenue Baseline Land Use ....................................................... 2-7 2.2 Garvey Avenue Commercial Uses ...................................................... 2-11 2.3 Garvey Avenue Zoning Distribution ................................................... 2-20 2.4 Incompatible Zoning and General Plan Land Use ................................. 2-20 2.5 Major Pipeline Projects Along Garvey Avenue ...................................... 2-21 4.1 Study Area Roadway Characteristics .................................................... 4-4 4.2 Level of Service Range Definitions ....................................................... 4-7 4.3 Study Intersection Performance for Existing Peak-Hour Conditions ........... 4-8 4.4 I-10 Freeway Conditions Analysis ...................................................... 4-11 4.5 Characteristics of Existing Public Transit Service in Study Area .............. 4-12 6.1 Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System ...... 6-2 List of Figures 1.1 Specific Plan Boundary ...................................................................... 1-3 2.1 Existing Land Use Map ....................................................................... 2-8 2.2 Existing Land Use Photos ................................................................... 2-9 2.3 Existing On- and Off-Street Parking Map ............................................ 2-13 2.4 Existing Vacant Land Map ................................................................ 2-15 2.5 Existing Vacant Land Photos ............................................................. 2-16 2.6 Underutilized Land Map ................................................................... 2-17 2.7 Existing Zoning Map ........................................................................ 2-19 2.8 Pipeline Projects Map ...................................................................... 2-23 3.1 Existing Built Form ............................................................................ 3-6 3.2 Existing Block Structure ..................................................................... 3-8 3.3 Existing Parcel Pattern ..................................................................... 3-10 3.4 Existing Building Pattern .................................................................. 3-11 3.5 Existing Garvey Avenue Street Wall Gaps ........................................... 3-12 3.6 Street Wall Gaps Comparison, Main Street, Alhambra, CA ..................... 3-12 3.7 Corridor Building Pattern Images ...................................................... 3-13 3.8 Typical Corridor Development ........................................................... 3-15 3.9 Views ............................................................................................ 3-18 3.10 Gateways ...................................................................................... 3-19 3.11 Landmarks ..................................................................................... 3-20 3.12 Existing Street Hierarchy ................................................................. 3-22 3.13 Garvey Avenue Streetscape ............................................................. 3-27 3.14 Garvey Avenue Existing Street Section .............................................. 3-28 3.15 Garvey Avenue Pedestrian, Transit, and Bicycle Conditions ................... 3-29 Table of Contents Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page TOC-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium 4.1 Location of Study Intersections ........................................................... 4-2 4.2 Lane Configurations .......................................................................... 4-5 4.3 Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes......................................... 4-9 4.4 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ....................................... 4-10 4.5 Local Transit Routes ........................................................................ 4-13 5.1 Sewer Base ...................................................................................... 5-3 6.1 Golden State Water Company Service Boundary .................................... 6-3 6.2 Garvey Avenue Corridor Water Infrastructure ....................................... 6-5 6.3 New Avenue to Jackson Avenue .......................................................... 6-6 6.4 Jackson Avenue to Del Mar Avenue ..................................................... 6-7 6.5 Del Mar Avenue to Charlotte Avenue ................................................... 6-8 7.1 New Avenue to Jackson Avenue .......................................................... 7-3 7.2 Jackson Avenue to Del Mar Avenue ..................................................... 7-5 7.3 Del Mar Avenue to Charlotte Avenue ................................................... 7-7 Table of Contents Page TOC-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Introduction Introduction Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 1-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 1 x Overview and Purpose The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan provides a long-term strategy for revitalizing and increasing the development potential of the Garvey Avenue Corridor, particularly with regards to its underutilized commercial and light industrial spaces. The corridor has the potential to become an iconic and attractive area for residential, shopping and entertainment, with improved access to destinations and an inviting environment for bicycle and pedestrian activity. The Specific Plan will establish land use, transportation, infrastructure, economic development, and urban design strategies that seek to attract investment into the corridor, and promote well-balanced retail development, mixed-use development, and active public spaces. This will all contribute towards a more unified aesthetic and greater sense of place within the Specific Plan area. Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Process This Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Technical Memoranda Compendium is one of the first steps in the Specific Plan’s planning process. This Compendium compiles and analyzes technical land use, urban design, transportation, and infrastructure (sewer, water, storm drainage) information and provides a “snapshot” of the Garvey Avenue corridor today. Coupled with information gathered from:  Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee in its meetings,  eight neighborhood stakeholders who participated in the Stakeholder Interviews conducted on July 31, 2014 by City staff,  City staff department representatives, and  76 members of the public who responded to surveys conducted on August 5, 2014 at Rosemead’s National Night Out Event A series of land use alternatives will be prepared for the Garvey Avenue corridor. The alternatives will be vetted and, ultimately, a preferred plan will be selected. Based on this preferred plan, a Draft Garvey Avenue Specific Plan will be prepared and the Draft Plan will be analyzed in an environmental impact report. Generally, the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan schedule is anticipated to be:  Alternatives Generation – Early Fall 2014  Preferred Alternative – Fall 2014  Administrative Draft Specific Plan – Winter 2014  Environmental Review – Spring 2015 Introduction Page 1-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Planning Area The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area lies within the City of Rosemead, which is part of Los Angeles County. The City of Rosemead is bordered by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel to the north, the cities of San Gabirel and Monterey Park to the west, unincorporated areas of Los Angeles (South San Gabriel) and the cities of Montebello and South El Monte to the south, and the City of El Monte to the east. Excluding the street and its right-of-way, the project area covers 0.1375 square miles, encompassing the commercial and light industrial parcels surrounding an approximate 1.2 mile-length section of Garvey Avenue, as show in Figure 1.1. Residential uses are also located surrounding the project area. Some of the planning area contains vacant or underutilized commercial and light industrial spaces. The easternmost boundary is Charlotte Avenue, while New Avenue marks the westernmost boundary of the project area. The northern and southern boundaries of the project area vary by segment of Garvey Avenue, but Newmark Avenue stands as the southernmost boundary, and Whitmore Street is the northernmost boundary. Regional access to the planning area is provided by Interstate 10, California State Route 19 (Rosemead Boulevard), and California State Route 60. Interstate 10 (I- 10) is situated about half a mile north of Garvey Avenue and Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 2.5 miles south. State Route 19, better known as Rosemead Boulevard, runs north-south between the two freeways, just east of the project area boundary. Technical Memoranda Compendium This document, “Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Technical Memoranda Compendium,” is a compilation of technical analysis prepared by land use planners, economists, civil engineers, and traffic engineers. The Technical Memoranda Compendium profiles the existing characteristics, trends and forecasts, and issues that affect the corridor in 2014. The Compendium provides specific information on land use, urban design, transportation and circulation, infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage), and the local developer perspective. The information contained in this document is intended to assist the planning team and the policymakers with making informed planning decisions regarding the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. The Technical Compendium is one of the first steps in the process of preparing the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Introduction Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 1-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 1.1 Specific Plan Boundary Garvey AveRichard GarveyIntermediateSchoolNewmark AveFern AveWhitmore StNew AveDel Mar AveSan Gabriel BlvdPine StFalling Leaf AveBrighton StStrathmore AveDenton AveKelburn AveWhitmore StEgley AveGladys AveIsabel AveEvelyn AveA lh a m b r a W a s h ROSEMEADMONTEREYPARKLegendPlan AreaCity BoundaryStorm Drainage Channel0 500 1,000250FTEmersonElementarySchoolProspect AveArlene BitelyElementary SchoolJackson AveGladys AveCharlotte AveNSpecific Plan BoundaryRosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Introduction Page 1-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 1-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium This document contains the following reports:  Land Use, Ownership, and Easements. This memorandum documents 2014 baseline land use conditions and patterns in the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area and identifies preliminary land use issues. This information provides a context for examining development constraints and opportunities for land use change over the long term.  Urban Design. This memorandum provides an overview of the current aesthetic characteristics of the built environment within the planning area.  Traffic and Circulation. An overview of existing transportation systems in the Garvey Avenue Corridor, including vehicular, public transit, and bicycle circulation is provided in this memorandum. The full technical analysis report is included as Attachment A.  Sewer. This memorandum provides a brief overview of the sewer service and infrastructure in the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. The complete technical analysis is included as Attachment B.  Water Infrastructure. This memorandum provides a brief summary of the water facilities in the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. The complete technical analysis is included as Attachment C.  Storm Drainage. This memorandum will provide a summary of the storm drainage facilities in the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. Each memorandum identifies relevant regulatory framework, as appropriate, and provides an analysis of the 2014 conditions, identifies issues, and summarizes findings. Introduction Page 1-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Land Use Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 2 x This technical memorandum documents baseline conditions for land use along Garvey Avenue within the project area in Rosemead. It identifies key issues relevant to the corridor today and provides a context for examining development constraints and opportunities for land use changes. The information presented in this technical memorandum will be used to develop a Specific Plan that reflects current trends and development patterns. The following sections of the Land Use Technical Memorandum:  Describe recent and current land use planning efforts along Garvey Avenue;  Detail Rosemead’s development history;  Identify current land use and zoning conditions;  Describe major development projects and trends;  Analyze existing densities and intensities; and  Identify potential opportunity sites. Recent and Current Land Use Planning Efforts Existing plans provide a starting point for an existing conditions analysis of land use within the Garvey Avenue Corridor. Several recent and current land use planning efforts have helped shape development patterns within Rosemead. These include the existing General Plan, the Zoning Code, specific plans, and other regional plans and initiatives. Existing 2010 General Plan Update Any land use approach for Garvey Avenue must be consistent with the primary goals of Rosemead’s General Plan, which was last updated in 2010 (the Housing Element was separately adopted in 2013). The 2010 General Plan Update provides a citywide approach to planning for future development, and outlines goals and strategies for major commercial corridors such as Garvey Avenue. It considers the seven required General Plan elements, including land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety, in six chapters, with conservation and open space combined into a Resources Management element. The plan identifies a set of goals, policies, and actions related to each of the chapters. Five of the six primary vision elements of the 2010 General Plan Update apply to Garvey Avenue, including:  Enhance the commercial areas along key corridors, and most specifically Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard;  Enhance parks and recreational space in underserved neighborhoods; Land Use Page 2-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium  Accommodate the demand for quality mixed-use development that can contribute to commercial growth and enhance opportunities for higher- density residential development;  Protect homeowner investments and the availability of well-maintained, relatively affordable housing units; and  Minimize the impact of traffic associated with growth within the San Gabriel Valley and broader region The goals laid out in the 2010 General Plan Update that relate to potential land use decisions along the Garvey Avenue Corridor include the following: Land Use Element  Goal 2: Expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the city  Goal 3: Create vibrant, attractive mixed-use development  Goal 4: Assure a financially healthy City that can meet residents’ desire for public services and facilities  Goal 5: Use targeted land use changes that improve housing and economic opportunities for residents and businesses and achieve City fiscal and environmental objectives. Circulation Element  Goal 1: Maintain efficient vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout the City  Goal 2: Develop infrastructure and service to support alternatives modes of travel  Goal 3: Assure vehicular traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses does not intrude upon adjacent residential neighborhoods  Goal 4: Provide quality commercial and industrial development with adequate parking for employees and visitors Resource Management Element  Goal 1: Provide high-quality parks, recreation, and open space facilities to meet the needs of all Rosemead residents  Goal 2: Increase green space throughout Rosemead to improve community aesthetics, encourage pedestrian activity, and provide passive cooling benefits  Goal 4: Make effective contributions to regional efforts to improve air quality and conserve energy Noise Element  Goal 1: Ensure effective incorporation of noise considerations into land use planning decisions  Goal 2: Reduce noise impacts from transportation sources Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium  Goal 3: Effectively implement measures to control non-transportation noise impacts Housing Element  Goal 2: Encourage the development of a range of housing types in a range of prices affordable to all Rosemead residents  Goal 3: Encourage the maintenance and upgrading of existing housing stock to ensure a decent, safe, and sanitary home for all Rosemead residents Existing Zoning Code The City’s existing zoning code describes development standards and allowable uses by zoning district. Development standards identified include setbacks, lot area, lot width, density, floor area ratio, site coverage, landscaping and open area requirements, height limits, storage, and parking. Garvey Avenue Master Plan The Garvey Avenue Master Plan is a guiding document for development along Garvey Avenue, and should be a key reference point for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. It is intended to address “aesthetic and parking issues that property and business owners face in planning commercial and retail improvements.” Its vision for Garvey Avenue: “In the year 2020, Garvey Avenue will be recognized as a vibrant corridor with clean storefronts and visible pedestrian activity. Garvey Avenue will create a sense of ‘Small Town’ community pride where a variety of opportunities can be discovered for families and friends.” Its key objectives include the following:  Upgrade the image and appeal of the Garvey Avenue corridor by coordinated public and private improvements.  Entice and create convenience for patrons to stop and shop along the Garvey Avenue commercial corridor.  Create energy along Garvey Avenue by creating pedestrian activity and sidewalk cafes with outdoor seating.  Develop great place-making areas that will define the Garvey Avenue commercial corridor.  Create adequate parking facilities and improve traffic flow along the commercial corridor.  Promote and encourage the highest and best use of under-utilized properties.  Utilize landscaping as an integral component to overall project design.  Consider scale and character of adjacent uses and demonstrate sensitivity to the influences of the surrounding area.  Encourage private rehabilitation through application of the Garvey Avenue Master Plan for new and existing businesses.  Strengthen the Property Maintenance Ordinance to rigorously enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties. Land Use Page 2-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Its action plan includes:  Revise the Property Maintenance and Sign Ordinances to clearly address commercial property maintenance (e.g. clean storefronts, parking lot improvements, sign rehabilitation, etc.).  Recognize that different parts of the corridor have special characteristics, and develop programs to strengthen and reinforce them.  Direct project designs that will promote pedestrian-friendly projects with public spaces and lively street fronts where people can meet and interact.  Encourage developments as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along Garvey Avenue.  Attract private investment to revitalize older commercial uses that will reinforce and create synergy along the Garvey Avenue commercial corridor.  Enforce high quality commercial building and site design while allowing increased intensities of use along the corridor where appropriate.  Require economic feasibility studies on large development sites to ensure projects are economically sustainable.  Establish a well-balanced and carefully planned collection of signature retail anchors, general retail outlets, casual to upscale restaurants, and upscale overnight accommodations.  Discourage the development of commercial properties that contain a random mix of incompatible uses.  Encourage the placement of parking areas to be located behind structures and out of sight from the public right of way.  Promote lively and attractive ground-floor retail uses that will create revenues needed to provide for City services and City’s tax base. City of Rosemead Mixed Use Guidelines Rosemead’s Mixed Use Guidelines, adopted in 2010, provide a context and strategy for mixed use development throughout the city. To the extent that development within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area is proposed to be mixed use, the Mixed Use Guidelines will offer important guiding principles to follow. The Mixed Use Guidelines include sections devoted to:  The public realm and the pedestrian environment  Site design  Building design  Building height  Storefronts  Lighting  Common areas/open space  Compatibility with adjacent properties  Parking  Access Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium Downtown Rosemead Design Guidelines Rosemead’s Downtown Design Guidelines are intended to guide development in the Central Business District (CBD) of the city, along Valley Boulevard east of Walnut Grove Avenue. As such, while they do not directly apply to the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, the goals and principles contained within them may be useful in considering goals and principles for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Its three strategic goals – beautify community infrastructure and improve public facilities, enhance public safety and quality of life, and ensure the City’s financial viability with balanced budgets and prudent reserves – all dovetail well with the strategic goals of the Garvey Avenue Master Plan. Its design objectives are likewise relevant and useful, and include:  Upgrade the image of the City’s Downtown area by coordinated public and private improvements  Consider privacy, noise, light (glare), and traffic intrusion.  Consider scale and character of adjacent uses and demonstrate sensitivity to the influences of surrounding area.  Stimulate future private investment.  Make the best use of under-utilized properties.  Facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity.  Utilize landscaping as an integral component to overall project design.  Design building forms and elevations that contribute to the overall quality of the built environment.  Consider scale and character of adjacent uses and demonstrate sensitivity to the influences of the surrounding area.  Encourage private rehabilitation through application of the Designs Guidelines for new and existing businesses.  Create a form of uniformity in the City. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Within the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, regional planning efforts are underway to provide a regional context for planning, and ensure consistency and encourage collaboration across city borders. These planning efforts are led by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which “undertakes regional planning efforts for the six-county SCAG region consisting of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG's planning efforts focus on developing strategies to minimize traffic congestion, protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing throughout the region. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide – developed with active participation from local agencies, elected officials, the business community, community groups, private institutions, and private citizens – sets forth broad goals and objectives intended to be implemented by participating jurisdictions and Land Use Page 2-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium agencies such the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.”1 History of Land Use Development Incorporated in 1959, Rosemead had been settled long before, first by Gabrieleno Native Americans and then by the Spanish, who established a mission in the San Gabriel Valley in 1771.2 For centuries, Rosemead was predominantly an agricultural community, with a compact business and residential core surrounded by farms, orchards, barns, and other agriculture-based uses. Soon after the City was incorporated, major changes began to transform Rosemead. In 1959, the population of Rosemead was 15,475. From 1960 to 1970, the population exploded, to nearly 41,000. This growth was primarily suburban tract house development to accommodate families and workers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The growth dramatically changed Rosemead from an agricultural community to a suburban city, primarily a residential suburb with some limited commerce and industry. Growth slowed in the 1970s, and then picked up again in the 1980s, growing from 42,604 in 1980 to 51,638 in 1990. Growth has been slow since 1990, with the population in 2010 census at 53,764. Official predictions anticipate that Rosemead will grow to just under 60,000 by 2020. Rosemead is among the 88 cities that comprise Los Angeles County. Since incorporation, and particularly since the 1990s, Rosemead has fast become an increasingly diverse community. Large numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants began settling and setting up businesses in Rosemead in the 1990s, and by 2010 the city was over 60% Asian, with another 34% identifying as Latino. This demographic transformation has resulted in a changed Garvey Avenue. Excluding chain stores, virtually all retail businesses are Asian-oriented. As stated in Rosemead’s General Plan, it will be important that the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan also meets the needs of the diverse population living and working along the corridor. Analysis Existing Land Use and Zoning Conditions This section details land use and zoning within the project area along Garvey Avenue in 2014. It highlights the land use pattern and zoning, outlines the baseline land use, and classifies commercial uses by specific use. Much of the analysis in this section took place after a land use and urban design survey conducted at the site on July 1, 2014. 1 City of Rosemead. 2010 General Plan Update 2 City of Rosemead. 2010 General Plan Update Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-7 Technical Memoranda Compendium 2014 Land Use Pattern Land use in Rosemead is tied to the city’s geography and historical pattern of development. Rosemead is relatively flat land with few topographical impediments to development. The I-10 freeway bisects Rosemead creating a major barrier and edge to local neighborhoods. According to the City of Rosemead’s website, the City of Rosemead encompasses 5.5 square miles of land area, including roads and other rights-of-way. Out of this total number, 64% of land area is in residential use, 14% for public facilities including 1.4% for parks, 9% for commercial uses, 7% for mixed-use (commercial and residential), and 6% for office and light industrial uses. There are 74.4 miles of streets and alleys within the City of Rosemead.3 The Garvey Avenue project area is, likewise, flat and has no major barriers to development. The project area along Garvey Avenue encompasses 88 acres, and is composed of some 153 parcels of varying land use. A majority of land uses are commercial/retail, with 84 parcels in commercial or retail use, encompassing 37 acres (42.3% of the total project area). This acreage includes off-street parking lots serving the commercial buildings, which represent underutilized land. (See the Urban Design existing conditions section for parking analysis.) There are also a large number of vacant parcels: 43. Vacant land makes up 30.4 percent, or nearly 27 acres, of the land area. Other allocations of land uses along Garvey Avenue include 1.7% for single-family residential, 8.5% for multi-family residential, 1.4% for multi-use, 14.8% for institutional, and 0.9% for open space. Specific acreages and a further breakdown of these categories are detailed in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 Garvey Avenue Baseline Land Use Baseline Land Use Number of Parcels Total Lot Acres Percent of Specific Plan Area Commercial/Retail 84 37.1 42% Single-Unit Residential 9 1.5 2% Multi-Unit Residential 9 7.5 9% Institutional 4 13 15% Multiuse-Comm/Res 1 1.3 1% Vacant Land 43 26.7 30% Open Space 3 0.8 1% Total 173 87.9 100% 3 City of Rosemead website. Accessed 7/8/14. Land Use Page 2-8 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.1 Existing Land Use Map Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-9 Technical Memoranda Compendium Existing land uses are primarily auto-oriented commercial Small mini-mall plazas like Fortune Plaza are common Vacant land uses is common The Square is a major neighborhood node Figure 2.2 Existing Land Use Photos Land Use Page 2-10 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Single Family/Duplex and Multi-Family Residential Rosemead’s population, approximately 54,000, lives in the city’s estimated 14,578 housing units.4 The balance of renter/owner in these housing units is roughly 50/50, with slightly more (51.5%) renters than owners. About 82 percent of Rosemead’s housing units are single-family homes, with 15% of the remainder being multi-family housing units and the remaining 3% being mobile homes. The Garvey Avenue project area is bordered and surrounded by single-family or low-density multifamily housing in all directions. Most of these residential areas are zoned for “light multiple residential” use, which allows for a density of up to 12 units per acre. Within the project area itself, there are a handful of small pockets zoned for residential use, including the existing trailer park at the Garvey Avenue and New Avenue intersection; near the former Los Angeles Auto Auction (“Auto Auction”) site just south of Virginia Street and north of Garvey Avenue; the small northernmost parcel of the Paradise Trailer Park; the lower four parcels of the vacant land on the southern side of Garvey between Kelburn and Falling Leaf Avenues; and the Garvey Intermediate School site. The majority of the housing units within the project area are mobile homes. Specifically, these housing units are within the mobile home park just east of New Avenue, which lies partly in Rosemead and partly in Monterey Park; and the Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments, squeezed between two large parcels of vacant land, the Auto Auction site to the west and a large triangular parcel bordering Alhambra Wash to the east. Based on land area, multi-family uses make up 8.5 % of the total land area and single family and duplex uses make up 2%. Residential development proposals in the Garvey Avenue area include medium- to high-density mixed-use development. The proposed project includes a 4-story Garvey Del Mar Avenue Plaza mixed-use building in the vacant site on the northeast corner of Garvey and Del Mar Avenue. Commercial Commercial uses in Rosemead make up 9% of the developable land area and range from neighborhood retail along Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Avenues to locally- serving retail businesses in the central business district on Valley Boulevard to regional-serving big box retail on Rosemead Boulevard north of the I-10. Local- serving commercial uses are located within neighborhoods throughout Rosemead and include restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, and other types of retail. Within the Garvey Avenue project area, both land use and zoning are primarily commercial, although a significant number of parcels zoned for commercial use are currently vacant. There is also one existing area of mixed-use residential and commercial development, on the north side of Garvey Avenue at Isabel Avenue. 4 Rosemead General Plan Housing Element, 2012, p. 7 Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-11 Technical Memoranda Compendium 173 commercial/retail businesses are located within the project area. Of these, 135, or 78%, are retail businesses, while the remainder is non-retail commercial uses. Of the 135 retail uses, 122 or 88%, are local retail, while 16 (11%) are chain stores or formula-retail, defined as businesses with over 10 stores nationally. Restaurants are the single largest commercial use, accounting for 22% of the total commercial uses. Professional services (13%), auto-related uses (10%), beauty salons and supply (10%), and medical/dental businesses (10%) are other major commercial uses. Specific percentages and a further breakdown of these categories are detailed in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2 Garvey Avenue Commercial Uses Commercial Use Number of Businesses Percent of Total Commercial Uses Restaurant 38 22% Professional Services 23 13% Auto-related 18 10% Beauty salon & supply 18 10% Medical/dental 17 10% Professional office 9 5% Grocery/supermarket 7 4% Laundry 4 2% Various other retail 39 23% Total 173 100% Office and Industrial/Manufacturing Given Rosemead’s history as a bedroom community, the area has not attracted significant amounts of high-technology, office, or industrial/manufacturing uses. Within the Garvey Avenue project area, no industrial or manufacturing uses occur. There are pockets of office uses, but primarily the corridor is a retail commercial area. The closest industrial area to the Garvey Avenue project area is along San Gabriel south of Garvey Avenue. Several other of the few manufacturing areas are located along or just below Garvey Avenue one half-mile east of the project area corridor, east of Walnut Grove. Office space is predominantly sited in the southern edge of the city, such as the large Edison International office facility on Walnut Grove nearly one mile south of Garvey Avenue. Land Use Page 2-12 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Parks and Open Space The City of Rosemead suffers from a lack of parks and open space, and does not have a wide range of parks and open space. Rosemead has 43 acres of open space within the city, representing just 1% of the more than 3,500 total acres of land area. There are few trails and virtually no high-quality bikeways either within existing parks or connecting existing open space. The Rio Hondo corridor, a small portion of which passes through Rosemead, does have a paved trail along its concrete banks, and becomes a natural green oasis in the Whittier Narrows Recreational Area, directly southeast of Rosemead in the City of South El Monte. Public access was not preserved to either Alhambra Wash or Rubio Wash in Rosemead; as a result neither has a trail or open space of any kind along its length. Portions of the Southern California Edison easement, however, have been creatively used as open space. The Garvey Avenue project area is representative of the lack of open space within Rosemead. There are no parks or open spaces within the project area. The front “yard” of Richard Garvey Intermediate School provides grassy green space directly on Garvey Avenue, and there is a large grassy area in the rear of the school complex, although it is fenced off to the public. Within the project area, an opportunity exists to create public open space along Alhambra Wash north of Garvey Avenue as it reaches San Gabriel Avenue. Institutional/Public Use Institutional and public uses include schools, public facilities, churches, and medical facilities, among others. These uses make up 14% of land in Rosemead, and a similar 15% of land within the project area, the vast majority of which is contained within the bounds of Richard Garvey Intermediate School. Other institutional uses include the Buddhist Ortho-Creed Association Dharma Seal Temple at 3027 Del Mar Avenue, the Viet Nam XALOI Buddism Study Association Inc. at 2755 Del Mar Avenue, and the South San Gabriel congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses church at 2754 Del Mar Avenue. Parking Large amounts of commercially-designated land are dedicated to off-street parking. Figure 2.3 shows off- and on-street parking. An analysis of land allocated to parking can be found in the Urban Design technical memorandum. Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-13 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.3 Existing On- and Off-Street Parking Map Land Use Page 2-14 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Vacant Parcel data and land use site surveying and analysis identified parcels within the Garvey Avenue corridor project area that are vacant. This analysis showed that there is a large amount of vacant land within the corridor. Some 43 of the total 153 parcels, or 28%, are currently vacant, covering 27 acres, or 30% of the total land area. Vacant land refers both to open, unbuilt land, most of which is already paved, but also refers to unoccupied buildings. The single largest vacant parcel is the former Los Angeles Auto Auction (“Auto Auction”) site, on the north side of Garvey Avenue centered on Kelburn Avenue. It is nearly 17 acres of vacant land. It is designated a “high-intensity” commercial area in Rosemead’s Land Use Plan, and is zoned C-4 Regional Commercial. Other vacant land areas include several parcels east of the Auto site, bisected by Alhambra Wash, which comprise nearly 4 acres; a 1.4 acre area due south of the Auto Auction site between Kelburn and Falling Leaf Avenues; and several other smaller parcels near Del Mar and New Avenues targeted for development. Figure 2.4 shows vacant land – both built and unbuilt – within the project area, and Figure 2.5 shows images of several existing vacant parcels. Underutilized Land A number of parcels within the project area are underutilized, and, if developed to their full potential, could offer a significant increase in development capacity. A map of parcels deemed to be underutilized, defined as developed to less than 60% capacity, is shown in Figure 2.6. Several of these parcels are actively in business, and as such may not be appropriate targets for redevelopment; these include a number of fast-food restaurants that have parking lots far bigger than their buildings. Other sites include auto-oriented businesses such as repair shops which have large open parking lots. Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-15 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.4 Existing Vacant Land Map Land Use Page 2-16 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Vacant parcels, such as this corner at Prospect, are common Blank concrete or asphalt lots are common A mixed-use development is proposed here at Del Mar This vacant parcel borders Alhambra Wash Figure 2.5 Existing Vacant Land Photos Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-17 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.6 Underutilized Land Map Land Use Page 2-18 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Zoning Ordinance The City’s zoning ordinance plays a key role in guiding development type, density and use. Under California law, Rosemead’s zoning ordinances must be consistent with a City’s General Plan. Designated zoning districts, therefore, directly correspond to the General Plan land use designations as shown in Table 2.3. Only a few types of zoning districts are found within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area, which are shown in the Zoning Map in Figure 2.7. They include: R2 – Light Multiple Residential The R2 zoning district is intended for single family dwellings, duplexes, low-density rowhouse developments, low-density townhouse developments, small-lot single family developments and similar and related compatible uses. A maximum density of twelve dwellings units per acre is allowed. The R2 zoning district is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. C3 – Medium Commercial Neighborhood The C3 district provides convenient shopping for residential neighborhoods, including retail and service uses including grocery stores, cleaners, restaurants, beauty salons, tax preparation and similar and related compatible uses. The C3 Zoning District is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. The majority of zoned parcels within the study area are zoned C3 – Medium Commercial. A D - Design Overlay zoning designation provides further refinement for specific parcels at the Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel intersection, requiring an additional layer of design review for all proposed development. C4 – Regional Commercial Service The C4 district provides regional commercial and service uses that serve local and regional residents and businesses. The C4 zoning district is consistent with the High Intensity Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. P – Automobile Parking The P district specifically provides for automobile parking. It includes the parcels of Alhambra Wash. P-D – Planned Development The P-D district is designed to provide for uses that may be developed as a planned area development. Additional consideration to planned circulation patterns, residential densities, coverage limitations, and preservation of open spaces should be included in developments within these districts. Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-19 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.7 Existing Zoning Map Land Use Page 2-20 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Table 2.3 Garvey Avenue Zoning Distribution Number of Parcels % of Total Residential R2 - Light Multiple Residential 19 9% Commercial/Professional C4 - Regional Commercial 12 8% C3 – Medium Commercial 107 73% C3 – Medium Commercial (D Design Overlay) 14 10% Special Purpose P – Automobile Parking 7 5% PD - Planned Development 4 3% Total 160 100% Source: MIG site survey, 7/1/2014 Incompatible Zoning Only a few instances exist where parcels have incompatible General Plan land use and zoning categories, as shown in Table 2.4. Primarily these parcels are zoned as commercial and are being used as residential or, in once case, mixed use. Table 2.4 Incompatible Zoning and General Plan Land Use Street Address Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Zoning 7700 Garvey Avenue Mixed Use Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial 3009 Evelyn Avenue Medium Density Residential Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial 3014, 3018, 3022 3030 Evelyn Avenue Medium Density Residential Commercial P- Automobile Parking 3018 Del Mar Avenue Medium Density Residential Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial 7906 Garvey Avenue Medium Density Residential Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial 8073 Garvey Avenue Medium Density Residential Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial Source: MIG site survey, 7/1/2014 Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-21 Technical Memoranda Compendium Major Development Projects and Trends While Rosemead is almost completely built-out, with little vacant or underutilized land currently available for new development, a large amount of the vacant, unoccupied buildings, or underutilized land within Rosemead is along Garvey Avenue in the project area. This section describes recent major developments and pipeline projects as well as current land use trends related to residential and non- residential development. Pipeline Projects The following developments are pipeline projects in the project vicinity including those that are under construction, approved and not yet constructed, and those still under review by City staff (see Table 2.5 and Figure 2.8). Table 2.5 Major Pipeline Projects Along Garvey Avenue Type Location Project Description ID Number Under Construction None Approved Mixed Use 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue A mixed-use project consisting of 127 residential condos (145,649 sf), retail building area (41,400 sf), and restaurant building area (17,830 sf) was approved by the City Council on 12-11-2007. The entitlements are still active due to the Governor’s map extensions under the Subdivision Map Act. However, the owner submitted new entitlement applications for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to designate the current land use from Residential Commercial Mixed-Use to Commercial. Therefore, the City does not anticipate that this project will be built (see under review below) 1 Under Review Mixed-Use 7801-7825 Garvey Avenue 5-story, 60 units with 20% low-income for density bonus, 15,553 sq. ft. ground floor restaurant/retail; 2 stories underground parking with 78 resident and 127 customer parking spaces 2 Land Use Page 2-22 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Table 2.5 Major Pipeline Projects Along Garvey Avenue Type Location Project Description ID Number Mixed-Use 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue The property owner of 7419-7459 submitted new entitlement applications for the construction of Supermarket (22,500 sf), including potential for 4 retail units within the market, as well as 18 retail units in a two separate buildings totaling 18,000 sf (1,000 sf per unit). However, the owner put these entitlement requests on hold until August 2014. 3 Anticipated Development Mixed-Use 8002-8006 Garvey Avenue The property owner is interested in proposing a mixed-use project with retail, medical office, and residential. Entitlement applications have not been submitted. The property owner wants to work with the City and incorporate their proposal into the Specific Plan to the extent feasible. 4 Mixed-Use 3035 San Gabriel Boulevard, 8069, 8077, 8105, and 8117 Garvey Avenue The property owner envisions a large mixed-use project with retail, hotel, and residential. No entitlements have been submitted. 5 Land Use Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 2-23 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 2.8 Pipeline Projects Map Land Use Page 2-24 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Key Findings  The majority of existing land uses along the Garvey Avenue Corridor within the project area adhere to the zoning code.  There is a considerable amount of vacant land within the project area. Accordingly, there are small, medium, and large opportunities to develop these vacant parcels with beneficial catalytic development that improves the streetscape, the commercial environment, and quality of life for residents.  Supporting a mix of land uses is important to the ongoing success of the corridor, but this mix of land uses demands that the corridor become a livable street that is safe, pleasant, and healthy to live directly on.  A large amount of land and right-of-way is dedicated to vehicle parking. With so many large off-street parking lots, long stretches of on-street parking stand empty much of the day, although there are pockets where on-street parking seems better used and is potentially more important for the few small businesses that do not have off-street parking lots.  There are opportunities to strategically link land use decisions with existing transportation infrastructure. Locating residential uses within walking distance to transit stops will help capitalize on the city’s transportation options.  Potential land use conflicts exist in some areas between residential uses and higher intensity uses (mostly commercial), which can result in issues related to noise, emissions, pedestrian safety, and traffic, among others. Careful design of transition areas between single family residential and commercial areas should be used to address these land use conflicts.  There is a deficiency of open space along the corridor, which underscores the need to work with developers to increase the amount of open space as vacant parcels are developed and as other parcels are revitalized/recycled.  Rosemead can use land use to support and enhance existing neighborhoods and improve the overall livability of the city. Livability encompasses many dimensions, but from a land use perspective it generally deals with safe and convenient access by any mode to everyday amenities, such as neighborhood-serving retail, grocery stores, parks, and other amenities.  As the economy evolves in the coming years, there may be pressure to convert uses to those that are more economically viable. In some cases changing land use can be appropriate and beneficial to community. However, converting too much land to one use can have negative effects on the overall mix of land use within the city.  Coordinating local and regional land use planning efforts is important for economic development, transportation, and land use Rosemead. Visioning and redevelopment plans led by regional planning agencies and surrounding jurisdictions, including the LA River Revitalization Master Plan, suggest opportunities that will benefit the city. The City should work with the various stakeholders and municipalities to coordinate transportation linkages, development transitions and economic development strategies. Urban Design Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 3 x Purpose This Technical Memorandum addresses the overall physical patterns and characteristics of Garvey Avenue. It analyzes a range of elements that shape both private and public realms along Garvey Avenue, and also describes the relationships between them. The Technical Memorandum provides an overall physical framework in which key urban design assets, issues, and opportunities are identified and can be highlighted for future preservation, improvement, or transformation in the Specific Plan. The Urban Design Technical Memorandum includes the following sections:  Key findings  Relevant urban design planning efforts  Area character  Key views, landmarks and gateways and  Urban and streetscape design and physical character of the Garvey Avenue corridor. Recent and Current Urban Design Planning Efforts Rosemead established design guidelines for certain uses and within specific areas of the community. Design guidelines provide a basis for design standards and quality throughout the City. Design guidelines ensure that property owners, developers, and the City adhere to high-quality standards and that new improvements have a cohesive character. Design guidelines that pertain to the Garvey Avenue corridor are found within the Garvey Avenue Master Plan, the City of Rosemead’s Mixed Use Guidelines, and, to a lesser extent, the City of Rosemead’s Downtown Design Guidelines. Garvey Avenue Master Plan Of the above three plans, the Garvey Avenue Master Plan’s urban design guidelines are the most applicable. They deal with and provide guidance for a variety of elements that contribute directly to urban design along Garvey Avenue corridor, including:  Architecture  Storefront Design  Roof Articulation  Materials and Colors  Secondary/Rear Façade and Entrances  Lighting  Commercial Signs Urban Design Page 3-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium  Landscaping  Parking  Trash Enclosures  Outdoor Seating  Public Sidewalk  Undergrounding of Utilities  Graffiti-Deterrent, and  Green Design Key objectives of the Garvey Avenue Master Plan related to urban design include:  Upgrade the image and appeal of the Garvey Avenue corridor by coordinated public and private improvements  Entice and create convenience for patrons to stop and shop along the Garvey Avenue commercial corridor  Create energy along Garvey Avenue by creating pedestrian activity and sidewalk cafes with outdoor seating  Develop great place-making areas that define the Garvey Avenue commercial corridor  Create adequate parking facilities and improve traffic flow along the commercial corridor  Promote and encourage the highest and best use of under-utilized properties  Utilize landscaping as an integral component to overall project design  Consider scale and character of adjacent uses and demonstrate sensitivity to the influences of the surrounding area.  Encourage private rehabilitation through application of the Garvey Avenue Master Plan for new and existing businesses, and  Strengthen the Property Maintenance Ordinance to rigorously enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties. City of Rosemead Mixed-Use Design Guidelines Rosemead’s Mixed Use Design Guidelines also apply, especially to the extent that new development on Garvey Avenue is mixed-use, to the Garvey Avenue corridor. As with the Garvey Avenue Master Plan, the Mixed Use Design Guidelines provide guidance that address a variety of elements that contribute to urban design, including:  Public Realm and the Pedestrian Environment  Site Design  Building Design  Building Height  Storefronts  Lighting  Common Areas/Open Space  Compatibility with Adjacent Properties  Parking  Access Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium The overall goals of the Mixed Use Design Guidelines, which relate directly to mixed-use urban design development, include:  To provide the resident with a high quality living environment  To protect the pedestrian and enhance the pedestrian environment and scale  To design parking that not only meets parking requirements, but also promotes safe interaction between vehicles and pedestrians  To ensure that retail/commercial uses on the ground floor serve the community (e.g., restaurants/retail, etc.). Office uses are not encouraged on the ground floor  To ensure compatibility between adjacent uses, especially single-family residential, other mixed-use projects, and  To encourage high quality mixed-use infill development that is comprised of residential, office, entertainment, and commercial uses. Downtown Rosemead Design Guidelines Like the Garvey Avenue Master Plan, the Downtown Rosemead Design Guidelines address the same 15 elements that contribute to urban design in the downtown area. They also address the integration of public art into public realm design, and specifically address nine key factors of streetscape and public realm design improvements, including:  Gateways (public visual or ceremonial entryways)  Intersection Enhancements  Roadway Medians  Paving  Free-standing Potted Plants  Street Pole Banners  Street Furniture  Street Lighting; and  Street Trees Analysis Area Design Character Assessing Built Form and Urban Design Walking, living, and driving on busy Garvey Avenue itself, versus on an adjoining quiet residential local street like Falling Leaf Avenue, provides a very different experience, most particularly for those staying the longest or travelling the slowest, such as residents and pedestrians. Walking along one point of Garvey Avenue, likewise, can be very different from walking along it just a block away. Driving anywhere on Garvey Avenue is a different experience than taking transit, walking, Urban Design Page 3-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium or bicycling. Shopping may be a pleasurable experience on certain blocks, and frustrating and unpleasant on others. Understanding what it is exactly that contributes to these different experiences helps understand the positive and negative elements that, taken together, ultimately create or result in these experiences. It also helps guide future decisions, making it possible to work towards bringing in more of what contributes to the more positive experiences and less of what contributes to the more negative experiences. Analyzing and understanding existing built form helps assess and understand the experience of being on various points along the corridor. At the block, parcel, and street level, built form describes and reveals how a neighborhood’s various pieces fit together and what that means for the experience of living, working, or passing through the neighborhood. Are the individual blocks large or small, or is there a mix? Are the parcels (also called lots) irregularly-shaped and differently-sized or are they identical in shape and size, row after row? Are the streets wide or narrow, or is there a mix of widths? Are there midblock alleys, paths or other pedestrian routes, or just long unbroken segments of lots? The answers to these questions reveal how a neighborhood was designed and help explain why it may feel livable to residents, welcoming to visitors, or easy to get around by one, some, or all transportation modes. At the building level, the term “built form” describes what a building looks like and what its shape is on the ground, how tall it is, how much of its parcel it takes up, how far it is set back from the sidewalk and street, how many windows/doors it has visible from the street, and its architectural style. Are buildings close to each other or far apart? Are they just a single story, or are they many stories? Are the buildings all more or less the same height, or do the buildings vary wildly in height from one to the next? Do they face the street or face away from the street? Do they sit directly on the sidewalk or are they set back, with something (a front lawn, say, or a parking lot) in between? Do the buildings all look the same, or are they different? Do they have prominent front doors, or more prominent garage doors? Is there a mix of old buildings and new, or was everything built around the same time in the same style? Does the façade (the front edge of a building) feel inviting, with attractive and bright windows and active retail, or is the façade little more than an empty storefront, blank concrete wall, or a chain-link fence? The answers to these questions reveal how the buildings in the neighborhood were designed and why some of them may feel more welcoming than others, or have more successful retail in them. Well-designed buildings provide a rich context for a neighborhood of vibrant places. Study Area Background The Garvey Avenue corridor is characterized by a unique set of land uses, development character, block patterns, parcel patterns, and building types, which together constitute the corridor’s built form (Figure 3.1). The study area for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan is bounded by the City of Monterey Park following New Avenue to the west; Charlotte Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard to the east, and the edges of residential neighborhoods to the north and south. The Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium block, street, and parcel patterns along the corridor have been shaped in different ways in response to a myriad of public and private decisions, environmental constraints, varied land uses, and evolving design trends occurring over many years. The streets and blocks have also been shaped by key travel routes, housing trends and parcel availability, and the patterns of neighboring communities. Garvey Avenue’s built form – its street network, block pattern, parcel pattern, and building pattern – displays a range of sizes and a diversity of shapes, but its overall pattern is characteristic of that seen in auto-oriented “strip” corridors with single- family suburban development around it. Each of the elements that make up its built form reveals that this is an area designed for cars, in an era when automobiles were the preferred and predominant form of transportation. There are wide streets like Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard that go through and connect well to the surrounding street grid, and narrower short streets like Virginia Street and Lindy Avenue that do not connect as well to the surrounding street grid, with few midblock alleys or pedestrian passageways. This allows for efficient throughput of automobiles but makes bicycle and pedestrian circulation challenging because smaller local roads do not always connect well to the overall street grid. Likewise, while block sizes vary, they are generally quite large, too large for easy pedestrian circulation. Parcel sizes vary considerably, but are often too large along Garvey Avenue for pedestrian-scale development. Finally, the building pattern is regular in the residential areas but sparse directly on Garvey Avenue, with major empty “holes” in development seen up and down the corridor, the result of swaths of vacant land for surface parking lots. All of these measures directly relate to and have significant effects on the quality of urban design and the pedestrian environment. Urban Design Page 3-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.1 Existing Built Form Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-7 Technical Memoranda Compendium Block Pattern The Corridor’s block pattern is typical of suburban developments and strip corridors (see Figure 3.2). A hierarchy of streets gives shape to the neighborhood. The block pattern includes wider arterial streets such as New, Del Mar, and San Gabriel Boulevards extending in the north-south direction that afford full connectivity, along with local streets that end in cul-de-sacs, meet Garvey Avenue at disjointed angles, or otherwise do not provide good connectivity. East-west running streets paralleling Garvey Avenue are local streets with limited connectivity and traverse short distances. The block structure map shows, for example, how Garvey Avenue allows for “full connectivity,” in that it runs completely through the project area, unbroken and able to intersect with any other perpendicular-running street in the area; in total, it intersects with 19 other streets. By contrast, the map also shows how Whitmore Street, which runs parallel to Garvey Avenue to the north, does not provide good connectivity, because it intersects only one street, Del Mar Avenue. The block pattern stops it from running west of Del Mar (even though Whitmore Street returns again west of Jackson Avenue), and ends it in a cul-de-sac west of Alhambra Wash, while north-south streets that might be able to connect with Whitmore, meanwhile, such as Brighton, Strathmore or Kelburn, are themselves terminated before they get to Whitmore. The area on the north side of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar and San Gabriel Boulevards, the former Los Angeles Auto Auction site, is particularly disconnected, with too few intersecting streets, highlighting the need for better connectivity with any development of the site. A resident wishing to walk to Garvey Avenue who lives in the middle of Whitmore Avenue, less than 0.2 miles from Garvey Avenue as the crow flies, for example, is forced to walk around the long block, a distance of nearly three-quarters of a mile. If Kelburn Street extended north of Garvey Avenue and went through to Whitmore, by contrast, a short walk would be all that was needed to reach the front of the existing Auto Auction buildings. Blocks vary in size, but in general are so large that they are not pedestrian-scaled for easy walkability. For high walkability, block lengths of no more than 300 feet are preferred. Blocks of 600 feet or more are too large and create long distances to access close-by areas on foot. The closest thing to pedestrian-scaled blocks along the Garvey Avenue corridor are those just southeast of the Garvey and New Avenues intersection, which are 300 by 600 feet. Other block sizes along the corridor include 300 by 1,000 feet; 375 by 1,250 feet; 400 by 750 feet; 450 by 900 feet. The massive “superblock” encompassing the former Los Angeles Auto Auction site measures 2,600 by 800 feet. All of these sizes are too large, and discourage pedestrian activity. Urban Design Page 3-8 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.2 Existing Block Structure Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-9 Technical Memoranda Compendium Parcel Pattern The Specific Plan area displays an overall lot structure with two contrasting parcel patterns (see Figure 3.3). Within the project area, the parcels vary widely, from as small as 25 by 100 feet to as large as 640 by 750 feet (Richard Garvey Intermediate School). Even larger is the former Los Angeles Auto Auction site. Outside the project area, a relatively homogeneous and fine-grain parcel pattern exists for the surrounding residential areas; a typical parcel in this area is 50 by 200 feet. Some larger parcels can be seen along New and San Gabriel Boulevard corridors, for commercial development. Therefore, overall there are many more trapezoidal parcels than in any other area of Rosemead. The parcel map reveals one irregularity: the non-rectangular diagonal parcel line following Alhambra Wash. Building Pattern The building pattern (Figure 3.4) reveals a striking incongruity: buildings are seen to be denser in the adjoining single-family housing areas, and less dense in the commercial area along the Garvey Avenue corridor itself. Most residential buildings follow rectilinear alignments in response to the rectilinear city grid. Residential buildings are fine grained and irregular in shape, but generally do not have significant space around them. They closely follow the street configuration. Commercial uses along Garvey Avenue, on the other hand, have large building footprints with lots of space around them, which is used as surface parking. This incongruous building pattern is the reverse of what would be expected in an area with more low-density residential neighborhoods surrounding a strong commercial corridor, but is easier to understand when one considers that most commercial development is auto-oriented, with surface parking lots covering large swaths of land. The vast majority of “white space” is either vacant land or surface parking lots. The street definition is not strong due to an extremely discontinuous building edge. That is, the building pattern along the sidewalk is irregular and broken up by parking lots and driveways, with many “gaps” in the “street wall,” the fabric of buildings that directly line the sidewalk. This is again due to the auto-orientation and scale, and the need for car parking. Figure 3.5 shows these large gaps in the street wall, seen in red. Figure 3.6 shows a comparative example at the same scale, Main Street in downtown Alhambra, which exhibits some similar gaps in its street wall, but overall is much more complete, as seen by the relative lack of red. This type of building pattern has a profound impact on the streetscape and pedestrian environment. Finally, Figure 3.7 highlights examples along Garvey Avenue where the gaps in the streetwall have a negative pedestrian experience, contributing to poor safety, an unpleasant shopping environment, and little design continuity. Urban Design Page 3-10 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.3 Existing Parcel Pattern Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-11 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.4 Existing Building Pattern Urban Design Page 3-12 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.5 Existing Garvey Avenue Street Wall Gaps Figure 3.6 Street Wall Gaps Comparison, Main Street, Alhambra, CA Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-13 Technical Memoranda Compendium Gaps in the street wall hurt the pedestrian environment Blank surface parking lots detract from the street This blank wall does not support active street life Pedestrian-scale development such as this is rare Figure 3.7 Corridor Building Pattern Images Urban Design Page 3-14 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Development Character Along Garvey Avenue a few larger office buildings with stone, shingle, and concrete facades occur, but most development is single-story and of fair building quality. Basic cinderblock or concrete garage-like auto repair shops are common, lending the corridor a distinctly “light industrial” character. Some mini-malls are built to a higher standard of quality than other development. Other developments along the corridor include strip shopping centers, fast-food restaurants, grocery stores, and larger commercial strip areas. Given that most of the commerce is Asian-oriented, with business signs in Chinese common, the corridor has a distinctly Asian feeling. The residential areas surrounding the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area are characterized by low-slung ranch homes. They tend to be low and wide, single- story houses with street-facing garages and paved driveways and parking areas. Fencing is common along the property line at the sidewalk. Figure 3.8 shows examples of typical development along the corridor. Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-15 Technical Memoranda Compendium Basic concrete buildings like this medical office are common Larger-scale mini-malls tend to be built of higher quality A typical residential house in the adjoining neighborhood Barred windows suggest a perceived lack of security Figure 3.8 Typical Corridor Development Urban Design Page 3-16 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Views, Gateways, and Landmarks Views Rosemead’s location in the San Gabriel Valley provides views to the scenic San Gabriel mountain ranges that can be stunning. The mountains not only provide an attractive natural frame to the City, but also provide an element of uniqueness and contribute to the area’s sense of identity. Furthermore, views of the mountains provide a constant resource for physical orientation and direction. Views of the mountains can be seen on Garvey Avenue’s south side, at or near intersections, and along two potential greenway corridors, Alhambra Wash within the project area. Figure 3.9 shows key views along the corridor. On Garvey Avenue itself, views vary considerably. Where there is no median, and where street tree planting is sparse and trees small, the view is not one to savor and there is little unique to appreciate. In a few places, however, when looking directly at an urban forest of median pine trees and majestic sidewalk Eucalyptus trees, views down Garvey Avenue can be lovely and special, and begin to create a sense of a special, cared-for street that one would want to live and shop along. These places are few now, but provide strong clues for how to improve the streetscape. Gateways Gateways are public visual or ceremonial entryways. Improving and adding gateways into the City along Garvey Avenue (Figure 3.10) can reinforce the City’s unique identity and sense of place by announcing a threshold or a passage into a special place, and by creating a sense of arrival. Despite the existence of many unique neighborhoods and destinations in the City, opportunities for gateways along Garvey Avenue have not been fully realized. Furthermore, the sense of arrival in Rosemead from adjoining cities is not distinctive and has the potential for enhancements. An existing gateway is located on Garvey Avenue at the entry from City from Monterey Park at Garvey and New Avenues. Since it is little more than a median sign, however, it is intended largely for vehicles, and as such this gateway can be improved for pedestrians. Alhambra Wash right-of-way has the potential to serve as gateways where it meets Garvey Avenue. Landmarks Garvey Avenue’s major landmarks are another key element to establishing orientation within the area as well as a sense of identity and place. Some of the corridor’s landmarks may be historic in nature. Landmarks can provide design direction and inspiration for new developments, anchor particular area with strong iconic design, and contribute to the design structure of the City. Figure 3.11 shows some key landmarks within the project area. Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-17 Technical Memoranda Compendium Richard Garvey Intermediate School This public school, part of the Garvey School District, is located on a large parcel directly on the south side of Garvey Avenue between Jackson and Evelyn Avenues. What little green space exists on Garvey Avenue within the project area fronts the school, supported by a retaining wall. The main school building, with an entrance on Jackson Avenue, was built in 1937 by the Works Progress Administration. A new gym was built in 2008. Arlene Bitely Elementary School This public school, also part of the Garvey School District, is located on a large parcel south of Garvey Avenue, just southwest of Richard Garvey Intermediate School. Like Richard Garvey Intermediate School, it has some green space that is fenced off from the public. Jim’s Burgers The iconic pastel sign of Jim’s Burger’s has welcomed hungry travelers on Garvey Avenue for years. It sits kitty-corner to Richard Garvey Intermediate School and provides local color and unique context in the face of other cookie-cutter fast-food development. Boca Dharma Seal Temple Located along Del Mar Avenue just north of Garvey Avenue, the Boca Dharma Seal Temple is a modern Buddhist temple complex whose main building, a distinctive wooden temple in the Chinese Buddhist style, was recently completed. The Square Shopping Center This large retail area, a large parcel on the southwest corner of Garvey and San Gabriel Boulevards, is a popular and significant shopping destination along Garvey Avenue. Its prime location and scale, with dozens of small, largely Asian-owned businesses, make it a striking landmark. Urban Design Page 3-18 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Mountain views looking up Alhambra Wash Views should be preserved from the Auto Auction site The majestic San Gabriel Mountains dominate the view at Del Mar Street trees provide critical green views Figure 3.9 Views Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-19 Technical Memoranda Compendium Rosemead’s gateway at New Avenue is geared to cars A gateway with signage here would highlight Alhambra Wash The Square’s signage and location make it a major gateway place Zapopan Park, although out of the planning area, is a natural gateway Figure 3.10 Gateways Urban Design Page 3-20 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Jim’s Burgers’ iconic sign Richard Garvey School has a green but blank presence Boca Dharma Seal Temple on Del Mar Ave The Square is a type of commercial landmark Figure 3.11 Landmarks Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-21 Technical Memoranda Compendium Corridor and Street Design The Garvey Avenue corridor serves as key connections within the city and between neighborhoods for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and automobiles. Although it is designed primarily for automobiles, it is used today as a multi-modal corridor. It is a major transit corridor with both a rapid and local bus line. Regular pedestrian and bicycle activity occurs throughout the day and in spite of the limited pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This section of the Technical Memorandum provides an overview of the Garvey Avenue corridor and other key corridor‘s existing design, such as Del Mar and New Avenues. The Transportation and Circulation Technical Memorandum includes a technical analysis from a transportation engineering perspective of the roadways, pedestrian, and bicycle networks in the City. Corridors, from an urban design perspective, help to define a city’s “look and feel” while also providing geographic orientation; a street’s urban design has a major impact on the overall success of the street from a user and a commercial perspective. A poorly-designed street will not function well from any users’ perspective; it can be unpleasant for pedestrians, unsafe for bicyclists, too congested for transit, too dangerous or inconvenient for drivers, or not welcoming or inviting to shoppers. A well-designed street will allow for all modes to safely use it, with efficient and convenient accessibility for all modes; will offer a pleasant and welcoming environment for shoppers and visitors, and will even be a healthy, safe, and comfortable place to live. Street Network Rosemead’s road system moves traffic using all modes both within town and to adjacent cities. Street types are defined primarily by the streetscape character, modes of transportation carried, and speed and volume of traffic they carry. Within Rosemead they include (1) Freeways, open only to automobiles, trucks, and buses; (2) Major Arterials; (3) Minor Arterials; 4) Collector Streets; and (5) Local Streets. The various street typologies and their functionality help provide an understanding of multimodal circulation. Figure 3.12 shows the street network and hierarchy within the Specific Plan area. In addition to the street types are the regional highways, such as I-10, SR- 60, and Rosemead Boulevard. These highways connect Rosemead regionally but also pose significant barriers within the City to pedestrians and bicyclists as they divide neighborhoods. Urban Design Page 3-22 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.12 Existing Street Hierachy Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-23 Technical Memoranda Compendium Garvey Avenue is one of four major arterials within the City of Rosemead, as is San Gabriel Boulevard, which runs north-south at the eastern end of the Specific Plan Project Area. New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue are minor arterials. The other streets within the project area are local streets. Most of Rosemead’s major arterials are through-streets that crosscut through the city and connect with other cities and freeways. Local streets tend not to extend throughout the city, but are localized to certain neighborhoods. Often this disjointed layout presents a challenge, in particular, to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, because bicyclists who might prefer a quieter neighborhood street cannot take the street very far without becoming blocked. As defined in the Transportation Element of Rosemead’s General Plan, “the function of a Major Arterial is to connect traffic from minor arterials and collectors to other parts of the city, freeway interchanges, and adjacent major land uses. They are the principal urban thoroughfares and provide a linkage between activity centers in the City and to adjacent communities. Major Arterials are designed to move large volumes of traffic, typically in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. They are generally served by regional transit routes and are the primary truck routes in the community.”1 This street definition makes clear that major arterial streets like Garvey Avenue “are designed to move large volumes of traffic.” They are not designed, in other words, to be a welcoming place for pedestrians, nor are they designed for bicyclists, or even for transit (they merely are “served by” transit). In Rosemead, however, major arterial streets like Garvey Avenue are asked to be much more than simply through a corridor for thousands of vehicles. They are not freeways, with their own separate right-of-way. They have many other functions other than moving large numbers of cars. They must move pedestrians, and move them safely. Some of the major arterials, including Garvey Avenue, must move transit efficiently, and provide stopping space for buses and waiting space for transit users. They also must serve as public gathering space in front of key neighborhood nodes. They must be the “front yard” for those who live directly on it. They must move bicyclists. Finally, in Rosemead, it is crucial to note that major arterials like Garvey Avenue also are designated the city’s primary commercial areas. The stated goals of improving Rosemead’s commercial corridors, by reducing strip development and using good urban streetscape design and high-quality development to make them more attractive and pedestrian-friendly places to live and shop, can often run counter to the goals of vehicle throughput. In Rosemead’s General Plan, these stated goals include:  Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element: Revitalize commercial strip corridors by creating attractive and dynamic pedestrian-friendly activity nodes and commercial centers;  Policy 3.1: Encourage mixed-use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials and providing new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities; 1 Rosemead General Plan Update, page 3-4. Urban Design Page 3-24 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium  Policy 3.4: Encourage pedestrian friendly commercial and residential planned developments wherever possible; and  Policy 3.5: Promote lively and attractive ground-floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City’s tax base.2 It is challenging for any street to provide “attractive and dynamic pedestrian- friendly activity nodes” and “lively and attractive ground-floor retail” when there are 50,000 cars in multiple lanes of traffic passing by just a few feet away. Garvey Avenue is a prime example of this inherent conflict. For Garvey Avenue to continue to serve as a major vehicle corridor, with steady or even increasing amounts of heavy vehicle traffic, and yet at the same provide an enhanced and more welcoming and inviting pedestrian and shopping environment, safe for all users, will be a challenging balancing act that will require difficult choices and constant weighing of benefits and trade-offs. It will need, first and foremost, to be designed specifically for pedestrians and for street retail shopping, and for bicycle accessibility; simply allowing these uses on a street designed instead to move large volumes of traffic is not likely to be successful. Still, while it is undoubtedly difficult for a street like Garvey Avenue that carries heavy vehicle traffic to also be one that welcomes pedestrians to stroll and shop on the sidewalks, provides safe facilities for bicyclists, and is a healthy and pleasant place to live, it is not unheard of or impossible. The keys to making Garvey Avenue’s transformation possible are careful attention to urban design together with thoughtful, high-quality land use development. Most important, it must be redesigned specifically for these uses, with pedestrians foremost in mind. A minor arterial street is defined in Rosemead’s General Plan as an “intermediate route carrying traffic between local streets and major arterials. They are designed to carry moderate levels of traffic, generally in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day.”3 New and Del Mar Avenues are minor arterial streets in the Specific Plan area. While New Avenue within Rosemead is primarily residential, Del Mar Avenue, like Garvey Avenue, is primarily commercial, and shares many of the same challenges in enhancing it for pedestrians and improving street retail while also serving thousands of cars. Like Garvey Avenue, it serves bicyclists poorly but is prioritized for a dedicated bicycle facility in the Bicycle Improvement Plan. A local street is a neighborhood street with low traffic volumes. Unlike major and minor arterials, which the General Plan says are designed to move vehicles, local streets “are designed to principally provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to individual parcels throughout the city.”4 Residential neighborhoods, schools and parks in Rosemead are primarily accessed by local streets. All streets within the Specific Plan area, other than Garvey Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, Del Mar 2 Rosemead General Plan Update, page 2-22. 3 Rosemead General Plan Update, page 3-5. 4 Rosemead General Plan Update, page 3-5. Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-25 Technical Memoranda Compendium Avenue, and New Avenue, are local streets, such as Jackson Street, Evelyn Avenue, and Denton Avenue. Garvey Avenue The following section discusses the existing conditions and design of Garvey Avenue in detail. It is a significant street within Rosemead and the focus of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan; history has fashioned it into a street with its own particular character. Garvey Avenue is centrally located within Rosemead. It is the largest and main east-west street south of I-10, mirroring Valley Boulevard on the side of Rosemead north of I-10. By virtue of its location and size, Garvey Avenue serves as the social and civic core of the southern half of Rosemead. Some redesign efforts have taken place on Garvey Avenue in Rosemead in recent years, notably the creation of green medians along certain portions. Significant efforts have been made on other portions of its length, notably in downtown Monterey Park, just west of the project area. A focus of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan is to help the street become a more livable place and attractive shopping destination for the city with attractive urban design components that foster a strong pedestrian environment. Along many sections of Garvey Avenue, many buildings tend to be set back from the street and separated by parking lots or driveways. Buildings are typically between one to two and stories in height, with one-story buildings being the most common. The lack of a clear and consistent line of buildings along the sidewalks, or street wall, to help enliven the street and engage pedestrians has negative consequences: these irregular edge conditions contribute to the overall sense of an environment that caters to vehicles and not pedestrians. Where there is more than one-story, buildings tend to have good design differentiation between the bottom and upper floors of the building. When buildings directly line the street, entries are generous and often have awnings. Since many buildings do not front the street, however, many entries are set back far from the sidewalk and are auto-oriented in scale. Few shop windows are open, bright, and inviting, however, and many buildings shade their windows and turn away from the street, rather than embrace it and open onto it. Garvey Avenue today has some special design elements that help make portions of it lovely – certainly much better than it would be without these elements. In particular, the majestic and massive Eucalyptus trees that line portions of its sidewalks are a special and unique element that should be preserved and enhanced. They enhance the streetscape and pedestrian environment, provide needed shade and air-quality benefits, and help calm traffic. In a few areas of the corridor, there is also a planted median, which contributes even further to these benefits, but the median is only present sporadically, and where it is not present, safety, comfort, and attractiveness suffer. The Eucalyptus street trees, moreover, are not consistently planted throughout the corridor, and many are not healthy and need room to grow (a full arborist’s assessment of these majestic trees is recommended). On the rare blocks of Garvey Avenue that have both large street trees and a planted median with tall trees, these features greatly enhance the Urban Design Page 3-26 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium streetscape, improve the street as public space, and offer significant traffic-calming benefits. Figure 3.13 shows the existing streetscape design on Garvey Avenue. Currently, most of the Garvey Avenue right-of-way is dedicated to vehicles, with disproportionately little space dedicated to pedestrians and bicycles. The right-of- way is 100 feet wide. There are a total of four travel lanes—two in each direction— and two parking lanes, stretching 76 feet in total. For small portions of its length, a 10-foot wide center median separates the westbound and eastbound traffic; elsewhere the median is not present and the middle 10’ become a center turn lane. The landscaped center median is landscaped with shrubs, groundcovers, trees, and conifers. Sidewalks on each side are on average twelve feet wide and are lined with street trees, either large and mature or newly planted. Other amenities and furnishings that could improve the pedestrian experience, such as pedestrian-scale lighting, seating, and other street furniture, are limited. In many areas, on-street parking is underutilized, which is, perhaps, not surprising given the number of off- street parking lots. Figure 3.14 shows an existing cross-section of Garvey Avenue. Traffic volumes on Garvey Avenue compete with and detract from the pedestrian environment. Besides street trees and the intermittent green median, there are few traffic-calming measures to ensure that vehicles move at a comfortable speed for all users of the street. The many surface parking lots encourage people to drive rather than walk to the corridor. The many surface parking lots also deaden street life. There are few pedestrian crossings, spaced much too far apart to provide safe and easy pedestrian access to both side of the street. At intersections, crosswalks are set by default to red for pedestrians, prioritizing vehicle movement and forcing pedestrians to press a button to safely cross the street. Garvey Avenue’s design also discourages pedestrian circulation due to infrequent crossings as a result of the long blocks on either side. Pedestrian crossings are only allowed at major intersections, with no midblock crossings, creating long distances for pedestrians to traverse. Conditions for bicyclists are poor. There is no dedicated facility for bicyclists; many bicyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk for safety. In spite of the lack of bicycle facilities, bicycle ridership on Garvey Avenue is relatively high. Indeed, Rosemead’s Bicycle Improvement Plan found that Garvey Avenue had the most bicycle ridership of any street in the city of Rosemead. Unfortunately, Garvey Avenue does not move bicycle riders safely; the Bicycle Improvement Plan found that nearly one quarter of the reported bicycle collisions that occurred in the city from 2007-2011 were on Garvey Avenue, “likely due to its high use as a bikeway for east-west travel south of I-10 and its lengths.”5 The Plan made the installation of a dedicated bicycle facility on Garvey Avenue its top priority. Figure 3.15 shows the transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment on Garvey Avenue. Rapid and local transit along Garvey Avenue, with no dedicated lanes, is forced to compete with private vehicle traffic, and is given little priority. While there are bus shelters on the sidewalks, there are few other amenities for transit users. 5 Rosemead Draft Bicycle Improvement Plan, page 4-5. Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-27 Technical Memoranda Compendium The median and street trees are among its best features Without a median and trees, the street is less attractive and less pedestrian friendly Alternating street trees provide an interesting experience Some on-street parking is empty much of the day Figure 3.13 Garvey Avenue Streetscape Urban Design Page 3-28 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 3.14 Garvey Avenue Existing Street Section Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-29 Technical Memoranda Compendium Many bicyclists are forced to the sidewalk for safety Garvey Avenue is a major transit corridor Pedestrians have few crossing opportunities Wide intersections are dangerous and unfriendly Figure 3.15 Garvey Avenue Pedestrian, Transit, and Bicycle Conditions Urban Design Page 3-30 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Key Findings  Vehicles dominate the right-of-way. Not only is the corridor designed primarily for cars, a large percentage of the businesses are auto-related. Accordingly, conditions for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists are poor. This is true even though Garvey Avenue is a major transit corridor with both a local and a rapid bus line; even though there are already a good number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crossing the wide intersections; and even though there is a steady stream of bicyclists, most of who are forced to ride on the sidewalk. Addressing these deficiencies to make the corridor a safer and more walkable and transit- and bike-friendly place will be critical to its transformation and future growth – especially if the corridor develops as more mixed use, with more people living directly on the corridor itself.  Garvey Avenue’s role as a “cut-through” route for vehicles attempting to avoid or bypass the parallel I-10 diminishes its ability to serve as a safe and pleasant gathering place, shopping area, and neighborhood street. If significant development along Garvey Avenue is anticipated, the necessity of maintaining Garvey Avenue as a major “cut-through” street for vehicles should be reevaluated.  Pedestrian and bicycle connections to key destinations in adjoining neighborhoods should be established and/or enhanced to provide convenient access for all modes of travel. Sidewalks with street trees and planting strips can provide a safer and more comfortable pedestrian environment, while dedicated bicycle facilities are needed to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists already on Garvey Avenue, and to encourage more bicyclists.  The land along Alhambra Wash (and the Wash itself) is a particular opportunity for new green space along an underutilized water body. Former concrete channels are being re-imagined in Los Angeles, the LA River being the most visible, and a similar effort for Alhambra Wash could help catalyze development in the area and be something Rosemead could be a leader on and become known for. Working with landowners and developers to integrate high quality public open space along the Wash into their development planning can greatly enhance the corridor.  There are no community gathering places, few vibrant public spaces, and few landmarks that serve as iconic elements and provide a unique identity for the Garvey Avenue corridor. These elements are needed to make the street a real place.  Several private mini-malls provide commercial anchors at regular intervals, all along the south side of the street, and should be encouraged to grow into more pedestrian-friendly plazas that add to and enhance the public realm. Urban Design Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 3-31 Technical Memoranda Compendium  Some street trees – especially Eucalyptus – are large and stately and are among the corridor's best assets. Many are also in poor shape, however, and need more room to grow, which will mean expanding these trees’ sidewalk footprint. In some places, the trees have been planted in an alternating, staggered fashion along street-side and then along the building edge. It makes sense to respect this unusual street tree design plan and work with it to help enhance the pedestrian and active transportation environments.  An occasional existing green median is a major asset, but is discontinuous and nonexistent in a number of places.  Views towards the San Gabriel Mountains emphasize the uniqueness of the corridor and offer a special sense of place in Rosemead, as well as provide physical orientation and direction. Opportunities exist to create and enhance well-designed gateways that frame the mountains and reinforce the corridor’s unique identity and sense of place.  The community values the many single-family residential neighborhoods’ character, which abut the project area on all sides, and opportunities exist to preserve and enhance these areas. Opportunities also exist to consider changes to the character of specific areas over the life of the Specific Plan. How to incorporate new uses into the corridor in an appropriate and compatible way, such as mixed-use development or higher-intensity residential development, will be a key issue in the Specific Plan. Urban Design Page 3-32 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Trafﬁ c and Circulation Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 4 x This presents a summary of the Garvey Avenue corridor’s vehicular circulation system as of summer 2014. The full Traffic and Circulation memorandum and associated analysis, conducted by KOA Corporation, is included as Appendix A. The study area includes nine intersections, of which eight intersections are located within the City of Rosemead, and one intersection is located on the border of the City of Rosemead and the City of Monterey Park: 1) Del Mar Avenue & Hellman Avenue 2) San Gabriel Boulevard & Hellman Avenue 3) New Avenue & Garvey Avenue1 4) Jackson Avenue & Garvey Avenue 5) Del Mar Avenue & Garvey Avenue 6) Kelburn Avenue & Garvey Avenue 7) San Gabriel Boulevard & & Garvey Avenue 8) Delta Avenue & Garvey Avenue 9) Walnut Grove Avenue & Garvey Avenue Figure 4.1 illustrates the locations of the study area intersections in relation to the Specific Plan boundaries. Existing Roadway System Interstate 10 (also known as the San Bernardino Freeway) is an east-west regional freeway, providing access directly to roadways within the project area. Near the project area, the freeway has four travel lanes in each direction and can be accessed via local interchanges at New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue. 1 Located on City border Traffic and Circulation Page 4-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 4.1 Location of Study Intersections Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium Roadways that traverse the study area include Garvey Avenue, New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard. All roadways in the project area are summarized in Table 4.1. This table provides a summary of roadway characteristics organized by columns:  Segment: The extents of the analyzed segment are described. New segments were utilized where characteristics of the roadway differ.  # Lanes: The number of travel lanes for both directions of the roadway segment (northbound/eastbound or southbound/westbound) is indicated as a numeric value.  Median/Centerline Type: The roadway median or centerline type is described here.  Parking: On-street parking allowances or prohibitions are identified here.  General Land Use: The land uses along the roadway is described here.  Speed limit: The posted or implied (for residential areas) is listed here. Figure 4.2 depicts the approach lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections. Traffic and Circulation Page 4-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Table 4.1 Study Area Roadway Characteristics Segment From To # Lanes Median Type Parking Restrictions General Land Use Posted Speed Limit NB/EB SB/WB NB / WB SB/EB Hellman Avenue west of Del Mar Avenue east of San Gabriel Boulevard 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted Residential 30 Garvey Avenue west of New Avenue Lindy Avenue 2 2 RM Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 Lindy Avenue Jackson Avenue 2 2 2WLTL Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 Jackson Avenue east of Walnut Grove Avenue 2 2 RM Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 New Avenue north of Garvey Avenue 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted School/ Residential 35 south of Garvey Avenue 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted Residential 35 Jackson Avenue north of Garvey Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted Permitted Residential 25 south of Garvey Avenue 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted School/ Residential 25 Del Mar Avenue Hellman Avenue Emerson Place 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted Commercial/ Residential 40 Emerson Place Garvey Avenue 2 2 DY NPAT/ Permitted NPAT/ Permitted Commercial / Residential 40 south of Garvey Avenue 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted School / Residential 35 San Gabriel Boulevard Hellman Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 2 2 2WLTL 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. Commercial 40 Kelburn Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted NPAT/ Permitted Commercial/ Residential Not Posted Delta Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted Permitted Commercial/ Residential Not Posted Walnut Grove Avenue north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted School/ Commercial/ Residential 40 Notes: NS - No Striping, DY - Double Yellow, 2WLTL - 2-Way Left Turn Lane, RM - Raised Media, NPAT - No Parking Anytime Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 4.2 Lane Configurations Traffic and Circulation Page 4-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Analysis Traffic Analysis Methodology Key tasks undertaken for this existing conditions traffic analysis include definition of study approach and determination of existing traffic conditions. A subsequent expanded traffic report will include the following: trip generation forecasts of the planned Specific Plan land uses, assignment of Project-generated trips to the study area roadway system, and evaluation of the impact of cumulative traffic at the study intersections. This memorandum follows guidelines within the City of Rosemead document Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.1 Traffic study guidelines defined by the City of Monterey Park2 were incorporated into the analysis of the study intersection that is located on the border of the City. Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic operations are evaluated for the existing (year 2014) conditions at the study intersections. Intersection Operations The analysis of peak hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) is the primary indicator of circulation system performance. For the analysis of the study area intersections, the City of Rosemead requires that the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method procedure be used. ICU calculations used to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and corresponding LOS were based on the turning movements and intersection characteristics at the signalized intersections. The methodology calculates the V/C ratio based on a default capacity [C] per lane, usually 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane and 2,280 vph for dual turn lanes. The total intersection loss time of 10 seconds was applied to the V/C ratio. The concept of intersection level of service is calculated as the volume of vehicles that pass through the facility divided by the capacity of that facility. A facility is “at capacity” (v/c of 1.00 or greater) when extreme congestion occurs. This volume/capacity ratio value is based upon volumes by lane, lane capacity, and approach lane configurations. Level of service (LOS) values range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists, whereas LOS F represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay. LOS E is typically defined as the operating “capacity” of a roadway. Significant traffic impacts, the focus of this study, are defined using separate thresholds based on operational changes and multiple level of service values. Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-7 Technical Memoranda Compendium Table 4.2 defines the Highway Capacity Manual3 LOS value ranges, based on volume/capacity ratio for signalized intersections. LOS E conditions denote near-capacity conditions, while LOS F conditions denote at-capacity or over-capacity conditions. Table 4.2 Level of Service Range Definitions Level of Service Flow Conditions Volume to Capacity Ratio A LOS A describes primarily free-flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at the boundary intersections is minimal. The travel speed exceeds 85% of the base free-flow speed. 0.00- 0.60 B LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67% and 85% of the base free- flow speed. 0.61- 0.70 C LOS C describes stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at midsegment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free-flow speed. 0.71- 0.80 D LOS D indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40% and 50% of the base free-flow speed. 0.81-0.90 E LOS E is characterized by unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free-flow speed. 0.91-1.00 F LOS F is characterized by flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or less of the base free-flow speed. Also, LOS F is assigned to the subject direction of travel if the through movement at one ormore boundary intersections has a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0. Over 1.00 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 4 Traffic and Circulation Page 4-8 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Existing Roadway Conditions The analysis of operations at the study intersections was conducted for weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour conditions. New traffic counts were conducted for this study in May 2014. The results of the analysis of existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 4.3. All of the study intersections operate at good LOS values D or better under the existing conditions. At the intersections of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue and Walnut Grove/Garvey Avenue, LOS D conditions are approaching LOS E (near-capacity) conditions. Table 4.3 Study Intersection Performance for Existing Peak-Hour Conditions Study Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU value LOS ICU value LOS 1 Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue 0.790 C 0.666 A 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue 0.812 D 0.772 C 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.710 C 0.706 C 4 Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.598 A 0.555 A 5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.779 C 0.767 C 6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.504 A 0.532 A 7 San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue 0.761 C 0.847 D 8 Delta Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.612 B 0.546 A 9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.763 C 0.881 D ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) Figures 4.3 illustrate intersection turning movement counts during the a.m. peak hour and Figures 4.4 illustrate the same for the p.m. peak hour. The intersection turn movement traffic counts and intersection level of service analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix A. Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-9 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 4.3 Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Traffic and Circulation Page 4-10 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 4.4 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-11 Technical Memoranda Compendium Existing Freeway Conditions The existing freeway mainline level of service (LOS) analysis for the nearby I-10 used information from the Caltrans website to determine existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes, directional flow count data, and peak-hour factoring. The relevant Caltrans5 reports are the 2012 Traffic Volumes Book and the 2012 Peak Hour Volume Data report. The results of the existing LOS calculations are summarized in Table 4.4 below. The LOS values are based on volume and lane inputs and the density of traffic in the peak hour and peak direction. Table 4.4 I-10 Freeway Conditions Analysis Freeway Segment Cars per Hour per Lane LOS I-10, West of New Avenue 6,457 F I-10, East of Walnut Grove Avenue 2,204 E Existing Public Transportation Conditions Public transportation in the study area, as defined here, consists of fixed route bus service and dial-a-ride service. This latter type of service is an advance reservation, shared ride transportation service for senior residents or disabled of any age and their attendants. Existing local bus transit services that collectively provide viable alternatives to use of the private automobile are discussed below. The study area is served by bus transit lines operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority6, City of Rosemead7, and City of Montebello8. Table 4.5 summarizes the service characteristics of the existing transit lines within the study area and Figure 4.5 illustrates the routes of these lines. Traffic and Circulation Page 4-12 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Table 4.5 Characteristics of Existing Public Transit Service in Study Area Agency Line From To Via Peak Frequency Metro 70 & 770 Downtown LA El Monte Garvey Avenue 10 to 15 minutes Metro 176 Highland Park Montebello Walnut Grove Avenue / Garvey Avenue 45 minutes Montebello Line 20 San Gabriel Montebello San Gabriel Boulevard 13 to 21 minutes Rosemead Explorer Route 1 & 2 Circular Route within and Near to City of Rosemead Jackson Avenue/ Garvey Avenue/ Walnut Grove Avenue 60 minutes Key Findings  All the intersections operate at a good level of service, D or better. However, four intersections currently operate at LOS D. They are San Gabriel Boulevard/ Hellman Avenue (a.m.), San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue (p.m.), Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue (p.m.)  Two segments of I-10 operate at LOS E or below in one peak hour and peak direction; these segments are west of New Avenue operates (LOS F) and east of Walnut Grove Avenue (LOS D).  Garvey Avenue is served by three transit providers Metro, Montebello, and Rosemead Explorer. Traffic and Circulation Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 4-13 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 4.5 Local Transit Routes Traffic and Circulation Page 4-14 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Endnotes 1 City of Rosemead. February 2007. Transportation Impact Guidelines. Prepared by the City of Rosemead Engineering Department. 2 City of Monterey Park. February 2006. Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Prepared by the City of Monterey Park Engineering Division. 3 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985 and Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, NCHRP Circular 212, 1982. 4 HCM 2010 – Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. 5 California Department of Transportation, 2012 Traffic Volumes Data on California State Highways. http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/ 6 Metro. Metro Bus and Metro Rail System Map. http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map.pdf 7 City of Rosemead. Rosemead Explorer Transit System. http://www.cityofrosemead.org/index.aspx?page=144 8 City of Montebello. Montebello Bus Lines System Map. http://www.cityofmontebello.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2545 Sewer Sewer Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 5-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 5 x This memorandum summarizes the existing sewer infrastructure system within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area as analyzed by Land Design Consultants in August 2014, see Appendix B for the complete analysis. This memorandum determines the capacity of existing sewer reaches from the assumed development potential to the several Sanitation Trunk systems within the City of Rosemead. Analysis The Garvey Avenue corridor land use consists of multi-family residential uses, school use, mixed commercial/office uses, mixed use commercial/industrial uses, and light manufacturing uses. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan is anticipated to provide for new commercial and residential development in a vibrant corridor with visible, pedestrian friendly activities. For the purposes of the sewer analysis, development buildout capacity was estimated based on existing uses, proposed development applications, and zoning designations. Existing sewer pipes within the study area (Figure 5.1) have been analyzed. The majority of the existing pipes are 8 inch diameter with varied slopes along the flow path which then connects to downstream sewer trunk connections. This particular study has five sewer trunk connections. The study areas between New and Del Mar Avenues have been analyzed. There are two existing 8” sewer lines on both sides of Garvey Avenue within this area that account for discharge flows which is then collected downstream to a 36” trunk sewer. Based on the existing buildout assumptions described above, the sewers downstream will have inadequate capacities and will have to be upsized. The study area between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard has been analyzed in the same manner. There are two existing 8” sewers on both sides of Garvey Avenue that are collected and discharged downstream to a 27” trunk sewer. The sewers within this area have adequate capacities. However, should future plan multi-story high density developments with such as hotels, multi-family residential housing or multi-family mixed use buildings be proposed, the project’s demand may exceed capacity. The remaining study areas between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue area have been analyzed. These areas are tributary to 8” sewer lines along San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue and discharged downstream to 21” trunk sewer. The areas to the north and south of Garvey Avenue have adequate capacities to the 8” sewer line along Garvey Avenue. Sewer Page 5-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Sewer Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 5-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 5.1 Sewer Base Sewer Page 5-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Sewer Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 5-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium However, the 8” sewer line along San Gabriel Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Park Street has inadequate capacity and will have to be upsized. Currently, the some of the existing sewers within the study areas show deficiencies in capacity. This has been identified in the sewer area report prepared in 1996 for the City of Rosemead and particularly located along Del Mar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Emerson Avenue. In addition, a sewer system management plan was prepared in 2009 for the City of Rosemead. An extensive analysis was made of the city’s entire sanitary collection system and a rating system was developed for maintenance and structural defects of all the sewer pipe segments. Defects requiring immediate attention are particularly located along Garvey Avenue between Brighton Avenue and Strathmore Avenue. Sewer Design Based on the L.A. County Department of Public Works Land Development Division’s Sewer Area Study requirements, the existing sewer pipe reaches are flowing at maximum pipe capacity when they are all flowing at one half-full for pipes with diameters smaller than 15 inches. The as-built sewer plans were used to determine the slopes; pipe sizes for the study area are listed in sewer area study tables and maps, all of which are contained in Appendix B. The anticipated sewer discharge flow rates were calculated for various sewer line reaches from Kutter’s Formula with “n=0.013” by using the Flow Master Computer programs. The discharged flow rates (Q) were calculated by using the Zoning Method. The anticipated land use of the properties within and around the study limits were determined by the City of Rosemead’s Zoning Map, Garvey Specific Plan planning area map, and the proposed development projects. For the potential developments without data, flows were based on the zoning map and zoning coefficients for ultimate build-out. For the known proposed development sites, production flows were generated based on building square footage and dwelling units. The Zoning Coefficients are the current L.A. County’s sewer area study flow coefficients. Key Findings  Some of the study areas’ existing sewers show capacity deficiencies. The deficiencies were noted in a 1996 City of Rosemead sewer study; the deficiencies occur on Del Mar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Emerson Avenue. These facilities will need to be upgraded to a larger pipe size.  Some of the study areas’ existing sewer show maintenance and structural defects. The defects were noted in a 2009 City of Rosemead Sewer System Sewer Page 5-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Management Plan; the deficiencies occur on Garvey Avenue between Brighton Avenue and Strathmore Avenue. These facilities will need to be replaced with a new pipe.  Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan shows additional capacity issues based on an assumed buildout projection. The over capacity pipes are the reaches along Del Mar Boulevard to the 36” trunk connection at Emerson Avenue (New Avenue/Del Mar Avenue study area); the reaches along San Gabriel Boulevard to the 21” trunk connection (San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey study area). Further analysis is required as development is considered and proposed. Water Water Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 6-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 6 x This memorandum summarizes the existing water infrastructure system within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area as analyzed by Land Design Consultants in August 2014. The full water infrastructure memorandum and analysis is included in Appendix C. State Resolution No. W-4976 In the recent years, the State of California has been experiencing dry weather conditions due to less rainfall in the area, thus, causing a state wide drought emergency. In an effort to promote water conservation effort, Resolution No. W- 4976 was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission on February 27, 2014 to establish procedures for water conservation measures in order to ensure a reduction in consumption. Since many water utility agencies or companies secure their water supply from multiple sources, including water wholesaler, surface water and/or ground water; the adoption of the this mandate has affected how water utility districts plan their service distribution while encountering various levels of water supply adjustments within each service areas. Analysis The Garvey Avenue corridor land use consists of multi-family residential uses, school use, mixed commercial/office uses, mixed commercial/industrial uses, and light manufacturing uses. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan is anticipated to provide for new commercial and residential development in a vibrant corridor with visible, pedestrian friendly activities. For the purposes of the water supply analysis, development buildout capacity was estimated based on existing uses, proposed development applications, and zoning designations. The development buildout includes:  Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue segment - commercial use designation, proposed supermarket application, and existing school designated as public facilities  Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard segment - mixed use retail/commercial designation, office use, light industrial use, and light manufacturing use. In addition, the former Auto Auction site is designated as regional commercial, while another site located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue is anticipated to be a mixed-use development. Garvey Avenue between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue segment- commercial use designation. Water Page 6-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Water Source/Supply The domestic water supply within the City of Rosemead is served by six water suppliers: Adams Ranch Mutual Water Company, Amarillo Mutual Water, California American Water, Golden State Water Company, San Gabriel County Water District, and San Gabriel Valley Water. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area is within the Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) service area, also known as the South San Gabriel System, as illustrated on Figure 6.1. The make-up of the service area is primarily characterized residential, mixed commercial, and office uses. GSWC obtains its water supply from two major sources: imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and GSWC operated groundwater wells located within the Rosemead service boundary. In the GSWC’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel System, the availability of water from each source is estimated through the year 2035, as shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Current and Planned Water Supply for the South San Gabriel System (ac-ft/yr) Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Purchased Water from USGVMWD 338 2,097 2,375 2,604 2,828 3,015 Groundwater(1) 2,352 1,313 1,134 991 850 733 Recycled Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,689 3,410 3,509 3,595 3,678 3,748 Source: Golden State Water Company 2010 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel System Based on projected use in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 2015-2035 groundwater projections assume a long-term average OSY of 190,000 ac-ft. Using the buildout scenarios described above and based on the GSWC 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and Land Design Consultants’ discussions with the Golden State Water Company representatives, GSWC anticipates that future water demands can be met until 2035. GSWC understands that development within the service area may increase above the existing zoning. That being said, the water lines along Garvey Avenue have the most capacity for potential increase due to the 12” main fronting the Garvey Avenue parcels. Water Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 6-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 6.1 Golden State Water Company Service Boundary Water Page 6-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Infrastructure Within the Garvey Ave Specific Plan boundary, the existing Garvey Avenue water line is served by three segments of 6”, 8”, and 12” mains as indicated on Figure 6.2. The following summarizes the existing size and locations of the water mains at each section of Garvey Avenue: Between New Avenue and Jackson Avenue (Figure 6.3): Two water mains located in this portion of Garvey Avenue serve existing uses on both sides of Garvey Avenue. Specifically, a 6” ci main located north of the centerline, and a 12” pvc main located south of the center line. New Avenue, located on the westerly end of the Specific Plan area, is currently served by a 10” pvc main north of Garvey Avenue and a 12” pvc main south of Garvey Avenue. The side streets -- Dequine Avenue, Lindy Avenue, Prospect Avenue, and Jackson Avenue are served by a 6” pvc or 8” pvc main. Between Jackson Avenue and Del Mar Avenue (Figure 6.4): Garvey Avenue is served by an 8” ci main located northerly of the centerline. Evelyn Avenue, a side street, is served by an 8”ci main and Del Mar Avenue is served by a 10”ac main. Between Del Mar Avenue and Charlotte Avenue (Figure 6.5): Garvey Avenue is served by a 12” ac main located north of the centerline from Del Mar Avenue to Denton Avenue and a 12” pvc main located south of the centerline from Denton Avenue to Falling leaf Avenue and a 12” stl (cl) from Falling Leaf Avenue to Charlotte Avenue. San Gabriel Boulevard is served by a 8”ci main south of Garvey Avenue and a 10” pvc main north of Garvey Avenue. The side street, Brighton Avenue, is served by a 8”ci main south of Garvey Avenue and a 8” pvc main northerly of Garvey Avenue; Strathmore Avenue is served by a 8” ac or di main; Denton Avenue is served by a 12” ac main; Kelburn Avenue, Falling Leaf Avenue & Pine Street are served by a 6” ci main; Gladys Avenue is served by a 6” pvc main; Lotte Avenue is served by a 8” pvc main, and Charlotte Avenue by a 8” ac main. The existing water pressure, under normal daily operations, will range from about 40 psi to 85 psi. The pressure gradually goes up from New Avenue to Charlotte Avenue. The elevation at New Aveune is at approximately 360 feet with a gradual decline to approximately 265 feet in elevation at Charlotte Avenue. These water lines are the main feeds to provide water service to the Specific Plan Area and would also provide sufficient capacity to serve the development limits based on the buildout assumptions provided above. Water Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 6-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 6.2 Garvey Avenue Corridor Water Infrastructure Water Page 6-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 6.3 New Avenue to Jackson Avenue Water Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 6-7 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 6.4 Jackson Avenue to Del Mar Avenue Water Page 6-8 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 6.5 Del Mar Avenue to Charlotte Avenue Water Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 6-9 Technical Memoranda Compendium Key Findings  Future water demands can be met until 2035 based on the land use assumptions and the GSWC’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan- South San Gabriel System.  The water lines along Garvey Avenue have the most capacity for potential increase due to the 12” main fronting the Garvey Avenue parcels.  The Specific Plan and all future development will be assessed for their demand and potential impacts and need for fire-pumps and fire-flow requirements. Water Page 6-10 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Storm Drainage Storm Drainage Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 7-1 Technical Memoranda Compendium Introduction 7 x This memorandum summarizes the existing storm water drainage infrastructure within the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area as analyzed by Land Design Consultant in August 2014. The full storm water drainage infrastructure memorandum and analysis is included in Appendix D. Analysis The Garvey Avenue corridor land use consists of multi-family residential uses, school use, mixed commercial/office uses, mixed commercial/industrial uses, and light manufacturing uses. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan is anticipated to provide for new commercial and residential development in a vibrant corridor with visible, pedestrian friendly activities. For the purposes of the storm water drainage analysis, development buildout capacity was estimated based on existing uses, proposed development applications, and zoning designations. The development buildout includes:  Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue segment - commercial use designation, proposed supermarket application, and existing school designated as public facilities  Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard segment - mixed use retail/commercial designation, office use, light industrial use, and light manufacturing use. In addition, the former Auto Auction site is designated as regional commercial. Another site is proposed to be mixed-use and located at the north-east corner of Del Mar and Garvey Avenues.  Garvey Avenue between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue segment- commercial use designation. The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area’s watershed drains into several drainage systems. The main drainage system is a reinforced concrete (RC) box culvert that runs along Garvey Avenue to the Alhambra Wash and several reinforce concrete (RC) pipes drainage systems. The following summarizes the existing locations and size of the storm drainage facilities at each section of Garvey Avenue. Between New Avenue and Jackson Avenue (Figure 7.1):  A 11’x13’ reinforced concrete (RC) box culvert located along the Garvey Avenue centerline.  A 39” RC pipe located along Garvey Avenue then routed to the north along Prospect Avenue.  Areas to the north and south of Garvey are tabled to various catch basins (CB) and are connected to the 39” RC pipe. The south-east corner of Jackson Avenue and Garvey area is tributary RC box culvert at this location. Storm Drainage Page 7-2 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium Between Jackson Avenue and Del Mar Avenue (Figure 7.2):  A RC box culvert (varies in size 11’x13 to 9x11) located south of the Garvey Avenue centerline.  A 48” RC pipe running in the west-east direction, just north of the Specific Plan area. Areas to the south of Garvey Avenue are tabled to the RC box culvert. The drainage areas to the north of Garvey Avenue are conveyed along Garvey Avenue then through the side streets to the north to the 48” RC pipe. Between Del Mar Avenue and Charlotte Avenue (Figure 7.3):  A RC box culvert (varies in size 7’x9 to 12x9) located south of the Garvey Avenue centerline to the Alhambra Wash  A 24” RC pipe running in the north-south direction along Strathmore Avenue.  A 42” RC pipe running in the north-south direction along San Gabriel Boulevard.  A 27” RC pipe running in the west-east direction along Garvey Avenue.  A RC pipe (varies in size 30” to 42”) located along Newmark Avenue to the Alhambra Wash. The drainage areas on the south of Garvey from the side streets Brighton to Denton Avenues are tributary to the RC box culvert and the side streets from Kelburn Avenue to San Gabriel Boulevard are tabled to the RC pipes along Newman Avenue. The drainage areas on the north of Garvey Avenue from Brighton to the Alhambra Wash are tabled to the RC Box culvert as well. The area to the north of the Alhambra Wash and San Gabriel Boulevard is tabled to the 42” RC pipe along San Gabriel Boulevard. The drainage areas from these storm drains are all collected and discharged to the Alhambra Wash. The remaining drainage area east of San Gabriel Boulevard is collected to 27” RC pipe drain system along Garvey Avenue and discharged east of the Specific Plan area. Storm Drainage Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 7-3 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 7.1 New Avenue to Jackson Avenue Storm Drainage Page 7-4 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Storm Drainage Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 7-5 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 7-2 Jackson Avenue to Del Mar Avenue Storm Drainage Page 7-6 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Storm Drainage Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 7-7 Technical Memoranda Compendium Figure 7-3 Del Mar Avenue to Charlotte Avenue Storm Drainage Page 7-8 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. Storm Drainage Rosemead Garvey Avenue Page 7-9 Technical Memoranda Compendium Future Development Storm drains must be analyzed to meet all regulatory requirements, including but not limited to:  Hydrology and Hydraulics Reports  Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)  Low Impact Development (LID)  Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and  City and/or County standards such as on-site retention/detention. Key Findings  The Specific Plan and all future development will be assessed for their demand and potential impacts to the existing storm drainage system.  Future development must minimize the amount of storm water runoff into the storm drainage system. Storm Drainage Page 7-10 Rosemead Garvey Avenue Technical Memoranda Compendium This page intentionally left blank. September 2, 2014 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR Rosemead, CA August 29, 2014 EXISTING CONDITIONS Prepared for: MIG 169 North Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 744-9872 Prepared by: 1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Monterey Park, California 91754 (323) 260-4703 JB41022 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page i Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................7 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. EXISTING FREEWAY CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 14 ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................................................. 15 List of Tables TABLE 1 – LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGE DEFINITIONS 6 TABLE 2 – STUDY AREA ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 7 TABLE 3 – CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE IN STUDY AREA 8 TABLE 4 – STUDY INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE FOR EXISTING PEAK-HOUR CONDITIONS 10 TABLE 5 – I-10 FREEWAY CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 14 List of Figures FIGURE 1 – SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY 2 FIGURE 2 – LOCATION OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS 3 FIGURE 3 – LOCAL TRANSIT ROUTES 9 FIGURE 4 – EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION 11 FIGURE 5 – EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 12 FIGURE 6 – EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 13 Appendices APPENDIX A – INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B – EXISTING CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 1 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. INTRODUCTION Framework The traffic analysis presented in this report was conducted for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (Project) and the associated environmental documentation. KOA Corporation created this report for the City of Rosemead, while under a subcontract with MIG. The name "Project" refers to the proposed Specific Plan within this document. NOTE: This interim version of the traffic report focuses on existing conditions only. This traffic analysis documents the methods and results of the analysis of existing circulation conditions within the Specific Plan Project study area. The expanded traffic report will provide recommendations regarding physical roadway facility, traffic signal, and transit enhancements, and all elements that are necessary to adequately accommodate anticipated growth. Scope of Traffic Impact Study The scope of the traffic impact study conducted for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan update was developed during coordination efforts with MIG and the City of Rosemead. Based on the commercial corridors where land uses would primarily change or intensify under the Specific Plan, and also based on the locations of major roadway intersections, a study area was developed. The study area includes nine intersections, of which eight intersections are located within the City of Rosemead, and one intersection is located on the border of the City of Rosemead and the City of Monterey Park: 1) Del Mar Avenue & Hellman Avenue 2) San Gabriel Boulevard & Hellman Avenue 3) New Avenue & Garvey Avenue * 4) Jackson Avenue & Garvey Avenue 5) Del Mar Avenue & Garvey Avenue 6) Kelburn Avenue & Garvey Avenue 7) San Gabriel Boulevard & & Garvey Avenue 8) Delta Avenue & Garvey Avenue 9) Walnut Grove Avenue & Garvey Avenue * Located on City border Significant traffic impacts of development that could result from implementation of the Project land use plan will be evaluated within the expanded traffic report for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods at the study intersections. Figure 1 illustrates the Specific Plan boundaries, in relationship to the area roadway network. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the study area intersections in relation to the Specific Plan boundaries and the transportation analysis zones or TAZs used for the land use trip generation analysis. SANGABRIEL ROSEMEAD MONTEREYPARK Al ha mbr a Wa s h Fern St Virginia St Twin AveArtson StGeranio DrOlney St S New AveLaf ayette St Lindy AveColumbia St Eckhart AvePaljay AveHellman Ave Stallo AveRockhold AveRamonaBlvd Pine StGarvey Ave Newmark Ave delMarAveStevens AveHershey St Dorothy St New AveAngelusAveEmerson Pl FallingLeafAveN San Gabriel BlvdDenton AveKelburn AveAlanreed AveW Saxon Ave Charlotte AveGladys AveElizabeth AveEvelyn AveFern Ave Isabel AveEarle AveJackson AveDelta AveProspect AvelaPresaAveWhitmore St Burton AveWillard AveBrighton StStrathmore AveWalnut Grove AveSunshine EducationalCenter RosemeadEducationCenter NewAvenueSchool Jesus ChristOf LatterDay Saints RosemeadChristianCenter FirstPresbyterianChurch Kingdom Hall OfJehovahs Witnesses Open BibleChurch Rosemead ChurchOf TheNazarene TestimonyOf ChristMission ZionLutheranChurch Willard (Frances)Elementary School Sanchez(GeorgeI) Elementary School Duff (Margaret)ElementarySchool EmersonElementarySchool Bitely (Arlene)ElementarySchool Garvey (Richard) MiddleSchool ZapopanPark GarveyPark LEGEND Specific PLan Boundary City Boundary Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Specific Plan Boundary Figure 1 N No Scale !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( SANGABRIEL ROSEMEAD MONTEREYPARK Al ha mbr a Wa s h Fern St Virginia St Twin AveArtson StGeranio DrOlney St S New AveLaf ayette St Lindy AveColumbia St Eckhart AvePaljay AveHellman Ave Stallo AveRockhold AveRamonaBlvd Pine StGarvey Ave Newmark Ave delMarAveStevens AveHershey St Dorothy St New AveAngelusAveEmerson Pl FallingLeafAveN San Gabriel BlvdDenton AveKelburn AveAlanreed AveW Saxon Ave Charlotte AveGladys AveElizabeth AveEvelyn AveFern Ave Isabel AveEarle AveJackson AveDelta AveProspect AvelaPresaAveWhitmore St Burton AveWillard AveBrighton StStrathmore AveWalnut Grove Ave1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sunshine EducationalCenter RosemeadEducationCenter NewAvenueSchool Jesus ChristOf LatterDay Saints RosemeadChristianCenter FirstPresbyterianChurch Kingdom Hall OfJehovahs Witnesses Open BibleChurch Rosemead ChurchOf TheNazarene TestimonyOf ChristMission ZionLutheranChurch Willard (Frances)Elementary School Sanchez(GeorgeI) Elementary School Duff (Margaret)ElementarySchool EmersonElementarySchool Bitely (Arlene)ElementarySchool Garvey (Richard)Middle School ZapopanPark GarveyPark LEGEND Specific PLan Boundary City Boundary !(Study Intersection Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Location of Study Intersections Figure 2 N No Scale Background Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 4 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 Analysis Methodology This section documents the level of service methodologies used to evaluate traffic circulation on the roadways within the Project study area. A finite study area was chosen that focuses on the key roadway intersections within the City. Key tasks undertaken for this traffic analysis included the following: 1) definition of study approach, 2) determination of existing traffic conditions. The expanded traffic report will include the following: 3) trip generation forecasts of the planned Specific Plan land uses, 4) assignment of Project-generated trips to the study area roadway system and, 5) evaluation of the impact of cumulative traffic at the study intersections. This report follows guidelines within the City of Rosemead document Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines1. Traffic study guidelines defined by the City of Monterey Park2 were incorporated into the analysis of the study intersection that is located on the border of the City. The following text describes the methodology applied to the traffic analysis. Study Scenarios Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections for the following traffic scenarios, numbered in this specific manner for discussion purposes. Significant traffic impacts are determined in the second and fourth scenarios: 1. Existing (year 2014) Conditions 2. Existing plus Project Conditions * 3. Future (2035) Pre-Project Conditions * 4. Future (2035) Post-Proposed Project * * This is an existing conditions only report. These sections will be analyzed in a later expanded version of this report. The City of Rosemead traffic study guidelines define significant impacts by two specific comparisons of the scenarios defined above:  The incremental change from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 (Project Impacts)  The incremental change from Scenario 3 to Scenario 4 (Cumulative Impacts) The City of Monterey Park traffic study guidelines define significant impacts by a single comparison of these scenarios:  The incremental change from Scenario 3 to Scenario 4 (Cumulative Impacts) Intersection Operations Analysis The analysis of peak hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) is the primary indicator of circulation system performance. For the analysis of the study area intersections, the City of Rosemead requires Background Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 5 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 that the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method procedure be used. ICU calculations used to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and corresponding LOS were based on the turning movements and intersection characteristics at the signalized intersections. The methodology calculates the V/C ratio based on a default capacity [C] per lane, usually 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane and 2,280 vph for dual turn lanes. The total intersection loss time of 10 seconds was applied to the V/C ratio. The concept of intersection level of service is calculated as the volume of vehicles that pass through the facility divided by the capacity of that facility. A facility is “at capacity” (v/c of 1.00 or greater) when extreme congestion occurs. This volume/capacity ratio value is based upon volumes by lane, lane capacity, and approach lane configurations. Level of service (LOS) values range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists, whereas LOS F represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay. LOS E is typically defined as the operating “capacity” of a roadway. Significant traffic impacts, the focus of this study, are defined using separate thresholds based on operational changes and multiple level of service values. Table 1 defines the Highway Capacity Manual3 LOS value ranges, based on volume/capacity ratio for signalized intersections. LOS E conditions denote near-capacity conditions, while LOS F conditions denote at-capacity or over- capacity conditions. Background Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 6 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 Table 1 – Level of Service Range Definitions Level of Service Flow Conditions Volume to Capacity Ratio A LOS A describes primarily free-flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at the boundary intersections is minimal. The travel speed exceeds 85% of the base free-flow speed. 0.00-0.60 B LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67% and 85% of the base free-flow speed. 0.61-0.70 C LOS C describes stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at mid-segment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free-flow speed. 0.71-0.80 D LOS D indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40% and 50% of the base free-flow speed. 0.81-0.90 E LOS E is characterized by unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free-flow speed. 0.91-1.00 F LOS F is characterized by flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or less of the base free-flow speed. Also, LOS F is assigned to the subject direction of travel if the through movement at one or more boundary intersections has a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0. Over 1.00 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 4 Background Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 7 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 1.2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section documents the existing roadway configurations and types of facilities for various travel modes within the study area. Existing Roadway System Key freeway facilities within the study area are described below. A description of the roadways that traverse the study intersections are summarized in Table 2. The Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) freeway is an east-west regional freeway, providing access directly to roadways within the study area. Within the study area, the freeway has four travel lanes in each direction and can be accessed via local interchanges at New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue. This report sub-section summarizes the physical roadway configurations within the study area. The discussion presented here is generally limited to the roadways that traverse the study intersections. Table 2 provides a summary of roadway characteristics within the study area. The information is organized by columns, which are described from left to right below:  Segment: The extents of the analyzed segment are described. New segments were utilized where characteristics of the roadway differ.  # Lanes: The number of travel lanes for both directions of the roadway segment (northbound/eastbound or southbound/westbound) is indicated as a numeric value.  Median / Centerline Type: The roadway median or centerline type is described here.  Parking: On-street parking allowances or prohibitions are identified here.  General Land Use: The land uses along the roadway is described here.  Speed limit: The posted or implied (for residential areas) is listed here. Table 2 – Study Area Roadway Characteristics NB / EB SB / WB NB / WB SB / EB Hellman Avenue west of Del Mar Avenue east of San Gabriel Boulevard 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted Residential 30 Garvey Avenue west of New Avenue Lindy Avenue 2 2 RM Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 Lindy Avenue Jackson Avenue 2 2 2WLTL Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 Jackson Avenue east of Walnut Grove Avenue 2 2 RM Permitted Permitted Commercial 30 New Avenue 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted School / Residential 35 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted Residential 35 Jackson Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted Permitted Residential 25 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted School / Residential 25 Del Mar Avenue Hellman Avenue Emerson Place 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted Commercial / Residential 40 Emerson Place Garvey Avenue 2 2 DY NPAT / Permitted NPAT / Permitted Commercial / Residential 40 1 1 DY Permitted Permitted School / Residential 35 San Gabriel Boulevard Hellman Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 2 2 2WLTL 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. Commercial 40 Kelburn Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted NPAT / Permitted Commercial / Residential Not Posted Delta Avenue 1 1 NS Permitted Permitted Commercial / Residential Not Posted Walnut Grove Avenue north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue 2 2 DY Permitted Permitted School / Commercial / Residential 40 Notes: NS - No Striping, DY - Double Yellow, 2WLTL - 2-Way Left Turn Lane, RM - Raised Media, NPAT - No Parking Anytime From To # LanesSegment north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue Median Type Parking Restrictions General Land Use Posted Speed Limit Background Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 8 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 Public Transportation Public transportation in the study area, as defined here, consists of fixed route bus service and dial-a- ride service. This latter type of service is an advance reservation, shared ride transportation service for senior residents or disabled of any age and their attendants. Existing local bus transit services that collectively provide viable alternatives to use of the private automobile are discussed below. The study area is served by bus transit lines operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority5, City of Rosemead6, and City of Montebello7. Table 3 summarizes the service characteristics of the existing transit lines within the study area and Figure 3 illustrates the routes of these lines. Table 3 – Characteristics of Existing Public Transit Service in Study Area Agency Line From To Via Peak Frequency Metro 70 & 770 Downtown LA El Monte Garvey Avenue 10 to 15 minutes Metro 176 Highland Park Montebello Walnut Grove Avenue / Garvey Avenue 45 minutes Montebello Line 20 San Gabriel Montebello San Gabriel Boulevard 13 to 21 minutes Rosemead Explorer Route 1 & 2 Jackson Avenue / Garvey Avenue / Walnut Grove Avenue 60 minutesCircular Route within and Near to City of Rosemead N Garvey Avenue Specfic Plan - Rosemead Figure 3 Local Transit Routes Study Intersection Legend # Specific Plan Boundary Metro 70 Metro 770 Metro 176 Montebello 20 Rosemead Explorer 2 Rosemead Explorer 1 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 10 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 2. ANALYSIS 2.1. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS This report section documents the existing traffic conditions and associated level of service (LOS) values at the study intersections. The analysis of operations at the study intersections was conducted for weekday a.m. and p.m. peak- hour conditions. New traffic counts were conducted for this study in May 2014. The results of the analysis of existing peak-hour intersection LOS are summarized in Table 4. The table summarizes the analyzed weekday a.m. peak-hour and p.m. peak-hour conditions. Table 4 – Study Intersection Performance for Existing Peak-Hour Conditions All the study intersections operate at good LOS values D or better under the existing conditions. At the intersections of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue and Walnut Grove/Garvey Avenue, LOS D conditions are approaching LOS E (near-capacity) conditions. Figures 4 illustrate the lane configurations and intersection control utilized for the analysis of study intersection capacities. Figures 5 illustrate intersection turning movement counts during the a.m. peak hour, and Figures 6 illustrate the same for the p.m. peak hour. The intersection turn movement traffic counts are provided in Appendix A to this report. Intersection level of service analysis worksheets for the existing conditions scenario are provided in Appendix B. ICU value LOS ICU value LOS 1 Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue 0.790 C 0.666 A 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue 0.812 D 0.772 C 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.710 C 0.706 C 4 Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.598 A 0.555 A 5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.779 C 0.767 C 6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.504 A 0.532 A 7 San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue 0.761 C 0.847 D 8 Delta Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.612 B 0.546 A 9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.763 C 0.881 D PM Peak AM Peak Study Intersections ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) Existing Intersection Lane Configuration Figure 4Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes S SS S 3 54 6 S 1 S 2 SSS 987 * * * LEGEND S Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # Intersection Lane Configuration Existing (Year 2014) AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 5Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 62 890 29 56 302 102 60 691 103 181 162 56 2 73 974 15 35 216 114 44 1094 127 126 144 56 3 91 441 98 71 689 139 182 335 133 111 506 46 4 64 77 99 93 779 51 55 48 36 44 780 36 5 121 502 64 68 751 243 175 497 143 131 644 131 6 122 0 71 61 1001 0 0 0 0 1 910 17 7 64 562 141 173 782 232 188 768 158 198 725 74 8 186 5 37 27 1070 1 2 5 7 3 973 153 9 97 349 83 116 894 148 223 667 144 111 836 57 Existing (Year 2014) PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 6Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 54 683 37 33 169 72 92 818 135 134 239 70 2 96 1213 26 30 118 90 71 1183 119 121 182 72 3 57 312 91 80 592 189 185 465 167 193 791 62 4 20 51 50 35 785 65 72 52 31 59 982 17 5 169 523 55 53 674 144 222 452 156 147 864 118 6 85 0 41 40 914 0 0 0 0 2 1091 41 7 129 891 165 163 670 202 196 855 186 219 725 99 8 120 1 19 26 945 1 5 1 7 6 1011 99 9 98 825 141 119 848 202 190 569 101 153 777 81 Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 14 Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 2.2. EXISTING FREEWAY CONDITIONS The existing freeway mainline level of service (LOS) analysis for the nearby I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway) used information from the Caltrans website to determine existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes, directional flow count data, and peak-hour factoring. The relevant Caltrans8 reports are the 2012 Traffic Volumes Book and the 2012 Peak Hour Volume Data report. The results of the existing LOS calculations are summarized in Table 5 below. The LOS values are based on volume and lane inputs and the density of traffic in the peak hour and peak direction. Table 5 – I-10 Freeway Conditions Analysis Cars per Hour per Lane LOS 6,457 F 2,204 E Freeway Segment I-10, West of New Avenue I-10, East of Walnut Grove Avenue Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Attachment Prepared for MIG JB41022 August 29, 2014 Endnotes 1 City of Rosemead. February 2007. Transportation Impact Guidelines. Prepared by the City of Rosemead Engineering Department. 2 City of Monterey Park. February 2006. Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Prepared by the City of Monterey Park Engineering Division. 3 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985 and Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, NCHRP Circular 212, 1982. 4 HCM 2010 – Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. 5 Metro. Metro Bus and Metro Rail System Map. http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map.pdf 6 City of Rosemead. Rosemead Explorer Transit System. http://www.cityofrosemead.org/index.aspx?page=144 7 City of Montebello. Montebello Bus Lines System Map. http://www.cityofmontebello.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2545 8 California Department of Transportation, 2012 Traffic Volumes Data on California State Highways. http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/ September 2, 2014 Rev. 2 Prepared for: City of Rosemead. 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 (626) 569-2100 August, 2014 LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying & Environmental Services LDC Project # 14007-001 2700 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200, Pasadena, California 91107 / 626 • 578•7000 Fax 626 • 578-7373 SEWER AREA STUDY REPORT FOR GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Project Description ................................................................................................1 Sewer Capacity Analysis ................................................................................... 1-2 Sewer Design Analysis ...................................................................................... 2-3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................4 Location Map .........................................................................................................5 Sewer Flow and Zoning Coefficient Table ………………………………………...6-7 Chart S-C4: Sewer Flow Diagram ………………………………………………….....8 Sewer Tributary Area Sewer Flow Calculation ............................................... 9-14 Exist. Sewer Pipe Capacity and Flow Depth Calculations ............................ 15-62 Appendices Appendix A ............................................................................................... Pocket-1 Los Angeles County Sewer Index Maps Appendix B .............................................................................................. Pocket-2 As-Built Sewer Plans Appendix C ............................................................................................... Pocket-3 Zoning Map Appendix D ............................................................................................... Pocket-4 Garvey Specific Plan Tour Map Appendix E ............................................................................................... Pocket-5 Sewer Area Study Map INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to determine the capacity of existing sewer reaches from the proposed development project to the several Sanitation Trunk systems within the City of Rosemead. The proposed development for this particular study is for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Garvey Avenue is well known for the City of Rosemead’s main commercial corridor. The limits for the Specific Plan are between New Avenue and Charlotte Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Rosemead is proposing to enhance Garvey Avenue with new Commercial/residential developments and provide a vibrant corridor with clean storefronts and visible pedestrian friendly activities. The area of this Sewer Study is between New and Charlotte Avenues. The area between New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue is mostly designated as Commercial. A commercial Supermarket is proposed as well as an existing vacant property. The vacant property is designated commercial for future potential development. An existing school is within this area and designated as Public Facilities. The area between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard is mostly designated Commercial. However, there is one area that is designated as Regional Commercial and will provide services in a large retail form to smaller local retailers. This area is known as the Former Auto Auction. One (1) Mixed Use development is proposed at this time and located at the north-east corner of Del Mar and Garvey Avenues. Another potential Mix Use development is at 8002-8026 Garvey Avenue. The Sunny Chen Property is also a potential development and has been designated as Commercial. The area between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue is currently designated commercial. SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing sewer pipes within the study have been analyzed from the proposed development areas. The majority of the existing pipes are 8 inch diameter with varied slopes along the flow path which then connects to downstream sewer trunk connections. This particular study has five (5) sewer trunk connections. The study areas between New and Del Mar Avenues have been analyzed from contributing sewer flows of the existing conditions and proposed sewer flows from the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. There are two (2) existing 8” sewer lines on both sides of 1 the avenue within this area that account for discharge flows which is then collected downstream to a 36” trunk sewer. Based on the proposed Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Developments, sewers downstream will have inadequate capacities and will have to be upsized. The study area between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard have been analyzed in the same manner. Likewise, there are two (2) existing 8” sewers on both sides of the avenue that are collected and discharged downstream to a 27” trunk sewer. The sewers within this area have adequate capacities. However, should future plan multi-story high density developments with such as hotels, multi-family residential housing or multi-family mixed use buildings are proposed, each project will be assessed individually for sewers capacities and impact. The remaining study areas between San Gabriel Boulevard and Charlotte Avenue area have been analyzed and are tributary to 8” sewer lines along San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue and discharged downstream to 21” trunk sewer. The areas to the north and south of Garvey Avenue have adequate capacities to the 8” sewer line along Garvey Avenue. However, the 8” sewer line along San Gabriel Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Park Street have inadequate capacities and will have to be upsized. Currently, the some of the existing sewers within the study areas show deficiencies in capacity. This has been identified in the sewer area report prepared in 1996 for the City of Rosemead and particularly located along Del Mar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Emerson. In addition, a sewer system management plan was prepared in 2009 for the City of Rosemead. An extensive analysis was made of the city’s entire sanitary collection system and a rating system was developed for maintenance and structural defects of all the sewer pipe segments. Defects requiring immediate attention are particularly located along Garvey Avenue between Brighton and Strathmore Avenues. SEWER DESIGN ANALYSIS Based on the L.A. County Department of Public Works Land Development Division’s Sewer Area Study requirements, the existing sewer pipe reaches are flowing at maximum pipe capacity when they are all flowing 1 half-full for pipes with diameters smaller than 15 inches. The as-built sewer plans (see Appendix B) were used to determine the slopes and pipe sizes for the study area and are listed in sewer area study tables and map herein (see Appendix E). L.A. County Sewer Index Maps are also included for reference (see Appendix A). The anticipated sewer discharge flow rates were calculated for various sewer line reaches from Kutter’s Formula with “n=0.013” by using the Flow Master Computer programs. 2 The discharged flow rates (Q) were calculated by using the Zoning Method. “Land Use” of the properties within and around the study limits were defined by the City of Rosemead’s Zoning Map and the Garvey Specific Plan Tour Map. The Zoning Coefficients used here are the current L.A. County’s sewer area study flow coefficients. For the potential developments with no data, flows were based on the zoning map and zoning coefficients for ultimate build-out. For the known proposed development sites, production flows were generated based on building square footage and dwelling units. The following productions sites are as follows: 1) 7419-7459 Garvey Ave – Hawaiian Supermarket (Commercial Development) 48,000 sf of commercial bldg 48,000 sf x (100 gpd/1000 sf) = 4,800 gpd = 0.0074 cfs x 2.5 = 0.0185 cfs 2) 7801 Garvey Ave – Garvey Del Mar Mixed Use (Mixed Use Development) 33,956 sf of commercial bldg 33,956 sf x (100 gpd/1000 sf) = 3,395.6 gpd = 0.0052 cfs x 2.5 = 0.0131 cfs 45 units (4 floors) 45 units x 250 gpd/unit = 11,250 gpd = 0.0174 cfs x 2.5 = 0.0435 cfs TOTAL = 0.0567 cfs 3) 8002-8026 Garvey Ave – Potential Site (Mixed Use Development) 15,553 sf of commercial bldg. 15,553 sf x (100 gpd/1000 sf) = 1,555.3 gpd = 0.0024 cfs x 2.5 = 0.0060 cfs 60 units (4 floors) 42 (1-bd room) units x 200 gpd/unit = 8,400 gpd 18 (2-bd room) units x 250 gpd/unit = 4,500 gpd =12,900 gpd = 0.0199 cfs x 2.5 = 0.0498 cfs TOTAL = 0.0558 cfs 3 CONCLUSION Based on the sewer capacity analysis and hydraulic calculations, some of the existing sewer pipes from the Garvey Avenue Corridor study area do exceed capacity. These pipes have been impacted due to the development sites along the Garvey Avenue Corridor and will need to be upgraded to larger pipe. The pipes in particular are the reaches along Del Mar Boulevard to the 36” trunk connection at Emerson for the Study Area between New & Del Mar Avenues and the reaches along San Gabriel Boulevard to the 21” trunk connection for the Study Area at San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Avenue. However, should the potential development sites intensify in land use zoning density, further analysis will have to be accounted for. 4 5 6 7 8 Study of M.H. #M.H. #Size (in.) Slope (%) 1/2 Full(<15") (cfs) 3/4 Full(>15") (cfs) Flow Depth/ (0.5 X Pipe Calculat ed Flow/ Capacity Ex. Pipe Capacity A1 6.5900 R3 0.0060 0.0395 A2 5.6900 C3 0.0060 0.0341 0.3100 R1 0.0020 0.0006 19.9100 R2 0.0048 0.0956 22.4200 PF 0.0016 0.0359 A3 0.1800 P 0.0060 0.0011 13.7800 R1 0.0020 0.0276 30.8300 R2 0.0048 0.1480 1 Del Mar Avenue 367 361 8 0.44 0.36 99.7100 0.3824 0.34 CI 1209-1-3 103%106%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 12" A4 9.0700 C3 0.0060 0.0544 60 L.F. OF PIPE 5.4200 **C3 0.0185 4.0400 R2 0.0048 0.0194 A5 1.2500 C3 0.0060 0.0075 2 Del Mar Avenue 361 5 8 0.40 0.34 119.4900 0.4822 0.4 CI 1209-1-3 121%142%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 12" A6 0.9500 C3 0.0060 0.0057 400 L.F. OF PIPE 3 Del Mar Avenue 5 6 8 1.16 0.59 120.4400 0.4879 0.27 CI 1209-1-4 82%83%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 12" A7 1.4800 C3 0.0060 0.0089 300 L.F. OF PIPE 4 Del Mar Avenue 6 7 8 0.80 0.49 121.9200 0.4968 0.33 CI 1209-1-4 100%101%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 12" A8 0.5200 C3 0.0060 0.0031 350 L.F. OF PIPE 5 Del Mar Avenue 7 27 8 1.16 0.59 122.4400 0.4999 0.3 CI 1209-1-5 91%85%OK REPLACE WITH 12" A9 1.4500 C3 0.0060 0.0087 FOR ENTIRE STRETCH 62.8300 R2 0.0048 0.3016 300 L.F. OF PIPE A10 4.8100 C3 0.0060 0.0289 42.7400 R2 0.0048 0.2052 9.8800 R3 0.0060 0.0593 6 Emerson Place & Del Mar Avenue27 TRUNK 12 0.24 0.83 244.1500 1.1035 0.59 CI 1209-1-5 118%133%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 15" 40 L.F. OF PIPE 36" TRUNK SEWER PER S-a-57. A4 9.0700 C3 0.0060 0.0544 5.4200 **C3 0.0185 4.0400 R2 0.0048 0.0194 Garvey Avenue - North Side 362 361 8 3.32 0.99 18.5300 0.0923 0.1 CI 1214-1-2 30%9%OK A1 6.5900 R3 0.0060 0.0395 A2 5.6900 C3 0.0060 0.0341 0.3100 R1 0.0020 0.0006 19.9100 R2 0.0048 0.0956 22.4200 PF 0.0016 0.0359 Garvey Avenue - South Side 366 367 8 3.84 1.07 54.9200 0.2057 0.15 CI 1209-2-2 45%19%OK Area (Acres) Area Area total per segment (Acres) SEWER AREA STUDY TABLE - GARVEY AVENUE COORIDOR (NEW AVENUE TO DEL MAR AVENUE) Comments % Full Cumulated Peak Flow (cfs) Flow Depth (ft) PC or CI Construction Plan # Reach #Zoning Zoning Coeff (cfs/acre) or cfs Calculated Flow (cfs)Street Name Segment Pipe Capacity 9 Note: 1. Calculated using Kutter's Formula with n=0.013 (as in S-C4 graph in PC Procedural Manual) 2. Based on current land use and zoning per City of Rosemead. 3. Based on average coefficients per LA County. 4. For pipes < 15" , % full should be calculated by taking flow depth divided by 0.50 times the pipe diameter 5. **C3 (Proposed Development - 48,000 ft bldg) - Sewage flow has been determined per 100 gal/1000 sf gross floor area multiplied by a factor of 2.5. (See Estimated Daily Sewerage Flows for Various Occupancies) 6. *C3 and *C4 (Proposed Development - Sewage flow determined per zoning categories. 7. Assigned Zoning Coefficients PF=0.0016, CI-MU=0.0084, P=0.0060, C4=0.0084. 10 Study of M.H. #M.H. #Size (in.) Slope (%) 1/2 Full(<15") (cfs) 3/4 Full(>15") (cfs) Flow Depth/ (0.5 X Pipe Dia.) Calculat ed Flow/ Capacity Ex. Pipe Capacity A20 8.1200 R2 0.0048 0.0390 A21 13.5900 R2 0.0048 0.0652 0.4800 C3 0.0060 0.0029 PLOT A22 15.3300 R2 0.0048 0.0736 1.4000 C3 0.0060 0.0084 11 Kelburn Avenue 57 37 8 0.48 0.38 38.9200 0.1891 0.23 CI 1243-4-3 TO 4 70%50%OK (Hellman Ave to Emerson Pl) A23 14.8400 R2 0.0048 0.0712 3.8700 C3 0.0060 0.0232 11.8800 OS 0.0016 0.0190 12 Emerson Place 37 100 8 0.48 0.38 69.5100 0.3025 0.29 CI 1243-4-3 TO 4 88%80%OK (Kelburn Ave to Alhambra Wash) A24 15.5500 R2 0.0048 0.0746 0.2900 R3 0.0060 0.0017 2.1500 C3 0.0060 0.0129 CI 1243-6-7 TO 8 A25 5.6200 C3 0.0060 0.0337 CI 1243-3-5 TO 7 13 Sanitary Sewer R/W 100 354 10 0.20 0.46 93.1200 0.4255 0.40 CI 1243-6-1 121%93%OK (Emerson Pl to Garvey Ave) A26 4.8920 R2 0.0048 0.0235 0.3530 C3 0.0060 0.0021 5.6230 *C3 0.0060 0.0337 1.1630 **C3 0.0558 35.5140 *C4 0.0084 0.2983 14 Garvey Avenue 354 353 10 0.36 0.62 140.6650 0.8390 0.50 CI 1243-6-1 152%135%OK A30 2.8900 R2 0.0048 0.0139 9.1900 C3 0.0060 0.0551 15 Pine Street 353 346 10 0.44 0.69 152.7450 0.9080 0.50 CI 1257-2-3 TO 4 152%132%OK (Garvey Ave to Newmark Ave) A31 89.5600 R2 0.0048 0.4299 7.1100 PF 0.0048 0.0341 5.8540 C3 0.0060 0.0351 1.4890 **C3 0.0567 A32 0.9100 R2 0.0048 0.0044 1.6200 C3 0.0060 0.0097 16 Newmark Avenue 346 320 10 1.20 1.14 259.2880 1.4779 0.49 CI 1257-2-6 148%130%OK (Pine St to San Gabriel Blvd) A33 6.9700 R2 0.0048 0.0335 A34 0.5200 R2 0.0048 0.0025 2.2900 C3 0.0060 0.0137 17 San Gabriel Blvd.320 322 12 0.44 1.13 269.0680 1.5276 0.60 CI 1257-1-5 TO 6 182%135%OK (Newmark Ave Calculated Peak Flow (cfs) Cumulated Peak Flow (cfs) Flow Depth (ft) SEWER AREA STUDY TABLE - GARVEY AVENUE COORIDOR (DEL MAR AVENUE TO SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD) PC or CI Construction Plan # ZoningReach #CommentsStreet Name Segment Pipe Capacity Area (Acres) % Full Area total per segment (Acres) Area Zoning Coeff (cfs/acre) or cfs 11 to Garvalia Ave) A35 7.9200 R2 0.0048 0.0380 2.8300 C3 0.0060 0.0170 18 San Gabriel Blvd.322 295 12 1.80 2.29 279.8180 1.5826 0.41 CI 1257-1-3 124%69%OK (@ Garvalia Ave) A36 1.0500 C3 0.0060 0.0063 6.6500 CI-MU 0.0084 0.0559 19 San. Sewer R/W 295 TRUNK 12 0.52 1.23 287.5180 1.6447 0.60 CI 1257-1-1 TO 3 182%134%OK (San Gabriel Blvd to TRUNK) 27" SANTA ANITA TRUNK SEWER A26 4.8920 R2 0.0048 0.0235 0.3530 C3 0.0060 0.0021 5.6230 *C3 0.0060 0.0337 1.1630 **C3 0.0558 35.5140 *C4 0.0084 0.2983 Garvey Avenue - North Side 355 354 8 1.32 0.62 47.5450 0.4135 0.26 CI 1243-7-3 79%67%OK 55.2500 R2 0.0048 0.2652 5.8500 C3 0.0060 0.0351 7.1100 PF 0.0016 0.0114 Garvey Avenue - South Side 372 373 8 0.40 0.34 68.2100 0.3117 0.31 CI 1209-2-1 94%92%OK Note: 1. Calculated using Kutter's Formula with n=0.013 (as in S-C4 graph in PC Procedural Manual) 2. Based on current land use and zoning per City of Rosemead. 3. Based on average coefficients per LA County. 4. For pipes < 15" , % full should be calculated by taking flow depth divided by 0.50 times the pipe diameter 5. **C3 (Proposed Development - 15,553 ft comm. Bldg) - Sewage flow has been determined per 100 gal/1000 sf gross floor area multiplied by a factor of 2.5. & (Proposed Development - 42 1-bed room, 16 2-bed room residential Apts) - Sewage flow has been determined per Estimated Average daily flows for various occupancies. Multiplied by a factor of 2.5. **C3 (Proposed Development - 33,956 ft comm. Bldg) - Sewage flow has been determined per 100 gal/1000 sf gross floor area multiplied by a factor of 2.5. & (Proposed Development - 45 2-bed room residential Apts) - Sewage flow has been determined per Estimated Average daily flows for various occupancies. Multiplied by a factor of 2.5. 6. *C3 and *C4 (Proposed Development - Sewage flow determined per zoning categories. 7. Assigned Zoning Coefficients PF=0.0016, CI-MU=0.0084, P=0.0060, C4=0.0084. 12 Study of M.H. #M.H. #Size (in.) Slope (%) 1/2 Full(<15") (cfs) 3/4 Full(>15") (cfs) Flow Depth/ (0.5 X Pipe Calculat ed Flow/ Capacity Ex. Pipe Capacity A40 52.6100 R2 0.0048 0.2525 7.1000 C3 0.0060 0.0426 20 San Gabriel Boulevard 39 40 8 1.65 0.7 59.7100 0.2951 0.21 CI 1243-8-2 64%42%OK (Whitmore to Park St)A41 1.7400 *C3 0.0060 0.0104 1.1500 C3 0.0060 0.0069 21 San Gabriel Boulevard 40 TRUNK 8 0.28 0.29 62.6000 0.3125 0.35 CI 1243-8-2 106%108%EXCEEDS CAPACITY REPLACE WITH 12" (W'ly Side)620' L.F. OF PIPE (Park St to Garvey Ave) 21" TRUNK SEWER SAN GABRIEL SAN. DISTRICT No. 15 A51 26.6600 R2 0.0048 0.1280 0.3200 C3 0.0060 0.0019 22 Charlotte Avenue 49 308 8 0.44 0.36 26.9800 0.1299 0.2 CI 1194-2-2 61%36%OK (to Garvey Ave) A52 4.9000 C3 0.0060 0.0294 23 Garvey Avenue 308 310 8 0.24 0.26 31.8800 0.1593 0.25 CI 1194-5-3 76%61%OK (Charlotte Ave to Gladys Ave) A50 13.5100 R2 0.0048 0.0648 24 Garvey Avenue 310 TRUNK 8 0.24 0.26 45.3900 0.2241 0.3 CI 1194-1-5 91%86%OK (@ Gladys Ave) 21" TRUNK SEWER SAN GABRIEL SAN. DISTRICT No. 15 A60 1.5600 C3 0.0060 0.0094 25 San Gabriel Boulevard 316 TRUNK 8 0.84 0.5 1.5600 0.0094 0.05 CI 1269-8-4 15%2%OK (E'ly Side) (Alhambra Wash to Garvey Ave) 21" TRUNK SEWER SAN GABRIEL SAN. DISTRICT No. 15 Calculated Peak Flow (cfs) Cumulated Peak Flow (cfs) SEWER AREA STUDY TABLE - GARVEY AVENUE COORIDOR (SAN GABRIEL BLVD TO CHARLOTTE AVENUE) AreaReach #Street Name Segment Pipe Capacity Flow Depth (ft) PC or CI Construction Plan # % Full Comments Area (Acres) Area total per segment (Acres) Zoning Zoning Coeff (cfs/acre) or cfs 13 Note: 1. Calculated using Kutter's Formula with n=0.013 (as in S-C4 graph in PC Procedural Manual) 2. Based on current land use and zoning per City of Rosemead. 3. Based on average coefficients per LA County. 4. For pipes < 15" , % full should be calculated by taking flow depth divided by 0.50 times the pipe diameter 6. *C3 (Proposed Development - Sewage flow determined per zoning categories. 7. Assigned Zoning Coefficients PF=0.0016, CI-MU=0.0084, P=0.0060, C4=0.0084. 14 08:58:32 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 MH 5-6 8 IN 1.16% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 5-6 8" @ 1.16% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.011600 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.59 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 15 01:21:28 PM Page 1 of 1 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 5-6 8" @ 1.16% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 5-6 8" @ 1.16% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.016000 ft/ft Depth 0.27 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.49 cfs 8.00 in 0.27 ft H1 V 1 NTS 16 07/29/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 09:11:20 AM Page 1 of 1 MH 6-7 8 IN 0.80% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 6-7 8" @ 0.80% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.49 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 17 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.1507/29/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166601:24:26 PM MH 6-7 8 IN 0.80% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 6-7 8" @ 0.80% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.50 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 18 07/29/14 09:37:44 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 MH 7-27 8 IN 1.16% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 7-27 8" @ 1.16% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.011600 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.59 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 19 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166601:22:55 PM 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 MH 7-27 8" @ 1.16% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 7-27 8" @ 1.16% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.011600 ft/ft Depth 0.30 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.50 cfs 8.00 in 0.30 ft H1 V 1 NTS 20 01:26:23 PM 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 MH 27-TRUNK 12 IN 0.24% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 27-TRUNK 12" 0.24% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.59 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.10 cfs 12.00 in 0.59 ft H1 V 1 NTS 21 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166601:29:06 PM Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.1507/29/14 MH 27-TRUNK 12" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 27-TRUNK 12" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 0.83 cfs 12.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 22 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 05:05:27 PM 07/29/14 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 37-100 8" @0.48% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 37-100 8" @ 0.48% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004800 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.38 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 23 FlowMaster v5.15 05:03:36 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 MH 37-100 8" @ 0.48% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 37-100 8" @ 0.48% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004800 ft/ft Depth 0.29 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.30 cfs 8.00 in 0.29 ft H1 V 1 NTS 24 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/30/14 10:47:22 AM FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 MH 39-40 8" @ 1.65% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 39-40 8" @ 1.65% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.016500 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.70 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 25 10:44:04 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 07/30/14 FlowMaster v5.15 MH 39-40 8" @ 1.65% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 39-40 8" @ 1.65% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.016500 ft/ft Depth 0.21 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.30 cfs 8.00 in 0.21 ft H1 V 1 NTS 26 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/30/14 10:51:31 AM FlowMaster v5.15 MH 40-TRUNK 8" @ 0.28% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 40-TRUNK 8" @ 0.28% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002800 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.29 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 27 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/30/14 10:54:45 AM FlowMaster v5.15 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 40-TRUNK 8" @ 0.28% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 40-TRUNK 8" @ 0.28% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002800 ft/ft Depth 0.35 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.31 cfs 8.00 in 0.35 ft H1 V 1 NTS 28 Page 1 of 1 11:02:24 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.1507/30/14 MH 49-308 8" @ 0.44% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 49-308 8" @ 0.44% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.36 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 29 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/30/14 10:59:18 AM Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 49-308 8" @ 0.44% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 49-308 8" @ 0.44% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.20 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.13 cfs 8.00 in 0.20 ft H1 V 1 NTS 30 07/29/14 04:53:04 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 MH 57-37 8" @ 0.48% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 57-37 8" @ 0.48% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004800 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.38 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 31 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 04:43:32 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 MH 57-37 8" @ 0.48% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 57-37 8" @ 0.48% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004800 ft/ft Depth 0.23 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.19 cfs 8.00 in 0.23 ft H1 V 1 NTS 32 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 05:14:52 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 100-354 10" @ 0.20% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 100-354 10" @ 0.20% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002000 ft/ft Depth 0.42 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 0.46 cfs 10.00 in 0.42 ft H1 V 1 NTS 33 Page 1 of 1 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166605:14:02 PM Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 100-354 10" @ 0.20% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 100-354 10" @ 0.20% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002000 ft/ft Depth 0.40 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 0.43 cfs 10.00 in 0.40 ft H1 V 1 NTS 34 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 06:46:20 PM MH 395-TRUNK 12" @ 0.52% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 295-TRUNK 12" @ 0.52% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005200 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.23 cfs 12.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 35 FlowMaster v5.1507/31/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166608:37:30 AM Page 1 of 1 MH 295-TRUNK @ 0.52% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 295-TRUNK @ 0.52% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005200 ft/ft Depth 0.60 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.64 cfs 12.00 in 0.60 ft H1 V 1 NTS 36 07/30/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 11:08:10 AM MH 308-310 8" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 308-310 8" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.26 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 37 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 11:05:18 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/30/14 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 308-310 8" @ 0.24% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 308-310 8" @ 0.24% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.16 cfs 8.00 in 0.25 ft H1 V 1 NTS 38 11:14:32 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 07/30/14 FlowMaster v5.15 MH 310-TRUNK 8" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 310-TRUNK 8" @ 0.24% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.26 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 39 11:11:38 AM 07/30/14 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 MH 310-TRUNK 8" @ 0.24% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 310-TRUNK 8" @ 0.24% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.002400 ft/ft Depth 0.30 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.22 cfs 8.00 in 0.30 ft H1 V 1 NTS 40 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.1507/30/14 11:25:20 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 316-TRUNK 8" @ 0.84% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 316-TRUNK 8" @ 0.84% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.008400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.50 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 41 FlowMaster v5.15 11:28:02 AM 07/30/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 MH 316-TRUNK 8" @ 0.84% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 316-TRUNK 8" @ 0.84% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.008400 ft/ft Depth 0.05 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.01 cfs 8.00 in 0.05 ft H1 V 1 NTS 42 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166606:35:14 PM Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.1507/29/14 MH 320-322 12" @ 0.44% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 320-322 12" @ 0.44% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.13 cfs 12.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 43 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 07/31/14 02:42:33 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 MH 320-322 12" @ 0.44% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 320-322 12" @ 0.44% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.60 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.53 cfs 12.00 in 0.60 ft H1 V 1 NTS 44 06:41:25 PM 07/29/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 MH 322-295 12" @ 1.80% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 322-295 12" @ 1.80% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.018000 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 2.29 cfs 12.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 45 07/31/14 08:35:42 AM Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 MH 322-295 12" @ 1.80% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 322-295 12" @ 1.80% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.018000 ft/ft Depth 0.41 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.58 cfs 12.00 in 0.41 ft H1 V 1 NTS 46 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166606:19:26 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 346-320 10" @ 1.20% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 346-320 10" @ 1.20% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.012000 ft/ft Depth 0.42 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 1.14 cfs 10.00 in 0.42 ft H1 V 1 NTS 47 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/31/14 FlowMaster v5.15 02:40:53 PM Page 1 of 1 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 346-320 10" @ 1.20% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 346-320 10" @ 1.20% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.012000 ft/ft Depth 0.49 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 1.48 cfs 10.00 in 0.49 ft H1 V 1 NTS 48 FlowMaster v5.15 05:49:43 PM 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 353-346 10" @ 0.44% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 353-346 10" 0.44% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.42 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 0.69 cfs 10.00 in 0.42 ft H1 V 1 NTS 49 FlowMaster v5.15 02:38:41 PM 07/31/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 353-346 10" @ 0.44% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 353-346 10" @ 0.44% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 0.91 cfs 10.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 50 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 05:20:50 PM Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 354-353 10" @ 0.36% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 354-353 10" @ 0.36% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.003600 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft Diameter 10.00 in Discharge 0.84 cfs 10.00 in 0.50 ft H1 V 1 NTS 51 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166605:43:13 PM 07/30/14 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 355-354 8" @ 1.32% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 355-354 8" @ 1.32% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.013200 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.62 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 52 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.1507/30/14 05:39:14 PM MH 355-354 8" @ 1.32% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 355-354 8" @ 1.32% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.013200 ft/ft Depth 0.26 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.41 cfs 8.00 in 0.26 ft H1 V 1 NTS 53 07/29/14 08:42:58 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 MH 361-5 8" @ 0.40% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 361-5 8" @ 0.40% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.34 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 54 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 01:18:43 PM 07/29/14 Page 1 of 1 MH 361-5 8" @ 0.40% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 361-5 8" @ 0.40% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Depth 0.40 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.48 cfs 8.00 in 0.40 ft H1 V 1 NTS 55 07/28/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 06:58:08 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 362-361 8" VCP 3.32% CAPACITY Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 362-361 8" VCP @ 3.32% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.033200 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.99 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 56 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166601:32:09 PM FlowMaster v5.1507/29/14 Cross Section for Circular Channel MH 362-361 8" VCP 3.32% DEPTH Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH362-361 8" VCP @3.32% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.033200 ft/ft Depth 0.10 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.09 cfs 8.00 in 0.10 ft H1 V 1 NTS 57 07/28/14 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 06:35:42 PM FlowMaster v5.15 MH 366-367 8" VCP 3.84% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 366-367 8" VCP 3.84% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.038400 ft/ft Depth 0.15 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.21 cfs 8.00 in 0.15 ft H1 V 1 NTS 58 06:40:11 PM FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 07/28/14 MH 366-367 8" VCP @ 3.84% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 366-367 8" VCP 3.84% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.038400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.07 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 59 06:47:29 PM 07/28/14 Page 1 of 1 FlowMaster v5.15 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 MH 367-361 8" VCP 0.44% CAPACITY Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 367-361 8" VCP 0.44% CAPACITY Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.36 cfs 8.00 in 0.33 ft H1 V 1 NTS 60 07/28/14 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166606:45:30 PM FlowMaster v5.15 MH 367-361 8" VCP 0.44% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 367-361 8" VCP 0.44% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004400 ft/ft Depth 0.34 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.38 cfs 8.00 in 0.34 ft H1 V 1 NTS 61 FlowMaster v5.1507/30/14 Page 1 of 1 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166606:49:55 PM MH 372-373 8" @ 0.40% DEPTH Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File j:\programs\flowmaster\fmw\14007-01.fm2 Worksheet MH 372-373 8" @ 0.40% DEPTH Flow Element Circular Channel Method Kutter's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Kutter's n Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Depth 0.31 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.31 cfs 8.00 in 0.31 ft H1 V 1 NTS 62 Appendix A Los Angeles County Sewer Index Maps Appendix B As-Built Sewer Plans Appendix C Zoning Map Walnut Grove AvGarvey AvDel Mar AvSan Gabriel BlvdHellman Av Arroyo Dr Guess St Bartlett AvMission Dr Jackson AvJackson AvE Graves Av Muscatel AvSteele St Ivar AvEmerson Pl Ralph St P o tr e r o G ra n d e D r Lower Azusa Rd Rosemead BlvdLEGG LAKEDelta StEllis LnEvelyn AvRio Hondo AvFern Av Burton AvDelta AvPine StHellman Av Denton AvDe Adalena St Kelburn AvNew AvIsabel AvClaudia Cir Artson St RIO HONDORI O HONDOR E C R E A T I O N A L P A R K Paramount BlvdMarshall St Rockhold AvRose St Pitkin St Loftus Dr Charlotte AvFalling Leaf AvRosemead PlWells St Montebello Blvd Columbia St Linda Lee AvLindaLee AvRush St Fern Av Scott St Arica AvGarvey AvCharlotte AvW H I T T I E R N A R R O W SSullivan AvRiver AvWhitmore St Park St Earle AvALHAMBRA WASHALHAMBRA WA SHEgley Av Glendon Wy Hart AvPaljay AvGarvalia AvBeatrice PlRUBIO WASHDomaine St Boydton St Lansford St Faircrest Dr Danna Ct Rockhold AvPine StFairview Av Bentel Av Keim St Stingle AvWillard AvDorothy St Walnut Grove AvRalph St Emerson Pl R IO H O N D O Stevens AvHershey St Edmond Dr Fendyke AvLa Presa AvNewby Av Zerelda St Evansport Dr Ramona Blvd Newmark Av Graves Av Rose Gl en AvSAN Gernert AvEarlswood Dr Vane AvStallo AvAlanreed AvHill Dr P OMO N A F W Y Marybeth AvLandis E A T O N WA S H Claudia AvHighcliff St Bartlett AvRio Dell St Nevada St Lorica St Abilene St Dubonnet AvMuscatel AvViewChariette AvArgo Pl Wilmar Pl Melrose Av Brighton StHovey St Walnut Grove AvLn Barrette Av Grand Av Lashbrook AvWasola St Virginia St Shea Pl Dorothy St Ivar AvStevens AvDelta AvEckhart AvB artlett AvNorwood Pl Gladys AvFern Av Ivar AvEarle AvCortada StHalkett AvKlingerman StDelta AvFalling Leaf AvCharlotte AvHart AvEarle AvGaydon AvAngelus AvProspect AvMarshall St Earle AvGladys AvMuscatel AvNewmark Av Glendon Wy Ralph St Prospect AvKelburn AvRush St Earle AvBartlett AvOlney St La Presa AvGuess St Whitmore St Angelus AvLoftus Dr Fern Av Ralph StEarle AvAngelus AvLawrence Av San Gabriel BlvdDe Adalena StEarle AvRalph St Garvalia Av Gladys AvDelta AvBartlett AvDelta AvBrighton StOlney St Delta AvAbilene St Guess St Loma AvBartlett AvGarvalia Av Charlotte AvTwin AvMelrose Av Halkett AvRosemead BlvdRio Hondo AvSteele St Temple City BlvdValley Blvd Bartlett AvMarshall St Rosemead BlvdUNION PACIFIC RAILROAD METROLINKHalkett AvEarle AvDelta AvWillard AvTurpin StWalnut Grove AvLa Presa AvDubonnet AvZerelda St Livia AvSultana AvSultana AvBlair St Damon St Temple City BlvdValley Blvd Strang AvBrookline AvGuess St Marshall St Strang AvBrookline AvStrang AvBrookline AvEllis LnDe Adalena St Guess St Ellis LnMarshall StRio Hondo AvRalph St Guess St Steele St Evelyn AvBentel Av Valley Blvd Turpin St Eileen LnLee CirEileen LnDubonnet AvRio Dell St Blue Cir Grand Av Scott St Sarilee AvLawrence Av Newby Av Mission Dr Steele St Nevada St Guess St Dubon-net AvGreendale AvMission Dr Ivar AvIvar AvCharlotte AvEarle AvMarshall St Olney St BERNARDINO FWY R ose me ad Blvd Isabel AvBrighton StLafayette StDenton AvChariette AvDelta AvRockhold AvRockhold AvCharlotte AvAngelus AvGladys AvDorothy St Hellman Av Whitmore StDelta AvRamona BlvdSullivan AvLeyburn DrHeglis Av KahnsDr Heglis AvGarrett St Emerson Pl Whitmore St Whitmore StGreendale AvHershey St Hershey St Rosemead PlBurton AvBartlett AvMuscatel AvIvar AvDennis Dr Jenny Wy Bishop Wy Cheri Wy Lynn LnKatie Ln Jackson AvDequine AvLindy AvProspect AvFern Av Daroca AvEvelyn AvVandorf StEvelyn AvDel Mar AvStrathmore AvDenton AvKelburn AvFalling Leaf AvNewmark Av Muscatel AvBartlett AvKlingerman St Jade Ln Walnut Grove AvSan Gabriel BlvdLa Pre sa AvVillage Ln Walnut Grove AvSan Gabriel Blvd El Camino Dr Pueblo Dr Silver Ridge DrVilla Park Av Oakmi ll AvLa Madrina Dr Montebello Blvd LEGG LAKE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK CITY OF MONTEBELLO CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE CITY OF EL MONTE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY CITY OF SAN GABRIEL While the City of Rosemead makes every effort to maintain and distribute accurate information, no warranties and/or representations of any kind are made regarding information, data or services provided. In no event shall the City of Rosemead be liable in any way to the users of this data. Users of this data shall hold the City of Rosemad harmless in all matters and accounts arising from the use and/or accuracy of this data. Adopted by Ordinance No. 891 on May 11, 2010. Amended by Ordinance No. 915 on May 24, 2011. Amended by Ordinance No. 923 on September 25, 2012. Amended by Ordinance No. 926 on January 8, 2013. Amended by Ordinance No. 932 on October 22, 2013. Official Zoning Map City of Rosemead R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 Light Multiple Residential R-3 Medium Multilple Residential C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-3 Medium Commercial C-4 Regional Commercial CBD Central Business District P Automobile Parking P-O Professional Office CI-MU - Commercial Industrial Mixed Use M-1 Light Manufacturing O-S Open Space P-D Planned Development Overlays RC-MUDO Residential/Commercial Mixed Use Development Overlay D Design Overlay Rosemead City Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Appendix D Garvey Specific Plan Tour Map Garvey AvDel Mar AvJackson AvJackson AvEmerson PlEvelyn AvFern AvIsabel AvCharlotte AvWhitmore StPark StEgley AvBrighton AvPine StEmerson PlStevens AvNewmark AvBrighton StVirginia StDorothy StDelta AvFalling Leaf AvProspect AvGladys AvNewmark AvProspect AvKelburn AvWhitmore StAngelus AvFern AvSan Gabriel BlvdGladys AvCharlotte AvEvelyn AvIsabel AvWhitmor Jackson AvDequine AvLindy AvProspect AvFern AvEvelyn AvDel Mar Av Strathmore AvDenton AvKelburn AvFalling Leaf AvNewmark AvFormer Auto AuctionSunny Chen PropertyHoa BinhSupermarketThe Square Supermarketand Shopping Center8150Hawaii Supermarket(Pending Project)VacantGarvey Del MarMixed UseRichard Garvey Intermediate School7419-7459 BigSavor Food76197539Buddhist Temple8002-8026Zapopan ParkPublic SafetyCenter74007438 750075407726-77307740 77227808Pacific Bell79267906 79407968803680748200CVSWallgreens8069-81173035Burger King78017779774377097731McDonalds7561742175397822Potential DevelopmentGarvey Specific Plan Tour MapCity of RosemeadR-1 Single Family ResidentialR-2 Light Multiple ResidentialR-3 Medium Multilple ResidentialC-1 Neighborhood CommercialC-3 Medium CommercialC-4 Regional CommercialCBD Central Business DistrictP Automobile ParkingP-O Professional OfficeCI-MU - Commercial Industrial Mixed UseM-1 Light ManufacturingO-S Open SpaceP-D Planned DevelopmentOverlaysRC-MUDO Residential/Commercial Mixed Use Development OverlayD Design OverlayRosemead City Boundary8235 Appendix E Sewer Area Study Map R2R2R2R2PFR2R2R2PFC3C3C3C3C3R1C3C3C3R2R1R1R1*R1R2R1R2R3R3R3R3R2**C3*C3C3PC3C3R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2C3*R3R2R2R3R2R2C3R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2 C3R2R2R2R2R2R2C3R2C3C3C3C3*C4*C3C3C3**C3C3C3R2 R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2OS*R2R2R2R2R2R2C3C3C3C3*C3C3C3C3R3C3**C3C3R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2C3C3C3CI-MUC3C3C3C3C3R2R2PFPFR2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2C3R2*C4C3R2*C3C3C3C3R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2C3R2C3C3R2C3C3R3R2R2R2R2R22R2R2C22*C4*C4RRProj. No. 11018-001LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC.Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying & Environmental Services2700 Foothill Blvd., Suite 200, Pasadena, California 91007Ph.: (626) 578-7000, Fax: (626) 578-7373http://www.ldcla.com APPENDIX D AQ/CC ASSESSMENT Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Air Quality & Climate Change Assessment March 2017 (20191) Prepared for: City of Rosemead 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Prepared by: MIG 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 This document is formatted for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Air Quality & Climate Change Assessment March 2017 Rosemead, California Garvey Avenue Specific Plan i Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................... i List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices .............................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Regional Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Non-Attainment Status ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Toxic Emission Sources ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Odors ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Defining Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Climate Change and California .............................................................................................................................................10 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................................................17 California Clean Air Act .............................................................................................................................................................17 Toxic Hotspots .............................................................................................................................................................................17 2012 Air Quality Management Plan ..........................................................................................................................................18 SCAQMD Rule Book .................................................................................................................................................................18 Executive Order S-3-05 ..............................................................................................................................................................19 California Global Warming Solutions Act ...............................................................................................................................19 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act ..........................................................................................................19 Air Resources Board Scoping Plan ...........................................................................................................................................20 Water Conservation in Landscaping Act .................................................................................................................................21 California Green Building Standards ........................................................................................................................................21 Project Description ...........................................................................................................................................24 Construction Program .................................................................................................................................................................24 Air Quality Impact Analysis ..............................................................................................................................28 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................................................................28 AQMP Consistency .....................................................................................................................................................................28 Construction Emissions ..............................................................................................................................................................30 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................................................................34 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................................35 Health Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................................35 Climate Change Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................................37 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................................................................................37 Short-Term Emissions ................................................................................................................................................................38 Long-Term Emissions ................................................................................................................................................................39 Reduction Measures ................................................................................................................................................................40 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Planning ...................................................................................................................40 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan ....................................................................................................................41 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................................................................45 References .........................................................................................................................................................46 List of Tables Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ........................................................................................................................ 7 Table 5 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) ............................................................................10 Table 6 Scoping Plan Measures ......................................................................................................................................................22 Environmental Setting ii Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Table 7 CALGREEN Requirements ............................................................................................................................................23 Table 8 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (lbs/days) ..................................................................................28 Table 9(Construction Development Thresholds) .......................................................................................................................32 Table 10 Opportunity Sites Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ...................................................................................33 Table 11 Development Scenario Operational Emissions ..........................................................................................................34 Table 12 Operational Development Standards ...........................................................................................................................35 Table 13 Specific Plan Build-Out Net Operational Emissions .................................................................................................35 Table 14 Development Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................39 Table 15 Specific Plan Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................40 Table 16 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary .............................................................................................................................43 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 2 Radius Map ......................................................................................................................................................................15 Exhibit 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................26 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Air Quality The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin).1 The basin includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains bound the Basin to the north and east that trap ambient air and pollutants within the Los Angeles and Inland Empire valleys below. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) manages the Basin. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with Federal and State air quality standards by reducing existing emission levels and ensuring that future emission levels meet applicable air quality standards. SCAQMD works with Federal, State, and local agencies to reduce pollutant sources through the development of rules and regulations. Both California and the Federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). These pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The State has also established AAQS for the additional pollutants of visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the State and Federal standards differ, State AAQS are more stringent than Federal AAQS. Federal and State standards are shown in Table 1 (Ambient Air Quality Standards). A brief description of each criteria pollutant is provided below. Ozone. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, and highly reactive gas that forms from the atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is most commonly associated with smog. Ozone precursors such as reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are released from mobile and stationary sources. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and can cause cardiovascular diseases, eye irritation, and impaired cardiopulmonary function. Ozone can also damage building materials and plant leafs. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is primarily emitted from vehicles due to the incomplete combustion of fuels. Carbon monoxide has wide ranging impacts on human health because it combines with hemoglobin in the body and reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Carbon monoxide can result in reduced tolerance for exercise, impairment of mental function, impairment of fetal development, headaches, nausea, and death at high levels of exposure. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide and other oxides of nitrogen (NOX) contribute to the formation of smog and results in the brownish haze associated with it. They are primarily emitted from motor vehicle exhaust but can be omitted from other high-temperature stationary sources. Nitrogen oxides can aggravate respiratory illnesses, reduce visibility, impair plant growth, and form acid rain. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a complex mixture of small-suspended particles and liquid droplets in the air. Particulate matter between ten microns and 2.5 microns is known as PM10, also known as coarse or inhalable particulate matter. PM10 is emitted from diverse sources including road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, construction operations, and windstorms. PM10 can also be formed secondarily in the atmosphere when NO2 and SO2 react with ammonia. Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size are called PM2.5 or fine particulate matter. PM2.5 is primarily emitted from point sources such as power plants, industrial facilities, automobiles, wood-burning fireplaces, and construction sites. Particulate matter is deposited in the lungs and cause permanent lung damage, potentially resulting in lung disease and respiratory symptoms like asthma and bronchitis. Particulate matter has also been linked to cardiovascular problems such as arrhythmia and heart attacks. Particulate matter can also interfere with the body’s ability to clear the respiratory tract and can act as a carrier of absorbed toxic substances. Particulate matter causes welfare issues because it scatters light and reduces visibility, causes Environmental Setting 4 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment environmental damage such as increasing the acidity of lakes and streams, and can stain and damage stone, such as that applied in statues and monuments. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide and other oxides of sulfur (SOX) are reactive gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, primarily from power plants and other industrial facilities.2 Other less impacting sources include metal extraction activities, locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Human health impacts associated with SOX emissions include bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. Lead. Lead is primarily emitted from metal processing facilities (i.e. secondary lead smelters) and other sources such as manufacturers of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition. Historically, automobiles were the primary sources before lead was phased out of gasoline. The health effects of exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney diseases, and potential neuromuscular and neurologic dysfunction. Lead is also classified as a probable human carcinogen. Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secontary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry - Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8 Hour 0.07 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 8 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 - Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5) 8 24 Hour - - 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/ m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) - Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) - 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) - 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/ m3) - - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm (57 µg/m3) Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) - Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) - Ultraviolet Fluorescence; Spectrophotometry (Pararosaniline Method) - 3 Hour - - 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas)10 - Annual Arithmetic Mean - 0.030 ppm (for certain areas)10 - Lead11,12 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 Atomic Absorption - - High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter - 1.5 µg/m3 (for certain areas)12 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month Average10 - 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing Particles13 8 Hour See footnote 13 Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape No Federal Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride11 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) Gas Chromatography Source: ARB, June 2013 PPM, parts per million µg/m3, micrograms per cubic meter Environmental Setting 6 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. 8. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 9. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 100ppb is identical to 0.100ppm. 10. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 11. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. Non-Attainment Status Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the Basin. Areas that are in nonattainment with respect to criteria pollutants are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. Table 2 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status) summarizes the attainment status in the non-desert portion of the Basin for the criteria pollutants.3 The non-desert portion of the Basin is currently in nonattainment status for ozone, inhalable and fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Pollution problems in the Basin are caused by emissions within the area and the specific meteorology that promotes pollutant concentrations. Emissions sources vary widely from smaller sources such as individual residential water heaters and short-term grading activities to extensive operational sources including long-term operation of electrical power plants and other intense industrial uses. Pollutants in the Basin are blown inward from coastal areas by sea breezes from the Pacific Ocean and are prevented from horizontally dispersing due to the surrounding mountains. This is further complicated by atmospheric temperature inversions that create inversion layers. The inversion layer in Southern California refers to the warm layer of air that lies over the cooler air from the Pacific Ocean. This is strongest in the summer and prevents ozone and other pollutants from dispersing upward. A ground-level surface inversion commonly occurs during winter nights and traps carbon monoxide emitted during the morning rush hour. Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7 Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant Federal State O3 (1-hr) -- Nonattainment O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Nonattainment SO2 Attainment Attainment Pb Nonattainment Nonattainment VRP -- Unclassified SO4 -- Attainment H2S -- Unclassified Sources: ARB 2014 Sensitive Receptors Some populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. These susceptible populations are defined as sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, the sick, and the athletic. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities (including hospitals), rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Pollutants of particular concern to sensitive receptors include carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, and odors. Specific sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile of the project site include four schools. The Agape Montessori School located approximately 0.04 miles to the east, the Telstar Montessori Childcare Center located approximately 0.12 miles to the southwest, the K-Step Montessori Childcare located approximately 0.22 miles to the west, and Savannah School located approximately 0.23 miles to the north of the project site. Toxic Emission Sources Toxic air contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of “non-criteria” air pollutants that can affect human health, but do not have established ambient air quality standards. TACs are classified as carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic, where carcinogenic TACs can cause cancer and noncarcinogenic TACs can cause acute and chronic impacts to different target organ systems (e.g., eyes, respiratory, reproductive, developmental, nervous, and cardiovascular). Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is emitted in the exhaust from diesel engines, was listed by the State as a TAC in 1998. DPM has historically been used as a surrogate measure of exposure for all diesel exhaust emissions. DPM consists of fine particles (fine particles have a diameter less than 2.5 ųm), including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (ultrafine particles have a diameter less than 0.1 ųm). Collectively, these particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for absorbing organics. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust include carbon particles or “soot.” Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM may be a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. DPM levels and resultant potential health effects may be higher in close proximity to heavily traveled roadways with substantial truck traffic or near industrial facilities. Odors According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complains include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed project is not a use generally associated with substantial odors. Environmental Setting 8 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Climate Change DEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time. Climate change can result from natural processes and from human activities. Natural changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (i.e. changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of gases and changes to the planet’s surface. Emissions affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition, while changes to the land surface indirectly affects the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. The term “climate change” is preferred over the term “global warming” because “climate change” conveys the fact that other changes can occur beyond just average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface. Elements that indicate that climate change is occurring on Earth include: • Rising of global surface temperatures by 1.3° Fahrenheit (F) over the last 100 years • Changes in precipitation patterns • Melting ice in the Arctic • Melting glaciers throughout the world • Rising ocean temperatures • Acidification of oceans • Range shifts in plant and animal species Climate change is intimately tied to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it keeps the planet approximately 60° F warmer than without it. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 150 years) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature. Human activities that enhance the greenhouse effect are detailed below. Greenhouse Gases The greenhouse effect is caused by a variety of “greenhouse gases”. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since the year 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. The primary GHGs are discussed below.4 Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is emitted and removed from the atmosphere naturally. Animal and plant respiration involves the release of carbon dioxide from animals and its absorption by plants in a continuous cycle. The ocean-atmosphere exchange results in the absorption and release of CO2 at the sea surface. Carbon dioxide is also released from plants during wildfires. Volcanic eruptions release a small amount of CO2 from the Earth’s crust. Human activities that affect carbon dioxide in the atmosphere include burning of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and product uses. Combustion of fossil fuels is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 85 percent of all equivalent emissions. Because of the fossil fuels used, the largest of these sources is electricity generation and transportation. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon stored in them is released into the atmosphere entirely as CO2. Emissions from onsite industrial activities also emit carbon dioxide such as cement, metal, and chemical production and use of petroleum produced in plastics, solvents, and lubricants. Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9 Methane. Methane (CH4) is emitted from human activities and natural sources. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, soils, and wildfires. Human activities that cause methane releases include fossil fuel production, animal digestive processes from farms, manure management, and waste management. It is estimated that 50 percent of global methane emissions are human generated. Wetlands are the primary natural producers of methane in the world because the habitat is conducive to bacteria that produce methane during decomposition of organic material. Methane is produced from landfills as solid waste decomposes. Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is emitted during its production, processing, storage, transmission, distribution, and use. Decomposition of organic material in manure stocks or in liquid manure management systems also releases methane. Releases from animal digestive processes are the primary source of human-related methane. Nitrous Oxide. Anthropogenic (human) sources of nitrous oxide include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and production of certain acids. N2O is produced naturally in soil and water, especially in wet, tropical forests. The primary human-related source of N2O is agricultural soil management due to use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and other techniques to boost nitrogen in soils. Combustion of fossil fuels (mobile and stationary) is the second leading source of nitrous oxide, although parts of the world where catalytic converters are used (such as California) have significantly lower levels than those areas that do not. High Global Warming Potential Gases. High global warming potential (GWP) gases (or fluorinated gases) are entirely manmade and are mainly used in industrial processes. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are high GWP gases. These types of gases are used in aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission, magnesium production and processing, and in the production of hydrochlorofuorocarbon-22 (HCFC-22). High GWP gases are also used as substitutes for ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. Use of high GWP gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances is the primary use of these gases in the United States. Water Vapor. It should be noted that water vapor is also a significant GHG in the atmosphere; however, concentration of water vapor in the air is primarily dependent on air temperature and cannot be influenced by humans. GHGs behave differently in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change in different ways. Some gases have more potential to reflect infrared heat back towards the earth while some persist in the atmosphere longer than others. To equalize the contribution of GHGs to climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devised a weighted metric to compare all greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide.5 The weighting depends on the lifetime of the gas in the atmosphere and its radiative efficiency. As an example, over a time horizon of 100-years, emissions of nitrous oxide will contribute to climate change 298 times more than the same amount of emissions of carbon dioxide while emissions of HFC-23 would contribute 14,800 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide. These differences define a gas’s GWP. Table 5 (Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases) identifies the lifetime and GWP of select GHGs. The lifetime of the GHG represents how many years the GHG will persist in the atmosphere. The GWP of the GHG represents the GHG’s relative potential to induce climate change as compared to carbon dioxide. Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration is the process by which plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in biomass like leaves and grasses. Agricultural lands, forests, and grasslands can all sequester carbon dioxide, or emit it. The key is to determine if the land use is emitting carbon dioxide faster than it is absorbing it. Young, fast-growing trees are particularly good at absorbing more than they release and are known as a sink. Agricultural resources often end up being sources of carbon release because of soil management practices. Deforestation contributes to carbon dioxide emissions by removing trees, or carbon sinks, that would otherwise absorb CO2. Forests are a crucial part of sequestration in some parts of the world, but not much in the United States. Another form of sequestration is geologic sequestration. This is a manmade process that results in the collection and transport of CO2 from industrial emitters (i.e. power plants) and injecting it into underground reservoirs. Environmental Setting 10 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Table 3 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) GHG Lifetime (yrs) GWP Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC-23 270 14,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a 1.4 124 PFC-14 50,000 7,390 PFC-116 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride 3,200 22,800 Source: IPCC 20076 CLIMATE CHANGE AND CALIFORNIA Specific, anticipated impacts to California have been identified in the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) through extensive modeling efforts.7 General climate changes in California indicate that: • California is likely to get hotter and drier as climate change occurs with a reduction in winter snow, particularly in the Sierra Nevadas • Some reduction in precipitation is likely by the middle of the century • Sea-levels will rise up to an estimated 55 inches • Extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will increase • Ecological shifts of habitat and animals are already occurring and will continue to occur It should be noted that changes are based on the results of several models prepared under different climatic scenarios; therefore, discrepancies occur between the projections. The potential impacts of global climate change in California are detailed below. Public Health and Welfare Concerns related to public health and climate change includes higher rates of mortality and morbidity, change in prevalence and spread of disease vectors, decreases in food quality and security, reduced water availability, and increased exposure to pesticides. These concerns are all generally related to increase in ambient outdoor air temperature, particularly in summer. Higher rates of mortality and morbidity could arise from more frequent heat waves at greater intensities. Health impacts associated with extreme heat events include heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and exacerbation of medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, diabetes, nervous system disorders, emphysema, and epilepsy. Climate change would result in degradation of air quality promoting the formation of ground-level pollutants, particularly ozone. Degradation of air quality would increase the severity of health impacts from criteria and other air pollutants discussed in Section 4.3 (Air Quality). Temperature increases and increases in carbon dioxide are also expected to increase plant production of pollens, spores, and fungus. Pollens and spores could induce or aggravate allergic rhinitis, asthma, and obstructive pulmonary diseases. Precipitation projections suggest that California will become drier over the next century due to reduced precipitation and increased evaporation from higher temperatures. These conditions could result in increased occurrences of drought. Surface water reductions will increase the need to pump groundwater, reducing supplies and increasing the potential for land subsidence. Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11 Precipitation changes are also suspected to impact the Sierra snowpack (see “Water Management” herein). Earlier snow melts could coincide with the rainy season and could result in failure of the flood control devices in that region. Flooding can cause property damage and loss of life for those affected. Increased wildfires are also of concern as the State “dries” over time. Wildfires can also cause property damage, loss of life, and injuries to citizens and emergency response services. Sea-level rises would also threaten human health and welfare. Flood risks will be increased in coastal areas due to strengthened storm surges and greater tidal damage that could result in injury and loss of property and life. Gradual rising of the sea will permanently inundate many coastal areas in the State. Other concerns related to public health are changes in the range, incidence, and spread of infectious, water-borne, and food-borne diseases. Changes in humidity levels, distribution of surface water, and precipitation changes are all likely to shift or increase the preferred range of disease vectors (i.e. mosquitoes). This could expose more people and animals to potential for vector-borne disease. Biodiversity and Habitat Changes in temperature will change the livable ranges of plants and animals throughout the State and cause considerable stress on these species. Species will shift their range if appropriate habitat is available and accessible if they cannot adapt to their new climate. If they do not adapt or shift, they face local extirpation or extinction. As the climate changes, community compositions and interactions will be interrupted and changed. These have substantial implications on the ecosystems in the State. Extreme events will lead to tremendous stress and displacement on affected species. This could make it easier for invasive species to enter new areas, due to their ability to more easily adapt. Precipitation changes would alter stream flow patterns and affect fish populations during their life cycle. Sea level rises could impact fragile wetland and other coastal habitat. Water Management Although disagreement among scientists on long-term precipitation patterns in the State has occurred, it is generally accepted by scientists that rising temperatures will impact California’s water supply due to changes in the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Currently, the State’s water infrastructure is designed to both gather and convey water from melting snow and to serve as a flood control device. Snowpack melts gradually through spring warming into early summer, releasing an average of approximately 15 million acre-feet of water. The State’s concern related to climate change is that due to rising temperatures, snowpack melt will begin earlier in the spring and will coincide with the rainy season. The combination of precipitation and snowmelt would overwhelm the current system, requiring tradeoffs between water storage and flood protection to be made. Reduction in reserves from the Sierra Nevada snowpack is troublesome for California and particularly for Southern California. Approximately 75-percent of California’s available water supply originates in the northern third of the State while 80 percent of demand occurs in the southern two-thirds. There is also concern is that rising temperatures will result in decreasing volumes from the Colorado River basin. Colorado River water is important to Southern California because it supplies water directly to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Water from the Colorado River is also used to recharge groundwater basins in the Coachella Valley. Agriculture California is the most agriculturally productive State in the US resulting in more than 37 billion dollars in revenue in 2008. California is the nation’s leading producer of nearly 80 crops and livestock commodities, supplying more than half of the nation’s fruit and vegetables and over 90 percent of the nation’s production of almonds, apricots, raisin grapes, olives, pistachios, and walnuts. Production of crops is not limited to the Central Valley but also occurs in Southern California. Strawberries and grapes are grown in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Orange County and San Diego County also contribute to strawberry production. Cherries are also grown in Los Angeles and Riverside County. Anticipated impacts to agricultural resources are mixed when compared to the potentially increased Environmental Setting 12 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment temperatures, reduced chill hours, and changes in precipitation associated with climate change. For example, wheat, cotton, maize, sunflower, and rice are anticipated to show declining yields as temperatures rise. Conversely, grapes and almonds would benefit from warming temperatures. Anticipated increases in the number and severity in heat waves would have a negative impact on livestock where heat stress would make livestock more vulnerable to disease, infection and mortality. The projected drying trend and changes in precipitation are a threat to agricultural production in California. Reduced water reliability and changes in weather patterns would impact irrigated farmlands and reduce food security. Furthermore, a drying trend would increase wildfire risk. Overall, agriculture in California is anticipated to suffer due to climate change impacts. Forestry Increases in wildfires will substantially impact California’s forest resources that are prime targets for wildfires. This can increase public safety risks, property damage, emergency response costs, watershed quality, and habitat fragmentation. Climate change is also predicted to affect the behavior or plant species including seed production, seedling establishment, growth, and vigor due to rising temperatures. Precipitation changes will affect forests due to longer dry periods and moisture deficits and drought conditions that limit seedling and sapling growth. Prolonged drought also weakens trees, making them more susceptible to disease and pest invasion. Furthermore, as trees die due to disease and pest invasion (i.e. the Bark Beetle invasion of the San Bernardino Forest), wildfires can spread more rapidly. Transportation and Energy Infrastructure Higher temperatures will require increased cooling, raising energy production demand. Higher temperatures also decrease the efficiency of distributing electricity and could lead to more power outages during peak demand. Climate changes would impact the effectiveness of California’s transportation infrastructure as extreme weather events damage, destroy, and impair roadways and railways throughout the State causing governmental costs to increase as well as impacts to human life as accidents increase. Other infrastructure costs and potential impacts to life would increase due to the need to upgrade levees and other flood control devices throughout the State. Infrastructure improvement costs related to climate change adaptation are estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13 Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map Environmental Setting 14 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Setting Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15 Exhibit 2 Radius Map Environmental Setting 16 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 17 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The following summarizes Federal, State, and local regulations related to air quality, pollution control, greenhouse gas emissions. Clean Air Act The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) defines the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) responsibilities for protecting and improving the United States air quality and ozone layer.8 Key components of the CAA include reducing ambient concentrations of air pollutants that cause health and aesthetic problems, reducing emission of toxic air pollutants, and stopping production and use of chemicals that destroy the ozone. Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs); comprehensive documents that identify how an area will attain NAAQS. Deadlines for attainment were established in the 1990 amendments to the CAA based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem. Failure to meet air quality deadlines can result in sanctions against the State or the EPA taking over enforcement of the CAA in the affected area. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, district rules, and State and Federal regulations. The SCAQMD implements the required provisions of an applicable SIP through its AQMP. Currently, SCAQMD implements the 8-hr Ozone and PM2.5 SIP in the 2007 AQMP and the PM10 SIP in the 2003 AQMP. The PM2.5 SIP is currently being revised by SCAQMD in response to partial disapproval by the EPA. The 2012 Lead SIP for the Los Angeles County portion of SCAB was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on May 4, 2012 and approved by ARB on May 24, 2012 and forwarded to the EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP. California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 was enacted to develop plans and strategies for attaining California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California Air Resources Board (ARB), which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), develops Statewide air quality regulations, including industry-specific limits on criteria, toxic, and nuisance pollutants. The CCAA is more stringent than Federal law in a number of ways including revised standards for PM10 and ozone and State for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Toxic Hotspots State requirements specifically address air toxics issues through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (known as the Tanner Bill) that established the State air toxics program and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588). The air quality regulations developed from these bills have been modified recently to incorporate the Federal regulations associated with the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (Hot Spots Act) was enacted in September 1987. Under this bill, stationary sources of emissions are required to report the types and quantities of certain substances that their facilities routinely release into the air. The SCAQMD is required to prepare an annual report on the status and forecast of air toxic “hot spots” pursuant to Section 44363 of the California Health and Safety Code. SCAQMD monitors facilities that are not exempt from the fee and reporting requirements of AB2588. Some facilities are covered under “umbrella” permits that address industry-wide categories. SCAQMD has issued general permits for the following seven activities:  Retail gasoline dispensing  Perchloroethylene dry cleaning  Auto body shops  Fiberglass molding Regulatory Framework 18 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment  Printing  Metal plating  Wood striping and finishing Emissions inventories and risk assessment guidelines have been prepared for the seven industry-wide categories. Approximately 1,400 auto body shops, 3,200 gasoline stations, and 1,400 perchloroethylene dry cleaners within the District are covered under these umbrella permits. Depending on the severity of the facilities’ TAC releases, SCAQMD requires either public notification of toxic hot spots or preparation of a risk reduction plan, as follows: Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Risk Chronic Risk Action Risk Level >= 25 >= 3.0 >= 3.0 Public Notification Level >= 10 >= 1.0 >= 1.0 Exempt <1 <0.1 <0.1 2012 Air Quality Management Plan The purpose of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to bring an air basin into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards and is a multi-tiered document that builds on previously adopted AQMPs.9 The 2003 AQMP was adopted in August 2003 and demonstrated O3 and PM10 for the Basin. It also provides the maintenance plans for CO and NO2, which the Basin has been in attainment for since 1997 and 1992, respectively. The 2007 AQMP for the Basin was approved by the SCAQMD Board of Directors in June 2007. The 2007 AQMP builds on the 2003 AQMP and is designed to address the Federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. The AQMP identifies short- and long-term control measures designed to reduce stationary, area, and mobile source emissions, organized into four primary components: 1. District Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 2. Air Resources Board (ARB) State Strategy 3. Supplement to ARB Control Strategy 4. SCAG Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD board on December 7, 2012. The 2012 AQMP incorporated the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2012 AQMP includes the new and changing Federal requirements, implementation of new technology measures, and the continued development of economically sound, flexible compliance approaches. The SCAQMD is currently initiating an early development process for preparation of the 2016 AQMP. SCAQMD Rule Book In order to control air pollution in the Basin, SCAQMD adopts rules that establish permissible air pollutant emissions and governs a variety of businesses, processes, operations, and products to implement the AQMP and the various Federal and State air quality requirements. SCAQMD does not adopt rules for mobile sources; those are established by ARB or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Rules that will be applicable during construction of the proposed warehouse include Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Rule 403 prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any grading activity, storage pile, or other disturbed surface area if it crosses the project property line or if emissions caused by vehicle movement cause substantial impairment of visibility (defined as exceeding 20 percent opacity in the air). Rule 403 requires the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and includes additional provisions for projects disturbing more than five acres and those disturbing more than fifty acres. Rule 1113 establishes maximum concentrations of VOCs in paints and other applications and establishes the thresholds for low-VOC coatings. Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 19 Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 was issued by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and established targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emission at the milestone years of 2010, 2020, and 2050. Statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent beyond that by year 2050. The Order requires the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate with other State departments to identify strategies and reduction programs to meet the identified targets. A Climate Action Team (CAT) was created and is headed by the Secretary of CalEPA who reports on the progress of the reduction strategies. The latest CAT Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature was completed in April 2010.10 CAT also works in 11 subgroups to support development and implementation of the Scoping Plan (see “California Global Warming Solutions Act” herein). California Global Warming Solutions Act The California State Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 (AB32). AB32 establishes the caps on Statewide greenhouse gas emissions proclaimed in Executive Order S-3-05 and establishes a regulatory timeline to meet the reduction targets. The timeline is as follows: January 1, 2009 Adopt Scoping Plan January 1, 2010 Early action measures take effect January 1, 2011 Adopt GHG reduction measures January 1, 2012 Reduction measures take effect December 31, 2020 Deadline for 2020 reduction target As part of AB32, CARB had to determine what 1990 GHG emissions levels were and projected a business-as-usual (BAU) estimate for 2020 to determine the amount of GHG emissions that will need to be reduced. BAU is a term used to define emissions levels without considering reductions from future or existing programs or technologies. 1990 emissions are estimated at 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) while 2020 emissions (after accounting for the economic downturn in 2008 and implementation of Pavley 1 vehicle emissions reductions and the State Renewable Portfolio Standard identified in Air Resources Board Scoping Plan below) are estimated at 507 MMTCO2E; therefore, California GHG emissions must be reduced 80 MMTCO2E (507 – 427 = 80) by 2020, a reduction of approximately 16 percent below BAU. Emissions are required to be reduced an additional 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act In January 2009, California Senate Bill (SB) 375 went into effect known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act.11 The objective of SB375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. SB375 tasks ARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS is a growth strategy in combination with transportation policies that will show how the MPO will meet its GHG reduction target. If the SCS cannot meet the reduction goal, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) may be adopted that meets the goal through alternative development, infrastructure, and transportation measures or policies. In the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region (in which the proposed project is located), sub-regions can also elect to prepare their own SCS or APS. In August 2010, ARB released the proposed GHG reduction targets for the MPOs to be adopted in September 2010. The proposed reduction targets for the SCAG region were 8-percent by year 2020 and 13-percent by year 2035. The 8-percent year 2020 target was adopted in Regulatory Framework 20 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment September 2010 and tentatively adopted the year 2035 until February 2011 to provide additional time for SCAG, ARB, and other stakeholders to account for additional resources (such as State transportation funds) needed to achieve the proposed targets. In February 2011, the SCAG President affirmed the year 2035 reduction target and SCAG Staff updated ARB on additional funding opportunities. Air Resources Board Scoping Plan In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable Statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. The Scoping Plan measures are identified in Table 6 (Scoping Plan Measures). Note that the current early discrete actions are incorporated into these measures. ARB estimates that implementation of these measures will reduce GHG emissions in the State by 174 MMTCO2E by 2020; therefore, implementation of the Scoping Plan will meet the 2020 reduction target. In a report prepared on September 23, 2010, ARB indicates that 40 percent of the reduction measures identified in the Scoping Plan have been secured.12 The cap-and-trade program began on January 1, 2012 after ARB completes a series of activities that deal with the registration process, compliance cycle, and tracking system; however, covered entities will not have an emissions obligation until 2013.13 ARB is currently working on the low carbon fuel standard where public hearings and workshops are currently being conducted. In August 2011, the Scoping plan was reapproved by the ARB Board with the program’s environmental documentation. The ARB has prepared the First Update to the Scoping Plan (Update) with a draft made available for public review on February 10, 2014. The Update to the Scoping Plan builds upon the 2008 Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The Update defines ARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to reach post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s long-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. A draft Environmental Analysis (EA) was released for a 45-day public review period on March 14, 2014. After considering public comments and Board direction, the final First Update, summary of comments received on the draft EA, and ARB’s responses to those comments were released on May 15, 2014. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by the Board on May 22, 2014. Executive Order B-30-15 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on April 29, 2015 that included a declaration for the State Scoping Plan to be updated to include a year 2030 threshold established at 40 percent below 1990 levels as an interim goal between the current 2020 and 2050 requirements (Brown, 2015). The ARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in AB32. The key elements of the plan are to expand and strengthen energy efficiency programs, achieve a Statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent, develop a cap-and-trade program with other partners in the Western Climate Initiative (includes seven States in the United States and four territories in Canada), establish transportation-related targets, and establish fees.14 In 2016, the Legislature codified the 2030 reduction target and ARB updated the Scoping Plan to recognize and identify strategies to meet the new target (ARB, 2017). The draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update is currently available for public review and is scheduled for final approval in June 2017. Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 21 Water Conservation in Landscaping Act Section 65591 of the Government Code requires all local jurisdictions to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance. The ordinance is to address water conservation through appropriate use and grouping of plants based on environmental conditions, water budgeting to maximize irrigation efficiency, storm water retention, and automatic irrigation systems. Failure to adopt a water efficiency ordinance requires a local jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the State’s model water efficiency ordinance. In 2009, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) updated the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to amendments to the 1991 Act. These amendments and the new model ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2010. The amended Act is applicable to any new commercial, multi-family, industrial or tract home project containing 2,500 square feet (SF) or more of landscaping. Individual landscape projects of 5,000 SF or more on single-family properties will also be subject to the Act. All landscape plans are required to include calculations verifying conformance with the maximum applied water allowance and must be prepared and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. California Green Building Standards New California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) went into effect on January 1, 2011.15 The purpose of the new addition to the California Building Code (CBC) is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings using concepts to reduce negative impacts or produce positive impacts on the environment. The CALGREEN regulations cover planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality. Many of the new regulations have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of new buildings. Table 7 (CALGREEN Requirements) summarizes the previous requirements of the CBC and the new requirements of CALGREEN that went into effect in January 2011. Minor technical revisions and additional requirements went into effect in July 2012. The Code was further updated in 2013, effective January 1, 2014 through 2016. Regulatory Framework 22 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Table 4 Scoping Plan Measures Measure Description T-1 Pavely I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-3 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports T-6 Good Movement Efficiency Measures T-7 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Aerodynamic Efficiency T-8 Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization T-9 High Speed Rail E-1 Energy Efficiency (Electricity Demand Reduction) E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use E-3 Renewable Portfolio Standard E-4 Million Solar Roofs CR-1 Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas Demand Reduction) CR-2 Solar Water Heating GB-1 Green Buildings W-1 Water Use Efficiency W-2 Water Recycling W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production W-6 Public Good Charge (Water) I-1 Energy Efficiency for Large Industrial Sources I-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Reductions I-3 Oil and Gas Transmission Leak Reductions I-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements I-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations RW-1 Landfill Methane Control RW-2 Increase Landfill Methane Capture Efficiency RW-3 Recycling and Zero Waste F-1 Sustainable Forest Target H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning H-2 Non-Utilities and Non-Semiconductor SF6 Limits H-3 Semiconductor Manufacturing PFC Reductions H-4 Consumer Products High GWP Limits H-5 High GWP Mobile Source Reductions H-6 High GWP Stationary Source Reductions H-7 High GWP Mitigation Fees A-1 Large Dairy Methane Capture Source: ARB 200816 Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 23 Table 5 CALGREEN Requirements Item Requirements Previous CALGREEN 4.1 Stormwater Management Stormwater management required on projects > than one acre All projects subject to stormwater management. Surface Drainage Surface water must flow away from building Drainage patterns must be analyzed 4.2 Energy Efficiency California Energy Code Minimum energy efficiency to be established by California Energy Commissions 4.3 Indoor Water Use HCD maximum flush rates; CEC water use standards for appliances and fixtures Indoor water use must decrease by at least 20 percent (prescriptive or performance based) Multiple Showerheads Not covered Multiple showerheads cannot exceed combined flow of the code Irrigation Controllers Not covered Irrigation controllers must be weather or soil moisture based controllers 4.4 Joint Protection Plumbing and Mechanical Codes All openings must be sealed with materials that rodents cannot penetrate Construction Waste Local Ordinances Establishes minimum 50 percent recycling and waste management plan Operation Plumbing Code for gray water systems Educational materials and manuals must be provided to building occupants and owners to ensure proper equipment operation 4.5 Fireplaces Local Ordinances Gas fireplaces must be direct-vent sealed-combustion type; Wood stoves and pellet stoves must meet USEPA Phase 2 emissions limits Mechanical Equipment Not covered All ventilation equipment must be sealed from contamination during construction VOCs Local Ordinances Establishes Statewide limits on VOC emissions from adhesives, paints, sealants, and other coatings Capillary Break No prescriptive method of compliance Establishes minimum requirements for vapor barriers in slab on grade foundations Moisture Content Current mill moisture levels for wall and floor beams is 15-20 percent Moisture content must be verified prior to enclosure of wall or floor beams Whole House Fans Not covered Requires insulted louvers and closing mechanism when fan is off Bath Exhaust Fans Not covered Requires Energy Star compliance and humidistat control HVAC Design Minimal requirements for heat loss, heat gain, and duct systems Entire system must be designed in respects to the local climate 7 Installer Qualifications HVAC installers need not be trained HVAC installers must be trained or certified Inspectors Training only required for structural materials All inspectors must be trained Source: HCD 2010 24 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is the adoption and long-term implementation of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Planning Area encompasses 88 acres and 153 parcels of varying land uses located in southwest Rosemead, adjacent to the city's boundary with the City of Monterey Park, California. The Planning Area is completely urbanized and is characterized by commercial, residential, and institutional uses with disparate vacant parcels. The Specific Plan establishes new land uses and development standards for the Planning Area to guide redevelopment and new construction, replacing those currently adopted in the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. It includes conceptual designs for locations seen as opportunities for near-term development potential and identifies vacant and underutilized land that is anticipated to be redeveloped over the life of the Specific Plan. Construction Program Phase 1 will begin January 2015 and includes construction of the hotel, retail and restaurant uses, hotel and retail parking structures, basement through level four of the parking below residential, paving of internal roadways, and landscaping. Phase 2 will begin in October 2017 and includes the construction of two 19-story residential towers and the remaining two levels of parking. It is estimated that the hotel, retail, paving, landscaping, and associated parking will take approximately 21 months to complete and the residential use and associated parking will take approximately 21 months to complete. Phase 1 includes the export of approximately 187,188 cubic yards of soil to account for one level of below-grade parking below the retail use, two levels of below-grade parking below the hotel, and one level of below-grade parking for the parking structure below the residential towers, as well as other factors including clarifier removal and deleterious materials. Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 25 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Description 26 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Exhibit 3 Proposed Land Use and Zoning Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 27 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 28 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS The impact analysis contained herein was prepared utilizing guidance provided in the 1993 SCAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. The thresholds identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as implemented by the City of Rosemead, have been utilized to determine the significance of potential impacts. Thresholds of Significance The Specific Plan could result in potentially significant impacts related to air quality if it would: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant that the region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Average individual project emissions per proposed land use in the Specific Plan have been estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2013.2.2. These estimations provide information that will be used to determine if maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are individually and/or cumulatively significant based on the SCAQMD significance thresholds. These thresholds are identified in Table 4 (SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds [lbs./day]). Cumulative impacts are typically determined by analyzing vehicle miles traveled, long-term pollutant reductions, or average vehicle ridership, depending on the use. Table 6 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds (lbs/days) Pollutant Construction Operation NOX 100 55 VOC/ROG 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOX 150 150 CO 550 550 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD 2011 AQMP Consistency A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintain existing compliance with applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.17 Consistency review is presented below: 1. Construction activities will occur concurrently with growth within the Specific Plan Planning Area. Typical development projects within the Specific Plan area will be exempt or subject to special situation conditions that will eliminate or substantially reduce environmental review in the future. These projects are presumed to have no significant impact on the environment pursuant to State law; however, emission calculations for a range of projects were conducted should the occasion arise where an exemption or other streamlining Air Quality Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 29 mechanism needs screening information. Construction-related air quality impacts were found to be less than significant for all projects ranging from less than an acre to up to 9.5 acres in size, with mitigation incorporated, that will result in short-term construction emissions that are less than the CEQA significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated below. Typical residential and commercial activities will not result in operational emissions that will exceed the daily threshold for NOX and particulate matter emissions, thus, while the project will contribute incrementally to any increases in the frequency and severity of air quality standards violations for which the area is nonattainment, its contribution will not be considerable. 2. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and off-shore drilling facilities; therefore, the proposed project is defined as significant. The proposed project includes a General Plan amendment to modify the land use designation of numerous parcels in the Planning Area; therefore, the project requires consistency analysis with the AQMP. Development of the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites under guidance of the proposed Specific Plan will include construction of housing and other development that could directly accommodate long-term growth in the City. The proposed Specific Plan includes land use designations that support development of up to 1,048 dwelling units accommodating a population of 2,710 residents. Most residential development would be built almost exclusively within the GSP-MU zone. According to DOF estimates, the City of Rosemead is anticipated to have a population of 58,100 residents in the year 2035. This accounts for an increase of 4,595 residents over the 2016 population of 53,505. The Specific Plan does not include excessive housing units that could lead to additional growth beyond 4,595 residents forecasted between 2012 and 2035. Impacts related to substantial population growth will be less than significant. The full build-out scenario of 1,048 units characterizes the worst-case scenario for providing opportunities for population growth in the area. As such, future residential development proposals in the Planning Area will be sufficient to provide for a portion of the City’s housing demand while not inducing substantial growth and will not require future environmental review regarding this issue. The Specific Plan does include construction of new infrastructure at the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites. Construction of new infrastructure within the former LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Site will consist of roadways, sidewalks, curb gutters, stormwater drainage, electrical, water and sewer utilities; however, these improvements would be limited to meet local demand and would not make available infrastructure in an area that was not previously served by the utility provider. HOUSING Evaluating consistency with the AQMP requires comparison of the growth projections for the proposed Specific Plan and the population, housing, and employment projections of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that are used in the AQMP. The proposed Project will allow for up to 1,048 additional households. SCAG growth projections indicate that up to 1,600 new dwelling units will be necessary to meet population demand between 2008 and 2035. Therefore, the 1,048 possible dwelling units generated by the proposed Specific Plan will not exceed the projected amount by 2035 and will contribute over half of the necessary housing units needed to accommodate long-term growth. As a result, project-generated households will have a less than significant impact. EMPLOYMENT The proposed Specific Plan has the capacity to support the development of 713,935 gross square feet of new non- residential commercial space- primarily retail, entertainment, and service operations. Using the Employment Density Study prepared for the SCAG region (SCAG 2001), the proposed commercial uses could generate up to 2,197 new employees at one employee per 325 square feet for retail and services. The SCAG RTP indicated that the City had 16,400 jobs in 2008 and is projected to increase to 17,600 jobs by 2035 for a net increase of 1,200 jobs. The increase created by the proposed Project is not within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and, thus, will be attributable to unanticipated growth in the area. Air Quality Impact Analysis 30 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project will not conflict with the AQMP. As discussed in herein, reasonable mitigation has been incorporated to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation of the project. Because the project will result in less-than-significant construction and operational air quality impacts, conflicts with the AQMP will be avoided and associated. Regional and Localized Emissions An Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment was prepared by MIG to identify sources of criteria pollutant emissions that will result from construction and operation of the project. The assessment includes forecasting emissions generated by the proposed Specific Plan and evaluates the effects of those emissions, if any, and if any potentially significant impacts may occur. MIG evaluated a spectrum of prototypical development projects to disclosure emissions levels from common and worst-case activities in light of the City’s goal of minimizing future environmental review for future projects within the Planning Area. The prototypical development activities included those on (1) an average-sized parcel, (2) the largest parcel existing in the land use designation, and (3) the development threshold-sized parcel established by calculating the level of activity where the lowest dominating daily emission threshold would be exceeded and the corresponding parcel size identified in CalEEMod. MIG did not evaluate projects from the GSP-OS/P or GSP-R/C zoning districts. Based on the uses allowed in these designations, as well as the size and number of parcels, development within these land uses designations will be substantially similar to that within the GSP-MU and GSP zones; thus, separate model runs are not necessary. GSP-OS/P zoning district is designed for surface parking or parkland and all parcels combined in this district equal less than an acre. The GSP-R/C district includes one large parcel – over 8 acres in size – but this is the site of the existing Richard Garvey Intermediate School and is assumed to have no potential for redevelopment. The second largest parcel in the Residential/Commercial district is included in plans for the amalgamated former LA Auto Auction Site. All other parcels in the GSP-R/C zone are less than ¼ acre in size. The analytical discussion documented herein focuses on impacts from potential development within the GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts; however, it should be noted that the analysis also accounts for similar development potential in the GSP-R/C and GSP-O/S zones. “Typical” developments were modeled by identifying the average lot size within each district. "Maximum” development scenarios were modeled using the largest lot within each district.1 Construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions are discussed in detail below. Construction Emissions Short-term criteria pollutant emissions will occur during on-site site clearing, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Emissions will occur from use of construction equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils in the form of fugitive dust. To determine if construction of the proposed project could result in a significant air quality impact, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) has been utilized. Default CalEEMod construction phase lengths based on SCAQMD construction survey data are used to represent the most generic form of development possible during the life of the Specific Plan. SCAQMD collected the survey data elicited equipment needs for construction projects based on the horizontal area of the project site. The air quality specialists assumed a continuance horizontal project site for multi-story prototypical development scenarios to determine equipment needs for project greater than one story in height. The environmental team used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data to determine the average parcel size in both the GSP and GSP-MU land use designations. Different thresholds of development standards are Stated in Specific Plan based on zoning and whether the “Provision of Community Benefits” is met or not. Of most consequence to our modeling is the max FAR allowed for each zoning district. When modeling the average-sized parcels from the GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts, we went with the lower limit (0.75 FAR for GSP, 1.6 FAR for GSP-MU). This characterizes the kind of typical developments we expect to occur within each land use. When modeling the largest parcels from both districts, it was 1 The former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Site was not included in the average or maximum scenarios for the GSP- MU zone because it is identified as an Opportunity Site Air Quality Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 31 assumed that Community Benefits would be provided, and the higher limits were used (1.0 FAR for GSP, 3.0 for GSP-MU). This represents the most impactful projects feasible within the Specific Plan and allowed us to capture the greatest range of impacts between a typical and a major project. Technical specialists modified the potential for development to account for height, intensity, parking requirements, and design requirements found in the proposed Specific Plan and the existing Zoning Code. Development assumptions can be seen in Table 3-5 of the Project Description chapter. MIG first modeled the average-sized parcel and largest existing parcel (with potential for redevelopment) from the GSP and GSP-MU districts and performed a regression analysis to determine the project- sized threshold where SCAQMD daily thresholds are likely to be exceeded during construction. Architectural Coating (VOC) The results of the model indicate that all average prototype development scenarios will result in excessive daily VOC (ROG) emissions. Emissions are the result of use of default VOC volumes in architectural coatings that include paints, adhesives, and other chemicals. Default volumes for nonresidential coatings are 250 grams per liter (g/l), more than is generally permitted in common paint, solvent, or adhesive usage SCAQMD Rule 1113. To compensate for excessive ROG emissions from coating activities, model parameters were adjusted to eliminate VOC emissions from coating applications by specifying use of zero-VOC content for interior and exterior coatings. Another option for mitigating excessive VOC emission from painting activities is to reduce the amount of coating application that can occur on a daily basis. The requirement to reduce VOC emissions from coating applications has been included as Mitigation Measure 1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, emissions of VOCs from architectural coating activities during construction of future development within the Planning Area will not exceed the SCAQMD daily construction threshold. Further Analysis Required Assuming that VOC emissions can be successfully mitigated, the regression picture becomes murkier after that. Confidence levels (R2) are used as a statistical measure to depict how well a regression model fits the data it represents. Higher R2 values generally show a model that is a “good fit” or can be rationally used to unknown values based on a known dependent variable (in our case, the expected daily emissions of a given project acreage). In short, MIG was not satisfied with the appropriateness of the model based on the resulting R2 values and determined that further analysis was required. With an intimate knowledge of CalEEMod’s operation, MIG proceeded with an alternate route. CalEEMod rounds up to the nearest acre or “bin size” when selecting equipment for each construction phase. For example, a 1.2 acre and a 1.7 acre project would both be interpreted by CalEEMod as “2 acre” sites and would accordingly have the same equipment assignments. Awareness of this condition is necessary to obtain the most meaningful information possible from the program. MIG then chose to model project development scenarios corresponding to the CalEEMod bin sizes. Generic projects with an FAR of 1.0 were modeled with project sizes of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 acres. This regression produced more representative model results. To further isolate a representative project size, regression variance was analyzed to generate 95 percent confidence intervals for each criteria pollutant. This ensures that, based on the data input into the models, 95 percent of future projects proposed in the Planning Area with site areas at or below those listed in Table 9 below, given criteria pollutants will not exceed their maximum daily thresholds during construction. Figure 1 includes the graphs and equations used in statistical analysis described above. Figure 1 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Statistical Analysis Air Quality Impact Analysis 32 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Table 7 (Construction Development Thresholds) Pollutant Extrapolation Method Site Area (AC) 95% Confidence Interval (AC) ROG Linear 0.75 -1.30 NOX Linear 16.53 9.54 CO Linear 221.95 159.18 PM10 Linear 81.07 36.14 PM2.5 Linear 47.50 20.28 Heavy-Duty Equipment The results of the regression analysis indicate that future development projects proposed within the Specific Plan area that are approximately 9.5 acres in size or greater will exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold for construction-related nitrogen oxides. There are a handful of parcels this size or greater in the Planning Area, thus, future development proposals of this size will be rare and will require considerable lot consolidation. Mitigation will be required for future projects proposed on sites of 9.5 acres or greater in order to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The next threshold to be exceeded by construction activities is for PM2.5, with a development threshold of approximately 20 acres. There are no parcels of this size in the Planning Area and is assumed that the developed, urban character of the areas precludes the future lot consolidation that would be necessary to create a site of this size. There are a variety of methods to reduce NOX emissions from construction activities as specified in Mitigation Measure 2. The primary means of reducing NOX emissions is limiting daily use and duration of construction equipment, use of newer or higher efficiency equipment, and limiting the amount of daily construction activity. Projects requiring mitigation due to a project site that exceeds the development thresholds for NOX may implement Air Quality Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 33 Tier IV (Final) emission standards for off-road construction equipment. Tier IV emissions standards are established by the EPA for emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter in off-road diesel engines. The final rule (40 CFR 89, Federal Register Document 96-32970) for off-road engine emissions began in 1996 as part of a “tiered” system by which new engines must meet that year’s emissions standards. Standards vary between years, based on the horsepower of the engine. Tier I standards were in place generally between 1996 and 2005. Tier II standards were phased in between 2001 through 2010. Tier III standards were phased in starting 2006 and are currently applicable to engines with a horsepower between 75 and 17 Interim Tier IV and Tier IV standards have been established for future engines through 2020. Proof of full compliance with Tier IV standards as required by Mitigation Measure 2 shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits. Proof of compliance shall identify the means of scheduling and/or equipment specifications, and shall be enforceable through regular or unscheduled inspection by the City’s Building Division throughout construction of the project. Project proponents who submit applications for a project at or exceeding the above screening thresholds will be required to incorporate mitigation to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Should site specific circumstances or unique circumstances of a future development proposal preclude incorporation of feasible mitigation identified in this report, a project-specific air quality and climate change assessment with recommendations for reasonable, alternative mitigation options will be required pursuant to the City’s standard environmental review standards. The development thresholds identified herein are applicable to the entirety of the Planning Area and illustrate that with incorporation of standard mitigation air quality impacts will be less than significant. Fugitive Dust Impacts Future development within the Planning Area will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 that prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any grading activity, storage pile, or other disturbed surface area if it crosses the project property line or if emissions caused by vehicle movement cause substantial impairment of visibility (defined as exceeding 20 percent opacity in the air). The majority of future development proposals will be subject to the minimum SCAQMD fugitive dust requirements and considering that the majority of properties are under an acre in size, fugitive dust is of minimal concern as earthmoving activities will be constrained and topsoil or surficial infill materials will be minimally exposed. Should a development proposal occur on a 20-acre or larger project site, it would be subject to the next tier of fugitive dust regulations applicable to projects on sites of five or more acres. Rule 403 requires the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and includes additional provisions for projects disturbing more than five acres and those disturbing more than fifty acres. Potential impacts resulting from fugitive dust emissions will be less than significant with incorporation of existing regulatory requirements. Opportunity Projects The opportunity development sites identified in the Specific Plan include the "former LA Auto Auction Site” and the “Landwin Property Site” and three potential scenarios for the "West Gateway Specialty Retail Destination.” MIG evaluated the most impactful scenario for each of these sites and identified the maximum daily construction emissions that are summarized in Table 10 below. Table 8 Opportunity Sites Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Project Lot Size (AC) ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 West Gateway 0.95 80 315 71 16 6 LA Auto 24.13 1,143 449 209 40 13 Threshold - 75 100 550 150 55 ROG emissions will be excessive due to architectural coating activities. NOX emissions for both projects are excessive primarily due to hauling trips associated with assumed underground parking structures anticipated to be constructed with each project. Both projects are also subject to Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 requiring measures be incorporated to reduce emissions to less than the SCAQMD daily threshold, as described above. Construction-related Air Quality Impact Analysis 34 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment impacts due to future development of the former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Sites and West Gateway opportunity development sites will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Operational Emissions The Specific Plan will accommodate new residential and commercial uses that will operate up to and likely through the Specific Plan horizon year of 2030. SCAQMD has established daily thresholds for the operation of land uses within the Basin. Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result from the operation of potential hotel, retail, restaurant, and residential uses supported by the Specific Plan. The air quality team evaluated long-term emissions in the three categorizes of area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the Project vicinity. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was utilized to estimate mobile source emissions from a range of development scenarios. Trip generation is based on the 9th edition Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE, 2015). Default assumptions for diverted or pass-by trips were used. Pass- by trips are made as intermediate stops between a trip origin and destination. Diverted trips occur when a destination is off a trip route and the route is changed to include the new destination. The model includes default trip lengths, fleet mix, and emissions factors. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources including use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaners and solvents, and periodic repainting of structures. Energy demand is based on default CalEEMod electricity and natural gas assumptions. Table 11 (Operational Emissions) includes a summary of the emissions forecasts for the selected development scenarios. The team selected the maximum sized lot for each proposed land use designation to convey a “worst-case” scenario and because operational emissions for average-sized parcels are minimal compared to those of the largest size sites. Table 9 Development Scenario Operational Emissions Building Area ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 GSP average 12,000 1 3 7 2 <1 GSP max 132,422 9 28 72 15 4 GSP-MU average 36,580 2 5 13 3 1 GSP-MU max 959,191 52 152 410 73 21 West Gateway 41,265 5 15 37 8 2 LA Auto 2,973,300 141 310 774 129 39 Threshold -- 55 55 550 150 55 Based on the results of the model, full development of even the largest parcel in the GSP zoning district would be below the threshold for daily operational emissions and only a consolidation of parcels in this designation could result in potentially significant impacts. Stricter development standards and a lack of large properties in that zoning district minimize the potential for a project larger than 132,433 square feet to be proposed. Full development of the largest parcel with almost one million square feet of residential and commercial uses in the mixed-use designation will result in NOX emissions that exceed the daily threshold. Similarly, development of the former LA Auto Auction opportunity site as will exceed the ROG, NOX, and CO operational thresholds. The maximum development scenarios represent extreme cases whereby the most intense permitted use is operational at these sites. Te other opportunity project, West Gateway, will not exceed any daily operational threshold. The majority of future development proposals will be similar to the average development scenarios. Air Quality Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 35 Interpolating from this data, operational development thresholds were determined for both the GSP and GSP-MU zoning districts. The maximum building area has been identified based on the pollutant threshold that is first to be exceeded by a particular scenario. For both zoning districts, NOX is the first pollutant to exceed the daily threshold. Mitigation was considered for NOX emissions but no feasible mitigation is available at the plan level for the impacts at hand. NOX emissions are due to mobile source emission and the City has no authority or ability to enforce the use of higher efficiency vehicles or to force future residents and workers to change commuting and other driver habits. Proposed developments with building areas larger than the thresholds below will be required to submit a project- specific air quality study during the city’s standard environmental review process identifying project emissions and identifying feasible mitigation to reduce those emissions to below the applicable threshold. Future proposed projects with building areas that do not exceed the development thresholds in the Table 12 will not require a project-specific air quality study assuming consistency with the Specific Plan and the analysis in this EIR. Considering the difficulty in identifying feasible mitigation to reduce mobile source emissions from non-commercial development projects, operational impacts remain significant and unavoidable after consideration of feasible mitigation, Table 10 Operational Development Standards GSP (square feet) GSP-MU (square feet) 264,556 346,301 Cumulative Impacts As a whole, the Specific Plan supports up to 1,048 new dwelling units under a realistic buildout and an estimated 985,095 non-residential (commercial) square feet. MIG used CalEEMod to estimate the existing operational emissions within the Planning Area then compared them to the “realistic” build-out scenario identified in the Specific Plan. The net increase in criteria pollutant emissions is provided in Table 13 (Specific Plan Build-Out Net Operational Emissions) for purpose of disclosure. Currently, SCAQMD does not promulgate a program-level, numeric thresholds for which to compare daily or annual emissions as would be appropriate for the list method of cumulative impact analysis. Rather, one means of evaluating cumulative impacts that is supported by SCAQMD involves using the projection method through consistency with the AQMP. As discussed in above, the proposed Specific Plan will be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the RTP/SCS/AQMP and thus would not result in any cumulative air quality impacts as those will be sufficiently reduced over time through implementation of the AQMP. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant with incorporation of existing policies and standards. Table 11 Specific Plan Build-Out Net Operational Emissions ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Existing Full Buildout 137 409 339 510 807 1,660 3 5 209 397 66 159 Net Increase 272 171 853 2 188 93 Health Impacts The analysis of construction and operational activities found that the project will contribute substantially to regional air quality concerns related to NOX, CO, and particulate emissions. The health effects related to these primary and secondary pollutant emissions are described in the Environmental Setting section of this report and further elaborated on in the 2012 AQMP. OZONE According to the 2012 AQMP, exposure to ambient air containing concentrations of ozone between 0.10 PPM and 0.15 PPM for one-hour over multiple days caused decreased breathing capacity in children, adolescents, and adults. Exercising adults exposed to ozone at concentration equal to or greater than 0.12 PPM for one to three hours of greater than 0.06 PPM for 6.6 hours experience decrements in lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, increases airway responsiveness, and increased airway inflammation. Prolonged, repeated exposure to ozone Air Quality Impact Analysis 36 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment concentrations equal to or greater than 0.12 PPM results in changes to lung structure, function, elasticity, and biochemistry and increases susceptibility to bacterial respiratory infections in laboratory animals. Based on SCAQMD historical air quality data for the project area, maximum 1-hour concentrations ranged between 0.096 PPM and 0.112 PPM between 2010 and 2012, respectively, with up to five days exceeding the State 1-hour standard. Regionally, the Basin maximum 1-hour concentration ranged between 0.143 PPM and 0.160 PPM and exceeded the 1-hour State air quality standard up to 98 days during the year 2012. Based on these data, decreased breathing in persons in the region would be expected up to approximately one third of the year. Because the project will contribute substantially to regional ozone emissions and has been found to conflict with the AQMP, the project will contribute to continued regional health impacts related to excessive ozone exposure. PARTICULATE MATTER The 2012 AQMP identifies a variety of health impacts associated with short- and long-term particulate matter exposure. The AQMP references a study reported in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that found an increase in mortality of one percent is associated with every ten µg/m3 increase in PM10 emissions. Additionally, hospital admissions due to respiratory problems were found to increase by 1.4 percent and asthmatic attacks increase by three percent. For PM2.5 exposure, the USEPA has identified a causal link to cardiovascular effects and mortality. In the South San Gabriel Valley monitoring area, maximum 24-hour concentration of fine particulate matter ranged between 34.9 µg/m3 and 45.3 µg/m3, respectively. The Federal PM2.5 air quality standard was exceeded on one day in both 2011 and 2012 in the area. Regionally, the Basin experienced a maximum 24-hour concentration of PM10 at 89 µg/m3 in the year 2010 and exceeded the State air quality standard on 35 days in 2011. The Basin experienced a maximum 24-hour concentration of PM2.5 at 65 µg/m3 in 2011 and exceeded the Federal air quality standard on 17 days in the same year. Because the project will contribute substantially to local and regional particulate matter emissions and has been found to conflict with the AQMP, the project will contribute to continued local and regional health impacts related to excessive particulate matter exposure. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 37 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS Thresholds of Significance The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change if it would: A. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. In April 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, convened a “GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group.” The goal of the working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA significance threshold for GHG emissions that would be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other State agency) develops Statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA. Initially, SCAQMD staff presented the working group with a significance threshold that could be applied to various types of projects (e.g. residential, non-residential, industrial, etc); however, the threshold remains an interim- recommendation at this time. In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions that consist of the following recommended tiered approach:  Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for applicable CEQA exemptions.  Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, it would not have a significant impact.  Tier 3 consists of screening values at the discretion of the lead agency; however they should be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. Project-related construction emissions should be amortized over 30 years and should be added back to the project’s operational emissions. The following thresholds are proposed for consideration: o 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or o 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed-use projects.  Tier 4 has the following options: o Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage (currently undefined) o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3: A plan-level efficiency value of 6.6 MTCO2E per service population in 2020 and 4.1 by 2035 The draft 2017 Scoping Plan update identified a plan-level efficiency target of 6.0 MTCO2E for year 2030 and 2.0 MTCO2E for year 2050. The SCAQMD recommendation is less conservative with a 6.6-MTCO2E target for 2020 but aligns with the Scoping Plan target of an estimated 4.7 MTCO2E per service population in year 2030 consistent with showing ‘substantial progress’ towards the 2050 target. For project-level and focused programmatic proposals, a narrower emissions inventory is used that does not include emissions sources by which the project has no means or nexus to reduce emissions or whereby the emissions source is not relevant to the project (e.g. emissions from cargo ships in a community with no port). Regarding typical land use projects, the greatest source of emissions that cannot effectively be reduced directly are from mobile source. Vehicle emissions and feasible, affectable reduction strategies must be formulated at the State and Federal levels and implemented by vehicle and parts manufacturers to improve technological efficiencies. Local land use decisions have some part in reducing mobile source emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled and through the strategic Climate Change Impact Analysis 38 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment approval of industrial projects that generate high volumes of truck traffic. These gains, however, are less than the achievements realized by technological improvements and are generally inconsequential in terms of project efficiency to meet per capita standards or business-as-usual reduction requirements. Using this approach, the State’s 1990 emissions inventory for the land use sector is 267 MMTCO2E. The 1990 emissions inventory without inclusion of passenger or light-duty vehicle emissions is 158 MMTCO2E. The 1990 emissions inventory without on-road vehicle sources is 129 MMTCO2E. These translate to respective year 2020 efficiency standards of 4.7, 2.8, and 2.3. The breadth of efficiency standards under varying scenarios are summarized in Table 14. Table 14 Project-Level Efficiency Standards Target Year Emissions Per Service Population Service Population (millions) Land Use Only Land Use without Light-Duty Vehicles Land Use without All Vehicles 2020 56.45 4.7 2.8 2.3 2030 61.53 2.6 1.5 1.3 2035* 63.37 2.2 1.3 1.1 2050 70.71 0.8 0.4 0.4 * Calculated linearly to identify path of ‘substantial progress’ Upon adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of this EIR, future development projects within the Planning Area may forego greenhouse gas emissions analysis using these documents as a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan (Tier 2). It should be noted that project proponents may elect to pursue streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 through compliance with performance standards that would eliminate environmental review for in-fill projects within the Planning Area. The climate change assessment analyzed herein and detailed in the project Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment is designed to meet the requirements of Guidelines Section 15813.5 as a qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) through inclusion of the following requirements:  Quantification of baseline and projected greenhouse gas emissions  Establishment of threshold for cumulatively considerable impacts  Inclusion of emissions by source (e.g. actions or categories of actions resulting in emissions)  Inclusion of measures to meet the cumulative impacts threshold  Inclusion of monitoring mechanism  Adoption through a public process following environmental review Short-Term Emissions The proposed project will result in short-term greenhouse gas emissions from construction and installation activities as new development or redevelopment projects are proposed over the life of the Specific Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions will be released by equipment used for grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating activities. Construction activities are short-term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends in its draft threshold to amortize construction emissions over a 20-year operational lifetime for project-level analysis. At the program-level, construction emission are disparate in comparison to operational Climate Change Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 39 emissions such that they do not influence global climate change, and need not be considered in the emission inventory. Long-Term Emissions Future development activities will result in continuous greenhouse gas emissions from mobile, area, and operational sources. Mobile sources including vehicle trips to and from the Planning Area will result primarily in emissions of CO2 with minor emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Regarding energy demand, the most significant GHG emission from natural gas usage will be methane. Electricity usage by the proposed project and indirect usage of electricity for water and wastewater conveyance will result primarily in emissions of carbon dioxide. Disposal of solid waste will result in emissions of methane from the decomposition of waste at landfills coupled with CO2 emission from the handling and transport of solid waste. These sources combine to define the long-term greenhouse gas emissions inventory for build-out of the Specific Plan. Project-Level Evaluation The methodology utilized for each emissions source in CalEEMod is based on the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook (CAPCOA, 2010). A summary of the proposed Specific Plan operational greenhouse gas emissions is included in Table 15 (Development Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The average and maximum sized parcels were evaluated to determine if future development proposals would exceed the interim- threshold of 3,000 annual MTCO2E emissions. The emissions inventories are presented as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) meaning that all emissions have been weighted based on their Global Warming Potential (GWP) (a metric ton is equal to 1.102 US short tons). Excepting the former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Sits, no individual project scenario is anticipated to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold, indicating that the majority of future development proposals will not contribute substantially to global climate change impacts. The former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Sites will exceed the threshold because of its sheer size and not because it will emit GHG emissions in an amount or of a type that is extraordinary when compared to a similar style of regional shopping destination. Reduction measures, design features, and regulatory requirements have been identified herein that will reduce GHG emissions from development of the former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Sites; however, emissions from this opportunity site likely cannot feasibly be reduced to less than the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold for project-level impacts. Table 15Development Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenario Lot Size (AC) Building Square Feet Construction (MT/yr) Operational (MT/yr) Total (MTCO2E/Lot) Total (MTCO2E/YR) GSP average 0.37 12,000 48 374 1,140 422 GSP max 3.04 132,422 567 3,765 1,425 4,332 GSP-MU average 0.53 36,580 52 623 1,274 675 GSP-MU max 7.34 959,191 1,815 19,191 2,862 21,006 West Gateway 0.95 41,265 97 1,886 -- 1,983 LA Auto 24.13 2,973,300 7,350 37,858 -- 45,208 Program-Level Evaluation Climate Change Impact Analysis 40 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Evaluation of GHG emissions from the Planning Area is accomplished through evaluating the ratio of areawide, cumulative emissions to the population served by the program to the ratio of Statewide emissions to the State population for land use sources identified in the State emissions inventory. This ratio is known as an “efficiency standard” as it normalizes disparate values to comparable indices of relative emissions levels. Bulk emissions are divided by the “Service Population” (SP) so called because only those directly accommodated by the program are accounted for (e.g. residents and employees). The proposed Specific Plan is estimated to provide housing for 2,711 residents and commercial space for 3,031 employees, a net increase of 4,908 SP over existing conditions. Emissions from the realistic build-out of the Specific Plan Planning Area were modeled to determine annual GHG emissions from the Planning Area at the Specific Plan 20-year horizon (2035). Emissions were modified to account for the mixed-use character of the Specific Plan and availability of future projects to engage in greenhouse gas emissions streamlining, pursuant to CEQA, as well as the lack of industrial land uses that eliminates the potential for generation of substantial truck trips. Project net greenhouse gas emissions will result in an efficiency of 2.2 for the net increase in population and employment (without consideration of emissions reductions). Efficiency standards calculations are included in Error! Reference source not found.. To show ‘substantial progress’ towards achieving the AB32 target in year 2050 the project must achieve an efficiency of 1.1; thus, the GHG emissions are potentially significant and mitigating factors need to be evaluated to further reduce project net emissions increases. Table 16 Specific Plan Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenario MTCO2E Existing (MTCO2E/YR) 36,851 Net Expected Increase 23,236 REDUCTION MEASURES The net increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from realistic build-out of the Planning Area will be partially offset by design features of the Specific Plan and regulatory requirements meant to reduce greenhouse emission from development projects, either directly or as a secondary benefit of another mitigating factor. The Specific Plan largely supports mixed-use development in an urbanized area, thus, the project includes land use design elements that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, regulatory requirements associated with the State CALGREEN requirements will further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions are summarized below as modeled using CalEEMod per the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook. Design features and regulatory requirements will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2,125 MTCO2E per year, a 32 percent reduction resulting in an annual net output of 4,543 MTCO2E greenhouse gas emissions and a mitigated efficiency of 0.9. Table 17 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced Inventory) summarizes the project greenhouse gas inventory with design features and regulatory requirements incorporated. The GHG emissions to Service Population ratio of 0.9 that will result upon build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Planning Area is less than the State efficiency standard of 1.1 identified in year 2035 showing substantial progress towards the AB32 year 2050 GHG emissions target. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of design features and regulatory requirements. Table 17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced Inventory MTCO2E Proposed Reductions Total Area 48 -1 47 Energy 5,230 -651 4,579 Solid Waste 949 -869 80 Water/Wastewater 441 -604 -163 Total 6,668 -2,125 4,543 Climate Change Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 41 Energy Efficiency Future development will be subject to increased Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. A minimum 15 percent increase in efficiency over 2008 Title 24 requirements has been incorporated to account for present and future requirements for improved energy efficiency. Water Demand Efficiency Pursuant to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN) requirements, indoor water demand must be reduced by a minimum of 20 percent. This requirement was applied to the project using default reduction factors provided in CalEEMod (WUW-1). Proposed landscaping will be designed to be water efficient in accordance with State and county water efficient landscape requirements. Assuming maximum allowable water use was calculated at 3,236,112 gallons. The estimated total water use was calculated at 3,119,085 gallons, an approximate four percent reduction in outdoor water demand (WUW-3). Proposed landscaping will include a number of water efficient irrigation features. These may include automatic irrigation controllers, separate turf and shrub irrigation, and separate hydrozones. The CalEEMod default reduction of 6.1 percent was applied to account for improved irrigation efficiency (WUW-4). Solid Waste Diversion Pursuant to the State Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) and the upcoming mandatory commercial recycling requirement of AB 32 (effective January 2012), the proposed project is assumed to recycle a minimum of 50 percent of its solid waste (SW-1). Recycling helps reduce GHG emissions by reducing solid waste transportation demand and decomposition of solid waste in landfills. Cumulative Impacts Impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions are inherently cumulative because climate change is not initiated through any single project or action but by the sum of many, asynchronous actions spanning decades through the contributing acts of industrial societies throughout the planet in conjunction with the cycle of climatic change that naturally occurs on Earth. The evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from typical, individual projects and development of the Specific Plan Planning Area as whole concludes that’s that the proposal will not contribute considerably to climate change impacts. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Planning CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD SCOPING PLAN ARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions in support of AB32. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable to local development projects or plans, such as long- term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the proposed Specific Plan, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the proposed project would not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action categories, as follows: 1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap–and-trade program with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater environmental and economic benefits for California (ARB, 2010). Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. 2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals. 3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue Climate Change Impact Analysis 42 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). 4. Renewables Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix Statewide. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. 7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. 8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar programs. 10. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010. (ARB, 2010). Future, yet to be determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks. 11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. 12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed rail system. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global potential gases. 15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2E/YR. 17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. 18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. Table 18 summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the State Scoping Plan. As summarized, the proposed project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports four of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, and recycling. Impacts will be less than significant accounting for project design features and implementation of regulatory requirements. Climate Change Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 43 Table 18 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Supporting Measures Consistency Cap‐and‐Trade Program ‐‐ Not Applicable. These programs involve capping emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and broad scoped fuels. Caps do not directly affect residential or commercial uses. Light‐Duty Vehicle Standards T‐1 Not Applicable. This is a Statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. Energy Efficiency E‐1 Consistent. Development within the Specific Plan Planning Area will be subject to a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with CALGREEN requirements. E‐2 CR‐1 CR‐2 Renewables Portfolio Standard E‐3 Not Applicable. Establishes the minimum Statewide renewable energy mix. Low Carbon Fuel Standard T‐2 Not Applicable. Establishes reduced carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Regional Transportation‐Related Greenhouse Gas Targets T‐3 Not Applicable. Establishes fleet‐wide emissions reduction targets and measures applicable to vehicle manufacturing and maintenance throughout the State. Vehicle Efficiency Measures T‐4 Not Applicable. Identifies measures such as minimum tire‐fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air conditioning use. Goods Movement T‐5 Not applicable. Identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. T‐6 Million Solar Roofs Program E‐4 Consistent. Sets goal for use of solar systems throughout the State. The Specific Plan supports installation of solar systems as part of the streamlining procedures outlined in the CEQA Guidelines. Medium‐ & Heavy‐Duty Vehicles T‐7 Not applicable. Medium‐duty and heavy‐duty trucks and trailers will not operate directly from land uses supported by the Specific Plan. T‐8 Industrial Emissions I‐1 Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to large industrial facilities (> 500,000 MTCOE2/YR) and other intensive uses such as refineries. I‐2 I‐3 I‐4 I‐5 Climate Change Impact Analysis 44 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Action Supporting Measures Consistency High Speed Rail T‐9 Not Applicable. Supports increased mobility choice. Green Building Strategy GB‐1 Consistent. Development within the Specific Plan Planning Area will be subject to a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with CALGREEN requirements. High Global Warming Potential Gases H‐1 Not Applicable. The future development within the proposed Planning Area will not be a substantial source of high GWP emissions and will comply with any future changes in air conditioning, fire protection suppressant, and other requirements. H‐2 H‐3 H‐4 H‐5 H‐6 H‐7 Recycling and Waste RW‐1 Consistent. Future land uses will be required to recycle a minimum of 50 percent from construction activities and operations per State requirements. RW‐2 RW‐3 Sustainable Forests F‐1 Not Applicable. The project site is not forested and the project will not result in the loss of any forest land. Water W‐1 Consistent. Future development proposals will include use of low‐flow fixtures and efficient landscaping per State requirements. W‐2 W‐3 W‐4 W‐5 W‐6 Agriculture A‐1 Not Applicable. The project is not an agricultural use. Cumulative Impacts The evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan with the State Scoping Plan is conducted to identify if cumulative impacts may occur due to conflicts with Statewide, long-term planning goals to reduce GHG emission. The project will not conflict with the State Scoping Plan; thus, will not contribute significantly to global climate change impacts. No mitigation is required. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 45 MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Building Official shall verify that construction plans submitted by future proponents of development or improvement within the Planning Area identify use of low-VOC architectural coatings, scheduling or other methods where the content of volatile organic compounds (VOC) does not exceed zero g/l for internal and exterior non-residential applications. This measure shall be verified through standard building inspections. AQ-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Building and Safety Department shall verify that construction plans for future development project construction phases that exceed the NOX daily threshold specify use of construction equipment that utilizes a Tier IV engine emissions output equivalent for all construction activity or alternative means such as reducing daily activity. The construction equipment requirements as specified on the grading plans shall be verified by the Building and Safety Department. 46 Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment REFERENCES 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sulfur Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/ [August 2014] 3 California Air Resources Board. Area Designations Maps – State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm [September 2014] 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html [September 2014] 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (Working Group I). Fourth Assessment Report. 2007 6 Ibid 7 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov/air/caa/ [August 2014] 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan. 2012 10 California Climate Action Team. Biennial Report. April 2010 11 Southern California Association of Governments. Senate Bill 375 Fact Sheet. http://scag.ca.gov/Documents/SCAG_SB375_Factsheet.pdf [September 2014] 12 California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Climate Change, Scoping Plan Progress Report. September 2010 13 California Air Resources Board. Cap-and-Trade. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm [September 14, 2011] 14 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008 15 California Building Standards Commission. California Code of Regulations Title 24. California Green Building Standards Code. 2010 16 Ibid 24 17 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 APPENDIX E CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHICAL REPORT Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California Prepared for: Planning Division City of Rosemead Ms. Lily T. Valenzuela 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Prepared by: MIG 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 Authors: Christopher W. Purtell, M.A., RPA, Senior Archaeologist Christopher Brown, Director of Environmental Services El Monte, Unsectioned Township 1 South, Range 12 West, CA United States Geological Survey 7.5” Quadrangle Map Project Acreage: 88 Resources Identified: None December 14, 2016 This document is designed for double-sided printing. i Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 – Proposed Project and Location ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 – Scope of Study and Personnel ............................................................................................................................. 5 Regulatory Setting 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Federal Level ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 – National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 – Section 106 of the Federal Guidelines ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 – National Register of Historic Places .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 – Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 ............................................................ 8 2.2 – State ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 – California Environmental Quality Act ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 – California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 – Other State Statutes and Regulations................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 – California Historical Landmarks ................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.2 – California Points of Historical Interest ..................................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 – Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991 ................ 10 2.3.4 – California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 .......................................... 10 2.3.5 – Senate Bill 18 .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.6 – Assembly Bill 52 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.7 – Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052 ................................................................................. 11 2.3.8 – Penal Code, Section 622.5 ...................................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Setting 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Cultural Setting 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 – Prehistoric Context .............................................................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 – Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 13,000-11,000 years before present [YBP]) .................................................... 15 4.1.2 – Archaic Period (ca. 11,000-3,500 YBP) .................................................................................................. 15 4.1.3 – Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 3,500 YBP-A.D. 1769) ................................................................................. 16 4.1.4 – Ethnographic Context .............................................................................................................................. 16 4.1.5 – Gabrielinos .............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.1.6 – European Contact ................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 – Historic Context ................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.1 – City of Rosemead .................................................................................................................................... 17 Methods 5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 – Cultural Resources Records Search ................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 – Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation ............................................................................ 19 5.3 – Paleontological Resources Records Search ....................................................................................................... 19 Results 6 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 – Cultural Resources Records ............................................................................................................................... 21 6.2 – Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation ............................................................................ 22 6.3 – Paleontological Resources Records Search ....................................................................................................... 22 Table of Contents Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan ii Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Evaluation 7 ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 7.1 – Archaeological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 25 7.2 – Historical Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 25 7.3 – Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................................................. 25 Impacts/Effects Analysis 8 ........................................................................................................................................ 27 8.1 – CEQA Significance Thresholds ........................................................................................................................... 27 8.1.1 – Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 27 8.1.2 – Historical Resources ............................................................................................................................... 27 8.1.3 – Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 28 8.1.4 – Human Remains ..................................................................................................................................... 28 8.2 – Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 28 8.2.1 – Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 28 8.2.2 – Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 28 8.2.3 – Historical Resources ............................................................................................................................... 28 8.2.4 – Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 28 8.2.5 – Human Remains ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Recommended Mitigation Measures 9 ..................................................................................................................... 31 9.1 – Archeological Resources .................................................................................................................................... 31 9.2 – Historical Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 32 9.3 – Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................................................. 33 9.4 – Human Remains ................................................................................................................................................. 34 References Cited 10 ................................................................................................................................................... 35 List of Tables Table 1 Previously Conducted Cultural Reports within the Study Area ........................................................................... 21 Table 2 Vertebrate Fossil Localities in the Vicinity of the Study Area .............................................................................. 23 Appendix Appendix A Resumes Appendix B NAHC Letter & Native American Contact List Appendix C Paleontology Search Results 3 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes the establishment of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, which identifies a long-term vision and objectives for land-use development and public improvement along a 1.2-mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western portion of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California. The Specific Plan will create site planning, building, parking, architectural, and open space standards and guidelines for development within the planning area. The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land designations/zoning districts supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. For purpose of this report, all project components will collectively be referred to as the “Study Area”, unless otherwise noted. MIG conducted a phase I cultural resources assessment of the Study Area to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources (including archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources) for the purpose of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the local cultural resource regulations. The scope of work for this assessment included a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System-South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and follow-up Native American consultation, land use history research, a paleontological resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), eligibility evaluations for resources identified within the Study Area, impact analyses, and the recommendation of additional work and mitigation measures. Archaeological Resources The cultural resources records search results from the South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC) indicated that there are no archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) located within the Study Area. However, the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicated that there is a single Native American prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5. Despite the heavy disturbances of the Study Area that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources exist at depth. As a result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Section 9 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Historical Resources The cultural resources records search results from the CHRIS-SCCIC indicated that there are no historical resources located within the Study Area. However, property records provided by the Los County Office of the Assessor indicate that there are approximately 130 buildings and or structures within the planning area that were built before 1970.1 This suggests that these existing structures may be 45 years old or older, thus requiring a historic site evaluation to determine if any of these existing buildings or structures are eligible collectively (District) or individually (historic resource) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register Historic Resources (CRHR) prior to their redevelopment, adaptive-reuse, rehabilitation, or demolition. As result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce impact severity to historic resources to a less than significant level. Paleontological Resources Results of the paleontological resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicate that no vertebrate fossil localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the Study Area or within a one-mile radius. However, there are three (3) previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702, LACM (CTI) 342, and LACM6350) located within a three-mile radius of the Study Area that were discovered within the same older sedimentary deposits that extends into the Study Area (McLeod 1 Los Angeles County. 2016. Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property records are available at the County’s Office of the Assessor, 500 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 Executive Summary Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 4 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 2015). Nevertheless, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the Study Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths greater than 11-feet that may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains (McLeod 2015). Excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains and be should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. As a result of these findings, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 5 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 – Proposed Project and Location The City of Rosemead proposes the establishment of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, which identifies a long-term vision and objectives for land-use development and public improvement along a 1.2-mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western portion of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California. The Specific Plan will create site planning, building, parking, architectural, and open space standards and guidelines for development within the planning area. The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land designations/zoning districts supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. For purpose of this report, all project components will collectively be referred to as the “Study Area”, unless otherwise noted. The Study Area is located within a mixed-use urban area along Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California and is located approximately a sixth of a mile south of Interstate Highway 10 and 1.87-miles north of Interstate Highway 60. The Study Area is depicted in United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic map of El Monte, California, topographic quadrangle in Unsectioned Township 1 South, Range 12 West. The Study Area is bounded along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the south. 1.2 – Scope of Study and Personnel MIG conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources assessment of the Study Area from August 13, 2015 through December 12, 2016 to identify potential impacts to cultural resources (including archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources) and to develop mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate potential impacts to resources for the purpose of complying with CEQA and local cultural resource guidelines. The scope of work for this assessment included a cultural resources records search through the CHRIS-SCCIC, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and follow-up Native American consultation, land use history research, a paleontological resources records search through the NHMLAC, eligibility evaluations for the resources identified within the Study Area, impact analyses, and the recommendations of additional work and mitigation measures, if necessary. The assessment was managed and this report compiled by Mr. Christopher Purtell, M.A., RPA and Mr. Chris Brown. The site survey and record searches were conducted by Mr. Purtell. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A. Introduction 1 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 6 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 7 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment REGULATORY SETTING 2 Regulatory Framework Cultural resources are indirectly protected under the provisions of the Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C §§ 431 et seq.) and subsequent related legislation, regulations, policies, and guidance documents. The following is a summary of the applicable (federal, state, and local) regulatory framework related to the protection of cultural resources in California. Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects of a proposed project on cultural resources. These laws and regulations establish a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, CEQA, and Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024, are the primary federal and state laws governing and affecting preservation of cultural resources of national, state, regional, and local significance. Other relevant regulations and guidelines at the local level include the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. A description of the applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines are provided in the following paragraphs. 2.1 Federal Level 2.1.1 – NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 In summary, the NHPA establishes the nation’s policy for historic preservation and sets in place a program for the preservation of historic properties by requiring federal agencies to consider effects to significant cultural resources (i.e. historic properties) prior to undertakings. 2.1.2 – SECTION 106 OF THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP and that the ACHP and SHPO must be afforded an opportunity to comment, through a process outlined in the ACHP regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, on such undertakings. 2.1.3 – NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past. Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Regulatory Setting 2 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 8 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance. 2.1.4 – NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation. 2.2 – State 2.2.1 – CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1. CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria: 1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a set of sample questions that guide the evaluation of potential impacts with regard to cultural resources: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Regulatory Setting 2 9 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2.2.2 – CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate properties that are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”2 Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria3: Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values. Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. 2.3 – Other State Statutes and Regulations 2.3.1 – CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource must also be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors or the City or Town Council in whose jurisdiction it is located, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, or be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards in use now were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs No. 770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR. To be eligible for designation as a Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:  The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California) 2 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(a). 3 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(b). Regulatory Setting 2 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 10 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment  Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California  A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder 2.3.2 – CALIFORNIA POINTS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest (Points) designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point. If a Point is later granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be retired. In practice, the Point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance. To be eligible for designation as a Point, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:  The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county)  Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area  A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder 2.3.3 – NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 5097.9– 5097.991 Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a state policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands. 2.3.4 – CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 2001 Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010–8030, the California Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” the California NAGPRA also encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to lineal descendants. Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The act also provides a process for non–federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items. 2.3.5 – SENATE BILL 18 Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas Regulatory Setting 2 11 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan. 2.3.6 – ASSEMBLY BILL 52 Assemble Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requests in writing to the lead agency, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. AB 52 specifies examples of mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration filed or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native Americans. 2.3.7 – HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTIONS 7050 AND 7052 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbances must cease and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives. 2.3.8 – PENAL CODE, SECTION 622.5 Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner. Regulatory Setting 2 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 12 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 13 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3 The Study Area is located within a mixed-use area along Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. The Study Area is bounded along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the south. The elevation within the Study Area ranges from approximately 300 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the south to 310 feet above MSL in the north. The City of Rosemead General Plan has assigned the Project Site as zoned for commercial use. The topography of the Study Area is characterized as urban, comprising of residential-commercial mixed-use buildings/structures and the Richard Garvey Intermediate School. Geologically, the Study Area is within the Los Angeles Basin, an actively subsiding basin bound by the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, and the Palos Verdes Hills to the south4. Locally, the project area is in the southern portion of the San Gabriel Valley, a subdivision of the Los Angeles Basin north of the Puente Hills. The San Gabriel Basin is directly connected with the rise of the San Gabriel Mountains between 4 - 6 Ma, with the sedimentary erosion from the mountains accumulating in the associated basin.5The rapid deposition and resulting deep sediment fill has resulted in the accumulation of notable petroleum resources and fossil resources (Miller, 1971). The sediments in the project area record the gradual swallowing of ocean water that previously covered the Los Angeles Basin, along with the respective southwestern retreat of the shoreline. The deepest sediments in the project area document marine deposits from the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 – 2.6 Ma), when water was at its maximum depth (approximately 6,000 ft.) in the basin (Yerkes et al., 1965). These marine sediments are covered by terrestrial sediments deposited by the San Gabriel River, eroded from the San Gabriel Mountains starting in the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 Ma) and continuing into present time. The Study Area is mapped as having surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the proposed Study Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. (McLeod 2015). 4 Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H. Schoellhamer, J.E., and J.G. Vedder. 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California; an Introduction. USGS Professional Paper: 420-A, 57pg. 5 Wright, T. L. 1991. Structural geology and tectonic evolution of the Los Angeles basin, California, in Biddle, K. T. ed., Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, p. 35–134. Environmental Setting 3 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 14 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 15 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment CULTURAL SETTING 4 4.1 – Prehistoric Context Prehistory is most easily discussed chronologically, in terms of environmental change and recognized cultural developments. Several chronologies have been proposed for inland Southern California, the most widely accepted of which is Wallace’s four-part Horizon format (1955), which was later updated and revised by Claude Warren (1968). The advantages and weaknesses of Southern California chronological sequences are reviewed by Warren (in Moratto 1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Heizer (1978). The following discussion is based on Warren’s (1968) sequence, but the time frames have been adjusted to reflect more recent archaeological findings, interpretations, and advances in radiocarbon dating. 4.1.1 – PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (CA. 13,000-11,000 YEARS BEFORE PRESENT [YBP]) Little is known of Paleo-Indian peoples in inland Southern California, and the cultural history of this period follows that of North America in general. Recent discoveries in the Americas have challenged the theory that the first Americans migrated from Siberia, following a route from the Bering Strait into Canada and the Northwest Coast sometime after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet receded (ca. 14,000 YBP), and before the Bering Land Bridge was submerged (ca. 12,000 YBP). Based on new research from the Pacific Rim, it has been proposed that modern humans settled islands of the eastern Pacific between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago. Evidence of coastal migration has also come from sites on islands off Alta and Baja California. As a result, these sites are contemporary with Clovis and Folsom points found in North America’s interior regions. All of these new findings have made the coastal migration theory gain credibility in recent times (Erlandson et al. 2007). The timing, manner, and location of the Bering Strait crossing are a matter of debate among archaeologists, but the initial migration probably occurred as the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted along the Alaskan Coast and interior Yukon. The earliest radiocarbon dates from the Paleo-Indian Period in North America come from the Arlington Springs Woman site on Santa Rosa Island, which is located approximately 36 miles from the coast of California and is approximately 150 miles west-northwest of the Study Area. These human remains date to approximately 13,000 YBP (Johnson, et al. 2002). Other early Paleo-Indian sites include the Monte Verde Creek site in Chile (Meltzer, et al. 1997) and the controversial Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania. Both sites have early levels dated roughly at 12,000 YBP. Lifeways during the Paleo-Indian Period were characterized by highly mobile hunting and gathering. Prey included megafauna such as mammoth and technology included a distinctive flaked stone toolkit that has been identified across much of North America and into Central America. They likely used some plant foods, but the Paleo-Indian toolkit recovered archaeologically does not include many tools that can be identified as designed specifically for plant processing. The megafauna that appear to have been the focus of Paleo-Indian life went extinct during a warming trend that began approximately 10,000 years ago, and both the extinction and climatic change (which included warmer temperatures in desert valleys and reduced precipitation in mountain areas) were factors in widespread cultural change. Subsistence and social practices continued to be organized around hunting and gathering, but the resource base was expanded to include a wider range of plant and game resources. Technological traditions also became more localized and included tools specifically for the processing of plants and other materials. This constellation of characteristics has been given the name “Archaic” and it was the most enduring of cultural adaptations to the North American environment throughout this time period. 4.1.2 – ARCHAIC PERIOD (CA. 11,000-3,500 YBP) The earliest Archaic Period life in inland Southern California has been given the name San Dieguito tradition, after the San Diego area where it was first identified and studied (Warren 1968). Characteristic artifacts include stemmed projectile points, crescents and leaf-shaped knives, which suggest a continued subsistence, focus on large game, although not megafauna of the earlier Paleo-Indian period. Milling equipment appears in the archaeological record at approximately 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984:158). Artifact assemblages with this equipment include basin milling stones and unshaped manos, projectile points, flexed burials under cairns, and cogged stones, and have been given the Cultural Setting 4 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 16 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment name La Jolla Complex (7,500–3,000 YBP). The transition from San Dieguito life to La Jolla life appears to have been an adaptation to drying of the climate after 8,000 YBP, which may have stimulated movements of desert peoples to the coastal regions, bringing milling stone technology with them. Groups in the coastal regions focused on mollusks, while inland groups relied on wild-seed gathering and acorn collecting. 4.1.3 – LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD (CA. 3,500 YBP-A.D. 1769) Cultural responses to environmental changes around 4,000–3,000 YBP included a shift to more land-based gathering practices. This period was characterized by the increasing importance of acorn processing, which supplemented the resources from hunting and gathering. Meighan (1954) identified the period after A.D. 1400 as the San Luis Rey complex. San Luis Rey I (A.D. 1400–1750) is associated with bedrock mortars and milling stones, cremations, small triangular projectile points with concave bases and Olivella beads. The San Luis Rey II (A.D. 1750–1850) period is marked by the addition of pottery, red and black pictographs, cremation urns, steatite arrow straighteners, and non-aboriginal materials (Meighan 1954:223, Keller and McCarthy 1989:6). Work at Cole Canyon and other sites in Southern California suggest that this complex, and the ethnographically described life of the native people of the region, were well established by at least 1,000 YBP (Keller and McCarthy 1989:80). 4.1.4 – ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Information presented in the California volume of the Handbook of North American Indians (Heizer 1978:575) shows the Study Area is located near the traditional territory of the Serrano, Luiseño and Cahuilla. These ethnographic groups are described below. 4.1.5 – GABRIELINOS The Gabrielino are Takic-speakers and are descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the region. The name Gabrielino was given to the local inhabitants by Spanish Missionaries who established a mission in Gabrieleno territory in 1771. Important food resources would have been acorns, agave, wild seeds and nuts, hunting game and fishing. Due to the Spanish subjugation and absorption into the mission system very little is known concerning the Gabrielinos’ political structure, social behavior, and cultural practices. Gabrielino villages were self-contained and had an autonomous political structure comprised of non-localized lineages where the largest and dominant lineage’s leader was usually the village chief. Village houses were doomed, circular shaped structures, constructed from tree branches and thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo. The villages were located near fresh water and raw material resources. Villagers would have utilized temporary camps throughout their localized territories for hunting, gathering, and raw material trips away from the main village (Bean and Shipek 1978). 4.1.6 – EUROPEAN CONTACT European contact with the Native American groups that likely inhabited the Study Area and surrounding region began in 1542 when Spanish explorer, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, arrived by sea during his navigation of the California coast. Sebastian Vizcaino arrived in 1602 during his expedition to explore and map the western coast that Cabrillo visited 60 years earlier. In 1769, another Spanish explorer, Gaspar de Portola, passed through Luiseño/Kumeyaay territory and interacted with the local indigenous groups. In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was established by the Spanish and it likely integrated the Native Americans from the surrounding region. Multiple epidemics took a great toll on Native American populations between approximately 1800 and the early 1860s (Porretta 1983), along with the cultural and political upheavals that came with European, Mexican, and American settlement (Goldberg 2001:50-52). In the beginning of the nineteenth century, some Spaniards who had worked at the missions began to set up what would later be known as the “Ranchos.” The Rancho era in California history was a period when the entire state was divided into large parcels of land equaling thousands of acres a piece. These large estates were ruled over in a semi-feudal manner by men who had been deeded the land by first the Spanish crown, and later the Mexican government. In 1821 Mexico won independence from Spain and began to dismantle the mission system in California. As the missions began to secularize, they were transformed into small towns and most Native Americans would later be marginalized into reservations or into American society. It was during this time that “Americans” began to enter California. Many of the American Californians married into the Rancho families, a development that would transform land ownership in Mexican California. By the time the Cultural Setting 4 17 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment United States annexed California after the Mexican-American War in 1850, much of the Rancho lands were already in the hands of Americans. 4.2 – Historic Context 4.2.1 – CITY OF ROSEMEAD The modern history of Rosemead [begins] during the American Period (1848 to present), when John and Harriet Guess arrived in Rosemead in 1852, with the establishment of their ranch known as the “Savannah Ranch,” which is now the current location of the Savannah Elementary School on Rio Hondo Avenue. Other early settlers to the area were Leonard J. and Amanda Rose, who established the Rosemead Ranch as a winery, as well as a breeding and training ground for horses. The region surrounding Rosemead included several small ranches, chicken farms, as well as the Potrero Ranch, which was owned by Richard Garvey. The City of Rosemead was electrified in 1930 and was incorporated in 1959 (Myers 1986:259). Agriculture was the prominent economic enterprise until the Great Depression in the 1930’s, which forced many farmers and large landowners to subdivide and sell their land holdings to survive this massive financial collapse. Rosemead and the surrounding area underwent a dramatic change as a result of the Great Depression, with expanding demographics to the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles after World War II. Rosemead has gone from an agricultural centric economy to a residential bedroom community that relies on retail, light manufacturing and service industries as its economic engine. Garvey Avenue resides within the Garvey Avenue Tract that was formally recognized by the City of Rosemead’s Chamber of Commerce in 1952. The boundaries of the Garvey Avenue Tract are comprised by New Avenue on the west and Rio Hondo Avenue on the east. The tract established its own school district in 1892, with electric service arriving in 1923. A demographic sampling of the Garvey Avenue Tract between the periods 1920’s through the early 1950’s showed the majority of the residences were employed in the manufacturing sector as skilled and unskilled labors and tradesmen that were drawn to the area due to its close proximity to the industrial/manufacturing centers located in east and central Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. This residential pattern continued well into the 1990’s, when Rosemead’s demographics changed, with the influx of large numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants. These new residents in the tract started business and opened up ethnic style restaurants, which transformed the neighborhood (Garvey Avenue) from a small-town atmosphere to a fast pace East Asian urban environment. (City of Rosemead General Plan 2010: 1-3). Cultural Setting 4 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 18 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 19 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment METHODS 5 5.1 – Cultural Resources Records Search On August 17, 2015, Mr. Purtell conducted a records search of the Study Area at the CHRIS-SCCIC. The records search included a review of all recorded archaeological and historical resources within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area as well as a review of cultural resource reports and historic topographic maps on file. In addition, MIG reviewed the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register, the National Register, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings. The purpose of the records search is to determine whether or not there are previously recorded archaeological or historical resources within the Study Area that require evaluation and treatment. The results also provide a basis for assessing the sensitivity of the Study Area for additional and buried cultural resources. 5.2 – Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation On August 13, 2015, Mr. Purtell commissioned a Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search of the Study Area through the NAHC and conducted follow-up consultation with the four (4) Native American groups and/or individuals by the NAHC as having affiliation with the Study Area vicinity. Each Native American group and/or individual listed was sent a project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any knowledge regarding prehistoric or Native American resources (archaeological sites, sacred lands, or artifacts) located within the Study Area or surrounding vicinity. The letter included information such as Study Area location and a brief description of the proposed project. Results of the search and follow-up consultation provided information as to the nature and location of additional prehistoric or Native American resources to be incorporated in the assessment whose records may not be available at the CHRIS-SCCIC. 5.3 – Paleontological Resources Records Search On August 14, 2015, Mr. Purtell commissioned a paleontological resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles, California. This institution maintains files of regional paleontological site records as well as supporting maps and documents. This records search entailed an examination of current geologic maps and known fossil localities inside and within the general vicinity of the Study Area. The objective of the records search was to determine the geological formations underlying the Study Area, whether any paleontological localities have previously been identified within the Study Area or in the same or similar formations near the Study Area, and the potential for excavations associated with the Study Area to encounter paleontological resources. The results also provide a basis for assessing the sensitivity of the Study Area for additional and buried paleontological resources. Methods 5 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 20 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 21 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment RESULTS 6 6.1 – Cultural Resources Records Results of the records research conducted at the CHRIS-SCCIC indicate that there are no archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) located within the Study Area. However, the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicated that there is a single Native American prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project. The results of the record search indicate that there has been one (1) cultural resource studies/reports (LA-07311) previously conducted within the proposed project site and fourteen (14) cultural studies/reports that have been previously conducted within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area (see Table 1 Previously Conducted Cultural Reports within the Study Area). These studies were performed for nine (9) transmission lines and support facilities, two (2) new building construction projects, two (2) road widening projects, one (1) historic building assessment, and (1) water reclamation pipeline project. These studies were conducted between 1981 and 2009. Table 1 Previously Conducted Cultural Reports within the Study Area Report Number Year Report Title Study Authors LA-0318 1994 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey: 3149 N. San Gabriel Boulevard, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California New building construction McKenna, Jeanette, A. LA-04522 1981 Historical Property Survey For The Del Ma Avenue Widening Project Road widening project Anonymous LA-04524 1990 Historic Property Survey Report Graves Avenue Improvement Project Rosemead-Monterey Park-South San Gabriel, Los Angeles California Road widening project LSA Associates, Inc. LA-05465 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. VY 042-01, Los Angeles County, California Cell tower construction and support facilities Duke, Curt LA-06302 2002 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. VY 122-01 Cell tower construction and support facilities Duke, Curt LA-06313 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment AT&T Facility No. R236, Los Angeles California Cell tower construction and support facilities Duke, Curt, and Marvin, Judith LA-07302 2002 Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. VY 174-02 Located at Graves Avenue and Kelburn Avenue in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California Cell tower construction and support facilities Kyle, Carolyn, E. LA-07306 2004 Cultural Resources Assessment AT&T Facility No. SC-362-01, City of Monterey Park, Los Angeles California Cell tower construction and support facilities Bartoy, Kevin, M. LA-07311 Within the Project Area 2005 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate LA-016-01 (SV-007-01) 7840 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California Cell tower construction and support facilities Bonner, Wayne, H. LA-07979 2002 Results of Historic Architectural Assessment For Bechtel/AT&T Telecommunications Facility Candidate 95101141A (Worship Center) 201 South New Avenue, Monterey Park, Los Angeles County, California Cell tower construction and support facilities Dice, Michael H. LA-08901 2007 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead (Historic address 404-401 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey) Los Angeles County California Historic building assessment Daly, Pamela LA-09339 2008 Cultural Resources Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate IE25805C (Buddhist Union), 7839 Emerson Place, Rosemead, Los Angeles County, Cell tower construction and support facilities Bonner, Wayne, H. Results 6 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 22 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment California LA-11036 2009 Rosemead Extension Project Cultural Constraints Assessment Water reclamation pipeline Maxon, Patrick LA-12410 2013 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West LLC Candidate IE04386A (VY174 SCE Mesa Eagle Rock), Graves Avenue and Kelburn Avenue Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California Cell tower construction and support facilities Bonner, Wayne, H. and Crawford, Kathleen 6.2 – Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation The NAHC SLF records search results (received August 23, 2015) revealed that is a single prehistoric site located within the Study Area’s one-half mile buffer, but not within the Planning Area and will be impacted by the proposed project. As per NAHC suggested procedure, follow-up letters were sent via certified mail on August 31, 2015 to the four (4) Native American individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC as being affiliated with the vicinity of the Study Area to request any additional information they may have about Native American cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project. As of September 22, 2015, MIG has received one (1) response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. The Tribe is concerned that the proposed Planning Area is situated within or is near to the scared village of Shevaanga, which is an important Tribal Cultural Resource and thus, requests government to government consultation as outline in Assembly Bill 18. As of October 27, 2015, MIG has received no other responses from the Native American community concerning the proposed project. MIG will keep the City appraised with the progress of this on-going Native American consultation. The NAHC SLF records search results, the Native American contact list and response letter are provided in Appendix B of this report. 6.3 – Paleontological Resources Records Search Results of the paleontological resources records search through the Vertebrate Paleontological Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicate that no vertebrate fossil localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the Study Area or within a one-mile radius. However, there are three (3) previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702, LACM (CTI) 342 and LACM6350) located within a three-mile radius of the Study Area that were discovered within the same older sedimentary deposits that extends into the Study Area (McLeod 2015). (see Table 2 Vertebrate Fossil Localities in the Vicinity of the Study Area). Results 6 23 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Table 2 Vertebrate Fossil Localities in the Vicinity of the Study Area Locality Number and Approximate Location Taxa Common Name LACM 7701-7702, southwest of the proposed project area in the City of Commerce near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). Gasterosteus aculeatus Batrachoseps Lacertilia Colubridae Sylvilagus Microtus Reithrodontomys Thomomys Threespine stickleback Salamander Lizard Snake Rabbit Pocket mouse Harvest mouse Pocket gopher LACM (CIT) 342, west-northwest of the planning area, east of the Pasadena Freeway (I-110), and Eagle Rock Boulevard just south of York Boulevard. Parapavo californicus sp. Mammuthus sp Turkey Mammoth LACM 6350-6361, are all from around the Puente Hills Landfill east southeast of the proposed project area. Carcharodon carcharias Ganolytes Merluccius Diaphus and Lampanyctus Scombridae Coelorhynchus scaphopsis Pleuronectidae Cetacea White shark Herring Hake Lanternfish Mackerels Swordfish Flounder Whale Further, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the Study Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths greater than 11-feet that may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains (McLeod 2015). Deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains and therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development (McLeod 2015). The paleontological resources records search results letter from the NHMLAC is provided in Appendix C of this report. Results 6 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 24 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 25 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment EVALUATION 7 Evaluation of cultural resources is determined by conducting an “evaluation” of a resource’s eligibility for listing in the California Register; determining whether it qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource”; and determining whether the resource retains integrity. This is achieved by applying the California Register criteria (including criteria for a “unique archaeological resource”) as defined in Chapter 2 of this report. If a resource is determined eligible for listing in the California Register or qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” and retains integrity, then the resource is considered an archaeological resource and/or a historical resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5 and any substantial adverse change to the resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. The CEQA guidelines do not provide criteria to evaluate paleontological resources. 7.1 – Archaeological Resources As discussed previously in Chapter 6, no known archaeological resources from the SCCIC records were recorded within the Study Area. However, the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicate that there is a single Native American prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, no evaluation of archaeological resources is necessary. The Study Area is located within an urbanized mixed-use area along a 1.2-mile section of Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead. It is located approximately a sixth of a mile south of Interstate Highway 10 and 1.87-miles north of Interstate Highway 60. The Study Area is bounded along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the south. 7.2 – Historical Resources As discussed previously in Chapter 6, no known historical resources from the SCCIC records were recorded within the Study Area. However, property records provided by the Los County Office of the Assessor indicate that there are approximately 130 buildings and or structures within the planning area that were built before 1970. This suggests that these existing structures may be 45 years old or older, thus requiring a historic site evaluation to determine if any of these existing buildings or structures are eligible collectively (District) or individually (historic resource) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register Historic Resources (CRHR) prior to their redevelopment, adaptive-reuse, rehabilitation, or demolition. As result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce impact severity to historic resources to a less than significant level. 7.3 – Paleontological Resources As discussed previously in Chapter 6, no known vertebrate fossil localities from the NHMLAC database have been previously identified within the Study Area or within a mile radius. However, there are three (3) previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702, LACM (CTI) 342 and LACM6350) located within a three-mile radius of the Study Area that were discovered within the same older sedimentary deposits that extends into the Study Area (McLeod 2015). Nevertheless, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the Study Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths greater than 11-feet that may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains (McLeod 2015). Excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains and therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. As a result of these findings, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources Evaluation 7 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 26 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and/or unique geological features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 27 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment IMPACTS/EFFECTS ANALYSIS 8 The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the potential impacts to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources, and human remains associated with implementing the proposed project. 8.1 – CEQA Significance Thresholds 8.1.1 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The current CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. According to the CEQA Guidelines, an archaeological resource is further defined as a resource that qualifies as a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. These terms are defined earlier in this report. Therefore, a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource or “damage” to a unique archaeological resource. A “substantial adverse change” (as defined in the CEQA Guidelines) is caused when one or more of the following occurs:  Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.  The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:  Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or  Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or  Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.  The CEQA Guidelines do not define “damage” when it comes to unique archaeological resources, but it can be reasonably interpreted as having a meaning similar to that of “substantial adverse change” (as defined above). 8.1.2 – HISTORICAL RESOURCES The current CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. According to the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is further defined as a resource that qualifies for listing in the California Register or another federal or local register. The criteria for listing are defined earlier in this report. Therefore, a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource. The definition of “substantial adverse change” is provided in the previous section, 8.1.1. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) are codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 67.7. In most circumstances, the Standards are relevant in assessing whether there is a substantial adverse change under CEQA. Section 15064.5b(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part that “. . . a project that follows Impacts/Effects Analysis 8 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 28 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource,” and therefore may be considered categorically exempt. 8.1.3 – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The current CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The CEQA Guidelines do not define “directly or indirectly destroy,” but it can be reasonably interpreted as the physical damage, alteration, disturbance, or destruction of a paleontological resource. 8.1.4 – HUMAN REMAINS The current CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The CEQA Guidelines do not define “disturb” but it can be reasonably interpreted as the physical damage, alteration, disinterment, removal, disturbance, or destruction of any human remains. 8.2 – Potential Impacts 8.2.1 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed earlier, the City of Rosemead proposes the establishment of the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, which identifies a long-term vision and objectives for land-use development and public improvement along a 1.2-mile portion of Garvey Avenue in the western portion of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California. The Specific Plan will create site planning, building, parking, architectural, and open space standards and guidelines for development within the planning area. The planning area encompasses 88 acres and includes land designations/zoning districts supporting mixed-use, commercial, residential, public, and open space uses. 8.2.2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Results from the CHRIS-SCCIC indicated that there were no previously recorded archaeological resources within the Study Area. However, the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search indicate that there is a single Native American prehistoric site located outside of the planning area, but within a one-half mile radius of the Study Area. This prehistoric resource will not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, despite the heavy disturbances of the Study Area that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources exist at depth. As a result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 8.2.3 – HISTORICAL RESOURCES Results from the CHRIS-SCCIC indicated that there were no previously recorded historical resources within the Study Area. However, property records provided by the Los County Office of the Assessor indicate that there are approximately 130 buildings and or structures within the planning area that were built before 1970. This suggests that these existing structures may be 45 years old or older, thus requiring a historic site evaluation to determine if any of these existing buildings or structures are eligible collectively (District) or individually (historic resource) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register Historic Resources (CRHR) prior to their redevelopment, adaptive-reuse, rehabilitation, or demolition. As result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce impact severity to historic resources to a less than significant level. 8.2.4 – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Results of the paleontological resources records search through NHMLAC indicate that no vertebrate fossil localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the Study Area or within a one-mile radius. Moreover, Impacts/Effects Analysis 8 29 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment no paleontological resources were identified by MIG during the pedestrian survey. However, there are three (3) previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702, LACM (CTI) 342 and LACM6350) located within a three-mile radius of the Study Area that were discovered within the same older sedimentary deposits that extends into the Study Area (McLeod 2015). Nevertheless, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the Study Area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths greater than 11-feet that may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains (McLeod 2015). Excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains and therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. As a result of these findings, recommended mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 9 to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. 8.2.5 – HUMAN REMAINS No known human remains have been identified from the CHRIS-SCCIC database within a half-mile radius of the Study Area. No human remains were identified during the site survey of the Study Area. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed project. Similar to the discussion regarding archaeological resources above, it is also possible to encounter buried human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within a half-mile of the Study Area, and the favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. As a result, recommended mitigation measures are provided in the following chapter that would reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Impacts/Effects Analysis 8 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 30 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 31 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 9 9.1 – Archeological Resources In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during earthmoving operations the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources that are accidentally discovered during implementation of the proposed project to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resource’s professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session will include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities will be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet will be established around the find where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work will be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities will be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant and or the City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction Recommended Mitigation Measures 9 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 32 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 9.2 – Historical Resources The following mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-5: Adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. A qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and any specific modifications to do so. Mitigation Measure CULT-6: Incorporate identified existing historic resources into the proposed new site design. The applicant shall retain a professional historic architect who meets the qualifications set forth by the US Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to incorporate a portion of the identified historic resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-7: Fund the creation of a Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of Rosemead. The applicant shall retain a professional historian or architectural historian who meets the qualifications set forth US Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to assist in the development of the Ordinance. Mitigation Measure CULT-8: Fund a survey of the City of Rosemead to aide in identifying other potential historic resources in the City to guide future preservation efforts. The applicant shall retain a professional historian or architectural historian who meets the qualifications set forth US Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to design the survey. The survey shall be guided by National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Recommended Mitigation Measures 9 33 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Mitigation Measure CULT-9: Partner with a local history organization to offer lectures, tours and open houses before any changes would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continuing eligibility. Mitigation Measure CULT-10: Document the historic resource before any changes would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. Mitigation Measure CULT-11: Prepare an extensive site history documenting the development of the site. Copies shall be made available at the Rosemead Library. 9.3 – Paleontological Resources The following mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources as recommended by the NHMLAC to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-12: Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Mitigation Measure CULT-13: Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Recommended Mitigation Measures 9 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 34 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Mitigation Measure CULT-14: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Mitigation Measure CULT-15: Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. 9.4 – Human Remains For components of the proposed project that require excavation activities, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-16: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project, the City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and or the Applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 35 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment REFERENCES CITED 10 Bean, Lowell J. 1978 Cahuilla. In R. F. Heizer, (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California: 575-587. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute. Bean, L.J., Smith, C., R. 1978 Serrano. In R. F. Heizer, (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California: 575-587. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute. Bean, L.J., Shipek, F., C. 1978 Serrano. In R. F. Heizer, (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California: 550-563. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute. City of Rosemead 2010 City of Rosemead: General Plan, pg.1-3. Report on file at City of Rosemead City Hall. City of Rosemead 2010 City of Rosemead: General Plan. Geological & Seismic Hazards. Report electronically available at: http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/470/Geological-Seismic-Hazards Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff. 1984 The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park: Stanford University Press. County of Los Angeles 2015 Historic Preservation Ordinance, No. 22 for the Unincorporated Areas of the County. Department of Regional Planning 22.44.3000-.3040, pg. 1-61. Ordinance on file at County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi 2007 One If By Land, Two If By Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In T. Jones & K. Klar (eds.). California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Pages 53-62. Alta Mira Press. Goldberg, Susan (editor) 2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Applied Earthworks, Inc., Hemet, California. Heizer, Robert F. (editor) 1978 California. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by David R. Brown, Kathryn C. Mitchell and Henry W. Chaney, pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara. Keller, Jean K. and Daniel F. McCarthy. 1989 Data Recovery at the Cole Canyon Site (CA-RIV-139), Riverside, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 25(1). References Cited 10 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan 36 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Los Angeles County 2016 Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property records are available at the County’s Office of the Assessor, 500 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 McLeod, Samuel 2015 Paleontology Literature and Record Review, Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California. Meighan, C. W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215–227. Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nuñez, and Dennis J. Stanford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659-663. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego. Porretta, Paul 1983 Dedication of Historical Marker for Pochea Indian Village Site, California Registered Historical Landmark No. 104 at Ramona Bowl, Hemet, California, October 2, 1983. Record on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside 92521-0418. U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map 1966 7.5-minute series, Quadrant: El Monte, California Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. Warren, Claude M. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales. Wright, T. L. 1991 Structural geology and tectonic evolution of the Los Angeles basin, California, in Biddle, K. T. ed., Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, p. 35–134. Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H. Schoellhamer, J.E., and J.G. Vedder. 1965 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California; an Introduction. USGS Professional Paper: 420-A, 57pg. Appendix A Resume Christopher W. Purtell, M.A., RPA SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST Christopher Purtell is an archaeologist and archaeological project manager with over ten years of professional experience. He is well-versed in project management, environmental compliance, subcontracting, archaeological survey, excavation, monitoring, data recovery, laboratory analysis, and in the development of mitigation and treatment plans. Mr. Purtell has successfully coordinated cultural resource projects, mitigation measures, and recommendations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Mr. Purtell has worked with a variety of lead and regulatory agencies, including Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Orange County, Kern County, Inyo County, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others. Mr. Purtell is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and his training and background meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as a Principle Investigator and Field Director for prehistoric and historic archaeology. His project management duties have included profit and loss responsibilities, budget management, scope preparation, project task administration, Native American scoping/consultation, subcontractor evaluation and procurement, coordination with lead agencies, clients, and project result meetings with the public and stakeholders both in public and in private forms. His experience also includes cultural resources staff management, review and oversight of cultural surveys results and site recordation to include GIS management and databases, preparation of technical reports and overseeing the quality control assurance of all deliverables. AFFILIATIONS • Register of Professional Archaeologist (ID No. 990027) • Society for American Archaeology (SAA) • Society for California Archaeology (SCA) TRAINING • OSHA 8-hr Annual HazWaste Operations Refresher Certification, March 2016 • OSHA 40-hr HazWaste Operations Certification (Certification No. 10052), January 2014 EDUCATION • Master of Arts, Anthropology (Emphasis in Archaeology), California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA • Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology/Archaeology, Minor in Geography, California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA RELEVANT EXPERIENCE • Senior Archaeologist and Project Manager, Section 106 Evaluation Assessment for the Lytle Creek Ranch South Residential Commercial Development-City of Rialto, San Bernardino County • Senior Archaeologist, PSEP SL32-21 Pasadena Hydro-test Project for Southern California Gas Company-City of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles • Senior Archaeologist, PSEP SL 36-9-09 North Section Pismo Beach Hydro-test Project for Southern California Gas Company-City of Pismo Beach, County of San Luis Obispo • Senior Archaeologist, Long Span P610466 & P613008 Project for San Diego Gas and Electric-City of Bonsall, County of San Diego • Senior Cultural Resources Specialist, Grounding Rods and Laterals Installation at San Fernando Substation for Southern California Edison-City of San Fernando, County of Los Angeles • Senior Archaeologist and Project Manager, Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed North San Diego County Recycled Water Project-San Diego County • Senior Archaeologist and Project Manager, Archaeological Survey Report California Street Off-Ramp Project-City of Ventura, Ventura County • Project Manager and Senior Cultural Resources Coordinator, Runway Safety Area Improvement to Runway 6L-24R • Project-Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles County Appendix B NAHC Letter & Native American Contact List Project Name: Garvey Avenue EIR ProjectProject Number: 20191NAHC Contact Initiated: 8/13/2015NAHC Letter Received: 8/23/2015Results:Matrix prepared by Chris PurtellFollow Up conducted by Francois McGinnisGroup/NameDate Contact was InitiatedMethod of Contact ResponseGabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Chairperson, Anthony Morales 626‐483‐35648/31/2015U.S. Mail; Certified MailFollow‐up phone call on September 8, 2015, left a voice message. Follow‐up phone call on September 15, 2015, left a voice message and there has been no response.Gabrieleno Bandof Mission Indians, Chairperson, Andrew Salas 626‐926‐41318/31/2015U.S. Mail; Certified MailFollow‐up phone call on September 8, 2015, left a voice message, no response. Received email on September 22, 2015, Mr.Salas advising that the proposed Planning Area is located within or is near to the scared village site of Shevaanga and requested government to government consultation. Mr. Salas's request was forwarded to the City and MIG will keep appraised with the on‐going Native American consultation.Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation, Cultural Resources Director, Sam Dunlap 909‐262‐93518/31/2015U.S. Mail; Certified MailFollow‐up phone call on September 8, 2015, left a voice message and there was no response. Follow‐up phone call on September 15, 2015, left a voice message and there has been no response.Native American Consultation RecordThe NAHC identify a single Native American Cultural Resource within a one‐mile radius of the Study Area in their Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search. The NAHC recommended that we contact four (4) Native American groups/individuals listed below.Page 1 of 2 Group/NameDate Contact was InitiatedMethod of Contact ResponseGabrielino‐Tongva Tribe, Co‐Chairperson, Linda Candelaria 626‐676‐11848/31/2015U.S. Mail; Certified MailFollow‐up phone call on September 8, 2015, left a voice message and there was no response. Follow‐up phone call on September 15, 2015, left a voice message and there has been no response.Page 2 of 2 Appendix C Paleontology Search Results Vertebrate Paleontology Section Telephone: (213) 763-3325 Fax: (213) 746-7431 e-mail: smcleod@nhm.org 2 September 2015 MIG / Hogle-Ireland 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 Attn: Christopher W. Purtell, Senior Archaeologist re: Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for paleontological resources for the proposed Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Project, Project # 20191, in South San Gabriel, Los Angeles County, project area Dear Christopher: I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Project, Project # 20191, in South San Gabriel, Los Angeles County, project area as outlined on the portion of the El Monte USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on 13 August 2015. We do not have any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project boundaries, but we do have localities nearby from sedimentary deposits that may occur at relatively shallow depth within the proposed project area. The entire proposed project area has surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived broadly as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain to the west and north with fluvial deposits from the active Alhambra Wash that currently flows through the very eastern portion of the proposed project area near the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain but older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depth. Our closest vertebrate fossil localities from these Quaternary deposits are LACM 7701-7702, southwest of the proposed project area in the City of Commerce near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710) that produced fossil specimens of threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, salamander, Batrachoseps, lizard, Lacertilia, snake, Colubridae, rabbit, Sylvilagus, pocket mouse, Microtus, harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys, and pocket gopher, Thomomys, at 11 to 34 feet below grade. Older Quaternary Alluvium, primarily derived as fan deposits from the hills just south of the proposed project area, occur immediately to the south of the proposed project area and probably occur at relatively shallow depth within the proposed project area. Our closest vertebrate fossil locality from older Quaternary deposits is LACM (CIT) 342, in Eagle Rock west-northwest of the proposed project area east of the Pasadena Freeway (I-110) and Eagle Rock Boulevard just south of York Boulevard, that produced fossil specimens of turkey, Parapavo californicus, and mammoth, Mammuthus, at a depth of 14 feet below the surface. The fossil turkey specimen from locality LACM (CIT) 342 was published in the scientific literature by L.H. Miller in 1942 (A New Fossil Bird Locality. Condor, 44(6):283-284) and the mammoth specimen was a rare, nearly complete skeleton and was published in the scientific literature by V.L. Roth in 1984 (How Elephants Grow: Heterochrony and the Calibration of Developmental Stages in Some Living and Fossil Species. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 4(1):126-145). In the hills just to the south of the proposed project area there are exposures of the Pliocene Fernando Formation that may occur at depth in the proposed project area. According to the geologic mapping this may be a non-marine facies of the otherwise marine Fernando Formation. Our closest fossil vertebrate localities in the Fernando Formation, LACM 6350- 6361, are all from around the Puente Hills Landfill southeast of the proposed project area. These localities, from the marine facies of the Fernando Formation, have produced a suite of fossil marine vertebrates including great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, herring, Ganolytes, hake, Merluccius, lanternfish, Diaphus and Lampanyctus, mackerels, Scombridae, swordfish, Coelorhynchus scaphopsis, flounder, Pleuronectidae and whale, Cetacea. Surface grading or shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary Alluvium exposed throughout the proposed project area are unlikely to encounter significant fossil vertebrates. Deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, however, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area sites, therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. Sediment samples should also be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. This records search covers only the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey. Sincerely, Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. Vertebrate Paleontology enclosure: invoice APPENDIX F NOISE STUDY Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Noise Study March 2017(20191) Prepared for: City of Rosemead 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Prepared by: MIG 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 This document is formatted for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Noise Study March 2017 City of Rosemead, California Garvey Avenue Specific Plan i Table of Contents 1 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3 Fundamentals of Noise ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Defining Noise .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 The Production of Sound ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Measuring Sound ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Standards for Noise Equivalent ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Vibration and Groundborne Noise ............................................................................................................................ 8 4 Existing Noise Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Existing Noise Measurements .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................................................................................. 13 5 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 ......................................................................................................................... 17 Federal Transit Administration ............................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 State Regulations ................................................................................................................................................... 19 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........................................................................................................ 19 California Noise Control Act of 1973 ...................................................................................................................... 19 California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR Title 24) ............................................................................................ 19 State of California General Plan Guidelines 2003 .................................................................................................. 19 California Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 19 5.3 Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................................... 20 City of Rosemead Municipal Code ......................................................................................................................... 20 City of Rosemead General Plan Noise Element .................................................................................................... 22 6 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................................................................... 26 6.2 Consistency with Applicable Standards ................................................................................................................. 26 Demolition and Construction Noise ........................................................................................................................ 26 This Page Intentionally Left BlankFuture Noise Levels Along Existing Roadway Segments ................................. 32 6.3 Vibration Impacts ................................................................................................................................................... 42 7 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................................... 47 8 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Tables Table 1 Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................................................................ 13 Table 3 Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment .................................................................. 18 Table 4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................................................... 18 Table 5 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria .................................................................................................... 20 Table 6 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria ............................................................................................... 20 Table 7 Construction Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 8 West Gateway Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 28 Table 9 Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 28 Table 10 Future 2035 CNEL Without Project Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................... 34 Table 11 Future 2035 CNEL with Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................. 34 Table 12 Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase ........................................................................................................... 35 Table of Contents ii Noise Impact Assessment Table 13 West Gateway Traffic Noise Level Impact ......................................................................................................... 41 Table 14 Former LA Auto Auction Site Traffic Noise Level Impact ................................................................................... 42 Table 15 Common Construction Vibration ........................................................................................................................ 43 Table 16 Maximum Future Vibration Impacts ................................................................................................................... 43 Table 17 West Gateway Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................................................. 44 Table 18 Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction Vibration Impacts ............................................................................ 45 Figures Figure 1 Hertz Diagram ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix .................................................................................................................. 23 Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional and Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 3 Existing Traffic Noise Contours .......................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 4 Receptors: West Gateway ................................................................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 5 Receptors: LA Auction Site ................................................................................................................................ 31 Exhibit 6 2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours ..................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 7 2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours ........................................................................................... 39 Appendix Appendix A Noise Measurement Data Appendix B Construction Output Data Appendix C TNM Output Data Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Project Location The planning area is located generally along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue to the west, Whitmore Street to the north, Charlotte Avenue to the east, and Newmark Avenue to the south in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (see Exhibit 1, Regional Context and Vicinity Map). The intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue is the approximate central point of the plan area located at Latitude 34° 3' 45" North, Longitude 118° 5' 58" West. 1.2 Project Description The project is the adoption and long-term implementation of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan establishes new land uses and development standards for the planning area to guide redevelopment and new construction. The Specific Plan also identifies infrastructure needs for the planning area. The Specific Plan identifies opportunity projects in the planning area that have near-term potential for development and conceptual design specific to those projects’ respective sites. The opportunity projects include the former LA Auto Auction/Landwin Property Site, West Gateway Specialty Retail Destination, Prototypical Development Opportunity Sites, and the Streetscape Redesign Opportunity Project. In addition to the opportunity projects, the Specific Plan identifies vacant and underutilized land within the planning area that is anticipated to be redeveloped over the long-term. Future redevelopment will be subject to the development standards of the Specific Plan but no specific deign has been identified for those areas at this time. This type of redevelopment will be analyzed at the program-level with the analysis based on anticipated, reasonable assumptions for growth based on the development standards of the Specific Plan. Depending on the size and use associated with future redevelopment, additional environmental review may be required when such projects are proposed. Finally, the Specific Plan identifies the need for storm drain, water, wastewater, and roadway improvements to accommodate the growth associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Executive Summary 2 Noise Impact Assessment Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 3 Exhibit 1 Regional and Vicinity Map Executive Summary 4 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 5 2 INTRODUCTION This report includes program-level analysis of construction- and operation-related noise generated from implementation of the proposed Garvey Avenue Specific Plan in the City of Rosemead. Vibration effects and airport noise are also discussed herein. This report has been prepared utilizing traffic volumes provided by the project traffic study and represents a “worst-case” analysis to ensure a conservative estimate of noise impacts. This report has been prepared for use by the Lead Agency to assess potential project-related noise impacts to the environment in compliance with Federal, State, or local guidelines, particularly with respect to the noise issues identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This report does not make determinations of significance pursuant to CEQA because such determinations are required to be made solely in the purview of the Lead Agency. This report has been prepared by Christopher Brown (Director of Environmental Services) and Olivia Chan (Associate Analyst) of MIG, Inc. under contract to the City of Rosemead. Christopher Brown Olivia Chan Director of Environmental Services Associate Analyst Introduction 6 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 7 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE 3.1 Defining Noise “Sound” is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected. “Noise” is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. THE PRODUCTION OF SOUND Sound has three properties: amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustical wave (loudness), frequency (pitch), and duration of the noise. Despite the ability to measure sound, human perceptibility is subjective, and the physical response to sound complicates the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” MEASURING SOUND Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bels. To provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by three dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by three dB. A three dB change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a five dB change is generally readily perceptible.1 Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. Hertz is a unit of frequency that defines any periodic event. In the case of sound pressure, a Hertz defines one cycle of a sound wave per second (see Figure 1, Hertz Diagram). To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. Figure 1 Hertz Diagram Existing Noise Environment 8 Noise Impact Assessment STANDARDS FOR NOISE EQUIVALENT Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise:2 Leq (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. Leq is typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 PM and before 7:00 AM. CNEL and Ldn are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. Leq is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period. Federal and State agencies have established noise and land use compatibility guidelines that use averaging approaches to noise measurement. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). 3.2 Vibration and Groundborne Noise Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude and unlike sound; there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration can be described in units of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in decibel (dB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) that describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). For purposes of this analysis, PPV will be used to describe all vibration for ease of reading and comparison. Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment.3 The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron microscopes. Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving, grading activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other heavy equipment are used. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 9 4 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Sensitive Receptors The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residential uses make up the majority of these areas. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the City. 4.2 Existing Noise Measurements Short-term noise measurements were conducted to identify the ambient noise within the Planning Area. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI4 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor existing ambient noise levels in Planning Area. The noise meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in A-weighted form. The microphone height was set at five feet. Six 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken on Wednesday September 28, 2016. Ambient noise levels are a composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. The dominant noise source at all monitoring locations was vehicular traffic. Measurement locations are shown in Exhibit 2 (Noise Measurement Locations). Ambient noise levels are presented in Table 1 (Ambient Noise Levels) and measurement output data is included as Appendix A. Table 1 Ambient Noise Levels Site Date Time Leq Lmax Lmin Location 1 9/28/16 11:19 AM – 11:34 AM 69.7 84.1 53.8 Dequine Avenue & Garvey Avenue 2 9/28/16 11:39 AM – 11:54 AM 57.2 66.8 45.3 Jackson Avenue & Newmark Avenue 3 9/28/16 12:00 PM – 12:15 PM 57.0 74.0 45.3 Evelyn Avenue & Garvey Avenue 4 9/28/16 12:21 PM – 12:36 PM 54.5 78.0 39.7 Strathmore Avenue & Virginia Street 5 9/28/16 12:43 PM – 12:58 PM 70.2 88.4 51.6 Pine Street & Garvey Avenue 6 9/28/16 1:03 PM – 1:18 PM 65.5 83.5 48.4 Charlotte Avenue & Garvey Avenue Regulatory Framework 10 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 11 Exhibit 2 Noise Measurement Locations Regulatory Framework 12 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 13 4.3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Existing traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using Version 2.5 of the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by calculating distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours assuming a reduction of 6 dB with every doubling of distance. For roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort. Specifically, calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding nor do they assume reflection from existing or proposed structures or topography. Traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with TNM to estimate the noise levels in terms of CNEL. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by KOA Corporation. Existing traffic volumes are provided in the traffic study. The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadway are shown in Table 2 (Existing Traffic Noise Levels). Existing traffic noise contours are shown in Exhibit 3 (Existing Traffic Noise Contours). Table 2 Existing Traffic Noise Contours Roadway Segment Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 582 327 184 104 btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 582 327 184 104 btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 617 347 195 110 btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 617 347 195 110 btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 617 347 195 110 btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 624 351 197 111 btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 624 343 193 108 e/o Walnut Grove Ave 624 351 197 111 Del Mar Avenue btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 624 389 219 123 s/o Garvey Ave 624 351 197 111 San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 624 473 266 150 s/o Garvey Ave 624 457 257 145 Regulatory Framework 14 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 15 Exhibit 3 Existing Traffic Noise Contours Regulatory Framework 16 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 17 5 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 5.1 Federal Regulations FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate Federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In response, the EPA published information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended that the Ldn should not exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and annoyance in noise-sensitive areas. In addition, the Levels of Environmental Noise identified five dBA as an “adequate margin of safety” for a noise level increase relative to a baseline noise exposure level of 55 dBA Ldn (i.e., there would not be a noticeable increase in adverse community reaction with an increase of five dBA or less from this baseline level). The EPA did not promote these findings as universal standards or regulatory goals with mandatory applicability to all communities, but rather as advisory exposure levels below which there would be no risk to a community from any health or welfare effect of noise. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at more localized levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments. However, noise control guidelines and regulations contained in EPA rulings in prior years remain in place by designated Federal agencies, allowing more individualized control for specific issues by designated Federal, State, and local government agencies. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed methodology and significance criteria to evaluate incremental noise impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e., on road motor vehicles and trains) as presented in Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (FTA Guidelines). These incremental noise impact criteria are based on EPA findings and subsequent studies of annoyance in communities affected by transportation noise. The FTA extended the EPA’s five dBA incremental impact criterion to higher ambient levels. As baseline ambient levels increase, smaller and smaller increments are allowed to limit expected increases in community annoyance. For example, in residential areas with a baseline ambient noise level of 50 dBA CNEL, a less-than-five dBA increase in noise levels would produce a minimal increase in community annoyance levels, while at 70 dBA CNEL, only one dBA increase could be accommodated before a significant annoyance increase would occur. VIBRATION STANDARDS The FTA provides guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. Groundborne vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in Table 2 (Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment). Table 3 (Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria) shows the Federal Transit Administration’s maximum acceptable vibration standard for human annoyance in residences where people normally sleep is 80 VdB (less than 70 vibration events per day). Regulatory Framework 18 Noise Impact Assessment Table 3 Reference Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) at 25 Feet Approximate Vibration Level (VL) at 25 Feet Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112 0.644 (typical) 104 Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 (upper range) 105 0.170 (typical) 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66 Slurry wall 0.017 in rock 75 Vibratory roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Notes: PPV is the peak particle velocity. Pile driver amplitude varies greatly based on equipment type and size. Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006. Table 4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Land Use Category Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB) Groundborne Noise Impact Levels (dBA) Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2 Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2 Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior vibrations 65 VdB3 65 VdB3 N/A N/A Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA 1 Frequent Events – more than 70 vibration events per day 2 Infrequent Events – fewer than 70 vibration events per day 3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for more moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Source: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, 1995 The FTA and Caltrans have compiled the data from numerous studies related to vibration and have developed standards for human perception and building damage. The FTA’s maximum acceptable vibration standard for human annoyance is 78 VdB at nearby vibration-sensitive land uses.4 The Caltrans maximum vibration level standard is 0.2 in/sec PPV for the prevention of structural damage to typical residential buildings.5 Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 19 5.2 State Regulations CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CEQA requires lead agencies to consider noise impacts. Under CEQA, lead agencies are directed to assess conformance to locally established noise standards or other agencies’ noise standards; measure and identify the potentially significant exposure of people to or generation of excessive noise levels; measure and identify potentially significant permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels; and measure and identify potentially significant impacts associated with air traffic. CALIFORNIA NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1973 Sections 46000-46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS (CCR TITLE 24) In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for multi-family residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside noise sources). The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is proposed to be located near an existing or adopted freeway route, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source, and where such noise source or sources create an exterior CNEL (or Ldn) of 60 dBA or greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA or below [California's Title 24 Noise Standards, Chap. 2-35]. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES 2003 Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2003, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. The OPR Guidelines identify the suitability of various types of development relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the variability in community preferences. Findings presented in the Levels of Environmental Noise Document (EPA 1974) influenced the recommendations of the OPR Guidelines, most importantly in the choice of noise exposure metrics (i.e., Ldn or CNEL) and in the upper limits for the normally acceptable outdoor exposure of noise-sensitive uses. The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix which identifies acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. Where the “normally acceptable” range is used, it is defined as the highest noise level that should be considered for the construction of the buildings which do not incorporate any special acoustical treatment or noise mitigation. The “conditionally acceptable” or “normally acceptable” ranges include conditions calling for detailed acoustical study or construction mitigation to reduce interior exposure levels prior to the construction or operation of the building under the listed exposure levels. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION According to the Caltrans vibration manual, large bulldozers, vibratory rollers (used to compact earth), and loaded trucks utilized during grading activities can produce vibration, and depending on the level of vibration, could cause annoyance at uses within the project vicinity or damage structures. Caltrans has developed a screening tool to determine of vibration from construction equipment is substantial enough to impact surrounding uses. Regulatory Framework 20 Noise Impact Assessment The Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for vibration impacts on buildings and humans. These thresholds are summarized in Tables 4 (Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria) and 5 (Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria). Table 5 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structural Integrity Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Continuous Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.25 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50 Source: Caltrans 2013 Table 6 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria Human Response PPV Threshold (in/sec) Transient Continuous Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severely perceptible 2.00 0.40 Source: Caltrans 2013 5.3 Local Regulations CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE Interior and exterior noise standards are included in Chapter 8.36 (Noise Control) of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code, included below: 8.36.030 – Exemptions A. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Activities conducted on public playgrounds and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to, school athletic or school entertainment events or programs sponsored by the Rosemead Recreation Department; 2. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell provided the sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within thirty minutes in any hour of its being activated. 3. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the noise standard of sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as measured on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety; 4. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment associated with agricultural operations provided: Operations do not take place between eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 21 5. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided such activities take place between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. on any day except Sunday, or between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Sunday; 6. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal law, including but not limited to: aircraft, motor vehicles, railroads, and other interstate carriers; 7. The provisions of this chapter shall not preclude the construction, operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and recreation departments, public work projects, or public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. 8.36.060 – Noise Standards A. Exterior Nosie Standards 1. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all receptor properties within a designated noise zone: Noise Zone Type of Land Use (Receptor Property) Time Interval Allowable Exterior Noise Level I Single-, double- or multiple-family residential 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 45 dBA 60 dBA II Commercial 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA III Industrial or manufacturing Anytime 70 dBA 2. A person shall not in any location of the City create any noise, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person (hereinafter “noise source”), which causes the noise level when measured on any property (hereinafter “receptor property”), to exceed: a. The applicable noise standard for a cumulative period of time of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or b. The applicable noise standard plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or c. The applicable noise standard plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or d. The applicable noise standard plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or e. The noise standard plus twenty dBA for any period of time. 3. In the even the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first three noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. 4. If the receptor property is located on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the quieter noise zone shall apply. 5. If the noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the measured noise level obtained while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the receptor property’s designated land use and for the time of day the noise level is measured. B. Interior Noise Standards 1. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential receptor property within all noise zones: Regulatory Framework 22 Noise Impact Assessment Noise Zone Type of Land Use (Receptor Property) Time Interval Allowable Exterior Noise Level All Residential Anytime 45 dBA The noise limit specified above shall be reduced by five dBA for noises consisting of speech or music, provided, however, that if the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard the ambient shall be standard. 2. A person shall not at any location within the City create any noise, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured within any receptor residential dwelling unit in any noise zone to exceed: a. The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or b. The interior noise standard plus the five dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or c. The interior noise standard plus ten dBA for any period of time. 3. In the even the ambient noise level exceeds the noise limit categories set forth in subdivisions (2)(e) and (2)(b) above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. 4. If the receptor property is located on a boundary between two different noise zones, the noise level standard applicable to the quieter noise zone shall apply. 5. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot be reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the same procedures specified in subsection (A)(5) of this section shall be deemed proper to enforce the provisions of this chapter. CITY OF ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT The noise contours included in the City of Rosemead Noise Element are used as a guide for planning. According to the General Plan, traffic noise is a significant source of noise within the City. Many residential uses are affected by traffic noise and are exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL. Land use compatibility guidelines are the basis for development of the specific noise standards and are presented in Figure 2 (Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix). Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 23 Figure 2 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix Source: City of Rosemead General Plan Noise Element. Figure 6-3. October 2008 Regulatory Framework 24 Noise Impact Assessment The following General Plan Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions are applicable to construction-related and vehicular traffic noise within the Planning Area: Goal 1: Effective incorporation of noise considerations into land use planning decisions. Policy 1.1: Ensure compliance with standards for interior and exterior noise established within the Noise Element and Zoning Code. Policy 1.2: Require new multiple-family residential development to comply with State regulations if they are to be located in areas where ambient noise levels exceed 60 dB. Policy 1.3: Periodically review and update the Existing Noise Contours Map to ensure that any future noise increases not considered in the Noise Element will be identified. Policy 1.4: Encourage acoustical design in new construction. Policy 1.5: Require sound walls to be constructed in designated mixed-use districts where noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent properties. Policy 1.6: Require parking and loading facilities in mixed use districts to be located and designed to minimize the potential noise impacts to adjacent noise sensitive uses. Policy 1.7: Provide an acceptable noise environment for existing and future Rosemead residents. Implementation Actions Action 1.1 Enforce the City Noise Ordinance, which specifies acceptable limits of noise for various land uses located throughout the City. Action 1.2 Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The noise contours, illustrated on the Existing Noise Contours Map, identify areas within the City exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL and shall be used to identify locations of potential conflict. Require acoustical analyses, as appropriate, for proposed residential development within the 60 dB CNEL or higher contour. New developments will be permitted only if appropriate mitigation measures are included. Action 1.3 Enforce provisions of the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) that specify that indoor noise levels for multi-family residential living spaces shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL. The standard is defined as the combined effect of all noise sources, and is implemented when existing or future exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB CNEL. Title 24 further requires that the standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. The City will additionally apply the standard to single-family dwellings and condominium conversion projects. Action 1.4 As a condition of development approval, new commercial and industrial projects located adjacent to residential areas shall demonstrate reduction of potential noise impacts on neighboring residential development to acceptable levels. Goal 2: Reduced noise impacts from transportation sources. Policy 2.1: Require consideration of noise impacts and mitigation in the design of new roadway projects and improvements to major or secondary arterials. Policy 2.2: Reduce transportation noise by prohibiting through truck traffic on local streets in residential areas. Regulatory Framework Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 25 Policy 2.3: Continue to support the efforts of the Los Angeles County Sheriff to enforce vehicle codes as they relate to noise generation. Policy 2.4: Consider alternatives to further reduce impacts on noise sensitive land uses generated from rail traffic associated with operation of the Alameda Corridor East project. Policy 2.5: Consider “Quiet Zone” rail crossing elements to meet Rail Authority Criteria. Policy 2.6: Coordinate with other agencies such as MTA before approval of proposed projects where applicable to mitigate noise impacts. Implementation Actions Action 2.1 Enforce State Motor Vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles through coordination with the California Highway Patrol and the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Action 2.2 Encourage industrial and commercial activities to restrict their receiving operations to daytime periods. Action 2.3 Require new commercial/industrial/mixed use development proposal to designate delivery and loading/unloading areas away from residential uses. Action 2.4 Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to monitor and decrease noise levels. Goal 3: Effective implementation of measures to control non-transportation noise impacts. Policy 3.1: Enforce provisions of the Community Noise Ordinance to mitigate noise conflicts. Policy 3.2: Require that potential sources of noise be considered when approving new development to reduce the possibility of adverse effects. Policy 3.3: Evaluate noise generated by construction activities to ensure compliance with the Community Noise Ordinance. Policy 3.4: Establish and maintain coordination among the City departments involved in noise abatement. Implementation Actions Action 3.1 Enforce the comprehensive community noise ordinance to ensure that City residents are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources including but not limited to gatherings, entertainment devices, loudspeakers, loading and unloading, powered model vehicles, and vehicle repairs and alarms. Action 3.2 All new residential projects to be constructed near existing stationary sources of noise (including but not limited to industrial activities, commercial facilities, and public parks with sports activities) must achieve a minimum of 20 dBA of building noise reduction. Establish a threshold on the number of residential units permitted near existing stationary sources of noise. Action 3.3 Reduce construction-related noise using control measures at all construction sites, including but not limited to the use of mufflers on construction equipment or the physical separation or machinery from adjacent residential uses. Action 3.4 The Planning Division shall act as the City noise control coordinating agency and will ensure the continued operation of City noise enforcement efforts. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 26 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS The thresholds identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as implemented by the City of Rosemead, have been utilized to assess the significance of the potential environmental effects of the project. 6.1 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to noise if it results in: A. Exposure of persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. E. 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, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. F. For a project within a vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6.2 Consistency with Applicable Standards DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE Prototypical Development Sites The Project is a Specific Plan and thus does not include or authorize any construction activities; however, growth is anticipated in the Planning Area and can be accommodated by the Specific Plan, resulting construction noise and increases in traffic noise from operation of future homes and businesses. This is a programmatic document designed to evaluate the forecasted effects of the Project on the environment and to determine if those effects may result in significant impacts pursuant to City’s noise ordinance and compatibility standards. The determinations adopted by the Lead Agency can be used in the analysis of future projects by way of the /tiering/ mechanism provided in CEQA. The analysis of effects on the noise environment and the resulting impact determinations have been developed to maximize the ability for future projects to have reduced environmental review using /tiering/ and other streamlining opportunities provided by CEQA. Like parcels have been grouped together based on size, proposed land use, and development status. Other property attributes are considered where germane to the analysis at hand. Project-level development thresholds and construction noise scenarios have been generated by taking into account the area of an average parcel size by proposed land use designation. General construction equipment use is based on parcel size utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Construction activities would generate a variety of noise levels associated with different kinds of construction equipment and the location of staging, construction, storage and access routes. Demolition, grading, paving, landscaping and building construction processes involve equipment and vehicles that are known to produce intrusive levels of noise. This will result in temporary increase in local noise levels near the active construction sites that could adversely affect neighboring land uses, particularly those where sensitive receptors are located. Construction activity generates noise that potentially has a short-term impact on ambient noise levels and can reach high levels that have the potential to impact nearby sensitive land uses. Future construction projects within the City will be subject to rules of the noise ordinance. The construction noise impacts to a particular neighborhood are dependent upon a number of factors specific to the project. Some of the factors include Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 27 proximity to sensitive land uses, time of day, intervening barriers, level of construction (e.g., number and type of construction equipment that is operating simultaneously), and the duration of the project’s construction phase. Utilizing default CalEEMod construction equipment for each parcel group, worst-case examples of construction noise at various distances have been modeled utilizing the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and summarized in Table 7 (Construction Noise). Modeling parameters and output are provided in Appendix B. RCNM utilizes standard noise emission levels for different types of equipment and includes utilization percentage, impact, and shielding parameters. Noise levels will be greatest during the demolition phase of construction for all parcel groups. Table 7 shows maximum noise levels at various distances. Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(A)(3) (Exemptions), construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and Saturday is exempt, provided that noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at residential property lines. The residential noise standard during construction activities and commercial noise standard of 65 dBA will be exceeded at all distances up to 851 feet. Table 7 Construction Noise Distance to Receptor (feet) Maximum Noise Level (dBA Lmax) Reductions Needed to Meet 65 dBA Standard 50 89.6 -24.6 100 83.6 -18.6 200 77.5 -12.5 500 69.6 -4.6 851 65.0 -- As shown on Table 8, maximum construction noise at all parcel groups could exceed allowable exterior noise levels at all noise zones at 50, 100, 200, and 500 from construction activity. Construction activity located 851 feet or more from residential and commercial uses will be within allowable noise levels and will not require mitigation. Construction activity occurring less than 851 feet from residential and commercial uses will be required to reduce noise levels by up to 24.6 dBA, and has been required by Mitigation Measure N-1. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires that construction activity from future construction activity within the Planning Area implement engineered controls on construction equipment or install temporary sound barriers. The use of engineered controls includes retrofitting equipment with improved exhaust and intake muffling, disengaging equipment fans, and installation of sound panels around equipment engines. These types of controls can feasibly achieve noise level reductions of approximately 10 dBA.6 7 Sound curtains and other noise barriers can be used for general construction noise and achieve reductions of up to 20 dBA.8 Use of engineered controls and sound barriers can achieve reductions of up to 30 dBA. Therefore, impacts related to future construction noise within the Planning Area can feasibly be mitigated to within allowable levels at residential and commercial receptors. Impacts will not be substantial. In addition, implementation of the following General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that impacts related to construction noise due to future development will be reduced to acceptable levels. Catalytic Development Opportunity Sites West Gateway Construction noise levels were estimated for receptors located near the West Gateway site (see Exhibit 4, Receptors: West Gateway). Table 8 (West Gateway Construction Noise Levels) summarizes construction noise levels for each construction phase. Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the grading phase of construction. The model indicates that the use of construction equipment such as tractors and dozers could expose the residential and commercial uses to the east of the project site to a worst case noise level of 84.4 dBA Lmax. Worst case construction Impact Analysis 28 Noise Impact Assessment noise will exceed allowable exterior noise levels for both residential and commercial receptors. Construction of the West Gateway project will require construction noise reductions of up to 24.4 dBA and 19.4 dBA for residential and commercial uses, respectively. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1 will achieve reductions of up to 30 dBA. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts related to construction of the West Gateway project will be less than significant. Table 8 West Gateway Construction Noise Levels Receptor Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating 1 – Residential (N) 79.0 83.6 79.0 78.0 71.6 2 – Residential (E) 79.8 84.4 79.8 78.8 72.5 3 – Commercial (E) 79.8 84.4 79.8 78.8 72.5 4 – Commercial (S) 72.3 76.9 72.3 71.3 65.0 5 – Commercial (W) 71.7 76.3 71.7 70.7 64.4 Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction noise levels were estimated for receptors located near the West Gateway site (see Exhibit 5, Receptors: Auction Site). Table 9 (Former LA Auction Site Construction Noise Levels) summarizes construction noise levels for each construction phase. Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the grading and building construction phases of construction. The model indicates that the use of construction equipment such as tractors and dozers could expose the residential and commercial uses to the west of the project site to a worst case noise level of 79.0 dBA Lmax. Worst case construction noise will exceed allowable exterior noise levels for both residential and commercial receptors. Construction on this site will require construction noise reductions of up to 19.0 dBA and 14.0 dBA for residential and commercial uses, respectively. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1 will achieve reductions of up to 30 dBA. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts related to construction on the former LA Auto Auction Site will be less than significant. Table 9 Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction Noise Levels Receptor Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating 1 – Residential (N) 74.5 74.5 75.5 75.5 75.5 68.1 2 – Residential (W) 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 71.6 3 – Commercial (W) 78.0 78.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 71.6 4 – Commercial (S) 68.4 68.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 62.1 5 – Commercial (E) 74.5 74.5 75.5 75.5 75.5 68.1 Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 29 Exhibit 4 Receptors: West Gateway Impact Analysis 30 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 31 Exhibit 5 Receptors: LA Auction Site Impact Analysis 32 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 33 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS ALONG EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENTS Specific Plan Buildout Future population and employment growth within the Planning Area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses as defined by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance or General Plan Noise Element. Cumulative impacts are assessed by accounting for the incremental increase in traffic noise that will result from realistic development with the implementation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan’s horizon year is set for the year 2035. Therefore, cumulative impacts for operational traffic are addressed for the year 2035, when realistic build out of the Specific Plan is expected to occur. Two operational scenarios have been created in order to accomplish this – the first involves the estimated emissions generated by existing land use designations (assuming annual ambient growth in the area but no further development or alterations to existing development) in the year 2035, and the second estimates emissions generated by realistic development of the Specific Plan’s land use designations. Traffic noise levels at 100 feet from roadway segment centerlines were modeled utilizing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 (see Appendix C for TNM Output Data). Noise levels were calculated based on traffic volumes provided by the project traffic study prepared by KOA Corporation. The traffic study analyzes peak hour traffic at study area intersections. It has been assumed that peak hour traffic constitutes ten percent of total average daily traffic volumes. Average daily traffic has been utilized to calculate 24-hours community noise levels (CNEL). Distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 BA CNEL noise contours under 2035 Without Project and Specific Plan Buildout conditions were calculated and shown in Table 10 (Future 2035 CNEL Without Project Traffic Noise Contours) and Table 11 (Future 2035 CNEL Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours). Future Without Project and Future 2035 Specific Plan Buildout noise contours are shown on Exhibit 6 (2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours) and Exhibit 7 (2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours). Traffic noise levels identified represent conservative potential noise exposure. In reality, noise levels may vary from those represented as the calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding nor do they assume reflection from existing or proposed structures or topography. Intervening structures or other noise-attenuating obstacles between a roadway and a receptor may reduce roadway noise levels at the receptor. Table 12 (Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase) shows the noise increases due to future development facilitated by build out of the proposed Specific Plan compared to Future 2035 Without Project conditions. A 3.0 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound, a 5.0 dBA change is generally readily perceptible, and a 10.0 dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level.9 Based on the results of the model, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will not result in noise increases of 3.0 dBA CNEL along studied roadways. In addition, implementation of the following General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that impacts related to increases in traffic noise due to future development will be reduced to acceptable levels. Impact Analysis 34 Noise Impact Assessment Table 10 Future 2035 CNEL Without Project Traffic Noise Contours Roadway Segment Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 582 327 184 104 btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 582 327 184 104 btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 624 351 197 111 btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 638 359 202 114 btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 646 363 204 115 btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 653 367 207 116 btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 638 359 202 114 e/o Walnut Grove Ave 646 363 204 115 Del Mar Avenue btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 700 394 221 124 s/o Garvey Ave 631 355 200 112 San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 851 479 269 151 s/o Garvey Ave 832 468 263 148 Table 11 Future 2035 CNEL with Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours Roadway Segment Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 684 385 216 122 btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 700 394 221 124 btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 750 422 237 133 btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 785 442 248 140 btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 804 452 254 143 btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 759 427 240 135 btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 750 422 237 133 e/o Walnut Grove Ave 741 417 234 132 Del Mar Avenue btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 759 427 240 135 s/o Garvey Ave 684 385 216 122 San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 944 531 299 168 s/o Garvey Ave 923 519 292 164 Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 35 Table 12 Future 2035 CNEL Noise Level Increase Roadway Segment Without Project Project Buildout Difference Significant? dBA at 100 Feet from Centerline Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 70.3 71.7 1.4 No btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 71.9 1.6 No btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 71.1 72.9 1.8 No btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 71.2 73.1 1.9 No btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 71.3 72.6 1.3 No btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 71.1 72.5 1.4 No e/o Walnut Grove Ave 71.2 72.4 1.2 No Del Mar Avenue btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 71.9 72.6 0.7 No s/o Garvey Ave 71.0 71.7 0.7 No San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.6 74.5 0.9 No s/o Garvey Ave 73.4 74.3 0.9 No Impact Analysis 36 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 37 Exhibit 6 2035 Without Project Traffic Noise Contours Impact Analysis 38 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 39 Exhibit 7 2035 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contours Impact Analysis 40 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 41 Catalytic Development Opportunity Sites West Gateway The West Gateway project will consist of 41,270 square feet of retail use. At a trip rate of 42.7 average daily trips per 1,000 square feet per day as summarized in the traffic study, the West Gateway project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,762 daily trips. Based on trip distribution and movements as analyzed in the traffic study, traffic noise has been calculated utilizing TNM 2.5 under Existing Plus West Gateway Project conditions at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Existing and Existing Plus West Gateway Project traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 13 (West Gateway Traffic Noise Level Impact). As shown in Table 13, Existing traffic noise levels currently exceed the residential and commercial noise standards of 60 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Addition of the West Gateway project will not result in any new violations of residential and commercial noise standards. In addition, increases in traffic noise due to operation of the West Gateway project are less than 3 dBA and will therefore not result in perceptible increases in noise. Impacts are less than significant. Table 13 West Gateway Traffic Noise Level Impact Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Difference Significant? 100 Feet from Centerline Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 70.3 70.4 +0.1 No btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 70.6 +0.3 No btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.8 71.0 +0.2 No btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 70.8 71.1 +0.3 No btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 70.8 71.0 +0.2 No btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 70.9 71.0 +0.1 No btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 70.7 70.8 +0.1 No e/o Walnut Grove Ave 70.9 70.9 +0.0 No San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.5 73.7 +0.2 No s/o Garvey Ave 73.2 73.3 +0.1 No Former LA Auto Auction Site There are currently no specific development plans for the former LA Auto Auction site. In order to provide a worst-case analysis of project impacts, increases in traffic based on maximum buildout potential of the site has been assumed. Development at the former LA Auto Auction site could consist of up to 650,000 square feet of general office space, 50,000 square feet of restaurant use, 200,000 square feet of retail use, a ten-screen movie theater, 159 hotel rooms, 1,678 apartment units, 150 condominium units, and a three-acre City park. Based on trip rates utilized by the traffic study and CalEEMod default rates, this site may generate up to 37,602 daily trips. Based on trip distribution and movements as analyzed in the traffic study, traffic noise has been calculated utilizing TNM 2.5 under Existing Plus LA Auto Auction Site Development conditions at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Existing and Existing Plus LA Auto Auction Site Development traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 14 (Former LA Auto Auction Site Traffic Noise Level Impact). As shown in Table 14, Existing traffic noise levels currently exceed the residential and commercial noise standards of 60 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Addition of development at this site will not result in any new violations of residential and commercial noise standards. However, uses along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard may be exposed to perceptible increases in traffic noise (an increase of 3 dBA). The City of Rosemead General Plan Noise Element recognizes that the primary noise source in the City is traffic related and that the City has little control over noise produced by transportation sources. Therefore, City noise programs and General Plan policies focus on reducing the impacts of transportation-related noise on new development within the City. General Plan goals and policies, listed above, address impacts of noise through land use planning, design of new construction, and compliance with State regulation. General Plan Noise Element Policy 1.4 encourages the consideration of acoustical design in new construction and the construction of sound walls in designated mixed use Impact Analysis 42 Noise Impact Assessment districts where noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent properties. In addition, Implementation Action 1.3 requires the enforcement of California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24), which specifies that indoor noise levels for residential living spaces and hotels not exceed 45 dB CNEL. Therefore, future mixed-use developments with residential use along Garvey Avenue will be required to implement General Plan policy to ensure that traffic noise impacts to the development are mitigated. However, although implementation of General Plan policies will mitigate impacts of noise on new development, increases in traffic noise due to maximum buildout of the former LA Auto Auction Site may impact existing uses that may remain along Garvey Avenue. The Specific Plan will facilitate mixed use development along the Garvey Avenue corridor with the intention of providing a pedestrian-oriented environment, which reduces vehicle miles traveled. As the Specific Plan area develops over time, the addition of mixed use development will bring more foot-traffic to the street and reduce the number of cars travelling on Garvey Avenue. Under existing conditions, however, commercial uses located along Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard will be exposed to perceptible increases in traffic noise due to development of the former LA Auto Auction Site. According to the General Plan Noise Element, this segment of Garvey Avenue is not designated as noise sensitive. In addition, according to the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix, noise levels of up to 75 dBA is considered Conditionally Acceptable for office, business commercial, and professional uses. Although this segment of Garvey Avenue is not a designated noise sensitive area and Conditionally Acceptable noise levels will not be exceeded, the increase in traffic noise will exceed 3 dBA and will be perceptible to employees and patrons of these uses. As stated in the General Plan, the City has little control over noise produced by transportation-related sources. Site design elements that could reduce exposure of existing uses to traffic use would include the construction of sound barriers (such as walls) along Garvey Avenue to shield existing uses from increases in traffic noise. Construction of sound barriers as mitigation will not be feasible as the developer of the former LA Auto Auction Site has no control over development on private property owned by others. In addition, seeing as exposed uses are community-serving commercial uses, operators of these uses will likely not agree to constructing sound barriers that would potentially block their business from view. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation to reduce increases in noise exposure under existing conditions and impacts will be significant. Table 14 Former LA Auto Auction Site Traffic Noise Level Impact Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Difference Significant? 100 Feet from Centerline Garvey Avenue w/o New Ave 70.3 72.4 2.1 No btwn New Ave & Jackson Ave 70.3 73.9 3.6 Yes btwn Jackson Ave & Del Mar Ave 70.8 74.1 3.3 Yes btwn Del Mar Ave & Kelburn Ave 70.8 74.2 3.4 Yes btwn Kelburn Ave & San Gabriel Blvd 70.8 74.1 3.3 Yes btwn San Gabriel Blvd & Delta Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No btwn Delta Ave & Walnut Grove Ave 70.7 72.4 1.7 No e/o Walnut Grove Ave 70.9 72.5 1.6 No San Gabriel Boulevard btwn Hellman Ave & Garvey Ave 73.5 75.0 1.5 No s/o Garvey Ave 73.2 74.1 0.9 No 6.3 Vibration Impacts Pile drivers and rock blasting are generally the primary cause of construction related vibration impacts. Such construction methods are employed on a limited basis, on sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve the grading plan and place foundation supports. Additional noise impacts could occur where heavy machinery is required to break up large, hard rocks into smaller fragments. The need for such methods is determined through site-specific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with the construction methods recommended to handle the types of materials that are found. Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 43 Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can create perceptible vibration at close proximity; however, they generally do not cause vibration that could cause structural or cosmetic damage. Construction equipment and activities are categorized by the nature of the vibration it produces. Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and pile-extraction equipment. Equipment or activities typical of transient (single-impact) or low-rate repeated impact vibration include impact pile drivers, blasting, and crack-and-seat equipment. High-rate repeated impact vibrations are common of jackhammers and pavement breakers. Table 15 (Common Construction Vibration) summarizes the peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet for common construction equipment. Table 15 Common Construction Vibration Equipment PPV (in/sec at 25ft) Crack-and-Seat Operators 2.400 Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June 2004 Vibration varies widely with distance and intensity. Vibration from earthmovers and haulers have no potential to damage buildings after ten feet, while vibration from blasting activities can damage structures up to 115 feet away. Common mitigation for impact pile drivers include jetting, pre-drilling, use of cast-in-place or auger cast piles, use of non-displacement piles, and use of pile cushioning. Vibration can be reduced from breaking of concrete and other materials through use of hydraulic crushers, saws or rotary rock-cutting heads, hydraulic splitters, and chemicals instead of using hydraulic breakers. Prototypical Development Sites Utilizing default CalEEMod construction equipment for each parcel group, worst-case examples of construction vibration at 50 feet have been modeled and summarized in Table 16 (Maximum Future Vibration Impacts). The use of vibratory equipment at 50 feet will not cause damage to any structures. Use of a vibratory roller, large bulldozer, loaded truck, and jackhammer will result in distinctly perceptible vibration and the use of a small bulldozer will result in barely perceptible vibration. Table 16 Maximum Future Vibration Impacts Equipment PPVref PPV Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.0853 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0361 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0012 Loaded Truck 0.076 0.0309 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0142 Catalytic Development Opportunity Sites West Gateway Construction of the West Gateway site would not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a jack hammer, but may require the use of a vibratory roller, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. Construction vibration is summarized in Table 17 (West Gateway Construction Vibration Impacts). Construction activity will not result in damage to neighboring structures. Impact Analysis 44 Noise Impact Assessment All of the receptors will experience barely perceptible vibration with the use of a small bulldozer and loaded truck. Receptors #1, #2, and #3 will experience distinctly perceptible vibration with the use of a vibratory roller. However, a vibratory roller will only be utilized during the paving phase, which will be completed within a maximum of five days. Furthermore, pursuant to the Rosemead Municipal Code, these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mondays through Friday. Therefore, the project will not result in excessive, strongly perceptible vibration. Table 17 West Gateway Construction Vibration Impacts Receptors Equipment PPVref Distance (feet) PPV 1 – Residential (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 100 0.0346 2 – Residential (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 91 0.0392 3 – Commercial (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 91 0.0392 4 – Commercial (S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 215 0.0128 5 – Commercial (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 230 0.0117 1 – Residential (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 100 0.0005 2 – Residential (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 91 0.0006 3 – Commercial (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 91 0.0006 4 – Commercial (S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 215 0.0002 5 – Commercial (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 230 0.0002 1 – Residential (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 100 0.0125 2 – Residential (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 91 0.0142 3 – Commercial (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 91 0.0142 4 – Commercial (S) Loaded Truck 0.076 215 0.0046 5 – Commercial (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 230 0.0042 Former LA Auto Auction Site Development of the former LA Auto Auction Site would not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a jack hammer, but may require the use of a vibratory roller, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. Construction vibration is summarized in Table 18 (Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction Vibration Impacts). Construction activity will not result in damage to neighboring structures. All of the receptors will experience less than distinctly perceptible vibration with the use of a small bulldozer and loaded truck. Receptors #1, #2, and #3 will experience distinctly perceptible vibration. Pursuant to the Rosemead Municipal Code, these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mondays through Friday. Therefore, the project will not result in excessive, strongly perceptible vibration. Impact Analysis Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 45 Table 18 Former LA Auto Auction Site Construction Vibration Impacts Receptors Equipment PPVref Distance (feet) PPV 1 – Residential (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 150 0.0204 2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 100 0.0346 3 – Commercial (S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 300 0.0083 4 – Commercial (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 150 0.0204 1 – Residential (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 150 0.0003 2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 100 0.0005 3 – Commercial (S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 300 0.0001 4 – Commercial (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 150 0.0003 1 – Residential (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 150 0.0074 2 – Residential/Commercial (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 100 0.0125 3 – Commercial (S) Loaded Truck 0.076 300 0.0030 4 – Commercial (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 150 0.0074 Impact Analysis 46 Noise Impact Assessment Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 47 7 MITIGATION MEASURES N-1 Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project Proponent of construction sites located less than 851 feet from commercial and residential receptors shall implement, and identify on construction plans, any combination of the following measures to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced by the appropriate level as identified below to be reviewed and verified by the Building Department: Distance to Receptor (feet) Maximum Noise Level (dBA Lmax) Reductions Needed to Meet 65 dBA Standard 50 89.6 -24.6 100 83.6 -18.6 200 77.5 -12.5 500 69.6 -4.6 851 65.0 --  Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.  Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections.  Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.  Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.  Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.  Install sound curtains or other noise barriers along site boundary. Mitigation Measures 48 Noise Impact Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Garvey Avenue Specific Plan 49 8 REFERENCES 1 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 2 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003 3 California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004 4 Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006 5 California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis. September 2013 6 United States Bureau of Mines. Mining Machinery Noise Control Guidelines. 1983 7 United States Bureau of Mines. Noise Abatement Techniques for Construction Equipment. August 1979 8 Sound Seal. Sound Seal Sound Curtains Exterior Grade Noise Control. http://www.soundcurtains.com/exterior-grade-noise-control.pdf [October 2014] 9 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. APPENDIX G TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traff Garve fic Impac y Avenu Rose May ct Analy ue Speci emead, C y 26, 2016 ysis for t fic Plan CA 6 1100 Cor M the EIR 537 South Pa rporate Cente Monterey Park Prepare h Raymond Av asadena CA 9 (626) 744 Prepar er Drive, Suit k, California 9 (323) 260 JB ed for: MIG venue 91105 4-9872 red by: te 201 91754 -4703 B41022 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Table EXECUT SCOPIN ANALY EXISTIN FUTUR FUTUR PROGR 1. BACK 1.1. INT 1.2. EXIS 2. ANAL 2.1. EXIS 2.2. EXIS 2.3. FUT 2.4. FUT 2.5. PRO 2.6. ALT 2.7. CM 2.8. FRE pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 e of Con TIVE SUMMA NG COORDIN YSIS ASSUMPT NG CONDITIO RE PRE-PROJEC RE POST-PROJ RAM LEVEL MI KGROUND ... RODUCTION .... STING TRANSPO LYSIS ............ STING CONDITI STING FREEWAY TURE (2035) PR TURE (2035) PO OGRAM IMPACTS TERNATIVE IMPA MP IMPACTS ........ EWAY INTERCH or the Garvey A ntents ARY .............. NATION AND IONS ............... ONS ANALYS CT CONDITIO ECT CONDIT TIGATION M ...................... .......................... ORTATION FACI ...................... IONS ................. Y CONDITIONS E-PROJECT CON OST-PROJECT CO S AND MITIGAT ACT ANALYSIS – .......................... HANGE RAMP AN Avenue Specifi ...................... D STUDY AREA .......................... SIS ...................... ONS ANALYSI TIONS ANALY EASURE RECO ...................... .......................... LITIES ................ ...................... .......................... .......................... NDITIONS ......... ONDITIONS ...... ION MEASURES MAXIMUM BUIL .......................... ND MAINLINE O ic Plan EIR, Ro ..................... A ....................... .......................... .......................... IS ....................... YSIS ................... OMMENDATI ..................... .......................... .......................... ..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... LDOUT SCENAR .......................... OPERATIONS ...... osemead ...................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ONS ................. ...................... ........................... ........................... ...................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... RIO ..................... ........................... ........................... ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ...................... .......................... .......................... ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... JB ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ...................... .......................... .......................... ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... Page i B41022 ....... 1 ..........1 ..........1 ..........1 ..........1 ..........2 ..........2 ....... 1 ..........1 ..........7 ..... 10 ....... 10 ....... 14 ....... 14 ....... 19 ....... 25 ....... 32 ....... 35 ....... 36 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 List o FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13 List o TABLE 1 – TABLE 2 – TABLE 3 – TABLE 4 – TABLE 5 – TABLE 5 – TABLE 6 – TABLE 7 – TABLE 8 – TABLE 9 – TABLE 10 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 TABLE 13 TABLE 14 TABLE 15 Appe APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 of Figure – SPECIFIC PL – LOCATION – LOCAL TRA – EXISTING L – EXISTING A – EXISTING P – AREA PROJ – FUTURE (20 – FUTURE (20 0 – TRAFFIC A 1 – FUTURE (2 2 – FUTURE (2 3 – PROPOSED of Table – LEVEL OF SE – STUDY AREA – CHARACTER – STUDY INTE – I-10 FREEWA – INTERSECTI CONDITIO – TRIP GENER – TRIP GENER – STUDY INTE – SIGNIFICAN – RECOMMEN – CITY OF M – TRIP GENE – MAXIMUM –CALTRANS – I-10 MAINL ndices X A – INTE X B – EXIS X C – LIST X D – FUTU X E – FUTU X F – FREE or the Garvey A es LAN BOUNDA N OF STUDY I ANSIT ROUTE LANE CONFIG AM PEAK HOU PM PEAK HOU ECT LOCATI 035) PRE-PRO 035) PRE-PRO ANALYSIS ZO 2035) WITH S 2035) WITH S D MITIGATIO s ERVICE RANG A ROADWAY RISTICS OF EX ERSECTION P AY CONDITIO ON PEAK-HO NS RATION RATE RATION CHAN ERSECTION O T STUDY ARE NDED STUDY ONTEREY PA RATION CHA BUILDOUT S VOLUME DA LINE DAILY LO ERSECTION T STING COND OF CUMULA URE (2035) BA URE (YEAR 20 EWAY MAINL Avenue Specifi ARY NTERSECTIO ES GURATION UR INTERSEC UR INTERSEC ONS OJECT AM PEA OJECT PM PEA ONES USED FO SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN ONS AND IMP GE DEFINITION Y CHARACTE XISTING PUB PERFORMANC ONS ANALYS OUR LEVEL OF ES NGE BY TRAF OPERATIONS EA TRAFFIC IM Y INTERSECTI ARK SIGNIFICA ANGE BY TRA SIGNIFICANT ATA FOR I-10 OS CALCULA TURNING MO ITIONS LEVEL ATIVE PROJEC ASELINE LEVE 035) WITH SP LINE SEGMENT ic Plan EIR, Ro ONS CTION VOLUM TION VOLUM AK-HOUR INT K-HOUR INT OR SPECIFIC P N AM PEAK H N PM PEAK HO ROVEMENTS NS RISTICS LIC TRANSIT CE FOR EXIST IS F SERVICE – F FFIC ANALYS – FUTURE (20 MPACTS ION MITIGAT ANT TRAFFIC AFFIC ANALY STUDY AREA IN VICINITY ATIONS OVEMENT TRA L OF SERVICE TS AND TRIP EL OF SERVICE ECIFIC PLAN TS – HCM LO osemead MES MES TERSECTION V ERSECTION V PLAN AREA HOUR INTERS OUR INTERSE FOR STUDY SERVICE IN S TING PEAK-H FUTURE (2035 SIS ZONE (TA 035) POST-PR TION MEASU C IMPACTS YSIS ZONE (TA A TRAFFIC IMP OF PROJECT AFFIC COUNT E WORKSHEE P GENERATIO E WORKSHEE LEVEL OF SER OS ANALYSIS W VOLUMES VOLUMES SECTION VOL ECTION VOL INTERSECTIO STUDY AREA OUR CONDI 5) PRE-PROJEC AZ) – PEAK HO ROJECT CON URES AND EFF AZ) – PEAK H PACTS TS ETS ON ETS RVICE WORK WORKSHEET Pag JB LUMES LUMES ONS TIONS CT OURS NDITIONS FECTS HOURS KSHEETS TS ge ES-ii B41022 2 3 9 11 12 13 16 17 18 20 26 27 31 6 7 8 10 14 15 21 23 24 29 29 30 33 34 36 37 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Execut SCOPING  B th st  T ju ANALYSI  La pl an  T th  Fo Pa EXISTING  T pe de th  A ex FUTURE  T (y  T ex fr G pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 tive Summ G COORDIN ased on the c he Specific Pla tudy area was The study are urisdictional b IS ASSUMPT and use data lan, were use nalysis that w The study area he U.S. Censu or the analys ark require th G CONDITI The analysis of eak-hour con efined as the he current ye All of the stu xisting condit PRE-PROJE This section e year 2035), w To estimate f xisting volum rom the reg Governments or the Garvey A mary NATION AN commercial c an (Project), s developed. ea includes n border of the TIONS for existing c ed to define would occur d a analysis sub us. sis of level of hat the Inters ONS ANALY f operations a nditions. Tra existing cond ear. dy intersectio tions. ECT CONDIT examines stud with existing la future baselin mes were incr gional model (SCAG). Avenue Specifi ND STUDY A orridors whe and also bas nine intersec City of Rose conditions, an the potential ue to the Pro b-areas are ba f service at th section Capac YSIS at the study i affic counts w ditions timefr ons currently TIONS ANA dy area roadw and use and e ne condition reased by a gr growth ma ic Plan EIR, Ro AREA ere land uses ed on the loc ctions, of wh emead and the nd proposed c l incremental oject. ased on traffic he intersectio city Utilizatio ntersections were conduct ame. Ambien y operate at ALYSIS way network estimated gro s (future tra rowth rate d aintained by osemead would prima cations of ma hich one int e City of Mon conditions un l change in a c analysis zon ons, the City n (ICU) Meth was conduct ted in May 2 nt growth wa good LOS v k operations i owth. affic volumes etermined by the Souther arily change o ajor roadway tersection is nterey Park. nder the Spec rea land uses nes (TAZs), d y of Rosemea hod procedur ed for weekd 2014, and the as added to a values of D in the future s without th y existing and rn California Pag JB or intensify un y intersection located on cific Plan land s for this imp defined as par ad and Monte re be used. day a.m. and p e year 2015 w djust volume or better un buildout per e Specific Pl d future volum a Association ge ES-1 B41022 nder ns, a the use pact rt of erey p.m. was s to nder riod lan), mes n of Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20  A C  T tr  O th FUTURE  T de ex re  Fo B re - -  T sc - -  In in at  Ei pe PROGRA  T ar la  Im ju  O w pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 A total of 16 c City of Rosem The identified rips in the a.m One of study i he weekday p POST-PROJ The incremen erived by sub xisting land u edevelopmen or the analys uildout. The esidential unit Commerc Residentia The increased cenario would Commerc Residentia nternal trip c ncluded, whic ttraction betw ight of the ni eak hours un AM LEVEL M To ensure tha rea, locations and use chang mprovements ustified and ar Out of the nin worsen to or w or the Garvey A cumulative/are ead and the C area projects m. peak hour intersections peak hours, un JECT COND tal (net) dev btracting the ses. The ch t (recycling), sis, two land e following su ts defined by ial uses – 1,17 l uses – 892 t developmen d generate th ial uses – 79,7 l uses – 5,467 capture reduc ch would con ween comme ine study inte der this scena MITIGATION at adequate m s are identifie ges would occ s would then re physically a e study inter within deficie Avenue Specifi ea projects w City of San G s would gener and 1,616 tri would opera nder this scen DITIONS AN velopment inc intensity of t anges in deve as well new d use plan scen ummarizes th the Realistic 75,475 square to 1,147 dwe t that would he following n 799 daily trip 7 daily trips, i ctions, for tr nstitute walki rcial and resi ersections wo ario. N MEASURE mobility is ma ed for potent cur over the t n be impleme and financially sections, ope ent LOS value ic Plan EIR, Ro were identified Gabriel. rate a total o ps in the p.m ate at poor LO nario. NALYSIS crease/decrea the proposed elopment inte development narios were a he range of t Buildout and e feet to 1,92 elling units be allowed u new vehicle tr ps, including 4 ncluding 415 rips that wou ing trips or t dential uses. ould operate RECOMME aintained with tial improvem timespan of t ented as new y feasible with erations at the es of E or F, d osemead d within or n of 21,068 daily . peak hour. OS values of ase by Traffi d Specific Pla ensities would envisioned b analyzed, Rea total commer Maximum Bu 29,335 square under the Re rips: 4,670 in a.m. p in a.m. peak, uld remain lo trips by othe at poor LOS ENDATIONS hin a Specific ments, where the plan. w developme hin the scope e following nu due to anticip ear the study y vehicle trips E or F during ic Analysis Z an land uses f d include parc by the Specific alistic Buildou rcial building uildout scena e feet ealistic Buildo peak, 2,820 in , 496 in p.m. p ocal to each er non-vehicle S values of E S Plan or Gene cumulative im ent occurs, a of individual umber of inte pated new trip Pag JB y area, within s, including 1, g one or both Zone (TAZ) w from that of cel turnover c Plan. ut and Maxim square feet arios: out land use p n p.m. peak peak TAZ area w e modes due or F during eral Plan pro mpacts of fut as they beco projects. ersections wo ps that would ge ES-2 B41022 the 586 h of was the and mum and plan were e to the oject ture ome ould d be Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page ES-3 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 generated by the proposed maximum land uses allowed under the proposed Realistic Buildout land use scenario: - In the AM peak hour – eight intersections - In the PM peak hour – six intersections  The traffic impact analysis identified potential traffic impacts at six of the nine analyzed intersections under the Realistic Buildout land use scenario. Physical measures have been recommended for the significantly impacted locations.  The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the significant traffic impacts at all but two of the identified intersections to a level of insignificance. At these two locations, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.  Per City of Monterey Park traffic impact guidelines, residual impacts would remain at the intersection of New Avenue/Garvey Avenue. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as feasible mitigation measures have not been identified.  As the overall Specific Plan, at a program level, would create potentially adverse level of service on the I-10 freeway mainline, major future projects within the Specific Plan area may need to provide fair-share funding of appropriate improvements to the freeway corridor, as determined by Caltrans.  The higher-intensity Maximum Buildout land use scenario would cause significant impacts at all of the study intersections. Mitigation measures would need to be more intense for full mitigation, and would likely be infeasible at many locations, under that land use scenario. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 1 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. INTRODUCTION Framework The traffic analysis presented in this report was conducted for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and the associated environmental documentation. KOA Corporation created this report for the City of Rosemead, while under a subcontract with MIG. The word "Project" refers to the proposed Specific Plan, and primarily the Realistic Buildout land use scenario, within this document. This traffic analysis documents the methods and results of the analysis of existing, future baseline, and future with-Project circulation conditions within the Specific Plan Project study area. Scope of Traffic Impact Study The scope of the traffic impact study conducted for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan update was developed during coordination efforts with MIG and the City of Rosemead. Based on the commercial corridors where land uses would primarily change or intensify under the Specific Plan, and also based on the locations of major roadway intersections, a study area was developed. The study area includes nine intersections, of which eight intersections are located within the City of Rosemead, and one intersection is located on the border of the City of Rosemead and the City of Monterey Park: 1) Del Mar Avenue & Hellman Avenue 2) San Gabriel Boulevard & Hellman Avenue 3) New Avenue & Garvey Avenue * 4) Jackson Avenue & Garvey Avenue 5) Del Mar Avenue & Garvey Avenue 6) Kelburn Avenue & Garvey Avenue 7) San Gabriel Boulevard & & Garvey Avenue 8) Delta Avenue & Garvey Avenue 9) Walnut Grove Avenue & Garvey Avenue * Located on City border Significant traffic impacts of development that could result from implementation of the Project land use plan were evaluated for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods at the study intersections. Figure 1 illustrates the Specific Plan boundaries, in relationship to the area roadway network. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the study area intersections in relation to the Specific Plan boundaries and the transportation analysis zones or TAZs used for the land use trip generation analysis. SANGABRIEL ROSEMEAD MONTEREYPARK Al ha mbr a Wa s h Fern St Virginia St Twin AveArtson StGeranio DrOlney St S New AveLaf ayette St Lindy AveColumbia St Eckhart AvePaljay AveHellman Ave Stallo AveRockhold AveRamonaBlvd Pine StGarvey Ave Newmark Ave delMarAveStevens AveHershey St Dorothy St New AveAngelusAveEmerson Pl FallingLeafAveN San Gabriel BlvdDenton AveKelburn AveAlanreed AveW Saxon Ave Charlotte AveGladys AveElizabeth AveEvelyn AveFern Ave Isabel AveEarle AveJackson AveDelta AveProspect AvelaPresaAveWhitmore St Burton AveWillard AveBrighton StStrathmore AveWalnut Grove AveSunshine EducationalCenter RosemeadEducationCenter NewAvenueSchool Jesus ChristOf LatterDay Saints RosemeadChristianCenter FirstPresbyterianChurch Kingdom Hall OfJehovahs Witnesses Open BibleChurch Rosemead ChurchOf TheNazarene TestimonyOf ChristMission ZionLutheranChurch Willard (Frances)Elementary School Sanchez(GeorgeI) Elementary School Duff (Margaret)ElementarySchool EmersonElementarySchool Bitely (Arlene)ElementarySchool Garvey (Richard) MiddleSchool ZapopanPark GarveyPark LEGEND Specific PLan Boundary City Boundary Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Specific Plan Boundary Figure 1 N No Scale !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( SANGABRIEL ROSEMEAD MONTEREYPARK Al ha mbr a Wa s h Fern St Virginia St Twin AveArtson StGeranio DrOlney St S New AveLaf ayette St Lindy AveColumbia St Eckhart AvePaljay AveHellman Ave Stallo AveRockhold AveRamonaBlvd Pine StGarvey Ave Newmark Ave delMarAveStevens AveHershey St Dorothy St New AveAngelusAveEmerson Pl FallingLeafAveN San Gabriel BlvdDenton AveKelburn AveAlanreed AveW Saxon Ave Charlotte AveGladys AveElizabeth AveEvelyn AveFern Ave Isabel AveEarle AveJackson AveDelta AveProspect AvelaPresaAveWhitmore St Burton AveWillard AveBrighton StStrathmore AveWalnut Grove Ave1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sunshine EducationalCenter RosemeadEducationCenter NewAvenueSchool Jesus ChristOf LatterDay Saints RosemeadChristianCenter FirstPresbyterianChurch Kingdom Hall OfJehovahs Witnesses Open BibleChurch Rosemead ChurchOf TheNazarene TestimonyOf ChristMission ZionLutheranChurch Willard (Frances)Elementary School Sanchez(GeorgeI) Elementary School Duff (Margaret)ElementarySchool EmersonElementarySchool Bitely (Arlene)ElementarySchool Garvey (Richard)Middle School ZapopanPark GarveyPark LEGEND Specific PLan Boundary City Boundary !(Study Intersection Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Location of Study Intersections Figure 2 N No Scale Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Analysis M This secti roadways intersectio Key tasks determina uses, 4) a the impac This repo Guidelines analysis of The follow Study Scen Weekday following impacts a 1. 2. 3. The City compariso The prop The land private de year of th same time Project im land use i study area discussed Land Use P The land was used within the the Unite Transport pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 Methodology ion documen within the P ons within th s undertaken ation of exist assignment of ct of cumulativ ort follows g 1. Traffic stu f the study in wing text des narios a.m. and p.m traffic scenar re determine . Existing (y . Future (20 . Future (20 of Rosemead ons of condit osed project use authoriz evelopment a he plan, while eframe. mpacts were a intensity/use a. Growth r within the A Plan Source use plan defi within this e study area. ed States Ce tation Plannin or the Garvey A nts the level roject study a e City. for this traff ting traffic con f Project-gene ve traffic at th guidelines wit udy guidelines tersection th cribes the me m. peak-hour rios, number d in the seco ear 2015) Co 035) Pre-Proje 035) Post-Pro d and the City ions under th being analyze ed by adopti and revitalizat adjacent neig analyzed base changes, plus rates and the Analysis sectio nes the plann traffic impact A traffic ana ensus. TAZ ng Package (C Avenue Specifi of service m area. A finite fic analysis inc nditions, 3) tr erated trips t he study inte thin the City s defined by t hat is located ethodology a r traffic opera ed in this spe ond and third onditions ect Condition oposed Projec y of Monterey he pre-Projec ed by this doc on of the rel tion of older ghborhoods w ed on the incr s other ident cumulative d on of this repo ned future in t analysis to alysis zone (T Zs were defi CTPP). The ic Plan EIR, Ro ethodologies e study area w cluded the fo rip generatio to the study rsections. y of Rosemea the City of M on the borde pplied to the ations were e ecific manner scenarios: ns ct y Park traffic ct and post-Pr cument is the lated land use uses. This w would also be remental but ified planned development ort. tensity of de calculate trip TAZ) is const ined as part study area an osemead s used to eva was chosen th ollowing: 1) d n forecasts o area roadwa ad document Monterey Par er of the City traffic analys evaluated at r for discussi study guidelin roject scenari e program-lev e plan would would occur o e experiencin cumulative tr developmen assumptions evelopment fo ps generated tituted by on t of the 199 nalysis zones aluate traffic hat focuses o definition of s of the planned ay system and t Transportati rk2 were inco y. sis. the study int on purposes. nes define sig ios. vel concept o d be impleme over time thr ng new devel raffic impacts nt projects in for pre-Proj or the Specifi d by customiz ne or more c 90 Census w are based o Backg JB circulation o n the key roa study approa d Specific Plan d, 5) evaluati ion Impact An orporated int tersections fo . Significant gnificant impa of the Specific ented through rough the bu opment with s of all Specific the vicinity o ject condition ic Plan area, w zed analysis census blocks within the C n these TAZ ground Page 4 B41022 on the adway ch, 2) n land ion of nalysis to the or the traffic cts by c Plan. h new ildout in the c Plan of the ns are which zones s from Census Zs, but Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 customize neighborh Land use define the the Projec The analy discussed Intersectio The analy system p Utilization ICU calcu LOS wer intersectio 1,600 veh time of 10 The conc facility div extreme capacity, a Level of condition vehicle de impacts, t multiple le Table 1 d signalized LOS E co capacity c pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 ed to analyz hoods. data for exis e potential inc ct. ysis of the lan in more deta n Operations A ysis of peak erformance. n (ICU) Meth ulations used re based on ons. The me hicles per hou 0 seconds wa ept of interse vided by the congestion o and approach service (LOS s with little d elay. LOS E the focus of t evel of servic defines the H intersections onditions den conditions. or the Garvey A e separately sting conditio cremental cha d use plan da ail within the Analysis hour intersec For the a od procedure to determine n the turnin ethodology ca ur (vph) per as applied to t ection level o capacity of t occurs. This h lane configu S) values ran delay to moto is typically d this study, are e values. Highway Capa s. ote near-capa Avenue Specifi the comme ons, and prop ange in area l ata, and relate Analysis sect ction Level o nalysis of th e was used. e the interse ng movemen alculates the V lane and 2,2 the V/C ratio of service is ca that facility. s volume/cap rations. nge from LO orists, wherea defined as th e defined usin acity Manual3 acity conditio ic Plan EIR, Ro ercial land u posed conditi and uses for t ed trip genera tion of this re of Service (LO he study are ection volume nts and inte V/C ratio base 280 vph for d . alculated as t A facility is “ pacity ratio v OS A to LOS as LOS F repr he operating ng separate th 3 LOS value ons, while LO osemead se corridors ions under th this impact a ation, distribu eport. OS) is the p ea intersectio e-to-capacity ersection cha ed on a defau dual turn lane the volume of “at capacity” value is based S F. LOS A resents conge “capacity” of hresholds bas ranges, based OS F conditio s and the ad he land use p nalysis that w ution, and ass primary indica ons, the Inte ratio (V/C) a aracteristics ult capacity [C es. The tota f vehicles tha (v/c of 1.00 d upon volu A indicates e ested conditio f a roadway. sed on opera d on volume ons denote at Backg JB djacent resid plan, were us would occur d signment step ator of circu ersection Ca and correspo at the sign C] per lane, u al intersection at pass throug or greater) mes by lane excellent ope ons with exc Significant ational change e/capacity rat t-capacity or ground Page 5 B41022 dential sed to due to ps, are ulation pacity onding nalized usually n loss gh the when , lane erating essive traffic es and io for over- Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Level Servi A B C D E F Significant The traffic the nine impacts o both proj measures Impact sta the City. Significant uses are d pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 l of ice LOS A about are co Stoppe LOS B usually The ab stoppe apprec LOS C lanes i queues speeds classific LOS D substa be due or som percen LOS E third t combin delays LOS F one-fo signaliz progre Impact Calcul c impact anal study interse of a proposed ject-only and were analyze andards of th t impact calcu discussed in m or the Garvey A Table 1 A describes prim 90 percent of mpletely unim ed delay at sign B represents re y about 70 pe bility to maneu ed delays are ciable tension. C represents st n mid-block lo s, adverse sign s of about 50 cation. Motor D borders on ntial increase i e to adverse si me combinatio nt of free-flow E is characteriz the free-flow nation of adver at critical inte characterizes ourth of the fr zed locations, ession is freque lations ysis included ections. As d Project at s d cumulative ed that would he City of Mo ulations for p more detail w Avenue Specifi 1 – Level of Flow marily free-flow the free-flow peded in their nalized intersec easonably unim ercent of the f uver within the not bothersom table operatio ocations may b nal coordinatio percent of t rists will exper n a range in w in delay and he ignal progressi on of these fa speed. zed by significa speed of les rse progressio rsections, and arterial flow ree-flow speed , with high ently a contribu as assessmen defined by th study interse impacts. In d reduce impa onterey Park post-project c within the Ana ic Plan EIR, Ro Service Ran w Condition w operations a speed for the ability to man ctions is minim mpeded opera free-flow sped e traffic stream me. Drivers a ns; however, a be more restric on, or both ma the average fr ience apprecia which small in ence decreases on, inappropri ctors. Averag ant delays and ss. Such ope on, high signal d inappropriate at extremely l d. Intersection delays and e utor to this co nt of weekda he City of R ctions must cases where acts to less th were applied conditions w alysis section osemead nge Definiti ns at average trav arterial classif neuver within t mal. ations at avera d for the arte m is only slight are not gener ability to mane cted than at L ay contribute t ree-flow speed able tension wh ncreases in flo s in arterial sp iate signal timi ge travel spee d average trave erations are c density, high vo signal timing. low speeds be n congestion is extensive que ondition. ay a.m. and p. Rosemead tra be mitigated e capacity inc han significant d to intersec ith implemen of this report ions vel speeds, usu fication. Vehic the traffic strea age travel spee erial classificati tly restricted a rally subjected euver and chan OS B, and lon to lower aver d for the arte hile driving. ow may cause eed. LOS D m ng, high volum eds are about el speeds of o caused by so olumes, extens elow one-third s likely at crit euing. Adve .m. peak hou affic study gu to a level of creases are p t levels. tions located ntation of the t. Backg JB Volume Capac Ratio ally cles am. 0.00-0. eds, ion. and to 0.61-0. nge ger rage erial 0.71-0. e a may mes, 40 0.81-0. one- ome sive 0.91-1. d to tical erse Over 1 r traffic impa idelines, sign f insignificanc possible, mitig d on the bord e Specific Plan ground Page 6 B41022 e to ity o .60 .70 .80 .90 .00 .00 acts at ificant ce, for gation der of n land Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 1.2. EXIST This sect modes wi Existing Ro The Inter roadways direction Boulevard This repo discussion Table 2 p organized  Se w  # (n  M  Pa  G  Sp Hellman Aven Garvey Avenu New Avenue Jackson Avenu Del Mar Aven San Gabriel Boule Kelburn Aven Delta Avenue Walnut Grove Av Notes: NS - No Stripin Segment pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 TING TRANSP ion documen thin the stud oadway System state 10 (San within the and can be d and Walnut ort sub-sectio n presented h provides a su d by columns, egment: The where charact # Lanes: The n northbound/e Median / Cent arking: On-st General Land peed limit: Th ue west of Del Mar uewest of New A Lindy Ave Jackson Ave e ue ue Hellman Av Emerson P evard Hellman Av ue e venue north of Garvey g, DY - Double Yellow, 2WLTL From or the Garvey A ORTATION FA nts the existi y area. m Bernardino) study area. accessed via t Grove Aven on summarize here is genera ummary of r which are de extents of t teristics of the number of tra eastbound or erline Type: T treet parking Use: The land he posted or Table 2 – r Avenue east of San G Avenue Lind nue Jacks enue east of Waln venue Eme Place Garv venue south of G y Avenue south of G - 2-Way Left Turn Lane, RM - R north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue north of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue south of Garvey Avenue Avenue Specifi ACILITIES ing roadway freeway is an Within the a local interc nue. es the physic ally limited to roadway char escribed from the analyzed e roadway dif avel lanes for southbound/ The roadway allowances o d uses frontin prima facie li – Study Are NB / Gabriel Boulevard 1 dy Avenue 2 on Avenue 2 nut Grove Avenue 2 2 1 1 1 rson Place 2 vey Avenue 2 1 Garvey Avenue 2 1 1 Garvey Avenue 2 Raised Media, NPAT - No Parki To e e e e e e e ic Plan EIR, Ro configuration n east-west r study area, t hanges at N cal roadway the roadway racteristics w m left to right segment are ffer. both directio /westbound). median (rais r prohibition ng the roadwa mit (for unpo ea Roadway / EB SB / WB 1 1DY 2 2RM 2 22WLTL 2 2RM 2 2DY 1 1DY 1 1NS 1 1DY 2 2DY 2 2DY 1 1DY 2 22WLTL 1 1NS 1 1NS 2 2DY ing Anytime # Lanes Median Type osemead ns and types regional freew the freeway ew Avenue, configuration ys that traver within the st below: e described. ons of the roa ed curb) or c s. ay. osted speed r y Character NB / WB Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted NPAT / Permitted Permitted 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. Permitted Permitted Permitted Parking Re s of facilities way, providing has four tra Del Mar Av ns within the rse the study udy area. T New segme adway segme centerline (st regulations in istics SB / EB Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted NPAT / Permitted Permitted 2 Hr., 7a.m. to 6p.m. NPAT / Permitted Permitted Permitted S estrictions Backg JB for various g access direc avel lanes in venue, San G e study area. intersections The informat ents were ut nt riped) treatm residential ar Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial School / Residential Residential Residential School / Residential Commercial / Residential Commercial / Residential School / Residential Commercial Commercial / Residential N Commercial / Residential N School / Commercial / Residential General Land Use ground Page 7 B41022 travel ctly to each Gabriel The . ion is tilized ment. reas). 30 30 30 30 35 35 25 25 40 40 35 40 ot Posted ot Posted 40 Posted Speed Limit Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Public Tran Public tra ride servi senior re collective The stud Transport Table 3 s Figure 3 il Agen Metr Metr Monteb Rosemead pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 nsportation ansportation i ce. This latte sidents or d ly provide via y area is se tation Author summarizes t llustrates the ncy ro 7 ro bello Explorer Ro or the Garvey A in the study er type of ser isabled of an able alternativ erved by bus rity4, City of the service ch routes of the Table Line 70 & 770 176 Line 20 oute 1 & 2 Avenue Specifi area, as defin rvice is an adv ny age and th ves to use of s transit line Rosemead5, a haracteristics ese lines. 3 – Charact Transit Ser From Downtown LA Highland Park San Gabriel Circular Ro Near to City ic Plan EIR, Ro ned here, con vance reserva heir attendan the private au s operated and City of M s of the exist teristics of E rvice in Stud To El Monte Montebello Montebello oute within and y of Rosemead osemead nsists of fixe ation, shared nts. Existing utomobile are by the Los Montebello6. ting transit li Existing Pub dy Area Gar o Walnut Ga o San Ga Jackson Avenue d route bus ride transpo local bus tra e discussed b Angeles Cou ines within t blic Via rvey Avenue t Grove Avenue / rvey Avenue abriel Boulevard Avenue / Garvey e / Walnut Grove Avenue Backg JB service and d ortation servic ansit services below. unty Metrop he study are Peak Frequ 10 to 15 min 45 minute 13 to 21 min 60 minute ground Page 8 B41022 dial-a- ce for s that politan ea and uency nutes es nutes es N Garvey Avenue Specfic Plan - Rosemead Figure 3 Local Transit Routes Study Intersection Legend # Specific Plan Boundary Metro 70 Metro 770 Metro 176 Montebello 20 Rosemead Explorer 2 Rosemead Explorer 1 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 10 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 2. ANALYSIS 2.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS This report section documents the configuration of existing roadways and intersections within the project traffic study area. Also documented within this section are the existing traffic conditions and associated level of service (LOS) values at the study intersections. The analysis of operations at the study intersections was conducted for weekday a.m. and p.m. peak- hour conditions. Traffic counts were conducted for this study in May 2014, and year 2015 was defined for existing conditions. Ambient growth was added to the counts to define existing volumes. The results of the analysis of existing peak-hour intersection LOS are summarized in Table 4. The table summarizes the analyzed weekday a.m. peak-hour and p.m. peak-hour conditions. Table 4 – Study Intersection Performance for Existing Peak-Hour Conditions All the study intersections operate at good LOS values D or better under the existing conditions. At the intersections of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue and Walnut Grove/Garvey Avenue, LOS D conditions are approaching LOS E (near-capacity) conditions during the p.m. peak hour. Figure 4 illustrates the lane configurations and intersection control utilized for the analysis of study intersection capacities. The intersection turning movement counts are provided on Figure 5 (a.m. peak hour) and on Figure 6 (p.m. peak hour). The intersection turn movement traffic counts are provided in Appendix A to this report. Intersection level of service analysis worksheets for the existing conditions scenario are provided in Appendix B. ICU value LOS ICU value LOS 1 Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue 0.797 C 0.672 B 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue 0.819 D 0.779 C 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.716 C 0.712 C 4 Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.602 B 0.559 A 5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.786 C 0.774 C 6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.508 A 0.536 A 7 San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue 0.768 C 0.855 D 8 Delta Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.618 B 0.558 A 9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue 0.772 C 0.889 D ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) PM Peak AM Peak Study Intersections Existing Intersection Lane Configuration Figure 4Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes S SS S 3 54 6 S 1 S 2 SSS 987 * * * LEGEND S Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # Intersection Lane Configuration Existing (Year 2015) Peak Hour Turn VolumesAM Figure 5Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 63 899 29 57 305 103 61 698 104 183 164 57 2 74 984 15 35 218 115 44 1105 128 127 145 57 3 92 445 99 72 696 140 184 338 134 112 511 46 4 65 78 100 94 787 52 56 48 36 44 788 36 5 122 507 65 69 759 245 177 502 144 132 650 132 6 123 0 72 62 1011 0 0 0 0 1 919 17 7 65 568 142 175 790 234 190 776 160 200 732 75 8 188 5 37 27 1081 1 2 5 7 3 983 155 9 98 352 84 117 903 149 225 674 145 112 844 58 Existing (Year 2015) Peak Hour Turn VolumesPM Figure 6Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 55 690 37 33 171 73 93 826 136 135 241 71 2 97 1225 26 30 119 91 72 1195 120 122 184 73 3 58 315 92 81 598 191 187 470 169 195 799 63 4 20 52 51 35 793 66 73 53 31 60 992 17 5 171 528 56 54 681 145 224 457 158 148 873 119 6 86 0 41 40 923 0 0 0 0 2 1102 41 7 130 900 167 165 677 204 198 864 188 221 732 100 8 121 1 19 26 954 1 5 1 7 6 1021 100 9 99 833 142 120 856 204 192 575 102 155 785 82 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 2.2. EXIST The exist informatio volumes, 2013 Traf The resul based on Highway C 2.3. FUTU This secti with exist analysis of Traffic co this repor Backgroun To estim volumes w Southern through t Study Inter Intersecti scenario a pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 TING FREEWA ing freeway m on from the directional fl ffic Volumes B lts of the ex volume and l Capacity Man URE (2035) PR on examines ting land use f potential tra onditions with rt. nd Growth mate future b were increas California As he year 2035 rsection Opera on peak-hou are summariz I-10 I-10 or the Garvey A AY CONDITION mainline level e Caltrans w ow count da Book and the xisting LOS ca lane inputs an nual software. Table RE-PROJECT C study area ro and estimate affic impacts u h the propose baseline cond ed by a grow ssociation of . This traffic ations r performanc zed within Ta 0 Ahead of Sa 0 Back of Del Freew Lo Avenue Specifi NS of service (L website to de ata, and peak- e 2013 Peak H alculations ar nd the density . 5 – I-10 Fre CONDITIONS oadway netw ed growth. T under the Spe ed Specific Pl ditions (futur wth rate dete Government analysis ther ce and level o ble 5. an Gabriel Blv l Mar Ave way Mainline ocation ic Plan EIR, Ro LOS) analysis etermine exi -hour factori Hour Volume re summarize y of traffic in eway Cond ork operatio This establish ecific Plan lan lan land uses re traffic vol ermined by th ts (SCAG) an efore defines of service va vd e osemead for the I-10 isting average ng. The rele e Data report ed in Table 5 the peak ho itions Analy ns in the futu hes a “pre-pr nd use update are analyzed lumes witho he regional t d last update s the year 203 alues for the Cars per Hour per Lane 1,948 1,965 Exis (San Bernard e annual dai evant Caltran t. 5 below. Th ur and peak d ysis ure buildout p roject” or bas es. d within the A ut the Spec traffic model ed to provide 35 as the buil future (year r LOS D D sting An Pa JB dino Freeway) ily traffic (AA ns7 reports ar he LOS value direction usin period (year 2 seline scenar Analysis secti ific Plan), ex maintained b traffic projec dout year. 2035) pre-Pr nalysis age 14 B41022 ) used ADT) re the es are ng the 2035), rio for ion of xisting by the ctions roject Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Based on would op Garvey A The study would pot the study The list o report. F The turni Figure 8 ( The level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ICU - pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 the LOS sum erate at good Avenue would y intersection tentially oper area, as area of cumulative Figure 7 illustr ing movemen (a.m. peak) an of service wo Del Mar Av San Gabrie New Ave & Jackson Av Del Mar Av Kelburn Av San Gabrie Delta Ave & Walnut Gr - Intersection Ca Stud or the Garvey A Table 5 – In Futu mmary for th d levels of se worsen from ns that would rate at poor l growth occu /area project rates the loca nt volumes at nd Figure 9 (p orksheets for ve & Hellman l Blvd & Hellm & Garvey Ave e & Garvey A ve & Garvey A ve & Garvey l Blvd & Garv & Garvey Ave rove Ave & G apacity Utilizatio dy Intersec Avenue Specifi ntersection ure (2035) P is scenario pr ervice LOS va m LOS D to E operate at L evels of servi urs into the b ts and trip ge ations of the c t the study i p.m. peak). r this scenario Ave man Ave e Ave Ave Ave vey Ave e Garvey Ave on Method, LOS tions ic Plan EIR, Ro Peak-Hour Pre-Project rovided by T alue D or bet E during the p LOS E or F du ice due to hig buildout year. eneration sum cumulative/ar ntersections o are provide ICU 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.8 S - Level of Servi A osemead r Level of Se t Conditions Table 5, eight tter. The inte p.m. peak hou uring this scen gh traffic volu mmary are p rea projects. for the analy ed in Appendi value LO 889 D 863 D 745 C 598 A 829 D 553 A 812 D 660 B 814 D ice, ranging from AM Peak ervice – s of the nine s ersection of W ur. nario is on a umes on the p provided in A yzed scenario x D of this re OSICU va D 0.735 D 0.809 C 0.734 A 0.555 D 0.810 A 0.589 D 0.895 0.60 D 0.943 m A (good) to F PM An Pa JB study intersec Walnut Grov major arteria primary arter Appendix C o o are provide eport. alue LOS 5 C 9 D 4 C 5 A 0 D 9 A 5 D 1B 3 E F (poor) M Peak nalysis age 15 B41022 ctions ve and al, and ries of of this ed on !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 123 4 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 14 15 16 LEGEND Specific Plan Boundary !(Study Intersection !(Area Project Location Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Area Project Locations Figure 7 I010.5 Miles Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Future (2035) Pre-Project AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 8Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 63 908 30 64 347 117 61 705 105 268 240 83 2 73 974 15 42 257 136 44 1094 127 145 166 64 3 107 520 116 71 689 139 189 348 138 111 506 46 4 64 77 99 93 779 51 55 48 36 44 780 36 5 122 507 65 78 864 279 179 507 146 131 644 131 6 122 0 71 70 1151 0 0 0 0 1 1047 20 7 64 562 141 195 884 262 188 768 158 228 834 85 8 186 5 37 31 1209 1 2 5 7 3 1099 173 9 102 366 87 131 1010 167 223 667 144 125 945 64 Future (2035) Pre-Project PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 9Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 55 697 38 38 194 83 94 834 138 198 354 104 2 96 1213 26 36 140 107 71 1183 119 139 209 83 3 67 368 107 80 592 189 192 484 174 193 791 62 4 20 51 50 35 785 65 72 52 31 59 982 17 5 171 528 56 61 775 166 226 461 159 147 864 118 6 85 0 41 46 1051 0 0 0 0 2 1255 47 7 129 891 165 184 757 228 196 855 186 252 834 114 8 120 1 19 29 1068 1 5 1 7 7 1142 112 9 103 866 148 134 958 228 190 569 101 173 878 92 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 2.4. FUTU This scen proposed the buildo Using the both regio Plan area. Anticipated KOA wa increases uses was The deve land uses as well as The incre subtractin changes in new deve Figure 10 For the a The follow Buildout s   The follo Maximum   pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 URE (2035) PO nario include Specific Plan out timeframe e inputs of lan onal develop d Developmen s provided d and resident analyzed and lopment of a within the a the characte emental (net) ng the intensit n developmen lopment envi illustrates th analysis, two wing summar scenario: Commerc Residentia owing summa m Buildout sce Commerc Residentia or the Garvey A OST-PROJECT es backgroun n, in addition e. nd use data f ment and po nt under Specif details from ial unit increa impacts were traffic foreca nalyzed area, eristics and ca developmen ty of the prop nt intensities isioned by the e Traffic Ana land use plan izes the total ial uses – 1,17 l uses – 892 d arizes the to enario: ial uses – 1,92 l uses – 1,147 Avenue Specifi T CONDITION d traffic gro to other cum from the Spe opulation grow fic Plan the Specific ases in variou e examined. ast for a speci and the loca apacity of eac nt increase/de posed Specific would includ e Specific Plan lysis Zone ex n scenarios w commercial 75,475 square dwelling units otal commerc 29,335 square 7 dwelling un ic Plan EIR, Ro NS owth and po mulative/area ecific Plan pro wth and the Plan land u us areas of the ific plan takes ation and pot h of the majo ecrease by T c Plan land us de parcel turn n. xtents within were analyzed building squa e feet s cial building e feet its osemead otential new planned proje ocess, this sc land use cha use map, bas e study area. s into accoun tential interac or roadways a Traffic Analysi ses from that nover and red the study are d, Realistic Bu are feet and r square feet area develo ects assumed cenario estim anges propose sed on comm Trip genera t the type an ction of vario and intersecti is Zone (TAZ t of the existi development ea. uildout and M residential uni and residen An Pa JB opment unde d to be built w mates the effe ed for the Sp mercial floor ation for these d density of f ous land use t ions. Z) was deriv ng land uses. (recycling), a Maximum Bui its for the Re ntial units fo nalysis age 19 B41022 er the within cts of pecific r area e land future types, ved by The as well ldout. ealistic or the !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( SANGABRIEL ROSEMEAD MONTEREYPARK Alh am b r a W a s h Fern St Twin AveArtson StGeranio DrOlney St Lafayette St Lindy AveColumbia St Eckhart AvePaljay AveRamonaBlvd Stallo AveRockhold AvePine StGarvey Ave Newmark Ave del Mar AveStevens AveHershey St Dorothy St New AveAngelusAveEmerson Pl Falling Leaf AveN San Gabriel BlvdDenton AveKelburn AveAlanreed AveW Saxon Ave Charlotte AveGladys AveElizabeth AveEvelyn AveFern Ave Isabel AveEarle AveJackson AveDelta AveProspect AvelaPresaAveWhitmore St Burton AveWillard AveBrighton StStrathmore AveWalnut Grove Ave1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SunshineEducationalCenter RosemeadEducationCenter New AvenueSchool Jesus ChristOf LatterDay Saints RosemeadChristian Center FirstPresbyterianChurch Kingdom HallOf JehovahsWitnesses Open BibleChurch Rosemead ChurchOf TheNazarene TestimonyOf ChristMission Zion LutheranChurch Willard (Frances)Elementary School Sanchez (GeorgeI) ElementarySchool Duff (Margaret)ElementarySchool EmersonElementarySchool Bitely (Arlene)ElementarySchool Garvey (Richard)Middle School ZapopanPark GarveyPark 2176-1 2165-4 2157-1 2170-1 2184-1 2165-1 2165-2 2165-3 2165-5 2170-22157-2 LEGEND Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Study Area TAZ Boundary !(Study Intersection Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead Traffic Analysis Zones Used for Specific Plan Area Figure 10 I02,0001,000 Feet Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Projected T The poten commerc proposed The trip t considere Internal t which wo commerc Generation The follow residentia       The trip proposed that woul vehicle tri   The Reali more acc caused by “In” and “ Shopping C General Of Restaurant Restaurant Apartment Condomini pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 Traffic Volume ntial developm ial and indust Specific Plan totals were c ed in the land trip capture r ould constitut ial and resid n Manual. wing land use al uses, and th Shopping C General O Restaurant Restaurant Apartment Condomin generation Realistic Bu d be allowed ips: Commerc Residentia stic Buildout curate analys y reductions i “Out” designa Cener (ITE 820) / ffice (ITE 710) t ‐ Fast Food (IT t ‐ Sit‐Down (ITE ts (ITE 220) ium (ITE 230) Land Use or the Garvey A es ment intensit trial, and num land uses are calculated usin d use plan, b reductions, fo te walking tr dential uses. es were utiliz he rates are p Center Office t – Fast Food t – Sit-Down ts nium T changes due ildout land u d under the p ial uses – 79,7 l uses – 5,467 scenario num is of potenti n overall trip ations refer to / Retail E 933) E 932) Avenue Specifi ty changes – s mber of units e calculated b ng rates for t based on the or trips that rips or trips b Internal tr zed to calcula provided in Ta Table 6 – Tr e to increme use plan is su proposed Plan 799 daily trip 7 daily trips, i mber of trips w al impacts. ps, due to exp o the relation KSF 42.7 KSF 11.0 KSF 716.0 KSF 127.1 DU 6.65 DU 5.81 Units Dail Tota ic Plan EIR, Ro square feet o for residenti below. the various no e Trip Genera would rema by other non rip capture r ate the trip g able 6. ip Generati ental (net) d ummarized w n could, at a r ps, including 4 ncluding 415 was analyzed Negative tri pected localiz nship of the t In 70 62% 0388% 0060% 1555% 5 20% 1 17% y al osemead of floor area f ial uses – fro on-residentia ation Manual8 ain local to e n-vehicle mod reductions w generation es ion Rates development within Table 7 realistic dens 4,670 in a.m. p in a.m. peak, in the impac ip generation zed reduction trips by direct Out Tot 38% 0.9 12% 1.5 40% 43. 45% 10. 80% 0.5 83% 0.4 AM Peak for non-resid m the existin al and residen (9th edition), each TAZ ar des due to a were taken b stimates for n increase ass 7. The incre sity, generate peak, 2,820 in , 496 in p.m. p ct analysis, in o n numbers w ns in land use tion to the ge tal In 9648% 5617% .87 51% .81 60% 5165% 4467% An Pa JB ential uses su ng land uses t ntial land use published by rea were incl attraction bet based on the non-residentia sociated wit eased develop the following n p.m. peak peak order to prov within Table e mix and inte enerating uses Out T 52%3 83%1 49% 26 40%9 35%0 33%0 PM Peak nalysis age 21 B41022 uch as to the types y ITE. luded, tween e Trip al and h the pment g new vide a 7 are ensity. s. otal 3.71 1.49 6.15 9.85 0.62 0.52 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 The trip t considere Internal t which wo commerc Generation Credits fo Rapid Bus rates wer Trips wer RSA, defin pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 totals were c ed in the land trip capture r ould constitut ial and resid n Manual. or transit use s 770, which b re based on gu re distributed ned by the M or the Garvey A calculated usin d use plan, b reductions, fo te walking tr dential uses. e were taken both operate uidance withi d to the stud etro regional Avenue Specifi ng rates for t based on the or trips that rips or trips b Internal tr n based on t on Garvey A in the Conges dy area based planning mo ic Plan EIR, Ro the various no e Trip Genera would rema by other non rip capture r he proximity Avenue with a stion manage d on directio del for the C osemead on-residentia ation Manual9 ain local to e n-vehicle mod reductions w y of the Metr a peak freque ment Program onal distributi CMP. al and residen (9th edition), each TAZ ar des due to a were taken b ro Local Bus ency of 6 to 1 m. ion percentag An Pa JB ntial land use published by rea were incl attraction bet based on the s 70 to and M 5 minutes. C ges from the nalysis age 22 B41022 types y ITE. luded, tween e Trip Metro Credit e local Traffic ImPrepared May 26, 2 2157‐2157‐22165‐2165‐22165‐32165‐42165‐52170‐2170‐22176‐2184‐TotalTAZmpact Analysis for t for MIG 2016 DAILYTOTAL13,48922,02317,26524,6823‐456415,856510,16913,427221,9521 10,9411 451l79,799 he Garvey AvenueAM PEAKIN OUT127 8272 46268 168167 107‐16‐11567 357364 229122 77785 495391 24716 102,863 1,807e Specific Plan EIR, TaCOMMERCIALNET TRIPSK HOURTOTAL209118436274‐279245931991,280638264,670Rosemead ble 7 – Trip GeAnalysis ZonPM PEAK HOIN OUT63 6535 37130 13581 83‐12‐13274 286176 18359 61380 396188 197881,382 1,438eneration Channe (TAZ) – Pea OURDTOTALT12872265164‐25560135911207761385162,8205 nge by Traffic ak Hours DAILYTOTAL IN00122 2130 265 1307 51,688241,165 16001,316 18609 965 15,46778RESIDENET TAM PEAK HOUROUT TOT008109114519 24103 1271 870081 9938 4745337 41ENTIALTRIPSPMTAL IN0008185441827101769009797375415328AnaPage 23JB41022M PEAK HOUROUT TOTAL004125132692751 15236 1050041 12018 5526168 496lysis 3 2 L Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 24 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 Study Intersection Operations Analysis A level of service analysis was conducted for future post-Project conditions, based on the addition of trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed Specific Plan land use changes. The results of the analysis for this scenario are provided within Table 8. Intersections that would operate at LOS values of E or F are indicated by highlighted values. Table 8 – Study Intersection Operations – Future (2035) Post-Project Conditions With the intensities of development under the proposed land use plan, the data within Table 8 indicates that eight of the study intersections would operate at poor LOS values of E or F during the peak hours. The following intersections would worsen to or within LOS E or F due to the implementation of the Realistic Buildout land use plan:  Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave – Worsening from LOS D to LOS E in the a.m. peak hour  San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS D to E in the p.m. peak hour.  New Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS C to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS C to LOS E in the p.m. peak hour  Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS A to E in the a.m. peak hour  Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours  Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS A to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS A to E in the p.m. peak hour  San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours  Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave – Worsening from LOS D to F in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS E to F in the p.m. peak hour The number of study intersections operating at LOS E or F during peak hours would increase due to the proposed land use plan, over future baseline conditions without the Plan, due to planned changes in permitted development intensity. Each of these study intersections that would operate at LOS E or F during this scenario is on a major ICU value LOS ICU value LOS 1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave 0.994 E 0.808 D 2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave 1.026 F 0.908 E 3 New Ave & Garvey Ave 1.046 F 0.935 E 4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave 0.960 E 0.787 C 5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave 1.255 F 1.092 F 6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave 1.045 F 0.911 E 7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave 1.307 F 1.188 F 8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave 0.866 D 0.732 C 9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave 1.161 F 1.070 F ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) Study Intersections AM Peak PM Peak Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 arterial w The a.m. provided The level- 2.5. PROG This secti and futur maintaine potential timespan These imp and are p This repo land use c of progra identified Significant A significa of project to deterio threshold The perfo roadway s impact sta City of Ros The City capacity r to be a sig * Pre-p pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 with large dela peak-hour tu on Figure 11. -of-service wo GRAM IMPACT on evaluates e post-Projec d within a S improvemen of the plan. provements w hysically and ort section pr changes unde am-level mitig significant tra Impact Stand ant impact is ts would cau orate below s and maximu ormance stan system were andards applie semead of Rosemead ratio (V/C) of gnificant impa Level of Ser F roject V/C is base or the Garvey A ays for vehicle urning movem . The p.m. pe orksheets for TS AND MITIG the impact o ct (with prop Specific Plan ts, where cu would then b financially fea rovides a disc r the Specific gation measu affic impacts. dards normally defi se level of se a minimum a ums are spec ndards used t based on pea ed to this ana d has establish f study interse act, and was a rvice ed on future volum Avenue Specifi es approachin ment volumes eak-hour turn r this scenario GATION MEAS f incremental posed Specifi or General umulative imp be implement asible within t cussion of sign Plan) at the res to be im ined when ne ervice values, acceptable thr ified by the lo to evaluate t ak-hour oper alysis are defi hed specific th ections. The applied to the Pre-Proje 1.00 or mes with ambient ic Plan EIR, Ro ng from the m s at the study ning moveme o are provide SURES l traffic growt c Plan) scena Plan project pacts of futur ed as new de the scope of i nificant impac study interse mplemented o ew vehicle tri volume-to-c reshold or in ocal agency. traffic volume rations of the ned below. hresholds for following inc e program of ect V/C* r more t growth only. osemead minor/opposit y intersection ent volumes a ed in Appendi th between t arios. To en area, locatio re land use c evelopment o individual pro cts at the pro ections, and a over multiple ps generated capacity ratio ncrease by a es and design analyzed stu r Project-relat crease in peak Specific Plan Project Equal t te roadway. ns for the ana are provided o ix E of this re he future pre nsure that ad ons are typic changes wou occurs, as the ojects. ogram level ( framework f years that w by a specific os, or other m set maximum n capacities o dy intersectio ted increases k hour V/C ra development t Related v/c to or greater t An Pa JB alyzed scenari on Figure 12. eport. e-Project (bas dequate mobi cally identifie ld occur ove ey become jus all potential f for implement would mitigat project or g measured var m amount. T on the study ons. The sign s in the volum atios is consi t: c increase than 0.020 nalysis age 25 B41022 io are seline) ility is ed for er the stified future tation te the groups riables These y area ificant me-to- dered Future (2035) with Specific Plan AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 11Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 71 1085 32 65 365 138 90 959 112 279 257 96 2 98 1292 27 58 265 136 44 1529 134 151 173 99 3 113 544 245 186 1045 276 321 373 148 138 986 52 4 91 93 167 164 1326 128 128 68 72 109 1414 52 5 161 533 156 156 1487 438 375 545 191 166 1355 160 6 220 19 171 195 1884 66 51 15 53 69 1816 142 7 242 697 202 270 1480 373 285 923 440 488 1302 263 8 186 5 37 31 1982 1 2 5 7 3 1659 173 9 276 366 87 131 1486 167 223 667 267 212 1291 191 Future (2035) with Specific Plan PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Figure 12Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes 1 61 828 39 39 204 99 110 981 142 207 366 111 2 115 1451 35 45 144 107 71 1440 123 144 214 103 3 71 384 186 160 859 293 268 497 182 207 1070 65 4 39 62 96 79 1172 106 129 64 57 92 1363 26 5 193 547 113 114 1200 277 349 483 184 169 1308 137 6 155 12 113 120 1536 42 38 11 39 45 1750 118 7 246 986 208 229 1112 299 263 951 367 429 1171 230 8 120 1 19 29 1518 1 5 1 7 7 1562 112 9 204 866 148 134 1234 228 190 569 173 238 1138 187 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 City of Mo The City Intersecti in peak-ho Mitigation construct increased Significant The dete intersectio Out of th worsen t generated   Six of the       Recomme pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 onterey Park of Montere on Capacity our ICU value n measures tion of a proj peak-hour tr Traffic Impac ermination o ons, by the fu he total nine to or within d by the land AM peak h PM peak h nine study in San Gabrie New Aven Del Mar A Kelburn A San Gabrie Walnut Gr ended mitigat or the Garvey A ey Park has Utilization (IC es are consid Existing IC 0.000 – 0.70 > 0.701 – 0.8 > 0.801 – 0.9 > 0.901 are also re ject will resu rips of 150 or ct Determinatio of significant uture analysis study inters deficient LO uses to be all hour – eight i hour – six inte ntersections w el Boulevard & nue & Garvey Avenue & Gar Avenue & Garv el Boulevard & rove Avenue tion measures Avenue Specifi established s CU) values o ered significa U P 00 00 00 equired, base ult in increase r more on fre ons impacts of year of 2035 sections, ope OS values of lowed under ntersections ersections would be sign & Hellman Av y Avenue (a.m rvey Avenue ( vey Avenue ( & Garvey Ave & Garvey Av s are summar ic Plan EIR, Ro specific thres of signalized st ant traffic imp roject Relate Equal to or g Equal to or g Equal to or g Equal to or g ed on the C ed peak hour eeway monito the propos 5, is summariz rations at th E or F, due the proposed nificantly-impa venue (a.m. p m. peak hour) (a.m. and p.m (a.m. peak ho enue (a.m. an venue (a.m. an rized in the ne osemead sholds for Pr tudy intersec pacts: ed increase in greater than 0 greater than 0 greater than 0 greater than 0 County CM r trips of 50 oring location sed Specific zed within Ta e following n e to anticipa d land use pla acted during t peak hour) m. peak hours) our) nd p.m. peak h nd p.m. peak ext sub-sectio roject-related ctions. The f n ICU .06 .04 .02 .01 P guidelines, or more on ns. Plan land u able 9. number of in ated new tri an: the analyzed ) hours) hours) on of this rep An Pa JB d increases i following incr , if approva CMP arteria uses at the ntersections w ps that wou peak hours: port. nalysis age 28 B41022 n the reases l and al and study would uld be Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 29 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 Table 9 – Significant Study Area Traffic Impacts Mitigation Measures The recommended mitigation measures and the estimated effect on LOS values are summarized below. Mitigations and related improvements in LOS are listed within the table. Identified mitigation measures for the identified Specific Plan significant impacts are provided in Table 10. Table 10 – Recommended Study Intersection Mitigation Measures and Effects ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS 1 Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue AM 0.797 C 0.889 D 0.994 E 0.105 No PM 0.672 B 0.735 C 0.808 D 0.073 No 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue AM 0.819 D 0.863 D 1.026 F 0.163 YES PM 0.779 C 0.809 D 0.908 E 0.099 No 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.716 C 0.745 C 1.046 F 0.301 YES PM 0.712 C 0.734 C 0.935 E 0.201 No 4 Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.602 B 0.598 A 0.960 E 0.362 No PM 0.559 A 0.555 A 0.787 C 0.232 No 5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.786 C 0.829 D 1.255 F 0.426 YES PM 0.774 C 0.810 D 1.092 F 0.282 YES 6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.508 A 0.553 A 1.045 F 0.492 YES PM 0.536 A 0.589 A 0.911 E 0.322 No 7 San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue AM 0.768 C 0.812 D 1.307 F 0.495 YES PM 0.855 D 0.895 D 1.188 F 0.293 YES 8 Delta Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.618 B 0.660 B 0.866 D 0.206 No PM 0.558 A 0.601 B 0.732 C 0.131 No 9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.772 C 0.814 D 1.161 F 0.347 YES PM 0.889 D 0.943 E 1.070 F 0.127 YES ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) Sig Impact? Change in ICU Value Existing (2015) ConditionsPeak Hour Cumulative (2035) with-Project Conditions Study Intersections Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue AM 0.863 D 1.026 FYES 0.996 E No Signal Coordination PM 0.809 D 0.908 E No 0.878 D No Signal Coordination 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.745 C 1.046 FYES 0.879 D No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane PM 0.734 C 0.935 E No 0.785 C No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane 5 Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.829 D 1.255 FYES 1.054 FYESEB+WB add 3rd thru lane PM 0.810 D 1.092 FYES 0.938 E No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane 6 Kelburn Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.553 A 1.045 FYES 0.812 D No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane PM 0.589 A 0.911 E No 0.686 B No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane 7 San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue AM 0.812 D 1.307 FYES 1.153 FYESEB+WB add 3rd thru lane PM 0.895 D 1.188 FYES 1.072 FYESEB+WB add 3rd thru lane 9 Walnut Grove Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.814 D 1.161 FYES 0.977 E No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane PM 0.943 E 1.070 FYES 0.912 E No EB+WB add 3rd thru lane EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound Residual Sig Impact? Mitigation Measures [a] Cumulative (2035) with- Project + Mitigation [a] Corridor signal coordination credit (three percent of capacity) was applied to the impacted study intersection #2. At the impacted intersections along Garvey Avenue, the installation of a third thru lane was included as a long-term City project. Study Intersections Peak Hour Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions Cumulative (2035) with-Project Conditions Sig Impact? Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead Page 30 Prepared for MIG JB41022 May 26, 2016 The physical mitigation measures summarized in Table 10 (far right column), plus corridor traffic signal synchronization/coordination on San Gabriel Boulevard all locations, would reduce the significant traffic impacts at all but two of the identified locations to a level of insignificance. At these two locations, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. A three percent capacity improvement was assumed for the San Gabriel Blvd. corridor improvements. The physical improvement benefits were calculated in terms of level of service. Some LOS values would be improved by the mitigation/improvements package, but some would remain at LOS E due to physical constraints. The recommended mitigation measures and improvements for the study intersections are illustrated on Figure 13. Significant Traffic Impacts under Monterey Park Thresholds A supplemental analysis was undertaken for the study intersection located on the jurisdictional border of the City of Rosemead and City of Monterey Park. The previous sub-section of the report analyzed impacts using the City of Rosemead impact guidelines. Impacts are analyzed here using the City of Monterey Park impact guidelines. Table 11 provides the analysis for the intersection located on the City border, using City of Monterey Park impact guidelines. Table 11 – City of Monterey Park Significant Traffic Impacts Per the City of Monterey Park impact guidelines, this study intersection would be significantly-impacted during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The same mitigation measure identified for New Avenue / Garvey Avenue would be applied per the City of Monterey Park guidelines. At the intersection of New Avenue/Garvey Avenue, application of the recommended mitigation measures would not fully mitigate, and residual impacts would remain. To mitigate the residual impact at this intersection under Monterey Park guidelines, the addition of a right turn lane at the westbound approach would be necessary. This potential additional mitigation measures was determined to be infeasible. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain at this location. ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS ICU Value LOS 3 New Avenue/Garvey Avenue AM 0.716 C 0.745 C 1.046 F 0.301 Yes PM 0.712 C 0.734 C 0.935 E 0.201 Yes ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, LOS - Level of Service, ranging from A (good) to F (poor) Sig Impact?Study Intersections Peak Hour Existing (2015) Conditions Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions Cumulative (2035) with-Project Conditions Change in ICU Value Proposed Mitigations and Improvements for Study Intersections Figure 13Garvey Avenue Specific Plan - Rosemead N No Scale LEGEND Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # XX Intersection Turn Volumes S SS S 3 54 6 S 1 S 2 SSS 987 * * * LEGEND S Study Intersection Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary # Existing Intersection Lane Configuration Proposed Mitigation - Intersection Lane Configuration *Assumed de facto right turn lane. Signal Coordination Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 2.6. ALTE This secti Plan land Trip Gener The trip proposed allowed u   The Maxi an analysi pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 RNATIVE IMPA ion evaluates uses for this ration generation land use pla nder the pro Commerc Residentia mum Buildou s of potential or the Garvey A ACT ANALYSIS significant im scenario are changes due an is summa oposed Plan co ial uses – 140 l uses – 6,626 ut scenario nu l impacts of th Avenue Specifi S – MAXIMUM mpacts under more intense e to increme rized within ould, at a max 0,446 daily tri 6 daily trips, i umber of trip he Specific Pla ic Plan EIR, Ro M BUILDOUT r the Maximu e than under ental (net) d Table 12. T ximum densit ps, including ncluding 502 s was analyze an with a mo osemead SCENARIO um Buildout the Realistic development The increase ty, generate t 8,220 in a.m. in a.m. peak, ed in the impa ore intense de land use scen Buildout scen increase ass ed developme the following peak, 4,986 , 602 in p.m. p act analysis, in evelopment p An Pa JB nario. The Sp nario. sociated wit ent that wou new vehicle t in p.m. peak peak n order to pr plan. nalysis age 32 B41022 pecific h the uld be trips: rovide Traffic ImPrepared May 26, 2 2157‐2157‐22165‐2165‐22165‐32165‐42165‐52170‐2170‐22176‐2184‐TotalTAZmpact Analysis for t for MIG 2016 DAILYTOTAL17,90423,203113,35629,14732,092438,489521,76115,240226,014112,6221618l140,446 he Garvey AvenueAM PEAKIN OUT291 183114 71492 311327 20775 471,375 867778 491187 117930 586452 28322 145,043 3,177e Specific Plan EIR, TabCOMMERCIALNET TRIPSK HOURTOTAL4741858035341222,2421,2693041,516735368,220Rosemead ble 12 – Trip GeAnalysis ZonPM PEAK HOIN OUT141 14755 57238 249158 16637 38665 695376 39390 95449 469217 22811 122,437 2,549eneration Channe (TAZ) – Pea OURDTOTALT288112487324751,360276911859181445234,9866nge by Traffic ak Hours DAILYTOTAL IN00133 2273 465 1435 72,395 341,230 17001,387 19643 965 16,626 94 RESIDENET TAM PEAK HOUROUT TOT0091117 214527 34146 1876 930085 1040 4945408 50ENTIALTRIPSPMTAL IN001811654426801433740004829385402395AnaPageJB4M PEAK HOUROUT TOTAL005139252614 4074 21738 1120043 12520 5826207 602lysis e 33 1022 L Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Significant This repo The deter intersectio Operation due to an All of the p.m. peak be require 1Del Mar 2San Gab 3New Av 4 Jackson 5Del Mar 6 Kelburn 7San Gab 8Delta Av 9Walnut ICU - Intersection S pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 Traffic Impac ort sub-sectio rmination of ons, by the fu Table 13 ns at all nine ticipated new study interse k hours under ed for full mit r Avenue/Hellman A briel Boulevard/Hel venue/Garvey Aven Avenue/Garvey Av r Avenue/Garvey A n Avenue/Garvey A briel Boulevard/Gar venue/Garvey Ave Grove Avenue/Ga Capacity Utilization Meth Study Intersectio or the Garvey A ct Determinatio n provides a significant im uture analysis 3 – Maximum of study inte w trips that w ections would r the Maximu tigation, and t Avenue A P lman Avenue A P nue A P venue A P Avenue A P Avenue A P rvey Avenue A P nue A P arvey Avenue A P hod, LOS - Level of Service ons Pe Ho Avenue Specifi ons discussion of mpacts for the year of 2035 m Buildout ersections wo ould be gene d be significan um Buildout la these measur ICU Value AM 0.797 PM 0.672 AM 0.819 PM 0.779 AM 0.716 PM 0.712 AM 0.602 PM 0.559 AM 0.786 PM 0.774 AM 0.508 PM 0.536 AM 0.768 PM 0.855 AM 0.618 PM 0.558 AM 0.772 PM 0.889 e, ranging from A (good) t eak our Existing ( Conditi ic Plan EIR, Ro f significant im e Maximum B 5, is summariz Significant ould worsen t rated by the ntly-impacted and use scen res would like LOS ICU V C0.88 B0.73 D0.86 C0.80 C0.74 C0.73 B0.59 A0.55 C0.82 C0.81 A0.55 A0.58 C0.81 D0.89 B0.66 A0.60 C0.81 D0.94 to F (poor) (2015) ions Cumul No Co osemead mpacts under Buildout land zed within Ta Study Area to or within maximum bu d during eithe ario. Additio ely be infeasib Value LOS IC 89D 35C 63D 09D 45C 34C 98A 55A 29D 10D 53A 89A 12D 95D 60B 01B 14D 43 E lative (2035) o Project onditions Cu alternative la use plan sce able 13. a Traffic Imp deficient LO uildout land u er peak period onal mitigatio ble at many lo CU Value LOS 1.066 F 0.863 D 1.121 F 0.958 E 1.277 F 1.087 F 1.248 F 0.962 E 1.608 F 1.318 F 1.354 F 1.118 F 1.740 F 1.369 F 1.045 F 0.825 D 1.418 F 1.156 F umulative (2035) with-Project Conditions An Pa JB and use plan. enario at the pacts S values of E ses. d or both a.m on measures w ocations. 0.177 Y 0.128 0.258 Y 0.149 0.532 Y 0.353 Y 0.650 Y 0.407 0.779 Y 0.508 Y 0.801 Y 0.529 Y 0.928 Y 0.474 Y 0.385 Y 0.224 0.604 Y 0.213 Y Im ) Change in ICU Value nalysis age 34 B41022 study E or F, m. and would YES No YES No YES YES YES No YES YES YES YES YES YES YES No YES YES Sig mpact? Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 2.7. CMP This secti the proce Congestion The CMP County M that the t A specific Transport  A p ho  A ei The near Valley Bo study inte locations. The near freeway, n per hour pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 P IMPACTS on demonstr edures manda n Managemen P was created Metropolitan traffic impact c system of tation Impact At CMP arter roposed proj ours. At CMP mainli ither directio est CMP art ulevard. Bas ersections, it rest CMP ma near Roseme to any freewa or the Garvey A rates the way ated by the C t Program d statewide b Transportatio of individual arterial roa t Analysis (TIA ial monitorin ject will add ine freeway-m on, during the terial monitor ed on the Pr is not expe ainline freew ead Boulevard ay segments n Avenue Specifi ys in which th ounty of Los by Propositio on Authority development adways plus A) Guidelines g intersectio 50 or more monitoring lo either the a. ring intersect roject trip gen cted that 50 ay-monitorin d. The Specif near the Spec ic Plan EIR, Ro his traffic stud Angeles Con on 111 and w y (Metro). T t projects of all freeways s, a traffic imp ns, including e vehicle trips ocations, wher m. or p.m. w tion to the S neration and 0 or more ne g location to fic Plan is not cific Plan site. osemead dy was prepa ngestion Mana was implemen The CMP for potentially re comprises pact analysis i freeway on-r s during eith re the projec weekday peak Specific Plan the distance ew trips per o the projec t expected to . ared to be in agement Prog nted locally b r Los Angeles egional signifi the CMP sy s conducted ramps or off- her a.m. or p ct will add 150 hours. is on Rosem of this CMP hour would ct site is on o add more t An Pa JB conformance gram (CMP). by the Los An s County req cance be ana ystem. Per where: -ramps, wher p.m. weekday 0 or more tr mead Bouleva P location form d be added to the Intersta than 150 new nalysis age 35 B41022 e with ngeles quires alyzed. CMP re the y peak rips, in ard at m the o this ate 10 w trips Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 2.8. FREEW Potential volumes w 2013. Th The volum Hour” he The “back Per Caltra overall fac  I- Growth fa I-610 volu traffic mo The annu and for th factor of to these v The resul was applie Freeway M A freewa (HCM) so guidelines flow were Route 10 10 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 WAY INTERCH freeway facil were compile e year 2013 i mes for this a adings in Tab k” and “ahead ans definition cility direction 10 facility – B actors used w umes from th odel is 2035, a al growth rat he 27-year pe 1.06. As the volumes was lting buildout ed to the mai Mainline High ay mainline le oftware, as th s. Caltrans-pu e all used as in Post Mile 25.327 25.837 SA or the Garvey A HANGE RAMP lity impacts w ed from Caltr is the most re analysis are in ble 14 for the d” labels refe ns for data co n of travel wi Back volumes T within the pri e year 2013 t and Caltrans r te applied to eriod between e Caltrans bas adjusted to a t volume calc nline operatio hway Capacity evel of servi he use of the ublished main nputs. Locatio SOUTH SAN GA DEL MAR AVE ROSEMEA AN GABRIEL BO Avenue Specifi P AND MAINLI were also co rans data, via ecent availabl ndicated by b I-10 facility. er to the dire llection and a ithin the regio are further w Table 14 –Ca for I-10 in mary traffic im to the area b review of free the analysis o n existing yea se AADT vol 22-year peri culations for ons analysis s y Manual Ana ce calculatio e HCM metho nline AADT v n H ABRIEL, ENUE 1 AD, ULEVARD 1 ic Plan EIR, Ro INE OPERATIO onsidered per AADT (Aver e data summ bold text und ection on the analysis, the fo on: west and Ahe altrans Volu Vicinity of P mpact analysi buildout-year eway facility i of the study i ar-2008 and f umes are fro od, with a re nearby mainl summarized w alysis n was condu odology is re volumes, peak Back Peak Hour Bac Pea Mon 14,300 231,0 14,400 233,0 osemead ONS r Caltrans tr rage Annual D arized by Cal der the “Back e freeway faci following defi ead volumes a ume Data Project is were utilize of 2035. The impacts is usu intersection w future year-20 om the year 2 esulting factor line freeway within the nex ucted, using equired for an k hour factors ck ak nth Back AADT 000 227,000 000 229,000 raffic study gu Daily Traffic) ltrans. k Peak Hour” lity from the nition applies are further ea ed here to in e buildout ye ually the mod was based on 035 condition 2013, the gro r of 1.049. segments – t xt report sub the Highway nalysis by Ca s, and directi Ahead Peak Hour 0 14,400 0 14,200 An Pa JB uidelines. Ex data reports ” and “Ahead analyzed loc s, in relation t ast crease the ex ear for the re del buildout y n the SCAG m ns, with a res owth factor ap two on the I b-section. y Capacity M altrans traffic onal proport Ahead Peak month Ah AA 233,000 229 229,000 225 nalysis age 36 B41022 xisting s from d Peak cation. to the xisting gional ear. model sulting pplied I-10 – Manual study ion of head ADT 9,000 5,000 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 Table 15 Specific P Under the for daily v addition o As the ov 10 freewa that over freeway c The High Appendix I-10 Ahe I-10 Back Note: density pc/h/ln - Pass F pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 summarizes lan area. e future 2035 volumes wou of the new tri verall Specific ay mainline, m lap with the corridor impa way Capacity x F. ad of San Gabri k of Del Mar Av y not reported when enger Car per Hou Freeway Mainl Location or the Garvey A the results o 5 pre-Project ld operate at ips generated Plan, at a pro major project identified loc acts. y Software an el Blvd e n free-flow speed is ur per Lane line Avenue Specifi of this analysi Table 15 Daily LO t conditions, t LOS D. The d by the land u ogram level, w ts within the cations of sig nalysis works Flow Rate (pc/h/ln) 2,043 2,061 s computed to be lo Future Pre-Proj ic Plan EIR, Ro s, for mainlin 5 – I-10 Main OS Calculat all freeway s e level of ser use plan. would create Plan area sho gnificant impa sheets for the Density (pc/mi/ln) 33.1 33.6 ow. e 2035 Baseline ject Condition osemead ne segment o nline tions segments, und rvice value wo potentially ad ould be revie acts within th e freeway ma LOS Flo (p D 2 D 2 e ns w on the I-10 fa der a plannin ould worsen dverse level o ewed for both his document ainline analys ow Rate pc/h/ln) D (pc 2,162 2,298 Futur with Land Use An Pa JB acility north o g-scenario an to LOS E wit of service on h localized im t and for pot sis are provid Density c/mi/ln)LO 36.5 41.0 re 2035 Plan Conditio nalysis age 37 B41022 of the nalysis th the the I- mpacts tential ded in OS E E ons Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 1 City of R Departmen 2 City of M Engineering 3 Highway Interim Ma 4 Metro. M ht 5 City of R ht 6 City of M ht 7 California ht 8 Institute 9 Institute pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 Rosemead. Febr nt. Monterey Park g Division. Capacity Man aterials on High Metro Bus and M ttp://media.met Rosemead. Rose ttp://www.cityo Montebello. Mo ttp://www.cityo a Department ttp://traffic-cou of Transportat of Transportat or the Garvey A ruary 2007. Tra k. February 20 nual, Special R hway Capacity Metro Rail Sys tro.net/riding_ emead Explore ofrosemead.or ontebello Bus L ofmontebello.c of Transportat unts.dot.ca.gov tion Engineers. tion Engineers. Avenue Specifi ansportation Im 006. Traffic Imp Report 209, T y, NCHRP Circ tem Map. _metro/maps/im er Transit Syst rg/index.aspx?p Lines System M com/civica/fileb tion, 2012 Tra v/ . Trip Generatio . Trip Generatio ic Plan EIR, Ro mpact Guidelines pact Study Guid Transportation cular 212, 1982 mages/system_ em. page=144 Map. bank/blobdload ffic Volumes D on Manual, 9th E on Manual, 9th E osemead s. Prepared by delines. Prepar Research Boa 2. _map.pdf d.asp?BlobID=2 Data on Califor Edition. Volum Edition. Volum the City of Ro red by the Cit ard, Washingt 2545 rnia State High me 2 and Volum me 2 and Volum An Pa JB osemead Engin ty of Monterey ton, D.C., 198 hways. me 3. 2012. me 3. 2012. nalysis age 38 B42022 neering y Park 85 and Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 I or the Garvey A INTERSECTIO Avenue Specifi AP ON TURNING ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX A G MOVEMEN osemead NT TRAFFIC CCOUNTS Appe JB endices B41022 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120110110 7:00 AM 19 110 3 8 79 17 34 20 5 12 37 13 357 00007:15 AM 262032 119724362015 9 4625 514 00007:30 AM 30 228 7 7 156 24 45 37 14 18 51 29 646 00007:45 AM 15 226 9 22 185 30 45 34 18 26 65 29 704 00008:00 AM 13 219 9 14 168 29 41 47 16 14 72 30 672 00008:15 AM 15 210 6 14 162 23 55 39 13 9 76 14 636 00008:30 AM 19 235 5 10 176 21 40 42 9 7 89 29 682 00008:45 AM 13 204 4 22 163 33 42 43 14 13 73 25 649 0000 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :150 1635 45 108 1186 201 338 282 104 108 509 194 4860 0000 APPROACH %'s :8.20% 89.34% 2.46% 7.22% 79.33% 13.44% 46.69% 38.95% 14.36% 13.32% 62.76% 23.92%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :62 890 29 60 691 103 181 162 56 56 302 102 2694 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.957 CONTROL : 0.901 0.932 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-001 Rosemead EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Hellman Ave 0.920 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.947 NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Del Mar Ave Del Mar Ave AM Hellman Ave Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120110110 4:00 PM 12 143 6 23 139 26 33 51 10 5 29 14 491 00004:15 PM 7 144 7 12 180 20 27 56 11 6 27 4 501 00004:30 PM 13 145 7 15 151 33 30 37 9 8 27 14 489 00004:45 PM 13 146 9 21 182 25 23 52 18 8 24 14 535 01005:00 PM 14 148 11 10 198 29 38 45 16 6 35 15 565 00005:15 PM 13 171 5 30 206 39 29 70 19 10 35 22 649 00005:30 PM 12 194 9 25 209 35 30 59 20 11 53 14 671 04005:45 PM 15 170 12 27 205 32 37 65 15 6 46 21 651 0000 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :99 1261 66 163 1470 239 247 435 118 60 276 118 4552 0500 APPROACH %'s :6.94% 88.43% 4.63% 8.71% 78.53% 12.77% 30.88% 54.38% 14.75% 13.22% 60.79% 25.99%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :54 683 37 92 818 135 134 239 70 33 169 72 2536 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.945 CONTROL : 0.878 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.950 Signalized Hellman AveNS/EW Streets:Hellman Ave PM Del Mar Ave Del Mar Ave 0.9390.900 Project ID:14-5307-001 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:121120110110 7:00 AM 6 164 4 10 148 7 20 13 13 8 34 17 444 00007:15 AM 10 217 3 7 217 24 15 20 15 5 36 22 591 00007:30 AM 11 253 2 8 242 13 30 33 16 18 49 31 706 00007:45 AM 10 238 4 12 269 40 27 30 16 9 51 29 735 00008:00 AM 21 242 1 10 278 33 34 56 18 11 52 26 782 01008:15 AM 19 247 3 5 267 30 26 34 11 10 48 31 731 01008:30 AM 16 242 7 15 261 32 25 18 15 9 73 36 749 02008:45 AM 17 243 4 14 288 32 41 36 12 5 43 21 756 0300 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :110 1846 28 81 1970 211 218 240 116 75 386 213 5494 0700 APPROACH %'s :5.54% 93.04% 1.41% 3.58% 87.09% 9.33% 37.98% 41.81% 20.21% 11.13% 57.27% 31.60%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :800 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :73 974 15 44 1094 127 126 144 56 35 216 114 3018 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.965 CONTROL : 0.947 0.755 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-002 Rosemead EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Hellman Ave 0.773 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.987 NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND San Gabriel Blvd San Gabriel Blvd AM Hellman Ave Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:121120110110 4:00 PM 15 238 6 14 252 15 14 39 15 9 22 21 660 02004:15 PM 15 230 4 25 249 21 21 28 20 9 13 22 657 02004:30 PM 17 229 7 16 268 23 20 31 12 11 14 19 667 02004:45 PM 12 255 8 20 250 18 29 42 24 4 26 26 714 01005:00 PM 22 249 8 13 281 29 30 31 11 7 22 24 727 01005:15 PM 28 325 7 19 279 29 24 43 21 7 32 12 826 02005:30 PM 28 318 8 21 298 29 33 56 20 14 31 33 889 00005:45 PM 18 321 3 18 325 32 34 52 20 2 33 21 879 0000 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :155 2165 51 146 2202 196 205 322 143 63 193 178 6019 0 10 0 0 APPROACH %'s :6.54% 91.31% 2.15% 5.74% 86.56% 7.70% 30.60% 48.06% 21.34% 14.52% 44.47% 41.01%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :96 1213 26 71 1183 119 121 182 72 30 118 90 3321 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.934 CONTROL : 0.763 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.915 Signalized Hellman AveNS/EW Streets:Hellman Ave PM San Gabriel Blvd San Gabriel Blvd 0.8600.927 Project ID:14-5307-002 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 7:00 AM 9 91 9 19 48 22 18 46 4 4 127 39 4367:15 AM 12 121 9 25 45 32 17 69 7 5 152 34 5287:30 AM 22 90 15 54 79 28 24 106 11 8 142 31 6107:45 AM 14 111 15 53 99 44 26 139 16 27 173 36 7538:00 AM 26 123 37 40 96 38 22 147 9 25 149 38 7508:15 AM 29 117 31 35 61 23 39 114 10 11 225 34 7298:30 AM 16 105 15 34 57 32 26 74 5 9 144 40 5578:45 AM 16 90 14 50 60 49 29 106 9 15 236 33 707 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :144 848 145 310 545 268 201 801 71 104 1348 285 5070 0000 APPROACH %'s :12.66% 74.58% 12.75% 27.60% 48.53% 23.86% 18.73% 74.65% 6.62% 5.99% 77.61% 16.41%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :730 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :91 441 98 182 335 133 111 506 46 71 689 139 2842 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.944 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND New Ave New Ave AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.832 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.847 0.829 0.916 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-003 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 4:00 PM 13 54 19 44 92 25 27 199 7 16 132 29 6574:15 PM 14 52 24 47 87 30 35 154 17 15 128 34 6374:30 PM 5 7018318336421896 1413326 6534:45 PM 9 65 24 48 104 29 32 180 15 12 136 35 6895:00 PM 13 78 19 49 105 39 34 199 10 16 131 45 7385:15 PM 15 73 26 42 124 49 53 189 16 20 152 41 8005:30 PM 13 71 23 41 123 46 49 196 23 24 162 49 8205:45 PM 16 90 23 53 113 33 57 207 13 20 147 54 826 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :98 553 176 355 831 287 329 1513 107 137 1121 313 5820 0000 APPROACH %'s :11.85% 66.87% 21.28% 24.10% 56.42% 19.48% 16.88% 77.63% 5.49% 8.72% 71.36% 19.92%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :57 312 91 185 465 167 193 791 62 80 592 189 3184 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.964 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-003 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM New Ave New Ave 0.9440.891 0.916 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.950 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010010120120 7:00 AM 6 5 13 10 12 5 4 64 1 6 143 3 2727:15 AM 5 12 9 14 6 6 7 93 6 3 175 9 3457:30 AM 5 17 23 17 2 4 3 182 7 20 178 13 4717:45 AM 18 22 32 14 19 11 12 212 16 32 198 15 6018:00 AM 30 22 25 8 22 9 15 220 10 32 194 16 6038:15 AM 11 16 19 16 5 12 14 166 3 9 209 7 4878:30 AM 4 15 9 12 6 9 10 130 2 7 203 5 4128:45 AM 4 6 12 15 10 8 6 142 7 14 244 16 484 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :83 115 142 106 82 64 71 1209 52 123 1544 84 3675 0000 APPROACH %'s :24.41% 33.82% 41.76% 42.06% 32.54% 25.40% 5.33% 90.77% 3.90% 7.02% 88.18% 4.80%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :730 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 2162 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.896 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Jackson Ave Jackson Ave AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.942 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.779 0.790 0.878 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-004 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010010120120 4:00 PM 5 14 10 14 6 10 14 227 7 8 159 11 4854:15 PM 3 7 7 18 12 12 11 198 6 5 166 3 4484:30 PM 3 10 9 10 7 4 15 195 7 5 168 11 4444:45 PM 6 10 7 10 12 5 12 230 5 4 166 5 4725:00 PM 4 8 9 20 13 8 14 256 6 7 175 19 5395:15 PM 4 9 7 14 13 10 14 243 2 6 194 11 5275:30 PM 5 11 18 16 6 7 14 242 3 12 210 20 5645:45 PM 7 23 16 22 20 6 17 241 6 10 206 15 589 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :37 92 83 124 89 62 111 1832 42 57 1444 95 4068 0000 APPROACH %'s :17.45% 43.40% 39.15% 45.09% 32.36% 22.55% 5.59% 92.29% 2.12% 3.57% 90.48% 5.95%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 2219 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.942 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-004 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM Jackson Ave Jackson Ave 0.9580.658 0.914 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.807 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 7:00 AM 2082 6 215212144913 313333 4387:15 AM 311299 266713187625 716140 6027:30 AM 18 147 11 31 112 34 41 127 25 16 151 46 7597:45 AM 33 124 12 45 153 45 46 176 43 13 215 44 9498:00 AM 36 122 12 44 144 30 48 180 40 23 186 65 9308:15 AM 31 134 19 42 98 34 14 163 22 19 171 62 8098:30 AM 21 122 21 44 102 34 23 125 26 13 179 72 7828:45 AM 41 123 10 53 93 33 22 128 15 15 208 35 776 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :231 983 100 306 821 235 226 1024 209 109 1404 397 6045 0000 APPROACH %'s :17.58% 74.81% 7.61% 22.47% 60.28% 17.25% 15.49% 70.19% 14.32% 5.71% 73.51% 20.79%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :121 502 64 175 497 143 131 644 131 68 751 243 3470 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.914 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Del Mar Ave Del Mar Ave AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.969 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.933 0.838 0.845 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-005 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 4:00 PM 28 95 12 27 80 21 36 188 24 8 150 22 6914:15 PM 31 92 12 50 97 25 20 176 20 8 143 34 7084:30 PM 39 94 9 37 67 24 26 176 24 10 125 36 6674:45 PM 22 116 11 41 104 41 32 185 17 7 138 46 7605:00 PM 34 108 9 58 101 30 33 239 31 13 159 38 8535:15 PM 41 132 13 51 133 49 35 205 25 12 148 29 8735:30 PM 37 136 10 58 108 29 37 210 36 15 190 41 9075:45 PM 57 147 23 55 110 48 42 210 26 13 177 36 944 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :289 920 99 377 800 267 261 1589 203 86 1230 282 6403 0000 APPROACH %'s :22.09% 70.34% 7.57% 26.11% 55.40% 18.49% 12.71% 77.40% 9.89% 5.38% 76.97% 17.65%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :169 523 55 222 452 156 147 864 118 53 674 144 3577 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.947 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-005 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM Del Mar Ave Del Mar Ave 0.9320.823 0.885 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.891 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010000120120 7:00 AM 1707000167491500 255 00107:15 AM 2101200001124181830 350 00007:30 AM 3202100001778112070 456 00007:45 AM 2602000002404122400 542 00008:00 AM 3101000012428182670 577 00108:15 AM 2402000002331172570 552 00008:30 AM 4102100001954142370 512 00008:45 AM 2501300001733122470 473 0000 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :217012400021439 36 111 1788 0 3717 0020 APPROACH %'s :63.64% 0.00% 36.36% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.14% 97.43% 2.44% 5.85% 94.15% 0.00%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :122071000191017611001 0 2183 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.946 CONTROL : 0.000 0.924 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-006 Rosemead EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.932 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.778 NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Kelburn Ave Kelburn Ave AM Garvey Ave Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010000120120 4:00 PM 210600002215141800 447 00004:15 PM 1801200012351081990 483 00104:30 PM 150900012314181690 447 00124:45 PM 170800012254122050 472 00115:00 PM 1901000002881581980 538 00005:15 PM 170150000262672240 531 00005:30 PM 280900012796122440 579 00105:45 PM 2107000126214132480 566 0010 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :15607600052003 64 92 1667 0 4063 0053 APPROACH %'s :67.24% 0.00% 32.76% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.24% 96.67% 3.09% 5.23% 94.77% 0.00%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :8504100021091 41 40 914 0 2214 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.956 CONTROL : 0.914 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.000 Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM Kelburn Ave Kelburn Ave 0.9360.851 Project ID:14-5307-006 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:121121121121 7:00 AM 11 121 21 21 110 34 32 49 9 31 121 26 5867:15 AM 11 128 15 35 163 28 48 82 9 23 166 38 7467:30 AM 11 159 23 54 198 37 47 115 14 42 178 45 9237:45 AM 12 132 46 55 169 34 48 230 11 40 184 51 10128:00 AM 20 139 35 47 214 50 49 190 18 52 193 65 10728:15 AM 16 129 24 39 185 38 49 175 15 37 214 60 9818:30 AM 16 162 36 47 200 36 52 130 30 44 191 56 10008:45 AM 22 124 30 50 180 43 63 121 10 44 218 40 945 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :119 1094 230 348 1419 300 388 1092 116 313 1465 381 7265 0000 APPROACH %'s :8.25% 75.81% 15.94% 16.84% 68.65% 14.51% 24.31% 68.42% 7.27% 14.50% 67.86% 17.65%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :64 562 141 188 768 158 198 725 74 173 782 232 4065 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.948 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND San Gabriel Blvd San Gabriel Blvd AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.954 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.896 0.895 0.862 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-007 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:121121121121 4:00 PM 25 140 32 51 181 32 55 180 27 26 145 63 9574:15 PM 29 128 34 52 155 43 48 158 24 32 127 45 8754:30 PM 24 143 32 55 167 45 50 156 23 43 124 52 9144:45 PM 22 169 45 63 179 38 44 157 14 44 145 41 9615:00 PM 24 170 43 46 187 39 59 189 28 36 159 52 10325:15 PM 36 265 38 43 213 41 54 174 21 44 169 44 11425:30 PM 34 235 33 47 213 57 55 189 24 41 187 47 11625:45 PM 35 221 51 60 242 49 51 173 26 42 155 59 1164 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :229 1471 308 417 1537 344 416 1376 187 308 1211 403 8207 0000 APPROACH %'s :11.40% 73.26% 15.34% 18.15% 66.88% 14.97% 21.02% 69.53% 9.45% 16.02% 63.01% 20.97%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :129 891 165 196 855 186 219 725 99 163 670 202 4500 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.966 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-007 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM San Gabriel Blvd San Gabriel Blvd 0.9450.874 0.941 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.881 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010010120120 7:00 AM 1812000292831850 3117:15 AM 290300301101561640 3307:30 AM 570500001604922510 5247:45 AM 5408022227581132271 6658:00 AM 5231112002623472930 6658:15 AM 461801112341942790 5948:30 AM 3411010402021932710 5458:45 AM 310600021911432530 500 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :321 6 53 2 5 10 7 1526 239 41 1923 1 4134 0000 APPROACH %'s :84.47% 1.58% 13.95% 11.76% 29.41% 58.82% 0.40% 86.12% 13.49% 2.09% 97.86% 0.05%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :1865372573973153271070 1 2469 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.928 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Delta Ave Delta Ave AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.915 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.864 0.700 0.788 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-008 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:010010120120 4:00 PM 2811501132312471940 5054:15 PM 271700022361442070 4984:30 PM 2506004222119101900 4774:45 PM 240200112352622130 5045:00 PM 330411102652132241 5545:15 PM 251740122522092610 5825:30 PM 380400222592792350 5765:45 PM 240400322353152250 529 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :224 3 49 5 2 13 14 1934 182 49 1749 1 4225 0000 APPROACH %'s :81.16% 1.09% 17.75% 25.00% 10.00% 65.00% 0.66% 90.80% 8.54% 2.72% 97.22% 0.06%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :12011951761011 99 26 945 1 2241 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.963 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-008 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM Delta Ave Delta Ave 0.9690.833 0.900 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.650 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 7:00 AM 16 61 17 17 103 19 13 77 11 27 138 13 5127:15 AM 14 113 13 15 106 19 19 104 10 26 156 16 6117:30 AM 24 123 12 27 161 35 28 128 16 29 209 28 8207:45 AM 37 112 15 68 189 45 21 194 13 33 201 37 9658:00 AM 26 79 22 57 150 37 26 236 11 30 248 41 9638:15 AM 22 79 25 66 174 31 35 187 19 29 205 26 8988:30 AM 12 79 21 32 154 31 29 219 14 24 240 44 8998:45 AM 17 81 30 55 172 29 25 166 12 28 202 43 860 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :168 727 155 337 1209 246 196 1311 106 226 1599 248 6528 0000 APPROACH %'s :16.00% 69.24% 14.76% 18.81% 67.47% 13.73% 12.15% 81.28% 6.57% 10.90% 77.13% 11.96%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :97 349 83 223 667 144 111 836 57 116 894 148 3725 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.965 CONTROL : NS/EW Streets: SOUTHBOUND Walnut Grove Ave Walnut Grove Ave AM Garvey Ave NORTHBOUND Signalized UTURNS Garvey Ave 0.908 WESTBOUND 5/14/2014 0.806 0.856 0.919 WednesdayProject ID: City: 14-5307-009 Rosemead EASTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by:National Data & Surveying Services Day: Date: NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB LANES:120120120120 4:00 PM 25 145 36 44 107 23 30 194 18 26 171 54 8734:15 PM 19 136 26 34 108 15 27 213 24 33 164 39 8384:30 PM 26 188 37 36 110 17 23 178 13 21 182 57 8884:45 PM 23 182 32 49 158 19 34 190 19 24 161 52 9435:00 PM 20 190 30 47 141 22 28 204 19 21 222 60 10045:15 PM 25 213 44 51 140 32 34 185 19 37 238 38 10565:30 PM 29 216 38 46 148 19 35 196 23 29 195 59 10335:45 PM 24 206 29 46 140 28 56 192 20 32 193 45 1011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WBTOTAL VOLUMES :191 1476 272 353 1052 175 267 1552 155 223 1526 404 7646 0000 APPROACH %'s :9.85% 76.12% 14.03% 22.34% 66.58% 11.08% 13.53% 78.62% 7.85% 10.36% 70.88% 18.76%nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :98 825 141 190 569 101 153 777 81 119 848 202 4104 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.972 CONTROL : Project ID:14-5307-009 City:Rosemead UTURNS 5/14/2014 Wednesday Signalized Garvey AveNS/EW Streets:Garvey Ave PM Walnut Grove Ave Walnut Grove Ave 0.9430.940 0.934 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.964 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 or the Garvey A L Avenue Specifi AP EXISTIN LEVEL OF SE ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX B NG CONDITIO RVICE WOR osemead ONS RKSHEETS Appe JB endices B42022 Existing AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.797 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 890 29 60 691 103 181 162 56 56 302 102 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 63 899 29 61 698 104 183 164 57 57 305 103 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 63 899 29 61 698 104 183 164 57 57 305 103 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 63 899 29 61 698 104 183 164 57 57 305 103 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 63 899 29 61 698 104 183 164 57 57 305 103 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 3099 101 1600 2785 415 1600 1600 1600 1600 1196 404 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.819 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 71 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 126 144 56 35 216 114 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 74 984 15 44 1105 128 127 145 57 35 218 115 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 74 984 15 44 1105 128 127 145 57 35 218 115 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 74 984 15 44 1105 128 127 145 57 35 218 115 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 74 984 15 44 1105 128 127 145 57 35 218 115 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 0.72 0.28 1.00 0.65 0.35 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2867 333 1600 1152 448 1600 1047 553 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.716 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 91 441 98 182 335 133 111 506 46 71 689 139 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 92 445 99 184 338 134 112 511 46 72 696 140 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 92 445 99 184 338 134 112 511 46 72 696 140 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 92 445 99 184 338 134 112 511 46 72 696 140 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 92 445 99 184 338 134 112 511 46 72 696 140 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.43 0.57 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.66 0.34 Final Sat.: 1600 2618 582 1600 2291 909 1600 2933 267 1600 2663 537 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.602 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 65 78 100 56 48 36 44 788 36 94 787 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 78 100 56 48 36 44 788 36 94 787 52 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 78 100 56 48 36 44 788 36 94 787 52 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 78 100 56 48 36 44 788 36 94 787 52 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.27 0.32 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.26 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.88 0.12 Final Sat.: 427 513 660 633 553 414 1600 3059 141 1600 3003 197 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.786 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 121 502 64 175 497 143 131 644 131 68 751 243 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 122 507 65 177 502 144 132 650 132 69 759 245 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 122 507 65 177 502 144 132 650 132 69 759 245 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 507 65 177 502 144 132 650 132 69 759 245 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 507 65 177 502 144 132 650 132 69 759 245 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.77 0.23 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.66 0.34 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 2838 362 1600 2485 715 1600 2659 541 1600 2418 782 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.508 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 910 17 61 1001 0 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 123 0 72 0 0 0 1 919 17 62 1011 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 123 0 72 0 0 0 1 919 17 62 1011 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 0 72 0 0 0 1 919 17 62 1011 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 123 0 72 0 0 0 1 919 17 62 1011 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3141 59 1600 3200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.768 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 562 141 188 768 158 198 725 74 173 782 232 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 65 568 142 190 776 160 200 732 75 175 790 234 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 568 142 190 776 160 200 732 75 175 790 234 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 568 142 190 776 160 200 732 75 175 790 234 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 568 142 190 776 160 200 732 75 175 790 234 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.18 0.09 0.12 0.24 0.10 0.12 0.23 0.05 0.11 0.25 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.618 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 973 153 27 1070 1 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 188 5 37 2 5 7 3 983 155 27 1081 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 188 5 37 2 5 7 3 983 155 27 1081 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 188 5 37 2 5 7 3 983 155 27 1081 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 188 5 37 2 5 7 3 983 155 27 1081 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.82 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1305 35 260 229 571 800 1600 2765 435 1600 3197 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.34 0.34 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:39 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.772 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 97 349 83 223 667 144 111 836 57 116 894 148 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 98 352 84 225 674 145 112 844 58 117 903 149 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 98 352 84 225 674 145 112 844 58 117 903 149 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 352 84 225 674 145 112 844 58 117 903 149 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 98 352 84 225 674 145 112 844 58 117 903 149 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.62 0.38 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2585 615 1600 2632 568 1600 2996 204 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.28 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.672 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 54 683 37 92 818 135 134 239 70 33 169 72 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 55 690 37 93 826 136 135 241 71 33 171 73 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 55 690 37 93 826 136 135 241 71 33 171 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 690 37 93 826 136 135 241 71 33 171 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 690 37 93 826 136 135 241 71 33 171 73 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 1600 3036 164 1600 2747 453 1600 1600 1600 1600 1122 478 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.779 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 121 182 72 30 118 90 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 97 1225 26 72 1195 120 122 184 73 30 119 91 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 97 1225 26 72 1195 120 122 184 73 30 119 91 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 97 1225 26 72 1195 120 122 184 73 30 119 91 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 97 1225 26 72 1195 120 122 184 73 30 119 91 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 0.72 0.28 1.00 0.57 0.43 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2908 292 1600 1146 454 1600 908 692 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.38 0.02 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.712 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 312 91 185 465 167 193 791 62 80 592 189 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 58 315 92 187 470 169 195 799 63 81 598 191 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 58 315 92 187 470 169 195 799 63 81 598 191 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 315 92 187 470 169 195 799 63 81 598 191 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 315 92 187 470 169 195 799 63 81 598 191 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.52 0.48 Final Sat.: 1600 2477 723 1600 2354 846 1600 2967 233 1600 2426 774 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.559 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 20 52 51 73 53 31 60 992 17 35 793 66 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 52 51 73 53 31 60 992 17 35 793 66 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 52 51 73 53 31 60 992 17 35 793 66 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 52 51 73 53 31 60 992 17 35 793 66 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.17 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.34 0.20 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 264 674 661 743 537 320 1600 3146 54 1600 2955 245 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.774 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 169 523 55 222 452 156 147 864 118 53 674 144 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 171 528 56 224 457 158 148 873 119 54 681 145 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 171 528 56 224 457 158 148 873 119 54 681 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 171 528 56 224 457 158 148 873 119 54 681 145 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 171 528 56 224 457 158 148 873 119 54 681 145 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.65 0.35 Final Sat.: 1600 2896 304 1600 2379 821 1600 2815 385 1600 2637 563 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.536 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1091 41 40 914 0 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 86 0 41 0 0 0 2 1102 41 40 923 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 86 0 41 0 0 0 2 1102 41 40 923 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 86 0 41 0 0 0 2 1102 41 40 923 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 86 0 41 0 0 0 2 1102 41 40 923 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3084 116 1600 3200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.29 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.855 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 891 165 196 855 186 219 725 99 163 670 202 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 130 900 167 198 864 188 221 732 100 165 677 204 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 130 900 167 198 864 188 221 732 100 165 677 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 130 900 167 198 864 188 221 732 100 165 677 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 130 900 167 198 864 188 221 732 100 165 677 204 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKExisting PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.558 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 120 1 19 5 1 7 6 1011 99 26 945 1 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 121 1 19 5 1 7 6 1021 100 26 954 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 121 1 19 5 1 7 6 1021 100 26 954 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 121 1 19 5 1 7 6 1021 100 26 954 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 121 1 19 5 1 7 6 1021 100 26 954 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.86 0.01 0.14 0.38 0.08 0.54 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1371 11 217 615 123 862 1600 2915 285 1600 3197 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Existing PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52:44 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.889 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 95 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 98 825 141 190 569 101 153 777 81 119 848 202 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Bse: 99 833 142 192 575 102 155 785 82 120 856 204 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 99 833 142 192 575 102 155 785 82 120 856 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 99 833 142 192 575 102 155 785 82 120 856 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 99 833 142 192 575 102 155 785 82 120 856 204 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2733 467 1600 2718 482 1600 2898 302 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.27 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 City of Rosem 4 4117 Wal Apartmen City of San G 6 1029 Valle 7 1920 Strat 8 1527 Abb 9500 E. Val 12 517 Newb 13 2029 Den 15 807 Wells 16 1956 Strat Trip Generation So [a] Source: "Traffi [b] Source: "Traffi [c] Source: "Traffi 2 Proje New Garv Mixed-Use Garvey Av Garvey De Mixed-Use 11 San Gabrie [c] # 1 221 Valley5 V&DM Pla Project) [b10 3 14 101 Valley pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 mead nut Grove ts 4117 W Gabriel ey 1029 Ea thmore 1920 St bot 1527 A ley [a] 500 Eas by517 We ton 2029 D s 807-81 thmore 1956 St ource: Institute of Transpo c Study for the San Gabri ic Study for V&DM PLaza" c Study for the San Gabri 8479 G 400 - 42 Bouleva ect Name vey 168 Plaza 8408 Ge - 8408 venue el Mar Plaza e 7801-78 221 Eas el Mixed Use y 101-11 Bouleva aza (Landwin b] y 101 Eas or the Garvey A LIST Walnut Grove Avenue ast Valley Boulevard trathmore Avenue bbott Avenue st Valley Boulevard est Newby Avenue Denton 1 E. Wells Street trathmore Avenue ortation Engineers (ITE) "T el Mixed Use Project", pre ", prepared by Crown City el Mixed Use Project", pre arvey Ave 20 West Valley ard Location arvey Ave 825 Garvey Ave st Valley Boulevard City of Rosemead 1 West Valley ard Grand Tota st Valley City of San Gabriel Avenue Specifi AP T OF AREA/C AND TR Condominium Retail Office Retail Restaurant Condominium Apartments Retail Apartments Hotel Restaurant/Bar Hotel Condominiums Condominiums Commercial Hotel Retail Office Retail Restaurant Office Residential Condominiums Condominiums Condominiums Retail Medical Office Condominiums Trip Generation - 9th Edi epared by KOA, August/S y Engineers, 2013." epared by KOA,October Land Use In Total l l Total ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX C CUMULATIV RIP GENERAT 28 units 5.630 ksf 5.745 ksf Subtotal: 4.780 ksf 10.773 ksf 60 units Subtotal: 46 units 11.389 ksf Subtotal: 6units 316 rooms 10.400 ksf Subtotal: 150 rooms 3units 10 units 10.210 ksf 218 rooms 51.52 ksf 7.50 ksf 37.300 ksf 16.500 ksf 7.300 ksf 126 units 6units 3units 81 units 15.000 ksf 9.345 ksf 6.000 Units tion", except where noted September 2014." 2014." Unitsntensity osemead VE PROJECTS TION Total 163 12 250 7 63 9 476 28 212 6 1,370 116 349 26 1,931 148 306 23 505 14 811 37 40 3 3,498 221 2,582 167 1,322 112 3,904 279 1,226 80 17 1 58 4 803 3 35 3 17 1 338 22 35 3 17,570 1,365 21,068 1,586 d. 1832,376 ADaily Total 4,982 524 811,032 l In Out 210 43 81 14 14 33 64 52 422 71 77 519 85 13 24 12 102 119 99 68 62 50 161 118 47 33 01 13 30 12 01 18 5 12 687 678 6 789 797 9687 AM Peak Hour Weekday 243281 5031 Appe JB Total In 15 10 15 7 92 39 19 13 6 106 64 31 21 150 91 29 19 31 14 60 33 43 274 156 190 97 102 61 292 158 90 46 21 53 66 44 32 21 33 9 32 1,342 731 1,616 887 107191 PM Peak Ho y 53 160331 86 endices B42022 Out 5 8 7 20 7 42 10 59 10 17 27 1 118 93 41 134 44 1 2 22 1 1 24 1 611 729 84 171 ur 33 Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 or the Garvey A L Avenue Specifi AP FUTURE (YE LEVEL OF SE ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX D EAR 2035) BA RVICE WOR osemead ASELINE RKSHEETS Appe JB endices B42022 Fut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.889 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 95 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 890 29 60 691 103 181 162 56 56 302 102 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1600 3099 101 1600 2785 415 1600 1600 1600 1600 1196 404 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.863 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 126 144 56 35 216 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.19 Initial Bse: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 0.72 0.28 1.00 0.65 0.35 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2867 333 1600 1152 448 1600 1047 553 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.745 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 91 441 98 182 335 133 111 506 46 71 689 139 Growth Adj: 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.43 0.57 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.66 0.34 Final Sat.: 1600 2618 582 1600 2291 909 1600 2933 267 1600 2663 537 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.598 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.27 0.32 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.26 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.88 0.12 Final Sat.: 427 513 660 633 553 414 1600 3059 141 1600 3003 197 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.25 0.26 0.06 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.829 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 74 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 121 502 64 175 497 143 131 644 131 68 751 243 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.77 0.23 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.66 0.34 1.00 1.51 0.49 Final Sat.: 1600 2838 362 1600 2485 715 1600 2659 541 1600 2418 782 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.36 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.553 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 910 17 61 1001 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3141 59 1600 3200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.36 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.812 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 562 141 188 768 158 198 725 74 173 782 232 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.18 0.09 0.12 0.24 0.10 0.14 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.28 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.660 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 973 153 27 1070 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.82 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1305 35 260 229 571 800 1600 2765 435 1600 3197 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.38 0.38 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base AM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:01 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.814 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 70 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 97 349 83 223 667 144 111 836 57 116 894 148 Growth Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.62 0.38 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2585 615 1600 2632 568 1600 2996 204 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.32 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.735 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 54 683 37 92 818 135 134 239 70 33 169 72 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 1600 3036 164 1600 2747 453 1600 1600 1600 1600 1122 478 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.22 0.06 0.02 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.809 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 121 182 72 30 118 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.19 Initial Bse: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 0.72 0.28 1.00 0.57 0.43 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2908 292 1600 1146 454 1600 908 692 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.38 0.02 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.734 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 312 91 185 465 167 193 791 62 80 592 189 Growth Adj: 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.52 0.48 Final Sat.: 1600 2477 723 1600 2354 846 1600 2967 233 1600 2426 774 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.555 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.17 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.34 0.20 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 264 674 661 743 537 320 1600 3146 54 1600 2955 245 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.810 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 169 523 55 222 452 156 147 864 118 53 674 144 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.65 0.35 Final Sat.: 1600 2896 304 1600 2379 821 1600 2815 385 1600 2637 563 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.589 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1091 41 40 914 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3084 116 1600 3200 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.895 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 891 165 196 855 186 219 725 99 163 670 202 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.16 0.26 0.07 0.12 0.24 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.601 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 120 1 19 5 1 7 6 1011 99 26 945 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.86 0.01 0.14 0.38 0.08 0.54 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1371 11 217 615 123 862 1600 2915 285 1600 3197 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Fut Base PM Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:01:06 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 Pre-Project Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.943 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 128 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 98 825 141 190 569 101 153 777 81 119 848 202 Growth Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2733 467 1600 2718 482 1600 2898 302 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 or the Garvey A FUTU L Avenue Specifi AP RE (YEAR 20 LEVEL OF SE ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX E 035) WITH S RVICE WOR osemead SPECIFIC PLA RKSHEETS AN Appe JB endices B42022 Future wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.994 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 890 29 60 691 103 181 162 56 56 302 102 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 63 908 30 61 705 105 268 240 83 64 347 117 Added Vol: 8 177 2 29 254 7 11 17 13 1 18 21 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 1085 32 90 959 112 279 257 96 65 365 138 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 1085 32 90 959 112 279 257 96 65 365 138 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 1085 32 90 959 112 279 257 96 65 365 138 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 1085 32 90 959 112 279 257 96 65 365 138 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 1600 3109 91 1600 2865 335 1600 1600 1600 1600 1161 439 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.026 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 126 144 56 35 216 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.19 Initial Bse: 73 974 15 44 1094 127 145 166 64 42 257 136 Added Vol: 25 318 12 0 435 7 6 7 35 16 8 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 98 1292 27 44 1529 134 151 173 99 58 265 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 98 1292 27 44 1529 134 151 173 99 58 265 136 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 1292 27 44 1529 134 151 173 99 58 265 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 98 1292 27 44 1529 134 151 173 99 58 265 136 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 0.63 0.37 1.00 0.66 0.34 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2942 258 1600 1015 585 1600 1058 542 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.40 0.02 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.046 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 91 441 98 182 335 133 111 506 46 71 689 139 Growth Adj: 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 520 116 189 348 138 111 506 46 71 689 139 Added Vol: 6 24 129 132 25 10 27 480 6 115 356 137 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 113 544 245 321 373 148 138 986 52 186 1045 276 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 544 245 321 373 148 138 986 52 186 1045 276 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 544 245 321 373 148 138 986 52 186 1045 276 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 544 245 321 373 148 138 986 52 186 1045 276 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.38 0.62 1.00 1.43 0.57 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.58 0.42 Final Sat.: 1600 2208 992 1600 2290 910 1600 3040 160 1600 2531 669 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.960 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 143 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 77 99 55 48 36 44 780 36 93 779 51 Added Vol: 27 16 68 73 20 36 65 634 16 71 547 77 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 91 93 167 128 68 72 109 1414 52 164 1326 128 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 91 93 167 128 68 72 109 1414 52 164 1326 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 91 93 167 128 68 72 109 1414 52 164 1326 128 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 91 93 167 128 68 72 109 1414 52 164 1326 128 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.26 0.26 0.48 0.48 0.25 0.27 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 415 424 761 764 406 430 1600 3086 114 1600 2918 282 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.10 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.255 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 121 502 64 175 497 143 131 644 131 68 751 243 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 122 507 65 179 507 146 131 644 131 78 864 279 Added Vol: 39 26 91 196 38 45 35 711 29 78 623 159 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 161 533 156 375 545 191 166 1355 160 156 1487 438 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 161 533 156 375 545 191 166 1355 160 156 1487 438 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 161 533 156 375 545 191 166 1355 160 156 1487 438 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 161 533 156 375 545 191 166 1355 160 156 1487 438 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 1.48 0.52 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 1.54 0.46 Final Sat.: 1600 2477 723 1600 2370 830 1600 2862 338 1600 2471 729 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.60 0.60 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.045 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 910 17 61 1001 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 122 0 71 0 0 0 1 1047 20 70 1151 0 Added Vol: 98 19 100 51 15 53 68 769 122 125 733 66 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 220 19 171 51 15 53 69 1816 142 195 1884 66 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 220 19 171 51 15 53 69 1816 142 195 1884 66 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 220 19 171 51 15 53 69 1816 142 195 1884 66 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 220 19 171 51 15 53 69 1816 142 195 1884 66 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.17 0.83 0.43 0.13 0.45 1.00 1.86 0.14 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 1600 265 1335 686 202 713 1600 2969 231 1600 3092 108 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.61 0.12 0.61 0.61 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.307 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 562 141 188 768 158 198 725 74 173 782 232 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 64 562 141 188 768 158 228 834 85 195 884 262 Added Vol: 178 135 61 97 155 282 260 468 178 75 596 111 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 242 697 202 285 923 440 488 1302 263 270 1480 373 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 242 697 202 285 923 440 488 1302 263 270 1480 373 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 242 697 202 285 923 440 488 1302 263 270 1480 373 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 242 697 202 285 923 440 488 1302 263 270 1480 373 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.41 0.16 0.17 0.46 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 13-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.866 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 85 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 973 153 27 1070 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1099 173 31 1209 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 0 0 773 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1659 173 31 1982 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1659 173 31 1982 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1659 173 31 1982 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 186 5 37 2 5 7 3 1659 173 31 1982 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.82 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1305 35 260 229 571 800 1600 2898 302 1600 3198 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.02 0.62 0.62 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj AM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:38 Page 14-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses AM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.161 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 97 349 83 223 667 144 111 836 57 116 894 148 Growth Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 102 366 87 223 667 144 125 945 64 131 1010 167 Added Vol: 174 0 0 0 0 123 87 346 127 0 476 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 276 366 87 223 667 267 212 1291 191 131 1486 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 276 366 87 223 667 267 212 1291 191 131 1486 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 276 366 87 223 667 267 212 1291 191 131 1486 167 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 276 366 87 223 667 267 212 1291 191 131 1486 167 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.62 0.38 1.00 1.43 0.57 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2585 615 1600 2285 915 1600 2787 413 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.46 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.808 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 54 683 37 92 818 135 134 239 70 33 169 72 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 55 697 38 94 834 138 198 354 104 38 194 83 Added Vol: 6 131 1 16 147 4 9 12 7 1 10 16 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 61 828 39 110 981 142 207 366 111 39 204 99 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 61 828 39 110 981 142 207 366 111 39 204 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 61 828 39 110 981 142 207 366 111 39 204 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 61 828 39 110 981 142 207 366 111 39 204 99 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.33 Final Sat.: 1600 3057 143 1600 2796 404 1600 1600 1600 1600 1079 521 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.07 0.02 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.908 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 104 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 121 182 72 30 118 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.19 Initial Bse: 96 1213 26 71 1183 119 139 209 83 36 140 107 Added Vol: 19 238 9 0 257 4 5 5 20 9 4 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 115 1451 35 71 1440 123 144 214 103 45 144 107 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 115 1451 35 71 1440 123 144 214 103 45 144 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 1451 35 71 1440 123 144 214 103 45 144 107 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 115 1451 35 71 1440 123 144 214 103 45 144 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 0.68 0.32 1.00 0.57 0.43 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2948 252 1600 1081 519 1600 919 681 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.45 0.02 0.04 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 New Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.935 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 122 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: New Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 312 91 185 465 167 193 791 62 80 592 189 Growth Adj: 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 67 368 107 192 484 174 193 791 62 80 592 189 Added Vol: 4 16 79 76 13 8 14 279 3 80 267 104 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 384 186 268 497 182 207 1070 65 160 859 293 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 384 186 268 497 182 207 1070 65 160 859 293 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 384 186 268 497 182 207 1070 65 160 859 293 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 384 186 268 497 182 207 1070 65 160 859 293 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.35 0.65 1.00 1.46 0.54 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.49 0.51 Final Sat.: 1600 2155 1045 1600 2343 857 1600 3017 183 1600 2386 814 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.36 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.787 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jackson Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 51 50 72 52 31 59 982 17 35 785 65 Added Vol: 19 11 46 57 12 26 33 381 9 44 387 41 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 62 96 129 64 57 92 1363 26 79 1172 106 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 62 96 129 64 57 92 1363 26 79 1172 106 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 62 96 129 64 57 92 1363 26 79 1172 106 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 62 96 129 64 57 92 1363 26 79 1172 106 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.20 0.31 0.49 0.52 0.26 0.23 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.83 0.17 Final Sat.: 317 504 780 826 410 365 1600 3140 60 1600 2935 265 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Del Mar Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.092 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 169 523 55 222 452 156 147 864 118 53 674 144 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 171 528 56 226 461 159 147 864 118 61 775 166 Added Vol: 22 19 57 123 22 25 22 444 19 53 425 111 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 193 547 113 349 483 184 169 1308 137 114 1200 277 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 193 547 113 349 483 184 169 1308 137 114 1200 277 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 193 547 113 349 483 184 169 1308 137 114 1200 277 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 193 547 113 349 483 184 169 1308 137 114 1200 277 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.66 0.34 1.00 1.45 0.55 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 1.63 0.37 Final Sat.: 1600 2654 546 1600 2317 883 1600 2897 303 1600 2601 599 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.46 0.46 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.911 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 106 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Kelburn Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1091 41 40 914 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Initial Bse: 85 0 41 0 0 0 2 1255 47 46 1051 0 Added Vol: 70 12 72 38 11 39 43 495 71 74 485 42 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 155 12 113 38 11 39 45 1750 118 120 1536 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 155 12 113 38 11 39 45 1750 118 120 1536 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 12 113 38 11 39 45 1750 118 120 1536 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 155 12 113 38 11 39 45 1750 118 120 1536 42 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.19 0.81 0.43 0.13 0.44 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1600 309 1291 691 200 709 1600 2998 202 1600 3115 85 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.58 0.08 0.49 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 12-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.188 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: San Gabrield Blvd Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 891 165 196 855 186 219 725 99 163 670 202 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 129 891 165 196 855 186 252 834 114 184 757 228 Added Vol: 117 95 43 67 96 181 177 337 116 45 355 71 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 246 986 208 263 951 367 429 1171 230 229 1112 299 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 246 986 208 263 951 367 429 1171 230 229 1112 299 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 246 986 208 263 951 367 429 1171 230 229 1112 299 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 246 986 208 263 951 367 429 1171 230 229 1112 299 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.31 0.13 0.16 0.30 0.23 0.27 0.37 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PKFuture wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 13-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Delta Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.732 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Delta Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 120 1 19 5 1 7 6 1011 99 26 945 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1142 112 29 1068 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 0 0 450 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1562 112 29 1518 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1562 112 29 1518 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1562 112 29 1518 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 120 1 19 5 1 7 7 1562 112 29 1518 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.86 0.01 0.14 0.38 0.08 0.54 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1371 11 217 615 123 862 1600 2986 214 1600 3198 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Future wProj PM Tue Feb 23, 2016 15:07:56 Page 14-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemead Garvey Ave Specific Plan Future 2035 with Specific Plan Land Uses PM Peak Hour (with Hotel) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Walnut Grove Ave & Garvey Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.070 Loss Time (sec): 10 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 98 825 141 190 569 101 153 777 81 119 848 202 Growth Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Initial Bse: 103 866 148 190 569 101 173 878 92 134 958 228 Added Vol: 101 0 0 0 0 72 65 260 95 0 276 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 204 866 148 190 569 173 238 1138 187 134 1234 228 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 204 866 148 190 569 173 238 1138 187 134 1234 228 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 866 148 190 569 173 238 1138 187 134 1234 228 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 204 866 148 190 569 173 238 1138 187 134 1234 228 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.53 0.47 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2733 467 1600 2454 746 1600 2749 451 1600 3200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.39 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KOA CORP, MONTEREY PK Traffic Imp Prepared f May 26, 20 pact Analysis fo for MIG 016 or the Garvey A F HC Avenue Specifi AP FREEWAY MA CM LOS AN ic Plan EIR - Ro PENDIX F AINLINE SEG NALYSIS WO osemead GMENTS – ORKSHEETS Appe JB endices B42022 BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 East Agency or Company KOA From/To San Gabriel (Ahead) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Existing Analysis Year 2013 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 7145 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 229000 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 7145 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)1948 pc/h/ln S 63.5 mph D = vp / S 30.7 pc/mi/ln LOS D Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 3:56 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kDF90.tmp BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 West Agency or Company KOA From/To Del Mar (Back) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Existing Analysis Year 2013 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 7207 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 231000 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 7207 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)1965 pc/h/ln S 63.2 mph D = vp / S 31.1 pc/mi/ln LOS D Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 3:54 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kA667.tmp BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 (West & East) Agency or Company KOA From/To San Gabriel (ahead) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Pre-Project Analysis Year 2035 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 7494 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 240201 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 7494 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)2043 pc/h/ln S 61.8 mph D = vp / S 33.1 pc/mi/ln LOS D Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 3:58 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kA898.tmp BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 (West) Agency or Company KOA From/To Del Mar (Back) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Pre-Project Analysis Year 2035 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 7560 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 242299 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 7560 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)2061 pc/h/ln S 61.4 mph D = vp / S 33.6 pc/mi/ln LOS D Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 4:00 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2k83F9.tmp BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 (East) Agency or Company KOA From/To San Gabriel (Ahead) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Post-Project Analysis Year 2035 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 7930 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 254151 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 7930 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)2162 pc/h/ln S 59.3 mph D = vp / S 36.5 pc/mi/ln LOS E Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 4:01 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kCC10.tmp BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst IDH Highway/Direction of Travel I-10 (West) Agency or Company KOA From/To Del Mar (Back) Date Performed 4/15/2015 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Post-Project Analysis Year 2035 Project Description Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Rosemead Oper.(LOS)Des.(N)Planning Data  Flow Inputs Volume, V 8430 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT 270199 veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5 Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K 0.06 %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D 52 General Terrain:Level DDHV = AADT x K x D 8430 veh/h Grade % Length mi Up/Down % Calculate Flow Adjustments fp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)]0.976 Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS Lane Width 11.0 ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft Number of Lanes, N 4 Total Ramp Density, TRD 0.50 ramps/mi FFS (measured) mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 75.4 mph fLW 1.9 mph fLC 0.0 mph TRD Adjustment 1.8 mph FFS 71.7 mph LOS and Performance Measures Design (N) Operational (LOS) vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)2298 pc/h/ln S 56.0 mph D = vp / S 41.0 pc/mi/ln LOS E Design (N) Design LOS vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x fp)pc/h/ln S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N Glossary Factor Location N - Number of lanes S - Speed V - Hourly volume D - Density vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed DDHV - Directional design hour volume ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8 ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9 fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11 LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3 Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 4/16/2015 4:03 PM Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET 4/16/2015file:///C:/Users/ihang/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kA76.tmp 1100 Corporate Center Dr., Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 t: 323-260-4703 f: 323-260-4705 www.koacorporation.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2015 To: Lisa Brownfield - MIG, Inc. From: Brian A. Marchetti, AICP Subject: Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan This document provides general responses and analysis to a letter received from Caltrans dated May 11, 2015, regarding the Notice of Preparation for the Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Project. Since the receipt of that letter, KOA has been completing the primary Project impact analysis and traffic study deliverables, and has coordinated with MIG, Inc. and the City of Rosemead to define the extents of this analysis. Freeway Interchange Ramp and Mainline Operations Potential freeway facility impacts were considered per Caltrans traffic study guidelines. Existing volumes were compiled from Caltrans AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) data reports from 2014. The year 2014 is the most recent available data summarized by Caltrans. The data was reviewed within the primary Project traffic study, but is reiterated here to provide a fully encapsulated review of potential Caltrans facilities impacts within the nearby area. The input volumes for the I-10 facility analysis are indicated by highlighted cells text under the “Back Peak Hour” and “Ahead Peak Hour” headings in Table 1. The “Back” and “Ahead” labels refer to the direction on the freeway facility from the analyzed location. Per Caltrans definitions for data collection and analysis, the following definitions apply, in relation to the overall facility direction of travel within the region:  I-10 facility – Back volumes are further west and Ahead volumes are further east For the mainline operations analysis, “Back Peak Month” volume for San Gabriel Boulevard and “Ahead Peak Month” volume for Walnut Grove Avenue were applied. The volumes are highlighted in yellow cells in Table 1. Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 2 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 Table 1 – Caltrans Volume Data for I-10 in Vicinity of Project Route Post Mile Location Back Peak Hour Back Peak Month Back AADT Ahead Peak Hour Ahead Peak month Ahead AADT 10 25.837 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 14,000 228,000 223,000 13,700 225,000 220,000 10 26.34 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE 13,700 225,000 220,000 13,500 222,000 218,000 Growth factors used within the primary Project traffic impact analysis were utilized here to increase the existing I- 10 volumes from the year 2014 to the area buildout-year of 2035. The buildout year for the regional traffic model is 2035, and Caltrans review of freeway facility impacts is commonly conducted for the regional model buildout year. As the Caltrans base AADT volumes are from the year 2014, the growth factor applied to these volumes was adjusted to a 21-year period, with a resulting factor of 1.047 based on existing baseline and future buildout volumes within the SCAG Regional Model for this segment of the I-10 facility. The resulting buildout volume calculations for the analyzed mainline freeway segments were applied to the mainline operations analysis with and without the Project, which is summarized within the next report sub- section. Freeway Mainline Highway Capacity Manual Analysis A freeway mainline level of service calculation was conducted, using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which is defined for analysis by Caltrans traffic study guidelines. Caltrans-published mainline AADT volumes, peak hour factors (k), directional proportion of flow (d), and number of mixed-flow lanes were all used as inputs. Table 2 summarizes the results of this analysis, for mainline segments on the I-10 facility near to the Specific Plan area. Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 3 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 Table 2 – SR-60 and I-710 Mainline Daily LOS Calculations Flow Rate (pc/h/ln) Density (pc/mi/ln)LOS Flow Rate (pc/h/ln) Density (pc/mi/ln)LOS I-10 Ahead of Walnut Grove Ave 1,976 31.4 D 2,095 34.5 D I-10 Back of San Gabriel Blvd 2,030 32.7 D 2,267 39.9 E Note: density not reported when free-flow speed is computed to be low. pc/h/ln - Passenger Car per Hour per Lane Freeway Mainline Location Future 2035 Baseline Pre-Project Conditions Future 2035 with Land Use Plan Conditions Under the future 2035 pre-Project conditions, both freeway segments, under a planning-scenario analysis for daily volumes would operate at LOS D. The level of service value would worsen to LOS E with the addition of the new trips generated by the land use plan (Project) for the segment near San Gabriel Boulevard. For the segment near Walnut Grove Avenue, the level of service value would remain at the value of D. The overall Specific Plan Project, at a program level, would create a potentially adverse level of service on the I-10 freeway mainline. Major projects within the Specific Plan area may need to provide fair-share funding of appropriate improvements to the freeway corridor, as determined by Caltrans. The Highway Capacity Software analysis worksheets for the freeway mainline analysis are provided in Appendix A. Freeway Interchange Intersection Highway Capacity Manual Analysis The existing counts for the highway ramp intersections near to the project study area were collected in year 2014 and quoted from the Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed Use Development Traffic Impact Study conducted by VA Consulting, Inc. (February 2015). The annual growth rate applied to the analysis of the study intersection was compounded for the 21-year period between year-2014 and future year-2035 conditions, with a resulting factor of 1.109. The annual growth rate was calculated based on the Metro Congestion Management Plan, using growth factors defined for the Regional Statistics Area (RSA) No. 25, where the Project corridor is located. Table 3 provides a summary of the HCM-based analysis, defined for analysis by Caltrans traffic study guidelines, that was conducted for the study intersections that are freeway interchange ramp intersections and immediately adjacent-intersections. This analysis was conducted by applying this analysis methodology to the analysis conducted for future year-2035 pre-Project and post-Project conditions. The results indicate that using the applied operations methodology, the following notable changes in operations would occur:  The San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 Westbound Ramp intersection would worsen from LOS B to LOS C during the a.m. peak hour Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 4 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015  The San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 Eastbound Ramp intersection would worsen to LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour  The Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 WB Ramp intersection would worsen from LOS A to LOS B during the a.m. peak hour  The San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection would worsen from LOS D to LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. Table 3 – Freeway Ramp Intersection Highway Capacity Manual Analysis ICU Value LOS ICU Vlue LOS AM 0.678 B 0.753 C PM 0.749 C 0.773 C AM 0.642 B 0.709 C PM 0.784 C 0.808 D AM 0.824 D 0.901 E PM 0.813 D 0.873 D AM 0.596 A 0.611 B PM 0.621 B 0.632 B AM 0.719 C 0.746 C PM 0.814 D 0.83 D AM 0.634 B 0.684 B PM 0.626 B 0.664 B Pre‐Project Post‐Project Walnut Grove Avenue/Hellman Avenue 6 I-10 EB Ramp/Hellman Avenue Peak Hour 1 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 WB Ramp 2 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 EB Ramp 3 San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue Study Intersections 4 Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 WB Ramp 5 Identified poor level of service would occur due to the Project at the intersection of San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection in the a.m. peak hour. This intersection, however, does not directly affect freeway operations and off-ramp queuing is directly controlled/affected by other upstream intersections. Mitigation measures are not recommended at this intersection. The analysis worksheets for the HCM-based interchange ramp intersection analysis are provided in Appendix B. Estimated freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing lengths are analyzed within the next section. Freeway Ramp Queue Analysis The Synchro signal timing and synchronization program was used to analyze the conditions at the four off-ramps to the project site analyzed in Table 1 for year-2035 conditions with and without the Project. Table 4 summarizes the queuing analysis conducted for these freeway off-ramps. At the two San Gabriel Boulevard off-ramps to the direction of the project site (connecting via right-turn movements to southbound San Gabriel Boulevard), the queue length would not be significantly exceeded in the pre-Project period but would lengthen with additional vehicle trips added from the Project. The queues in the post-Project scenario would not exceed the length of the off-ramps. It is concluded that the Project would not cause the ramp queuing length capacity to be exceeded. Mitigation measures are not recommended. Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 5 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 The following figures after Table 4 provide illustrative measurements of the analyzed off-ramp vehicle queuing length capacities at the worst-case queuing location:  Figure 1: San Gabriel Blvd & I-10 WB off-ramp queuing length measures approximately 580 feet, from the gore point where the the on-ramp and off-ramp facilities split, to the end of the off-ramp at the San Gabriel Blvd. intersection.  Figure 2: San Gabriel Blvd & I-10 EB off-ramp queuing length measures approximately 598 feet, from the gore point where the on-ramp and off-ramp facilities split, to the end of the off-ramp at the San Gabriel Blvd. intersection. Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 6 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 Table 4 – Freeway Ramp Queue Highway Capacity Manual Analysis HCM 95th%tile Queue VehiclesHCM 95th%tile Queue Length (feet)Ramp Length (feet)*Queue/RampHCM 95th%tile Queue VehiclesHCM 95th%tile Queue Length (feet)Ramp Length (feet)*Queue/RampAM 4.9 122.5 580 0.211 14.5 362.5 580 0.625PM 13.5 337.5 580 0.582 21.7 542.5 580 0.935AM 3.3 82.5 598 0.138 10.6 265.0 598 0.443PM 6.6 165.0 598 0.276 12.4 310.0 598 0.518AM 4.7 117.5 492 0.239 6.2 155.0 492 0.315PM 6.2 155.0 492 0.315 7.3 182.5 492 0.371AM 7.4 185.0 1,100 0.168 10.2 254.0 1,100 0.231PM 8.3 208.0 1,100 0.189 8.7 217.0 1,100 0.197Note: 1. the ramp length for ramp 1 is measured from the gore where the on‐ramp and off‐ramp split to the end of the off‐ramp2. the ramp length for ramp 2 is measured from the gore where the on‐ramp and off‐ramp split to the end of the off‐ramp4. the ramp length for ramp 4 is measured from the gore where the main lane and off‐ramp split to the end of the off‐ramp6 I-10 EB Ramp/Hellman AvenueSouthbound Southbound 4 Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 WB RampEastbound Right-turn Eastbound Right-turn2 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 EB RampEastbound Right-turn Eastbound Right-turnStudy RampsPeak HourPre-Project Post-Project1 San Gabriel Boulevard/I-10 WB RampEastbound Right-turn Eastbound Right-turn Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 7 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 FIGURE 1 – QUEUE LENGTH MEASUREMENT FOR WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP TO S SAN GABRIEL BLVD. Response to Caltrans Letter on Project NOP – Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Page 8 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 August 19, 2015 FIGURE 2 – QUEUE LENGTH MEASUREMENT FOR WESTBOUND OFF-RAMP TO S SAN GABRIEL BLVD. LOS ANGELES ONTARIO ORANGE SAN DIEGO 1100 Corporate Center Dr., Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 t: 323-260-4703 f: 323-260-4705 www.koacorporation.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 2017 To: Christopher Brown – MIG, Inc. From: Brian A. Marchetti, AICP Subject Conceptual Mitigation Cost Estimates – Rosemead Garvey Specific Plan KOA Project JB41022 KOA Corporation completed the traffic impact study for the City of Rosemead Garvey Avenue Specific Plan on May 26, 2016. KOA was asked by the project team to produce conceptual cost estimates for the recommended mitigation measures within the traffic study. The conceptual costs provided here are not based on a full engineering and feasibility study, and such an effort would be needed to finalize these estimated costs before implementation tasks are initiated. The May 2016 traffic study recommended the following mitigation measures:  San Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection – Signal Coordination  From New Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection to Walnut Grove Avenue/ Garvey Avenue intersection – Restriping of Garvey Avenue roadway from two travel lanes to three travel lanes, removal of on-street parking. The following are conceptual costs developed by KOA. Signal Coordination The signal coordination implementation effort for the Gabriel Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection would ideally include that intersection and two additional signalized intersections to the south on San Gabriel Boulevard. Potential improvements range on the low end from GPS time-based units and associated wiring, to provide clock- based synchronization of the traffic signals. This could be implemented and provide mitigation, if radio-based communications are feasible based on distances and obstacles between the traffic signals. Mid-level improvements for this measure would include wireless interconnect between the traffic signals to provide live synchronization, and the higher-end improvements would copper-wire interconnect to provide this synchronization. The conceptualized costs for this potential range of improvements are in the approximate range of $15,000 to $135,000. Conceptual Mitigation Cost Estimates – Rosemead Garvey Specific Plan Page 2 Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41022 March 20, 2017 Garvey Avenue Restriping A potential restriping effort on Garvey Avenue to provide three travel lanes in each direction (where two in each direction are currently provided on this roadway) would involve the removal of existing striping and the addition of new striping for the reconfigured cross-section. This includes lane striping and pavement marking changes at intersections. These costs assume that roadway signage would not be modified, and that raised medians would not be modified. The total conceptualized costs for this restriping would be $190,000. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 | Riverside, CA 95207 951-787-9222 | www.migcom.com