This article provides a summary of the preferred land use plan, streetscape/community design and the associated infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the future build-out of the specific plan.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
The land use plan for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan provides for the development of nine distinct planning subdistricts, including the land uses described below. The Route 66 Corridor specific plan land use map depicts the boundaries for each land use subdistrict with the specific plan project area. Exhibit 4-1—Land Use Plan provides a graphic depiction of the specific plan area. The following is a brief description of the land use subdistricts for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan. Detailed descriptions of the land uses are provided in Article VI.
A.
Barranca Gateway. The Barranca Gateway district is intended to serve as the western gateway into the city. General features of the district include:
B.
Grand Avenue Commercial Gateway. The Grand Avenue commercial gateway district is intended to enhance Grand Avenue's function as a primary commercial/retail district within the city. General features of the district include:
C.
Town Center Mixed Use. The town center mixed use district is intended to provide for a complementary mix of land use and development types that are compatible with and reinforce pedestrian activity and transit utilization. General features of the district include:
D.
Glendora Avenue Gateway. The Glendora Avenue Gateway is intended to support medical uses around a hospital and medical building within walking distance of transit. General features of the district include:
E.
Route 66 Service Commercial. The Route 66 service commercial district is intended to provide for a variety of smaller-scale commercial, office and light industrial/manufacturing uses. General features of the district include:
F.
Central Route 66 Residential. The Route 66 residential district is intended to contribute to the mix of housing choices offered to Glendora residents and provide consistency with the Glendora general plan 2013-2021 housing element. General features of the district include:
G.
Lone Hill Gateway. The Lone Hill Gateway district is intended to serve as the eastern gateway of Glendora's Route 66 Corridor. General features of the district include:
H.
Glendora Technology, Commerce and Office. The Glendora technology, commerce and office district is intended to serve as a primary employment center within the city. General features of the district include:
I.
The Grand/Route 66 Gateway. The Grand/Route 66 Gateway district has been established to ensure that this key gateway intersection provides the mass and scale and quality, well-designed architectural features including significant landscaping, courtyards and public plazas to establish a "sense of place" creating a unique Glendora theme of beauty, pedestrian scale, and enriched quality of life. General features of the district include:
1.
Pedestrian-oriented site planning and design;
2.
Provision for public spaces, plazas and courtyards;
3.
Minimum height, mass and scale standards to highlight the importance of the intersection;
4.
Provision for a mix of office/retail uses;
5.
Excellence of architectural design, materials and landscaping creating a sense of place;
6.
Uses specified to enhance the gateway theme for the district.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
A.
The circulation plan for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan provides for the mitigation of potentially significant impacts associated with the preferred land use plan. As a component of this project, a comprehensive traffic analysis was conducted to identify existing conditions, forecasted future conditions and mitigation measures to address project-related significant impacts. The traffic analysis and mitigation measures are provided in the specific plan environmental impact report and appendices. The traffic study analyzed the forecast traffic impacts associated with the proposed Route 66 Corridor specific plan project located north of Interstate 210 (I-210) along Route 66 between Barranca Parkway and Amelia Avenue in the city.
B.
The study intersections, as shown in Exhibit 4-2a—Study Intersection Locations, are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the p.m. peak hour according to city performance criteria, with the exception of four intersections:
C.
The study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the p.m. peak hour according to city performance criteria for forecast year 2020 without project conditions, with the exception of the following five intersections:
D.
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately fifty-eight thousand nine hundred sixty-three daily trips, which includes approximately four thousand five hundred sixty-two p.m. peak-hour trips.
E.
The following eight intersections are operating at a deficient LOS (LOS D or worse) during the p.m. peak hour according to city performance criteria for forecast year 2020 with project conditions:
F.
Also, based on city thresholds of significance, seven significant impacts are forecast to occur at the following intersections for forecast year 2020 with project conditions:
G.
The following mitigation measures, as shown on Exhibit 4-3—Improved Forecast Year 2020 with Project Intersection Geometry, are recommended to address the project-related significant impacts:
1.
Grand Avenue/Route 66. Widen the eastbound Route 66 approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
2.
Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp. Widen the southbound Grand Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes.
3.
Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps. Widen the northbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of three left-turn lanes and two through lanes. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from three through lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound I-210 off-ramp from one left-turn lane and one shared left-/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes.
4.
Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes.
5.
Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive. Widen the westbound Auto Centre Drive approach from two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes.
6.
Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. Modify the eastbound and westbound Baseline Road approach signal phasing from split-phasing to consist of permitted phasing.
H.
At the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 intersection, a Shell Service Station located in the southwest quadrant and an Arco Service Station located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection constrain the physical right-of-way necessary at this intersection to implement physical improvements to mitigate the forecast significant impact.
I.
Based on Los Angeles County CMP thresholds of significance, three significant impacts are forecast to occur at the following intersections for forecast year 2020 with project conditions:
J.
The addition of project-generated trips at the CMP study segments does not result in a significant impact according to the Los Angeles County CMP established thresholds of significance for forecast year 2020 with project conditions.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
A.
Introduction. The purpose of the community design and streetscape section is to establish conceptual designs and guidelines for streetscape improvements within public rights-of-way along the Route 66 Corridor. The section presents gateway concepts, streetscape furniture, street trees, and a wayfinding program intended to further the goals and objectives for community design for the Route 66 specific plan project area.
B.
Gateway Concepts. The Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area includes several important entry gateways and activity nodes that can be enhanced to contribute an improved sense of arrival and a strong presence along the primary roadways. The streetscape program provides a visual sense of identification of the corridor and the functional benefit of shaded pedestrian walkways. Four primary entries within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area are identified for the incorporation of special treatment—these include the intersections of Barranca Avenue/Route 66, Grand Avenue/Route 66, Glendora Avenue/Route 66, and Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66. Additionally, the Grand and Glendora Avenue corridors include various improvements that further contribute to the enhancement of these primary gateways.
1.
Barranca Avenue Gateway Concept. The Barranca Avenue gateway concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-4 Barranca Entry Gateway Improvement, is envisioned as the western gateway into the city of Glendora. The Barranca Gateway design concept seeks to provide the western "front door" to the city, through the establishment of distinctive streetscape, hardscape and other on-site and off-site amenities.
a.
Barranca Avenue Streetscape. Placing street trees behind a new eight-foot sidewalk on the south side and behind the existing eight-foot sidewalk on the north "opens up" the Route 66 entry area. Street trees (London Plane) are placed in a four-foot-wide planter strip with a continuous hedge where feasible. Traditional acorn-style streetlights placed at approximately one hundred twenty feet on center add to the pedestrian level lighting. Wide bands of river rock crossing the street draw attention to the gateway intersection.
Along the east side of Barranca, streetscape improvements, including special paving, street furniture, planted hedge and street trees are continued.
b.
Gateway Corner Treatment. Gateway corner treatments include a curved river rock accent wall planted with bougainvillea. Special colored concrete paving delineate sidewalks and crosswalks and river rock bands accent the special paving.
c.
Barranca Gateway Median. The use of river rock softens and helps to create a more visually appealing median. A series of river rock planters culminating in a large Route 66 entry statement on a river rock base serve as the median's focal point.
d.
Barranca Gateway Pedestrian Details. Custom river rock walls with built-in benches and planters placed along pedestrian connections and passageways enhance the overall pedestrian scale of the gateway. Occasional planters and unique overhead trellises add to the pedestrian environment. The use of shade trees is an important element for enhancing the pedestrian environment.
2.
Grand Avenue (South) Gateways. The Grand Avenue (South) gateway design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-5—Grand Avenue Gateway South Improvements, focuses on streetscape and corridor improvements to establish a formalized approach to the Glendora/Route 66 gateway and provide a prominent southern entry statement into the city.
a.
Grand Avenue Gateway (South) Streetscape. At Baseline Road, new species of street trees on Grand Avenue are placed in tree wells only on the east side where the sidewalk is provides the necessary right-of-way.
Continuing north on Grand Avenue, a grove effect begins with the introduction of a planted parkway and trees in the median. To accommodate the parkway and to encourage more appropriate vehicular traffic, the roadway is narrowed.
b.
Rock Walls. Curved river rock walls placed in the landscaped parkway between Baseline and the surface road act as a screen to the residential area facing the freeway off-ramp, as well as introduce a thematic element used throughout the specific plan area.
The existing linear residential walls along Grand Avenue are resurfaced with a river rock veneer and concrete caps to continue this thematic river rock element.
c.
Grand Avenue Gateway Corner Treatments. Replacing the existing safety railing at the Baseline intersection with a large curved monument wall celebrates the entry to the city. Special paving and river rock bands highlight the crosswalks at both Baseline and Mauna Loa.
3.
Grand Avenue Entry Gateway. The Grand Avenue Entry gateway design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-6—Grand Avenue Gateway Improvements, is comprised of three distinct zones that transition the traveler into the Grand Avenue/Route 66 Gateway through the use street trees, while also creating attractive and appropriately scaled neighborhood entries.
a.
Grand Avenue Streetscape. A grove effect is created between Mauna Loa and Colorado through a narrowing of the roadway and a double-row of Oak Trees planted in the parkway with a single row in the median.
At Colorado, the median trees are discontinued and replaced one row of Oaks are replaced with curb-adjacent Mexican Fan Palms that begin to frame the view to the mountains.
At the intersection of Route 66, the roadway widens slightly and a single row of Mexican Fan Palms frame views of the mountains to the north.
b.
Grand Avenue Corner Treatments. The primary intersection of Grand and Route 66 is treated with curved river rock accent walls on each corner planted with lush bougainvillea. Special accent colored concrete paving is incorporated in the corner sidewalks and crosswalks with a river rock banding.
c.
Neighborhood Entries. Neighborhood entries at Mauna Loa and Colorado are noted with bump-outs and small river rock monuments. At Mauna Loa, crosswalks are treated with special colored paving and river rock bands.
4.
Glendora Avenue Entry Gateway. The Glendora Avenue gateway design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-7—Glendora Avenue Gateway Improvements, represents an important Route 66 intersection. The gateway design concepts seeks to significantly improve the functional and visual connection between the Route 66 Corridor and the city's Village area. Through streetscape improvements, entry signage, river rock amenities and the preservation and enhancement of mountain views, the gateway establishes a stronger connection with the Village area and Route 66 Corridor.
a.
Glendora Avenue Streetscape. Traveling north on Glendora Avenue, curb-adjacent tall Mexican Fan Palms placed approximately forty feet on center frame the views to the mountains. Continuing north through the Route 66/Glendora intersection, Glendora Avenue narrows to allow for a more intimate, pedestrian scale link to the Village and the potential future transit center. The treatment in this area includes double rows of alternating Oak Trees and Mexican Fan Palms.
Along Route 66, evenly spaced London Plane street trees placed behind the sidewalk in a four-foot planted hedge "open up" the gateway. Traditional acorn lights are placed at the curb, approximately one hundred twenty feet on center.
b.
Glendora Avenue Gateway Median. The Glendora Avenue medians provide a series of cascading river rock planters with bougainvillea spilling over the top provide a more formal entry statement to the Village area. These planters are also an appropriate location for a Village entry sign.
c.
Glendora Avenue Corner Treatment. Curb details include curved river rock walls planted with bougainvillea. Special colored concrete paving highlight sidewalks and crosswalks, while bands of river rock placed flush with the surface provide further details.
5.
Glendora Avenue Village Connection. The Glendora Avenue Village connection design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-8—Glendora Avenue Village Connection, emphasizes the maintenance and enhancement of a pedestrian-friendly zone between the Village, the future transit area and Route 66.
a.
Glendora Avenue Village Connection Streetscape. Wide sidewalks of twelve feet or more with street trees planted in curb adjacent tree wells, along with the existing diagonal on-street parking, characterize the streetscape. Bump-outs, enhanced paving at crosswalks, and a mid-block crosswalk between Carroll and Foothill improve pedestrian safety and mobility. Building new structures at the sidewalk edge encourages retail-commercial storefront visibility and adds to the pedestrian experience.
6.
Glendora Avenue Pedestrian Linkage. The Glendora Avenue pedestrian linkage design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-9—Glendora Avenue Pedestrian Linkage, focuses on enhancing the future transit area streetscape and links to both the Village and Route 66.
a.
Glendora Avenue Pedestrian Linkage Streetscape. The Glendora Avenue pedestrian linkage provides for a continuous pedestrian linkage from Route 66 to the Village by bringing the Village streetscape enhancements down to the transit area. Similarly, extend the Glendora Avenue streetscape concept of a narrower roadway and wider sidewalks into the transit area. Special pedestrian enhancements and amenities in the transit area connect the Village to the Route 66 pedestrian linkages along Glendora Avenue. Narrowing the roadway width allows for wider sidewalks and more amenities, including a double row of alternating bi-canopy trees consisting of high-canopy Mexican Fan Palms in curb-adjacent tree wells and Oak Trees in tree wells at the back of the sidewalk.
b.
Glendora Avenue Pedestrian Linkage Focal Points. The Glendora Avenue pedestrian linkage creates a focal point at the northern end of the potential transit area that will provide a visual connection between the Village and transit area. Likewise, a focal point at the southern end of the potential station area provides a similar visual connection to Route 66.
Roundabouts are included as a unifying element to the streetscape. The roundabouts are intended to strengthen pedestrian activity and comfort. Additionally, the roundabouts promote the calming of traffic along Glendora Avenue.
7.
Lone Hill Avenue Gateway Concept. The Lone Hill Avenue gateway design concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-10—Lone Hill Gateway Improvements, is intended to provide a welcoming "front door" through streetscape and preservation of views to the San Gabriel Mountain, implementing streetscape enhancements consistent with the overall corridor.
a.
Lone Hill Gateway Streetscape. Tall Mexican Fan Palms planted on Lone Hill at approximately forty feet on center preserve and frame views north to the mountains and complement the existing rows of palms on Lone Hill north of the Route 66.
Along Route 66, the streetscape includes an eight-foot curb adjacent sidewalk with a four-foot planted parkway and a single row of evenly spaced high canopy London Plane street trees. Traditional acorn-style streetlights placed at approximately one hundred twenty feet on center add to the pedestrian level lighting. Bands of river rock bisect the street intersections to draw attention to the gateway intersection.
b.
Lone Hill Gateway Median. The use of river rock softens and creates a more visually appealing median. A series of river rock planters culminating in a large Route 66 entry statement on a river rock base serves as the Lone Hill median's focal point.
c.
Lone Hill Gateway Corner Treatments. The corner details at Lone Hill provide design consistency with the primary gateways in the project area, including a curved river rock accent wall planted with bougainvillea. Special colored concrete paving delineate sidewalks and crosswalks and river rock bands are used to accent the special paving.
C.
Street Furniture and Tree Design Concept. Creation of an enhanced pedestrian-scaled streetscape environment is an important component of the overall urban design concept. The street furniture, transit shelters, and street trees identified in this section are representative of styles and preferences determined by the community through a townscan visual preference survey conducted during a community workshop. The visual preference survey enabled Glendora residents to visually articulate their preferences for the future.
1.
Streetscape Furniture Palette. The preferred streetscape furniture palette for the Route 66 Corridor, as shown on Exhibit 4-11—Route 66 Furniture Palette, includes a variety of elements to create the desired Route 66 identity. All coated and metal surfaced furniture is envisioned as a dark green to match the fixtures in the Village.
a.
"Glendora" sidewalk pole with single acorn fixture by SOLO, Southern California Edison fourteen feet in height with banner attachments;
b.
Six-foot Courtyard Series Bench by Washbash Valley, designed with green rib pattern/ribbon style and plastisol or vinyl-coated steel with custom Route 66 logo;
c.
Green rib pattern/ribbon style thirty-two-gallon flare top trash receptacle by Wabash Valley (catalog #LRR32F) with plastisol or vinyl coated steel;
d.
Zig-zag-shaped concrete interlocking concrete pavers in a herringbone pattern to match existing pavers in the Village;
e.
Custom low seat walls, planters and neighborhood entry monuments made from river rock.
2.
Street Trees. Trees are an important design element in the Route 66 streetscape. The Route 66 street trees were selected based upon their shape, size, and maintenance, as well as upon the citrus heritage of the city. Recommended street trees include:
a.
Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonian robusta)—an evergreen fan palm with fast growth up to one hundred feet. Trees are to be used in sidewalk cutouts and parkways on north-south streets to frame views.
b.
Oaks (Holly, California Live Oak, Virginian Oak)—an evergreen oak with slow to moderate growth with rounded canopy of forty to fifty feet. Trees to be used in large parkways and medians.
c.
London Plane (Platanus X acerifolia)—Deciduous tree with moderate growth up to sixty feet with thirty-foot canopy. To be used in sidewalk cutouts, parkways and medians.
d.
Citrus (Lemon or Orange Tree)—an evergreen tree with slow growth and small canopy. Trees to be used in special circumstances only for public space or heritage areas.
e.
Ficus trees to match existing in areas adjacent to the Village.
D.
Signage and Monumentation. Signage and monumentation design concepts for the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area establish an enhanced identity through the establishment of gateway monument concepts, wayfinding directional signs, and banner concepts.
1.
Gateway Monumentation. Gateway monumentation establishes a visual identity for the Route 66 Corridor identity and provides visual cues to gateway entries. The Route 66 gateway concepts are based on a river rock, natural theme and include curved walls, median planters, and freestanding monument signs. Gateway monumentation features and depicted in Exhibits 4-4 through 4-10.
2.
Transit Shelters. Alternative transportation, including bus service is and will continue to be an important service in Route 66 district. There are a number of opportunities to create unique and interesting transit shelters that contribute to the overall design concept in the district. Exhibit 4-12—Transit Shelter Concepts, illustrates two design concepts including a craftsman-style shelter and a mission-style shelter, consisting of a river rock base and the Route 66 motif.
3.
Wayfinding Signage. The Route 66 wayfinding signage design concept is based on the assertion that when people find it easy to navigate an area, they will be more likely to spend time in a place. When it is difficult to find one's way around, the tendency is to spend less time there. To enhance wayfinding within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area, a family of signs concept has been developed. As shown in Exhibit 4-13—Family of Signs Concept, the "family of signs" concept utilizes the Route 66 logo and includes both vehicular and pedestrian-oriented signs. Pole mounted signs are of green metal consistent with the streetlights and benches and the freestanding signs are composed of river rock consistent with gateway monumentation. Wayfinding signage includes the following features:
4.
Banner Concepts. Banners help to further identify the Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area and strengthen the sense of place. The banner concept illustrated in Exhibit 4-14—Route 66 Banner Concepts, incorporates three alternative banner concepts that include the Route 66 motif and a historical citrus packing label from the city.
5.
Screenwall Concepts. The Route 66 screenwall design concept is intended to provide an ability to screen existing uses or facilities that may not contribute to the overall visual character of the project area. The screenwall concept, as shown in Exhibit 4-15—Screenwall Concept, consist of a river rock wall, with design features that soften the screenwall appearance at the street. Design features included concrete stone caps, jogged wall planes and landscape and climbing vines.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)
This section describes the required infrastructure improvements necessary to meet the demands of the preferred land use plan. As this project is a policy-level plan, it should be noted that the timing of all infrastructure improvements identified in this section represent the ultimate buildout conditions of the Route 66 Corridor specific plan.
A.
Domestic Water System.
1.
Domestic Water—Existing Conditions.
a.
The city's water delivery system was created through the purchase of small private water companies and by the city's own expansion projects. As shown in Exhibit 4-16—Existing Domestic Water System, the system is comprised of eleven service zones containing approximately two hundred miles of pipe. The city receives water from two sources; groundwater pumping, and imported water obtained from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Portions of the water supply system have been identified as requiring rehabilitation or replacement in the near-term. This is mainly due to reaches of pipe that are over fifty years old, or pipe diameters that do not meet city standards for providing current fire flow requirements.
b.
The Route 66 Corridor specific plan area is located in the city's zone 1 and zone 2 service areas. The land use districts located in the zone 1 service area are: Barranca gateway, town center mixed use, Route 66 service commercial (portion), Grand Avenue gateway mixed use and central Route 66 residential. Zone 1 is the largest zone within the city's system, and varies in elevation from six hundred twenty feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Gladstone Street and Barranca Avenue to eight hundred ninety feet amsl at Ben Lomond north of Sierra Madre Avenue. The zone is served from a high water elevation of 969.5 feet amsl by five reservoirs. Refer to Exhibit 4-16—Existing Domestic Water System for identification of the existing zone 1 system within the Route 66 Corridor specific plan area.
c.
The zone 2 service area is located to the east of zone 1. The development areas in the zone 2 service area are: Lone Hill Gateway and Glendora technology/commercial/office and the remaining portion of Route 66 service commercial. Zone 2 service elevations vary from eight hundred ten feet amsl at Alosta Avenue and the Big Dalton Wash to one thousand thirty feet amsl north of Oak Knoll Drive, with a high water level of one thousand ninety feet amsl. Four reservoirs provide head to the zone with locations at three different sites. The zone 2 system within the specific plan area is shown in Exhibit 4-16—Existing Domestic Water System.
d.
The existing domestic water demand for the specific plan area was calculated using the current land use, and demand factors from the city's water master plan. Demands were calculated for each of the land use districts, based on a field survey identifying existing land uses by visual appearance, and information obtained in the city's geographic information system (GIS). Table 4-2—Water Demand Factors summarizes the water usage factors used for this study, as provided in Table V-3 of the city's WMP.
Table 4-2 Water Demand Factors | ||
|---|---|---|
Land Use | Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/du) | Non-Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/ac) |
Commercial | — | 2900 |
Single-Family | 600 | — |
Multifamily | 400 | — |
Mobilehome | 400 | — |
Motel | — | 2900 |
Medical | — | 4600 |
Religious | — | 2000 |
e.
The existing average day water demand for the specific plan area is calculated in Table 4-2—Water Demand Factors to be 0.98 MGD. Using the max day factor of 1.85 from the WMP, the existing max day demand is estimated to be one thousand two hundred fifty-four gallons per minute (gpm).
f.
Under the water master plan, several recommendations were made. The WMP determined several reaches of pipe within the study area to be either undersized for fire flow requirements or of such age that replacement was recommended. Most of the existing system currently remains the same as it was at the time of the writing of the WMP. In particular, the backbone to both the zones 1 and 2 systems is a parallel eight-inch loop running on each side of Route 66. These parallel lines were constructed in 1935—1936 and 1954. Therefore, the WMP (which set a fifty year lifespan) determined these pipelines require upgrading.
2.
Proposed Domestic Water System Improvements.
a.
A water demand analysis was performed for this study. Existing demands were estimated for the study area shown in Exhibit 4-17—Domestic Water System Improvements, as described above. Identical water usage factors (per Table V-3 of the city WMP as included in the appendix) were applied to the existing and proposed land uses for the specific plan area. Table 4-3—Estimated Domestic Water Demand summarizes the estimated demands and provides a side-by-side comparison. The average day demand for the proposed redeveloped area is 1.41 MGD. The max day demand for the proposed redevelopment area is one thousand eight hundred ten gpm.
b.
The proposed system recommended should be planned to current operating standards, or as close to current standards as feasible. According to the city staff, the existing system was based upon an approximate one thousand two hundred fifty gpm fire flow for residential and small commercial land use, and two thousand five hundred for large commercial. The current fire flow standard is provided in the WMP for the city which states: two thousand two hundred fifty gpm for two hours for single-family residential, two thousand five hundred gpm for two hours for multifamily residential, one thousand seven hundred fifty gpm for two hours for mobilehome and five thousand gpm for five hours for large commercial. Eight inch lines under current fire flow standards are typically only sufficient for mobile home or single-family residential land uses. The WMP includes recommendations to replace the two eight-inch lines with a single eighteen-inch line to serve both sides of Route 66. However, the city has decided to continue maintaining a parallel system. The parallel pipeline layout facilitates service to each side of the street. Therefore, it is recommended that a fourteen-inch diameter pipe replace each eight-inch pipeline in order to provide the same capacity as the master-planned eighteen-inch.
c.
Based on this analysis, the following is a list of recommended system improvements for adequate service to the Route 66 Corridor redevelopment project:
i.
The zone 2 eight-inch diameter pipelines within Route 66 from Lorraine Avenue east to Amelia Avenue should be upsized to fourteen-inch or dual twelve-inch diameter pipelines to achieve the anticipated five thousand gpm fire flow requirements of the "Route 66 Commercial" land use district.
ii.
Upsize the pipeline in Lorraine Avenue as proposed in the WMP (Improvement Project E-4) to a minimum of a sixteen-inch for the looped system within zone 1.
d.
Exhibit 4-17—Domestic Water System Improvements, shows the changes recommended for the system. The proposed system upgrades described here will improve system capacity. However, computer modeling would be necessary to verify that current fire flow standards are met.
Table 4-3 |
|---|
Estimated Domestic Water Demand |
REFER TO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR |
B.
Wastewater System.
1.
Existing Wastewater System.
a.
The portion of the city's wastewater system that will be used for the Route 66 Corridor redevelopment project is a gravity system that flows to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 22 trunk sewer lines. The city's gravity sewers will collect the generated wastewater flows within the specific plan area. The general direction of the wastewater flow is east to west. The Lorraine Avenue Trunk and Baseline Road Trunk sewers convey the flows from the existing land uses within the study area to the main Los Angeles County Sanitation trunk tie-in at the intersection of Barranca Avenue and Baseline Road. Exhibit 4-18—Wastewater System shows alignments and diameters of the existing sewers within the study area.
b.
In the absence of city standards, typical industry-standard water-to-wastewater "return" ratios were used for estimating wastewater flows. The return ratio figures are derived from standards of similar water agencies within Southern California, as shown in Table 4-4—Water Demand/Wastewater Generation Factors.
Table 4-4 Water Demand/Wastewater Generation Factors | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land use | Return Ratio (%) | Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/du) | Wastewater Generation Factor (gpd/ac) | Non-Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/ac) | Wastewater Generation Factor (gpd/ac) |
Commercial | 85 | — | — | 2900 | 2465 |
Single-Family | 50 | 600 | 300 | — | — |
Multifamily | 75 | 400 | 300 | — | — |
Mobilehome | 75 | 400 | 300 | — | — |
Motel | 80 | — | — | 2900 | 2320 |
Medical | 100 | — | — | 4600 | 4600 |
Religious | 80 | — | — | 2000 | 1600 |
c.
The proposed redevelopment will increase the flow to the sewers serving the specific plan area. Redevelopment within the specific plan area consists of various land uses. The two thousand nine hundred gpd/ac demand factor was used for the study for all commercial areas as a conservative assumption.
d.
Consultation with Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 22 and the city has indicated that the current sewer system should have sufficient capacity for the additional flows. Table 4-5—Estimated Wastewater Generation provides an analysis of the system by estimating the flows by land use district (location).
Table 4-5 |
|---|
Estimated Wastewater Generation |
REFER TO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR |
e.
Differences between "existing" and "proposed" at intermediate points within the study area. The existing average flow for the study area is calculated as 0.79 MGD. All of the defined land use districts are estimated to increase wastewater flow to some degree. Table 4-6—Estimated Flow Increases, summarizes estimated flow increase percentages at selected intermediate locations.
Table 4-6 Estimated Flow Increases | |||
|---|---|---|---|
# | Location of Sewer | Sewer Diameter (inches) | Estimated Percent of Flow Increase (%) |
1 | Elwood and Route 66 | 12 | 48 |
2 | East end of Mauna Loa Avenue | 15 | 49 |
3 | Glendora and Route 66 | 10 | 23 |
4 | Baseline and Glendora | 15 | 48 |
5 | Grand Avenue and Route 66 | 15 | 33 |
6 | Baseline and Grand Avenue | 18 | 39 |
7 | Barranca and Baseline | 18 | 34 |
f.
Table 4-7—Capacity by Pipe Diameter, was developed using the Flowmaster software by Haestad Methods to determine the capacity of different diameter pipes resulted in the following values:
Table 4-7 Capacity by Pipe Diameter | ||
|---|---|---|
Pipe Diameter (inches) | Minimum Slope (ft/ft)* | Full Capacity (gpm) |
8 | 0.0033 | 300 |
10 | 0.0024 | 500 |
12 | 0.0018 | 700 |
15 | 0.0012 | 1300 |
18 | 0.0012 | 2000 |
Note: | |
* | commonly used industry minimum slopes. |
g.
Based upon correspondence with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the Baseline Avenue trunk sewer is currently being monitored. It is estimated that the flows from the Route 66 Corridor study area will increase by approximately thirty-four percent from existing flows as discussed in the following section, and shown in Exhibit 4-18—Wastewater System and Table 4-5—Estimated Wastewater Generation.
2.
Proposed Wastewater System Improvements. A wastewater flow analysis was performed for this study and existing wastewater generation figures were estimated. Identical wastewater flow factors (per Table V-3 of the city WMP with return ratios) were applied to the existing and proposed land uses for the specific plan area. Table 4-5—Estimated Wastewater Generation, summarizes the estimated flows and provides a side-by-side comparison. The average flow for the proposed redeveloped area is 1.06 MGD. The peak wastewater estimated for the Route 66 Corridor redevelopment project is one thousand four hundred seventy gpm. The existing trunk sewers within the collection system evaluated for the redevelopment project may or may not require upsizing or realigning. Monitoring at key locations during development would indicate whether this is necessary, as discussed below.
3.
Wastewater System Recommendations. Analysis of the existing wastewater collection system and proposed flow increase indicates there is adequate facilities to serve the redevelopment project, it is recommend flow monitors be installed at key locations. Based on this analysis, RBF Consulting recommends the seven sewer locations within the study area, and described in Table 4-5—Estimated Wastewater Generation, should undergo extended-period flow monitoring at the seventy-five-, and ninety-five-percent build-out to ensure the collection system is operating with adequate excess capacity, for build-out conditions.
C.
Storm Drainage System.
1.
Storm Drain System Existing Conditions.
a.
The Route 66 Corridor specific plan project area provides a number of storm drain systems collecting surface runoff and providing conveyance to the main flood control channel in the area, the Big Dalton Wash. Existing storm drain facilities are indicated on Exhibit 4-19—Existing Storm Drain System.
b.
A majority of the catch basins on Route 66 drain to mainlines in streets that cross under the roadway. Most of these catch basins and laterals on the north side Route 66. The runoff from the south portion of Route 66 typically flows in the gutter to the streets that intersect Route 66. At these locations, the runoff turns the corner and continues in the cross streets to one of the major flood control channels in the area or is picked up in catch basins on the cross streets. The streets providing storm drain mainlines include:
c.
The Big Dalton Wash, the East Branch of the Big Dalton Wash, and the Alosta Avenue Drain all cross Route 66 within the city limits of the city.
d.
The following section provides as summary of Exhibit 4-19—Existing Storm Drain System, including a detailed description of the storm drain mainlines in each of the cross streets as well as some of their catch basin laterals.
i.
Barranca Ave. The storm drain mainline in Barranca Ave north of Route 66 is a thirty-six-inch RCP. South of Route 66, the mainline is a forty-two-inch RCP. This mainline has numerous laterals connected to it, which pick up surface flow on Barranca Ave and one twenty-four-inch RCP that drains Route 66 on the northeast corner of the intersection. These laterals range in size from fifteen inches to twenty-four inches.
ii.
Vecino Drive/Forestdale Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Vecino Drive south of Route 66 is thirty-nine-inch RCP. The mainline in Route 66 between Vecino Drive and Forestdale Avenue is thirty-six-inch RCP. The mainline in Forestdale Avenue north of Route 66 is also thirty-six-inch RCP. Several laterals collect surface runoff in Forestdale Avenue, ranging from fifteen-inch RCP to twenty-seven-inch RCP. There are two laterals that collect surface runoff from Route 66. A twenty-four inch RCP lateral drains the north side of Route 66, east of Forestdale Avenue. A twenty-seven inch RCP lateral drains the south side of Route 66, east of Vecino Drive.
iii.
Grand Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Grand Avenue between Ada Avenue and Heber Street is twenty-seven-inch RCP. The mainline between Heber Street and Leeside Street is thirty-inch RCP. The mainline between Leeside Street and Route 66 is thirty-six-inch RCP. The mainline in Grand Avenue south of Route 66 is forty-five-inch RCP. There are numerous eighteen-inch RCP laterals that pick up surface runoff from Grand Avenue and the streets draining toward Grand, north of Route 66. There is also a twenty-one-inch RCP lateral that collects runoff from the north side of Route 66, east of Grand Avenue.
iv.
Glendora Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Glendora Avenue is thirty-three-inch RCP between Colorado Avenue and Route 66, as well as north of Route 66 to Lemon Avenue. There are several laterals that collect runoff on Glendora Avenue north of Route 66, that range in size from twenty-one-inch to twenty-four-inch RCP. There is also a twenty-one-inch RCP lateral that drains the north side of Route 66, east of Glendora Avenue.
v.
Pasadena Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Pasadena Avenue south of Route 66 is fifty-four-inch RCP. There is approximately a two hundred ten-foot stretch of the mainline just north of Route 66 that is forty-five-inch RCP. However, north of the stretch, the mainline increases to forty-eight-inch RCP. There are several laterals collecting runoff from Pasadena Avenue, ranging in size from eighteen inches to twenty-one-inch RCP. There are two laterals collecting runoff on Route 66. There are two catch basins to intercept surface flow on the north side of Route 66, east of Pasadena Avenue that are connected with a twenty-four-inch RCP lateral. There is also an eighteen-inch RCP lateral collecting runoff on the south side of Route 66, east of Pasadena Avenue.
vi.
Glenwood Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Glenwood Avenue is forty-five-inch RCP between its outlet at the Big Dalton Wash and Route 66, as well as north of Route 66. There is a fifteen-inch RCP lateral draining the west side of Glenwood Avenue just north of Route 66, and another fifteen-inch RCP lateral collecting surface runoff from the north side of Route 66, east of Glenwood Avenue.
vii.
Loraine Avenue. The storm drain mainline in Loraine Avenue is sixty-inch RCP between its outlet at the Big Dalton Wash and Route 66, as well as north of Route 66. There is an eighteen-inch RCP lateral collecting flow from the east side of Loraine Avenue, north of Route 66. There is also an eighteen-inch RCP lateral collecting runoff from the north side of Route 66, east of Loraine Avenue.
viii.
Big Dalton Wash. Both the Big Dalton Wash and the East Branch of the Big Dalton Wash cross Route 66. However, neither of these major flood control channels directly intercepts runoff from Alosta Avenue (Route 66). The East Branch of the Big Dalton Wash travels from east to west to its termination at the Big Dalton Wash near the intersection of Loraine Avenue and Route 66. The Big Dalton Wash travels from the northeast to the southwest through the city. A majority of the storm drain mainlines in the area drain to one of these two flood control channels.
ix.
Alosta Avenue Drain. A majority of the Alosta Avenue Drain is a sixty-six-inch RCP. However, near its outlet into the East Branch of the Big Dalton Wash, the mainline was increased to an eighty-four-inch RCP. Tying into this larger section of the mainline, there are three laterals that collect surface runoff from Route 66. A twenty-one-inch RCP lateral collects runoff from the south side of the highway, and an eighteen-inch RCP along with a twenty-one-inch RCP lateral collect runoff from the north side of the highway.
x.
Route 66. There is a storm drain mainline that goes from the East Branch of the Big Dalton Wash, where the wash goes under Lone Hill Avenue, to Glengrove Avenue, which is a thirty-three-inch RCP. This mainline continues approximately six hundred fifty-feet east of Glengrove Avenue in Route 66. But, the pipe is reduced in size to a thirty-inch RCP. There are several small laterals that tie into this mainline at the intersection of Route 66 and Glengrove Avenue. There is an eighteen-inch RCP lateral that collects surface flows from the southeast corner of Route 66 and Glengrove Avenue, this lateral also collects runoff from the north side of Route 66, east of Financial Way on its way to the mainline.
There is also an additional twenty-one-inch RCP lateral that drains the north side of Route 66, east of Financial Way. At the upstream termination of this mainline, there are several eighteen inches laterals that collect surface runoff from the south side of State Route 66. |
e.
The location and size of all existing mainlines and laterals are shown on Exhibit 4-19—Existing Storm Drain System. The capacity as well as the physical characteristics of the main lines are provided in Table 4-8—Storm Drain Mainline Characteristics. The corresponding Mainline Pipe Numbers are shown on Exhibit 4-19.
2.
Storm Drain System Identified Deficiencies.
a.
The city has observed two areas within the project area that currently experience flooding in large storm events. This localized flooding occurs approximately two to three times yearly. One of the two locations where flooding occurs within the project is located on the north side of Route 66 between Vermont Avenue and Grand Avenue. At this location, runoff flows south on Vermont and is never picked up in a catch basin lateral. It then ponds up at the intersection of Vermont and Route 66 and begins to flow west on Route 66. The runoff does not get into the storm drain network until the intersection of Grand Avenue and Route 66. In that area, the flow in the street overtops the eight-inch curb and creates localized flooding.
b.
The other location where localized flooding occurs is on Route 66 near the intersection of Elwood Avenue. There are several catch basins on Route 66, but they do not connect to a storm drain network, nor are there any storm drain plans for these facilities. They have a very shallow slope and move water from Route 66 to the southern portion of Elwood Avenue where the runoff is discharged back into the street. The runoff then flows south in Elwood Avenue to the Big Dalton Wash.
Table 4-8 Storm Drain Mainline Characteristics | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mainline Pipe # | Location | Size | Slope | Capacity* (cfs) | Material | Installation Date |
1 | Barranca Ave.—Orangepath St. to SR 66 | 36″ | 0.0064 | 53 | RCP | 1969 |
2 | Barranca Ave.—SR 66 to Bagnall St. | 42″ | 0.0041 | 64 | RCP | 1969 |
3 | Forestdale Ave.—North of SR 66 | 36″ | 0.0023 | 32 | RCP | 1968 |
4 | SR 66—Between Forestdale Ave. and Vecino Dr. | 36″ | 0.0048 | 46 | RCP | 1968 |
5 | Vecino Dr.—South of SR 66 | 39″ | 0.0010 | 26 | RCP | 1968 |
6 | Grand Ave.—Ada Ave. to Heber St. | 27″ | 0.0099 | 30 | RCP | 1965 |
7 | Grand Ave.—Heber St. to Leeside St. | 30″ | 0.0103 | 41 | RCP | 1965 |
8 | Grand Ave.—Leeside St. to SR 66 | 36″ | 0.0082 | 60 | RCP | 1965 |
9 | Grand Ave.—South of SR 66 | 45″ | 0.0100 ** | 121 | RCP | 1965 |
10 | Glendora Ave.—North of SR 66 | 33″ | 0.0100 | 53 | RCP | - |
11 | Glendora Ave.—South of SR 66 | 33″ | 0.0141 | 63 | RCP | 1960 |
12 | Pasadena Ave.—North of 45″ Stretch | 48″ | 0.0053 | 104 | RCP | - |
13 | Pasadena Ave.—45″ Stretch just North of SR 66 | 45″ | 0.0446 | 255 | RCP | - |
14 | Pasadena Ave.—South of SR 66 | 54″ | 0.0058 | 150 | RCP | - |
15 | Glenwood Ave.—North of SR 66 | 45″ | 0.0269 | 198 | RCP | 1960 |
16 | Glenwood Ave.—South of SR 66 | 45″ | 0.0232 | 184 | RCP | 1960 |
17 | Loraine Ave.—North of SR 66 | 60″ | 0.0408 | 526 | RCP | 1969 |
18 | Loraine Ave.—South of SR 66 | 60″ | 0.0264 | 423 | RCP | 1969 |
19 | Alosta Avenue Drain—66″ | 66″ | 0.0330 | 610 | RCP | 1993 |
20 | Alosta Avenue Drain—84″ | 84″ | 0.0052 | 460 | RCP | 1993 |
21 | Alosta Ave.—Between Lone Hill Ave and Glengrove Ave. | 33″ | 0.0100** | 53 | RCP | 1980 |
22 | Alosta Ave.—East of Glengrove Ave. | 30″ | 0.0188 | 56 | RCP | - |
Notes: | |
|---|---|
* | All capacities are based on the assumption that the pipes are flowing just full. No pressure flow was taken into consideration. |
** | Assumed slope. |
c.
This system has shown historic evidence of surcharge on Route 66 because it does not have the needed head to push a large amount of water through the shallow box culvert.
3.
Storm Drain System Improvements. Several alternatives for alleviating the localized flooding at the two identified problem locations have been developed. There are estimated sizes and costs associated with these possible solutions. However, a detailed hydrology study should be preformed to determine the required size of storm drain mainlines, laterals, and catch basins. If connection to an existing mainline is proposed, a hydraulic study should also be preformed to determine whether or not additional flows can be added to existing storm drain mainlines.
a.
Route 66/Vermont Avenue Improvements. As shown on Exhibit 4-20—Storm Drain System Improvements. There are two possible options for alleviating the localized flooding on Route 66 between Grand Avenue and Vermont Avenue. Both of the alternatives would involve trenching in existing pavement and laying a new storm drain line with laterals and catch basins from the mainline in Grand Avenue to Vermont Avenue. All of the runoff from Vermont eventually gets into the Grand Avenue mainline so these possible new lines will not be changing the existing drainage patterns in the area.
i.
Route 66/Vermont Option 1. The first alternative would be to run approximately one thousand seven hundred feet of thirty-inch RCP east in Route 66 from the mainline in Grand Avenue to the intersection of Route 66 and Vermont Avenue. A catch basin and lateral on either side of Vermont Avenue just north of the intersection will help alleviate the flooding on Route 66.
ii.
Route 66/Vermont Option 2. Some of the runoff that attributes to the flooding on Route 66 comes from farther north in the city. The second alternative would be to run approximately one thousand seven hundred feet of twenty-four-inch RCP east in Ada Avenue from the mainline in Grand Avenue to the intersection of Ada Avenue and Vermont Avenue. A catch basin and lateral on either side of Vermont Avenue just south of the intersection will remove some of the surface water before it becomes a problem. However, there will still be a large area draining to the impacted area on Route 66, so this may not totally alleviate flooding in the area.
b.
Route 66/Elwood Avenue Improvements. As shown in Exhibit 4-20—Storm Drain System Improvements. There are two possible options for alleviating the localized flooding at the intersection of Elwood Avenue and Route 66. Both of the alternatives would involve trenching in existing pavement and laying a new storm drain line with laterals and catch basins.
i.
Route 66/Elwood Option 1. The runoff that is causing flooding at the intersection of Elwood Avenue and Route 66, eventually sheet flows south in Elwood Ave to the Big Dalton Wash. The first alternative to alleviate the flooding at the intersection would be to construct approximately six hundred feet of thirty-inch RCP storm drain in Elwood Avenue from the Big Dalton Wash to the intersection. The existing curb inlets would need to be replaced with catch basins and laterals to the proposed mainline in Elwood. The construction cost, including pavement removal and replacement, trenching, pipe, traffic control, and catch basins will be around one hundred fifty thousand dollars.
ii.
Route 66/Elwood Option 2. The second alternative would be to connect to the storm drain mainline in Glenwood Avenue. However, since the runoff causing localized flooding at the intersection of Elwood Avenue and Route 66 does not get into that mainline in the existing condition, a hydraulic analysis of the mainline in Glenwood will need to be done to verify its capacity. This alternative would include approximately seven hundred feet of thirty-inch RCP storm drain in Route 66 from the mainline in Glenwood Avenue to the intersection. The existing curb inlets would need to be replaced with catch basins and laterals to the proposed line in Route 66.
(Ord. 2019 § 2, 2017)