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)
