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:
2. Street-oriented,
pedestrian-focused development;
3. Mix
of uses including residential, commercial and retail development;
4. Establishment
of uses that capitalize on adjacent market potential;
5. Development
that respects adjacent residential development.
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:
2. Establishment
of a primary local and regional commercial node;
3. Improvement
of the districts function as a southern gateway;
4. Higher
intensity commercial development.
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:
2. Encouragement
of future transit use;
3. Mix
of uses including residential, commercial and retail development;
4. Expanded
housing opportunities;
5. Street-oriented,
pedestrian-friendly development.
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:
2. Encouragement
of future transit uses;
3. Expanded
job opportunities;
4. Medical
campus serving the community.
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:
2. Establishment
of locally-serving commercial uses;
3. Facilitation
of site improvements and rehabilitation;
4. Facilitation
of lot consolidation.
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:
2. Expanded
housing opportunities;
3. Locally-serving
retail and commercial use at corner locations.
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:
3. Enhancement
as a locally-serving commercial node;
4. Capitalize
on market potential of adjacent employment.
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:
2. Expansion
of employment base;
3. Focused
development of corporate office and high-tech use.
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)
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:
ix. Route 66, east of Lone Hill Avenue.
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)