Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 08-C0279 0 RESOLUTION NO. 08-C27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 069751 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PURPOSES LOCATED IN THE 700 BLOCK OF NORTH DALTON AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa, has given notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on the application of the City of Azusa/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa with respect to the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 069751 to consolidate 11 parcels of land to create four lots that will contain fifty-seven (57) residential condominium units, sixteen (16) townhome units, 9,000 square feet of retail, and 164 parking stalls located within a parking garage for the condominium units and retail uses for the property located in the 700 block of North Dalton Avenue ("Project'); and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. In accordance with City of Azusa Municipal Code Section 66-207, based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds and determines that: a) Such approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the land is located, will not be contrary to or adversely affect the general comprehensive zoning plan for the city. The Project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to the property/improvements in the vicinity and zone. Additionally, the Project will be compatible with the general comprehensive zoning plan for the City. The project is located within the Downtown Civic Center ("DCC") zone. The Project is bordered to the north by railroad/MTA Gold Line tracks and a multi -family complex beyond them. To the south is Foothill Boulevard and commercial -use property across the street. To the west are City Hall, Azusa City Park, and the Library. To the east, the Project abuts single and multi -family residential properties and a fast food restaurant. The Project will bring about the redevelopment and revitalization of the surrounding area. The area, as part of the Redevelopment Project Area, has suffered from blighting influences. This Project is designed to create physical improvements to the area, increase shopping and residential opportunities and provide a catalyst for future improvements in the area. This will result in both Page 2 of 3 • • short term and long term benefits for the surrounding area. The General Plan emphasizes transit -oriented, pedestrian friendly development for the DCC zone. The Project has been designed to be compatible with uses and properties within the DCC zone and adjacent neighborhoods. The Project will create residential and commercial development adjacent to the MTA Gold Line train tracks. The location of the Project will encourage pedestrians to walk from homesibusinesses to the transit services provided by the MTA Gold Line. In accordance with the fundamental principles of pedestrian -oriented design, the Project will be built adjacent to the sidewalks on Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Project is designed to enhance the pedestrian character of the DCC zone and is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The design of the parking structure, which is wrapped by the retail and residential uses, removes the parking from view on three sides, reinforcing the pedestrian nature of the space. The new development will increase property values in the area and add an aesthetically pleasing element to the DCC zone through the construction of new buildings and green spaces. Thus, the Project will benefit the residents of the City and furthers the goals of the General Plan by encouraging transit -oriented pedestrian friendly development. b) Proper or adequate provision has been made for access to the land to be sold, divided or subdivided and also the portion of land remaining or that access to the land is by means of dedicated streets of a sufficient width and state of improvement to adequately serve the land described in the application. The Project has been designed to provide adequate access to its residences and retail establishments. Access to the Project is provided via Foothill Boulevard on the south and North Dalton Avenue on the west. Combined, these dedicated public streets are of sufficient width and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as well as adjacent properties. Additionally, the City Engineer has concluded that any potential traffic associated with the Project is minimal and no intersection improvements are necessitated. Therefore, adequate provision has been made to provide access to the Project from dedicated streets of sufficient width. c) Proper and adequate provisions have been made for all public utilities and public services, including sewers. The Project provides adequate provisions for all public utilities and public services. Under the Project the Developer will install and maintain all walkways, lighting, other improvements, structures and landscaping in the Project area. The Developer will also be responsible for providing adequate sewer connections to serve the Project. Thus, proper and adequate provisions exist for all public utilities and public services. SECTION 2: Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council does hereby Page 3 of 3 • • approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 069751 for the property located at the 700 block of N. Dalton Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval attached to the Report to the City Council as Exhibit "C", and incorporated herein by reference, as though set out in full and at length. SECTION 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED, SIGNED, AND APPROVED the 7`s day of April, 2008. ZVO � oseph R. Rocha, Mayor I, Candace Toscano, Assistant City Clerk for the City of Azusa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 08-C27, was duly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 7t' day of April 2008, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CARRILLO, MACIAS, HANKS NAYS: COUNCII.MEMBERS: GONZALES, ROCHA ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE MATT SATTES . oe Candace Toscan t City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP City Attorney Attachment: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 069751 0 0 ATTACHMENT B ADDENDUM TO THE 2004 CITY OF AZUSA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2003081144 Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 2 2. Project Location and Description............................................................................3 3. Purpose..................................................................................................................6 4. Addendum Determination...................................................................................... 6 5. Environmental Topics............................................................................................. 7 5.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality.......................................................................... 7 5.2 Agricultural Resources....................................................................................7 5.3 Air Quality....................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................... 9 5.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 9 5.6 Geology and Seismicity................................................................................ 10 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................ 10 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................ 11 5.9 Land Use Planning........................................................................................ 12 5.10 Mineral Resources........................................................................................ 12 5.11 Noise.............................................................................................................12 5.12 Population and Housing................................................................................ 13 5.13 Public Services.............................................................................................14 5.14 Recreation.....................................................................................................14 5.15 Transportation and Traffic............................................................................. 15 5.16 Utilities and Services..................................................................................... 16 6. Conclusion .................................. :........................................................................ 17 General Plan and Development CA, IR Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 2 of 19 ADDENDUM TO THE 2004 CITY OF AZUSA GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2003081144 1. Introduction This Addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2004 General Plan and 2005 Development Code has been prepared in response to a proposal to redevelop a portion of an area of the Downtown/Civic District known as the "Downtown North Area" The Downtown North Area is part of a larger redevelopment project area known as the "Merged Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area." The portion of the Downtown North Area that is the subject of this Addendum is commonly known as the east side of Dalton Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and the rail right-of-way, and is referred to as "Block B4." The proposal relating to Block B4 ("Project") involves: design review approval for the construction of a 4 story mixed-use development containing approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor area and 57 residential units stacked over the retail area; design review approval for the construction of a 4 story parking structure; design review approval for the construction of 16 townhouse residential units, and a General Plan Amendment related to such construction; narrowing/realignment of the public right of way on Dalton Avenue; the creation of a four lot tentative tract map over eleven existing lots; and an amendment to the Development Code in the form of a Development Code Overlay. The City of Azusa General Plan and Development Code EIR was certified on April 19, 2004. The certified EIR adequately addressed the direct and indirect physical impacts on the environment resulting from the implementation of the General Plan and Development Code. A city's General Plan is often called its "Constitution" because all development within a city must demonstrate consistency with the document and the goals, policies, and programs it contains. It is a long-term plan, in this case a vision of the City in 2025. While the General Plan broadly defines the vision of the City, the Development Code details the specific standards for development of individual future projects to ensure consistency with the Citys General Plan. Together, the General Plan and Development Code consist of a comprehensive set of objectives for development of the City over the next 20 to 25 years. In the broadest sense, the objectives of the General Plan and Development Code are broken down as follows: NATURE: Protect the City's unique environment by restoring the River, canyon, and foothill areas and pursue a greener and more sustainable relationship with nature throughout Azusa. NEIGHBORHOODS. Preserve the City's small town atmosphere with a community fabric of healthy and welcoming neighborhoods. COMMERCE: Support economic vitality by creating and supporting mixed-use districts for workplaces and stores to flourish. LEARNING: Provide citizens of all ages with opportunities to advance through education. General Plan and Development Code*Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 3 of 19 FAMILIES. Sustain human connections with active support for the environments and institutions that strengthen family life. MOBILITY: Put people first by calming traffic, improving connections and encouraging walking, hiking, and public transit, HISTORY. Respect the legacy left the City through the six thousand years that people have called Azusa home. PARTICIPATION. Continue to actively engage the citizens of Azusa to plan the future of their community. More detailed objectives of the General Plan and Development Code are reflected in the hundreds of goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. These statements are referenced and listed throughout Section 4.0 of the EIR ("Environmental Impacts" subsections of Sections 4.1 through 4.16). The General Plan applies to the area within the City's boundaries. Those areas in the City's Sphere of influence are currently within the County of Los Angeles' jurisdiction, where the County's General Plan policy governs. However, the County is required to refer to the City of Azusa's General Plan before taking any policy action on properties within the City's Sphere of Influence. One key element of the proposed General Plan is the Land Use Plan, which details the desired long- term type and intensity of development throughout the City. The General Plan Land Use Plan includes provisions for the addition of approximately 3,400 dwelling units, 3,100,000 square feet of industrial space, 190,000 square feet of commercial/mixed use, and 524 acres of recreation space. The analysis contained in the EIR uses these numbers as the basis for projections, modeling, and determination of impacts. 2. Project Location and Description The Project is located on the east side of Dalton Avenue, and bordered by Foothill Boulevard on the south, and the rail right-of-way on the north in the City of Azusa. There is an existing senior recreation building ("Senior Center") on this section of Dalton Avenue that is not a part of the Project. The total gross area of Block B4 is approximately 2.75 acres in size, and the Project takes up the area north, west, and south of the Senior Center. The Project consists of 2.64 acres of land owned by the City of Azusa/Redevelopment Agency, and 0.11 acres currently owned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (designated for the Metro Goldline); however, the 0.11 acres parcel is currently in escrow to be purchased by the City of Azusa/Redevelopment Agency. General Plan and Development colt,R Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 4 of 19 land Um oBaypam 0"Y A CiE\'F$ALPIAN urn�ie FI. Figure i. General Plan Land Use Diagram Site Development Under General Plan and Development Code The subject site is located within the Downtown - Civic Center (DCC) zone. The DCC zone, similar to the Downtown Town Center (DTC)* zone, is intended to provide for a variety of permitted land uses, in the context of pedestrian oriented streetscapes, but with an emphasis on governmental uses. Aside from governmental uses, other permitted uses include restaurants, general retail, office, various business, financial, and professional services, and mixed use projects. Residential uses are allowed as part of mixed use projects. The City Hall provides the focus for the cluster of public buildings that define the DCC, and the Development Code emphasizes how civic buildings have a special functional and symbolic significance in General Plan and Development Cod*Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 5 of 19 the community. The intent of the development of the DCC is to ensure that new public and commercial buildings contribute to and reinforce the distinctive form of the DCC zone and the identity of area. The General Plan encourages the support of transit -oriented development in the Downtown/Civic District, as well as the development of housing in both mixed-use settings and "stand-alone" structures mixed use development. The General Plan's vision is to strengthen distinct commercial and mixed-use districts, as it points out that the retail areas, particularly in Downtown, are not competitive with commercial areas in nearby cities. The General Plan also notes how many of the City's homes, townhomes, and apartments are too small and lack the character and durability to make them competitive with newer housing being built in the far suburbs. Thus, under the General Plan, the development of residential units that make the City competitive with other nearby cities is strong goal. Developing a continuous pedestrian oriented streetscape, with direct pedestrian links between civic uses in the DCC zone, is another important goal in the overall Downtown/Civic District. Regarding plans specific to Block B4, the Development Code envisions the relocation of the library to the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Dalton Avenue (compared with the General Plan which contemplates either a relocation of the library or an expansion of the current site), and recommends that the site north of the Senior Center be used for a community facility or a parking garage. However, these are not regulatory provisions, and only reflect recommendations of the type of development that may occur in the DCC zone. The General Plan also proposes the implementation of a "Park -Once" strategy for the Downtown, involving the construction of parking garages to consolidate the parking necessary for a successful downtown district at two or three central locations. The purpose is to relieve individual property owners from providing their own parking, and ensuring a street frontage of continuous commercial storefronts, un -interrupted by large parking lots. Description of Proposed Development The project consists of two development phases of the parcels located north and south of the Senior Center building on the east side of Dalton (collectively, the "Project"). The development of parcels south of the Senior Center building ("Mixed Use Development") consists of a four story mixed-use development with approximately 9,000 s.f. of ground floor retail space, approximately 57 condominium stack flat units, and a four story parking structure. The development of the parcels north of the Senior Center building ("Residential Development") will consist of two- and three-story townhomes, totaling 16 residential units. The Residential Development portion of the Project must satisfactorily provide for the parking needs of the Senior Center use as a condition to the development of that phase of the Project. The design concept for the Project involves supplying all of the required parking on-site — as opposed to participating in a "park once" shared parking program. Under the current concept, parking would consist of approximately 200 on-site stalls: 128 stalls (2.25 spaces per unit) for the residential stack flat units, and 36 stalls (4 spaces per 1,000 sf) for retail, and 36 stalls for townhome residential and guest . These proposed parking rates are in excess of what is required by the Development Code — 1.5 per residential unit, and 2.5 per 1,000 sf of nonresidential floor area. General Plan and Development AIR Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 6 of 19 The proposed Project also contemplates the narrowing and realignment of the right of way on the east side of Dalton Avenue from Foothill Boulevard on the south to the rail right-of-way on the north, from 80 feet to 60 feet. 3. Purpose The purpose of this EIR Addendum is to define, describe, compare and contrast potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project in the context of the environmental impacts associated with the General Plan and Development Code, as assessed in the Certified EIR. In so doing, this Addendum will provide documentation for the Project consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Azusa. CEQA guidelines define an Addendum as the proper method for analyzing minor potential environmental consequences of a project for which a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. Based on CEQA Guidelines and case law, it is appropriate for a Lead Agency to prepare an Addendum when some or all of the following criteria are met: (1) only minor technical changes are needed to make the analysis in the prior EIR sufficient; (2) the changes to the Project Description are non-significant and contain elaborations upon or clarifications to components of a project that were described in a conceptual or schematic manner in the original EIR; (3) non-significant environmental impacts are anticipated that were not contemplated in the prior document; and (4) no additional substantial mitigation planning is necessary for project implementation; clarification and refinement of mitigation planning is acceptable. 4. Addendum Determination The City of Azusa, upon review of the General Plan and Development Code EIR, determined that the development concept of the proposed Project is generally consistent with what the General Plan and Development Code anticipated for the development of the DCC. To the extent that any aspect of the Project's development is in conflict with the regulatory provisions of the Development Code, they will be consistent with the standards in the Development Code Overlay, keeping the Project in compliance with development standards. For the DCC, the EIR environmental analysis assumed a maximum building intensity of 1.5 FAR (floor area ratio), and a maximum residential density of 27 units per acre. The proposed Project is expected to be built at a lower building intensity (1.39 FAR) and with a residential density of 26.6 units per acre spread between the Mixed Use Development and Residential Development proposed for the Project site. Given that the scope of the proposed Project is less intense than what was analyzed in the EIR, staff has determined that the impacts are inconsequential to the long range development of the City anticipated under the General Plan and Development Code EIR. Therefore, the anticipated environmental impacts of the Project are not substantial enough to warrant additional environmental review in the form of a supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis below concludes that approval of General Plan and Development Code Akddendum • March 12, 2008 Page 7 of 19 the Project as proposed would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the EIR for the General Plan and Development Code. 5. Environmental Topics The General Plan and Development Code EIR analyzed the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Azusa General Plan and Development Code, and identified mitigation measures capable of avoiding or substantially reducing adverse impacts. The potential impacts were divided into three categories: unavoidable significant adverse impacts, significant adverse impacts that can be mitigated to less -than - significant levels, and adverse impacts that are less than significant or nonexistent when compared to the environmental impact thresholds identified in this report. The following narrative summaries each affected environmental topic, and compares potential environmental impacts of the proposed Block B4 Mixed Use Project in the context of the environmental impacts associated with the General Plan and Development Code. 5.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality The EIR analyzed General Plan policies that promote human -scale development focused on pedestrian -oriented design and well-planned landscaping to build upon Azusa's existing neighborhood aesthetics. Azusa's visual character is augmented by scenic vistas of the mountains and open space. With respect to Aesthetics and Visual Quality, the EIR concluded the following: Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The proposed Project would result in the construction of a retail/residential mixed-use development and a residential development within the area of the Downtown District known as Block B4. The project will incorporate traditional urban design principles to create a pedestrian -friendly street environment. The standards of the Development Code Overlay will accommodate the proposed maximum building heights of 55 feet for the Mixed Use Development and 42 feet for the Residential Development. The building design is expected to reflect the character of the historic Downtown District. No new impacts or changed circumstances are expected. 5.2 Agricultural Resources Agriculture plays a significant role in Azusa's history. During the latter half of the 19'h century up to the Second World War, citrus crops were an important basis of Azusa's and the regional economy. The citrus industry boosted the growth of Azusa and changed the demographic face of the City as a large population formed in the area to work in citrus fields. However, post -World War II population growth, led to the replacement of Azusa's agriculture with light and heavy industry, mining operations, and residential development. The General Plan would not remove any existing agricultural resources nor does it propose new agricultural land uses for the City. General Plan and Development Got,R Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 8 of 19 Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The Project site contains no agricultural resources. No new impacts — No changed circumstances. 5.3 Air Quality The air quality section examines the degree to which the proposed project may result in changes to air quality. The EIR analysis focused on air pollution in terms of daily emissions (total volumes of pollutants expressed in pounds per day) from vehicle trips attributable to the proposed project and CO emissions on city street segments. Daily mobile source ROG, CO and NOx levels are expected to diminish by the year 2020 in the City of Azusa, and SOx levels are expected to remain relatively constant. PM10 levels, however, are expected to increase. This increase is considered a significant adverse impact due to the fact that the City, as part of the South Coast Air Basin, is located within an area that has been designated a "non -attainment' area for PM1e. Existing CO levels at all Azusa street segments are below State one- and eight-hour standards of 20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively. Future CO levels would decrease along all segments and would also be below the State standards. The General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that would minimize impacts associated with air quality. No significant impacts are anticipated with the exception of the increase in PM1e emissions. Significant Impacts: Increase in PM10 emissions. Mitigation Measures: None recommended, as no feasible and quantifiable measures are available beyond what is contained in the policies of the proposed General Plan. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: Increase in PM10 emissions, as provided in the EIR. Conclusion: The compact urban mixed-use nature of the proposed Project encourages walking and the use of public transportation to accomplish many activities normally carried out by driving. In particular, the General Plan contains the following Implementation Programs: A02 LAND USE PATTERNS ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION Encourage land use patterns that enable people to use alternative transportation methods such as transit, walking, and cycling in their day-to-day activities. Expand opportunities for people to live and work in close proximity. A03 PROMOTE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Promote mixed-use development that provides commercial services close to residential zones and employment centers, enabling citizens to walk or bicycle to services rather than drive. The proposed Project will include elements of the above programs. The creation of additional residential units in the DCC zone and the development of a mixed use building creates greater opportunities for people to live and work in close proximity to the retail and business center of General Plan and Development Code oddendum March 12, 2008 Page 9 of 19 • the city. Given that much of the air emissions are generated from vehicle trips, the Project will not result in any new impacts. Furthermore, the Project's close proximity to the proposed Metro Goldline extension will increase accessibility to public transportation when the extension is complete, contributing to the encouragement of the use of public transit. 5.4 Biological Resources The majority of the Azusa's plants, wildlife, and undisturbed land occur in the northern portion of the City where the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains begin. The slope and aspect of the foothills affects the plant types present. A survey of Azusa's biological resources recorded the dominant vegetation associations or habitats as north slope chaparral, south slope coastal sage scrub, alluvial (of a gravel and sand composition) scrub and woodland, and sycamore and alder riparian woodland. Across these habitats, typical plant species include grasses, California buckwheat, sagebrush, larger shrubs such as toyon and lemonade berry, and in moister, shadier areas, trees such as mountain mahogany, alders sycamores and willows. Wildlife present in the City ranges from commonplace animals including squirrels, rabbits, sparrows and crows, to smaller often unobserved creatures such as the black -bellied salamander or Pacific tree frog, to larger mammals such as the coyote, gray fox, or bobcat. Azusa is also home to many "sensitive species", sensitive denoting either a monitored or protected status under either State or Federal law. The list of sensitive species in Azusa includes 95 species of butterflies, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, mammals, plants, and some habitat types. Out of these 95, six are federally listed as endangered. The General Plan policies seek to rehabilitate vulnerable wildlife populations, where possible. Other policies would establish nature preserve areas, mostly in the canyon areas and ridgelines of the foothills. Restoration of the San Gabriel River is also a General Plan goal. According to the Land Use map, development of Azusa over the next 25 years is planned for already developed areas, and is discouraged from occurring on the relatively untouched hillsides. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The Project site will be developed with either buildings or parking facilities. Some buildings were demolished on the site prior to this Project's proposal. The site contains no plants, wildlife, and undisturbed land. No new impacts are anticipated. 5.5 Cultural Resources Under the General Plan policies cultural landmarks in the City would be preserved and showcased for their role in Azusa's heritage. A long-term goal would see the creation of Historic Districts in the City around groups of designated landmarks. Fostering a community connection to important cultural elements of Azusa would occur through utilization of historic sites and features as educational tools, adaptive reuse of historic resources, and provision of tax incentive for cultural, or historic preservation. With the policies and programs for preservation and enhancement of cultural resources amidst continuing growth in Azusa, no significant impacts would occur. General Plan and Development Ae IIn Addendum March 12, 2008 Page 10 of 19 Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated Conclusion: The architecture of the proposed new mixed use and residential buildings are expected to be respectful of the historic character of many of the adjacent buildings. No new impacts are anticipated. 5.6 Geology and Seismicity The General Plan provides goals and policies that would protect people and structures from earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. The General Plan also contains implementation programs that would minimize impacts associated with liquefaction and soil instability. Implementation of these policies, and implementation programs would reduce impacts associated to groundshaking, soil instability, and liquefaction to less -than -significant levels. The General Plan requires that all new development connect to the existing sewer system. Therefore, soils capable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not required, and no significant impact is anticipated. The General Plan Land Use designates the Downtown District for civic uses and commercial/residential mixed use. According to the EIR, the area south of 11'h Street (which includes the Downtown District) contains soil of Hanford association. On a project -by -project basis, a geotechnical investigation would be conducted to evaluate soil erosion potential on the site that is subject to development. Developments would be designed and constructed in conformance to the specific recommendations provided in the geotechnical report for each proposed structure. As a result, a less -than -significant impact is anticipated. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated Conclusion: As required by the General Plan, the proposed Project will connect to the existing sewer system. If required, the sewer system will be upgraded to provide adequate capacity. Furthermore, a geotechnical investigation will be conducted to investigate the soil conditions of the Project site, and the Project will be designed and constructed in conformance with the recommendations of the investigation to ensure sound development. Therefore, no significant new impacts are anticipated. 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Currently there are 20 hazardous waste handlers in Azusa classified as "major" handlers. This number is not expected to increase under the new General Plan. Exposure to fire hazards is also not anticipated to increase. Emergency response planning and implementation are expected to improve under the proposed project. Since all evaluated hazards and hazardous waste General Plan and Development Codd* Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 11 of 19 components will not be augmented with the implementation of the new General Plan, no significant impacts will result. Additionally, the new General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that would minimize impacts associated with hazards and hazardous waste. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The proposed Project will consist of residential and retail uses. An abandoned gas station previously located on part of the Project site has been demolished, and underground storage tanks at this station have already been removed. However, there will be no hazardous waste handlers as a part of the Project. No new impacts are anticipated. 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The General Plan contains policies and implementation programs that would maintain the existing drainage patterns in the City to prevent erosion, siltation, and flooding. The General Plan policies and implementation programs would also reduce impacts associated with water runoff and mudflows. Approximately 95 percent of the City lies within the inundation areas for at least one of the three dams near the City (Cogswell, Morris, and San Gabriel dams). The lowest areas of the City, and the areas immediately along the San Gabriel River channel, would be the most susceptible to damages from rapidly flowing water and associated floating debris. Areas farthest from the channel would suffer more from sheet flow and rising water. Although a significant portion of the City is within the dam inundation area, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving dam failure already exists. The General Plan would not expose people or structures to any new risks associated with dam failures. Additionally, the General Plan contains implementation programs that would mitigate impacts associated with dam inundations. Tsunami hazard is not present for the City due to the elevation and distance to the ocean. Seiche hazard could impact water impoundments within or immediately adjacent to the City, such as water storage tanks or reservoirs outside the City (e.g., Morris, San Gabriel, or Cogswell Dams) to the north, and could conceivably cause a dam to fail. Hazards associated with seiches already exist within the City and the General Plan would not expose people or structures to any new risks associated with seiches. Thus, no significant impact is anticipated. Significant Impacts: None Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: No new impacts — No changed circumstances General Plan and Development Ad EIIR Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 12 of 19 5.9 Land Use Planning The General Plan would not physically divide an existing residential community, place additional incompatible land uses next to each other, and introduce new land use conflicts with the surrounding cities. Additionally, the General Plan would be consistent with the regional planning and growth policies of the Southern California Association of Governments. Thus, no impact is anticipated. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The proposed Project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, with the exception of the land use designation for the Residential Development north of the Senior Center, which parcels are currently designated for "Public/Civic" use. A General Plan Amendment will be required to designate those parcels for "Commercial/Residential Mixed Use". Furthermore, the Development Code is being amended through a Development Code Overlay to accommodate the Project's development of townhouses and other site planning and design issues. No other impacts are anticipated. 5.10 Mineral Resources Three quarry mining operations are currently located in the City of Azusa. The mineral extracted at each of the mines is aggregate, a necessary component of concrete, road base, and related building materials. The state classifies portions of Azusa including these three mines as regionally significant for mineral resource production (MRZ-2 areas). In recognizing the designation of these mines, the General Plan policies provide that the City will continue to permit existing mining at its present location for the next ten to thirty-five years; however, expanded access to mineral resources will not necessarily be available. The Mineral Resource policies promote efficient reclamation and reuse of the mines as the time comes for them to discontinue operations. By facilitating the reuse of mines, the City seeks to mitigate the adverse environmental and visual impacts of mining. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The Project site is not located within an area designated as regionally significant for mineral resource production (MRZ-2 areas). No new impacts are anticipated. 5.11 Noise This section examines noise impacts that may result from the proposed project. A noise impact analysis ("Noise Study') was conducted to evaluate the potential noise impacts associated with the Project, to evaluate the mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project design, and to provide further recommendations for mitigating actions. The Noise Study, attached hereto as General Plan and Development Code*Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 13 of 19 Appendix A, included the measure of existing noise sources in the project area, such as traffic and train noise; the evaluation of short-term construction -related noise impacts; long term train noise and vibration impacts; long-term traffic noise impacts; long-term stationary noise impacts related to activities on the proposed Project. With respect to these noise impacts, the study provided required and recommended mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of each noise source to a level that is below the level creating a significant impact. With the implementation of the identified mitigation measures and conformance to the policies and implementation programs provided in the General Plan to minimize further impacts associated with noise, no significant impacts are anticipated. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: Mechanical ventilation systems for all dwelling units proposed along the Project's northern boundary along the railroad tracks; Air-conditioning units on all frontline dwelling units and retaiVcommercial uses along Foothill Boulevard and Dalton Avenue; Install windows with a minimum STC -32 rating for dwelling units along Foothill Boulevard directly exposed to traffic noise. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The proposed Project will conform to building code regulations for sound insulation. The Project will also incorporate Noise Study's required mitigation measures, and the policies and implementation programs provided in the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated. 5.12 Population and Housing The proposed General Plan allows for a maximum of 3,371 additional residential units to be constructed by 2025. Department of Finance statistics show that the average household size in Azusa is 3.4. Based on this rate, the population of Azusa may increase by approximately 11,600 people by 2025. The General Plan provides a framework for accommodating projected housing and population growth. It does not directly induce population growth or displace households or persons. The General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that would minimize impacts associated with population and housing issues. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated Conclusion: The proposed Project is expected to accommodate up to 73 residential dwelling units. At 3.4 persons per unit, the potential for an increase in population of approximately 248 persons can be expected. The anticipated growth is consistent with the growth projected in the EIR. The Project will result in no new impacts or changed circumstances. General Plan and Development CAOIIR Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 14 of 19 5.13 Public Services Police protection and fire and emergency services are currently adequate in the City of Azusa. Growth within the City may create the need for additional equipment or personnel to maintain its current level of service. Implementation of policies outlined in the General Plan would monitor, maintain and/or improve service. Schools and libraries are currently operating below standards in the City of Azusa. Schools are at or are over capacities and the City Library is unable to provide the level of service it would like to provide to library users due to space limitations. Policies outlined in the General Plan would improve existing facilities as well as maintain the future levels of service of these facilities. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. None anticipated. Conclusion: Through the design review process, building design and orientation will ensure that project provides "defensible space" with "eyes on the street" to minimize opportunities for crime. The Project's will incorporate design elements to minimize the risk of crime in areas creating potential "dead spaces," such as the strategic placement of lights and garage windows facing such spaces. To address the Library space limitation, General Plan Implementation Program PS10 calls for the City to ... "identify and solicit funding from additional sources to support library facilities and activities. These may include state and federal grants or loans and donations or sponsorships by local and national corporations, philanthropic organizations, and other private individuals and groups." The proposed Project will result in approximately 248 new residents who would be potential users of the City Library services. The projected increase in population was anticipated in the EIR. No new impacts are expected. 5.14 Recreation The City of Azusa park system currently meets National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) standards of 1.0 acre of parkland per 1,000 persons. However, the City does not meet the City of Azusa standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Land Use designations and policies outlined in the General Plan would result in the increase of 524 acres of parkland and open space by 2020. With the increase, the City park system would exceed NRPA and City standards for parkland. Significant Impacts: None. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: None anticipated. Conclusion: The Proposed Project is estimated to result in the increase in population of 248 persons. This estimated population growth was anticipated in the General Plan and Development Code EIR. Park and recreation facilities exist at the City Hall Park directly west of the site, Slauson Park, approximately 0.4 miles to the south-east, and Memorial Park, General Plan and Development Code* Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 15 of 19 approximately 1 mile to the south-west of the site. Applicable Park Development fees will be collected upon issuance of building permits to fund new park facilities. No new impacts are anticipated. 5.15 Transportation and Traffic The EIR provides that given current traffic concentrations in Azusa and projected growth, traffic conditions are expected to remain at acceptable levels for all but five road segments. For two of the five road segments, the degraded traffic conditions can be mitigated with restriping. Restriping Irwindale Avenue between 15' Street and Gladstone Street, and Arrow Highway between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus Avenue from four to six lanes (by restricting peak period on -street parking) would reduce both volume to capacity ratios to LOS B. The three street segments that cannot be mitigated are: Sierra Madre Avenue between Vernon Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue, Todd Avenue between Sierra Madre Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, and Cerritos Avenue between 5"' Street and 1a Street Special consideration must be taken when implementing the suggested mitigation measures, because they may be in conflict with the General Plan Mobility Elements philosophy on development. For instance, roadway restriping and widenings are not the Citys preferred option, because they conflict wfth the goals and policies of the Mobility Element to provide effective alternative options to the car and to avoid a car -dominated environment that degrades the quality of life. The Mobility Element, therefore, resists roadway widening or additional lane striping wherever possible, unless it is appropriate for a particular location and/or circumstance. A traffic impact analysis ("Traffic Study") was conducted to assess the existing operation of signalized intersections in the vicinity of the Project and the unsignalized intersection at Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to determine if any improvements (signalization) would be required for the Project, and to determine if the Project causes any significant impact not addressed by the EIR. The Traffic Study, attached hereto as Appendix B, concluded that the addition of Project traffic to the signalized intersections would not result in a deterioration of the existing level of service (LOS) in such intersections and that the addition of Project traffic will not result in a significant traffic impact. Though the Project may cause an increased delay on minor street approaches to the Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard intersection,- no improvements are recommended or necessary, with respect to the expected traffic volume at the intersection. Significant Impacts: Development under the General Plan, as discussed in the EIR, will degrade traffic conditions on five road segments to LOS E. Mitigation Measure. Pursuant to and as discussed in the EIR: Provide additional roadway lanes through roadway restriping on Irwindale Avenue between 151 Street and Gladstone Avenue and Arrow Highway between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus Avenue. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: As discussed in the EIR, significant impacts to three road segments, Sierra Madre Avenue between Vernon Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue, Todd Avenue between Sierra Madre Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, and Cerritos Avenue between 5"' Street and 1" Street, are unavoidable. Conclusion: The Project is not located along one of the road segments identified in the EIR as operating at unacceptable levels. Vehicular access to the Project site will be provided by three driveways along Dalton Avenue. Bus service is provided along both Azusa Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Project site is located in close proximity to a future Gold Line light rail General Plan and Development Code EIR Addendum • March 12, 2008 Page 16 of 19 transit station, which is expected to open sometime after the year 2013. The Traffic Study concluded that the Project will not result in a significant traffic impact. Regarding parking, as discussed earlier in this Addendum, the Residential Development portion of the Project north of the Senior Center building must satisfactorily provide for the parking needs of the Senior Center use before any development can occur on that portion of the Project. No new impacts are anticipated. 5.16 Utilities and Services The water supply and sewage collection and treatment systems of the City of Azusa are adequate to accommodate anticipated growth within the City of Azusa. However, supply and demand trends may change over time. Policies outlined in the General Plan would monitor, maintain, and/or improve systems. Solid waste disposal sites accepting waste from the City of Azusa have the capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth within the City through the next 10 years, at which time closure of these landfills could occur. Since the City is unable to completely eliminate disposal at landfills and future landfill sites are uncertain, long-term unavoidable significant adverse impacts may result. Significant Impacts: Disposal of solid waste at landfills significantly impact landfill capacities. Mitigation Measure., Solid Waste 1: The City shall evaluate the solid waste impacts of development on a project -by -project basis. For large-scale developments within Azusa, the City shall require the incorporation of an on-site recycling and conservation program, including waste management techniques, aggressive use of recycled materials and furnishings, or other recycling/conservation measures. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts: An unavoidable significant adverse impact would occur with respect to solid waste generation and diminishing landfill capacity. Conclusion: The EIR analysis concluded that water supply and sewage collection and treatment systems of the City of Azusa are adequate to accommodate anticipated growth, however, supply and demand trends may change over time. General Plan Policy 3.5 Ensure the costs of improvements to the existing sewer collection and treatment facilities necessitated by new development to be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements, either through the payment of fees, or the actual cost of construction, or both in accordance with State Nexus legislation. To implement the General Plan policies, the following program was included: DEVELOPMENT OR DESIGN REVIEW Through the development or design review process, require or continue to require the following: All new development be evaluated for streetscape improvements including water fountains, trash receptacles, and other amenities; All new development to be linked to the existing sewer system; That sufficient utility capacity is available. If sufficient capacity is not available, the City shall not approve the project until additional capacity or adequate mitigation is provided; General Plan and Development Code*Addendum March 12, 2008 Page 17 of 19 Conclusion: No new impacts are anticipated. 6. Conclusion In summary, the City of Azusa has determined that the criteria, which could mandate the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project, have not been met. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that a Subsequent EIR has to be prepared if a determination is made based on substantial evidence, that one or more of the following exists: 1. Substantial changes to the project are made, requiring major revisions to the previous EIR. 2. Substantial changes have occurred regarding circumstances under which the project is undertaken, requiring major revisions to the previous EIR. 3. New information of substantial importance has developed, which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified, and which shows any of the following; a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. b. Previously identified significant effects will be substantially more severe. C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible are now feasible, or are considerably different than those analyzed in the previous EIR, either of which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measures or alternatives. Section 15164 allows the preparation of an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions requiring a Subsequent EIR have occurred. None of the conditions of Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act exist, and therefore an Addendum, rather than a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, has been deemed appropriate for activities related to the development of the project known as "Block 64". • Appendix A Noise Study 0 0 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 069751 AZUSA, CALIFORNIA December 2007 0 0 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. o69751 AZUSA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Watt Genton Associates 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1850 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine. California 92614-4731 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project No. WTG0701 LSA December 200; • 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... ProjectLocation................................................................................... Project Site Existing Setting................................................................ Project Description............................................................................... Methodology Related to Noise Impact Assessment ............................. Characteristics of Sound...................................................................... Measurement of Sound........................................................................ Physiological Effects of Noise............................................................. Vibration.............................................................................................. Construction Vibration......................................................................... EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................ Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ......................................... Overview of the Existing Noise Environment ... ....... ........................... Thresholds of Significance................................................................... IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................. Short -Term Construction -Related Impacts .......................................... Long -Term Train Noise Impacts ..................... .............. I.................... Long -Term Train Vibration Impacts .................................................... Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts....................................................... Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts .................................................. MitigationMeasures............................................................................ Level of Significance after Mitigation ................................................. REFERENCES................................................................ 6.' ' ] KI A: FWWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING PRINTOUTS PVU7» .4 .4 .5 9 0 0 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure1: Project Location Map ..... ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure2: Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 3 TABLES Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms............................................................................................. 6 Table B: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources................................................................... 7 Table C: Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ........................................................ 8 Table D: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Noise and Vibration ....................... 10 Table E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels................................................................................................ 12 Table F: Expected Freight Rail Sound Levels—Current BNSF Freight Activity .................................. 13 Table G: Measured Ground Vibration Levels, Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment .... I ....... I ............... 14 Table H: U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507 Standards............................................................................. 15 Table 1: ISO 2631 Part 2 Maximum Single Event Vibration Levels ................................................... 16 Table J: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels...................................................................... 17 Table K: Expected Rail Sound Levels, Proposed Commuter Rail Activity ......................................... 19 Table L: Existing with Project Traffic Noise Levels........................................................................... 21 P�1W T60"r0 �'.Nn�+r-Rev.doc •, i L7 � /01,. I l • • LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOISE. IMPACT ANALYSIS DECP.M H ER 7001 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO 06$7 51 CITY OF AZOSA. CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 069751 INTRODUCTION This noise impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential noise impacts and mitigation measures associated with the mixed-use development project at Vesting Tentative Tract No. 069751 in the City of Azusa (City), California. This report is intended to satisfy the City's requirement for a project -specific noise impact analysis by examining the impacts of the proposed noise -sensitive uses and evaluating the mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project design. Project Location The project site is located on the south side of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, east of Dalton Avenue, and north of Foothill Boulevard in the City of Azusa, as shown in Figure 1. Project Site Existing Setting There are existing residential uses to the east of the project site. An existing community park, a library, and the City Flail are located to the west of the project site, across Dalton Avenue. Project Description The project consists of 16 townhomes and 57 condominium flats in a mixed-use building with up to 9,000 square feet (sf) of retail. The mixed-use building is situated on the northeasterly comer of Dalton Avenue and Foothill Avenue intersection. The 9,000 sf of retail space is situated along the ground floor of Foothill Avenue, with three levels of residential on top of the retail. The four-story parking structure is wrapped by residential units to hide the structure from view. A three-story element of the mixed-use building stretches from the wrapped parking structure to the south edge of the existing fire lane servicing the Senior Center, The 16 attached townhomes are situated between the Senior Center and the railroad tracks, with three-story townhomes facing Dalton and two-story townhomes facing the interior of the project. Figure 2 depicts the project's site plan. Methodology Related to Noise Impact Assessment Evaluation of noise impacts associated with a proposed mixed-use project typically includes the following: _ • Determine the short-term construction noise impacts on off-site noise sensitive uses. • Determine the long-term noise impacts, including vehicular traffic and train activities, on on-site noise sensitive uses. PiUC'fG0'J f�fni5e-Ke¢dw n12/7 I A)7,, Angeles .,a„arta, Fest 1 mo.IA.Q' --- _ _ r _ _ LOCATION 1 _1 xw 90 2w Pomona 9TH ST b1 Project -i Site ra-e d FOOTHILL BLVD �w �: to Z N [>1- y 9 Q Y SS > _ , c > 9 > b ^ Z m O 'TLS < > > C T (T R 5TH ST L S A L G •L FIGURE I Projeet Site Azusa Residential/P.etail SCSiF.SV.T�C. - SOT20 SCN.f. Project Location SOURChi KTGY Gawp. ❑w. L1WT('n1701'•G'.Locztion.edY(M'10,07) [NOT A PA14G 'LJBSTI:Mai 05000012 RECREATION SUILDI ___j n/n//or0 � 51, '0 Azuxu8mk6n/aI SOURCE: xnGvu"wr.^v. Site Plan 11.E LtiA A$10 C.1.4Tf S. :NI':. IICCi.N BEA i110) 0 1113[ 1N'All ANA1.Vs15 VC3TINO IENTATIVF T4AV.l NO 069751 fail 11F' AIUFA. (:AI.HO' NIA Determine the long-term noise impacts, including on-site operational activities, on off-site noise - sensitive uses. • Determine the required mitigation measures to reduce short- and long-term noise impacts from all sources. Characteristics of Sound Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage andlor interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave resulting in the tone's range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound's effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses. Measurement of Sound Sound intensity is measured through the A -weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A -weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear's de -emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units. such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, 10 decibels (dB) are 10 times more intense than I dB, 20 dB are 100 times more intense, and 30 dB are 1,000 times more intense. Thirty dB represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as one decibel. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy, A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source, noise in a relatively fiat environment with absorptive vegetation, decreases 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance. 1' :W'CpQ7G liNatse-[Ler.iitx ,<I ai 1/07, sA nssocln'r es. INr,.Nolte teA rn rr AN nLvsls 1]F.I:C.PER 100) - VY.9l'IN.'1' HN TAT I VI: 'I RAC T NO 069751 (:,'1'Y IJf A)USA. CALIFORNIA There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (LC,) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Lro and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or the day -night average level (La„) based on A -weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly LC, for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). LM is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ld,, are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long term noise impact assessment. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (Lm,,), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lm,,. L,,,,, reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the Lio noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The Lw noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the LC, and L50 are approximately the same. Noise impacts can be. described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise levels of less than I.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. 'This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying less developed areas. P,tWTG37ul iNoise.R.,= xLOX11197,, 0 • LCAASSC(.I A'r r.S. INC. Ole E41)V.R Z00] ."'sy IHPACl AN ALV SIS Vf.s"rl V,: 1'EN'1 ATIVG TSAC'r N(, 06.1,51 cl'VV OFA'/,LISA_ f.AIJIO0 NlA Table A lists "Definitions of Acoustical Terms,' and Table B shows "Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources." Table C shows "Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise" recommended by the California Department of Health, Office of Noise Control. Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term I Definitions Decibel, dB A unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second). A -Weighted Sound The sound level obtained by use of A -weighting. The A -weighting filter Level, dBA de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the t sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A -weighted, unless reported otherwise. Lm, LIo, Lso, Lvo The fast A -weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level I percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. Equivalent The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated Continuous Noise location, has the same A -weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. Level, Ley _ Community.Noise The 24-hour A -weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, Equivalent Level, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening CNEL from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Day/Night Noise The 24-hour A -weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, Level. L,iR obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ,The maximum and minimum A -weighted sound levels measured on a sound j level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise The all encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a Level specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far: no particular_ sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, 1 duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 1991. PPMI G0701',Noi. c -free Joe .[';I 1 a17n I.SA Ati$OII A"TkS, IYt:. VISYi IUYn(:'1' ANAIY yI$ O ECCHPF.k Eoa] Y£S'YI F'fi TC N'YATI A l'YACC LA ORNIA' Y OF AZUyA, CAI.I VIIµ N1A Table B: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources Noise Source A -Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Subjective Evaluations Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Awa 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban StreeUHeav City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant T 75 Moderately Loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud Suburban Street 55 { Quiet Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment s0 Quiet One-quarter as loud Large Transformer 1 45 Quiet Average Residence without Stereo Pla ing 40 Faint _____ One-eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearin 0 Very Faint Source: Compiled by LSA .Associates, inc.. 2004. V'-\F-rG0,01 h'nix-ReY-[3nt <rl?Jt IflY, I.SA ASSOCIATe5. INC. p1i C.E U!1 P.N 400) • 0 SO ISI IMPACT AY nLT 315 yn STIM1(: iF,N'r AT"IVF- THAC.T NO 06f191 CITY OF A%IISA. CA1J1:()HNIA Table C: Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise Land Use Category Noise Range (Ld„ or CNEL), dB I II III IV Passively used open spaces i 50 50-55 55-70- i 70+ Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters 45-50 50-65 65-70 70+ Residential: low-density single-family, duplex, mobile homes 50-55 55-70 70-75 75+ Residential: multifamily �! 50-60 60-70 70-75 75+ Transient lodging: motels, hotels 50-60 60-70 70-80 80+ Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes 50-60 60-70 70-80 80+ Actively used open spaces: playgrounds, neighborhood parks 50-67 — 67-73 73+ Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries 50-70 — 70-80 80+ Office buildings, business commercial and professional 50-67 67-75 75+ — _ Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture 1 50-70 70-75 75+ — I (';Ilifornia Denartmenlofllealth. 1976. Noise Range t ---Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactnry, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction. without any special noise insulation requirements. Noise Range 11 ---Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only atter a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with dosed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Noise Range 111 --Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged_ If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Noise Range I V---Clcarly Unacceptable: New construction or development should gcnerall) not be undertaken. MWTGO701r,N6s 40,.&,,,12/11TR:, 0 0 LSA A35 C,"I A1'93. INC. NOISK IMI'A" ANALysls UC'L'E.KE. 2Op' VCS'''I`IC ""N'I'Al" I V E 'I" NACT NO 649151 CI1Y Ot AY.I15 A. CAI.IFI1.W)A Vibration Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernable, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source and moves through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation and moves through the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low -frequency rumbling noise. The rumble noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Building damage is not a factor for normal transportation projects, including rail projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 decibels or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings. Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving and operating heavy duty earthmoving equipment), steel -wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with groundborne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet from the vibration source, although there are examples of groundborne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet (FTA 2006). When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that groundborne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, both construction of the project and the freight train operations could result in groundborne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying. Groundborne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the nonnal airborne path usually will be greater than groundbome noise. Groundborne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as cause to damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train -induced groundborne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA 2006). Groundborne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root -mean -square (rms) velocity or peak - particle velocity (PPV). Rms is best for characterizing human response to building vibration and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as: L= 20100 tu [Viv,fl where L, is the velocity in decibels (VdB), "V" is the rms velocity amplitude, and "V,,f' is the reference velocity amplitude, or l x10" inches/second used in the U.S. Table D illustrates human response to various vibration levels, as described in the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA May 2006). P9W"rCro-id lltso _Rcn dao cd'z%l 1 rote 9 I.CA At90f1A'F F. V. INC.NOISE IMVAC'f ANA1 Y V ESTIFC TI:NI AT I VG TRAcl ".." 1CCEMHER tool C:'rY bF AZUSA. CALIFORNIA Table D: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Noise and Vibration Vibration Noise Level Velocity MidLow Level g eqt Freg2 Human Response 65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Low -frequency sound usually inaudible, mid -frequency sound excessive for quiet sleeping areas. 75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level unacceptable. Low -frequency noise acceptable for sleeping areas, mid -frequency noise annoying in most quiet occupied areas. 85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low -frequency noise unacceptable for sleeping areas, mid -frequency noise unacceptable even for infrequent events with institutional land uses such as schools and churches. Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006 and Federal Railroad Administration 1998 Factors that influence groundbome vibration and noise include the following: Vibration source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, track/roadway surface, track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source Vibration path: soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth Vibration receiver: foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to when it is at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of groundborne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Experience with groundbome vibration is that vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils than in loose sandy soils, and shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in groundbome vibration problems at large distances from the track. Factors such as layering of the soil and depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of groundborne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils. t Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 hem (1-Iz). 2 .Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 hertz (Hz). P:kW IGo701,\a;sn,ae, ane <. t zn ut,,:, 10 LGA AS3p C1 AT'C ti. INC;. DFt:"N tlCR $JO] 0 \fJl<N IMPACT ANAL"[$ N'$ ATI YY. 'I'R AC r NO 069751 Construction Activity. Groundborne vibration from construction activity would be mostly low -to - moderate except when pavement breaking or sheet pile vibration is used on the project site. Vehicular Traffic. Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on -road vehicles provide vibration isolation, it is unusual for on -road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. When on -road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on -road vehicle -related vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. Construction Vibration Bulldozers and other heavy -tracked construction equipment generate approximately 92 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 50 feet, based on Transit Noise and. Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA May 2006), This level of groundborne vibration exceeds the threshold of human perception, which is around 65 VdB. Based on the California Department of Transportation's Transportation Related Earth -borne Vibration, Technical Advisory (Rudy Hendricks, July 24, 1992), the vibration level at 100 feet is approximately 6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 50 feet. The vibration level at 200 feet from the source is more than 6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 100 feet, or more than 12 VdB lower than the vibration level at 50 feet. Therefore, receptors at 100 and 200 feet from the construction activity may be exposed to groundborne vibration up to 86 and 80 VdB, respectively. Although this range of groundborne vibration levels would result in potential annoyance at residences adjacent to the project site, it would not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration; similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities, such as those in the park adjacent to the project corridor. EXISTING CONDITIONS Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to noise. There are existing residential uses to the east of the project site. An existing community park and a library are located to the west of the project site, across Dalton Avenue. These noise -sensitive uses would be potentially affected by noise during project construction. Overview of the Existing Noise Environment The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Traffic on Foothill Boulevard, Dalton Avenue. and other local streets is a steady source ofambient noise. Freight trains on the BNSF railroad tracks, currently only two trains a day serving the Miller Brewing Company in Irwindale, contribute to the train noise in the project area. Existing Traffic Noise. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, October 24, 2007) prepared for this project, Table E provides the existing tragic noise levels on street segments that are in the project 11:1WT0J170I'_Nois-Rev.docaI—,, i In17n 11 0 LSA A5511CIAI'F.S, INC_ 11 l'. f.E.V FR 700] .M1 I)I SV.. 14IAU'1' ANAI.YSIS VV.S INn I N'JATIVE, 'TRAC I NO 06915, Ca'Y OF A%t18A. CALte--N1A vicinity, including Foothill Boulevard, Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, Pasadena Avenue, and Dalton Avenue. These noise levels represent worst-case scenarios, which assume that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix A. Table E: Existing Traffic poise Levels Source: LSA Associates, Inc., October 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. N?.wTGb701'stioisL+Kev dvc 43/11,0% 12 CNEL (dBA) 50 Centerline Centerline Centerline Feet from to to to Centerline of 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT Feet Feet Feet Lane Foothill Boulevard west of San Gabriel Avenue 21,600 75 151 320 69,5 Foothill Boulevard between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue 20,800 73 147 312 69.3 Foothill Boulevard between Azusa Avenue and Alameda Avenue 21,400 t 74 150 318 69.5 Foothill Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Pasadena Avenue 22,000 76 1 153 324 69.6 Foothill Boulevard east of Pasadena Avenue 24,100 80 162 344 70.0 -San Gabriel Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 8300 <50 68 146 66.3 San Gabriel Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard 10400 <50 77 164 67.1 Azusa Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard J 8._800 < 50 69 147 66.3 Azusa Avenue south of Foothill 1 1 Boulevard 8,900 <50 ( 69 t48 66.4 Alameda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 2,400 < 50 < 50 62 60.7 Alameda Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard 3,700 <50 <50 I 83 62.6 Pasadena Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 5.900 1 < 50 i 65 135 64.7 Pasadena Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard 3,000 < 50 j < 50 j 87 j 61.7 Dalton Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard_ 1; -MO <50 1_<50 <50 58.0 Dalton Avenue south of Foothill t ' Boulevard 11100 1 <50 i <50 <50 ( 573 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., October 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. N?.wTGb701'stioisL+Kev dvc 43/11,0% 12 0 LSA nsSOC1ATBs. INc. OICf.R¢. . No, 171.1I4ACT PNPLY\IS V!i'I'I N1:'I"!:" it,FAGT NO f.05J)il l"I 1)F' V l)/11U5RA. [: PI.1 ,'l1NYlA As shown in Table E, traffic noise is generally moderate to high along the existing street segments in the project vicinity. 'The 70. 65, and 60 dBA impact zones extend 76, 153, and 324 feet, respectively, from the centerline of Foothill Boulevard. Table E also shows that the 70, 65, and 60 dBA impact. zone are confined within the roadway right-of-way along Dalton Avenue under existing conditions. Existing Train Noise. The Investigative Science and Engineering (ISE) Acoustical Site Assessment (September 27, 2002) evaluated current rail noise levels in the project vicinity in the Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment Plan area (ISE, Acoustical Site Assessment, Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment Plan - Azusa, CA, September 27, 2002). The ISE Acoustical Site Assessment indicates that the railway alignment along the northern project boundary currently accommodates a single daytime round trip (two pass-bys) due to freight activity to and from the Miller Brewing Company in Irwindale, CA. The average rail speed in the project vicinity was measured at 20 miles per hour (mph) and would be considered typical for this type of cargo activity. As stated in the ISE report, rail activities produce two sources of noise: (1) operational noise from the engine, wheels, and the rail; and (2) signaling at a rail crossing and/or rail station. Table F shows that the operational noise source for existing rail traffic equates to a worst-case hourly average sound level of approximately 55 dBA Il at 50 feet from the rail edge. Table F: Expected Freight Rail Sound Levels -Current BNSF Freight Activity Pass -by Speed m h L.,, at 50 feet dBA II Le„_h 50 feet i dBA CNEL at 50 feet dBA 20 87.3 54.8 44.0 25 88.9 55.6 44.8 30 89.9 55.7 44.9 35 90.9 56.3 45.5 40 91.9 57.0 46.2 45 92.4 57.1 46.3 50 93.0 57.0 46.2 _ 55 _ 94.9 _ 59.3 48.5 Source: ISE. September 2002. The anticipated CNE[, due to operational rail activity at 50 feet from the rail edge is 44 dBA CNEL (assuming a no -penalty condition). The second source of rail noise is from signaling at a rail crossing. Federal and State law require rail operators to sound a horn or whistle producing a minimum sound level of 96 dBA at 100 feet at least 1,320 feet from the place where the railroad crosses any street or road, and also requires engineers to sound a horn if there is a person, vehicle, or object in the way (Source: Federal Rail Administration, California Public Utilities Commission). Although the bells, lights, and crossing gates are the primary means for warning pedestrians and motorists of the oncoming train, the horn provides a final warning to ensure a clear danger zone. The hom or whistle must continue to sound at intervals until the train crosses the street or road. Currently, the 'single round-trip freight activity sounds a horn for the crossing at Palm Drive east of Azusa Pacific University. The infrequency of -this operation does not cause the total community noise levels due to existing rail operations to exceed the 60 dBA CNEL threshold established under CCR Title 24. PPNffdl70I'Iiioi5a Rov.d,X�,!-;1 i/07. 13 I.SA ASSOCI A'1'Y S. tM1L'. V V,C6MNE0. RGu� AI :MencT ANALVSI V I!S'FI KI; "1'!\"C AjA'1'$VY. TNAI:'C NO 069151 CI �Y t]F A]VSA. t: AS.tYOkNIn Existing Train Vibration. The ISE Rail Vibration Site Assessment (ISE, September 27, 2002) presented ambient/random ground vibration and soil damping levels in the project vicinity near the Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment Plan Area east of the project site. Based on the ISE field survey, the project area (at least 50 feet from the rail tracks) currently experiences low-level ambient ground vibration consistent with the community setting. Hi -Rail activity produced approximately twice the ground motion measured during the ambient condition. Ground velocity levels of 0.0228 in/sec were observed at 10 to 20 feet from the rail tracks. Freight train activity was found to produce large ground acceleration between 5 and 600 Hz and was found to be due to the combined engine -wheel system impacting the rails. Overall ground velocities reached approximately 1 in/sec at 10 feet from the rail tracks. This level rapidly diminished to 0.0747 in/sec at 20 feet from the rail tracks and was imperceptible at the 40 foot monitoring point. Thus, even though large ground motions are generated by the freight operations, they were found to decay rapidly due to the excessive soil -damping present. Table G lists the measured ground vibration levels. Table G: Measured Ground Vibration Levels,' Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment ent 10 -foot Monitoring Location I 20 -foot Monitoring Dominant ! Location Frequencies PHi-Ra;iIPas 0.0178 in/see 0.0109 in/sec 15" 300 Hz s -b 0.0228 in/sec 0.011 1 in/sec 40-300 1Iz Freight Train Pass -by 0.9993 in/sec 0.0747 in/sec 5-600 Hz Source: LSE, September 27, 2002. Thresholds of Significance A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the criteria in the City's Noise Element of the General Plan and its Noise Ordinance. City of Azusa Noise Element of the General Plan. The noise standards specified in the City of Azusa Noise Element are used as a guideline to evaluate the acceptability of the noise levels generated by traffic flow and/or train operations. These standards are for the assessment of long-term transportation source (roadways, rail traffic, aircraft activity. etc.) noise impacts. The City considers noise levels tip to 60 dBA CNEL compatible with residential land uses. Proposed outdoor areas on the project site that would be classified as usable outdoor living space include rear and side yards for single-family dwellings and common outdoor areas within multifamily dwelling areas. Other short -tern noise impacts, such as construction activities, are regulated by the noise ordinance. All response values eiven in ground velocity units of inches per second (in/sec). Frequency levels given in hertz (Hz). 11 MrCG6'r I`.Nois _Rft ,dm 4: I'JI I' ,, 14 r LFA Asti U1:iATFS. IN1,. 1)HGF.K NCN ]Atli 0 IAl. L IraAcq' ANALYYIti V F$'r1NC '1'E-. 10 AXIIr A C NU 11.I.I Cf 'YY ()1' A),IIFA. fALIFl4 Ylq City of Azusa Noise Ordinance. The City's Ordinance 88-675(c)(3) establishes the maximum construction noise limit of 85 dBA (L„,,,) at 100 feet for any operating equipment that may intrude into a neighbor's property. The Ordinance regulates the timing of construction activities and includes special provisions for sensitive land uses.`The Ordinance prohibits construction between sunset and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and between sunset and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sunday or City recognized holidays. State of California Code of Regulation Title 24. The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise insulation Standards, states that single and multifamily dwellings, hotels, and motels located where the CNEL exceeds 60 dBA must obtain an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will Limit interior noise to less than 45 dBA CNEL. Worst case noise levels, either existing or future, must be used for this determination. Future noise levels must be predicted at least 10 years from the time of building permit application. The City of Azusa has adopted the CCR Title 24 standards. City of Azusa Ground Motion Standards. The City currently does not have a set of ground motion thresholds for structures and humans as it pertains to urban sources such as rail traffic, etc. The general assumption is that vibration damage produced by any source (notjust those of seismic origin) would need to be minimized to the maximum extent possible using conventional engineering criteria. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507 Vibration Criteria. The U.S. Bureau of Mines in its report RI 8507, "Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Blasting," has identified acceptable maximum vertical ground velocity levels. This criterion, which is similar to the earlier Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656 Report, sets the maximum peak -particle velocity as a function of frequency. The results are summarized in Table ft below. It has been shown by the Bureau of Mines that these vibratory excitation levels would produce negligible effects (displacement, fatigue, and damage) in conventionally constructed structures (i.e., structures built within the past 100 years). Table H: U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507 Standards Vibration Frequency Component Lf, Hz Maximum Allowable Peak -Particle Velocity in/sec 2.5 to 10.0 0.05 11.0to40.0 0.05x > 40.0 2.0 Sourcc: U.S. Bureau of Mines and ISE. 2002. The maximum allowable peak -particle velocity for the range of frequencies between 11.0 and 40.0 Hz is limited to the value of 0.05 times the dominant frequency. Thus. if the frequency were 30.0 Hz, the maximum allowable particle velocity at the monitoring point would be 1.5 in/sec. 1'i\ FQ070INmw Rev.d(x al211 i:07,, 15 0 1.5 A n, l(1CIATP.S. IN1:. 'E':P.MCCp -.0' nolle IM FTA 1pAl;l NwON 0611.11 s1 ':11iu(1 A/iSn. GAL.1}Op NIA ISO Human Vibration Standards. The international Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed design goals based on human response to vibration. ISO Standard 2631 Part 2 (Evaluation of human exposure to whole body vibration -Continuous and shock -induced vibration in buildings) contains guidelines pertaining to human exposure to vibration. The recommended excitation levels are based upon the various types of human activities and building occupancy. They are summarized in Table 1. Table I: ISO 2631 Part 2 Maximum Single Event Vibration Levels Land Use Classification(in/sec) RMS Maximum 113 Octave Band Vibration Residential (Daytime) 0.007 Residential (Nighttime) 0.005 School Areas (Anytime) 0.007 Office Buildings 0.015 Source: ISO Standard 2631 -Part 2 and ISE, 2002. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Short -Term Construction -Related Impacts Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction -related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area today but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. As shown in Table J. there will be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 86 dBA 1,,,,,, with trucks passing at 50 feet. However, the projected construction traffic will be minimal when compared to the existing traffic volumes on Foothill Boulevard, Dalton Avenue, and other streets in the project vicinity, and associated long-term noise level changes will not be perceptible. Therefore, short-term construction -related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts would not be substantial. PA>•trrG.l?uRNoise-Re..:doc =l2� I fQ1,16 ,SR ASSOCIATES, INC_ • • NOISE IMPACT ANA6YSIS DECIP.MRP.R 1110` - VE9'1'INf. 'f Y: N'fA'1'IVF: 1RACf.10069151 c,Ty of A]. IIfi A, I. A I. 11'0R N IA Table J: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 Feet) Suggested I Maximum Sound (I Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 Feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81-96 93 Rock Drills 83-99 96 Jackhammers 75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 Pumps 74-84 80 Scrapers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks 83-94 88 Cranes 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 Rollers 75-82 80 Dozers 77-90 85 Tractors 77-82 80 Front -End Loaders 77-90 86 Hvdraulic Backhoe 81-90 86 Hvdraulic Excavators 81-90 86 Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 81-87 86 Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plmus, Boll. Berand, & Newman, 1937. P'1WTO07WNwse-HmOac I_711107., 17 0 0 CSA ASSUGA"1'P.S, INC. II P. Vl4"-R '109] .,",, e. IMYAf.'f ..,Lys's V Cti T1.V li 11.11 A'r1V'V 'rKAC'140 049151 PITY 0V A711$A. CALI"r OXNIT The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases.would change the character of the noise generated on site and consequently the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table J lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA L,,, at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and site grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest constriction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full -power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower - power settings. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, water trucks, and pickup trucks. This equipment would be used on site. Based on the information in Table J, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper on site is assumed to be 87 dBA L,,,„, at 50 feet from the scraper. Each bulldozer would also generate 85 dBA Lm„ at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by water trucks and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA L.m„ at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA L,,,,, at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area. At a distance of 1.00 feet, it would be reduced to 85 dBA L„,,, from the active construction area. This range of construction noise would not exceed the City's maximum noise standard for construction activity. The closest noise -sensitive uses are existing residences to the east. These residences would be more than 50 feet from the project boundary. These residential uses may be subject to short-term noise reaching 91 dBA L„.„ generated by construction activities near the project boundary. When construction occurs away from the project boundary•, this maximum noise decreases proportionally with the distance increase. This range of construction noise levels would not exceed the City's 85 dBA L.., generated by construction equipment at 100 feet. In addition, the City prohibits construction from occurring between sunset and 7:00 a.m. from Monday through Friday and between sunset and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Long -Term Train Noise Impacts The current railway alignment was purchased by the Blue Line Construction Authority and has been identified as the Phase H extension of the Gold Line light rail system from Pasadena to Claremont. According to the communications with staff at the MTA Gold Line Authority (Jim Ball, 626-305- 7017, personal coin mtunication, January 23. 2006), approximately 100 light rail passenger trains and two BNSF freight trains would operate each day along this railway. In addition, both rail crossings at Palm Drive (existing) and Citrus Avenue (proposed) will be grade -separated and would not require r+w-rootonxf,�x-se�'am«; zn von» 18 0 I—SA ASSOI 1A1 ES. INC. NP.CEM91iH 1001 NJItiP. IMPAC'Y ANALYSIS `AN F V!SfIN(NU 44.11sCIYY OV A/IBA. CALIYORNtA the trains to sound a horn. Furthermore, the train engineers are not required to sound their horn when the train approaches the (proposed) transit station at Citrus Avenue. Since no further details of light rail activity are available, the ISE report assumed that light rail operates between 6:00 a.m. and midnight and the freight operations occur between midnight and 6:00 a.m. Light rail operations produce less noise than freight operations due to the fact that the trains are lighter and powered by smaller engines. Table K provides the estimated noise generation due to the proposed commuter rail activity as a function of speed (which would range between 35 to 45 mph based upon the location of the proposed rail station at Palm Drive). A worst-case level of 56 dBA CNEL at 50 feet would be expected. Table K: Expected Rail Sound Levels, Proposed Commuter Rail Activityl Assuming 100 light rail operations and 2 nighttime freight operations (which would have a 10 dBA penalty added to the predicted 44 dBA CNEL at 50 feet and yield 54 dBA CNEL from freight operations), the community noise levels from the combined future rail operations produce a community noise level of (56 + 54 = ) 58 dBA CNEL at 50 feet, slightly less than the 60 dBA CNEL CCR Title 24 threshold. Because there would be no at -grade crossing at Citrus Avenue and Palm Drive, and the train engineers are not required to sound their horn as the train approaches the (proposed) transit station at Citrus Avenue, the predicted 58 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the rail edge would be the worst-case noise level to be experienced in the project vicinity. Based on the project's preliminary site plan, the closest proposed on-site residences are the two-story townhouses that are 50 feet from the railroad tracks. 'These closest residences would be exposed to 58 dBA CNEL train noise- Residences proposed on the southern portion of the project site would be exposed to train noise below this maximum noise level. Based on the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978), with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) residential buildings would provide more than 24 dBA in exterior -to -interior noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA or more with windows open (national average is 25 dBA with windows closed and 15 dBA with windows open). With windows 1 Modified from the 200 daily light rail passenger trains noise projected by ISE. 11'NVI G07O NO,,c-Rn dwc, 1'1.11;07, 19 0 1_SA ASSOC I A'1'ES. i!. I..POISE IMPAC"1' A!<11.V919 114. (i F.M l5E1t '1111i] VES"PING Th: X'l Al'IVE TRA(:'f NO O197i1 1 OF ALVYA. CAI.IFOR.IA closed, interior noise levels in these units (58 — 24 = 34 dBA CNEL) would be below the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Since residential buildings proposed on site would not be exposed to train noise exceeding 58 dBA CNEL, no mitigation measures such as building facade enhancement are required for residences proposed on the project's northern portion that is adjacent to the rail tracks. However, with windows or doors open, interior noise levels at the closest on-site dwelling units (58 - 12 = 46 dBA CNEL) would potentially exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Because the frontline residential units will be exposed to train noise that would potentially exceed the State's and City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level with a windows -open scenario, they need to be equipped with an air-conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, for train operational noise. Long -Term Train Vibration Impacts Based on the ISE Rail Vibration Site Assessment (ISE, September 27, 2002), the majority of the train energy approaches zero at 100 feet from the rail edge for a pure 5 -Hz wave and a worst-case 0.5 second delay between the wheels and rail joints. This level is below the lowest threshold established by the Bureau of Mines for the worst conceivable (i.e., realistically field modeled) rail vibration conditions. Thus, no significant groundborne vibration impacts are expected for conventionally (i.e., UBC compliant) constructed structures built outside this distance. Groundbome vibration levels were predicted to drop below measurable levels at distances exceeding 100 feet from the rail edge for rail energy consisting of higher frequency components. Residential buildings proposed on the project site that are outside of this 100 -foot impact zone would not experience any significant train vibration impacts. At distances closer than 100 feet, ground borne vibration from rail operations would be higher. Potential future (two-story townhouse) residential buildings in the northern portion are approximately 50 feet from the railroad tracks. Based on the ISE Rail Vibration Site Assessment (ISE, September 27, 2002), the ISE field survey shows that overall ground velocities near the rail tracks reached approximately i in/sec at 10 feet from the rail: tracks. This level rapidly diminished to 0.0747 in/sec at 20 feet from the rail tracks and was imperceptible at the 40 -foot monitoring point. Thus, even though large ground motions are generated by the freight operations, they were found to decay rapidly due to the excessive soil -damping present (the vibration level of 0.0747 in/see at 20 feet from the rail tracks, if assumed to persist until 50 feet from the rail tracks, would still be well below the 1,very safe to buildings" threshold of 0.20 in/sec PPV discussed below). Based upon the findings, the predicted ground vibration levels would fall into the category of being noticeable by humans, but not a significant source of impact due to the infrequent nature of the rail operations. In addition, based on Figure 10-1 Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves, in FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006), homes within 100 feet of railroad tracks with rapid transit or light rail vehicles at 50 mph would experience a maximum of 67 VdI3 in groundborne vibration. Homes within 50 feet of the railroad tracks would experience a maximum of 73 VdB (up to 0.01 in/see PPV) in groundborne vibration. Therefore, homes adjacent to the project site within 100 feet would be exposed to 67 to 73 VdB of groundborne vibration from the train operations. Although this range of groundborne vibration levels could potentially exceed the 72 VdB vibration criterion for frequent events (more than 70 trains per day), it is below the 80 VdB vibration criterion for infrequent P:FN20 0 LSA A53OCIATF.S_ INC_ NOItiF I.PAC'I' ANALYSIS n F.[:F,NCVk Z..] VES'I'INIi IEN TIIA[;"1' N? Q'I"I I:ITY OF A%IIIA. IALIF[)NNIA events (fewer than 70 trains per day), and would be well below the 'very safee to buildings" threshold of 0.20 itvsec PPV. Thus, no significant rail vibration impacts are expected. Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts The LSA Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA, October 24, 2007) evaluated existing plus project traffic conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Table L shows the existing with project traffic noise levels. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. Traffic volumes have been rounded to the nearest 100 to account for any potential trips generated off-site. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are provided in Appendix A. Table L. Existing with Project Traffic Noise Levels Source: LSA Associates. Inc.. October 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. vAwrc0701Woise-Rc,A, ai2;uiw,, 21 Increase CNEL (dBA) CNEL (dBA) Center- Center- Center- 50 Feet from 50 Feet from line to 70 line to 65 line to 60 Centerline of Centerline o CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Lane Lane Foothill Boulevard west of San Gabriel I i Avenue 21,600 75 151 320 69.5 0.0 Foothill Boulevard between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue 20,900 74 148 313 69.4 0.1 Foothill Boulevard between Azusa Avenue and Alameda Avenue 21,600 75 151 320 69.5 0.0 Foothill Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Pasadena Avenue 22.300 76 154 327 69.6 0.0 Foothill Boulevard east of Pasadena Avenue 24,100 80 162 344 70.0 0.0 San Gabriel Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 8,700 < 50' 68 146 66.3 0.0 San Gabriel Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard i 10,500 <50 77 166 67.1 0.0 Azusa Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 8.goo < 5o 69 !47 66.3 0.0 Azusa Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard 9,_000 < 50 Y i0~ 149 66.4 0.0 Alameda Avenue nonh of Foothill Boulevard 2.400 <50 <50 62 ; 60.7 0.0 Alameda Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard 3900 <50 <50 86 62.8 0.2 Pasadena Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard 6,000 <50 66 ! 137 64.7 0.0 Pasadena Avenue south of Foothill I I Boulevard { 3,100 < 50 <50 ( 89 619 0.2 Source: LSA Associates. Inc.. October 2007. Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. vAwrc0701Woise-Rc,A, ai2;uiw,, 21 I.iA ASSOC'1 Al'G 9. IN<:. II Y.GF. M98d '3PM1S NUID'i IMI'A(:T ANALVSIS V f.iPING '1' Y. N'I ATIWP I'4Af.'1'NO-L1111 CITY UI' AYUSA. CALIr(lRNI'A Table L shows that the project -related traffic noise level increase would be small (0.2 dBA or less) and would not be discernible by the human ear. It takes doubling the traffic volume to increase the traffic noise by 3 dBA, with everything else remaining the same. The proposed project is expected to generate 771 daily trips from the proposed land uses. Existing traffic volumes are estimated to be 1,300 per day, calculated from the traffic counts along Dalton Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard. With the worst-case assumption that all 771 daily trips would travel in the same direction after they leave the site on Dalton Avenue, a 23 dBA increase would occur along Dalton Avenue. This range of traffic noise level increases is less than the 3 dBA change threshold that is considered to have any significant impacts. Therefore, no significant traffic noise impacts would occur for off-site land uses. Based on the typical sound level reductions of buildings identified in Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels document (November 1978, EPA -55019-79-100), building structures that would be exposed to exterior noise exceeding 69 dBA CNEL would exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL (69 dBA — 24 dBA = 45 dBA) with windows and doors closed and would require building facade upgrades such as double -paned windows. Also, building structures that would be exposed to exterior noise exceeding 57 dBA CNEL (57 dBA — 12 dBA = 45 dBA) would exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors opened and would require mechanical ventilation systems such as air-conditioning. As shown in Table L under the existing with project conditions, the project would have potential traffic noise impacts along Foothill Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Pasadena Avenue (within 154 feet of the centerline). Foothill Boulevard. Proposed stacked flats over the retail use along Foothill Boulevard would be approximately 50 feet from the centerline of Foothill Boulevard. These dwelling [nits would be exposed to 73 dBA CNEL. Outdoor active use areas such as balconies, if proposed, associated with the frontline dwelling units along Foothill Boulevard would be exposed to a traffic noise level exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential uses. Therefore, mitigation measures such as a perimeter wall with a minimum height of 5 feet would be required to protect balconies associated with the proposed frontline residential structures along Foothill Boulevard. The balcony wall can be a combination of concrete block wall with Plexiglas on top as long as total wall height equals 5 feet or more. It is expected that residential structures along Foothill Boulevard would be within the 69 dBA CNEL, impact zone. Therefore, building fapade upgrades such as windows with sound transmission class (STC) ratings higher than standard building construction provides (up to STC -28) would be required for noise -sensitive areas such as bedrooms. in addition, it is expected that these frontline residential buildings would be within the 57 dBA CNEL impact zone. Therefore, mechanical ventilation systems such as air-conditioning would be required for all frontline residential structures along Foothill Boulevard to ensure that windows could remain closed for a prolonged period of time. Proposed retail uses along Foothill Boulevard would be exposed to 73 dBA CNEL traffic noise. Because no outdoor active uses are anticipated for the retail uses, no mitigation measures are required except for an air-conditioning system to meet the interior noise standard. CUYI'Crwb t 1NoimRe, <loc 'Q/1 I /0?., '-'" I.SA ASSOC1ATT.8. INCI N1.115F IMPACI" ANALYSIS [l f.C[IAbFY 90�] V£5TINC YENVY. A(1'Y N(1 1 GI"fY OF F NVSA: CALII'ORNNIA Dalton Avenue. With the worst-case assumption that all 771 daily trips would travel in the same direction after they leave the site on Dalton Avenue, a 2.3 dBA increase would occur along Dalton Avenue. Based on Table E, potential traffic noise level along Dalton Avenue would increase to 603 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Dalton Avenue. Unless outdoor active use areas such as balconies are placed with 23 feet of Dalton Avenue centerline, the traffic noise level would be below 65 dBA CNEL. Residential structures proposed along Dalton Avenue are located 40 feet from the roadway centerline and would be exposed to a traffic noise level below 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, no mitigation would be required to protect balconies associated with the proposed frontline residential structures along Dalton Avenue. In addition, it is not expected that residential structures along Dalton Avenue would be within the 69 dBA CNEL impact zone. Therefore, no building fagade upgrades such as windows with STC ratings higher than standard building construction provides would be required for noise -sensitive areas such as bedrooms. However, it is expected that these frontline residential buildings would be within the 57 dBA CNEL impact zone. With. windows open, the interior noise would exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses. Therefore, mechanical ventilation systems such as air- conditioning would be required for all frontline residential structures along Dalton Avenue to ensure that windows could remain closed for a prolonged period of time. Proposed retail uses along Dalton Avenue would be exposed to a worst case 60 dBA CNEL traffic noise. Because no outdoor active uses are anticipated for the retail uses, no mitigation measures are required except for an air-conditioning system to meet the interior noise standard. Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts Potential long-term stationary noise impacts would be associated primarily with operations at the on-site commercial/retail uses. These proposed on-site commercial/retail uses would generate noise from truck delivery, loadingfun loading activities, and other activities at the parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise -sensitive receptors adjacent to the loading areas, such as the proposed residential uses on site and residential uses to the east of the project site. Mitigation measures may be required. As noise spreads from a source it loses energy; the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source the lower the perceived noise level. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dBA reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single -point source of noise, such as an idling truck, to the noise -sensitive receptor of concern. Although individual activity may generate relatively high and intermittent noise, when added to the typically lower ambient noise and averaged over a longer period of time, the cumulative noise level would be much lower and would be considered a less than significant impact. Truck Delivery and Loading(Unloading. Delivery trucks for the proposed on-site commerciallretail uses would result in a maximum noise reading from loadin„= and unloading activities similar to other retail projects, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA L„,,, at 50 feet and are used in this analysis. Based on the site plan, it is assumed that the retail loading area is inside the parking structure. With the noise attenuation provided by the parking structure wall that has an effective height of 8 feet, F1 W1 G07011<oisc-Rei V <t, 12111107, 23 6Yn nySDCl n>'F.S. INO. UCCFMP.E0. 3D0> 11)13E IMPACT' ANALYSIY V F S'I"1 V {: '1'F.N'rA r11F YRACT :10 u111NI I I>v OL' A%VSA. CM.IFORNIA loading/unloading noise would potentially reach up to 65 dBA Ln,„ at the nearest residences. This range of maximum noise levels would be similar to or lower than vehicle noise on Foothill Boulevard or Dalton Avenue. This maximum noise level would not exceed the standard maximum exterior daytime noise level of 75 dBA L,N„ and the maximum nighttime exterior noise level of 70 dBA LN,,. However, this noise level would potentially exceed the daytime L" ; standard of 60 dBA if the noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck unloading process takes an average of 10-15 minutes, the maximum noise level occurs in a much shorter period of time, in a few minutes. It is not expected that truck delivery/loading/unloading activities would result in this maximum noise level lasting more than 5 minutes in any hour when it occurs. Therefore, noise associated with truck delivery/loading/unloading activities for the retail uses would not result in noise levels exceeding the ambient noise at the nearest residences proposed on the project site. No mitigation measures are required. Based on the typical sound -level reductions of buildings identified in the Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document (November 1978, EPA -550/9-79-100), standard building construction in Southern California would provide 24 dBA (the national average is 25 dBA) or more in noise reduction from exterior to interior with windows and doors closed. With windows and doors open, the exterior -to -interior noise reduction drops to 12 dBA (the national average is 15 dBA) or more. With windows closed, the maximum interior noise attributable to the loading/unloading activities would be reduced to 41 dBA L,„,,. This range of noise levels is comparable or below the maximum noise levels associated with household activities. Therefore, no mitigation measures on the proposed residential structures are required. Parking Lot Activity. Representative parking activities, such as employees conversing or doors slamming, would generate approximately 60 dBA Lm„ at 50 feet. This level of noise is much lower than that of the truck delivery and loading/unloading activities. With the attenuation provided by the parking structure, this maximum noise level would be reduced further and would not exceed the standard maximum exterior daytime noise level of 75 dBA L„„ and the maximum nighttime exterior noise level of 70 dBA L,,,,,,. Therefore, noise associated with parking lot activities would not result in noise levels exceeding the maximum noise level standard at the nearest residences on site. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures Construction Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would potentially result in relatively high noise levels and annoyance at the closest residences. The following measures would reduce short-term construction -related noise impacts resulting from the proposed project: During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile. with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. • The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Pi6WI'00701Woiw-Revdo ,i.l1 ho -11 24 0 9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS D£CESIDER 900, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO 069741 CITY OF AZUSA_CALIPORNLA The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. The construction contractor shall limit all construction -related activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and sunset on Saturday. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and City recognized holidays. • Maximum construction noise shall be limited to 85 dBA at 100 feet from any construction equipment. Train Noise Impacts. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for the proposed project regarding train noise impacts: • Mechanical ventilation systems, such as air-conditioning, would be required for all dwelling units proposed along the project's northern boundary along the railroad tracks. Traffic Noise Impacts. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for the proposed project regarding traffic noise impacts: • Air-conditioning would be required for all frontline dwelling units proposed along Foothill Boulevard and Dalton Avenue. • A perimeter wall with a minimum height of 5 feet should be implemented for all outdoor active use areas such as balconies or decks for dwelling units along and directly exposed to traffic on Foothill Boulevard. The balcony wall can be a combination of concrete block watt with Plexiglas on top as long as total combined wall height equals 5 feet or more. Windows with a minimum STC -32 rating are recommended for bedroom windows associated with dwelling units along Foothill Boulevard that are directly exposed to traffic noise. • Air-conditioning is recommended for all frontline retail/commercial uses along Foothill Boulevard and Dalton Avenue. Stationary Noise Impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, potential long-term noise impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance. P?wfG07Q I�tv�fsr.-Re�23x " 1 JI 7(07x. 25 LSA ASSOCIArM INC_ J P.CBM II FH 200) NOISF. IMPACT ANTLYSIS VY.STINC TBNTAI'IVF. TNACI' NO .6915, Cll'Y Of A'/.VSA. C'ArAFORNIA REFERENCES Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987. City of Azusa, Noise Element and Noise Ordinances. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels, EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD -77-108, 1977. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. Acoustical Site Assessment, Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment Plan—Azusa CA, September 27, 2002. Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. Rail Vibration Site Assessment, Monrovia Nursery Redevelopment Plan—Azusa CA, September 27, 2002. LSA Associates, Azusa Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, October 2007. PAW TGOM I NUo ise-Fe, .da «1211 [;U-6, 26 0 0 I.YA AY�OC{A'1'!S. IKC. N111 SF: IMPAL'I' ANAi.YAI$ 11 l•. f. F.MAFR Rllo] VE<'CI NIi I'F.NI'A'I�IVI: TRAC.1 NO 04'1711 f.IT'V OF A%IJ5A, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING PRINTOUTS P 7GC7n1',No _w-Ray.Joc-I-II/07» P 0 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 069751 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS TABLE Existing -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard west of San Gabriel Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- VA0116 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 9.34 0.19 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 74.9 150.8 319.8 686.4 69.50 0 0 TABLE Existing -02 FHWA ROAD'✓dAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20800 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT.50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60.CNEL 55 CNEL --------------------- 73.3 147.2 311.9 669.4 69.33 TABLE Existing -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between Azusa Avenue and Alameda Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21400 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.46 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70.CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 74.5 149.9 317.8 682.2 TABLE Existing -04 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Pasadena Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 22000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.58 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 75.7 152.6 323.7 694.9 9 0 TABLE Existing -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard east of Pasadena Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24100 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 .M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 .H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.97 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 79.7 161.8 343.8 738.3 0 0 TABLE Existing -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: San Gabriel Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8700 SPEED (MPH): 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 OMNI GRADE: .5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.28 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL --------------------- ------- 0.0 68.0 146.0 314.4 TABLE Existing -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: San Gabriel Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10400 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- VA121Ci1. 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 N MIK SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT'50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.05 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------------'---------------- 0.0 76'.5 164.5 354.1 0 • TABLE Existing -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Azusa Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8800 SPEED (MPH): 45 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 GRADE: .5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL .70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 68.5 147.2 316.8 66.33 i • TABLE Existing -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Azusa Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8900 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT --- ------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 Lomo ] SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.38 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 69.0 148.3 319.2 TABLE Existing -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Alameda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2400 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 60.69 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL. 0.0 0.0 62.1 133.4 0 0 TABLE Existing -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Alameda Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3700 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 MMM] 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) 62.57 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 0.0 0.0 82.8 177.9 • 0 TABLE Existing -12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pasadena Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5900 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 18 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------- ------- 0.0 64.9 135.4 289.7 64.67 0 • TABLE Existing -13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pasadena Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 18 pjw3p. m SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.73 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- — ----- ------ ------- 0.0 0.0 87.4 185.1 • 0 TABLE Existing -14 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Dalton Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1300 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 IID7 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 58.02 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.7 r TABLE Existing -1S FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Dalton Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1100 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.4 57.30 0 r VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 069751 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 11 • TABLE Existing with Project -01 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard west of San Gabriel Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.50 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 74.9 150.8 319.8 686.4 TABLE Existing with Project -02 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20900 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------- ------- 73.5 147.7 312.9 671.6 69.35 TABLE Existing with Project -03 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between Azusa Avenue and Alameda Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21600 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.50 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------- ------- 74.9 '150.8 319.8 686.4 0 TABLE Existing with Project -04 FKWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Pasadena Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 22300 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 Wwri 0.19 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.63 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 76.2 153.9 326.6 701.2 0 0 TABLE Existing with Project -05 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Foothill Boulevard east of Pasadena Avenue NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24100 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 69.97 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- ------- ------- ------- 79.7 161.8 343.8 738.3 TABLE Existing with Project -06 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: San Gabriel Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8700 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT RUJOW 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 [87[iKI SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.28 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.0 68.0 146.0 314.4 E • TABLE Existing with Project -07 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: San Gabriel Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10500 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0:08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * *.CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT.50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.0 77.0 165.5 356.3 67.10 • • TABLE Existing with Project -08 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Azusa Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8800 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 0914! SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.33 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 68.5 147.2 316.8 TABLE Existing with Project -09 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Azusa Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 9000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 69.5 149.4 321.5 66.43 TABLE Existing with Project -10 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Alameda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2400 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 9.34 0.19 no m. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 60.69 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------- ------- 0.0 0.0 62.1 133.4 r TABLE Existing with Project -11 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Alameda Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3900 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 afty too SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 62.79 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---------------------------- 0.0 0.0 85.7 184.2 TABLE Existing with Project -12 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pasadena Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project *.* ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6000 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 18 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.74 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL -------------- ------- 0.0 65.5 136.9 292.9 • TABLE Existing with Project -13 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Pasadena Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3100 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 18 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.87 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL- 55 CNEL ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.0 0.0 89.2 189.1 TABLE Existing with Project -14 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Dalton Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 0 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS CNEL AT .50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 26.89 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a TABLE Existing with Project -15 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 10/29/2007 ROADWAY SEGMENT: Dalton Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard NOTES: Azuza Mixed Use - Existing with Project * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 0 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT ---------- ----- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M -TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H -TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 6 FWIM SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) _ DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL ---- ------ ------- ------- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bl.� i7 a 0 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AZUSA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AZUSA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Watt Genton Associates - 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1850 Woodland Hills, California 91367 (310)444-7500 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614-4731 (949)553-0666 LSA Project No. WTG0702 LSA December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTINGCONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... I PROJECTCONDITIONS...........................................................................................................4 DALTON AVENUEIFOOTHILL BOULEVARD......................................................................5 DALTON AVENUE ON-STREET PARKING..........................................................................5 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Study Area Intersections.......................................................................2 Figure 2: Existing AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................3 TABLES TableA: LOS to V/C Ratios.................................................................................................................. 1 Table B: Existing LOS Intersection Summary .......................................................................................4 Table C: Downtown Azusa Residential Development Trip Generation................................................4 Table D: Existing plus Project LOS Intersection Summary ...................................................................5 P:1WTG07021Traffic Analysis (12-17-07)_rev.dac (12/17/07).dm i • 0 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEN R ER 2007 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AZUSA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT The purpose of this traffic analysis is to provide you with an assessment of the existing operation of signalized intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project. The project includes the development of 9,000 square feet of retail use and 73 residential units on the east side of Dalton Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, in the City of Azusa. Vehicular access to the project will be provided along Dalton Avenue. This analysis also discusses the unsignalized intersection at Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard to determine if any improvements (i.e., signalization) would be required with the project. Figure l shows the location of the proposed project and identifies the four signalized intersections analyzed in this study. EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffix (version 7.8) computer software was utilized to determine intersection volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios and corresponding levels of service (LOS) at study area intersections based on the Circular 212 "Critical Movement Analysis" (CMA) methodology for signalized intersections. Table A illustrates the relationship between LOS and the v/c ratios. Table A: LOS to V/C Ratios LOS Volume to Capacity CMA Methodology) A < 0.600 B 0.610-0.700 C 0.710-0.800 D 0.810-0.900 E 0.910-1.000 F > 1.000 The City of Azusa considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations. A project would cause a significant impact if it caused the intersection LOS to deteriorate to LOS E or F or caused an increase in the v/c ratio of 0.02 or more at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F. Peak -period intersection turn volumes were collected by Southland Car Counters on October 2, 2007, for the study area intersections. Figure 2 illustrates the existing peak -hour traffic volumes along Foothill Boulevard. Table B summarizes the results of the existing a.m. and p.m. peak -hour LOS analysis for the four signalized intersections. The LOS worksheets are attached. P:\WTG0702\Traffic Analysis (12-17-07)_rev.doc (12/17/07).doe ® 39 Angeles Nnliona! Fomst LOeA171rlory I _I :m 30 2T Pamona 9TH ST Project f Site FOOTHIL61-V=O�©�© 0 rn Z p a a n 9ro a C 3 > m a Oa Oz z 99� m M 5TH ST L S A LEGEND FIGURE 1 - Project Site O- Study Area Intersection Azusa Residential/Retail SCHEMATIC-NOTTOSCA E Project Location and SOURCE: KTGY Group, Inc. Study Area Intersections I:\WTG0702\G\Locati0n&Ims.cdr (I 0/23M7) ST ST BLVD Project Site yy tl7 $ a O Z z a M M c� rn to a v N F 10831550 1171176 2611294 84/223 1 San Gabdel Avenue/Foothill Boulevard L 90/208 , 1012/417 101/102 1 J `i T r' 515/1331 — I M rn i•, n m N d A 2 Azusa AvenueiFoothill Boulevard J 4 Pasadena AvenuetFoothill Boulevard LSA 1231456 AM/PM Volumes RAXX000\Esisting volumes.xls I (/5/2007 Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard PGPND f- Project Site O- Study Ates Intersection v L 36140 a m 1214/669 .J 1 L, .0 30/47 10/14 .T I h T c- 557/1292 a a 24183 3 Alameda AvenueiFoothill Boulevard FIGURE 2 Azusa Residential/Retail Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes L 151/123 t 64/40 F 1190/705 N „ F 1276/727 FI 1 y .0 h 20/21 T r� �J d. 15126 4 ? .l- 31/10 48/39 K-) T r' 507/1364 'Q N 605/1379 a N N 15/30 -1 o 2 6126 -1 N J 4 Pasadena AvenuetFoothill Boulevard LSA 1231456 AM/PM Volumes RAXX000\Esisting volumes.xls I (/5/2007 Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard PGPND f- Project Site O- Study Ates Intersection v L 36140 a m 1214/669 .J 1 L, .0 30/47 10/14 .T I h T c- 557/1292 a a 24183 3 Alameda AvenueiFoothill Boulevard FIGURE 2 Azusa Residential/Retail Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AZUSA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DECEMBER 0000 Table B: Existing LOS Intersection Summary As shown in Table B, the signalized intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS, according to the City's LOS criteria of LOS D or better. PROJECT CONDITIONS The proposed project consists of 9,000 square feet of retail space and 73 residential units. The daily and peak -hour trips for the project were generated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7th edition, 2003). Trip rates listed in the manual per 1,000 square feet (TSF) and per dwelling unit (DU) were multiplied by the amount of retail and residential space included in the project to determine the trip generation for the project, shown in Table C. As the table indicates, the proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 814 trips per day, including 42 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 72 trips in the p.m. peak -hour. Table C: Downtown Azusa Residential Development Trip Generation Notes: Trip laces referenced from the Institute of Tmns'pommion Engineers Trip Genesnrinn, 7th Edition (2003). land Use Code 820 - Shopping Center Land Use Code 230 - Residential Condominiumrroo,nhouse TSF = thousand square feet DU = dwelling unit The majority of project traffic would most likely be destined to and from the Interstate 210 (I-210) freeway and to and from Citrus College and Azusa Pacific University. Trips to and from the project would travel primarily along Foothill Boulevard, San Gabriel Avenue, and Azusa Avenue. The existing plus project levels of service are shown in Table D. PAWTG0702\Traffic Analysis (12-17-07)_rev.doc (12/ 17/07).doc 4 Intersection A.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS 1. San Gabriel Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.663 B 0.844 D 2. Azusa Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.770 C 0.815 D 3. Alameda Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.536 A 0.589 A 4. Pasadena Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.831 D 0.723 C Land Use Size Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates r Shopping Center TSF 42.94 0.63 0.40 ].03 I.8 1.95 3.75 Condominium/Townhouse DU 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 Trip Generation (Proposed Project) Shopping Center 9.000 TSF 386 6 4 10 16 18 34 Condominium/Townhouse 73 DU 428 5 27 32 25 13 38 oral Potential Trip Generation 814 11 31 42 42 30 72 0 0 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. DECEMBER 1007 Table D: Existing plus Project LOS Intersection Summary TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AZUSA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS 1. San Gabriel Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.664 B 0.852 D 2. Azusa Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.776 C _-6. _820 D 3. Alameda Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.543 A 0.607 B 4. Pasadena Ave./Foothill Blvd. 0.834 D 0.725 C As shown in Table D, when project trips are added to the existing condition, the signalized intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS D or better. DALTON AVENUE/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard is a two-way stop -controlled intersection. Traffic turning from Dalton Avenue onto Foothill Boulevard is required to stop and wait for gaps in the traffic before turning. As shown in Figure 2, there are currently 24 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 32 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour on the southbound approach of Dalton Avenue at Foothill Boulevard. As shown in Table C, the project would generate approximately 31 outbound trips during the a.m. peak hour and 30 outbound trips during the p.m. peak hour. If all outbound trips traveled south on Dalton Avenue to Foothill Boulevard, then the project would approximately double the traffic volumes on the southbound approach. While this is a large increase in traffic compared to the existing condition, it is still a relatively low volume. The resulting traffic volumes (55 a.m, peak -hour and 62 p.m. peak -hour trips) are relatively minor and equate to approximately one trip per minute on the southbound approach. The project is located in an area served by a grid -type roadway network. Protected (i.e., signalized) access onto Foothill Boulevard is provided on the nearby Alameda and Pasadena Avenues. Based on a review of the traffic volumes, the only improvement that would lessen the delay experienced at Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard would be signalization. However, the traffic volumes with the project would not meet the criteria for a peak -hour traffic signal warrant. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies that the minor street traffic volume should be at least 100 vehicles during the peak hour before a traffic signal is considered. DALTON AVENUE ON -STREET PARKING As noted previously, the project will be located on the east side of Dalton Avenue. On -street parallel parking is currently allowed along Dalton Avenue. Existing adjacent land uses are characterized by City Hall, the Library, and Senior Center. Existing parallel parking spaces along the east side of Dalton Avenue adjacent to the Senior Center will be replaced by six diagonal parking spaces. These spaces will be marked for handicapped use only and are intended to serve the Senior Center. The remainder of parking for the Senior Center will be provided in the parking structures proposed as part of the project. P:\WTG0702\Traffic Analysis (12-17-07)_rev.doc (12/17/07).doc l TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ALUSA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DECEMBER 2007 According to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), a two-lane local street has an hourly capacity of 1,200 to 1,500 vehicles. On-street parking maneuvers along a roadway have the potential to reduce the capacity of the roadway, as through vehicles would be impeded during parking maneuvers. According to Exhibit 16-7 in the HCM, the six proposed parking spaces, along with approximately 14 existing parallel parking spaces on the east side of Dalton Avenue, could reduce the northbound throughput by approximately 30 percent, assuming each parallel and diagonal space turns over twice per hour. The resulting hourly capacity along Dalton would be approximately 840 vehicles. Dalton Avenue currently carries approximately 105 a.m. peak-hour and 121 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips. With the proposed project, the traffic volumes on Dalton Street would be approximately 145 a.m. peak-hour and 189 p.m. peak-hour vehicles, well below the hourly capacity of Dalton Avenue. Because of the low traffic volume along Dalton Street, the proposed on-street diagonal parking is not expected to cause excessive queuing or delay and would not result in any vehicles stacking onto the adjacent major street (i.e., Foothill Boulevard). It is possible that one or two vehicles would be delayed while vehicles executed a parking maneuver; however, this would not seriously affect the traffic operation of the street. It should be noted that the six proposed diagonal parking spaces are intended to serve the Senior Center, which closes at 4:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 1:30 p.m. on Friday. Because the center would be closed during the p.m. peak hour, only a nominal number of parking maneuvers from the six parking spaces are expected. It should also be noted that on-street parking along Dalton Avenue would provide positive benefits to the area. Adjacent on-street parking creates friction along the roadway, which results in motorists driving at slower speeds. The slowing of traffic along Dalton Avenue would increase the safety of pedestrians in the area, which is desirable given the adjacent land uses, which include City Hall, the Library, Senior Center, and residential uses. Slowing of traffic will also provide safety benefits at the existing crosswalk along Dalton Avenue near the Senior Center. CONCLUSIONS The existing signalized intersections along Foothill Boulevard in the vicinity of the project currently operate at satisfactory LOS D or better during both peak hours. Addition of project traffic to the signalized intersection would not result in deterioration of the LOS to LOS E or F. Addition of project traffic to the Dalton Avenue/Foothill Boulevard intersection may increase the delay experienced on the minor street approaches; however, improvements to this intersection are not recommended, as they are not warranted by the traffic volume and could negatively impact traffic signal progression along Foothill Boulevard. Proposed diagonal parking spaces on Dalton Avenue will result in reduced vehicular capacity and slower speeds along Dalton Avenue. Slower speeds along the street and increased safety and comfort for pedestrians will provide a greater sense of place for the Civic Center area, while Dalton Avenue will still provide adequate capacity for through vehicles. PAWTG0702\Traffic Analysis (12-17-07)Jev.doc (12/17107).dm 6 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DECEMBER 2007 0 APPENDIX A 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A20SA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS P:\WTG0702\Traffic Amlysis (12-17-07)_m,doc (12/17/07).doc 0 0 Existing AM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:56:06 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 San Gabriel/Foothill *}k}***#*********+**k+**k****k**}k#**k}***k****k#**k}rt**k****k#**k}3**krt**kk**kk Cycle (sec): 93 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.663 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: B **k#***}***}***k*#**k****k***k#**kk***kk**kk#***k****k#***k***k***k*#***k#**kk** Street Name: San Gabriel Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- II ---I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 0 0 0 202 1038 58 0 426 84 117 1083 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 202 1038 58 0 426 84 117 1083 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 465 92 128 1181 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 465 92 128 1181 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 465 92 128 1181 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II_ --------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 3.20 0.18 0.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 887 4558 255 0 2381 469 1425 2850 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II--------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.41 0.00 Crit Vol: 0 354 0 591 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****krt#rt**}*+***+*******+***k*****kk#***k*rt*****}*****+***}*+****+t**k****kk#rt** Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 0 0 Existing AM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:56:06 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Azusa/Foothill Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.770 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 81 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Azusa Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------11---------------11---------------II---------------I Control: Permitted Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I ------------- Il---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 203 403 78 0 0 0 101 515 0 0 1012 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 203 403 78 0 0 0 101 515 0 0 1012 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 224 445 86 0 0 0 111 568 0 0 1117 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 224 445 86 0 0 0 111 568 0 0 1117 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 224 445 86 0 0 0 111 568 0 0 1117 99 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.59 1.18 0.23 .0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 846 1679 325- 0 0 0 1425 2850 0 0 2617 233 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 41 --------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 Crit Vol: 377 0 111 608 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 0 0 Existing AM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:56:06 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Alameda/Foothill **#*****k****k**#***k*k*****#kk***Y**#*********k**#kkk#*kk***k***#***#****kkk*kk Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.536 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: A ***kkk**********#k****k**#****#*k*#kk**#*k*******k***#*k*******#***#kkk#kkk***k* Street Name: Alameda Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 12 22 27 34 11 19 10 557 24 30 1214 36 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 22 27 34 11 19 10 557 24 30 1214 36 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 O.B7 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 14 25 31_ 39 13 22 12 644 28 35 1403 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 25 31 39 13 22 12 644 28 35 1403 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 14 25 31 39 13 22 12 644 28 35 1403 42 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- il---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 1500 1500 1500 1500 550 950 1500 2876 124 1500 2914 86 ------------ I---------------II---------------II--------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.48 0.48 Crit Vol: 31 39 12 723 Crit Moves: kk**#kkkk**kk**#kkkkk#*#****##**k*##*k*##k*k*##kkkk##kkkk##kk**#*****#k#***#kkk* Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA P 0 Existing AM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:56:06 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Pasadena/Foothill Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(X)c 0.831 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 110 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Pasadena Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------i Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 61 109 30 169 133 32 48 507 15 20 1190 151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 61 109 30 169 133 32 48 507 15 20 1190 151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O0 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 70 126 35 195 153 37 55 585 17 23 1373 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 126 35 195 153 37 55 585 17 23 1373 174 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 70 126 35 195 153 37 55 585 17 23 1373 174 ------------ I------------- --II --------------- II--------------- II_ --------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 1425 1117 308 1425 1149 276 1425 2766 82 1425 2529 321 _I---------------II----__----_--_-II_--------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.54 0.54 Crit Vol: 160 195 55 773 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA ___________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 San Gabriel/Foothill Cycle (sec): 93 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.844 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 119 Level Of Service: D Street Name: San Gabriel Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- il--------------- 11 _____I Control: Protected Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 11--------------- jj-____-____-____1 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 ------------ j --------------- jj--------------- 11 --------------- 11_____-____--___1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.93 0.39 0.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 977 4172 551 0 2431 419 1425 2850 0 ------------ I --------------- jj--------------- II --------------- 11_____-____-____I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.13 0.20 0.00 Crit Vol: 0 227 792 184 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing PM ________________________________________________________________________________ Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:57:12 Page 2-1 ___________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 San Gabriel/Foothill Cycle (sec): 93 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.844 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 119 Level Of Service: D Street Name: San Gabriel Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- il--------------- 11 _____I Control: Protected Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 11--------------- jj-____-____-____1 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1351 233 184 574 0 ------------ j --------------- jj--------------- 11 --------------- 11_____-____--___1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.93 0.39 0.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 977 4172 551 0 2431 419 1425 2850 0 ------------ I --------------- jj--------------- II --------------- 11_____-____-____I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.13 0.20 0.00 Crit Vol: 0 227 792 184 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing PM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:57:12 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Azusa/Foothill Cycle fsec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.815 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Azusa Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- II --------------- 11--_-----------_I Control: Permitted Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- II --------------_I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 128 590 209 0 0 0 107 1395 0 0 437 218 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 590 209 0 0 0 107 1395 0 0 437 218 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 128 590 209 0 0 0 107 1395 0 0 437 218 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --_-----_------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.28 1.27 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.67 Final Sat.: 393 1815 642 0 0 0 1425 2850 0 0 1902 948 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- Capacity -- -Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 Crit Vol: 463 0 698 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 0 Existing PM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:57:12 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 43 Alameda/Foothill *k##****#****#**k*#***k#****#***k#**k##***##*****#**k#*****#***#****#****#**k#** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.589 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A k****k#*****#****#**k*********k#*****#**k*****k*#***k#*********#**k*#***k*#*k*#* Street Name: Alameda Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 ----- Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 35 73 82 46 48 17 14 1292 83 47 669 40 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 73 82 46 48 17 14 1292 83 47 669 40 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 36 75 84 47 49 17 14 1322 85 48 685 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 36 75 84 47 49 17 14 1322 85 48 685 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 36 75 84 47 49 17 14 1322 85 48 685 41 ---_--------I---------------II-----_---------II---------------II------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.26 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1108 392 1500 2819 181 1500 2831 169 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.24 0.24 Crit Vol: 84 47 704 48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ***# Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA • Existing PM Tue Oct 23, 2007 16:57:12 Page 5-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Base Volume Alternative) k**#**#k**k**k*******k************************************k********************* Intersection k4 Pasadena/Foothill Cycle (sec): 85 Critical vol./Cap.(X): 0.723 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Pasadena Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------11---------------II---------------11--------------- Control: -------------Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II --------------- II--------------- II_--------------{ Volume Module: » Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 23 90 22 173 113 48 39 1364 30 21 705 123 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 90 22 173 113 48 39 1364 30 21 705 123 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 24 92 23 17B 116 49 40 1402 31 22 725 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 92 23 178 116 49 40 1402 31 22 725 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 24 92 23 178 116 49 40 1402 31 22 725 126 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.70 0.30 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 1425 1145 280. 1425 1000 425 1425 2789 61 1425 2427 423 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.30 0.30 Crit Vol: 115 178 716 22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** *+*#**k***k**#***kk**##k#*kk**k***k****k**#***kk**#k***k***#***Yk#**+***Y****k** Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing AM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:14:58 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Intersection #1 San Gabriel/Foothill ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cycle (sec): 93 Critical Vol./Cap-(X): 0.664 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: B Street Name: San Gabriel Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R _____-___ --------------- _______________ ______________I_______________I Control: I .Protected I Permitted ' Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ --------------- 11--------------- _______________ --------------- volume ___ --Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 0 0 0 202 1038 58 0 426 84 117 1083 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 202 1038 58 0 426 84 117 1083 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 202 1038 58 0 427 84 126 1086 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _0.92 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 466 92 137 1184 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 466 92 137 1184 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 220 1132 63 0 466 92 137 1184 0 ___________________________ --------------- --------------- _______-_______� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 3.20 0.18 0.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.': 0 0 0 887 4558 255 0 2382 468 1425 2850 0 ___________________________ --------------- ______________________________� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.42 0.00 Crit Volume: 0 354 0 592 Crit- Moves: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tra£fix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing AM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:14:58 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Azusa/Foothill Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.776 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 83 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Azusa Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- II --------------- __------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ --------------- II ----- --------------- _--------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 203 403 78 0 0 0 101 515 0 0 1012 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 203 403 78 0 0 0 101 515 0 0 1012 90 Added Vol: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 203 403 81 0 0 0 101 516 0 0 1024 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 224 445 89 0 0 0 111 570 0 0 1130 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 224 445 89 0 0 0 111 570 0 0 1130 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 224 445 89 0 0 0 111 570 0 0 1130 99 ------------ --------------- -------"'-------------------- ---_-----------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 Lanes: 0.59 1.17 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 842 1672 336 0 0 0 1425 2850 0 0 2620 230 -----_------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 Crit Volume: 379 0 111 615 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 0 0 Existing AM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:14:58 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 43 Alameda/Foothill Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap-Ml 0.543 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Alameda Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II --------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 12 22 27 34 11 19 10 557 24 30 1214 36 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 22 27 34 11 19 10 557 24 30 1214 36 Added Vol: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 12 22 30 34 11 19 10 561 24 39 1226 36 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 14 25 35 39 13 22 12 649 28 45 1417 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 25 35 39 13 22 12 649 28 45 1417 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 14 25 35 39 13 22 12 649 28 45 1417 42 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 1500 1500 1500 1500 550 950 1500 2877 123 1500 2914 86 ------------ I--------------- _______________ --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.49 0.49 Crit Volume: 35 39 12 729 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 0 0 Existing AM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:14:58 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Pasadena/Foothill Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.834 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 112 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Pasadena Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------------- I--------------- I--------------- ----__-------__I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 61 109 30 169 133 32 48 507 15 20 1190 151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 61 109 30 169 133 32 48 507 15 20 1190 151 Added Vol: 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 62 109 30 169 133 33 52 507 19 20 1190 151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 72 126 35 195 153 38 60 585 22 23 1373 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 72 126 35 195 153 38 60 585 22 23 1373 174 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finalvolume: 72 126 35 195 153 38 60 585 22 23 1373 174 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --_------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.77 0.23 Final Sat.: 1425 1117 308 1425 1142 283 1425 2747 103 1425 2529 321 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.54 0.54 Crit Volume: 160 195 60 773 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traf f ix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing PM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:15:27 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 San Gabriel/Foothill Cycle (sec): 93 Critical Vol./Cap-(X): 0.852 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxXX Optimal Cycle: 125 Level Of Service: D Street Name: San Gabriel Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L Control: Protected Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ___________________________ _______________ --------------- 11______________-� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1294 223 176 550 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 149 636 84 0 1298 223 185 553 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1355 233 193 577 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1355 233 193 577 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 156 664 88 0 1355 233 193 577 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.93 0.39 0.00 1.71 .0.29 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 977 4172 551 0 2432 418 1425 2850 0 ___________________________ --------------- ______________________________� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.14 0.20 0.00 Crit Volume: 0 227 794 193 Crit Moves: •*+i +*x+ it*f Traf£ix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Azusa/Foothill Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.820 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 103 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Azusa Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Control: Permitted Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 Added Vol: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 122 563 210 0 0 0 102 1335 0 0 429 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95.0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.27 1.26 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.65 Final Sat.: 388 1793 669 D 0 0 1425 2850 0 0 1919 931 -------_---_I --------------- --------------- ---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 Crit Volume: 469 0 700 0 Crit Moves:. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:15:27 Page 4-1 ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Azusa/Foothill Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.820 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 103 Level Of Service: D Street Name: Azusa Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Control: Permitted Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 122 563 199 0 0 0 102 1331 0 0 417 208 Added Vol: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 122 563 210 0 0 0 102 1335 0 0 429 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95.0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 590 220 0 0 0 107 1399 0 0 450 218 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.27 1.26 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.65 Final Sat.: 388 1793 669 D 0 0 1425 2850 0 0 1919 931 -------_---_I --------------- --------------- ---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 Crit Volume: 469 0 700 0 Crit Moves:. Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA Existing PM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:15:27 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Alameda/Foothill Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cdp.(X): 0.607 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Alameda Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ' ___________________________ __________11____________________________-_� Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 35 73 82 46. 48 17 14 1292 83 47 669 40 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 73 82 46 48 17 14 1292 83 47 669 40 Added Vol: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 15 0 9 12 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 35 73 93 46 48 17 14 1307 83 56 681 40 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 36 75 95 47 49 17 14 1338 85 57 697 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 Reduced Vol: 36 75 95 47 49 17 14 1336 85 57 697 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 36 75 95 47 49 17 14 1338 85 57 697 41 ____________ _______________11_______________ _____________________________-� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.26 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1108 392 1500 2621 179 1500 2834 166 ____________I_______________ _______ ______________________________� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.04 0.25 0.25 Crit Volume: 95 47 711 57 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA s a Existing PM Plus Project Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:15:27 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Pasadena/Foothill Cycle (sec): 85 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.725 Loss Time (see): 0 (Y+R=4.0 see). Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 68 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Pasadena Foothill Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------- --------------- --------------- --_--_---------� Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 _I---------------II--_--_-_----___I__-____--------I------------___I Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2007 << Base Vol: 23 90 22 173 113 48 39 1364 30 21 705 123 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 90 22 173 113 48 39 1364 30 21 705 123 Added Vol: 5 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 90 22 173 113 53 43 1364 34 21 705 123 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 29 92 23 178 116 54 44 1402 35 22 725 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 92 23 178 116 54 44 1402 35 22 725 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 92 23 178 116 54 44 1402 35 22 725 126 --------------- --------------- ------------------------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.68 0.32 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 1425 1145 280 1425 970 455 1425 2781 69 1425 2427 423 ----------_- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.30 0.30 Crit Volume: 115 178 718 22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA