The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutF-1 Staff Report - TOD Specific Plan Part 2SECTION 3 MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 Direction for Public Realm Improvements MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 SECTION 3 CONTENTS 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................3-1 3.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS ...........3-4 3.2.1 Sidewalks and Landscaping ....................................3-4 3.2.2 Paseos .........................................................................3-5 3.2.3 Crossings .....................................................................3-6 3.2.4 Plazas and Public Spaces ........................................3-8 3.3 CIRCULATION AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ........3-10 3.3.1 Azusa Avenue ..........................................................3-11 3.3.2 San Gabriel Avenue ................................................3-14 3.3.3 Alameda Avenue ....................................................3-17 3.3.4 9th Street ..................................................................3-20 3.3.5 Foothill Boulevard ....................................................3-23 3.4 BICYCLE ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS ..............3-27 3.5 PUBLIC/PRIVATE TRANSIT .......................................3-30 3.6 STREETSCAPE FURNISHINGS ..................................3-32 3.6.1 Specific Plan Area Improvements .........................3-32 3.6.2 Downtown Streetscape Improvements ................3-33 3.6.3 Route 66 Streetscape Improvements ....................3-35 3.6.4 APU/Citrus Avenue Station and College Connection Streetscape Improvements ..............3-37 3.7 GATEWAYS AND SIGNAGE ...................................3-39SUBSECTIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-1 Streetscape and Beautification Map ...............................3-2 3-2 Paseo Opportunity between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue ......................................................................3-5 3-3 Example of Signalized Intersection Improvements at San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard ....................3-7 3-4 Example of Unsignalized Intersection Improvements at Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard ............................3-7 3-5 Plaza and Public Space Opportunities .............................3-9 3-6 Circulation Map.................................................................3-10 3-7 Azusa Avenue Cross Sections ..........................................3-12 3-8 San Gabriel Avenue Cross Sections ................................3-15 3-9 Temporary Street Closure Opportunities ........................3-18 3-10 Alameda Avenue Cross Sections ..................................3-18 3-11 9th Street Cross Sections .................................................3-21 3-12 Foothill Boulevard Cross Sections ...................................3-24 3-13 Bicycle Map .....................................................................3-28 3-14 Public Transit Map ...........................................................3-31 3-1 Azusa Avenue Tree Palette ..............................................3-13 3-2 San Gabriel Avenue Tree Palette ....................................3-16 3-3 Alameda Avenue Tree Palette ........................................3-19 3-4 9th Street Tree Palette.......................................................3-22 3-5 Foothill Boulevard Tree Palette ........................................3-25FIGURESTABLES MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-1 May 2018 owners, and residents with the needs of motorists to move safely and efficiently along the area’s roadways. The volume and speed of traffic, wide streets, and expansive parking lots can discourage pedestrian activity. Traffic information and recommendations contained in this section rely in large part on the traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan prepared by Fehr and Peers. In addition to the completed traffic impact analysis, the City of Azusa in coordination with Caltrans, will also evaluate individual project applications based on the policies listed below. • The City of Azusa will ensure that future development applicants who expect to meet the project applicability thresholds listed in Section 6.4, Page 6-4, will consult with Caltrans during the scoping of the required Transportation Impact Study (TIS). • The City of Azusa will ensure that TIS analysis methods for state facilities apply the latest version of Caltrans guidance for a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or equivalent state of the practice methods and guidance (e.g. HCM 2010, California Highway Design Manual, CAMUTCD). As part of the Gold Line Phase II light rail extension, the City will be home to two new stations: the Azusa Downtown Station and the APU/Citrus Avenue Station. These stations serve as a natural foundation for Transit- Oriented Development to occur within a 1/4- mile of the stations. This section of the Specific Plan discusses the role of mobility to support the vision and goals for the planning area (Section 1.7). It presents recommendations and guidelines for the main thoroughfares in the Specific Plan Area (Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and their cross streets), including traffic calming, bicycle facilities, pedestrian transit, and parking improvements. Streetscape beautification within the Specific Plan Area is one of the primary goals of the Specific Plan. Existing streetscape conditions include gaps in the sidewalk network, a lack of human-scale along some street frontages, and wide expanse of asphalt dominated by automobile through traffic. This section includes recommendations and guidelines for improving the streetscape to create a more pedestrian-oriented environment by reducing the dominance of the roadway and bringing about a distinct identity around the transit stations, within the Downtown and along the Foothill Boulevard/Alosta Avenue corridor. The existing automobile-dominated street pattern developed in the past presents a number of challenges when trying to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. A major challenge to improving the Specific Plan Area will be to strike a balance between the needs of pedestrians, shoppers, employees, business 3.1 INTRODUCTION Metro Rail in South Pasadena. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-2 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 ÉÖyawliaR FSNB & enildloG 8th St AT & S F R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION EMEHT 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBEMEHT 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBãããã^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOWAPU/CitrusCollege Station AREAOF NOCHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE H M E E T 6 6 E T U O R ÅB ÅBÆb Æb Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific PlanCITY OF AZUSA Streetscape Beautification Opportunites 0 500 1,000250Feet µGateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit Site Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Date: 6/18/2015Downtown Streetscape Beautification Route 66 Streetscape Beautification Citrus Station Streetscape BeautificationParcel Boundary Æb Route 66 Intersection Improvements^) Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements TTIOOOOBBÅÅÅÅF TETETTSSS PPEPE ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉUO 6666 CCAA OOONNOONN CICCAAEAAAACCAAAA BBBE BBÅÅÅÅÅBÅÅ BÅÅÅÅÅÅÅFigure 3-1: Streetscape and Beautification Map MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-3 May 2018ÉÖyawliaR FSNB & enildloG 8th St AT & S F R ail w a yAlameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIONEMEHT 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBEMEHT 66 ETUORÅB ÅBãããã^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOWAPU/CitrusCollege Station AREAOF NOCHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE H ME ET 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBÆb Æb Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific PlanCITY OF AZUSA Streetscape Beautification Opportunites 0 500 1,000250Feet µGateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit Site Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Date: 6/18/2015Downtown Streetscape Beautification Route 66 Streetscape Beautification Citrus Station Streetscape BeautificationParcel Boundary ÆbRoute 66Intersection Improvements^) Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements TTIOOOOBBÅÅÅÅF TETETTSSSPPEPE ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉUO6666 CCAAOOONNOONN CICCAAEAAAACCAAAABBBE BBÅÅÅÅÅBÅÅ BÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÉÖyawliaR FSNB & enildloG 8th St AT & S F R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION EMEHT 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBEMEHT 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBãããã^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOWAPU/CitrusCollege Station AREAOF NOCHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE H M E E T 6 6 E T U O R ÅB ÅBÆb Æb Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific PlanCITY OF AZUSA Streetscape Beautification Opportunites 0 500 1,000250Feet µGateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit Site Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Date: 6/18/2015Downtown Streetscape Beautification Route 66 Streetscape Beautification Citrus Station Streetscape BeautificationParcel Boundary Æb Route 66 Intersection Improvements^) Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements TTIOOOOBBÅÅÅÅF TETETTSSS PPEPE ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉUO 6666 CCAA OOONNOONN CICCAAEAAAACCAAAA BBBE BBÅÅÅÅÅBÅÅ BÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÉÖyawliaR FSNB & enildloG 8th St AT & S F R ail w a yAlameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill BlvdFoothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th StAngeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION 9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon&&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIONEMEHT 66 ETUORÅB ÅBEMEHT 66 ETUORÅB ÅBãããã^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOWAPU/CitrusCollege Station AREAOF NOCHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE AREA OFNO CHANGE H ME ET 66 ETUOR ÅB ÅBÆb Æb Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific PlanCITY OF AZUSA Streetscape BeautificationOpportunites 0 500 1,000250Feet µGateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit Site Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Date: 6/18/2015Downtown Streetscape Beautification Route 66 Streetscape Beautification Citrus Station Streetscape BeautificationParcel Boundary ÆbRoute 66Intersection Improvements^) Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements TTIOOOOBBÅÅÅÅF TETETTSSSPPEPE ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉUO6666 CCAAOOONNOONN CICCAAEAAAACCAAAABBBEBBÅÅÅÅÅBÅÅ BÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS Enhancing the pedestrian experience is one of the primary goals of this Specific Plan. Street trees, landscaping, consistent street furnishings, parking access from side streets and paseos, and safe street crossings all contribute to an appealing street scene and pedestrian-friendly environment. Development within the Specific Plan should conform to the following guidelines and recommendations. 3.2.1 Sidewalks and Landscaping Pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the Specific Plan Area with sidewalks present on local streets. Sidewalks are generally comfortable for pedestrian circulation along Azusa Avenue with landscaping, seating, adequate clear sidewalk area, ADA compliant curb ramps, and active ground floor uses, but additional improvements are necessary on surrounding streets. The maintenance of existing sidewalks should be addressed throughout the Specific Plan Area. Hazardous irregularities in the paving need to be repaired and maintained to City standards. As new development occurs, sidewalk installation and improvements will be included in areas where gaps and deficiencies exist. Well maintained and unobstructed sidewalks provide a safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Landscape planters provide space for shade trees and plants to soften the street. SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES A. Sidewalk areas should be enhanced through the incorporation of planter pots, plaza landscaping, and building setback landscaping. B. Containers and/or box planters may be used to enhance sidewalks, plazas, and courtyards. C. Parking lots should be screened with a landscaped wall or a landscaped buffer. D. Entries should be well signed and be shared with adjacent businesses where possible. E. In addition to a landscaped buffer or parkway, a consistent treatment of trees planted in tree grates or parkways should be incorporated to unify the streetscape and beautify the area (refer to specific street tree recommendations located within this Section for Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, 9th Street, and Foothill Boulevard). F. Maintain a minimum four foot sidewalk clearance and minimize the encroachment of public right-of-way infrastructure (e.g. light poles, signs) through site specific designs within this pedestrian zone. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-5 May 2018 PASEO GUIDELINES Existing paseo along Azusa Avenue within Downtown. Landscaped paseos provide visual intrigue between buildings. 3.2.2 Paseos Paseos provide an opportunity for improved pedestrian circulation within the Specific Plan Area while at the same time enhancing community character and creating distinctive urban spaces. Development within the Specific Plan should conform to the following guidelines and recommendations. A. Paseos should be incorporated into the design of large consolidated lots to enhance connectivity between alleys and primary streets. B. Paseos should be enhanced with landscaping, special paving treatment, signage, gateway treatment, lighting, and public art. A. A pedestrian walkway connecting San Gabriel Avenue to east of Azusa Avenue should be incorporated through the parking lot between CVS and Azusa Light and Water (see Figure 3-2). Æb Æb ÉÖGoldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF Rail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation APU/CitrusCollege Station THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing A3A2 37 36 DALTONPublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIONSTREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PotentialConnection &&&&kjPlannedParkingStructure kj StationParking ROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBããElevated Access ããããHistoricDepot ] ^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOW) ) HistoricResource HistoricResource Paseo Opportunity Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan TOD Opportunity Sites (City-owned property) CITY OF AZUSA # Opportunities 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Image from Azusa Metrolink PF - Choate Parking Consultants, Inc. (CPC) 02.22.13 Rosedale Specific Plan Area Route 66 Historic Monument/Intersection Improvements^) Potential Ampitheater]Streetscape Beautification Opportunity Site Within 1/4 Mile of Rail Station Gateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit SiteÆb TOD Opportunity Sites Parcel Boundary Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radius From Station Date: 6/18/2015 Potential Plazas) University/School Areas University/School Areas Outside Specific Plan Historic Resources Potential Plaza Potential Paseo Figure 3-2: Paseo opportunity between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue. PASEO IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-6 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3.2.3 Crossings A change in roadway materials provides a psychological clue to distinguish the pedestrian realm from the automotive realm. Accent paving contributes to the overall appeal of an intersection and should be located at corners on sidewalks and in crosswalks of major intersections. Development within the Specific Plan should conform to the following guidelines and recommendations. A. Crosswalks at all intersections should have consistent paving treatments to improve the visual appeal of the street, help designate distinct activity centers, and separate pedestrians from vehicles. B. The texture and tolerances of accent paving should consider universal design standards to accommodate the elderly, bicyclists, children in strollers and people with disabilities. Paving materials, for example, should not have deep grooves between pavers that may cause discomfort for someone with a fragile spine or poor mobility. C. Curb bulbouts should be installed to improve the horizontal clearance within the sidewalk zone and allow for streetscape amenities and a landscaped parkway with street trees. Reducing the curb-to-curb width of the roadway will also reduce the travel distance for pedestrians that are crossing at intersections. Existing crosswalk with paving treatment across from the future Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station on Azusa Avenue. CROSSING GUIDELINES A. Selected uncontrolled crossings or mid- block crossings along multi-lane roadways should be considered for enhancement based on the existing roadway volumes, speed limit, number of travel lanes to be crossed, and the presence of a median or other enhancement such as pedestrian actuated crossing beacons. B. Additional locations of signalized and unsignalized intersection improvements throughout the Specific Plan Area can be found in Figure 3-13. The following enhancements should be incorporated at selected signalized and unsignalized crosswalks as indicated in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4. CROSSING IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-7 May 2018 Figure 3-4: Example of Unsignalized Intersection Improvements at Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (refer to Figure 3-1).\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIPrototypical Unsignalized Intersection Recommendations Foothill & Dalton Figure X Foothill BlvdDalton Ave1 3 2 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Stripe crosswalks with high visibility pattern Curb extensions Yield to pedestrians signage Yield limit lines Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIPrototypical Unsignalized Intersection Recommendations Foothill & Dalton Figure X Foothill BlvdDalton Ave1 3 2 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 Stripe crosswalks with high visibility pattern Curb extensions Yield to pedestrians signage Yield limit lines Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons C. North-south marked crossings across Foothill Boulevard (at Angeleno Avenue, Dalton Avenue, and Soldano Avenue) should be enhanced with the following criteria (refer to Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-1 Streetscape Beautification Map: • Enhance median to provide pedestrian refuge area four- to six-feet-wide, or • Install curb extensions to shorten crossings and improve visibility, in conjunction with the provision of a pedestrian crossing beacon. • Consider converting to a high-visibility crosswalk pattern based on pedestrian activity in downtown and to reflect the crossing is uncontrolled. • Install advanced limit lines indicating where motorists should stop when a pedestrian is crossing the street. • Maintain or update crossings to include the most recent Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) pedestrian crossing signage standards. D. If Azusa Avenue is converted to a two-way street, additional enhancements should be included to address the change in roadway conditions.\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIPrototypical Signalized Intersection Recommendations Foothill & San Gabriel Figure X Foothill Blvd San Gabriel Ave5 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 Stripe crosswalks with parallel lines Curb extensions with directional curb ramps and landscaping Medians, where possible Protected left-turn phasing, where possible Stop bars Figure 3-3: Example of Signalized Intersection Improvements at San Gabriel Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (refer to Figure 3-1).\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIPrototypical Signalized Intersection Recommendations Foothill & San Gabriel Figure X Foothill Blvd San Gabriel Ave5 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 Stripe crosswalks with parallel lines Curb extensions with directional curb ramps and landscaping Medians, where possible Protected left-turn phasing, where possible Stop bars CROSSING IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-8 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3.2.4 Plazas and Public Spaces Plazas and public spaces help enliven the pedestrian environment by creating places for community events, personal interaction, and outdoor recreation. The Specific Plan Area presents a number of opportunities for the incorporation of new plazas and public spaces for the benefit and enjoyment of residents and visitors of Azusa. The existing Veterans Freedom Park, located north of City Hall, provides the foundation for expanding public spaces adjacent to Downtown and the Azusa Downtown Station. Closing or limiting vehicular traffic along Alameda Avenue could be utilized for pedestrian-oriented interventions. Alternatively, this portion of Alameda Avenue could be temporarily closed for community events, festivals, farmer’s markets, or parades with removable bollards placed at Foothill Boulevard to close off the street during events. Amphitheater’s create focal points for community gatherings.Temporary closure of Alameda Avenue can allow community events like Winter Family Fiesta to grow and occur adjacent to Downtown. Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue represent a major intersection of activity within the Specific Plan Area. This intersection provides an opportunity for creating a plaza and/or public space that anchors and accentuates the Downtown pedestrian environment. With the extension of the Gold Line to Azusa, it is expected that the number of people frequenting Downtown will increase. Introducing a Welcome Plaza adjacent to the Azusa Downtown Station will encourage visitors to explore Downtown and patronize local businesses. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-9 May 2018 The prominence of the Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue intersection provides an opportunity to create a public plaza. A. A portion of Alameda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard and east of Santa Fe Avenue should be temporarily closed on an ongoing basis to create a linear plaza connecting Veteran’s Memorial Park and the City Library with the Azusa Downtown Station (see Figure 3-5). B. Incorporate an amphitheater into the design of Veterans Freedom Park (see Figure 3-5). C. Provide a future plaza/public space for the Downtown area at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue (see Figure 3-5). D. Create a Welcome Plaza adjacent to the Azusa Downtown Station along Santa Fe Avenue (see Figure 3-5). PLAZA IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 3-5: Plaza and Public Space Opportunities Æb Æb ÉÖGoldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF Rail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation APU/CitrusCollege Station THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing A3A2 37 36 DALTONPublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIONSTREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PotentialConnection &&&&kjPlannedParkingStructure kj StationParking ROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBããElevated Access ããããHistoricDepot ] ^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOW) ) HistoricResource HistoricResource Paseo Opportunity Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan TOD Opportunity Sites (City-owned property) CITY OF AZUSA # Opportunities 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Image from Azusa Metrolink PF - Choate Parking Consultants, Inc. (CPC) 02.22.13 Rosedale Specific Plan Area Route 66 Historic Monument/Intersection Improvements^) Potential Ampitheater]Streetscape Beautification Opportunity Site Within 1/4 Mile of Rail Station Gateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit SiteÆb TOD Opportunity Sites Parcel Boundary Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radius From Station Date: 6/18/2015 Potential Plazas) University/School Areas University/School Areas Outside Specific Plan Historic Resources Potential Plaza Potential Paseo C B A D MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-10 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3.3 CIRCULATION AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Azusa Avenue at Interstate 210. Major streets serving the Specific Plan Area include Foothill Boulevard and 9th Street in the east-west direction, and Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, and Alameda Avenue in the north-south direction. Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue currently operate as a one-way couplet, Azusa Avenue to the north and San Gabriel Avenue to the south. Interstate 210 (I-210) lies about 0.9 miles to the south and west of the Specific Plan Area. The characteristics and improvements recommended to select arterials serving the Specific Plan Area are listed on the following pages and illustrated in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-6: Circulation Map Æb Æb 9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent Dr Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonMiddleSchool SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°±²¯°³´¯°³´¯°³´AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation APU/Citrus CollegeStationAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Æ b No Through Access Crosswalk *On-street parking exists throughout the study area Foothill Transit 185 Foothill Transit 187 Foothill Transit 280 Foothill Transit 281 Foothill Transit 494 Stop Sign Potential Bike/Ped Connection Signalized Intersection Significant Intersection Number of Auto Travel Lanes# Existing Circulation Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet San Gabriel River Trail From Canyon To Canyon ROUTE 66 Under Construction No Through Access Potential Trail Opportunity 605 210 10& 57 4 2 2 2 2 4 Paseo Opportunity 2 Æb Æb 9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonMiddleSchool SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°±²¯°³´¯°³´¯°³´AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation APU/Citrus CollegeStationAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Æ b No Through Access Crosswalk *On-street parking exists throughout the study area Foothill Transit 185 Foothill Transit 187 Foothill Transit 280 Foothill Transit 281 Foothill Transit 494 Stop Sign Potential Bike/Ped Connection Signalized Intersection Significant Intersection Number of Auto Travel Lanes# Existing Circulation Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet San Gabriel River Trail From Canyon To Canyon ROUTE 66 Under Construction No Through Access Potential Trail Opportunity 605 210 10& 57 4 2 2 2 2 4 Paseo Opportunity 2 MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-11 May 2018 Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th St AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege THE PROMENADE Foothill Vista Mobile Home Park Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAlameda AveDalton AvePackingHouse 9th St ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&McKeever AveCrescent Dr 5th St Azusa Veterans WyFoothill Blvd AREAOF NOCHANGE AtlantisGardens Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area St Francis ofRome School Veteran'sFreedomPark CityHall SlausonPark LeeElementary SlausonMiddleSchool DaltonElementary APU/CitrusCollege Station Azusa DowntownStation SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Parcel Boundary Transit Site CITY OF AZUSA Æb Specific Plan Area 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Date: 5/4/2015 Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 3.3.1 Azusa Avenue Azusa Avenue is envisioned as the main north- south connection from the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station, Downtown Azusa, and Azusa Canyon. It is currently a secondary arterial serving one-way northbound circulation immediately west of the proposed Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station. It provides two- lanes with parallel parking between 9th and 10th Streets. Angled parking is provided intermittently from 9th Street to 6th Street. The speed limit on Azusa is 25 mph. Existing streetscape improvements include bulbouts at intersections and special paving treatment at crosswalks along Azusa Avenue within the Specific Plan Area. Street trees, landscaping, and street furnishings are incorporated from 6th Street up to 9th Street. While the existing streetscape is aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly, it lacks opportunities for bicycles and limits vehicular access to local businesses. Converting Azusa Existing conditions on Azusa Avenue north of the railroad tracks.Downtown streetscape south of Foothill Boulevard. Azusa Avenue Key Map MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-12 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Figure 3-7: Azusa Avenue Cross Sections 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train TracksBetween Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train TracksBetween Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer A. Convert Azusa Avenue from a one-way couplet to a two-way, undivided street. Reconfiguration should include one travel lane in each direction with angled or parallel on-street parking. A two-way circulation network will aid in slowing vehicular traffic within the Specific Plan Area due to friction from two-way circulation while also improving vehicular access to local businesses and the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station. B. Physical curb lines should remain intact requiring minimal improvements necessary to implement this concept. C. Reorient signage and pavement markings along Azusa Avenue to facilitate safe, two- way circulation.Mid-block bulbouts and crosswalk provide safe pedestrian crossing south of Foothill Boulevard. AZUSA AVE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSAvenue to a two-way street will improve visibility of businesses, enhance access to regional travel facilities, and improve the overall pedestrian environment. These benefits along Azusa Avenue can be accommodated without the need for changing the existing curb line of the street. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-13 May 2018 Azusa Avenue Streetscape Palette With the majority of Azusa Avenue maintaining existing, unified streetscape improvements, limited enhancements are envisioned for this street. Streetscape improvements should include: A. Bulbouts at the 9th Street and Foothill Boulevard intersections. B. New wayfinding signage to direct vehicles and pedestrians to and from the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station, Downtown, and future parking areas. For those portions of Azusa Avenue passing through the Gold Line, Downtown, or Transition Districts, street improvements should be installed in conformance with Section 3.2, Section 3.6, and Section 3.7 related to: • Sidewalks and Landscaping • Paseos • Crossings • Plazas and Public Spaces • Streetscape Furnishings • Gateways and Signage Street trees installed along Azusa Avenue shall be selected from the list provided in Table 3-1. Preferred trees are indicated in Bold type. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYP. HEIGHT TYP. SPREAD TYPE COMMENTS AZUSA AVELagerstroemia indica ‘Purple Tower’ Crape Myrtle 25 20 deciduous designated street tree Tristania laurina Water Gum 20 10 evergreen street tree Cercis canadensis ‘Oklahoma’ Eastern Redbud 35 30 deciduous accent tree Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’ Eastern Redbud 35 30 deciduous designated accent tree Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade 40 20 evergreen street tree Calodendron capense Cape Chestnut 40 40 semi accent tree Table 3-1: Azusa Avenue Tree Palette STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-14 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 San Gabriel Avenue Key Map 3.3.2 San Gabriel Avenue San Gabriel Avenue is a collector street serving one-way southbound circulation one block west of the future Azusa Downtown Station. It provides four-lanes of through traffic and parallel parking currently from 10th Street to 6th Street, with the exception of some angled parking on the east side of the street between 9th Street and the railroad tracks. The speed limit on San Gabriel Avenue is 35 mph. Streetscape improvements along San Gabriel Avenue include bulbouts at some intersections and mid-block crossings. Unique crosswalk pavings have been incorporated at the Foothill Boulevard intersection. Mature oak trees line the street from 9th Street to 6th Street. A goal of this Specific Plan is to expand the Downtown area, create a pedestrian-friendly environment along San Gabriel Avenue, and provide an enhanced bicycle network. This will Existing conditions on San Gabriel Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard.Existing conditions on San Gabriel Avenue at 6th Street. Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th St AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege THE PROMENADE Foothill Vista Mobile Home Park Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAlameda AveDalton AvePackingHouse 9th St ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&McKeever AveCrescent Dr 5th St Azusa Veterans WyFoothill Blvd AREAOF NOCHANGE AtlantisGardens Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area St Francis ofRome School Veteran'sFreedomPark CityHall SlausonPark LeeElementary SlausonMiddleSchool DaltonElementary APU/CitrusCollege Station Azusa DowntownStation SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Parcel Boundary Transit Site CITY OF AZUSA Æb Specific Plan Area 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Date: 5/4/2015 Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-15 May 2018 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer Figure 3-8: San Gabriel Avenue Cross Sections 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer Bulbout with landscaping on San Gabriel Avenue. be accomplished through a modification of the vehicular circulation pattern to two-way travel. Modifying the circulation to two-way travel will improve visibility of new and existing businesses, enhance access to regional travel facilities, and improve the overall pedestrian environment. A focal point of this proposal is the integration of new on-street bike lanes along San Gabriel Avenue, a first in Azusa, that will enhance access to the Azusa Downtown Station and the San Gabriel River Trail. SAN GABRIEL AVE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A. New Class II bicycle lanes should be installed to conform with the General Plan, see Bicycle Map, Figure 3-13. B. Consistent with General Plan Policy 4.2, convert San Gabriel Avenue from a one-way couplet to a two-way street. Reconfiguration should include one travel lane in each direction, a median turn-lane, on-street parking, and bicycle lanes (refer to Figure 3-13). C. A two-way circulation network will help slow vehicular traffic in the area due to friction from two-way circulation and reduced directional capacity and improve vehicular access to local businesses and Azusa Canyon. D. Physical curb lines should remain in tact to minimize improvements, however, signage and pavement markings will need to be reoriented for two-way circulation. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-16 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 San Gabriel Avenue Streetscape Palette San Gabriel Avenue provides a number of opportunities for improving upon the existing streetscape palette. Streetscape improvements should include: Street improvements should be installed in conformance with Section 3.2, Section 3.6, and Section 3.7 related to: • Sidewalks and Landscaping • Paseos • Crossings • Plazas and Public Spaces • Streetscape Furnishings • Gateways and Signage Street trees installed along San Gabriel Avenue shall be selected from the list provided in Table 3-2. Preferred trees are indicated in Bold type. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYP. HEIGHT TYP. SPREAD TYPE COMMENTS SAN GABRIEL AVECercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 35 30 deciduous accent tree Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade 40 20 evergreen street tree Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 70 80 evergreen designated street tree Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 60 50 evergreen street tree Table 3-2: San Gabriel Avenue Tree Palette STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bulbout and mid-block crossings should be incorporated at the 9th Street and Foothill Boulevard intersections. B. Crosswalks should be enhanced with special paving treatment or striping. C. Landscaping and street furnishings should be provided along the street and at bulbouts to enhance the pedestrian zone. D. Wayfinding signage should be provided to direct vehicles and pedestrians to the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and the Downtown where appropriate. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-17 May 2018 Alameda Avenue Key Map 3.3.3 Alameda Avenue Alameda Avenue is a north-south collector street within the Specific Plan Area with no through access to north of the railroad tracks due to abandonment of the right-of-way. Alameda Avenue provides two-lanes with parallel parking north of the railroad tracks and two-lanes with angled parking from the railroad tracks south to 6th Street. The speed limit is 25 mph. Roadway improvements installed along Alameda Avenue include bulbouts and landscaped medians. Decorative pavings have been incorporated within crosswalks at the intersection with Foothill Boulevard as well as at midblock crossings between the railroad tracks and Foothill Boulevard. Due to the roadway abandonment, an opportunity for temporary closure for special Existing conditions on Alameda Avenue south of railroad tracks. Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th St AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege THE PROMENADE Foothill Vista Mobile Home Park Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAlameda AveDalton AvePackingHouse 9th St ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&McKeever AveCrescent Dr 5th St Azusa Veterans WyFoothill Blvd AREAOF NOCHANGE AtlantisGardens Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area St Francis ofRome School Veteran'sFreedomPark CityHall SlausonPark LeeElementary SlausonMiddleSchool DaltonElementary APU/CitrusCollege Station Azusa DowntownStation SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Parcel Boundary Transit Site CITY OF AZUSA Æb Specific Plan Area 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Date: 5/4/2015 Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 Example of a bicycle sharrow integrated into an existing roadway. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-18 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Figure 3-10: Alameda Avenue Cross Sections Figure 3-9: Temporary Street Closure Opportunities 19’19’14’14’ 8’8’25’25’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 14’14’ Median 13’16’15’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks 19’19’9’ 9’ 8’8’20’20’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave Between Alosta Ave & Citrus Ave- 72’\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure 1 Auto Pedestrian Bicycle Landscaping 5’5’ 5’5’ 19’19’14’14’ 8’8’25’25’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 14’14’ Median 13’16’15’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks 19’19’9’ 9’ 8’8’20’20’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave Between Alosta Ave & Citrus Ave- 72’\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure 1 Auto Pedestrian Bicycle Landscaping 5’5’ 5’5’ Temporary street closures create space for community events. 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer ALAMEDA AVE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer events exists along Alameda Avenue between Veterans Park and Foothill Boulevard. If Alameda Avenue is temporarily closed for events, removable bollards should be installed at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Alameda Avenue. This concept is further described in Section 3.2.4. Æb Æb ÉÖGoldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF Rail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege SlausonMiddleSchool Veteran'sFreedomPark Azusa DowntownStation APU/CitrusCollege Station THE PROMENADEAzusa VeteraFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing A3A2 37 36 DALTONPublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´Alameda AveDalton AveSlausonPark LeeElementary AtlantisGardens PackingHouse STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIONSTREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION9th St Azusa PacificUniversity DaltonElementary RosedaleSpecific Plan Area Potential Trail Opportunity ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&St Francisof Rome School STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PotentialConnection &&&&kjPlannedParkingStructure kj StationParking ROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBROUTE 66 THEME ÅB ÅBããElevated Access ããããHistoricDepot ] ^) 9th St Crescent D rMcKeever Ave9th St SLOWSLOW) ) HistoricResource HistoricResource Paseo Opportunity Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan TOD Opportunity Sites (City-owned property) CITY OF AZUSA # Opportunities 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Image from Azusa Metrolink PF - Choate Parking Consultants, Inc. (CPC) 02.22.13 Rosedale Specific Plan Area Route 66 Historic Monument/Intersection Improvements^) Potential Ampitheater]Streetscape Beautification Opportunity Site Within 1/4 Mile of Rail Station Gateway ÉÖFuture Traffic Control Transit SiteÆb TOD Opportunity Sites Parcel Boundary Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radius From Station Date: 6/18/2015 Potential Plazas) University/School Areas University/School Areas Outside Specific Plan Historic Resources Potential Plaza Potential Paseo Temporary Street Closure A. New Class II bicycle lanes should be installed to conform with the General Plan, see Bicycle Map, Figure 3-13. B. Wayfinding signage should be provided for the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station, City Hall, Veteran’s Freedom Park, Azusa Library, and the Police Station. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-19 May 2018 Alameda Avenue Streetscape Palette A. Streetscape improvements should include bulbouts and mid-block crossings at the Foothill Boulevard and 9th Street intersections as outlined in Section 3.2.3. B. Crosswalks should be enhanced with special paving treatment or striping along Alameda Avenue. C. Provide mid-block crossings between Foothill Boulevard and 6th Street and 5th Street. D. Landscaping and street furnishings should be provided along the street and at bulbouts to enhance the pedestrian zone. E. Planters should be incorporated within parking zones to increase landscape areas and provide a buffer along the sidewalk for pedestrians. Streetscape improvements should be installed in conformance with Section 3.2, Section 3.6, and Section 3.7 related to: • Sidewalks and Landscaping • Paseos • Crossings • Plazas and Public Spaces • Streetscape Furnishings • Gateways and Signage Street trees installed along Alameda Avenue shall be selected from the list provided in Table 3-3. Preferred trees are indicated in Bold type. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYP. HEIGHT TYP. SPREAD TYPE COMMENTS ALAMEDA AVEArecastrum romanzoffianum Queen Palm 50 20 evergreen street tree Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottlebrush 25 20 evergreen street tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25 20 deciduous street tree, median tree, mildew resistant only Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm 60 10 palm street tree Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree 50 60 evergreen designated street tree Table 3-3: Alameda Avenue Tree Palette STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-20 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 9th Street Key Map 3.3.4 9th Street 9th Street is a two-lane collector street with parallel parking on both sides within the Specific Plan Area. It is the main route that connects the Azusa Downtown Station with the APU/Citrus Avenue Station north of the railroad tracks. The speed limit is 25 mph. Minimal streetscape improvements exist along 9th Street, with patches of street trees and parkway landscaping existing on portions of both sides of the street. More recent improvements between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue include trash cans, lighting, benches, landscaping, and trees in tree wells. 9th Street is envisioned to become a primary link between the future transit stations and neighboring residential areas. Improved sidewalks and sharrows will improve access for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th St AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege THE PROMENADE Foothill Vista Mobile Home Park Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAlameda AveDalton AvePackingHouse 9th St ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&McKeever AveCrescent Dr 5th St Azusa Veterans WyFoothill Blvd AREAOF NOCHANGE AtlantisGardens Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area St Francis ofRome School Veteran'sFreedomPark CityHall SlausonPark LeeElementary SlausonMiddleSchool DaltonElementary APU/CitrusCollege Station Azusa DowntownStation SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Parcel Boundary Transit Site CITY OF AZUSA Æb Specific Plan Area 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Date: 5/4/2015 Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 Existing conditions on 9th Street at San Gabriel Avenue.Existing conditions on 9th Street at Azusa Avenue. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-21 May 2018 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD 66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’Between Alameda Ave & Dalton Ave - 40’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 52’ Between Soldano Ave & Pasadena Ave - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED TWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREET PROPOSED Between Azusa Ave & Alameda Ave - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill Blvd South of Foothill Blvd \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer Figure 3-11: 9th Street Cross Sections 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 9TH ST IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Landscape buffers and street trees provide separation from the sidewalk for a walkable street within residential areas. A. New Class II and Class III bicycle lanes should be installed to conform with the General Plan, see Bicycle Map, Figure 3-13. B. Streetscape elements along 9th Street in the Rosedale Specific Plan Area should be continued into the Specific Plan Area, including street trees, landscaped parkways, sidewalk widths, lighting, and street furnishings. Note: Based on a preliminary review of planned bicycle facilities in the General Plan, installation of designated bicycle lanes may be constrained by the existing roadway configuration on 9th Street and therefore may require cross-section modifications to allow for bicycle lanes. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-22 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYP. HEIGHT TYP. SPREAD TYPE COMMENTS 9TH STLagerstroemia indica ‘White Flower’Crape Myrtle 25 20 deciduous designated street tree, mildew resistant only Robinia p. ‘Purple Robe’Purple Robe Locust 60 30 deciduous designated street tree within the Rosedale Development Table 3-4: 9th Street Tree Palette 9th Street Streetscape Palette A. Streetscape improvements should include bulbouts at the 9th Street and San Gabriel Avenue intersection as outlined in Section 3.2.3. B. Crosswalks should be enhanced with special paving treatment or striping. C. Landscaping and street furnishings should be provided along the street and at bulbouts to enhance the pedestrian zone. D. Wayfinding signage directing vehicles and pedestrians to the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and the Downtown should be provided. E. A median should be incorporated between Azusa Avenue and Alameda Avenue. F. Parkways and landscaped buffers should be provided to enhance the streetscape and reflect the character of the Gold Line District and Transition District. Street improvements should be installed in conformance with Section 3.2, Section 3.6, and Section 3.7 related to: • Sidewalks and Landscaping • Paseos • Crossings • Plazas and Public Spaces • Streetscape Furnishings • Gateways and Signage Street trees installed along 9th Street shall be selected from the list provided in Table 3-4. Preferred trees are indicated in Bold type. STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-23 May 2018 Foothill Boulevard Key Map 3.3.5 Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard is the principal east-west arterial within the Specific Plan Area and is a part of the historic Route 66. It is a four-lane divided arterial with parallel on-street parking. The speed limit on Foothill Boulevard within the Specific Plan Area is 35 mph. Streetscape improvements along Foothill Boulevard include a variety of trash cans, benches, and bus stops. A number of tree species are located along Foothill Boulevard, with additional tree varietals and landscaping located within existing medians. Crosswalks with unique pavings are located at the San Gabriel Avenue, Azusa Avenue, Alameda Avenue, and Dalton Avenue intersections. The vision for Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue is to recapture the essence of its historic Route 66 past and create a pedestrian- friendly link between Azusa Pacific University, Citrus College, and the Downtown. Special development standards located in Chapter 2 Existing conditions on Foothill Boulevard at Azusa Avenue.Existing crosswalk on Foothill Boulevard at San Gabriel Avenue. Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th St AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveOrange AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Soldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege THE PROMENADE Foothill Vista Mobile Home Park Azusa Light & Water CVS Pharmacy AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target Park Palm StAPUHousing PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAlameda AveDalton AvePackingHouse 9th St ToCanyonFromCanyon &&&&McKeever AveCrescent Dr 5th St Azusa Veterans WyFoothill Blvd AREAOF NOCHANGE AtlantisGardens Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area St Francis ofRome School Veteran'sFreedomPark CityHall SlausonPark LeeElementary SlausonMiddleSchool DaltonElementary APU/CitrusCollege Station Azusa DowntownStation SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATABASE MAP FEATURES TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary Parcel Boundary Transit Site CITY OF AZUSA Æb Specific Plan Area 0 490 980245Feet μ Image from EIR Report - TAHA Inc. 03.22.13 Date: 5/4/2015 Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept - 2010 3) Aerial photo of Target area from Google Earth - 04.2013 MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-24 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Figure 3-12: Foothill Boulevard Cross Sections 19’19’14’14’ 8’8’25’25’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 14’14’ Median 13’16’15’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks 19’19’9’ 9’ 8’8’20’20’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave Between Alosta Ave & Citrus Ave- 72’\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure 1 AutoPedestrian Bicycle Landscaping 5’5’ 5’5’ 19’19’14’14’ 8’8’25’25’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 8’8’14’14’14’ Median 10’10’ 14’14’ Median 13’16’15’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks 19’19’9’ 9’ 8’8’20’20’ ALAMEDA AVENUE 66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED North of Train Tracks South of Train Tracks FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 72’ - 78’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING CONDITION Between Alosta Ave & Angeleno Ave Between Alosta Ave & Citrus Ave- 72’\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure 1 Auto Pedestrian Bicycle Landscaping 5’5’ 5’5’ 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROW TWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer 8’ 8’6’ 12’ 14’14’ 14’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’ 8’8’11’ 12’ 11’5’5’3’3’8’12’ 12’ 12’ 22’ 8’8’ 8’8’ 23’23’ 8’8’18’18’8’8’10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 8’8’12’ 12’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 8’8’10’ 10’ 22’9’12’ 12’22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 22’9’ 12’ 12’ 22’9’12’ 12’ 8’8’5’+3’+3’5’10’ 10’ 10’ 5’5’3’3’ SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWEXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill South of Foothill SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD66’ EX. CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY (ROAD DIET) BUFFERED BIKE LANES 9th STREET EXISTING/NO BUILD Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’Between Alameda & Dalton - 40’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’Between Azusa & Alameda - 52’ Between Soldano & Pasadena - 36’ AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROW EXISTING/NO BUILD North of Train Tracks Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill AZUSA AVENUE | 55’ CURB-TO-CURB ROWTWO-WAY FRONT-IN PARKING North of Train Tracks 9TH STREETPROPOSED Between Azusa & Alameda - 62’ Between Train Tracks & Foothill South of Foothill \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\AIExisting & Proposed Roadway Configurations Figure X Auto Pedestrian Bicycle LandscapingPainted Buffer FOOTHILL BLVD IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS incentivize creative signage and whimsical public art within expanded setbacks. Themed street furnishings and improvements are described within Section 3.6.3 to reinforce this overarching vision. A. A new 10’ marked sharrow should be installed to conform with the General Plan designated bicycle route, see Bicycle Map, Figure 3-13. B. Public and private signage, thematic street furnishings, and unique architecture should be installed along the corridor. C. Public art should be incorporated into the streetscape to celebrate the history of Route 66. Wide sidewalk on Foothill Boulevard, east of Alosta Avenue connect Azusa Pacific and Citrus College. Future conditions on Foothill Boulevard should integrate bicycle lanes for multi-modal access. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-25 May 2018 Foothill Boulevard Streetscape Palette A. Install additional improvements including bulbouts at numerous intersections along Foothill Boulevard as identified in Section 3.2.3. B. Identify gaps within the street tree canopy along Foothill Boulevard and fill with appropriate street trees placed within tree wells. C. Incorporate additional landscaped medians along Foothill Boulevard, where appropriate. D. Wayfinding signage should be provided to direct vehicles and pedestrians to the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and the Downtown. E. Streetlight poles should be equipped with an additional hanging or cantilevered fixture for colored banners to capture the historic Route 66 theme, or other events, and to add an aesthetic element to the Specific Plan Area. Street improvements should be installed in conformance with Section 3.2, Section 3.6, and Section 3.7 related to: • Sidewalks and Landscaping • Paseos • Crossings • Plazas and Public Spaces • Streetscape Furnishings Gateways and Signage Street trees installed along Foothill Boulevard shall be selected from the list provided in Table 3-5. Preferred trees are indicated in Bold type. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYP. HEIGHT TYP. SPREAD TYPE COMMENTS FOOTHILL BLVDLagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25 20 deciduous median tree, Pyrus c. ‘Redspire’Redspire Pear 35 25 deciduous median tree Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree 50 40 evergreen designated street tree between San Gabriel and Cerritos Geijera parviflora Australian Willow 40 25 evergreen designated street tree Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova 40 40 deciduous median tree Table 3-5: Foothill Boulevard Tree Palette STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-26 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Medians Landscaped medians are currently installed along Foothill Boulevard between Angeleno Avenue and Cerritos Avenue. New landscaped medians should be installed along Foothill Boulevard between Cerritos Avenue and Citrus Avenue, where feasible. Medians shall be continuous and restrict left turns from collector streets. Medians should beautify the corridor and increase existing level of service conditions for collector streets that have been recommended for traffic signals. Medians should be planted with attractive landscaping supported by adequate drainage and irrigation systems. Medians also control vehicle- turning movements, increase traffic safety and demarcate pedestrian crossings and walkways. The landscape area provides a place for Specific Plan Area-specific directional signage, Route 66 iconography (where appropriate), and gateway monuments announcing key intersections while at the same time introducing aesthetically appealing color and greenery to the corridor. Medians should use a variety of tree species to prevent a “monoculture” of tree types and landscape character throughout the corridor. Plant species for the medians should consist of drought tolerant shrubs and ground covers. Stamped concrete or low-maintenance succulents should be used in the narrow portion of the medians at left turning pockets. Landscaped medians assist in beautifying a street or corridor. Drought tolerant landscaping reduces water use and overall maintenance. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-27 May 2018 3.4 BICYCLE ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS Class I Bicycle Path Class II Bicycle Path Class III Bicycle Path Within the Specific Plan Area, bicycle facilities are not currently provided. While the City of Azusa General Plan outlines planned bicycle facilities, this Specific Plan places additional emphasis on development of these bicycle facilities through the incorporation of the following recommended improvements: Path/Trail (Class I) A. Incorporate a bicycle path/trail near the APU/Citrus Avenue Gold Line Station along Azusa Veterans Way to connect with Sierra Madre Avenue. B. Create a neighborhood trail along 9th Street west of Angeleno Avenue along the inactive rail right-of-way between Angeleno Avenue and McKeever Avenue. Lane (Class II) A. Install bicycle lanes along San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, and segments of 9th Street, Alosta Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, and Citrus Avenue within the Specific Plan Area. Signed Route (Class III) A. Introduce bicycle lanes on 5th Street, Palm Street, Foothill Boulevard, Citrus Avenue, Alosta Avenue, and segments of 9th Street within the Specific Plan Area. BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-28 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Figure 3-13: Bicycle Map Æb Æb APU/Citrus CollegeStation9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall AzusaLight & Water AT&T Verizon PostOffice Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Proposed Bike Routes Proposed Bike Lanes Æb Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements Potential Bike/Ped Connection Proposed Bicycle & Intersection Improvements Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet Potential Trail Opportunity Azusa Ave: Two-Way w/ Front-in Angled Parking Ped/Bike Access to Ped/Bike Access to Citrus College San Gabriel Ave: Two-Way w/ Three Lanes & Bike Lanes MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-29 May 2018 Æb Æb APU/Citrus CollegeStation9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a yAlameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall AzusaLight & Water AT&T Verizon PostOffice Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit SiteProposed Bike Routes Proposed Bike Lanes Æb Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection ImprovementsPotential Bike/Ped Connection Proposed Bicycle & Intersection Improvements Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet Potential Trail Opportunity Azusa Ave: Two-Way w/ Front-in Angled Parking Ped/Bike Access to Ped/Bike Access to Citrus College San Gabriel Ave: Two-Way w/ Three Lanes & Bike Lanes Æb Æb APU/Citrus CollegeStation9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall AzusaLight & Water AT&T Verizon PostOffice Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Proposed Bike Routes Proposed Bike Lanes Æb Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection Improvements Potential Bike/Ped Connection Proposed Bicycle & Intersection Improvements Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet Potential Trail Opportunity Azusa Ave: Two-Way w/ Front-in Angled Parking Ped/Bike Access to Ped/Bike Access to Citrus College San Gabriel Ave: Two-Way w/ Three Lanes & Bike Lanes Æb Æb APU/Citrus CollegeStation9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a yAlameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall AzusaLight & Water AT&T Verizon PostOffice Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus AveAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit SiteProposed Bike Routes Proposed Bike Lanes Æb Signalized Intersection Improvements Unsignalized Intersection ImprovementsPotential Bike/Ped Connection Proposed Bicycle & Intersection Improvements Figure 1 0 390 780195Feet Potential Trail Opportunity Azusa Ave: Two-Way w/ Front-in Angled Parking Ped/Bike Access to Ped/Bike Access to Citrus College San Gabriel Ave: Two-Way w/ Three Lanes & Bike Lanes MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-30 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3.5 PUBLIC/PRIVATE TRANSIT The Specific Plan Area is served by Foothill Transit, Glendora Mini Bus, and the Azusa Pacific University Trolley. Foothill Transit bus routes are shown in Figure 3-14. Below is a list of the bus and rail routes that currently provide service to and around the Specific Plan Area: • Foothill Transit Line 185 - Line 185 connects Azusa, West Covina, and Hacienda Heights via Irwindale. In the Specific Plan Area, this line runs along Foothill Boulevard ending at San Gabriel Avenue. • Foothill Transit Line 187 - Line 187 connects Montclair, Claremont, Glendora, and Pasadena via Foothill Boulevard. • Foothill Transit Line 280 - Line 280 connects Azusa to Puente Hills via Azusa Avenue. • Foothill Transit Line 281 - Line 281 connects Glendora, West Covina, and Puente Hills Mall via Citrus Avenue. • Foothill Transit Line 494 - Line 494 connects San Dimas, Glendora, Monrovia, and El Monte via Foothill Boulevard. • Glendora Mini Bus - This bus offers curb-to-curb transportation services upon reservation for senior citizens and permanently disabled persons of Glendora. The bus transfers riders to the Lone Hill Shopping Center, the Metrolink station in Covina, and Citrus College. • Azusa Pacific University Trolley - This trolley service provides a connection between the east and west Azusa Pacific University campuses. Two Gold Line Foothill Extension transit stops, the Azusa Downtown Station and APU/Citrus Avenue Station, will increase access to regional transit from Azusa. The Gold Line will connect to Pasadena, East Los Angeles, and Downtown Los Angeles and allow for dedicated transit service between these areas. Providing improved local public and private transit services to these new stations will ensure an appropriate level of consistency and access for future transit riders. The City should coordinate with Foothill Transit to consider the following route modifications: A. Bus routes should be modified to improve connectivity from the new transit stops with the surrounding universities and community colleges. For example, the routes of Foothill Transit Lines 185, 187, and 280 should be altered to directly serve the planned Azusa Downtown Station and associated parking structure. B. Similarly, the route for Transit Line 281 should be modified along Citrus Avenue to connect with the planned APU/Citrus Avenue Station. C. Foothill Transit Line 494 travels along Foothill Boulevard connecting Downtown Azusa, Citrus College, and Azusa Pacific University; however, this bus line only operates during peak hours and has 30-minute headways. Foothill Transit Line 187 also connects these destinations along Foothill Boulevard. PUBLIC TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-31 May 2018 Foothill Transit stop on Azusa Avenue north of the railroad tracks. The City should coordinate with APU to consider the following route modifications: A. Expand the existing trolley service to Downtown and the new transit stations. A circulator would likely provide greater service frequency than existing bus lines or the Gold Line, but would also require additional funding and resources for operations and coordination between participating local entities. Figure 3-14: Public Transit Map Æb Æb 9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonMiddleSchool SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°±²¯°³´¯°³´¯°³´AzusaDowntownStation AzusaDowntownStation APU/Citrus CollegeStationAPU/Citrus CollegeStation Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Æ b Foothill Transit 185 Foothill Transit 187 Foothill Transit 280 Foothill Transit 281 Foothill Transit 494 Existing Transit Figure 1 Route Recommendations to be Considered 0 390 780195Feet Æb Æb 9th St Goldline & BNSF Railway 8th Ave AT & SF R ail w a y Alameda AveDalton AveSoldano AvePasadena Ave10th St Foothill Blvd Foothill BlvdAzusa AveSan Gabriel Ave10th St Angeleno AveSunset AveOrange AveEnid AveMcKeever Ave11th St 11th St 9th St Crescent D r Orange AveLemon AveSunset AveAngeleno Ave6th St San Gabriel AveAzusa Ave6th St Dalton AveAlameda AveSoldano AvePasadena AveCerritosAveAl o s t a A v e 5th St Citrus AveFoothill Blvd LeeElementary AzusaPacificUniversity CitrusCollege Azusa PacificUniversity RosedaleSpecific Plan Area SlausonMiddleSchool SlausonPark DaltonElem. Veteran'sFreedomPark Alameda AveStation Citrus AveStation THE PROMENADEAzusa Veterans WyFoothill Vista Mobile Home Park CityHall Azusa Light & Water AT&T Verizon Post Office Lindley-ScottHouse Target St Francis of RomeSchool Park AtlantisGardens Palm StAPUHousing PackingHouse PublicLibrary SeniorCenter CitrusCrossing Citrus Ave¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°³´¯°±²¯°±²¯°³´¯°³´¯°³´Date: 5/8/2014 Base Map Notes and Sources: 1) Base data from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. 2) Aerial photo from the City of Azusa GIS Dept. SOURCE AND REFERENCE DATA TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan µ CITY OF AZUSA Specific Plan Boundary City Boundary 0.25 Mile Radial From Station Parcel Boundary Transit Site Æ b Foothill Transit 185 Foothill Transit 187 Foothill Transit 280 Foothill Transit 281 Foothill Transit 494 Existing Transit Figure 1 Dashed Lines Represent Routes Prior to Construction Rerouting 0 390 780195Feet PRIVATE TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-32 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Streetscape furnishings are elements that tie together the landscaping, sidewalk treatments, and character of an individual area while collectively creating a pleasant environment for pedestrians. The Specific Plan Area as well as three individual areas have been identified for varying degrees of streetscape improvements. Individual areas for improvements include the Downtown, Route 66, and APU/Citrus Avenue Station and College Connection areas (see Figure 3-1). When street furnishing improvements are combined with an appealing palette of street trees and landscaping, the desired result will be a unified Specific Plan Area with individual and identifiable themed areas that accentuate the character of the individual districts. 3.6.1 Specific Plan Area Improvements The following streetscape elements have been identified for incorporation throughout the Specific Plan Area. Bus Shelters The Specific Plan Area has a variety of bus shelter designs, both old and new. Many bus shelters have red tile roofs and are painted to match a variety of street furnishings, while others exhibit more modern designs. Any new and existing bus stops should be upgraded with a consistent style throughout the Specific Plan Area. Manufacturer/Model - Match existing City standard. Public Art The display of public art is another way to help create a dynamic street scene and unique sense of place. Public facilities should integrate public art into building design, site design, and public gathering spaces. Any public art installations are 3.6 STREETSCAPE FURNISHINGS subject to Chapter 88.39 - Art in Public Places Program of the Azusa Development Code. Additional Site Furnishings Additional site furnishings such as newspaper racks and drinking fountains aid in creating an appealing environment and pleasant experience for pedestrians. Existing bus shelter within the Specific Plan Area. STREETSCAPE FURNISHINGS GUIDELINES All streetscape furnishing improvements should be selected with durability, cost, and vandal proofing in mind. These improvements should be implemented as a cooperative effort between the City and private development within the Specific Plan Area. A. Newspaper racks should be consolidated in activity centers and placed within multi- rack displays that are complementary to other street furnishings. B. Drinking fountains should be located in public gathering areas. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-33 May 2018 New benches and trash can receptacles enhance the existing street furnishings palette. Tree grates expand the usable sidewalk space while beautifying the street environment. 3.6.2 Downtown Streetscape Improvements The furnishings described below should be provided within the public right-of-way along Azusa Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, Dalton Avenue, and 9th Street within the Downtown area of the Specific Plan. All street furnishings, utility boxes, poles, etc. located along these streets should be painted “blurple” to reinforce the Downtown identity. Benches and Trash Receptacles Benches provide areas for resting or socializing and trash receptacles contribute to the maintenance and beautification of the Downtown area. Benches should be placed every 100 feet to 300 feet apart to provide convenient and attractive resting places along the street. Benches will be clustered with trash receptacles and other key furnishing elements. Manufacturer/Model - Match existing City standard. Tree Grates In order to expand the area of usable space within the pedestrian realm and create a distinct sense of place, tree grates should be used around street trees. Some of the existing trees within the Downtown area have outgrown their concrete tree grates, which become displaced as the tree grows. New tree grates should be cast iron and should be safe for pedestrian use as a walking surface. Cast iron tree grates should have break-outs to allow trees to grow without damaging the tree grate themselves. Tree grates may include light openings for uplighting. Manufacturer - Iron Age Designs Model - Oblio tree grate 4’ sq. Lighting Lighting elements unify the Downtown and provide higher light levels to promote a safer environment while enhancing the overall pedestrian experience in the area. There are two types of lighting needed for the Downtown area: street lighting and pedestrian lighting. Bollards should be MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-34 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 used to define public plazas and walkways to delineate pedestrian zones from vehicle traffic at intersections, and to create a refuge for pedestrians near alleys. Pedestrian Lighting Manufacturer/Model - Match existing Light & Water Department standard. Bollards Manufacturer/Model - Match existing City standard. Bike Racks Bicycle parking is an important element in the promotion of alternative forms of travel in the planning area. Bicycle racks should be located near transit stops and popular destinations within the Downtown area. A standard for bicycle rack placement should be developed by the Public Works Department to establish safe clearance from curb lines, street trees, street furnishings and building storefronts. Existing pedestrian lighting along Azusa Avenue.Convenient bicycle racks promote and encourage bicycle use. Enclosed bicycle parking facilities should be used in areas where bicycles may need to be stored for longer periods of time. Bike lockers should be incorporated in mixed-used residential developments and at the two Gold Line transit stations. Manufacturer/Model - Match existing City standard. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-35 May 2018 3.6.3 Route 66 Streetscape Improvements Historically, Route 66 was predominantly automobile-dominated, lined with bright neon signs of businesses enticing motorists to stop and enjoy themselves along their journey into Downtown Azusa. New improvements to the Route 66 corridor within the Specific Plan Area can help link the visual character of the corridor with its past, providing a theme and element of nostalgia for Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue (see Figure 3-1). Both streets should remain characteristic of the Route 66 highway culture. The use of Route 66 iconography, cast concrete, and steel will create a distinct sense of place and character for this portion of the Specific Plan Area, specifically the Foothill Commercial Centers. An example of a Route 66 thermoplastic logo. An example of Route 66 themed public art. A. New benches and trash receptacles along Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue should incorporate Route 66 themed character or iconography to complement other streetscape improvements. B. All new bicycle parking along Foothill Boulevard should integrate racks that portray a resemblance to Route 66 history and/or themes. C. To further unify the Specific Plan Area, a Route 66 sign should be placed directly in the middle of lanes at all major intersections on Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue. An example of the thermoplastic logo is shown to the left. D. Route 66 iconography that reflects the highway culture of historic Route 66 should be integrated as public art located in plazas, courtyards, and at major intersections. Where feasible, private developers should integrate Route 66 themes into project developments to increase a unified theme throughout the corridor and create a sense of identity. ROUTE 66 RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-36 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Route 66 themed bicycle rack. Route 66 themed bench. Route 66 themed trash and recycle bins.Route 66 themed pedestrian light. ROUTE 66 THEMED STREET FURNISHING EXAMPLES MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-37 May 2018 3.6.4 APU/Citrus Avenue Station and College Connection Streetscape Improvements With large student populations, the location of both Azusa University and Citrus College within and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area demands special attention to ensure safe, convenient, and ease of access to Downtown and the nearby APU/Citrus Avenue Station. Streetscape improvements below are focused on improving the connectivity between both colleges along Foothill Boulevard east of Alosta Avenue and along Citrus Avenue north to the APU/Citrus Avenue Station (see Figure 3-1). Streetscape improvements can improve connectivity along the heavily traversed Foothill Boulevard section between APU and Citrus College. The location of the new APU/Citrus Avenue Station at the north end of Citrus Avenue. A. New benches and trash receptacles along Foothill Boulevard, east of Alosta Avenue, and along Citrus Avenue should portray a resemblance to the Azusa Pacific University benches and trash receptacles. B. Any new bicycle parking along Foothill Boulevard, east of Alosta Avenue, and along Citrus Avenue shall integrate racks that portray a resemblance to the Azusa Pacific University bicycle racks. Installation of bicycle racks should be coordinated with Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College. C. New pedestrian lighting should be incorporated along Foothill Boulevard, east of Alosta Avenue, and along Citrus Avenue to facilitate safe access in between Azusa Pacific Universities two campus, Citrus College, and the APU/ Citrus Avenue Station. Installation of pedestrian lighting should be coordinated with Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College in order to ensure consistency in design and theme. COLLEGE AREA RECOMMENDATIONS MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-38 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 COLLEGE CONNECTION THEMED STREET FURNISHING EXAMPLES Bicycle rack resembling APU design and theme. Trash can resembling APU design and theme. Benches resembling APU design and theme. Pedestrian-friendly lighting. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-39 May 2018 3.7 GATEWAYS AND SIGNAGE Gateway treatments and signage will help create an identity for the Downtown and Route 66 corridor and announce this area as a special, unique place within the City. Gateways to Downtown Specific Plan or Route 66 Theme To create a unique identity and establish unity throughout the Specific Plan Area, a logo or themed sign program should be developed; the chosen sign or logo should be repeated throughout the Specific Plan Area. One opportunity may be to express the unique heritage of the area through the use of the traditional Route 66 logo and iconography. A. Develop a Specific Plan Area logo or themed sign program that is representative of and associated with Azusa. B. A Route 66 logo should be utilized along Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue to uniquely distinguish this area within the Specific Plan. C. Incorporate the existing City logo into the Downtown area. Gateways and Entry Treatments Gateways are intended to identify primary entrances into the City of Azusa. The primary entries into the Specific Plan Area are on Foothill Boulevard, Azusa Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Alosta Avenue. To emphasize entry into the City and Specific Plan Area, the following policies apply: A. A specific design theme and sign program should be created and will include a logo, gateways and entry treatments, directional signs (vehicular and pedestrian-oriented), directional and identification signs for parking, and banners. B. Signs should be colorful, lit for increased visibility, landscaped, and placed permanently at the back of the sidewalk or within raised medians. C. Gateway locations should have a unique and easily identifiable appearance with specific landscaping, lighting, and/or special signage. D. Monuments or signs should have the city logo and a greeting that is unique to the City. ENTRY RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Monument signs should be strategically placed to identify entry into Azusa and/or the Specific Plan Area. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-40 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 Four gateways have been identified within the Specific Plan Area: one at the 9th Street and San Gabriel intersection, one at the Foothill Boulevard and Angeleno Avenue intersection, one at Foothill Boulevard and Dalton Avenue intersection, and a primary gateway at the Foothill Boulevard and Azusa Avenue intersection. Each of these entries should include one or more of the following recommended improvements. A. The new Specific Plan or existing City logo. B. Low-rise monument signs surrounded by groundcover, shrubs, and trees, consisting of precast concrete signs with embossed letters and natural river rock pilasters with concrete caps. C. Enriched, textured and/or interlocking paving at intersections. D. Sensitive lighting treatment. Wayfinding Directional Signs A common directional sign design shall be developed to contain directional arrows and labeling to denote key points of interest and public information, such as parking facilities and transit locations. Directional signs should be smaller than the City gateways but constructed of similar materials. A. Directional signs should be located at key locations around the Downtown periphery. B. Signs should be well lit, landscaped, and prominently placed to increase visibility for motorists. C. Signs should be placed permanently at the back of the sidewalk or within raised medians. D. Signs should be well proportioned and accented with landscaping. The sign scale should be in proportion to adjacent buildings and landscaped areas. Plantings at maturity should not obscure safe vehicular sight lines. E. Signs should incorporate complementary colors, materials, and lettering fonts. GATEWAY RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTIONAL SIGN GUIDELINES Unique, city-specific directional signage assists visitors with locating City landmarks. MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 3 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 3-41 May 2018 Downtown Identity Banners Banners are an immediate and inexpensive way to promote the overriding Route 66 theme or the individuality of the Downtown. This type of beautification effort can enhance the aesthetic environment, unify the appearance of the streetscape and introduce color and a sense of excitement to an area. Banners can provide an opportunity to communicate and promote annual cultural and civic events and provide an alternative to typical seasonal holiday displays. The placement of banners on pedestrian lighting poles shall be expanded beyond Azusa Avenue throughout the rest of the Downtown, Downtown Expansion, Gold Line, and Civic Districts. In addition, banners should be guided by the following guidelines: A. Signs should be safe, neat, and compatible with the area. B. Lettering should be clear, precise, and simple, with minimal graphics to avoid distracting motorists and creating traffic hazards. C. When appropriate, the City or Route 66 logo should be an integral part of the sign design to reinforce the unique character of the area. Directional Kiosks Directional kiosks are often located adjacent to and in conjunction with transit stations or within downtown areas to inform and guide people to their intended destinations. With the arrival of the Gold Line to Azusa, it is anticipated that people unfamiliar with the layout of the Specific Banners provide special event, honorary, or seasonal events to residents and visitors. Plan Area will be assisted by the incorporation of directional kiosks, whether to the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station or nearby parking areas. Directional kiosks should have the following guidelines: A. A unique directional kiosk should be developed to complement the overall sign program and streetscape theme. B. Once developed, directional kiosks should be the same size, shape, and color palette. C. Specific Plan Area maps, city events information, and local business advertising space should be incorporated within the design of the kiosks. BANNER GUIDELINES KIOSK GUIDELINES MOBILITY, COMPLETE STREETS, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS3 3-42 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK SECTION 4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 4 Essential Infrastructure Requirements for Future Development INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4 SECTION 4 CONTENTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................4-1 4.2 POTABLE WATER ..................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Existing Potable Water Conditions ........................................4-1 4.2.2 Proposed Potable Water System Improvements ................4-1 4.3 SANITARY SEWER ................................................................4-1 4.3.1 Existing Sanitary Sewer Conditions ........................................4-1 4.3.2 Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Improvements ................4-2 4.4 STORM DRAINAGE ..............................................................4-2 4.4.1 Existing Storm Drainage Conditions ......................................4-2 4.4.2 Proposed Storm Drainage System Improvements ..............4-2 4.5 DRY UTILITIES .......................................................................4-3 4.5.1 Telecommunications ..............................................................4-3 4.5.2 Cable Service .........................................................................4-3 4.5.3 Electricity Service ....................................................................4-3 4.5.4 Natural Gas .............................................................................4-3 4.6 COMMUNITY SERVICES ......................................................4-3 4.6.1 Police Protection and Emergency Services ........................4-3 4.6.2 Fire Protection ........................................................................4-4 4.6.3 Schools ....................................................................................4-5 4.6.4 Libraries ...................................................................................4-5 4.6.5 Parks and Recreation ............................................................4-5 4.6.6 Solid Waste .............................................................................4-6SUBSECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 4-1 May 2018 4.1 INTRODUCTION Infrastructure and public facilities are essential to the success of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. They convey water, wastewater, storm drainage, and dry utilities which support the Specific Plan’s objectives and guiding principles. This section describes existing and proposed infrastructure and public facilities which support the Specific Plan Area. 4.2 POTABLE WATER 4.2.1 Existing Potable Water Conditions Potable Water is provided by Azusa Light and Water, which utilizes a combination of groundwater from the Main San Gabriel Basin and surface water from the San Gabriel River and imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). ALW is the largest municipally owned water utility in the San Gabriel Valley, and serves approximately 110,000 residents, with an expected annual population growth of one percent. ALW’s service area encompasses about 8,900 acres in the San Gabriel Valley and provides service to the entire City of Azusa and portions of the cities of Glendora, Covina, West Covina, Irwindale, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. The City is currently updating its Water Master Plan. The Specific Plan Area is almost entirely located within Pressure Zone 715 which has water pressures ranging from 34 psi to 47 psi. Several streets within the Plan Area have mains less than 8 inches in diameter and proposed development will be required to upsize the mains to 8 inches along their frontage. Proposed developments are required to analyze their project to ensure adequate fire flows. 4.2.2 Proposed Potable Water System Improvements The proposed Specific Plan land uses will increase water demand by 1% over existing conditions and do not require any system wide improvements. Potable water improvements will be required on a project-by-project basis. As part of the development process, projects are required to analyze water demands and impacts on the existing system and submit proposed improvements to Azusa Light and Water for review and approval. Identified capacity improvements will be conditioned as part of the development approval process. Projects will be required to pay connection fees to offset their impacts. 4.3 SANITARY SEWER 4.3.1 Existing Sanitary Sewer Conditions The City of Azusa provides sewer service within the Specific Plan Area. Sanitary sewer is collected in the City’s collection system which conveys flows to mains owned by Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). Sewer is treated at LACSD’s San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant located adjacent to the City of Industry. The existing sewer lines include a gravity collection system comprised of approximately 80 miles of trunk sewer lines and 1,647 four foot manholes. Wastewater collected in the City’s trunk sewer lines flows south to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP). INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES4 4-2 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 The City’s Sewer System Master Plan was prepared by Lee & Ro, Inc. in 2010. The Master Plan has not identified any hydraulic deficiencies within the Specific Plan Area. The City’s Capital Improvement Program has identified several existing pipes within the Specific Plan Area to be rehabilitated with Cured In-Place Pipe (CIPP) reconstruction. 4.3.2 Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Improvements The proposed Specific Plan land uses will increase sewer loading by less than 1% over existing conditions. No system wide improvements have been identified. As part of the development process projects will be required to pay sewer connection fees to offset their impacts for both conveyance and treatment. 4.4 STORM DRAINAGE 4.4.1 Existing Storm Drainage Conditions The Flood Control Division (Division) of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) is responsible for operating and maintaining major flood control facilities located throughout the County. The facilities include approximately 15 major dams, 450 miles of open channels, 2,500 miles of underground storm drains, 70,000 miles of street drains, 280 sediment entrapment basins, 218 concrete stream bed stabilization structures, 33 pumping plants, and other support facilities located throughout the County. The Division only maintains those flood control facilities that are part of the County-maintained flood control system and provides no review, management, or on-going maintenance of private facilities. The City of Azusa Department of Public Works maintains and operates a limited number of drainage facilities within the City. The existing storm drain and flood control systems contain most of the storm runoff within the system. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), regulated by the USEPA, is the primary regulation for storm water pollutant sources in the County and the cities within the County. The Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was developed as part of the municipal storm water program to address storm water pollution from new development and redevelopment by the private sector. The SUSMP contains a list of minimum required Best Management Practices that must be used for a designated project. 4.4.2 Proposed Storm Drainage System Improvements The proposed Specific Plan land uses do not require any storm drainage improvements within the Plan Area. Each proposed project will be required to submit a Hydrology/Hydraulic Report, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), if applicable, and provide appropriate on-site mitigation measures. The SUSMP must comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements which include identifying receiving water, potential pollutants, describing site characteristics, minimizing impervious area, maximizing impervious area, and retaining and infiltrating runoff where applicable. Proposed development will be required to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board MS4 Permit including mitigating storm water runoff to pre-development rates and providing acceptable water quality treatment. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 4-3 May 2018 4.5 DRY UTILITIES All Dry Utilities within the Specific Plan Area shall be consistent with the development standards of Chapter 88.46 - Telecommunications Facilities of the Development Code. 4.5.1 Telecommunications Verizon provides telecommunications in the Specific Plan Area. The existing system is anticipated to meet the demands of the proposed land uses. 4.5.2 Cable Service Charter Communications provides cable television in the Specific Plan Area. The existing system is anticipated to meet the demands of the proposed land uses. 4.5.3 Electricity Service Azusa Light and Water provides electric service in the Specific Plan Area. The existing transmission and distribution system is anticipated to meet the demands of the proposed land uses. The City has an Undergrounding Policy (reference) and all new electric services are required to be underground. Additionally, projects are reviewed to determine if existing overhead lines adjacent to the project must be underground as a condition of development. 4.5.4 Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the Project Area. SoCal Gas has confirmed that there are facilities in the area and service would be provided in accordance with SoCal Gas’ policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made (project-by-project basis). 4.6 COMMUNITY SERVICES 4.6.1 Police Protection and Emergency Services The Azusa Police Department (Department) is responsible for providing general law enforcement to the City and enforcing the local, state, and federal laws. The Department is comprised of 63 sworn police officers. Officers’ duties can include street patrol, traffic enforcement, and responding to emergency calls. The Department operates one station, located at 725 North Alameda Avenue, within the Project Area, and does not have plans for new facilities or expansion of the existing station. The station can accommodate a total of 146 sworn and non-sworn police officers and related equipment, and could accommodate a projected citywide buildout population of approximately 63,500 residents. The Department’s target officer to population ratio is 1.27 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents. Based on the City’s 2014 population of 48,385 residents, the officer to resident ratio is 1:768, well within the targeted ratio. The Department does not currently maintain target response times for response calls; however, the Department currently has response times of 3.03 and 4.5 minutes for priority one and non-priority one calls, respectively. The Department’s goal is to keep response times to less than five minutes. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES4 4-4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 The City has an Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and the EOC emergency management group organizes the City’s approach to emergency management into four phases: 1) mitigation, 2) planning and analysis, 3) response, and 4) recovery. The EOC is made up of City employees, with the Chief of Police and Captain of the Fire Department at the helm. The City partners with county, state and federal organizations to respond to emergency events, as well as having mutual aid agreements with other agencies also located in Los Angeles County’s Disaster Management Area D. In January of 2014, the Colby Fire was an unplanned emergency event that activated the EOC, and cost the City almost $7 million dollars in damages. Memorial Park was set up as an evacuation center in anticipation for voluntary and mandatory evacuations. Heavy spring rains, associated with land and mud slides, also required EOC activation in 2014. Potential development allowed under the Project would result in additional, but less-than-significant, demands on existing police and emergency services, as disclosed in the EIR, for both short-term construction activities of proposed projects in the Project Area and the long-term services that would be provided to future development. To further reduce impacts, the EIR requires that development projects incorporate safety measures (e.g., alarm systems, security lighting, other on-site security measures, and crime prevention through environmental design policies), subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Police Departments. The Department reviews all development plans to ensure that police and emergency services are adequate to serve the project. 4.6.2 Fire Protection Fire protection services are provided to the City by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and include fire, rescue, and hazardous materials prevention and emergency services. The LACFD uses national guidelines for response time targets, which consist of five minutes for the first arriving unit for fires and basic life support, and eight minutes for advanced life support (paramedic) in urban areas. In 2013 the LACFD’s average emergency response time for the City was four minutes and 52 seconds. LACFD Fire Stations 32 and 97 currently serve the Project Area. Fire Station 32 is located in the Project Area at 605 North Angeleno Avenue. Fire Station 32 would be the first responders to emergency calls. Fire Station 97 is located at 18453 East Sierra Madre Avenue, approximately 2.6 miles north of the Project Area, and would also respond to calls as needed. Potential development allowed under the Project would result in additional, but less-than-significant, demands on existing fire protection services, as disclosed in the EIR. Development projects are required to comply with all City and LACFD codes and regulations regarding access requirements for commercial and residential areas and design standards for fire prevention (e.g., emergency plans and evacuation routes), including the payment of development fees to offset impacts on fire protection services. To further reduce impacts, the EIR requires that development projects incorporate fire protection improvements in their designs, including access requirements and modernization of any existing equipment and/or systems. Further, LACFD reviews all development plans to ensure that fire and emergency/medical services are adequate to serve the project. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 4-5 May 2018 4.6.3 Schools Azusa Unified School District (District) provides elementary, middle, and high school education services to City residents. The District includes 11 elementary schools (including Alice Ellington School which will be a Kindergarten thru 8th grade school as of the 2015-16 school year), three middle schools, and three high schools. Enrollment in the District in the 2014-15 school year is 4,554 students in elementary school, 2,163 in middle school, and 2,942 in high school for a total enrollment of 9,659. 4.6.4 Libraries The City operates the Azusa Public Library (Library) located at 729 North Dalton Avenue, located within the Project Area. The 18,500 square foot facility was built in 1959 and has not been expanded. Expansion and remodeling plans are in preliminary stages but necessary funding sources have not been established. The Library maintains 104,829 resources including books, periodicals, and audio resources in English and Spanish. Currently the Library does not maintain a service level ratio based on the number of resources to residents, however based on the 2014 population of 48,385 residents the City currently maintains a ratio of 2.16 resources per resident, which is slightly under the State median of 2.26 resources per resident. The Library maintains 16 public desktop computers and 15 lap tops. Due to budget constraints the Library staff is understaffed, comprised of 7 full-time and 17 part-time staff members. The Library offers a variety of services including English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, a grant funded adult literacy program, computer classes and computer and Wi-Fi access, passport and notary services, children programs, tutoring, and summer reading programs. The Library’s bookmobile has been in operation for over five years and provides service to City residents that do not live near the Library. In addition, the bookmobile visits four schools in the City every week. Residents are able to check out and return books at bookmobile events. From 2013 to 2014 the bookmobile hosted over 6,000 events at schools, parks, and community events. Potential development allowed under the Project would result in additional, but less-than-significant, demands on existing Library services, as disclosed in the EIR. The majority of the Library’s budget is derived from the City’s General Fund and tax revenue. New businesses and residents associated with future development within the Project Area would increase City revenue and contribute to the City’s General Fund, and the Library. Further, individual projects would be required to evaluate impacts to the Library on a case-by-case basis during the development review process. 4.6.5 Parks and Recreation The City’s Parks and Facilities Division is responsible for maintenance of 52 acres of park and a 13-man, seven- day-a-week operation. The City has approximately 12,000 parkway, median islands and City park trees. These trees have been placed on a five-year trim cycle. There are 16 parks located throughout the City, ranging in size from as small as Edwards Park at 0.20 acres and as large as Northside Park at 15.09 acres. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES4 4-6 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 The parks range in amenities and types with features such as walking paths, bike trails, playground equipment, barbecues and picnic tables, restrooms, park benches, play fields, ball courts, a skate park, Frisbee course, Fitness Par Course, and aquatics facilities. Some park facilities are available for rentals for special events, such as the Memorial Park North Recreation Center, and Gladstone, Northside, Pioneer, Slauson, Veterans Freedom, and Zacatecas Parks. In 2011, the City opened the Memorial Park Community Garden where plots are available for rent. Veterans Freedom Park is the only City park located within the Project Area. Northside Park is about 0.25 miles northwest of the Project Area Memorial and Slauson Parks are located just south of the Project Area. Memorial Park is located just south of Slauson Middle School and Slauson Park is located northeast of the intersection of Pasadena Avenue and 5th Street. 4.6.6 Solid Waste Athens Disposal Company (ADC) provides solid waste disposal services for the City. Solid waste is collected by ADC and taken to the City of Industry materials recovery facility (MRF) where it is sorted. Paper, glass, plastics, and metals are recovered and recycled at the MRF, and the remaining solid waste is hauled to one of several solid waste sites serving the City. In 2013, the City disposed of approximately 36,700 tons of solid waste, about 2,800 tons (8%) of which was generated within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan (Project) area. A majority of this waste is disposed of at Class III or unclassified landfills, which do not accept hazardous waste. However, there are three landfills, located within Kern and Kings Counties, which accept hazardous waste generated within the City. Potential development allowed under the Project would result in additional, but less-than-significant, solid waste generation, as disclosed in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Future development within the Project Area would be required to recycle/divert 50% of construction waste and the remainder would be disposed of in a Class III landfill or a mixed debris recycling facility which recycles 50% of all waste received. Long-term generation associated with operations of future development would generate a maximum of about 490 tons per year (17% increase), assuming the State-required 60% diversion rate. The City is also working to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in general through recycling, grasscycling and xeriscaping programs and providing free composting and green waste receptacles. The City also participates in Los Angeles County’s Recycling market Development Zone program, which combines recycling with economic development to fuel new businesses, expand existing ones, create jobs, and divert waste from landfills. Hazardous materials would be disposed of at one of the hazardous material facilities Kern and Kings Counties. Further, individual projects would be required to evaluate construction and operational solid waste impacts on a case-by-case basis. SECTION 5 5 Strategies and Direction for Implementing This Specific Plan IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 SECTION 5 CONTENTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................5-1 5.2 HOW THE SPECIFIC PLAN CAN ATTRACT PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND PROVIDE PUBLIC BENEFITS ........5-1 5.3 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ...............................................................5-2 5.3.1 Advantageous Factors .............................................5-2 5.3.2 Challenging Factors ..................................................5-3 5.4 SUMMARY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS ....5-4 5.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES ........................................................................5-5 5.6 CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR ATTRACTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT - CITY’S ROLE AND TOOLS ...5-6 5.6.1 Zoning .........................................................................5-6 5.6.2 Streamlined Permitting and Entitlement .................5-6 5.6.3 Management of Entitlements ..................................5-6 5.6.4 Tools to Encourage Rehabilitation and Creative Reuse of Commercial Properties .............................5-7 5.6.5 Marketing Partnerships .............................................5-7 5.6.6 Branding .....................................................................5-7 5.6.7 Marketing and Other Information-Compilation Options .......................................................................5-7 5.6.8 Coordination with Other Organizations .................5-8 5.7 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING MECHANISMS ..........................................................5-8 5.7.1 Business Improvement Districts .................................5-8 5.7.2 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts ...........5-9 5.8 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN ..........................5-12SUBSECTIONS 5-1 Summary of Market Demand Forecasts.................. 5-4 5-2 Implementation Action Plan................................. 5-12 TABLES IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-1 June 2017 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section outlines the implementation program for the Azusa TOD Specific Plan Areas. The implementation program includes the following components: • An overview of the ways the Specific Plan can attract economic investment and public improvements; • A review of key existing economic conditions influencing current and future development potentials in the Specific Plan Area; • A summary of the types of new development that are likely to be successful in the Specific Plan Area; • Financial analyses of alternative development projects at two key/representative opportunity sites within the Specific Plan Area; • A description of various economic development “tools” or implementation approaches available to the City of Azusa to achieve the Specific Plan objectives; and • A review of potential funding sources/mechanisms for implementation of key Specific Plan initiatives. Note: Within this section there are numerous strategies and other entries that are universally applicable to many different communities. The way in which they are ultimately adapted to Azusa will be somewhat unique, however, which will depend on numerous specific conditions including for example available resources, the interrelationship of various programs, preferences of the applicable stakeholder groups, and other considerations. 5.2 HOW THE SPECIFIC PLAN CAN ATTRACT PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND PROVIDE PUBLIC BENEFITS An effective specific plan typically involves both the public and private sectors. Whereas development of the land uses envisioned for a plan area is often “kick started” by various public sector initiatives, the ultimate goal of this type of planning effort is to attract desired private investment. Broadly speaking, there are two major ways that a municipality can facilitate private development: 1. By creating a “conducive development environment” that is consistent with prevailing market demand for various land uses. This may include the following types of actions or policies: • Zoning, design guidelines, etc. that are responsive to market needs at the individual establishment level, while maintaining the overall character of the plan area that preserves and enhances its general marketability; • Information about the concepts, intent, etc. of the specific plan area to prospective investors/ tenants; • Streamlined permitting and entitlement processes (i.e., minimizing the need for discretionary approval processes, environmental impact analysis, etc.); • Area-wide infrastructure investments, including parking facilities and street improvements; • Area-wide “amenity” investments, including landscape and streetscape improvements; • Marketing programs to enhance the area’s identity and recognition among consumers; and • Clearinghouse roles (e.g., coordination of funding resources and dissemination of information related to investment in the Plan area). IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-2 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 2. By providing focused development support to area businesses, property owners, and key development projects. This can involve the following types of initiatives: • Financially structuring shared infrastructure improvements that increase the productivity of the area, in ways that are advantageous to development, such as shared parking (including, in this case, the potential opportunity to utilized surplus parking within the planned MTA parking structure); • Investing in specific infrastructure improvements in the specific plan area; and • Providing loans and/or grants for various business and property improvement purposes such as building façade renovations. Each of these potential implementation items is described in greater detail in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of this chapter. 5.3 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA An effective specific plan needs to be based on a realistic understanding of the market conditions affecting the specific plan area. Simply changing zoning on a map will not attract development unless there is an underlying market demand for a particular land use. On the other hand, if there is immediate demand for a desirable land use that is not permitted under existing zoning, a change in zoning can bring about very significant results. Moreover, appropriate zoning changes can be made more effective if coupled with policies that address other existing barriers to development (e.g., insufficient infrastructure). A summary of the major favorable and challenging conditions affecting development potentials in the Specific Plan Area is provided below. 5.3.1 Advantageous Factors Azusa in general and the Specific Plan Area overall are advantaged by the following geographic and socioeconomic factors: • Substantial frontage along the I-210 freeway (with this factor affecting Azusa’s profile in general, but not specifically applying to the Plan Area); • The two Azusa Gold Line stations and the TOD opportunities that are the focus of the Specific Plan; • The potential to utilize surplus parking (within the planned MTA Downtown Station parking structure) as a means of incentivizing private development in the Downtown area; • City-owned parcels in the Downtown and adjacent districts, although these have limited flexibility in terms of providing an incentive for development; • The presence of Azusa Pacific University, which positively affects the City’s overall image and also has the potential to create direct demand for various types of private development; • Being adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, and foothills areas that represent amenity-based development opportunities; and • In comparison to other TOD areas along the Gold Line, being moderately competitive in terms of surrounding home values, commuters who use buses, and the size of the surrounding population base. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-3 June 2017 5.3.2 Challenging Factors The City and Specific Plan Area also face several notable challenges: • Competing downtown areas, such as Monrovia’s, are currently higher-profile destinations for such activities as dining and nightlife, with established market positions. • Azusa has little existing multi-family housing, which is the type of housing most likely to occur in a TOD area. This can present certain challenges in terms of having to “pioneer” this type of use in the community, from both a market-acceptance and community-acceptance perspective. • Azusa generally lacks regional-serving Class A office space and therefore is not an established center for the types of professional firms that typically locate in premium office space. • Portions of the Specific Plan Area are in significant need of revitalization and/or new development. • The Specific Plan Area is largely built out and even if prevailing property values are relatively high, most parcels are already developed with existing uses that were viable given the land prices under which they were originally developed. This situation will tend to limit the financial feasibility of redeveloping these parcels with lower-density land uses. That is, in most cases, new development would need to be relatively high density in order for the ultimate value of the development to justify the costs associated with buying and clearing land that is currently occupied with other uses. While there may be some currently underutilized sites that are exceptions to this observation, it probably applies as a good rule thumb for defining the types of opportunities that are likely to exist for most parcels. • In areas where high land values challenge the financial feasibility of redevelopment (or new development), the cost of providing adequate parking is often a “deal breaker” for infill development or redevelopment, especially if structured parking is required. The potential opportunity for the City to utilize surplus parking in the planned MTA structure may mitigate this challenge to some degree. However, that potential opportunity would generally be limited to projects in immediate proximity of the planned Azusa Downtown Station. The above conditions suggest the following major conclusions about the types of opportunities that are likely to apply to existing or future development in the Specific Plan Area: 1. Most new development will likely need to be relatively high density given prevailing land values (and the related cost of assembling viable development sites); 2. Parking solutions for mixed-use need to be as creative as possible, and these concepts are addressed elsewhere in the Specific Plan. 3. The area could benefit from an overall branding effort to achieve place recognition and effective leveraging of the area’s location strengths (as noted above under “advantageous factors”). 4. The preceding points all suggest that the City is well served by a flexible approach that anticipates the above issues and is responsive to the accompanying needs and market demands. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 5.4 SUMMARY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS As part of the background research for this Specific Plan, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) prepared a market study to identify long-range demand for various types of development in the Specific Plan Area. Key findings from the demand analysis are summarized in Table 5-1 below. Table 5‐1. Summary of Market Demand Forecasts Downtown APU/Citrus Notes Station Station Balance Citywide Land Use Area Area Of City Total Forecast assumes that multi‐family will be 40% of new housing in the conservative scenario and 50% in the high scenario (on the assumption that the higher level of development would most likely occur in multi‐family). Multi‐family dwelling units ‐‐ Conservative Scenario 560 240 800 ‐‐ High Scenario 840 360 1,200 Detailed tables in the demand study show the breakdown of demand by retail sales category. Retail (square feet) 183,000 167,000 226,000 576,000 Conservative scenario reflects a continuation of historic trends; high scenario assumes that City captures a higher share of San Gabriel Valley office demand. Office (square feet) ‐‐ Conservative Scenario 45,000 18,000 27,000 90,000 ‐‐ High Scenario 75,000 30,000 45,000 150,000 Hotel (rooms) 95‐150 rooms 110 rooms 205‐260 rooms A hotel currently proposed for a site along the 210 Freeway will absorb demand for approximately 110 rooms, leaving net demand of 95‐150 rooms for an additional hotel project. Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) Table 5-1: Summary of Market Demand Forecasts IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-5 June 2017 5.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES The real estate market analyses prepared by TNDG for the Azusa TOD subareas, plus an investigation of local real estate financial conditions, provide background information on the feasibility of development in the Specific Plan Area. The Natelson Dale Group Inc. (TNDG) in coordination with RRM Design Group developed a Financial Analysis (Appendix B) with the intent of providing the City of Azusa with an overview of the financial feasibility of alternative real estate development projects at specific sites in the downtown area (Site 36 is in the Specific Plan Downtown District, the Dalton site in the Downtown Expansion District), based on prototypes generated by RRM. Four separate scenarios were evaluated, involving retail, office, and residential uses in various configurations and combinations. The analysis indicated that all of the theoretical development scenarios were financially feasible; although the scenarios that included office space were less likely to be feasible the higher the proportion of office space in the project. Among all the scenarios higher density projects also had a higher level of profitability. Although TNDG prepared this analysis using assumptions that appeared to be reasonable at the time, the sensitivity of these kinds of models to varying factors, changes in market conditions over time, and different opinions and assumptions that developers and other analysts bring to exercises of this kind, all suggest that this analysis be used by the city as an internal project review tool, which can be easily altered by staff as conditions warrant. The model is likely to have the most value to the City as a way to compare alternate project types, as well as review submitted projects. The feasibility of new commercial development would generally be significantly enhanced if configured as mixed-use projects with multi-family residential. In the process of designing and developing mixed-use projects, care is necessary in defining the expectations for ground-floor retail, which must synchronize with other area retail and other uses, and issues to be addressed will include mix, demand in relation to supply, and the like. The downtown area districts in which opportunity sites are concentrated could benefit from a “designer in residence” program where owners of neighboring existing developed property could get conceptual guidance on how to upgrade properties within an overall somewhat unified vision. See Appendix B for an expanded discussion on the Financial Analysis of Alternative Development Projects. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-6 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 5.6 CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR ATTRACTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT - CITY’S ROLE AND TOOLS 5.6.1 Zoning From an economic perspective, two key issues need to be addressed as it relates to zoning within the Specific Plan Area: 1. Allowable densities need to be high enough to facilitate market-driven redevelopment of selected parcels given the relatively high land values in the Specific Plan Area. 2. Zoning should allow the flexibility to develop desirable land uses for which the future market is uncertain. The development standards and allowable uses contained within Chapter 2 strive to accomplish this. 5.6.2 Streamlined Permitting and Entitlement A key advantage to adopting a Specific Plan is that it provides a vehicle for expedited approval of development proposals that are consistent with the community vision established by the Specific Plan. Developers consistently cite this type of provision as a key factor in selecting the communities where they will pursue projects. In this regard, it is essential that the adopted plan remove to the maximum degree possible the need for discretionary approvals for projects that fall within the development “envelope” established by the Specific Plan. The program-level environmental impact report (EIR) being prepared as part of this Specific Plan process will provide a significant incentive in this regard. 5.6.3 Management of Entitlements The structure of the Specific Plan helps maximize attractiveness of the area for development and other investment by aligning development potential and desired development with “given” entitlements, thereby minimizing the need for property owners/developers to seek additional entitlements. At the same time, the Land Use and Urban Form section of the Plan provides the regulatory framework and design guidelines to create unique and identifiable districts within the Specific Plan Area. Setting clear development frameworks and minimizing the need for additional entitlements also gives the area a marketing advantage. Any future adjustments to entitlement conditions can adhere to the spirit of keeping the development process as streamlined as possible. Another aspect of managing entitlements is the matter of having a “finite allotment of the entitlements” available for Specific Plan Area-area properties, which would accomplish three things: 1. Recognize practical limits in the demand for different land uses in the area, 2. Keep the development at a manageable level and type mix, and 3. Incentivize early (timely) redevelopment of individual sites. This concept may seem counterproductive with respect to the discussion above about the desirability of maximizing entitlements in the area. However, the two notions can be complementary, as development timing is the critical factor. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-7 June 2017 5.6.4 Tools to Encourage Rehabilitation and Creative Reuse of Commercial Properties For appropriate properties, the City could have programs in place to encourage rehabilitation and creative use/reuse of commercial sites, such as dedicated grant/loan programs using CDBG or other funds. Within the Plan Area, existing commercial uses are frequently found located in small individual properties and/or spaces that may be somewhat inefficient in terms of their relationship to the street and to parking, and their overall adaptability to various uses. However, these kinds of conditions also lend the area a character that is somewhat unique within the overall trade area. These spaces can be attractive to creative entrepreneurs in all fields of endeavor. 5.6.5 Marketing Partnerships The City could implement the marketing options discussed below, and other branding and information- compilation activities, in careful coordination with the Azusa Chamber of Commerce, and any other appropriate development partners. 5.6.6 Branding As a starting point for future marketing initiatives for the Specific Plan Area, the City could conduct a branding exercise or similar process by which to designate the Specific Plan Area with a marketing-friendly name. 5.6.7 Marketing and Other Information-Compilation Options The City could undertake, or support through partnership with appropriate entities, any or all of the following options: 1. Develop materials for and/or conduct workshops around the theme of, “why developing/occupying the Specific Plan Area is good business.” Companion materials for living in the area could also be produced. Topics within these materials include: descriptions of how the area is value-planned, general and specific ways in which the City functions as a key partner in developing the area, benefits potentially available to developers, businesses, etc. from sources in addition to the City, and advantages to various uses from a market point of view. 2. Produce a high-quality newsletter devoted to the Plan Area, issued on a regular schedule, that contains information of interest to both the property owners, businesses, and residents, and to outsiders, including people who are not familiar with the area and may have an interest in investing in it. 3. Produce an annual report of development activity in the Plan Area, including development-related data such as absorption, occupancy, mix of business types, noteworthy development news, etc. The content and format of such a report can be modeled on those produced periodically by real estate brokerage firms. This kind of information could also serve as one focus of compiling monitoring/evaluation information. Marketing of the Specific Plan Area could be accomplished in recognition of the fact that Generation Y (Millennials) apparent preferences for higher density development will work in the area’s favor. (While a preference for higher density development has been noted under current conditions, additional investigations of Millennials has noted that these preferences may lead to a higher turnover rate as they transition onto different housing types). IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-8 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 5.6.8 Coordination with Other Organizations Given the many options for coordinating marketing and related activities supporting implementation, the City could review its overall position relative to economic development planning and marketing in order for this action to be optimized. Role of SCAG with respect to Azusa. As a member of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City has access to the following benefits outlined on the SCAG website: • Assisting in locating and securing grant funding from federal and state agencies • Providing methodologies, tools and training programs to help members implement approved regional plans • Receiving priority responses on requests for data, publication or other planning support • Requesting the creation of customized maps for use on the City’s website • Access jurisdictional data analyses, forecasting data and additional GIS resources. Currently, SCAG provides links to the City’s main website as well as an ‘Area Profile’ for Azusa, which was is dated May of 2015. The document provides an overview of demographic, employment, housing, transportation, retail sales, education, and other regional highlights. 5.7 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING MECHANISMS A series of financing tools potentially available to the City, from federal, state, and organizational sources, and from mechanisms that the City could implement, are detailed in Appendix C, Financing, in this document. A few selected examples are discussed in this section. Funding mechanisms generally have at least some strategic dimension. The sustainability orientation of the Specific Plan is compatible with federal programs that have been aligned toward this overall objective, including the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a consortium of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 5.7.1 Business Improvement Districts The Business Improvement District (BID) mechanism can be used to help fund specific improvements in specific areas, and also strategically to foster the functional interrelationships of districts addressed within the Specific Plan. For example, by making all or a group of the various districts that comprise the Specific Plan Area a single BID, property and business owners are more likely to identify common interests, solutions, etc. than if the common BID area did not exist. The BID mechanism is also an example of how financing methods must be carefully coordinated with property and business owners in order for them to be understood and accepted. The more the occupants of the BID area see themselves as part of a unified, strategically planned and organized whole, the greater the likelihood that a funding mechanism with direct costs tied to them will be accepted. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-9 June 2017 5.7.2 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts Senate Bill No. 628, creating enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs) took effect on January 1, 2015. EIFDs are designed to fund infrastructure development and community revitalization, through issuing bonds, establishing a public financing authority, and adopting an infrastructure financing plan. EIFDs include a provision for using tax increment financing. A broad range of community development and revitalization projects can be funded through this mechanism. A. OVERVIEW Along with the EIFD, the bill allows a city/county to adopt an infrastructure financing plan and issue bonds upon approval of 55% of the voters. As excerpted from the Bill’s text, the bond funds would be used to “finance public facilities or other specified projects of community-wide significance, including, but not limited to, brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; the development of projects on a former military base; the repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority; the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income for rent or purchase; the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; transit priority projects; and projects to implement a sustainable communities strategy.” Prior to the adoption of an EIFD and infrastructure financing plan, the bill requires the legislative body to establish a public financing authority, which would be comprised of members of the legislative body of the participating entities and of the public. In addition, the bill would require the adoption of a “resolution of intention” that, among others would include the following: • District boundaries • Description of the proposed public facilities/development that would be financed or assisted by the EIFD • Need for the EIFT and goals to achieve The infrastructure financing plan, along with agreement from affected taxing agencies, would provide the mechanism to fund infrastructure projects through tax increment financing. Specifically, the bill authorizes the creation of an EIFD for up to 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved. In addition, the bill would authorize a city, county, or special district that contains territory within an EIFD to loan moneys for projects/activities that are listed in the infrastructure financing plan. Finally, the city/county, through its infrastructure financing plan, could choose to allocate any portion of its net available revenue to the EIFD. B. WHAT IS ALLOWED As excerpted from the Bill’s text, an EIFD can finance only public capital facilities or other specified projects of community-wide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, but not limited to, all of the following: 1. Highways, interchanges, ramps and bridges, arterial streets, parking facilities, and transit facilities. 2. Sewage treatment and water reclamation plants and interceptor pipes. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-10 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 3. Facilities for the collection and treatment of water for urban uses. 4. Flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channels. 5. Child care facilities. 6. Libraries. 7. Parks, recreational facilities, and open space. 8. Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste, including transfer stations and vehicles. 9. Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation. 10. The development of projects on a former military base. 11. The repayment of the transfer of funds to a military base reuse authority pursuant to Section 67851 that occurred on or after the creation of the district. 12. The acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of low and moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, for rent or purchase. 13. Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use 14. Transit priority projects, as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, that are located within a transit priority project area. 15. Projects that implement a sustainable communities strategy, when the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 65080) of Division 2 of Title 7, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml. C. WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED Restrictions include the following: 1. An EIFD can only be created after the City/County after the specified conditions related to the wind down of the former redevelopment agency (if one was created by the city/county) have been satisfied. 2. Cannot divert property tax revenue from schools or from any non-consenting tax entity – any taxing entity contributing tax increment must consent and opt into the EIFD. 3. A district may not finance routine maintenance, repair work, or the costs of an ongoing operation or providing services of any kind. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 May 2018 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-11 Differences between EIFD and IFD Category EIFD IFD Created Adopt infrastructure financing plan – city/county legislative body 2/3 vote of the electorate Issue of bonds based on tax increment financing 55% vote of the electorate 2/3 vote of the electorate Eligible projects Broader range – e.g., transit, lmi housing, sustainable communities strategies, environmental remediation, etc., in addition traditional infrastructure projects Public capital facilities (more limited) Financing authority Can dedicate more revenue sources to the funding of infrastructure – e.g., can devote portions of their periodic distributions from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, funds received from the Mello‐ Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 and funds from the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, among others More limited Longevity 45 years from date bonds are issued or loans are approved 30 years from initial formation Eminent Domain Can exercise eminent domain powers under the Polanco Redevelopment Act associated with the cleanup of environmentally impacted properties Not available Source: Holland & Knight. http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Enhanced‐Infrastructure‐Financing‐ Districts‐SB‐628‐Beall‐11‐12‐2014/ (accessed on 5/20/15) 1 EIFD = Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District 2 IFD = Infrastructure Financing District 1 2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-12 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 5.8 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN The vision and goals presented in the Specific Plan are supported by the following Implementation Action Plan. The Implementation Action Plan provides a summary of Specific Plan recommendations and is presented in a table format providing a clear listing of the major actions needed for implementation. The table also identifies the responsible agency or party, suggested timing of the actions, and a list of potential funding sources to assist in implementing each action. It should be noted that all actions listed in Table 5-2 below must be authorized and initiated by the City Council and/or Community Development Department by policy decision. Timing Lead v REGULATORY ACTIONS Notice Property Owners: Create a summary of changes that the resulting Specific Plan has on Property and Business Owners and work with the Chamber to distribute the information. 1 CD General Fund/PBID Now IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Responsibility Potential Funding Sources General Fund CD = Community Development, ED = Economic Development, R= Recreation, PW=Public Works, CE = Code Enforcement Con= Consultant Priority: 1 = Short Range (1st year) 2 = Mid‐Range (2‐5 years) 3 = Long‐ Range (5+ years) Adoption of Specific Plan and EIR: Adoption of the Specific Plan is the catalyst for Downtown Azusa and the areas surrounding the future stations redevelopment; recommended land uses and intensities, development standards, design guidelines and other proactive policies designed to spur economic investment and visual enhancement of the area. CD Timing Lead v IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Responsibility Potential Funding Sources CD = Community Development, ED = Economic Development, R= Recreation, PW=Public Works, CE = Code Enforcement Con= Consultant Priority: 1 = Short Range (1st year) 2 = Mid‐Range (2‐5 years) 3 = Long‐ Range (5+ years) IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS San Gabriel Street Improvements (Section 3.3.2): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Azusa Street Improvements (Section 3.3.1): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Foothill Street Improvements (Section 3.3.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Alameda Street Improvements (Section 3.3.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. 9th Street Improvements (Section 3.3.4): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Prepare Gateway Monuments at San Gabriel/9th, Angeleno/Foothill, Dalton/Foothill, and Azusa/5th: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Paseo: Prepare conceptual design for paseo described in Section 3.2.2 and coordinate with property owners. 2 PW PBID/General Fund Public Plaza: Prepare conceptual design for the Welcome Plaza as described in Section 3.2.4, quantify site requirements, determine infrastructure needs, define precise site location, and review and assist in preparing design and development plans. 3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Intersection Beautification at Foothill/Azusa: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Ampitheater Concept at Veterans Freedom Park: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 3 R Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Crosswalk Improvements at Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections as identified in Figures 3‐3 and 3‐4: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Alameda Temporary Street Closure Improvements between Foothill and Railway (Section 3.3.3): Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 1 CD/PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Trail at Angeleno Ave and 9th Street: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 3 R Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Downtown Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.2. 1 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees APU/Citrus Station Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.4. 3 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Route 66 Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.3. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/ STPL Fund/Gas Tax/PBID/CDBG 1 PW 1/2 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 3 PW 2/3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 1 CD PBID/General Fund EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG Table 5-2: Implementation Action Plan IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING 5 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 5-13 May 2018 Timing Lead vIMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Responsibility Potential Funding Sources CD = Community Development, ED = Economic Development, R= Recreation,PW=Public Works, CE = Code EnforcementCon= ConsultantPriority: 1 = Short Range (1st year) 2 = Mid‐Range (2‐5 years) 3 = Long‐Range (5+ years) IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSSan Gabriel Street Improvements (Section 3.3.2):Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development.Azusa Street Improvements (Section 3.3.1):Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Foothill Street Improvements (Section 3.3.5): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Alameda Street Improvements (Section 3.3.3): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. 9th Street Improvements (Section 3.3.4): Survey, design development, and improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Prepare Gateway Monuments at San Gabriel/9th, Angeleno/Foothill, Dalton/Foothill, and Azusa/5th: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans as coordinated with adjoining private development. Paseo: Prepare conceptual design for paseo described in Section 3.2.2 and coordinate with property owners. 2 PW PBID/General Fund Public Plaza: Prepare conceptual design for the Welcome Plaza as described in Section 3.2.4, quantify site requirements, determine infrastructure needs, define precise site location, and review and assist in preparing design and development plans. 3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Intersection Beautification at Foothill/Azusa: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Ampitheater Concept at Veterans Freedom Park: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 3 R Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Crosswalk Improvements at Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections as identified in Figures 3‐3 and 3‐4: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Alameda Temporary Street Closure Improvements between Foothill and Railway (Section 3.3.3): Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 1 CD/PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Trail at Angeleno Ave and 9th Street: Survey, design development, and selected improvement plans. 3 R Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Downtown Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.2. 1 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees APU/Citrus Station Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.4. 3 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees Route 66 Streetscape Theme Improvements: Install streetscape furnishings as described in Section 3.6.3. 2 PW Developer Agreements/Donors (Community Foundation)/General Fund/Quimby (Park In‐Lieu) Fees EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/ STPL Fund/Gas Tax/PBID/CDBG1 PW 1/2 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 3 PW 2/3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 3 PW EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG 1 CD PBID/General Fund EIFD/Developer Agreements/Prop. A/ Prop. C/Measure R/STPL Fund/Gas Tax/ PBID/CDBG Timing Lead v IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Responsibility Potential Funding Sources CD = Community Development, ED = Economic Development, R= Recreation, PW=Public Works, CE = Code Enforcement Con= Consultant Priority: 1 = Short Range (1st year) 2 = Mid‐Range (2‐5 years) 3 = Long‐ Range (5+ years) PROGRAMS, STUDIES AND INITIATIVES Public Art: Develop and implement a public art program including guidelines for inclusion of public art in new development projects and art in new public improvement projects. 2 CD Developer Agreements/Grants/PBID/ BID Route 66 Public Art Incentive Program: Educate property owners and implement a Route 66 public art program highlighting the historic corridor. 2 CD Developer Agreements/Grants/PBID/ BID Sign and Wayfinding Program: Prepare a way‐finding directional sign program for the Downtown and Route 66 areas. 1 CD Grants/PBID/BID Downtown Trolley Service: City should coordinate with Azusa Pacific University to expand service to Downtown and the Gold Line stations within the Specific Plan Area. 2 CD General Fund/Measure R/BID/PBID Implement Parking Management Plan: Review recommended parking strategies for the Specific Plan Area and determine appropriate on‐ and off‐street parking strategies for implementation. 1 CD Measure R/Prop. A/ Prop. C/STPL Funds Timing Lead v IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Responsibility Potential Funding Sources CD = Community Development, ED = Economic Development, R= Recreation, PW=Public Works, CE = Code Enforcement Con= Consultant Priority: 1 = Short Range (1st year) 2 = Mid‐Range (2‐5 years) 3 = Long‐ Range (5+ years) Foothill Boulevard Naming: Coordinate with Irwindale, Duarte, and Glendora to change the name of Foothill Boulevard to Historic Route 66. 1 PW General Fund IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINANCING5 5-14 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK SECTION 6 ADMINISTRATION 6 Authority, Processing Requirements, and Administrative Procedures ADMINISTRATION 6 SECTION 6 CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................6-1 6.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORITY AND ADOPTION ....................6-1 6.3 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS ...........................................6-1 6.3.1 Amendment Process ..............................................................6-1 6.3.2 Amendment Approval ...........................................................6-2 6.4 SPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION ......................................6-3 6.4.1 Interpretation ..........................................................................6-3 6.4.2 Severability ..............................................................................6-3 6.4.3 Administration Process ...........................................................6-3 6.4.4 Allowable Land Uses ..............................................................6-4 6.4.5 Nonconformity ........................................................................6-4 SUBSECTIONS ADMINISTRATION 6 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 6-1 May 2018 6.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes Specific Plan authority, the administrative procedures required for amendments and/ or modifications to the Azusa TOD Specific Plan, and processing requirements. 6.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORITY AND ADOPTION All specific plans must comply with California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457. These provisions require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan for the jurisdiction in which the specific plan area is located. In turn, all subsequent development proposals, such as tentative subdivision maps, site plans, improvement plans, and all public works projects, must be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. Specific plans adopted by ordinance effectively become a set of zoning regulations that provide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted and may also define design expectations and standards. The Azusa TOD Specific Plan is a regulatory document adopted by ordinance. In any instance where the Azusa TOD Specific Plan conflicts with the requirements of the Azusa Development Code, the Azusa TOD Specific Plan provisions shall take precedence. Where the Azusa TOD Specific Plan is silent on a topic, the Development Code requirements remain in effect. 6.3 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS The Azusa TOD Specific Plan may need to be revised over time to accommodate modifications in the City’s needs or changing economic conditions. California Government Code Section 65453 states that a specific plan “may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” Amendments to the Azusa TOD Specific Plan may be proposed as long as the proposed amendments are compatible and consistent with the purpose and goals of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan and the Azusa General Plan. This section explains the Azusa TOD Specific Plan amendment processes and approval procedures. 6.3.1 Amendment Process Amendments to the Azusa TOD Specific Plan may be initiated by a developer, an individual, or by the City. Proposed amendments to the Azusa TOD Specific Plan must be accompanied by all applicable City application forms, required City fees, and information listed below documenting the proposed amendment: • A detailed explanation that explains and confirms that the proposed amendment is compatible and consistent with the Azusa TOD Specific Plan guiding principles and vision. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65453 ... a Specific Plan “may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” ADMINISTRATION6 6-2 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 • Detailed information to document the proposed change. This information should include revised text and revised diagrams, where relevant, depicting the requested amendment. • A significant amount of forethought and resources were invested in the preparation of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. Therefore, any amendment proposal must clearly document the need for any changes. To this end, the applicant should indicate the economic, social, and technical issues that generate the need for the proposed amendment. • The applicant must provide an analysis of the proposed amendment’s impacts relative to the adopted Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015021018). (Note: Only applicable if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines.) City staff shall review all of the application materials listed above for completeness. If the application is determined complete, and determined to be a “major amendment”, city staff shall then schedule any required hearing(s) and provide a staff report for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff may also request further clarification of application materials, if deemed necessary. The staff report will analyze the proposed amendment to ensure consistency with the Azusa General Plan. It will also determine whether there is a need to amend the Azusa TOD Specific Plan as supported by the conclusions of the application materials and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. 6.3.2 Amendment Approval Findings Approval procedures shall ensure that proposed amendments are compatible and consistent with the objectives and vision of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan and the Azusa General Plan. Amendments may be approved only if all of the following findings are made: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Azusa TOD Specific Plan; B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Azusa General Plan; C. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, and; D. The proposed amendment ensures development of desirable character which will be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. Determination of Minor and Major Amendments The Community Development Director is responsible for making the determination as to whether an amendment to the Azusa TOD Specific Plan is “minor” (administrative) or “major” (requires review by Planning Commission and City Council) within 30 days of any submittal of a request to amend the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. The Community Development Director may authorize or deny a minor amendment. Whereas, a major amendment must be processed as a Specific Plan Amendment with review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Minor amendments must be determined to be in substantial conformance with the Azusa TOD Specific Plan and do not include any of the changes described for major amendments. Where the Azusa TOD Specific Plan ADMINISTRATION 6 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan 6-3 May 2018 requires or allows for a determination by the Community Development Director, it is not to be considered a minor amendment and as such no application or fee is required. Major amendments are those that require resolution from the Planning Commission and City Council. Examples of major amendments include the following: A. The introduction of a new land use category not contemplated in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. B. Changes in the Specific Plan District designation from that shown in the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. C. Significant changes to the circulation system. D. Changes or additions to the development standards or design guidelines which would materially alter the stated intent of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. E. Any changes (not able to be mitigated) that would result in new significant adverse environmental impacts not previously considered in the CEQA compliance documentation for the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. Appeals Appeals on decisions rendered by the Community Development Director may be filed with the Community Development Department and considered by the City’s legislative bodies pursuant to Chapter 88.56 (Appeals) of the Azusa Development Code. 6.4 SPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION 6.4.1 Interpretation The Community Development Director is assigned the responsibility and authority to interpret the Azusa TOD Specific Plan. Whenever the Community Development Director makes an official interpretation of this Specific Plan, the interpretation shall be made in writing explaining the interpretation and the general circumstances surrounding the need for the interpretation. Any interpretation by the Community Development Director may be appealed. The Community Development Director may refer interpretation of the Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for a decision at a public meeting. 6.4.2 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Specific Plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Specific Plan document or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 6.4.3 Administration Process All development applications within the Specific Plan Area shall follow established City procedures such as those for zone variances, conditional use permits, development permits and subdivisions. All development ADMINISTRATION6 6-4 City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 applications within the Specific Plan Area will be evaluated for compliance with Specific Plan regulations and guidelines. Appeals are regulated pursuant to compliance with Chapter 88.56 (Appeals) of the Azusa Development Code. In addition, in order to allow for greater coordination between project applicants, the City, and Caltrans, the following thresholds will be utilized to evaluate development applications for projects located within the Specific Plan Area that may have the potential to impacts nearby freeways as a result of development. Policies utilized to evaluate individual project applications can be found Section 3.1, Page 3-1. • Any development in the City of Azusa that is projected to assign 50 or more vehicle trips (passenger car equivalent trips) during peak hours to a state highway/freeway. • Any development that assigns 10 or more trips (passenger car equivalent trips) during peak hours to a state highway off-ramp or the left-turn lane leading to the on-ramp. • The City of Azusa will work closely with Caltrans to identify potential cumulative traffic impacts and mitigation measures on State facilities for future development projects that might potentially impact State facilities. 6.4.4 Allowable Land Uses Allowable land uses are identified in Section 2, Land Use and Urban Form and are listed within each Specific Plan District subsection. A land use that is not listed in an Allowable Land Use table is not allowed except where the Community Development Director may find that a use may be permitted due to its consistency with the purpose/intent of the zoning district and similarity to other uses listed in compliance with Chapter 88.10.070 (Rules of Interpretation) of the Azusa Development Code. 6.4.5 Nonconformity Chapter 88.54 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels) of the Azusa Development Code shall be used for any nonconforming uses, structures or parcels within the Specific Plan Area. Land uses and structures existing as of the adoption date of this Specific Plan may continue to remain in accordance with the Azusa Development Code (Chapter 88.54). APPENDIX PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A PARKING STRATEGIES FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLANA City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: May 22, 2015 To: Jami Williams, RRM Design Group From: Miguel Nunez, Anjum Bawa, and Amanda Smith Subject: Azusa TOD Specific Plan – Parking Management Plan LA14-2670 This technical memorandum summarizes a comprehensive analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers to prepare a parking management plan for the Azusa Transit Oriented District Specific Plan (TODSP) area. The study objectives were to develop an understanding of parking utilization; identify any surplus/shortage of parking resources; and provide parking management measures that would allow the City to right-size parking requirements within the TODSP area. The memorandum starts with a description of study scope, followed by a discussion of existing conditions, including existing parking inventory. We then discuss results of parking utilization surveys. Further, we describe the use of survey data to develop a parking demand model calibrated to existing conditions. We then establish parking ratios for various land-use types, which would replace existing minimum parking requirements per the City’s Zoning Code. These recommended parking ratios were then utilized to estimate future parking demand generated by future land-use changes. Finally, several parking management strategies are discussed and recommended for the Azusa TODSP area. STUDY AREA The parking study focused on the Azusa TODSP area within the City of Azusa. This effort focused on the TODSP area comprised of four districts: Downtown District, Downtown Expansion District, Gold Line District, and the Civic District. The study area is generally bounded by Ninth Street to the north, Fifth Street to the south, Soldano Avenue to the east, and San Gabriel Avenue to the west. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary. Included in the study area are a total of 18 off-street public and private parking lots and 52 on-street parking segments. STUDY SCOPE The scope of analysis for this study was developed in conjunction with the City of Azusa. The base assumptions, methodologies and geographic coverage of the study were all identified as part of the study approach and follow nationally recognized and accepted principles for conducting parking demand and utilization studies. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 2 of 18 EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS A key element of this study was to develop an understanding of existing parking conditions within the TODSP area. To accomplish this, a comprehensive data collection program was undertaken which involved conducting survey of inventory and utilization of both public off-street lots and on-street parking. PARKING INVENTORY Detailed parking inventory surveys were conducted within the TODSP area in May 2014. Parking spaces were divided into off-street and on-street parking spaces. The off-street parking included publicly accessible lots or garages that serve the respective land-uses. The parking dedicated to the police station, for example, was not included as this is a private gated parking lot. The number of striped parking spaces in each lot was counted and any parking restrictions were noted. On-street parking spaces along each of the 52 block segments were also counted. The on-street parking spaces that were not striped were estimated based on the available curb lengths, excluding driveways or other limiting factors. OFF-STREET PARKING A total of 18 public accessible lots were identified for surveys. These lots serve business owners, employees, visitors, etc. All of the lots are surface parking lots. There are a total of 1,158 off- street public parking spaces. As illustrated in Figure 2, the off-street public parking lot numbers are 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. These parking lots are described below: TABLE 1 OFF- STREET PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY Parking Lot Total Spaces 1 237 3 26 4 153 5 54 6 21 7 18 17 60 18 33 Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 3 of 18 TABLE 1 OFF- STREET PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY Parking Lot Total Spaces 20 47 21 27 22 59 23 14 24 409 Total 1,158 ON-STREET PARKING On-street parking spaces were counted along select streets within the parking management area. A total of 52 street segments were selected for analysis. These accounted for a total of 552 on- street parking spaces. The on-street parking supply and is shown on Figure 2. The inventory results, summarized in Tables 1 and as shown on Figure 2, indicate that there are a total 1,710 spaces in the TODSP area, 1,158 provided in off-street lots and 552 on-street spaces. PARKING UTILIZATION Parking utilization surveys involved counting vehicle parking in the parking lots and on-street parking spaces on a typical weekday that exhibited typical use. Prior to commencement of the surveys, a site visit was undertaken to gather information regarding parking conditions. Conducted on Thursday, May 29, 2014, the surveys involved counting occupied spaces every hour from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM (total of 13 hours) to determine the parking demand over the course of the day. Parking in the TODSP area, as with most areas, is dependent upon several factors including time of day, time of year, and other local conditions. The results of the analysis provide an indication of the number of occupied spaces. This information was used to assess the parking demand by time of day and determine the utilization percentage for both off and on-street parking. The results identify the peak periods of usage and the potential surpluses or deficiencies in supply. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 4 of 18 PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY RESULTS Appendix A contains the off-street parking utilization data sheets and Appendix B contains the on-street parking utilization data sheets. OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING The combined peak off-street parking demand for all publicly accessible parking lots occurred at 1:00 PM, when approximately 38% of the spaces were observed to be occupied. This represents a particularly low utilization of existing parking facilities. The parking among all surveyed lots was most heavily used in Lots 4 and 17 between the hours of 12:00 and 1:00 PM when the utilization reached 82 % and 87%, respectively. Parking Lots 4 and 17 did not experience a shortage of parking and did not exceed its effective supply capacity either. Parking provided at Target was also included among the surveyed parking lots. A total of 409 publicly accessible spaces are provided at this facility. Surveys at this lot indicate a low utilization of 99 spaces or 24%. Since this Target was recently developed, the low parking utilization indicates that the store may not be fully mature and established at this time to generate parking demand commensurate to typical Target stores in other markets. ON-STREET PARKING Peak on-street parking demand occurred at 5:00 PM when approximately 43% of the spaces were observed to be occupied. The parking demand varied between 32% and 43% of the available on- street parking supply. Only a few locations experienced utilization over 90%. EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS Surveys of off-street and on-street parking spaces in Azusa’s TODSP area indicate ample supply of available parking. Total peak parking utilization including both on-street and off-street resources is estimated at 634 spaces. Comparing this to parking supply of 1,710 spaces, this represents 37% utilization. Figure 3 shows combined peak parking utilization for both on-street and off-street parking resources. If parking provided at recently opened Target store (located south of 9th Street, between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue) was not included in the aforementioned demand and supply, peak utilization is estimated at 41% (peak parking utilization of 535 spaces vs. supply of 1,304 spaces). The following section evaluates the City’s parking requirements for the TODSP area. DOWNTOWN AZUSA PARKING RATES The City of Azusa Zoning Code (88.36.050) provides parking standards and ratios for specific types of land uses in the TODSP area. Table 2 summarizes these rates below. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 5 of 18 Table 2: Existing Downtown Azusa Parking Rates Land Use Category Weekday Base Parking Rate Office 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Retail 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Restaurant (Quality) 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Restaurant (Sit down/Family) 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Restaurant (Fast Food) 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Bank 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sf Residential 1.5 per unit Per City code, the existing land uses would be required to provide a total of 1,440 parking spaces, as shown in Table 3. The TODSP area currently provides 1,158 spaces in off-street parking facilities, 282 fewer than the zoning code requirement. However, the land-uses in the TODSP area have access to 555 on-street spaces. Table 3: City of Azusa – Parking Required to serve Existing Uses Use Existing Land Use Square Footage City Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) Parking Required Office 105.454 ksf 2.5 264 Retail 272.167 ksf 2.5 681 Restaurant (Quality) 26.089 ksf 2.5 66 Restaurant (sit down/family) * 17.393 ksf 2.5 44 Restaurant (fast food) * 14.494 ksf 2.5 37 Bank 16.406 ksf 2.5 42 Residential 204 du 1.5 306 Total Parking Required 1,440 Total Existing Parking Supply 1,713 Difference 273 With the build-out of the Azusa TOD Specific plan, the current City code would require a total of 3,080 spaces from existing and future land-uses in the TODSP area, as shown in Table 4. As indicated in Table 8 below, an additional 1,367 spaces would need to be provided to support future build out of the specific plan area, to comply with current minimum parking requirements. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 6 of 18 Table 4: City of Azusa Rates – Future Parking Required with Current Code Use Future Land Use Square Footage City Code Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) Parking Required Office 170.5 ksf 2.5 427 Retail 432.0 ksf 2.5 1080 Restaurant (Quality) 46.0 ksf 2.5 115 Restaurant (sit down/family) * 30.6 ksf 2.5 77 Restaurant (fast food) * 25.5 ksf 2.5 64 Bank 22.5 ksf 2.5 57 Residential 840 du 1.5 1,260 Total Future Parking Required 3,080 Total Existing Parking Supply 1,713 Additional Parking Spaces Required 1,367 As mentioned previously, the existing parking is currently underutilized. Therefore, the addition of 1,367 parking spaces to the downtown network may not be needed to meet future demand. Given the existing parking facilities are underutilized; the existing parking requirements per the City’s zoning code could be modified to allow for “right-sizing” parking to future demand of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan area. To evaluate existing zoning code requirements and its relevance for future TODSP uses, it was important to develop a parking demand model and calibrate it to existing conditions. PARKING DEMAND MODEL A parking demand model was developed to build a comprehensive understanding of parking for the mix of existing and future uses in the TODSP area. One of the most important elements that is not accounted for in the City’s current parking requirements is the presence of shared parking. Accordingly, the model was developed using the methodology provided in the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition (2003). In order to evaluate the number of spaces needed under a demand based analysis, characteristics such as mix and size of each land use must be known. Other parking-related factors including captive market, time-of-day patterns, and seasonal variations, also affect parking demand. An adjusted set of parking ratios were developed to calibrate the model and replicate May 2014 conditions. Since the objective of the model was to establish a locally customized set of parking ratios that were more suitable for the TODSP area, it was important that these ratios Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 7 of 18 accommodate peak parking demand for each use throughout the year and also allow for buffer to accommodate inefficiencies from operating fluctuations, vehicle maneuvers, mis-parked vehicles, minor construction, etc. For the purpose of establishing parking ratios based on demand, a parking facility is considered to have reached its effective supply if 85-90% of the spaces in the facility are utilized. A parking system operates at optimum efficiency at slightly less that its actual capacity. It is unrealistic to expect an arriving parker to find the last available parking space in a system without significant frustration and the resulting perception that parking is inadequate. Because “perception is reality”, parking “demand” must include this effective supply cushion (Parking Structure – Planning, Design, Construction and Repair, 3rd ed. [Anthony P Chrest… et al., 2001]). A 10-15% cushion is widely accepted in the parking industry as an adequate cushion for mix of uses such as the TODSP area. Establishing these ratios was an iterative process and involved considering City’s current zoning code requirements, parking requirements for other comparable cities within Southern California region, ULI recommended base rates, and rates provided in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (4th Edition) and discussions with City staff. Table 5 shows a summary of recommended minimum ratios for the major land use categories in the TODSP area: Table 5: Proposed TODSP Azusa Minimum Parking Rates Land Use Category Weekday Base Parking Rate (per 1,000 SF or DU) Office 2.0 Retail 1.5 Restaurant (Quality) 1.5 Restaurant (Sit down/Family) 1.5 Restaurant (Fast Food) 1.5 Bank 1.0 Residential 1.0 Table 6 and Table 7 show parking demand analysis for the month of May and projections for the peak month of December using the recommended parking ratios. As shown in Table 6, peak parking demand for the month of May under existing conditions is estimated at 751 spaces. This represents a buffer of 18% over actual surveyed utilization in the month of May, slightly higher than the desired 15% buffer. The weekday peak parking demand projections for month of December are estimated at 884 spaces. This represents an approximately 18% increase of peak demand estimates for the month of May. Comparing the peak December demand with the available supply of parking, the off-street parking supply alone (1,158 spaces) will be able to adequately serve peak demand. Table 6: Azusa TOD Specific Plan: Existing Land Uses May Parking DemandWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandOverall PkAM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak Hr6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM1 PM 11 AM 1 PM 6 PMCommunity Shopping Center (<400 ksf) 66% 2 11 34 79 147 192 215 226 215 203 203 215 215 215 181 113 68 23 - 226 192 226 215 Employee80% 5 8 22 41 46 52 54 54 54 54 54 52 52 52 49 41 22 8 - 54 52 54 52 Family Restaurant96% 17 35 41 52 59 62 69 62 35 31 31 52 55 55 55 41 38 35 17 62 62 62 55 Employee100% 7 11 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 11 11 13 13 13 13 11 9 9 5 14 14 14 13 Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reserved100% 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 Guest100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office 100 to 500 ksf100% - - 3 10 16 7 2 7 16 7 2 2 1 - - - - - - 7 7 7 1 Employee100% 6 59 146 185 195 195 176 176 195 195 176 98 49 20 14 6 2 - - 176 195 176 49 Bank (Branch) with Drive-In100% - - 8 14 16 8 8 8 11 8 13 16 - - - - - - - 8 8 8 - Employee100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customer 19 46 86 155 238 269 294 303 277 249 249 285 271 270 236 154 106 58 17 303 269 303 271 TOTAL DEMANDEmployee 18 78 181 239 255 261 244 244 263 260 241 163 114 85 76 58 33 17 5 244 261 244 114 Reserved 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 241 328 471 598 697 734 742 751 744 713 694 652 589 559 516 416 343 279 226 751 734 751 589 ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.751 734 751 589 Table 7: Azusa TOD Specific Plan: Existing Land Uses December Parking DemandWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandOverall PkAM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak Hr6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM2 PM 11 AM 2 PM 6 PMCommunity Shopping Center (<400 ksf) 100% 3 17 51 102 187 255 306 340 340 340 323 289 272 255 221 170 102 34 - 340 255 340 272 Employee100% 7 10 27 51 58 65 68 68 68 68 68 65 65 65 61 51 27 10 - 68 65 68 65 Family Restaurant100% 18 36 43 54 61 65 72 65 36 32 32 54 58 58 58 43 40 36 18 36 65 36 58 Employee100% 7 11 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 11 11 13 13 13 13 11 9 9 5 14 14 14 13 Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reserved100% 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 Guest100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office 100 to 500 ksf100% - - 3 10 16 7 2 7 16 7 2 2 1 - - - - - - 16 7 16 1 Employee100% 6 59 146 185 195 195 176 176 195 195 176 98 49 20 14 6 2 - - 195 195 195 49 Bank (Branch) with Drive-In100% - - 8 14 16 8 8 8 11 8 13 16 - - - - - - - 11 8 11 - Employee100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customer 21 53 105 180 280 335 388 420 403 387 370 361 331 313 279 213 142 70 18 403 335 403 331 TOTAL DEMANDEmployee 20 80 186 249 267 274 258 258 277 274 255 176 127 98 88 68 38 19 5 277 274 277 127 Reserved 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 245 337 495 633 751 813 850 882 884 865 829 741 662 615 571 485 384 293 227 884 813 884 662 ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.884 813 884 662 Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 10 of 18 FUTURE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY This section evaluates future change in land-uses within the Azusa TOD Specific Plan area and estimates incremental parking demand and possible supply projections based on the aforementioned recommended parking ratios. The Azusa TOD specific plan will add a net new of approximately 65,000 sf of office, 159,800 sf of retail space, 44,100 sf of restaurant space (quality, sit-down/family, and fast food), 6,100 sf of commercial uses, and 840 new residential condominium units. FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY CHANGES With the opening of the Metro Gold Line Foothill extension, a parking structure with additional parking spaces will open. The City of Azusa has entered into a shared parking agreement with Metro regarding the use of the parking structure to allow for the use of approximately 150 spaces by the City of Azusa and the general public attracted to the TODSP area. In addition, if the new developments build parking in compliance with the aforementioned recommended parking ratios, a total if 1,284 net new parking spaces are expected to be added by these developments. It should be noted that since the recommended ratios are “minimum” rates which new land-uses must provide in off-street parking, it is possible that the total new parking spaces associated with new developments would be higher than 1,284 spaces. As part of the two-way conversion of San Gabriel Avenue, a handful of on-street spaces are anticipated to be removed north of Foothill Boulevard. The two-way operations on San Gabriel Avenue will require the angled parking to be converted to parallel parking. As a result, approximately 10 on-street spaces would be removed, but this loss of parking is considered to be nominal and would not affect parking or circulation patterns as a result. Additionally, the City’s parking supply will also be slightly reduced as several of the current parking lots are redeveloped and the City replaces some parking spaces. Table 8 shows the projected parking supply in according to the proposed minimum parking rates with the build-out of the Azusa TOD specific plan. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 11 of 18 Table 8: Proposed Minimum Parking Rates: Future Parking Required Land Use Category Net New Future Development Square Footage Proposed Minimum Parking Rates (per 1,000 SF or DU) Parking Required Office 65 ksf 2 130 Retail 159.800 ksf 1.5 240 Restaurant (Quality) 19.845 ksf 1.5 30 Restaurant (sit down/family) * 13.230 ksf 1.5 20 Restaurant (fast food) * 11.025 ksf 1.5 17 Bank 6.100 ksf 1 7 Residential 840 du 1 840 Net New Parking Required 1,284 Existing Off-Street Parking Supply 1,158 Metro Gold Line Parking Structure 145 Less: Parking loss from conversion of San Gabriel Avenue to two-way road -10 Total Off-Street Parking Supply 2,577 The calibrated parking demand model was used to analyze future parking demand with the additional uses summarized above. As shown in Table 9, a peak parking demand of 2,036 spaces is estimated for a weekday in the month of December. Even with the addition of new land uses, the projected parking demand will be 81% of potential supply of 2,577 off-street spaces. These spaces will be supplemented by 555 on-street parking spaces. Table 9: Azusa TOD Specific Plan: Future Land Uses December Parking DemandWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandOverall PkAM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak Hr6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM1 PM 11 AM 1 PM 6 PMRegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) 100% 5 27 81 163 299 407 489 543 543 543 516 462 434 407 353 272 163 54 - 543 407 543 434 Employee100% 14 20 54 101 115 128 135 135 135 135 135 128 128 128 122 101 54 20 - 135 128 135 128 Family Restaurant100% 32 64 77 96 109 115 128 115 64 58 58 96 102 102 102 77 70 64 32 115 115 115 102 Employee100% 13 20 23 23 26 26 26 26 26 20 20 25 25 25 25 21 17 17 9 26 26 26 25 Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reserved100% 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 Guest100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office 100 to 500 ksf100% - - 5 16 26 12 4 12 26 12 4 3 1 1 - - - - - 12 12 12 1 Employee100% 9 95 236 299 315 315 284 284 315 315 284 158 79 32 22 9 3 - - 284 315 284 79 Bank (Branch) with Drive-In100% - - 12 21 23 12 12 12 16 12 18 23 - - - - - - - 12 12 12 - Employee100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customer 37 91 175 296 457 546 633 682 649 625 596 584 537 510 455 349 233 118 32 682 546 682 537 TOTAL DEMANDEmployee 36 135 313 423 456 469 445 445 476 470 439 311 232 185 169 131 74 37 9 445 469 445 232 Reserved 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 909 982 1,135 1,397 1,628 1,822 1,924 1,987 2,036 2,034 2,004 1,944 1,804 1,678 1,604 1,533 1,389 1,216 1,064 950 2,036 1,924 2,036 1,678 ULI Base Data Has Been Modified.2,036 1,924 2,036 1,678 Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 13 of 18 PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES By its nature, a TODSP area generally shares several common characteristics relating to infrastructure and development patterns, such as frequent transit service, mixed-uses near the transit station, and high levels of mobility and accessibility, particularly for people walking and biking. The Azusa TODSP will be focused on development in close proximity to the Azusa Downtown Gold Line Station and surrounding Azusa downtown area. The City of Azusa has made significant progress in developing a mixed-use district that provides a welcoming streetscape environment, particularly along Azusa Avenue. Many of the strategies in this memo are intended to provide an efficient parking system that facilitates a walkable, “park-once” environment that is comfortable for all modes of travel, while leveraging the proximity of transit, and a diversity of densities and land uses. This section builds off the discussion of revising parking rates by identifying select parking management strategies to make existing and future parking resources more efficient and accessible. The City of Azusa may already be employing some of the strategies in the TODSP area. These strategies may require modifications to achieve the desired effect. Some of these effects could include: • Maintaining adequate parking for the core commercial activity areas within the TODSP area. • Efficient use of most desired parking spaces to achieve maximum turnover • More efficient use of underutilized or excess parking areas • Distribution of long term parkers to less desired and under-utilized spaces within the TODSP area • Improving walkability and accessibility so that the entire district is generally accessible from any parking area Following is brief description of strategies to consider both for on-street and off-street parking: ON-STREET PARKING STRATEGIES • Time Limits & Restrictions: Time limits are perhaps the simplest way to control the uses of on-street parking. Time-based parking restrictions prohibit parking for certain periods to preserve roadway capacity during peak commuting periods and to save parking resources for particular user groups. In commercial areas, parking time limits are used to discourage long-term parking by employees of the businesses so that the desirable parking spaces are available for customer, allowing a more efficient use and higher turnover rate for desired spaces. Opportunities for application of strategy: Time restrictions are in place on San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue. This option is useful to promote parking turnover at on- street parking spaces that are desirable and provide good accessibility to adjacent businesses. Since this strategy is in place at some of the most desirable on-street spaces Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 14 of 18 on San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue, one potential application is when new land uses and businesses are added in downtown Azusa, potentially resulting in streets such as 9th Street, Foothill Boulevard, or 6th Street that may experience increased parking utilization for longer time periods. • Urban Design/Signage/Traffic Calming: Urban design features can make more distant and likely less desired on-street parking spaces known to commuters and enhance pedestrian connections to those spaces. Good signage can direct parkers quickly and efficiently to available spaces. Sometimes, the solution is as simple as providing information about space location and availability. Supplemental traffic calming strategies that moderate traffic speeds in order to improve the pedestrian environment, can also support parking management strategies. Opportunities for application of strategy: This strategy has been employed on Azusa Avenue where the City of Azusa has implemented curb extensions, wide sidewalks, diagonal parking, landscaping, lighting, and several pedestrian crossings. Making the environment safer and more inviting for pedestrians can encourage people to walk to various destinations in downtown instead of driving to each one. There are several opportunities in downtown Azusa, three of which include San Gabriel Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, and paseos or pathways that can be implemented within the district to better connect streets and activity nodes separated by large parcels or parking areas. In addition to replicating the treatments on Azusa Avenue, other potential measures include providing wayfinding to key assets (parking and transit) and destinations (Civic uses, retail areas), and modifications to the roadway cross-section that slow traffic or make crossing the street easier (i.e., lane reductions, conversion to two-way travel). • Assignment of Parking Location: This strategy involves assigning particular parking users to specific locations to increase the efficiency with which spaces are used. E.g. employer policy could require all-day parkers to parking in remote facilities to free up close-in on-street parking. Alternatively, the most convenient spaces could be devoted to pick and drop off function. Opportunities for application of strategy: Within downtown Azusa potential applications include creating a pick-up/drop-off area for popular destinations or assigning parking locations to employees who might otherwise occupy non-time restricted spaces in proximity to their business of employment. While this is listed as an on-street parking strategy, it can also be used in large parking lots, such as the Target parking lot, to prevent employees from occupying the most desirable spaces. OFF-STREET PARKING STRATEGIES • Access Control: Strategies to control access to off-street parking include signage that limit who can use parking facilities and for what purposes; chaining off parking entrances Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 15 of 18 until stores open later in the morning can prevent transit commuters from poaching parking; use of gate arm access controls to prevent non-shoppers from using the facility. Opportunities for application of strategy: This parking management strategy is applied at the Azusa Police Department where only police vehicles can access the parking area and it this may be a strategy employed at the new Metro Gold Line parking structure in downtown Azusa. This strategy can also be applied at city parking lots where the City must retain off-street parking in order to assume control of select opportunity sites. In an effort to make this parking available to the public patronizing the downtown area, the City of Azusa could implement access control, complemented with a nominal parking fee, that would allow for validation by local businesses. • On-Site Enforcement: On-site enforcement strategies can include security personnel giving warnings, post notices, and if necessary, arrange for towing. Simple information and enforcement programs can be very effective in preventing parking poaching. Opportunities for application of strategy: Enforcement is an important strategy to consider, particularly if there is a lack of turnover at time restricted parking spaces or parking is encroaching into areas not intended for parking. While parking utilization data described above does not indicate this is currently a significant issue most of the time, there may be events or periods when there is a particularly high demand for parking at certain locations with time restrictions. If parking locations are difficult to access or if it is hard to find a parking space, people parking may elect to park in residential areas or risk exceeding time limits to find convenient parking. Additionally, with the arrival of the Gold Line, some businesses with off-street parking (i.e., Target, CVS, City Hall) may experience parking poaching by transit patrons that can be addressed through additional enforcement. • Time Limits & Restrictions: Time limit for spaces can be adjusted to reflect the particular purpose for the parking. The limits can be established on a differential basis to direct all- day parkers to underutilized spaces. Time-based restrictions can prohibit parking for certain periods to reserve parking resources for a user group. Opportunities for application of strategy: This strategy is discussed above for on-street parking. Opportunities for application of this strategy also exist in parking lots at locations such as Target or the Metro Gold Line Station. For example, Azusa may consider providing short-term and long-term parking spaces at the most appropriate locations based on where patrons may ultimately be destined. • Signage/ITS/Design: Signage is key to efficient and effective use of available parking resources. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can help guide drivers to available parking. ITS has been effectively used both district wide and in large parking structures to provide “live” information about available spaces at each level and in different public parking facilities throughout a district. Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 16 of 18 Opportunities for application of strategy: The construction of parking garages in downtown Azusa presents the best opportunity to employ this strategy as this newer technology is becoming more common. One very specific application is to provide real- time information on the availability of parking within the parking garage. This can include signs indicating the number of spaces available on each level, and may also include lights that can be used to display whether a parking space is available or occupied. Also as described above, wayfinding signage should be considered to communicate to patrons about the locations of designated parking and popular destinations. • Shared Parking: Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses; and relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip. Opportunities for application of strategy: With the relatively low parking utilization currently experienced in the downtown area, shared parking presents an opportunity to increase effective parking supply without necessarily needing to construct additional parking or increase parking requirements, both of which can be challenging in the development process. Two examples of locations that have the building blocks to create efficient and utilized parking areas are Target and the block bounded by Foothill Boulevard, 6th Street, San Gabriel Avenue, and Azusa Avenue. Target experiences relatively low parking utilization (approximately 25% utilized at peak hour) and they may be willing to allow the use of their parking by other uses that exhibit different parking peaking characteristics. If a land use, such as a coffee shop, wanted to open but couldn’t provide enough parking, they could enter into an agreement with Target to utilize some portion of Target parking until a closing time of 3:00PM, so that Target could maintain a lower parking supply during off-peak hours (early in the day) and offer a larger parking supply during the peak utilization period beginning at 4:00PM. The other location mentioned above, houses a variety of business types and has a number of off-street spaces available for patrons. Provided the mix of uses is reviewed to provide land uses that have different peaking characteristics, a lower number of physical spaces can be used to meet the demand of various businesses, as a parking space can be used more than once over the course of a day. Based on the analysis described above and potential parking strategies available for the Azusa TODSP area, the following matrix provides additional information regarding the strategies recommended for managing local parking resources. For each strategy, this matrix provides a range of issues each strategy can be used to address, whether applicable for on or off-street parking, cost to implement (low, medium, or high), responsible agencies, and local examples where this strategy is in place. Examples were primarily sought in Azusa, but were also drawn from other locations in the San Gabriel Valley, as needed. Table 10: Azusa TODSP Recommended Parking Strategies Strategy Issue(s) to Address Cost to Implement Responsible City Department(s) Local Examples Time Limits and Restrictions Employee parkingLack of parking turnoverPhysical concentration of desirablespacesLow Public Works Azusa AvenueFoothill BoulevardUrban Design/Signage/Traffic Calming Access to distant spacesChallenging pedestrian environmentLow-Medium Public Works Planning Azusa AvenueAssignment of Parking Location Employee parkingLack of parking turnoverNo pick-up/drop-off areasLow Public Works N/AAccess Control Parking poaching (unauthorizedparking in commercial lots/transitreserved spaces)Neighborhood intrusionMedium Public Works Law Enforcement Property Owners Azusa PDOn-site Enforcement Off-street parking intrusionNon-compliance with time/userrestrictionsMedium Public Works Law Enforcement Planning N/A Jami Williams RRM Design Group May 22, 2015 Page 18 of 18 Table 10: Azusa TODSP Recommended Parking Strategies Signage/ITS/Design Large parking structures with available spaces Cruising for parking Medium Public Works Planning Paseo Colorado Shared Parking Mixed-uses on-site or district Excess parking supply “Park-once” environment Differing parking characteristics Low Public Works Planning Downtown South Pasadena Downtown San Dimas City ofAzusa \\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F1_ProjectAreaLocation.mxdProject Area LocationFigure 1 N Proposed Foothill Gold Line Extension Specific Plan Area Azusa AveN Sunset AvePasadena AveOrange AveAlameda AveDalton Ave Angeleno Ave 9th St 6th St 8th StSan Gabriel AveSoldano AveE 10th St Foothill Blvd Santa F e A v e 10th St 4 1 24 6 12 17 13 20 3 22 19 5 7 18 1521 1423 822120302618325151214192216101741249 7 0 64 511311 142 10 7 2 18220 19101910 10 8 10 12 3 10 110 7 165 10 4 10 211 11 20 12 11 8 7 208 189421 1655 8 128 8 31720151010 9 22166201812191010 9 18310 12191721175 \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F2_ParkingSupply.mxdON-STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING LOCATIONSCITY OF AZUSA Figure 2 On-Street Parking Supply Off-Street Parking Location Azusa AveN Sunset AvePasadena AveOrange AveAlameda AveDalton Ave Angeleno Ave 9th St 6th St 8th StSan Gabriel AveSoldano Ave Foothill Blvd Santa F e A v e 10th St \\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2670_Azusa TOD\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F3_ParkingUtilization1PM.mxdFigure 3 PEAK HOUR PARKING UTILIZATION (1:00 PM) CITY OF AZUSA 0% 1% - 50% 51% - 90% 91% - 100% PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK APPENDIX AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES B FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITESB FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES The real estate market analyses prepared by TNDG for the Azusa TOD subareas, plus an investigation of local real estate financial conditions, provide background information on the feasibility of development in the Specific Plan Area. Key aspects of project feasibility, for certain case study projects, are summarized in Table B-1. The following sections of the Financial Analysis describe the structure, content, assumptions, and other technical details for the companion electronic spreadsheet entitled “Azusa Development Scenario Models” (presented here as Appendix B). The spreadsheet was prepared by the Natelson Dale Group Inc. (TNDG) in coordination with RRM Design Group with the intent of providing the City of Azusa with an overview of the financial feasibility of alternative real estate development projects at specific sites in the downtown area (Site 36 is in the Specific Plan Downtown District, the Dalton site in the Downtown Expansion District), based on prototypes generated by RRM. Four separate scenarios were evaluated, involving retail, office, and residential uses in various configurations and combinations. Model Structure and Subject Matter Appendix Table B-1 summarizes the results of the individual pro forma models (Tables B-3 to B-6). Table B-2 is the table of common input factors applied in the four separate pro forma models. Tables B-3 to B-6 are the pro forma models for the four projects. Alternative development programs were prepared for two distinct sites: Site 36 (3 alternatives) and the Dalton site. The parking configuration associated with each development alternative, and associated construction costs per space, are shown on Table B-7. The three site 36 scenarios included a requirement for incorporating 54 existing parking spaces. Modeling Assumptions, Limitations, and Other Considerations The Table B-2 input factors (e.g. rental rate, construction cost, etc. by use type) common to all of the development alternatives are linked to the detailed pro forma models on Tables B-3 to B-6. No attempt was made to differentiate these values among the different projects, given the projects’ overall similarities (for example, the varying number of stories and building sizes among the alternatives would not necessarily require different types of construction systems, although parking systems did differ and the variations in related costs were accounted for within the modeling) and the fact that the analysis process is intended to be relatively general in nature. City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES Table 5‐2. Summary of Analysis of Project Feasibility, Selected Sites and Project Configurations Area/ Scenario Land Use Land Area Gross bldg. area # Stories Total Cost, Hard & Soft Net Operating Income Capitalized Value Capitalized/ Sale Value Less Costs Floor Area RatioMaximum Theoretical Land Value/SF Land Value (/SF) Allowing Return on Hard (& Soft) Costs of: 15% Site 36‐1 Retail 38,889 $7,613,891 $1,058,846 $20,168,500 $12,554,609 $125.31 Office 38,889 $9,043,057 $679,896 $10,878,336 $1,835,279 $18.32 Residential 60,000 $13,018,630 $902,880 $18,057,600 $5,038,970 $50.30 TOTAL 100,188 137,7784$29,675,578 $2,641,622 $49,104,436 $19,428,8581.38 $193.92 $149.49 Site 36‐2 15% Retail 38,889 $9,564,018 $1,058,846 $20,168,500 $0 $105.85 Office 38,889 $10,993,185 $714,533 $11,432,533 $439,348 $4.39 Residential 60,000 $16,163,806 $902,880 $18,057,600 $1,893,794 $18.90 TOTAL 100,188 137,7784$36,721,009 $2,676,260 $49,658,633 $12,937,6241.38 $129.13 $74.16 Site 36‐3 15% Retail 24,444 $4,818,629 $665,561 $12,677,343 $7,858,714 $78.44 Office 24,444 $5,716,962 $427,363 $6,837,811 $1,120,849 $11.19 Residential 36,000 $7,834,333 $541,728 $10,834,560 $3,000,227 $29.95 TOTAL 100,188 84,8894$18,369,924 $1,634,652 $30,349,714 $11,979,7900.85 $119.57 $92.07 Dalton 15% Retail* 13,333 $2,581,250 $363,033 $6,914,914 $4,333,664 $71.06 Residential 57,333 $12,427,447 $862,752 $17,255,040 $4,827,593 $79.16 Total 60,984 70,6673$15,008,697 $1,225,785 $24,169,954 $9,161,2571.16 $150.22 $113.31 Source:Table B-1: Summary of Analysis of Project Feasibility, Selected Sites and Project Configurations City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITESB The input values applied in the models assume projects that are successfully competitive within the broader market area in and around Downtown Azusa. The rationale for this assumption is that, ultimately, developers would not propose projects if they did not believe they were going to be successful within the market area, which means they would have had to have taken into account the competitive conditions for the relevant trade areas involved. Within this concept, office use presented the greatest challenge, because of depressed market conditions in this segment that have persisted for many years with no clear indication of when the office market might be considered truly healthy. Modeling processes applied in this analysis assumed some improvement over current obtainable office rental rates (the rate used reflects historical levels to which the market could potentially recover), but office uses still remained the most unprofitable of all uses analyzed, as discussed further below. There are fundamental issues that could keep suburban office market conditions tight for the foreseeable future. Briefly, the location of office space is not as sensitive to market conditions (e.g. traffic volumes and visual accessibility) as the location of retail, for example. Similarly, office users are not as likely to be concerned about who their fellow tenants are, within any particular building or area, as are retail tenants. The result is that the “competitive space” in which office development occurs is not as predictable, and this issue is more pronounced in suburban areas in contrast to, for example, a central city location. The analysis concept embodied in the pro formas is that the development costs, excluding land, when subtracted from the value (theoretical sale price) of the project upon completion and stabilized occupancy, represent the theoretical value of the land that the project occupies. Development costs include hard construction costs and a factor for soft costs associated with the development process. The value of the project is estimated by dividing the net operating income that the project would generate (space rental income, less a vacancy factor, less an operating expense factor) by a capitalization rate (cap rate) that is associated with that particular type of use and also with the region within which the project is located, to the extent it is possible to obtain such geographic-specific information. Secondary data sources were used to generate estimates of cost, income, operating factors, and cap rates. Cost estimates were derived in part from RS Means online estimating tools (selecting options that reflected union wages and a Southern California location). Rental rates and other real estate market data were derived from a combination of local real estate listings and published real estate reports from major brokerage companies. The pro forma results are particularly sensitive to the cap rate factors applied. Although the factors used in the model are compatible with current market conditions, it should be noted that these factors are now and have been for a number of years particularly favorable to sellers of real estate, at least in part due to the relatively low rates of return available to investors from other financial instruments. (The lower the cap rate the higher the theoretical selling price, because the cap rate represents the rate of return from the project that an investor is willing to accept.) Within the pro forma models, the theoretical land value derived as described above is divided by the land area to yield a theoretical land price per square foot. In order to add additional consideration for a project’s profitability, a factor was applied to the projects’ development costs (excluding land), in the summary table City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES on Table B-1 above, to represent a minimum return on that portion of the project investment. (In practice, developers would likely look at the total project cost, including land, and the difference between that total cost and a theoretical sale price, as a way of evaluating a project. The approach applied within this model simplifies the analysis given that land value is itself derived from the pro forma.) The resulting land price per square foot allowing for the return on costs can then be compared to an estimate of the raw land value for property within the downtown area. Although information to derive such an estimate was very limited, TNDG has applied the assumption that the land could be worth at least $65 per square foot. This “threshold” amount can then be compared to the theoretical land value (including the factor for minimum return on costs) derived from the analysis. Any project in which the pro forma analysis yielded a land value less than the threshold amount would be conceptually infeasible. Analysis Results The analysis indicated that all of the theoretical development scenarios were financially feasible; although the scenarios that included office space were less likely to be feasible the higher the proportion of office space in the project. Among all the scenarios higher density projects also had a higher level of profitability. Although TNDG prepared this analysis using assumptions that appeared to be reasonable at the time, the sensitivity of these kinds of models to varying factors, changes in market conditions over time, and different opinions and assumptions that developers and other analysts bring to exercises of this kind, all suggest that this analysis be used by the city as an internal project review tool, which can be easily altered by staff as conditions warrant. The model is likely to have the most value to the City as a way to compare alternate project types, as well as review submitted projects. Notes on Maximizing Key Opportunity Sites The feasibility of new commercial development would generally be significantly enhanced if configured as mixed-use projects with multi-family residential. In the process of designing and developing mixed-use projects, care is necessary in defining the expectations for ground-floor retail, which must synchronize with other area retail and other uses, and issues to be addressed will include mix, demand in relation to supply, and the like. The downtown-area districts in which opportunity sites are concentrated could benefit from a “designer in residence” program where owners of neighboring existing developed property could get conceptual guidance on how to upgrade properties within an overall somewhat unified vision. City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 B AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES TABLE B ‐2. AZUSA INPUT T ABLE Land Use Type Retail Office Residential, Rental Hotel All Uses COST FACTORS Shell cost/SF $128.00 Sales Price/SF ‐ with land cost factor added Tenant Improvements Cost /SF $40.00 Shell and Tenant Improvements Building Cost Total $140.00 $168.00 $160.00 $190.00 Site/offsite development factor 5% Factor for unenclosed balconies, etc. [added for Azusa], as % of shell/TI cost 5% Total Bldg. (incl. contractor & A/E fees, site/offsite factor) $147.00 $176.40 $176.00 $199.50 Soft Cost Factor 25% 25% 20% 20% FINANCIAL FACTORS Leasing Rates (SF/Mo.) $2.75 $2.40 $2.00 Cost of sales transactions Sales profit margins (after cost of sales transactions and allowance for land costs*) Room Rates $100.00 Covered Space Leasing Rates/Month (Office)* $95.00 Vacancy Factor 5% 5% 5% 25% Operating/leasing Expense Factor 3.5%29.0% 20.0% 45.0% Capitalization Rate** 5.25% 6.25% 5.00% 7.25% Assumed min. rate of return on hard costs 15% Minimum Threshold $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 Source: CBRE Cap Rate Survey 2nd half 2014: Los Angeles Suburban markets. Figures used are generally 25 basis points below the high end of the given value range City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES TABLE B‐3. PRO FORMA SCENARIO SITE 36‐1 SCENARIO Scenario Site 36‐1 Land Area 100,188 Land Use Type Retail Office Residential TOTAL COST FACTORS Gross bldg area 38,889 38,889 60,000 137,778 Avg unit size 1,100 Total Building Cost $5,716,667 $6,860,000 $10,560,000 $23,136,667 Number of Parking Spaces 107.0 107.0 82.5 297 Parking type Surface Surface Surface Surface Parking Cost/Space $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Total Parking Cost $374,446 $374,446 $288,858 $1,037,750 Net Rentable SF @ 35,000 35,000 49,500 119,500 Sub‐Total Hard Costs $6,091,113 $7,234,446 $10,848,858 $24,174,417 Soft Costs $1,522,778 $1,808,611 $2,169,772 $5,501,161 Total Cost, Hard & Soft $7,613,891 $9,043,057 $13,018,630 $29,675,578 FINANCIAL FACTORS Gross leasing income $1,155,000 $1,008,000 $1,188,000 $3,351,000 % of workers paying for covered parking Gross Parking Income (annual) Net Rental Income $1,097,250 $957,600 $1,128,600 $3,183,450 Net Operating Income $1,058,846 $679,896 $902,880 $2,641,622 Capitalized Value $20,168,500 $10,878,336 $18,057,600 $49,104,436 Capitalized Value Less Costs ‐ Implied Land Value $12,554,609 $1,835,279 $5,038,970 $19,428,858 Land Value/SF $125.31 $18.32 $50.30 $193.92 SITE DESIGN, OTHER FACTORS Number of Stories 4 Gross Building Area 38,889 38,889 60,000 137,778 Floor Area Ratio 1.38 Percentage of Net Rentable Area 29% 29% 41% 100% Source: TNDG City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITESB T ABLE B‐4. PRO F ORMA SCENARIO S ITE 36‐2 SCENARIO Scenario Site 36‐2 Land Area 100,188 Land Use Type Retail Office Residential TOTAL COST FACTORS Gross bldg area 38,889 38,889 60,000 137,778 Avg unit size 1,100 Total Building Cost $5,716,667 $6,860,000 $10,560,000 $23,136,667 Number of Parking Spaces 107.0 107.0 82.5 297 Parking type 2‐level struct.2‐level struct.2‐level struct. 2‐level struct. Parking Cost/Space $18,083 $18,083 $18,083 $18,083 Total Parking Cost $1,934,548 $1,934,548 $1,492,366 $5,361,461 Net Rentable SF @ 35,000 35,000 49,500 119,500 Sub‐Total Hard Costs $7,651,215 $8,794,548 $12,052,366 $28,498,128 Soft Costs $1,912,804 $2,198,637 $4,111,441 $8,222,881 Total Cost, Hard & Soft $9,564,018 $10,993,185 $16,163,806 $36,721,009 FINANCIAL FACTORS Gross leasing income $1,155,000 $1,008,000 $1,188,000 $3,351,000 % of workers paying for covered parking 40% Gross Parking Income (annual) $48,785 Net Rental Income $1,097,250 $1,006,385 $1,128,600 $3,232,235 Net Operating Income $1,058,846 $714,533 $902,880 $2,676,260 Capitalized Value $20,168,500 $11,432,533 $18,057,600 $49,658,633 Capitalized Value Less Costs ‐ Implied Land Value $10,604,482 $439,348 $1,893,794 $12,937,624 Land Value/SF $105.85 $4.39 $18.90 $129.13 SITE DESIGN, OTHER FACTORS Number of Stories 4 Gross Building Area 38,889 38,889 60,000 137,778 Floor Area Ratio 1.38 Percentage of Net Rentable Area 29% 29%41% 100% Source: TNDG City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES T ABLE B‐5. PRO F ORMA SCENARIO S ITE 36‐3 SCENARIO Scenario Site 36‐3 Land Area 100,188 Land Use Type Retail Office Residential TOTAL COST FACTORS Gross bldg area 24,444 24,444 36,000 84,889 Avg unit size Total Building Cost $3,593,333 $4,312,000 $6,336,000 $14,241,333 Number of Parking Spaces 74.7 74.7 55.0 205 Parking type Surface Surface Surface Surface Parking Cost/Space $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Total Parking Cost $261,570 $261,570 $192,610 $715,750 Net Rentable SF @ 22,000 22,000 29,700 73,700 Sub‐Total Hard Costs $3,854,903 $4,573,570 $6,528,610 $14,957,083 Soft Costs $963,726 $1,143,392 $1,305,722 $3,412,840 Total Cost, Hard & Soft $4,818,629 $5,716,962 $7,834,333 $18,369,924 FINANCIAL FACTORS Gross leasing income $726,000 $633,600 $712,800 $2,072,400 % of workers paying for covered parking Gross Parking Income (annual) Net Rental Income $689,700 $601,920 $677,160 $1,968,780 Net Operating Income $665,561 $427,363 $541,728 $1,634,652 Capitalized Value $12,677,343 $6,837,811 $10,834,560 $30,349,714 Capitalized Value Less Costs ‐ Implied Land Value $7,858,714 $1,120,849 $3,000,227 $11,979,790 Land Value/SF $78.44 $11.19 $29.95 $119.57 SITE DESIGN, OTHER FACTORS Number of Stories 4 Gross Building Area 24,444 24,444 36,000 84,889 Floor Area Ratio 0.85 Percentage of Net Rentable Area 30%30%40% 100% Source: TNDG City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 AZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITESB TABLE B‐6. PRO FORMA SCENARIO DALTON SCENARIO Scenario Dalton Land Area 60,984 Land Use Type Retail* Residential Total COST FACTORS Gross bldg area 13,333 57,333 70,667 Avg unit size Total Building Cost $1,960,000 $10,090,667 $12,050,667 Number of Parking Spaces 30 65 95 Parking type Surface Comb Comb Parking Cost/Space $3,500 $3,921 Total Parking Cost $105,000 $265,539 $370,539 Net Rentable SF @ 12,000 47,300 59,300 Sub‐Total Hard Costs $2,065,000 $10,356,206 $12,421,206 Soft Costs $516,250 $2,071,241 $2,587,491 Total Cost, Hard & Soft $2,581,250 $12,427,447 $15,008,697 FINANCIAL FACTORS Gross leasing income $396,000 $1,135,200 $1,531,200 % of workers paying for covered parking Gross Parking Income (annual) $0 Net Rental Income $376,200 $1,078,440 $1,454,640 Net Operating Income $363,033 $862,752 $1,225,785 Capitalized Value $6,914,914 $17,255,040 $24,169,954 Capitalized Value Less Costs ‐ Implied Land Value $4,333,664 $4,827,593 $9,161,257 Land Value/SF $71.06 $79.16 $150.22 SITE DESIGN, OTHER FACTORS Number of Stories 3 Gross Building Area 13,333 57,333 70,667 Floor Area Ratio 1.16 Percentage of Net Rentable Area 20%80% 100% Source: TNDG City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITES TABLE B ‐7. PARKING COST SCHEDULE Surface Podium above‐grade below grade Tuck‐under Result (wtd avg cost/space) Scenario $3,500 $16,400 $19,765 $27,335 $5,500 36‐1 100% $3,500 36‐2 50% 50% $18,083 36‐3 100% $3,500 Dalton 79% 21% $3,921 Source: TNDG City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 BAZUSA OPPORTUNITY SITESB THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK APPENDIX FINANCING C POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCIAL MECHANISMS Contents National Program: Federal ............................................................................................................................ 2 Federal Programs ...................................................................................................................................... 2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) ................................. 2 Partnership for Sustainable Communities ............................................................................................ 2 National Programs: Other ........................................................................................................................... 10 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) ........................................................................... 10 Foundations ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Enterprise Community Website .............................................................................................................. 11 STATE PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Local Government Commission .............................................................................................................. 11 California State Treasurer ....................................................................................................................... 11 California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) .................................................... 12 New Markets Tax Credit Program ....................................................................................................... 12 Programs for Public Agencies ............................................................................................................. 13 Programs for Private Firms ................................................................................................................. 13 California Energy Commission ................................................................................................................ 14 California Municipal Utility Association .................................................................................................. 14 Financing Authority for Resource Efficiency in California (FARECal) .................................................. 14 California Department of Housing and Community Development ........................................................ 14 CA DOT .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Environmental Justice and Community‐based Transportation Planning Grants Program ................. 17 California Pollution Control Financing Authority ................................................................................ 17 I‐Bank ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Programs ............................................................................................................................................. 19 REGIONAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................ 20 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)....................................................................... 20 LOCAL PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Special and “Add‐On” Taxes ................................................................................................................... 20 Business Improvement Districts ......................................................................................................... 21 Special Benefit Assessments ............................................................................................................... 21 Other City Funding Mechanisms ............................................................................................................. 23 Other City Options for Development Support ........................................................................................ 23 NATIONAL PROGRAM: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Federal Programs It should be noted that some federal programs are also available through state and regional organizations, sometimes as “pass‐through” funding or simply as alternative channels. For example, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) can support member communities with sustainability programs within the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) Under the Economic Development Assistance programs (EDAP) Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement, EDA will make construction, non‐construction, and revolving loan fund investments under the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Programs. Grants made under these programs will leverage regional assets to support the implementation of regional economic development strategies designed to create jobs, leverage private capital, encourage economic development, and strengthen America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. Funding Opportunity Number: EDAP2014 Funding Opportunity Title: FY 2014 Economic Development Assistance Programs Opportunity Category: Discretionary Grant Funding Instrument Type: Cooperative Agreement Partnership for Sustainable Communities In June 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities was formed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The HUD‐DOT‐EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities marks a fundamental shift in the way the federal government structures its transportation, housing, and environmental policies, programs and spending. Through the Partnership, the three agencies are collaborating to support communities that provide people with a variety of housing and transportation choices, attract economic opportunity, safeguard public health, and protect clean air and water. U.S. Department of Transportation The U.S. Department of Transportation works to promote livable communities and enhance the economic and social well‐being of all Americans by creating and maintaining a safe, reliable, integrated, and accessible transportation network. The majority of DOT funding is distributed annually through programs that are administered by States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations through formulas. While most have specific eligible activities identified in law, funds from some programs may be transferred by states to local governments, transit agencies, or other transportation organizations. Projects funded through DOT programs must be contained in an approved metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP) and/or statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). In this way, decisions about transportation projects, project design, and selection are made locally and result from locally determined transportation and land‐use plans. Multimodal and Planning Programs Transit Oriented Development Planning Pilot: This program provides funding to advance planning efforts that support transit‐oriented development (TOD) associated with new fixed‐guideway and core capacity improvement projects. This program authorizes the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to make grants for comprehensive planning that seeks to: enhance economic development, ridership, and other goals established during the project development and engineering processes; facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility; increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic; enable mixed‐use development; identify infrastructure needs associated with the eligible project; and include private‐sector participation. Funds are awarded competitively, and state and local government agencies are eligible for funding. Public Transportation Programs Urbanized Areas Formula Grant Program: This program provides direct funding to communities with a population of 50,000 or more for public transportation planning and capital improvements. Eligible activities include: job access and reverse commute projects that provide transportation to jobs and employment opportunities for welfare recipients and low‐income workers; and transit operating costs in certain areas. Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program: This program provides funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus‐related facilities, such as shelters or transfer stations. Funds are allocated based on certain criteria such as population, bus vehicle revenue‐ miles, bus passenger‐miles, and population density. Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts” and “Small Starts”): These discretionary programs are the federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting planning and construction of major transit capital projects. New Starts and Small Starts have helped make possible dozens of new or extended transit fixed guideway systems across the country – heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and ferries. New Starts projects are typically greater than $250 million in total project cost, requesting greater than $75 million in New Starts funding. The Small Starts program supports fixed guideway projects smaller than the New Starts cost thresholds. Participation in the New Starts and Small Starts programs requires completion of a legislatively directed process for planning and project development. State of Good Repair Grants: This program is FTA’s first dedicated funding to repair and upgrade rail and bus rapid transit systems. Eligible recipients include State and local government authorities in urbanized areas with fixed guideway public transportation facilities operating for at least 7 years. Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities: This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit‐dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. Operating assistance is now available under this program. Funds are apportioned based on each state’s share of population for these groups of people. Flexible Programs for Roads, Streets, and Paths Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: The CMAQ program supports transportation projects or programs that will improve air quality and relieve congestion in areas that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. CMAQ funds may be used to establish new or expanded transportation projects or programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation infrastructure, congestion relief efforts, and diesel engine retrofits. Other CMAQ projects include operating assistance for new transit services, travel demand management strategies, traffic flow improvement programs that reduce emissions, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities and programs. Surface Transportation Program: The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding to states and metropolitan planning organizations for projects on any federal‐aid highway. It can be used for a broad array of highway, transit, bicycling, and walking purposes. Transportation Alternatives Program: This new program consolidates many previously eligible activities under separately funded programs, including Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and several other discretionary programs. Funds may be used for projects or activities related to: construction, planning, and design of on‐road and off‐road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation; conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users; and any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to address stormwater management. Recreational Trails Program (RTP): This program provides formula funds to states to develop and maintain trails and trail‐related facilities for all types of recreational uses, including hiking, bicycling, equestrian, cross‐country skiing, snowmobiling, off‐road motorcycling, all‐terrain vehicles, four‐wheel driving, or other off‐road motorized vehicles. Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS): While not a funding program, CSS is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in developing a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSS principles include the employment of early, continuous, and meaningful involvement of the public and all stakeholders throughout the project development process. The project is designed and built with minimal disruption to the community. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s mission is to increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination. HUD promotes sustainable communities by coordinating federal housing and transportation investments with local land use decisions in order to reduce transportation costs for families, improve housing affordability, save energy, and increase access to housing and employment opportunities. Public Housing HOPE VI: The HOPE VI Program provides competitive funding for the eradication of severely distressed public housing developments. Funds can be used for demolition, major rehabilitation, and new construction of public housing; acquisition of sites in other locations for private new construction; and supportive services for those relocated by the program. HOPE VI promotes the creation of mixed income communities that are dense, pedestrian friendly, and transit accessible. It also encourages high standards of green building for new construction projects through regulation and giving priority to proposals with green features. Public Housing: The Public Housing Program provides funding to local housing agencies for operating expenses and repairs to public housing developments. Funds are allocated based on the continuing needs of the housing authorities, especially the number of units they own. Public housing agencies are encouraged to use environmentally responsible practices through regulations and policy guidance and through specific programs like Energy Performance Contracting (EPC). EPC provides funding to make public housing units more energy efficient through energy efficiency, water efficiency, or renewable energy improvements to units. Funding is provided through freezing utility subsidies to repay financing obtained to make the improvements. For every $1 spent on utility efficient improvements under this program, $2.44 in savings will be created. Housing Choice and Project‐based Vouchers: Housing choice and Project‐based Voucher Programs provide funding to local public housing agencies for rental subsidies for units that are chosen by the tenant in the private market (Housing choice Vouchers) or for use in specific developments or units (Project Based Vouchers). Housing Choice Vouchers allow tenants more flexibility in deciding the location of their residence, giving them more of an opportunity to live closer to work, family, amenities, or services. Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): The CDBG Program provides formula funding directly to larger cities and counties and through state governments for small units of local government. Funds can be used for most kinds of development as long as it meets one of the following national objectives. 1) Benefits low and moderate‐income persons‐ 2) aids in the prevention or elimination of slum and blight; or 3) meets certain community development needs having a particular urgency. CDBG is a flexible program that provides resources to address a wide range of community and economic development needs, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity. Disaster Recovery Assistance: In response to disasters, Congress appropriates additional funding for the CDBG and HOME programs as Disaster Recovery grants to rebuild the affected areas and provide crucial seed money to start the recovery process. Since CDBG Disaster Recovery assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, HUD can help communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. Disaster Recovery grants often supplement disaster programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, HOME Disaster Recovery grants can provide an important resource for providing affordable housing to disaster victims. HOME Investment Partnership: The HOME Program provides formula funding directly to larger cities and counties, to consortia of local governments, and to state governments. The HOME program is designed to create affordable housing for low‐income households and can take the form of direct assistance or loan guarantees. Funds can be used for most kinds of housing development, including acquisition and rehabilitation in the creation of low‐income housing. Additionally HOME program funds can be used for homebuyer assistance and for Tenant‐based Rental Assistance. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS provides formula funding and limited competitive grants to states, cities, and nonprofit organizations to develop housing and supportive services for people with AIDS. Homeless Programs provide formula and competitive funding to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations that offer housing, homeless prevention programs, rental assistance, and other supportive services to families and individuals facing a housing crisis or homelessness. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP): NSP provides some formula funding to states and local governments and some competitive grants to states, local governments, nonprofit entities, or a consortium of nonprofit entities/ Funds can be used to acquire and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed upon homes or residential properties in neighborhoods. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program that provides public entities with loan funds to carry out economic development, housing, and public facility projects. The public entity may carry out the project itself or designate another public or nonprofit entity to do so. Section 108 loans are usually used by CDBG entitlement communities, but non‐entitlement communities may also apply if their state agrees to pledge the CDBG funds necessary to secure the loan. Mortgage Insurance for Rental Housing: Several FHA mortgage insurance programs can be used to facilitate the new construction and substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental projects. Some FHA programs can be used to refinance and acquire existing multifamily projects not requiring substantial rehabilitation. Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units: FHA also insures mortgages on condominium units in developments that are proposed or under construction, existing projects, or conversions. Generally, approval of the condominium project must be obtained from an authorized lender. Housing Finance Agency Risk Sharing Program: Under this program, HUD provides credit enhancement on loans underwritten and closed by a state or local housing finance agency (HFA). Loans made pursuant to Section 542(c) are for affordable housing which includes new construction, substantial rehabilitation, elderly housing, and refinancing. Eligible owners and purchasers apply for the program through the appropriate HFA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. Where and how we build communities has a major impact on the environment and on public health. By promoting more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable communities, EPA can help protect our nation’s air, water, land, and people. A clean, green, healthy community is a better place to buy a home and raise a family, it’s an appealing place for businesses to locate, and it has the foundations it needs for prosperity. Many EPA programs are aimed at helping tribal, state, and local governments support activities that build more sustainable communities and protect human health and the environment. Brownfields Remediation and Redevelopment EPA has a variety of programs to help eligible entities assess, remediate, and restore brownfields sites to productive use and revitalize affected neighborhoods. Assessment Grant Program: These grants provide funding to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfield sites. Grants are for up to $200,000 to address sites contaminated by hazardous substances, and up to $200,000 to address sites contaminated by petroleum. Applicants can also apply as an Assessment Coalition (a group of three or more eligible entities) for up to $1 million. Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant Program: These grants of up to $1 million provide funding to capitalize a revolving loan fund. Revolving loan funds can be used to provide no‐interest or low‐interest loans and subgrants to eligible entities who own the site to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. RLF grants require a 20 percent cost share. Cleanup Grant Program: These grants provide funding for a recipient to carry out cleanup activities at brownfields sites that it owns. Sites may be contaminated by hazardous substances and/or petroleum. Grants are up to $200,000 per site and require a 20 percent cost share. Brownfields Job Training Grant Program: These grants provide funding to eligible entities and nonprofit organizations to help communities take advantage of jobs created by the assessment and cleanup of brownfields. The Job Training Grant Program’s goals are to prepare trainees for future employment in the environmental field and to facilitate cleanup of brownfield sites contaminated with hazardous substances. Grants are for up to $200,000. Targeted Brownfields Assessments: These assessments are conducted by an EPA contractor, and services can include site assessments, cleanup options and cost estimates, and community outreach. Sites for this program are selected by EPA regional offices. Services can range from several thousand dollars to as much as $100,000. Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program: TAB services are provided to communities, regional entities, and nonprofits who need technical assistance dealing with brownfield sites. The program can also assist communities with applying for EPA brownfields grants or identifying other resources to address their brownfield sites. Environmental Justice Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across the nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision‐making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Environmental Justice Small Grants Program: This program provides financial assistance to eligible organizations to build collaborative partnerships, to identify the local environmental and/or public health issues, and to envision solutions and empower the community through education, training, and outreach. Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem‐Solving Cooperative Agreement Program: This program provides financial assistance to eligible organizations working on or planning to work on projects to address local environmental and/or public health issues in their communities, using EPA's "Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem‐Solving Model." State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreements Program: This program provides funding so that eligible entities may work collaboratively with affected communities to understand, promote, and integrate approaches to provide meaningful and measurable improvements to the public health and/or environment in the communities. Environmental Justice Showcase Communities Project: This project provides EPA regional office funding to bring together governmental and non‐governmental organizations to pool their resources and expertise on the best ways to achieve real results in communities. The successes and lessons learned in these demonstration projects will be used to help guide the design and implementation of future environmental justice projects and will help EPA increase its ability to address local environmental challenges in more effective, efficient, and sustainable ways. Toxic Pollution Reduction Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE): CARE is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for a community to organize and take action to reduce toxic pollution in its local environment. Through CARE, a community creates a partnership that implements solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and minimize people's exposure to them. By providing financial and technical assistance, EPA helps CARE communities get on the path to a renewed environment. Lead Grants: EPA awards grants aimed at reducing childhood lead poisoning in communities with older housing through the National community‐based Lead Grant and the Targeted Lead Grant Programs. The projects supported by these grant funds are an important part of EPA’s lead program to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a major public health concern. Energy Conservation and Renewable and Clean Energy Energy Efficiency at the State and Local Levels: The State and Local Climate and Energy Program provides technical assistance, analytical tools, and outreach support to state, local, and tribal governments. Specific assistance includes identifying and documenting cost‐effective policies and initiatives – measuring and evaluating the benefits of clean energy initiatives; offering tools, guidance, and outreach support; and fostering peer exchange opportunities. The program’s web site provides state and local governments with information on energy efficiency and clean energy, including webcasts on a variety of topics. National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC): NCDC offers a comprehensive program to help fleet owners clean up their diesel fleets. The campaign awards competitive grants through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to public agencies, eligible nonprofits, and private entities, such as school bus contractors, who partner with eligible entities. NCDC’s rigorous verification program evaluates the performance and durability of retrofit technologies and provides a path to verification for emerging technologies. The campaign’s innovative programs, such as Clean School USA, Clean Ports USA, and Clean Construction USA, provide sector‐specific information, including case studies, technology options, and publications. ND’s tools and resources include the web‐based Diesel Emissions Quantifier to help evaluate the cost effectiveness of various retrofit options and the State and Local Toolkit to help design, fund, and evaluate emission‐reduction programs/ In addition, ND supports regional private‐public collaboratives whose members coordinate to implement a wide array of activities to reduce diesel emissions. SmartWay Transport Partnership: Under SmartWay, EPA provides web‐based analytical tools, technical assistance, innovative financing options, air quality planning guidance, product and vehicle verification and certification, and recognition incentives to help states and municipalities support cleaner goods movement in their communities. SmartWay partners learn how to shrink their carbon footprints and reduce emissions of air pollutants while saving fuel and expanding their businesses. SmartWay’s innovative financial options can help trucking firms, municipal fleet managers, and owner‐operators serving communities across the country overcome financial obstacles to cleaner, fuel‐saving vehicle retrofits and upgrade. Cities can partner with EPA regional offices to recruit city‐based freight shippers and carriers into the program, organize events or pilot tools/resources for the local business community, use locomotive and truck idle reduction strategies to achieve clean air goals, and let businesses and consumers know about lower polluting, fuel‐saving, SmartWay‐designated passenger vehicles and commercial trucks. Smart Growth EPA’s Smart Growth Program offers case studies, research, tools, and publications to help communities learn about and implement smart growth solutions to a wide range of development‐related challenges, including transportation and parking, affordable housing, stormwater runoff, zoning codes, infill and redevelopment, and many other issues. Smart Growth Implementation Assistance (SGIA) Program: Through the SGIA program, EPA solicits applications from state, local, regional, and tribal governments (and non‐profits that have partnered with a governmental entity) that want to incorporate smart growth techniques into their future development. Once selected, communities receive direct technical assistance from a team of national experts in one of two areas: policy analysis (e.g., zoning codes, school siting guidelines, and transportation policies) or public participatory processes (e.g., visioning, design workshops, alternatives analysis). EPA tailors the assistance to the community's unique situation and priorities and provides the contractor team. This is not a grant. Through a site visit and a report, the multidisciplinary teams help the community achieve its goal of encouraging growth that fosters economic progress and environmental protection. The SGIA Request for Applications is usually open in the first quarter of the year. Smart Growth Funding Resources: The Smart Growth Program occasionally offers competitive grants. It has also compiled lists of federal, regional, and state resources for communities and non‐governmental organizations that are seeking funding to address various aspects of smart growth. Water Quality In urban and suburban areas, much of the land surface is covered by buildings, pavement, and compacted landscapes that do not allow rain and snowmelt to soak into the ground, which greatly increases the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. Upgrading water infrastructure and using green infrastructure techniques can help improve stormwater management to better protect our nation's drinking water and lakes, rivers, streams, and other water bodies. State Revolving Loan Funds: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Programs are federal/state partnerships designed to finance the cost of infrastructure needed to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act. Through the SRFs, states maintain revolving loan funds to provide low‐cost financing for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects, such as traditional municipal wastewater treatment and collection systems, nonpoint source program implementation projects, wetlands restoration, groundwater protection, innovative stormwater runoff and estuary management projects, drinking water treatment and conveyance systems, and source water protection. Funds to establish or capitalize the SRF programs are provided through EPA grants to the states, along with state matching funds (equal to 20 percent of federal government grants). Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure is an approach to wet weather management that is cost effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. Green infrastructure management approaches and technologies infiltrate, evaporate, transpire, capture, and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural hydrology. Many of these approaches, including green roofs, rain gardens, green streets, and other innovative stormwater management techniques, can also make neighborhoods safer, healthier, and more attractive. EPA has compiled a list of funding resources to help communities fund green infrastructure projects. Asset Management: As communities undertake the task of renewing their water infrastructure systems, EPA can offer a suite of practices and approaches to ensure that water infrastructure both supports sustainable communities and can be supported by the communities it serves. One of the keys to sustainable infrastructure is the practice of Asset Management (AM), which provides a platform for making the best, most effective infrastructure investments. EPA offers AM training and a suite of tools to promote adoption and improvement of AM implementation. Multisector AM integrates investments in water, transportation, and housing infrastructure and is being promoted through a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and DOT. Nonpoint Source Management Grants: Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, states receive grant money to support a wide variety of activities to reduce nonpoint source pollution, including techniques related to agriculture, urban runoff, forestry, and the physical modification of water bodies. States directly implement projects as well as provide funds to organizations and local governments to carry out projects that reduce nonpoint source pollution through best management practices, outreach and education, and demonstration of new approaches to improve water quality. These grant monies may not be used to fund activities currently required in a stormwater permit issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Each state publishes an annual request for proposals. NATIONAL PROGRAMS: OTHER The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Historic Preservation Tax Credits. The recipients of the credits are owners of commercial, industrial, agricultural, or rental residential properties. The Federal Government offers a variety of tax credits that assist preservation projects, notably a credit that is available only for rehabilitation of income‐producing historic properties. Under this historic preservation tax credit, property owners who rehabilitate historic buildings for commercial, industrial, agricultural, or rental residential purposes can receive a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the rehabilitation costs. The National Park Service must certify that the rehabilitation work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Since the inception of the tax credit in 1976, it has generated over $40 billion in historic preservation activity. Foundations Funders’ Network. Funders’ Network’s mission is, “to inspire, strengthen and expand funding and philanthropic leadership that yield environmentally sustainable, socially equitable and economically prosperous regions and communities.” A list of member organizations, most but not necessarily all funding organizations, is available at the website link below. This membership list should not be interpreted to imply the availability of grants. Grantseekers should carefully review the criteria and requirements of any foundation prospect before applying for a specific grant. http://www.fundersnetwork.org/connect Enterprise Community Website Enterprise is a national organization involved in affordable housing finance and community investment, with the mission of bringing housing and opportunities to low‐income people. Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was originally enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, to generate private capital investment to support the development of new and rehabilitated affordable rental homes for low and very low‐income families. The Housing Credit is administered mostly by the States, which allows them to adapt the program to their unique housing needs under broad Federal guidelines. U.S. Treasury Department‐certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI), the Enterprise Community Loan Fund. The program is one of the largest nonprofit loan funds in the country and is a member of the Opportunity Finance Network and a CARS rated CDFI. STATE PROGRAMS Local Government Commission The Local Government Commission (LGC) is a nonprofit organization based in California “fostering innovation in environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social equity. The LGC is helping to transform communities through inspiration, practical assistance and a network of visionary local elected officials and other community leaders.” The LGC provides links to the following programs: Efficiency Financing Program for Local Government, Hospitals, and Schools: California Energy Commission. The California Energy Commission’s Energy Efficiency Financing Program provides financing for schools, hospitals and local governments through low‐interest loans for feasibility studies and the installation of energy‐efficiency measures. Approximately $40 million is available. Loans can finance up to 100 percent of the cost of energy efficiency projects for schools, hospitals, cities, counties, special districts, or public care institutions. Savings by Design: California Public Utilities Commission. Savings by Design is a program to encourage high‐performance nonresidential building design and construction within the service territories of PG&E, SDG&E, Southern California Edison, or Southern California Gas. The program offers building owners and their design team a wide range of services including design assistance, owner incentives, and design team incentives. Owners and design team members are eligible to participate. California State Treasurer California Alternative Energy & Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. CAEATFA was established to promote energy sources designed to reduce the degradation of the environment, and to promote the development and commercialization of advanced transportation technologies. CAEATFA is able to issue tax‐exempt and taxable bonds for projects that qualify. CAEATFA offers financing at lower than conventional costs as the interest on the bonds is exempt from federal and state taxes. Applicants should consult with legal counsel and financial consultants to determine if the tax‐exempt securities option is the best for the project. California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission (CIDFAC). CIDFAC operates the State’s IDB and empowerment zone bond financing programs. CIDFAC issues tax‐exempt, industrial development bonds (IDBs) intended for helping local communities grow their economies and provide good‐paying jobs. Applicants for CIDFAC financing must meet certain eligibility, public benefit and other requirements. Additionally, they must provide certain documentation concerning the proposed IDB project and the project sponsor and user. California Transportation Financing Authority (CTFA). CTFA issues, or approves the issuance of, revenue bonds to finance transportation projects. The CTFA will review proposed projects to ensure they are financially sound, and also has the ability to approve tolls as part of the financing plans to repay revenue bonds. Through the CTFA, local transportation agencies will have greater ability to sell revenue bonds ‐‐ backed by non‐general fund monies ‐‐ in the municipal bond market. And the state will ensure that projects and financing are consistent with state transportation policy objectives. California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) was created in 1988, under California’s Joint Exercise of Powers Act, to provide California’s local governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of community‐based public benefit projects. Although cities, counties and special districts are able to issue their own debt obligations or serve as a conduit issuer of private activity bonds that promote economic development and provide critical community services, many local agencies find stand‐alone financings too costly or lack the necessary resources or experience to facilitate the bond issuance and perform post‐ issuance activities for the term of the bonds. In response, CSCDA was created by and for local governments in California, and is sponsored by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. New Markets Tax Credit Program Created by the U.S. Federal Government in 2000 as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program encourages investment in low‐income communities. Through the NMTC Program, real estate projects or businesses in a low‐income community are able to generate capital by providing investors – typically a bank or financial institution — a tax credit as an additional incentive for capital investment. The authority to determine how tax credits are allocated is granted to financial intermediaries called Community Development Entities (CDEs). CDEs have been certified by the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury after completing a rigorous application process and demonstrating their commitment and history of investing capital into low‐income communities. CSCDC is a certified CDE. Certified CDEs compete annually to receive awards under the NMTC. Programs for Public Agencies CaLEASE This program offers tax‐exempt lease financing to public agencies for capital projects, and equipment without the traditional expense or complexity of other finance mechanisms. Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) SCIP allows participating local agencies to receive impact fees prior to development, while property owners repay the tax‐exempt obligation over a thirty year bond term. SCIP may eliminate the need for local agencies to negotiate deferral fee agreements. Delinquent Property Tax Funding Program This program enables cities and districts that do not participate in a county Teeter plan to sell or assign their share of their county's delinquent 1% levy taxes to the CSCDA; and similarly enables Community Facilities and Special Assessment Districts to sell or assign their delinquencies to the CSCDA. This program could also be used by cities and districts that do participate in a Teeter plan, but have some non‐Teetered special tax or fund delinquencies. Energy Finance Programs Sustainable Energy Bond Program CSCDA and the Foundation for Renewable Energy and Environment are teaming together to provide public agencies and nonprofit organizations throughout California with access to tax exempt financing for critical sustainable energy investments. View the recorded webinar or download the PDF presentation to learn more. California First – Property Assessed Clean Energy Program CaliforniaFIRST is a multi‐jurisdiction Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program that provides the size and standardization to catalyze an active, secure energy retrofit marketplace. PACE is a financing tool that allows property owners to secure upfront funding for energy and water‐saving improvements, which they repay through a voluntary contractual assessment lien on their property tax bill. Please click here for more information about the program. Programs for Private Firms 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Qualified nonprofit organizations can access low‐cost, tax‐exempt bonds to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, installation, expansion or rehabilitation of land, buildings, and equipment. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization can finance projects at a lower interest rate than conventional financing because the interest paid to bondholders is exempt from federal (and in some instances state) income taxes. Housing Bonds For‐profit and nonprofit developers can access tax‐exempt bonds for the financing of low‐ income multifamily and senior housing projects. The Bonds may be used to finance or refinance the acquisition and rehabilitation of an existing project or for the construction of a new project, provided the developer agrees to set aside all, or a portion, of the units in a project for individuals and families of very low, low or moderate income. IDBS / Manufacturing Eligible manufacturers can access cost‐effective, tax‐exempt bond proceeds to acquire, construct or rehabilitate manufacturing facilities that promote job creation and retention. Bond proceeds may also be used for the acquisition of new equipment. Exempt Facilities/Solid Waste This program offers companies seeking cost‐effective, tax‐exempt capital to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation, construction of, or the acquisition of new equipment for solid waste and exempt facilities. California Energy Commission Energy Efficiency Financing. Projects with proven energy and/or demand cost savings are eligible. Energy efficiency projects must be technically and economically feasible. Examples of projects include; Lighting system upgrades, Pumps and motors, Streetlights and LED traffic signals, Energy management systems and equipment controls, Building insulation, Energy generation including renewable and combined heat and power projects, Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, Water and waste water treatment equipment, and Load shifting projects, such as thermal energy storage. California Municipal Utility Association Financing Authority for Resource Efficiency in California (FARECal) Provides flexible, joint/pooled financing for energy efficiency, water conservation and water reclamation projects to municipalities and local districts with publicly owned utilities. California Department of Housing and Community Development Note that some of these programs might also discussed under federal program information. Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF) ‐ Affordable Housing Innovation Program (AHIP). The program provides quick acquisition financing for the development or preservation of affordable housing. Loans for developers, provided through a nonprofit fund manager and terms may not exceed 5 years. Applicants must demonstrate local government support, the availability of leveraged funds, organizational stability and capacity, and a track record of developing affordable housing. CalHome Program. The program enables low and very‐low income households to become or remain homeowners. Grants are provided to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual households through deferred‐payment loans. Direct, forgivable loans can be used to assist development projects involving multiple ownership units, including single‐family subdivisions. Grants to local public agencies or nonprofit corporations can be used for first‐time homebuyer down payment assistance, home rehabilitation, including manufactured homes not on permanent foundations, acquisition and rehabilitation, homebuyer counseling, self‐help mortgage assistance programs, or technical assistance for self‐help homeownership. All funds to individual homeowners will be in the form of loans: Loans for real property acquisition, site development, predevelopment, construction period expenses of homeownership development projects, or permanent financing for mutual housing and cooperative developments. Project loans to developers may be forgiven as developers make deferred payment loans to individual homeowners. Assistance to individual households will be in the form of deferred‐payment loans, payable on sale or transfer of the homes, or when they cease to be owner‐occupied, or at maturity. Governor's Homeless Initiative. The Governor’s Homeless Initiative is an interagency effort aimed at reducing homelessness. It includes the funding program described here, the creation of a State interagency coordinating council, and the purchase by CalHFA of $10 million in existing loans for supportive housing projects, freeing up funds for new loans. The funding program component of the Governor’s Homeless Initiative assists with the development of permanent supportive housing for persons with severe mental illness who are chronically homeless. It is a joint project of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), and the Department of Mental Health (DMH). Loan terms are 55 years for the permanent MHP loans, up to three years for the CalHFA bridge loan, and up to 30 years for CalHFA permanent loans. Eligible uses include new construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). The program assists cities, counties and nonprofit community housing development organizations (CHDOs) to create and retain affordable housing. Grants are provided to cities and counties; low‐interest loans to state‐certified CHDOs operating in state‐ eligible jurisdictions. Most assistance is in the form of loans by city and county recipients to project developers, to be repaid to local HOME accounts for reuse. Eligible recipients include cities and counties that do not receive HOME funds directly from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and current state‐certified nonprofit Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) proposing activities in eligible communities. Housing‐Related Parks Program. The goal of the program is to increase the overall supply of housing affordable to lower income households by providing financial incentives to cities and counties with documented housing starts for newly constructed units affordable to very low or low‐income households. Grants are provided for creation of new parks or rehabilitation or improvements to existing parks. Grant amounts are based on the numbers of bedrooms in newly constructed rental and ownership units restricted for very low and low‐income households. A city, county, or city and county that receives funds may subcontract through a recreation and park district or nonprofit organization that has among its purposes the conservation of natural or cultural resources. Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG). The grant program assists in the new construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports higher‐density affordable and mixed‐income housing in locations designated as infill. The minimum/maximum grant amounts for Qualifying Infill Projects: $500,000/$4 million ($250,000 minimum for Rural Areas). New construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of infrastructure are required as a condition of or approved in connection with approval of Qualifying Infill Projects. Eligible applicants include non‐profit and for profit developers and as a joint applicant with the developer, a locality or public housing authority. Multifamily Housing Program (MHP). The program aims to assist the new construction, rehabilitation and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households. These loans are deferred payment loans with 55‐year terms. The interest rate is three percent simple interest on unpaid principal balance. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent or transitional rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing. MHP funds will be provided for post‐construction permanent financing only. Eligible costs include the cost of child care, after‐school care and social service facilities integrally linked to the assisted housing units; real property acquisition; refinancing to retain affordable rents; necessary onsite and offsite improvements; reasonable fees and consulting costs; and capitalized reserves. Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP). The program provides predevelopment capital to finance the start of low income housing projects. These are short‐term loans with three percent simple annual interest loans for up to two years. Maximum loan amount for purposes other than site option or site purchase is $100,000. Predevelopment costs can apply to projects to construct, rehabilitate, convert or preserve assisted housing, including manufactured housing and mobile home parks. Eligible costs include, but are not limited to, site control, site acquisition for future low‐income housing development, engineering studies, architectural plans, application fees, legal services, permits, bonding and site preparation. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program. Under the program, low‐interest loans are available as gap financing for rental housing developments that include affordable units, and as mortgage assistance for homeownership developments. In addition, grants are available to cities, counties, and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of specified housing developments, or to facilitate connections between these developments and the transit station. Loans can be used for the development and construction of housing development projects within one‐quarter mile of a transit station. Grants can be used for the provision of infrastructure necessary for the development of higher density uses within one‐quarter mile of a transit station. CA DOT Note that some of these programs might also be discussed under federal program information. Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation. The Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation grant program is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (State Planning and Research, Part I). The Federal Highway Administration has authorized Caltrans to distribute these grant funds. The objective of the Partnership Planning for Sustainable Transportation Program is to encourage or strengthen multi‐agency and/or government‐to‐government partnerships. The projects must have a statewide and/or regional benefit and may include partnering with local agencies to develop plans that align with SB 375 SCS implementation. The anticipated benefits of the project must ultimately result in improvements to the statewide or regional transportation system. Transit Planning. The Transit Planning Grant Program is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (Section 5304). The Federal Transit Administration has authorized Caltrans to distribute these grant funds. Funding distribution will depend on the quality and amount of applications for each Transit Planning program. Transit Planning for Sustainable Communities. The objective of the Transit Planning for Sustainable Communities Grant Program is to address transit planning issues of statewide or regional significance. The proposed planning studies are intended to improve transit services and to facilitate congestion relief by offering a sustainable alternative to the single occupant vehicle. Environmental Justice and Community‐based Transportation Planning Grants Program The Environmental Justice (EJ) and Community‐Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant programs promote a balanced, comprehensive, and multi‐modal transportation system. These are discretionary programs that provide key methods by which many California communities plan for closer connection between transportation and land use. Caltrans provides these planning grant funds to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies, cities and counties, transit agencies, and Native American tribal governments. EJ and CBTP final products are expected to help leverage funds from other program sources that will forward future project activities. Completed EJ and CBTP products often contribute to positive local planning practice by influencing and integrating final products into the local and regional plans. Environmental Justice The Environmental Justice (EJ) grant program promotes the involvement of low‐income and minority communities, and Native American tribal governments in the planning for transportation projects. EJ grants have a clear focus on transportation and community development issues to prevent or mitigate disproportionate, negative impacts while improving mobility, access, safety, and opportunities for affordable housing an economic development. Community‐Based Transportation Planning The Community‐Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant program promotes transportation and land use planning projects that encourage community involvement and partnership. These grants include community and key stakeholder input, collaboration, and consensus building through an active public engagement process. CBTP grants support livable and sustainable community concepts with a transportation or mobility objective to promote community identity and quality of life. Each grant displays a transportation and/or land use benefit. CBTP grants are approached in many different ways with innovative ideas and opportunities for public participation. California Pollution Control Financing Authority The California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA) provides financial assistance in a variety of forms, including tax exempt bonds for qualifying waste and recycling facilities, grants and loans to clean up contaminated lands, small business loan assistance and tax exempt bonds for certain industrial facilities. Tax‐Exempt Waste/Recycling Bonds. CPCFA provides tax‐exempt bond financing for pollution control projects. Their Tax‐Exempt Bond Financing Program gives California businesses help with acquisition or construction of qualified pollution control, waste disposal, or recycling facilities, and the acquisition and installation of new equipment. Typically, tax‐exempt bond issues exceed $2.5 million. The Pollution Control Tax‐Exempt Bond Financing Program provides private activity tax‐exempt bond financing to California businesses for the acquisition, construction, or installation of qualified pollution control, waste disposal, waste recovery facilities, and the acquisition and installation of new equipment. Financing is performed in conjunction with allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The allocation is required by federal tax law for private activity tax‐exempt bonds to be issued. Tax‐exempt bond financing provides qualified borrowers with lower interest costs than are available through conventional financing mechanisms. Eligible Facilities. The following types of projects are eligible for financing:  Large Business: Provides financing to California business, irrespective of company size, for the acquisition, construction or installation or qualified pollution control, waste disposal, and resource recovery facilities  Small Business: Provides financing to California businesses that meet the size standards set forth in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations or are an eligible small business, which is defined as 500 employees or less, including affiliates, for the acquisition, construction or installation of qualified pollution control, waste disposal, and resource recovery facilities. Small Business Assistance Fund (SBAF). CPCFA uses its SBAF to help pay for the costs of issuance of tax‐ exempt bonds issued on behalf of small businesses. The SBAF may be used to pay for costs such as letter of credit fees, transaction fees and other costs associated with the issuance of bonds. This assistance reduces the net cost of financing to the small business. Brownfields Assessment and Redevelopment. CPCFA is administering a new $60 million program to provide grants or loans for the cleanup of contaminated property that results in housing. Loans and grants of between $50,000 and $5 million are available. The California Recycle Underutilized Sites (CALReUSE) Program also has loan money available for site assessments. Small Business Loans. The California Capital Access Program (CalCAP) helps small‐business borrowers obtain loans through participating financial institutions. CalCAP contributes to the loan loss reserves of a financial institution, thereby allowing the lender to provide loans to business which might otherwise not be able to obtain financing. While the requirements of the participating lenders can vary, the maximum size of a CalCAP loan is $2.5 million. There is no minimum size and some lenders are providing loans as low as $500. Loans enrolled in the Air Resources Board (ARB) On‐Road Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Program can be used to finance heavy‐duty trucks and buses and retrofits. CalCAP together with the California Air Resources Board may provide up to 100% coverage on certain loan defaults. Eligible businesses in the Proposition 1B Loan Assistance Program are those that have received an invitation letter from the Air Resources Board stating that the equipment owner is eligible to receive grant money to purchase a newer, compliant vehicle. Industrial Development Bonds. CPCFA provides tax‐exempt Industrial Development Bonds for qualified manufacturing and processing companies. CPCFA Industrial Development Bonds that meet statutory and regulatory requirements can be used for a variety of pollution control, solid waste and recycling facilities. Generally, Industrial Development Bonds are issued for projects costing at least $1 million up to a maximum of $10 million. More information on these types of bonds can be found at the California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) offers funding opportunities authorized by legislation to assist public and private entities in the safe and effective management of the waste stream. To access detailed information about grant, payment, and loan programs currently offered by CalRecycle, use the list below. Applicants can apply online for many of CalRecycle's grant programs by using the Grants Management System Web (GMSWeb). These grants generally target specific elements of the waste stream, such as beverage containers. Payment programs include:  Used Oil Payment Program (OPP)  Beverage Container City/County Payment Program Loan program include  Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) Loans Provides direct loans to businesses that use postconsumer or secondary waste materials to manufacture new products, or that undertake projects to reduce the waste resulting from the manufacture of a product.  Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Revolving Loans Provides loans to promote in‐state development of infrastructure to process California‐ generated organics and other recyclable materials into new value‐added products. I‐Bank Programs Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program. The Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program provides low‐cost financing to public agencies for a wide variety of infrastructure projects. ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25,000,000, with terms of up to 30 years. Interest rates are fixed for the term of the financing. Eligible project categories include city streets, county highways, state highways, drainage, water supply and flood control, educational facilities, environmental mitigation measures, parks and recreational facilities, port facilities, public transit, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, water treatment and distribution, defense conversion, public safety facilities, and power and communications facilities. 501(c)(3) Revenue Bond Program. The 501(c)(3) Revenue Bond Program provides tax‐exempt financing to eligible nonprofit public benefit corporations for the acquisition and/or improvement of facilities and capital assets. Typical borrowers include cultural, charitable and recreational organizations, research institutes and other types of organizations that provide public benefits. Industrial Development Revenue Bond Program. The Industrial Development Revenue Bond (IDB) Program provides tax‐exempt financing up to $10 million for qualified manufacturing and processing companies for the construction or acquisition of facilities and equipment. IDBs allow private companies to borrow at low interest rates normally reserved for state and local governmental entities. Exempt Facility Revenue Bond Program. The Exempt Facility Revenue Bond Program provides tax‐ exempt financing for projects that are government‐owned or consist of private improvements within publicly‐owned facilities, such as private airline improvements at publicly‐owned airports. Small Business Loan Guarantee Program. Provides repayment guarantees to lenders of loans to small businesses having difficulty securing financing on their own. The guarantees are issued by non‐profit Financial Development Corporations. The Financial Development Corporations partner with community banks to help small business owners finance their plans including expanding operations, purchasing new equipment and infusing businesses with working capital. Guarantees may also be issued on loans for start‐up costs. REGIONAL PROGRAMS Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) As a member of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City has access to SCAG’s assistance in locating and securing grant funding from federal and state agencies. For example, SCAG’s programs include the CA Smart Growth Infrastructure Funding & Financing,1 which according to SCAG is “designed to assist cities to identify funding and financing opportunities and potential partnerships for public infrastructure improvements for transit‐oriented development and other smart growth projects. The [program] site defines available funding sources and financing tools, each linked to one or more case studies of recent smart growth improvement projects in California and across the country.” LOCAL PROGRAMS Special and “Add‐On” Taxes The use of special and “add‐on” taxes by cities and counties in California is restricted by Proposition 218 (passed by California voters in 1996) and its predecessors, Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 62 (1982). Based on these Propositions, the California State Constitution provides clear standards for locally‐imposed general and special taxes. In particular, the required voter approval thresholds for different types of local taxes are as follows:  General tax – majority  Special tax – 2/3 supermajority  Parcel tax – 2/3 supermajority  General obligation bond – 2/3 supermajority Note that any “special tax” requires the approval of two‐thirds of voters. A special tax is defined as any tax earmarked for a specific purpose. The State Legislature is currently considering several potential ballot measures which would allow California voters to reduce the voter approval threshold for special taxes from the current two‐thirds to a less‐restrictive 55%. This change would significantly enhance the likelihood of gaining voter approval of special taxes (since recent elections have shown that unsuccessful 1 http://iff.scag.ca.gov/Pages/Home.aspx special tax initiatives often narrowly fail to gain the needed 2/3 vote). Some of the ballot measures under consideration would make this change only for specific categories of special taxes (e.g., taxes focused on transportation improvements), but the broadest measure under consideration (SCA 11) would change the required threshold for all special tax initiatives. It is presently not possible to predict the timing and outcome of any of these potential ballot measures. Business Improvement Districts In California, there are two separate laws that authorize the formation of a Business Improvement District:  The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets & Highways Code  §36500 et seq.).  Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets & Highways Code  §36600 et seq.) Both laws enable a city, county, or joint powers authority (made up of cities and/or counties only) to establish a BID and levy annual assessments on businesses within its boundaries. Improvements which may be financed include parking facilities, parks, fountains, benches, trash receptacles, street lighting, and decorations. Services that may be financed include promotion of public events, furnishing music in public places and promotion of tourism. In addition to the above, the 1994 Act also allows financing of streets, rehabilitation or removal of existing structures, and security facilities and equipment. The 1989 Act allows financing of marketing and economic development, and various supplemental municipal services such as security and sanitation. Neither law allows bonds to be issued by the BIDs. Special Benefit Assessments Below is a list of California’s more commonly used benefit assessment laws:  Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code §54703 et seq.). This act lets cities, counties, and special districts finance a variety of improvements.  Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985 (Government Code §53370 et seq.). Cities and counties can fund the renovation and repair (but not the maintenance) of an existing structure.  Fire Suppression assessments (Government Code §50078 et seq.). Cities, counties, and special districts can charge assessments to purchase and maintain fire‐fighting equipment and to pay related salaries.  Geologic Hazard Abatement District assessments (Public Resources Code §26500 et seq.). Cities and counties can assess property to prevent, mitigate, and abate geologic hazards such as landslides and bluff failures by acquiring property, preparing reports, and performing structural repairs.  Habitat Maintenance Districts (Government Code §50060 et seq.). Cities and counties can levy assessments for long‐term natural habitat maintenance in accordance with plans approved by the State Department of Fish and Game.  Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code §5000 et seq.). The 1911 Act allows local officials to fund transportation systems, street paving, grading, sidewalks, parks, recreation areas, sewers, drainage systems, fire protection, flood control systems, water systems, and “other necessary improvements.”  Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code §8500 et seq.). The 1915 Act does not authorize assessments. Instead, it lets cities, counties, and “public” districts that use other assessment acts to issue assessment bonds and bond anticipation notes.  Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 created a flexible tool used by local government agencies to pay for landscaping, lighting and other improvements and services in public areas. As a form of benefit assessment, it is based on the concept of assessing only those properties that benefit from improvements financed, either directly, or indirectly through increased property values. Because it is considered a benefit assessment, a 1972 Act assessment is not subject to Proposition 13 limitations.  Multifamily Improvement District Law (Streets and Highways Code §36700 et seq.). Multifamily Improvement Districts can finance specific activities and improvements like landscape maintenance and the construction of sidewalks.  Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code §10000 et seq.). The 1913 Act lets cities, counties, and special districts levy benefit assessments for everything included in the 1911 Act, plus water works, power facilities, and public transit facilities.  Municipal Lighting Maintenance District Act of 1927 (Streets and Highways Code §18600 et seq.). This act allows cities and counties to levy assessments to maintain and operate (but not install) street lights.  Open Space Maintenance Act (Government Code §50575 et seq.). Cities and counties can assess land to maintain, improve, and protect open spaces by removing fire hazards, planting trees and shrubs, and acquiring fire prevention equipment.  Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Government Code §38000 et seq.). This act lets cities pay for public parks, urban open space land, playgrounds, and library facilities.  Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets and Highways Code §36500 et seq.). This act lets cities and counties fund parking facilities, public decorations, and the promotion of public events and business activities.  Parking District Law of 1951 (Streets and Highways Code §35100 et seq.). This act lets cities install and maintain parking meters, purchase land, and issue bonds.  Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Streets and Highways Code §11000 et seq.). This act lets cities and counties establish pedestrian malls.  Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq.). Allows cities and counties to assess businesses and property owners to promote tourism, build parking lots and fountains, provide security, and finance other facilities and services.  Street Lighting Act of 1919 (Streets and Highways Code §18000 et seq.). This act allows cities to assess for the operation and maintenance of streetlights.  Street Lighting Act of 1931 (Streets and Highways Code §18300 et seq.). This act lets cities levy assessments to maintain and operate (but not install) street lights.  Tree Planting Act of 1931 (Streets and Highways Code §22000 et seq.). This act lets cities levy frontage‐based assessments to plant and maintain trees along city streets.  Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 (Streets and Highways Code §31500 et seq.). This act lets cities and counties purchase land for parking structures, construct and maintain parking lots, and pay for related planning. Other City Funding Mechanisms City General Fund. The City’s General Fund is primarily used to support ongoing City operations and services, including general government operations, public safety and community services. It is not uncommon for cities that are seeking to improve their community to commit a certain amount of the General Fund to the effort over a period of years, especially when improvements and ongoing projects or programs can be shown to have general community‐wide benefits. General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bonds). G.O. Bonds may be used to acquire, construct, and improve public capital facilities and real property; however, they may not be used to finance equipment purchases, or pay for operations and maintenance. G.O. Bonds must be approved by two‐thirds of the voters throughout the issuer’s jurisdiction in advance of their issuance and typically require the issuing jurisdiction to levy a property tax on all taxable properties dedicated to repaying the debt. Parking fees. The use of parking fees to finance the construction and maintenance of parking facilities has been used successfully in revitalization efforts. Parking revenues can also be used to fund or subsidize physical improvements and services, including security, enhanced landscaping and lighting, valet parking programs, shuttle services, and bike facilities. However, overreliance on this source of revenue has also led to serious financial stress on parking facilities where is the paid use does not match projections. Other City Options for Development Support Local incentives. Incentives can be thought of as “reverse financing,” in the sense that providing a savings to a prospective investor allows them to come into an area that they would otherwise not be able to afford. The use of the incentive is of course based on the proposition that the recipient creates benefits to an area or a community that exceed the incentive’s cost. One category of local incentives that has received considerable attention in Southern California is Regulatory Relief, which typically includes one or more of the following elements:  Expediting the permitting process for conditional use permits and building permits.  Reducing the land‐use categories for which conditional use permits are required.  Reviewing impact fees for amounts, development nexus, and allocations among land uses. Some cities have gone as far as setting up dedicated pages on the city’s website, and encouraging business owners and community members to call a “hotline” phone number to contribute additional ideas on streamlining local regulations. Donors. Project donations can occur through a variety of channels, including grants from private foundations (see Foundations portion of this funding section), corporate donations or sponsorships, and contributions from individuals or businesses. Some of the proposed Plan improvements may lend themselves to a public campaign for donor gifts. Donor programs have been used very successfully in many cities to provide funds for streetscape and community design elements for items such as benches, trash receptacles, street trees, street tree grates, public art elements, and information kiosks. Donors could be acknowledged with appropriate plaques of other elements. City of Azusa | TOD Specific Plan May 2018 CFINANCINGB THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK