Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

5.8 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

This section is based upon the Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), and Azusa Business Center Supplemental Traffic Assessment (Supplemental Traffic Assessment), both dated January 29, 2018 and prepared by Urban Crossroads; refer to Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis. The purpose of the Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplemental Traffic Assessment is to evaluate development of the Project from a traffic and circulation standpoint. This analysis considers impacts on local intersections and regional transportation facilities. Mitigation measures are recommended, if necessary, to avoid or reduce Project impacts on traffic and circulation.

5.8.1 EXISTING SETTING

EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM

Regional/Local Roadways

The San Gabriel Valley has regional vehicle access provided by the Interstate 210 Foothill Freeway (I-210), I-10 San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), and State Route 60 Pomona Freeway (SR-60). Sub- regional north-south access is provided by the Interstate 605 San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605). The study area roadway network includes interchanges along I-210 (at Irwindale Avenue and Azusa Avenue). To the west of the study area, access to I-605 is provided at Huntington Drive and Arrow Highway. The primary roadways within the study area are described below.

• Foothill Boulevard: Foothill Boulevard is an east-west principal arterial with a 100-foot right- of-way. The roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction with a two-way continuous left-turn lane in the center. On-street parking is permitted along some segments of the roadway, but these areas are not contiguous. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph).

• Todd Avenue: Todd Avenue is a north-south secondary arterial with an 80-foot right-of-way. The roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction with intermittent left-turn lanes in the center. On-street parking is permitted along the majority of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.

• Sierra Madre Avenue: Sierra Madre Avenue is an east-west secondary arterial with an 80-foot right-of-way that provides two travel lanes in each direction and intermittent left-turn lanes in the center. On-street parking is permitted along the majority of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.

• Azusa Avenue: Azusa Avenue is a north-south secondary arterial with an 80-foot right-of- way. The roadway is a northbound three-lane arterial roadway with a striped centerline. On- street parking is generally provided intermittently along the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

• 1st Street: 1st Street is an east-west secondary arterial with an 80-foot right-of-way. The roadway is an east-west secondary roadway providing two travel lanes in each direction with a striped centerline. On-street parking is generally prohibited along both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-1 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

• Alameda Avenue: Alameda Avenue is a north-south collector with a right-of-way ranging from 56 to 60 feet. Within the study area, Alameda Avenue provides one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped median and two-way continuous left-turn lane in the center. On-street parking is permitted along the roadway and the posted speed limit is 35 mph.

• San Gabriel Avenue: San Gabriel Avenue is a north-south collector with a right-of-way ranging from 56 to 60 feet. Within the study area, San Gabriel Avenue is one-way (in the southbound direction) providing four travel lanes and street parking on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Study Area Intersections

The locations of the 15 study area intersections are listed below, along with the local jurisdictions in which they are located; refer to Exhibit 5.8-1, Study Area Intersection Locations. Jurisdictions that are included within the study area include the City of Azusa, City of Irwindale, City of Duarte, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). For affected facilities located on the border of two or more jurisdictions, multiple jurisdictions are listed:

1. Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive – City of Duarte, Caltrans 2. North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard – City of Irwindale 3. North Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Westbound Ramps – City of Irwindale, Caltrans 4. North Irwindale Avenue/I-210 Eastbound Ramps – City of Irwindale, Caltrans 5. North Todd Avenue/Sierra Madre Avenue – City of Azusa 6. North Todd Avenue/Street A (future intersection) – City of Azusa 7. North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 (future intersection) – City of Azusa 8. North Todd Avenue/10th Street – City of Azusa 9. North Todd Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard – City of Azusa 10. San Gabriel Avenue/Sierra Madre Avenue – City of Azusa 11. San Gabriel Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard – City of Azusa 12. Azusa Avenue/Sierra Madre Avenue – City of Azusa 13. Azusa Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard – City of Azusa 14. Azusa Avenue/1st Street – City of Azusa 15. Alameda Avenue/1st Street – City of Azusa, Caltrans

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The methodologies used to perform the future traffic volume forecasts and the traffic operations analysis as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplemental Traffic Assessment are summarized in this section. The analysis is based on potential impacts that would result from the increase in vehicle trips to and from the Project that would be generated by Project implementation. For a detailed discussion of the analytical methodology, please refer to Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-2 Traffic and Circulation Source: Urban Crossroads; dated January 31, 2018.

CANYON CITY BUSINESS CENTER NOT TO SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Study Area Intersection Locations 05/18 | JN 163170 Exhibit 5.8-1 Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

The Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplemental Traffic Assessment analyze existing and future weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions for the following conditions:

• Existing Conditions (Year 2017); • “Existing With Project” Conditions (2017); • “Future Without Project” Conditions (2019); and • “Future With Project” Conditions (2019).

The buildout year for the Project operations analysis was chosen based on the anticipated date of achievement of peak operations for the Project.

Existing Conditions Methodology

Manual weekday morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in March, May, and August 2017, while surrounding area schools were in session. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix 3.1. The traffic counts collected in March, May, and August 2017 include the vehicle classifications as follows:

• Passenger Cars; • 2-Axle Trucks; • 3-Axle Trucks; and • 4 or More Axle Trucks.

At the time traffic counts were conducted, there was on-going construction activity along Sierra Madre Avenue between San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue. There were no restrictions on turning movements; however, review of the current count data against historic data showed a slight decrease. The construction activity reduced the through lane capacity. The construction activity was found to potentially impact the existing counts at San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue on Sierra Madre Avenue. However, it is acknowledged that traffic patterns and counts were not anticipated to be affected elsewhere in the study area. As such, historic data (2016) was utilized at these two locations only with the application of a two percent growth factor to reflect 2017 traffic conditions.

To represent the impact large trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow, all trucks were converted into passenger car equivalents (PCEs). By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and slow-down is also much longer than for passenger cars, and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. Consistent with standard traffic engineering practice in Southern California, PCE factors have been utilized due to the expected heavy truck component for the proposed land uses. PCE factors allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. A PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to large 2-axle trucks, a factor of 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and a factor of 3.0 for 4 or more axle trucks. All the intersection turning movement volumes illustrated on the exhibits and used in this analysis are shown in terms of PCE.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-4 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Buildout Year Growth

The buildout year cumulative conditions analysis determines the Project’s contribution to near-term cumulative traffic impacts based on a comparison of the “with Project” scenario to the “without Project” scenario. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth from existing conditions (2017) of 4.04 percent1 (two percent per year over two years) is included for the buildout year cumulative, as well as traffic generated by cumulative projects that could affect the study intersections. This reflects a highly conservative cumulative analysis, as it includes both a list of projects as well as a summary of projections methodology. Thus, as set forth here and below, the cumulative impacts analysis likely overestimates potential impacts.

Planned Development Projects Methodology

In addition to future ambient growth, traffic from cumulative projects (approved and pending) was considered before examining significant traffic impacts from the Project, as outlined in Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR. Peak hour trips that would be generated from each of the cumulative projects were computed based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (Trip Generation Manual), 10th Edition.

Project Trip Generation and Distribution Methodology

The Trip Generation Manual is a nationally recognized source for estimating site-specific trip generation. The trip generation rates used for the Project are based upon data collected in the Trip Generation Manual.

The distribution of traffic arriving and departing the Site is estimated based on existing traffic patterns, the location of the Site relative to residential and commercial uses in the region, and regional access patterns. The existing roadway network and location of destinations have also been reviewed to develop the Project trip distribution pattern. Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 4-1, Project Trip Distribution, illustrates the trip distribution patterns for the Project.

Level of Service Methodology

Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the type of traffic control and delay experienced at the intersection. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free‐flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions); refer to Table 5.8-1, Roadway Level of Service Definitions. Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of LOS. These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists regarding the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorates as traffic approaches the absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There is

1 The generalized growth factors provided in the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) indicates a growth factor of 1.046 for ten years (2010 to 2020) or 0.45 percent per year for the Regional Statistical Area 26 (West Covina) in which the project is located. As such, the analysis is in excess of the CMP guidelines and consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-5 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stalls) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near-capacity situation is labeled LOS E. Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic would exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An upstream queue would then form and continue to expand in length until the demand volume again declines.

Table 5.8-1 Roadway Level of Service Definitions

Level of Volume/Capacity Ratio Definition Service Primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 A 0.000 - 0.600 percent of free flow speed. Vehicles can maneuver unimpeded within the traffic stream. Delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Reasonable unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free flow speed. Ability to maneuver is only B 0.601 - 0.700 slightly restricted and delays at signalized intersections are not significant. Stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted. Longer queues, adverse C 0.701 – 0.800 signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average speeds of about 50 percent of the free flow speed. Borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D D 0.801 – 0.900 may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or a combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of the free flow speed. Characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Such operations are caused by a E 0.901 – 1.000 combination of high volumes, high number of traffic signals, lack of signal coordination, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one third to one fourth of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is F >1.000 likely at critical signalized locations, with high delay, high volumes, and extensive queuing. Source: City of Azusa, City of Azusa General Plan and Development Code Draft EIR, Table 4.15-1, page 4.15-2, 2004.

Intersection Capacity Analysis

The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. LOS analysis was conducted to determine existing traffic conditions using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized study intersections in the cities of Azusa, Duarte, and Irwindale. The 2010 HCM methodology was used to determine the LOS for unsignalized intersections in those cities. In addition, in accordance with Caltrans’ guidelines, 2010 HCM methodology was used for ramp-to-arterial study area intersections. The HCM 2010 methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of average control delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-6 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

The cities of Azusa, Duarte, and Irwindale require signalized intersections to be evaluated through ICU analysis which compares the peak hour traffic volumes to intersection capacity. The ICU LOS definitions based on volume to capacity (v/c) ratio are presented in Table 5.8-2, Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Definitions.

Table 5.8-2 Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Definitions

Level of Service Criteria Volume to Capacity Ratio A 0.00-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-1.00 F >1.00 Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Caltrans requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections, LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to an LOS designation as described in Table 5.8-3, Signalized Intersection HCM 2010 LOS Thresholds.

Table 5.8-3 Signalized Intersection HCM 2010 LOS Thresholds

Average Control Level of Level of Description Delay (seconds), Service, v/c Service, v/c v/c ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.0 >1.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable 0 to 10.00 A F progression and/or short cycle length. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression 10.01 to 20.00 B F and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 20.01 to 35.00 C F appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. 35.01 to 55.00 D F Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures 55.01 to 80.00 E F are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle 80.01 and up F F lengths. Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-7 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

The City requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle; refer to Table 5.8-4, Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds.

Table 5.8-4 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds

Average Control Level of Level of Description Delay Per Vehicle Service, v/c Service, (seconds) ≤ 1.0 v/c >1.0 Little or no delays 0 to 10.00 A F Short traffic delays 10.01 to 15.00 B F Average traffic delays 15.01 to 25.00 C F Long traffic delays 25.01 to 35.00 D F Very long traffic delays 35.01 to 50.00 E F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.00 F F Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology

The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. The Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplemental Traffic Assessment use the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement, for all study area intersections.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing Intersection Levels of Service

Table 5.8-5, Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service, summarizes the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS for the study area intersections. The intersection turn movement volumes are shown in Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-14, Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes (in PCE).

As indicated in Table 5.8-5, the following existing study area intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours:

• Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) (a.m. and p.m. peak hour); • North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2) (p.m. peak hour only); and • North Todd Avenue/10th Street (No. 8) (a.m. peak hour only).

It should be noted at the time of field review traffic signal equipment had been installed at the intersection of North Todd Avenue and 10th Street. However, the lights were flashing red (not fully operational). As such, the intersection was evaluated as an all-way stop controlled intersection for existing traffic conditions, but is anticipated to be signalized for all future analysis scenarios.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-8 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-5 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service

HCM Delay Traffic Level of Service ICU (v/c) Level of Service No. Study Intersection (seconds) Control A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Mt. Olive Drive/ 1 TS 118.6 74.1 F E 0.93 1.11 E F I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive North Irwindale Avenue/ 2 TS 42.3 80.6 D F 0.71 0.88 C D East Foothill Boulevard North Irwindale Avenue/ 3 TS 7.3 6.1 A A ------I-210 Westbound Ramps North Irwindale Avenue/ 4 TS 17.4 16.4 B B ------I-210 Eastbound Ramps North Todd Avenue/ 5 AWS 19.7 11.4 C B ------Sierra Madre Avenue 6 North Todd Avenue/Street A Future Intersection 7 North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 Future Intersection 8 North Todd Avenue/10th Street CSS 35.2 12.7 E B ------North Todd Avenue/ 9 TS 26.2 28.3 C C 0.75 0.68 C B East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Avenue/ 10 TS 8.7 8.2 A A 0.48 0.45 A A Sierra Madre Avenue San Gabriel Avenue/ 11 TS 12.2 14.1 B B 0.52 0.56 A A East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Canyon Road/ 12 TS 8.3 8.2 A A 0.40 0.36 A A Sierra Madre Boulevard Azusa Avenue/ 13 TS 16.6 12.6 B B 0.61 0.61 B B East Foothill Boulevard 14 Azusa Avenue/1st Street TS 25.2 25.5 C C 0.67 0.69 B B 15 Alameda Avenue/1st Street TS 10.4 14.5 B B ------Notes: TS = traffic signal; AWS = all way stop; CSS = cross-street stop BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirement (i.e., unacceptable LOS). Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Existing Congestion Management Program Locations

According to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) 2010 Congestion Management Program (2010 CMP), those proposed projects, which meet the following criteria, shall be evaluated:

• All congestion management program (CMP) arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic).

• Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-9 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

There are no intersections defined as CMP locations in the Site vicinity.

Existing Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis

Traffic signal warrants for existing traffic conditions are based on the existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix 3.3, Existing (2017) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, for existing traffic conditions, there are no study area intersections that currently warrant a traffic signal.

Existing Truck Routes

The City designated truck route map (Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-8, City of Azusa Truck Routes) indicates that Irwindale Avenue, Todd Avenue, Azusa Avenue, Sierra Madre, Foothill Boulevard, and 1st Street are identified as truck routes in Azusa. The City of Irwindale designated truck route map (Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-9, City of Irwindale Truck Routes) indicates that Foothill Boulevard, and North Irwindale Avenue are designated truck routes in Irwindale.

Existing Transit Service

The Site vicinity is currently served by Foothill Transit, a public transit agency serving 21-member cities in San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, which include Azusa and Irwindale. In addition, the Site vicinity is served by Duarte Transit within the City of Duarte. The existing transit routes in the Site vicinity are shown on Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-13, Existing Transit Routes. Currently, the Site vicinity is served by Foothill Transit Routes 187 and 494 along Irwindale Avenue, Foothill Transit Routes 185 and 496 along Irwindale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Foothill Transit Route 280 along Azusa Avenue, and Foothill Transit Route 690 along 1st Street and I-210. Additionally, the Duarte Transit Blue Line and Green Line run along Huntington Drive.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Bike routes within the City are shown on Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-10, City of Azusa Bike Routes. Class I bikeways are off-road bike/pedestrian paths. There are two Class I paths/trails in the Site vicinity. One is located northwest of River Parkway and the other is located along the Burlington North Santa Fe railroad line. Class II bicycle routes are on-street bicycle lanes. There are two Class II bicycle routes located northwest of the Site on Todd Avenue and Sierra Madre Avenue.

Field observations conducted in May and August 2017 indicate nominal pedestrian and bicycle activity within the Site vicinity with the exception of Foothill Boulevard near San Gabriel Avenue and Azusa Avenue. Existing pedestrian facilities (sidewalk and crosswalk) and bus stop locations within the Site vicinity are shown on Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-12, Existing Pedestrian Facilities.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-10 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

5.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING

STATE LEVEL

California Department of Transportation

Caltrans publishes a document entitled Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Guide), which provides guidelines and recommended elements of traffic studies for projects that could potentially impact State facilities such as State Route highways and freeway facilities. This is a State-level document that is used by each of the Caltrans District offices.

The Guide defines when traffic studies should be conducted to address impacts to State facilities, but does not define quantitative impact standards. The Guide states that Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) are used to evaluate Caltrans facilities, and that the agency strives to maintain a LOS value of C on its facilities. However, the Guide states that the appropriate target LOS varies by facility and congestion level, and is defined differently by Caltrans depending on the analyzed facility.

LOCAL LEVEL

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for the County of Los Angeles. Metro’s service area covers approximately 1,433 square miles. State statute requires that a CMP be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area and shall include every city and the county government within that county. As the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, Metro is responsible for implementing the CMP for the County. Metro serves as Los Angeles County’s transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder, and operator.

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Pursuant to Proposition 111, every county in California is required to develop a CMP that examines the relationships between land use, transportation, and air quality. The CMP addresses the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Proposition 111 also established a nine percent per gallon gas tax, staged over a five-year period, for the purpose of funding transportation- related improvements statewide. To be eligible for Proposition 111 revenues, the CMP legislation (originally AB 471, amended by AB 1791) requires that a CMP be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area and shall include every city and the county government within that county. Statutory elements of the CMP include Highway and Roadway System monitoring, multi-modal system performance analysis, the Transportation Demand Management Program, the Land Use Analysis Program, and local conformance for all the county’s jurisdictions.

The purpose of the CMP is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality planning programs throughout the County. The program is consistent with that of the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) prepared by the Southern California Association of

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-11 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Governments (SCAG). The CMP requires review of significant individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system.

City of Azusa General Plan

The General Plan Mobility Element is intended to complement the City’s land uses by reducing traffic congestion and pollution; creating more prosperous and vital neighborhoods; and promoting healthier environments. The Mobility Element provides a comprehensive approach to local transportation choices as a distinct, but integral part of the regional circulation patterns and realities. The Mobility Element goals and policies that pertain to the Project include the following:

GOALS AND POLICIES

Citywide Access and Circulation

Goal 1 – Balance the roadway with the planned land uses in the city.

Policy 1.2: Maintain Level of Service D on roadway segments and at signalized intersections throughout the City, except in the downtown area, the University District, and in the vicinity of freeway interchanges where Level of Service E shall be maintained in these areas.

Policy 1.3: Require the cost of improvements to the existing circulation system and new circulation system necessitated by new development to be borne by that development that gains benefit.

Goal 2 – Fully develop the street system to allow access to all areas of the City. Complete missing links in the City’s street system.

Policy 2.5: Improve the operational efficiency of the roadway system, with implementation of traffic management measures, to minimize delay and congestion but without adversely impacting transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Goal 7 – Focus truck traffic onto appropriate arterial corridors within the city, and keep truck traffic out of residential neighborhoods.

Policy 7.1: Modify the truck route network in accordance with the truck route plan (Figure M- 4).

Goal 8 – Encourage walking, biking, and the use of transit through a variety of land use development and urban design measures.

Policy 8.1: Plan for an adequate amount, not an oversupply, of parking for autos, carpool vans, and bicycles for each land use.

Policy 8.2: Allow and encourage shared use parking in order to gain the maximum efficiency from the parking supply and to minimize the overall amount of parking provided in the City.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-12 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

M3 Traffic Impact Studies – New developments are required to prepare traffic impact studies addressing multimodal transportation impacts, and develop mitigation measures, as necessary, for significant impacts. Mitigation measures include but are not limited to, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and transportation demand management measures as well as traffic/roadway solutions.

M20 Codes Enforcement – Through vehicle and other codes enforcement ensure that trucks adhere to the routes.

5.8.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

DEFINITION OF LOS THRESHOLDS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Azusa, City of Duarte, and Los Angeles County 2010 CMP

The City of Azusa, City of Duarte, and Los Angeles County 2010 CMP consider an increase of 0.02 or more in the v/c ratio at a location that reaches LOS E or F to be a significant impact.

It should be noted that while Caltrans specifies target LOS, it does not specify thresholds of significance criteria for their facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if the project causes the level of service of a Caltrans facility to go from acceptable to unacceptable or adds 50 or more peak hour trips to a facility already operating at unacceptable level of service.

City of Irwindale

City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines states that a signalized intersection is significantly impacted by project-generated traffic:

• When a signalized intersection operates at LOS D or better under existing or future conditions, and the addition of project trips degrades the intersection operations to LOS E or F.

• When a signalized intersection operates at LOS E or better under existing or future baseline conditions, and the addition of the project trips degrades the intersection operations to LOS F or increases the v/c ratio by 0.02 or greater.

• When a signalized intersection operates at LOS F under existing or future baseline conditions, and the addition of more than 50 peak hour project trips increases the v/c ratio by 0.02 or greater.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-13 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Significance Criteria

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (refer to Impact Statements TRA-1 and TRA-2);

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant);

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (refer to Section 8.0);

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement TRA- 3);

e) Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Impact Statement TRA-4); and

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (refer to Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning).

5.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

TRA-1 Would the Project’s construction cause a significant increase in traffic for existing conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

Construction activities associated with the Warehouse Only Option would generate traffic as a result of equipment being transported to the Site, and vehicular traffic from construction workers and delivery of materials to the Site. Staging areas for construction equipment storage and materials storage would be established on-site.

Construction-related trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the Site may result in traffic delays within the Site vicinity. However, the potential traffic interference caused by

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-14 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

construction vehicles would only be a temporary impact to vehicles traveling along North Todd Avenue in the morning and afternoon hours.

A total of 5,061 haul trips for the export of demolition debris and earthwork balance would be anticipated during the demolition phase (20 days) and grading phase (45 days). Hauling of any materials would be restricted to occur during off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and appropriate traffic control personnel (“flaggers”) would be used to ensure construction vehicles operate safely along the immediately adjacent local roadways (e.g., North Todd Avenue, Sierra Madre Avenue, and 10th Street) in a manner that minimizes disruption of traffic along these roadways. Further, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 46-409, Construction, all construction activities would occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction would occur on Sundays or Federal holidays.

Vehicle trips from construction workers would temporarily increase the number of vehicles on local roadways in the Site vicinity. The Warehouse Only Option is anticipated to generate approximately 582 total worker trips during the 21-month construction period with the most trips generated during building construction (426 worker trips) and the least trips generated during demolition, site preparation, and paving phases (15 to 18 worker trips). Given the nature and phasing of the construction process, it is expected that construction worker arrivals and departures would be staggered throughout the day, and workers would not all arrive or depart at the same time. The actual construction worker trip volumes would be dispersed throughout the peak period (consisting of multiple hours) and the entire day. The temporary nature of the construction trips and the nominal increase in temporary traffic volumes would not result in a significant impact. Thus, construction worker traffic impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Further, a construction management plan, developed as part of SCA TRA-1, would also reduce impacts in this regard through implementation of a variety of measures to minimize traffic and parking impacts upon the local circulation system. The construction management plan would include, but not be limited to the: prohibition of construction worker parking along local streets, identification of appropriate haul routes to avoid traffic disruptions, and limitation of hauling activities to off-peak hours. Implementation of a construction management plan would further reduce the Warehouse Only Option’s less than significant impacts associated with construction- related traffic.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The analysis for the proposed Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Construction phasing, duration, and vehicle trips would be similar under both development options and less than significant. Impacts would be further reduced with implementation of Standard Condition of Approval TRA-1.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

SCA TRA-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The requirement for a Construction Management Plan shall be incorporated into the Project specifications and subject to verification by the City

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-15 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Engineer prior to final plan approval. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:

• Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation.

• Identify construction vehicles haul routes for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.) to access the Site; necessary traffic controls and detours; and a construction phasing plan for the Project.

• Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets.

• Require the Contractor to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited, to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas.

• Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays.

• Appropriate traffic control personnel (“flaggers”) shall be utilized to ensure construction vehicles operate safely and minimize traffic disruptions along the immediately adjacent local roadways (e.g., North Todd Avenue, Sierra Madre Avenue, and 10th Street).

• Use of local streets shall be prohibited.

• Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall yield to public traffic at all times.

• If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the contractor shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

• All constructed-related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-site.

• This Construction Management Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device as well as City of Azusa requirements.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-16 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION

TRA-2 Would Project operations cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

Project Trip Generation

“Trip generation analysis” is the process by which the number of vehicle‐trips that a specific proposed land use plan would add to local roadways are identified. To conduct a conservative analysis with a higher trip generation estimate, the Warehouse Only Option is assumed to develop 370,653 square feet of warehouse uses with 92,663 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use. The split between warehousing use and high-cube cold storage warehouse use is 80 percent warehouse use and 20 percent high-cube cold storage warehouse use. Brief descriptions of the proposed land uses are provided below:

• Warehousing (ITE 150): Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may also include office and maintenance areas. High-cube warehouse/distribution center and business park are related uses.

• High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE 157): A high-cube warehouse is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to the distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities that typically include temperature-controlled environments for the storage of frozen food or other perishable products.

Trip generation rates used to estimate traffic generated by the Project in terms of actual vehicles and PCE are shown in Table 5.8-6, Project Trip Generation Rates – Warehouse Only Option, and a summary of trip generation for Project buildout (for the Warehouse Only Option) in terms of actual vehicles and PCE are shown in Table 5.8-7, Proposed Project Daily Trip Generation – Warehouse Only Option. As previously stated, PCE is utilized to represent the greater impact large trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles have in comparison to passenger vehicles. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger vehicles, and depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles, these vehicles also take longer to accelerate and decelerate in traffic. Different PCE factors are applied for 2-axle trucks, 3-axle trucks, and trucks with four or more axles.

The Warehouse Only Option is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 1,130 PCE trips per day with 100 PCE a.m. peak hour trips and 109 PCE p.m. peak hour trips. In comparison, the Warehouse Only Option’s trip generation in actual vehicles is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 841 trips per day with 75 a.m. peak hour trips and 80 p.m. peak hour trips. To conduct a conservative analysis, Project buildout (for the Warehouse Only Option) using the PCE trip generation is utilized in this analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-17 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-6 Project Trip Generation Rates – Warehouse Only Option

ITE A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily Code In Out Total In Out Total Project Trip Generation Rates (PCE) Warehouse TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740 Passenger Cars 0.104 0.031 0.135 0.041 0.110 0.151 1.385 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.090 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.012 0.004 0.016 0.005 0.013 0.018 0.161 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.048 0.014 0.063 0.019 0.051 0.070 0.644 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.059 0.018 0.076 0.025 0.069 0.094 1.437 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.014 0.004 0.018 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.355 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.006 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.150 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.042 0.013 0.055 0.011 0.031 0.042 1.112 Project Trip Generation Rates (Actual Vehicles) Warehouse TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740 Passenger Cars 0.104 0.031 0.135 0.041 0.110 0.151 1.385 2-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.060 3-Axle Trucks 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.081 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.016 0.005 0.021 0.006 0.017 0.023 0.215 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.059 0.018 0.076 0.025 0.069 0.094 1.437 2-Axle Trucks 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.007 0.009 0.237 3-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.075 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.014 0.004 0.018 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.371 Notes: TSF = thousand square feet; PCE = passenger car equivalent Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-18 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-7 Proposed Project Daily Trip Generation – Warehouse Only Option

Buildout A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Daily (square feet) In Out Total In Out Total Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE) Warehouse 370,653

Passenger Cars: 39 12 51 16 41 57 514

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 3 1 4 1 3 4 34

3-axle: 5 2 7 2 5 7 60

4+-axle: 18 6 24 8 20 28 239

Truck Trips (PCE) 26 9 35 11 28 39 333

Subtotal Trips (PCE) 65 21 86 27 69 96 847 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 92,663

Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 133

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 33

3-axle: 1 0 1 0 0 0 14

4+-axle: 4 1 5 1 3 4 103

Truck Trips (PCE) 6 1 7 1 4 5 150

Subtotal Trips (PCE) 11 3 14 3 10 13 283 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE) 76 24 100 30 79 109 1,130 Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual) Warehouse 370,653

Passenger Cars: 39 12 51 15 41 56 513

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 3 22

3-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 3 30

4+-axle: 6 2 8 2 6 8 80

Truck Trips (Actual) 10 4 14 4 10 14 132

Subtotal Trips (Actual) 49 16 65 19 51 70 645 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 92,663

Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 133

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 22

3-axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

4+-axle: 1 1 2 0 1 1 34

Truck Trips (Actual) 2 1 3 0 2 2 63 Subtotal Trips (Actual) 7 3 10 2 8 10 196 TOTAL TRIPS (ACTUAL) 56 19 75 21 59 80 841 Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-19 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

The Warehouse Only Option would utilize two full access, stop-controlled driveways to enter and exit the Site along North Todd Avenue. Trips were distributed to the study area roadway network from the two driveways outward. The Project‐generated trips are assigned through the study intersections by applying the trip distribution pattern to the trip generation from Table 5.8-7. Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 5-1, E+P Traffic Volumes (in PCE), show the average daily trips (ADTs) and trip distribution for “Existing With Project” conditions.

Existing With Project Conditions

Intersection Levels of Service

Traffic operations at the study intersections were assessed in terms of LOS and delay. LOS analyses were performed at all the study intersections under “Existing Without Project” and “Existing With Project” conditions.

Table 5.8-8, Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option, summarizes the peak hour LOS results at the study intersections for “Existing With Project” conditions. Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 5-2, E+P Summary of LOS, shows the intersection LOS for “Existing With Project” conditions.

As indicated in Table 5.8-8, under “Existing With Project” conditions, the following two deficient intersections would result:

• Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) (change in v/c is 0.002 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.007 in the p.m. peak hour), and

• North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2) (change in v/c is 0.003 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.013 in the p.m. peak hour).

Intersection No. 1 is within Duarte and Caltrans’ jurisdiction while Intersection No. 2 is within Irwindale’s jurisdiction. As stated above, the cities of Duarte and Irwindale consider an increase in the v/c ratio of 0.02 or greater at a location that reaches LOS E or F to be significant. Caltrans does not specify thresholds of significance for their facilities, but for the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if the project causes the level of service of a Caltrans facility to go from acceptable to unacceptable or adds 50 or more peak hour trips to a facility already operating at unacceptable level of service. As shown in Table 5.8-8 and detailed above, the Project’s increase at these two intersections are below the 0.02 v/c increase threshold and LOS does not degrade beyond “Existing Without Project” conditions. Thus, the change in v/c for both intersections would not result in a significant impact based on the applicable performance criteria under “Existing With Project” conditions and no mitigation is required.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

As there are no LOS deficiencies, there are no study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under the “Existing With Project” conditions.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-20 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-8 Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option

Existing Without Project Existing With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Study Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Mt. Olive Drive/ 1 TS 118.6 74.1 F E 0.93 1.11 E F 119.0 76.0 F E 0.93 1.12 E F No I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive North Irwindale Avenue/ 2 TS 42.3 80.6 D F 0.71 0.88 C D 42.9 83.9 D F 0.71 0.90 C D No East Foothill Boulevard North Irwindale Avenue/ 3 TS 7.3 6.1 A A --4 --4 --4 --4 7.3 6.2 A A --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Westbound Ramps North Irwindale Avenue/ 4 TS 17.4 16.4 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 17.7 16.9 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Eastbound Ramps North Todd Avenue/ 5 AWS 19.7 11.4 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 20.1 11.5 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 No Sierra Madre Avenue 6 North Todd Avenue/Street A CSS Future Intersection 12.6 9.8 B B --5 --5 --5 --5 No 7 North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 CSS Future Intersection 11.7 9.3 B A --5 --5 --5 --5 No 8 North Todd Avenue/10th Street CSS/TS 35.2 12.7 E B --5 --5 --5 --5 5.9 4.2 A A 0.49 0.38 A A No North Todd Avenue/ 9 TS 26.2 28.3 C C 0.75 0.68 C B 27.4 28.4 C C 0.76 0.69 C B No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Avenue/ 10 TS 8.7 8.2 A A 0.48 0.45 A A 8.8 8.2 A A 0.49 0.45 A A No Sierra Madre Avenue San Gabriel Avenue/ 11 TS 12.2 14.1 B B 0.52 0.56 A A 12.2 14.1 B B 0.52 0.56 A A No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Canyon Road/ 12 TS 8.3 8.2 A A 0.40 0.36 A A 8.3 8.2 A A 0.40 0.36 A A No Sierra Madre Boulevard Azusa Avenue/ 13 TS 16.6 12.6 B B 0.61 0.61 B B 16.9 12.7 B B 0.62 0.61 B B No East Foothill Boulevard

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-21 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-8 [continued] Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option

Existing Without Project Existing With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Study Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 14 Azusa Avenue/1st Street TS 25.2 25.5 C C 0.67 0.69 B B 25.3 25.7 C C 0.67 0.69 B B No 15 Alameda Avenue/1st Street TS 10.4 14.5 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 27.4 14.5 C B --4 --4 --4 --4 No Notes: BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology results are presented as a volume-to-capacity ratio. 4 ICU not reported for intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. 5 ICU not reported for intersections without a signal. 6 Traffic signal equipment is currently installed, but was not operational (only flashing red) at the time of field review. Traffic signal assumed to be operational by end of January 2018. Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-22 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Future With Project Conditions

Intersection Levels of Service

Table 5.8-9, Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option, summarizes the peak hour LOS results at the study intersections for “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project” conditions. Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibits 6-1 through 6-4, show the ADT, peak hour traffic volumes, and intersection LOS for “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project” conditions.

As indicated in Table 5.8-9, under “Future With Project” conditions, the following two deficient intersections would result:

• Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) – change in v/c is 0.001 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.008 in the p.m. peak hour, and

• North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2) – change in v/c is 0.003 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.011 in the p.m. peak hour.

As shown in Table 5.8-9 and detailed above, the Project’s increase at these two intersections are below the 0.02 v/c increase threshold and LOS does not degrade beyond “Future Without Project” conditions. Thus, the change in v/c for both intersections would not result in a significant impact based on the City’s performance criteria under “Future With Project” conditions and no mitigation is required. Similarly, no additional intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable level of service with the addition of Project-generated traffic for the Warehouse Only Option.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

As there are no LOS deficiencies, there are no study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under the “Future With Project” conditions.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The Warehousing and Manufacturing Option would allow development of 383,027 square feet of warehousing and 80,289 square feet of manufacturing space. Similar to the Warehouse Only Option, the same ITE trip generation rates were used for Warehousing (ITE 150) and High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE 157). In addition, Manufacturing (ITE 140) was utilized to account for trips generated by the proposed manufacturing use under this development option. The proposed manufacturing trip rate used is described in the Trip Generation Manual, as follows.

• Manufacturing (ITE 140): Manufacturing facilities include the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products as the primary activity. In addition to the production of goods, these facilities may also include office space, warehouse space, research space, and other associated functions.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-23 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-9 Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option

Future Without Project Future With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Mt. Olive Drive/ 1 TS 146.2 137.4 F F 0.99 1.30 E F 147.1 140.5 F F 0.99 1.30 E F No I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive North Irwindale Avenue/ 2 TS 120.4 134.2 F F 0.95 1.18 E F 116.1 138.3 F F 0.95 1.19 E F No East Foothill Boulevard North Irwindale Avenue/ 3 TS 8.9 10.4 A B --4 --4 --4 --4 10.7 10.4 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Westbound Ramps North Irwindale Avenue/ 4 TS 23.7 27.3 C C --4 --4 --4 --4 24.3 27.5 C C --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Eastbound Ramps North Todd Avenue/ 5 AWS 23.8 12.6 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 24.3 12.8 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 No Sierra Madre Avenue 6 North Todd Avenue/Street A CSS Future Intersection 13.0 10.0 B B --5 --5 --5 --5 7 North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 CSS Future Intersection 12.2 9.3 B A --5 --5 --5 --5 8 North Todd Avenue/10th Street TS 6.0 4.2 A A 0.68 0.52 B A 6.1 4.2 A A 0.68 0.53 B A No North Todd Avenue/ 9 TS 34.6 31.7 C C 0.82 0.75 D C 36.4 33.6 D C 0.83 0.75 D C No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Avenue/ 10 TS 9.0 8.4 A A 0.52 0.49 A A 9.0 8.4 A A 0.52 0.50 A A No Sierra Madre Avenue San Gabriel Avenue/ 11 TS 12.9 15.4 B B 0.57 0.61 A B 12.9 15.4 B B 0.58 0.62 A B No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Canyon Road/ 12 TS 8.4 8.3 A A 0.43 0.39 A A 8.4 8.4 A A 0.44 0.39 A A No Sierra Madre Boulevard Azusa Avenue/ 13 TS 21.7 14.7 C B 0.68 0.68 B B 22.2 14.7 C B 0.69 0.69 B B No East Foothill Boulevard

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-24 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-9 [continued] Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehouse Only Option

Future Without Project Future With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 14 Azusa Avenue/1st Street TS 27.7 28.3 C C 0.71 0.75 C C 27.8 28.5 C C 0.72 0.76 C C No 15 Alameda Avenue/1st Street TS 37.2 16.3 D B --4 --4 --4 --4 38.2 16.3 D B --4 --4 --4 --4 No Notes: BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology results are presented as a volume-to-capacity ratio. 4 ICU not reported for intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. 5 ICU not reported for intersections without a signal. 6 Traffic signal equipment is currently installed, but was not operational (only flashing red) at the time of field review. Traffic signal assumed to be operational by end of January 2018. Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Traffic Impact Analysis, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-25 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Trip generation rates used for this development option are detailed in Table 5.8-10, Project Trip Generation Rates – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option, and a summary of the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option’s trip generation is shown on Table 5.8-11, Proposed Project Daily Trip Generation – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. As shown on Table 5.8-11, the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 1,422 PCE trips per day with 157 PCE a.m. peak hour trips and 171 PCE p.m. peak hour trips. The Warehousing and Manufacturing Option’s trip generation in actual vehicles is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 1,010 trips per day with 108 a.m. peak hour trips and 121 p.m. peak hour trips.

In comparison to the Warehouse Only Option, the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option is anticipated to generate 292 more PCE trips per day, 57 more PCE a.m. peak hour trips, and 62 more PCE p.m. peak hour trips, thereby representing the more conservative use between the two development options.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

Project trip distribution and assignment under this development option is similar to that of the Warehouse Only Option. Peak hour volumes and distribution are shown on Supplemental Traffic Assessment Exhibit 3, Project Only Traffic Volumes (in PCE).

Existing With Project Conditions

Intersection Levels of Service

Traffic operations at the study intersections were assessed in terms of LOS and delay. LOS analyses were performed at all the study intersections under “Existing Without Project” and “Existing With Project” conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5.8-12, Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. As indicated in Table 5.8- 12, under “Existing With Project” conditions, the following two deficient intersections would result:

• Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) – change in v/c is 0.003 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.011 in the p.m. peak hour, and

• North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2) – change in v/c is 0.005 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.015 in the p.m. peak hour.

Intersection No. 1 is within Duarte and Caltrans’ jurisdiction while Intersection No. 2 is within Irwindale’s jurisdiction. As stated above, the cities of Duarte and Irwindale consider an increase in the v/c ratio of 0.02 or greater at a location that reaches LOS E or F to be significant. Caltrans does not specify thresholds of significance for their facilities, but for the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if the project causes the level of service of a Caltrans facility to go from acceptable to unacceptable or adds 50 or more peak hour trips to a facility already operating at unacceptable level of service. As shown in Table 5.8-12 and detailed above, the Project’s increase at these two intersections are below the 0.02 v/c increase threshold and LOS does not degrade beyond “Existing Without Project” conditions for the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Thus, the change in v/c for both intersections would not result in a significant impact for the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option based on the City’s performance criteria under “Existing With Project” conditions and no mitigation is required.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-26 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-10 Project Trip Generation Rates – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

ITE A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Units Daily Code In Out Total In Out Total Project Trip Generation Rates (PCE) Manufacturing TSF 140 0.477 0.143 0.620 0.208 0.462 0.670 3.930 Passenger Cars 0.292 0.087 0.379 0.127 0.283 0.410 2.405 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.044 0.013 0.057 0.019 0.042 0.061 0.360 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.121 0.036 0.157 0.053 0.117 0.170 0.998 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.285 0.085 0.370 0.124 0.276 0.400 2.346 Warehouse TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740 Passenger Cars 0.104 0.031 0.135 0.041 0.110 0.151 1.385 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.090 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.012 0.004 0.016 0.005 0.013 0.018 0.161 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.048 0.014 0.063 0.019 0.051 0.070 0.644 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.059 0.018 0.076 0.025 0.069 0.094 1.437 2-Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5) 0.014 0.004 0.018 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.355 3-Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0.006 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.150 4-Axle+ Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 0.042 0.013 0.055 0.011 0.031 0.042 1.112 Project Trip Generation Rates (Actual Vehicles) Manufacturing TSF 140 0.477 0.143 0.620 0.208 0.462 0.670 3.930 Passenger Cars 0.292 0.087 0.379 0.127 0.283 0.410 2.405 2-Axle Trucks 0.029 0.009 0.038 0.013 0.028 0.041 0.240 3-Axle Trucks 0.061 0.018 0.079 0.026 0.059 0.085 0.499 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.095 0.028 0.123 0.041 0.092 0.133 0.782 Warehouse TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740 Passenger Cars 0.104 0.031 0.135 0.041 0.110 0.151 1.385 2-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.060 3-Axle Trucks 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.081 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.016 0.005 0.021 0.006 0.017 0.023 0.215 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.059 0.018 0.076 0.025 0.069 0.094 1.437 2-Axle Trucks 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.007 0.009 0.237 3-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.075 4-Axle+ Trucks 0.014 0.004 0.018 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.371 Notes: TSF = thousand square feet; PCE = passenger car equivalent Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Supplemental Traffic Assessment, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-27 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-11 Proposed Project Daily Trip Generation – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Buildout A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Daily (square feet) In Out Total In Out Total Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE) Manufacturing 80,289

Passenger Cars: 23 7 30 10 23 33 193

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 4 1 5 2 3 5 29

3-axle: 10 3 13 4 9 13 80

4+-axle: 23 7 30 10 22 32 188

Truck Trips (PCE) 37 11 48 16 34 50 297

Subtotal Trips (PCE) 60 18 78 26 57 83 490 Warehouse 306,422

Passenger Cars: 32 10 42 13 34 47 424

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 3 28

3-axle: 4 1 5 1 4 5 49

4+-axle: 15 4 19 6 16 22 197

Truck Trips (PCE) 21 6 27 8 22 30 274

Subtotal Trips (PCE) 53 16 69 21 56 77 698 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 76,605

Passenger Cars: 4 1 5 2 5 7 110

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 27

3-axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

4+-axle: 3 1 4 1 2 3 85

Truck Trips (PCE) 4 1 5 1 3 4 124

Subtotal Trips (PCE) 8 2 10 3 8 11 234 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE) 121 36 157 50 121 171 1,422 Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual) Manufacturing 80,289

Passenger Cars: 23 7 30 10 23 33 193

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 3 19

3-axle: 5 1 6 2 5 7 40

4+-axle: 8 2 10 3 7 10 63

Truck Trips (Actual) 15 4 19 6 14 20 122

Subtotal Trips (Actual) 38 11 49 16 37 53 315

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-28 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-11 [continued] Proposed Project Daily Trip Generation – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Buildout A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Daily (square feet) In Out Total In Out Total Warehouse 306,422

Passenger Cars: 32 10 42 13 34 47 424

Truck Trips:

2-axle: 1 0 1 1 1 2 18

3-axle: 2 1 3 1 2 3 25

4+-axle: 5 1 6 2 5 7 66

Truck Trips (Actual) 8 2 10 4 8 12 109

Subtotal Trips (Actual) 40 12 52 17 42 59 533 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 76,605 Passenger Cars: 4 1 5 2 5 7 110 Truck Trips: 2-axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 18 3-axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4+-axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 28 Truck Trips (Actual) 2 0 2 0 2 2 52 Subtotal Trips (Actual) 6 1 7 2 7 9 162 TOTAL TRIPS (ACTUAL) 84 24 108 35 86 121 1,010 Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Supplemental Traffic Assessment, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-29 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-12 Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Existing Without Project Existing With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Study Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Mt. Olive Drive/ 1 TS 118.6 74.1 F E 0.93 1.11 E F 119.9 77.1 F E 0.93 1.13 E F No I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive North Irwindale Avenue/ 2 TS 42.3 80.6 D F 0.71 0.88 C D 43.9 85.8 D F 0.71 0.90 C E No East Foothill Boulevard North Irwindale Avenue/ 3 TS 7.3 6.1 A A --4 --4 --4 --4 7.3 6.1 A A --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Westbound Ramps North Irwindale Avenue/ 4 TS 17.4 16.4 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 17.9 17.2 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Eastbound Ramps North Todd Avenue/ 5 AWS 19.7 11.4 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 20.4 11.6 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 No Sierra Madre Avenue 6 North Todd Avenue/Street A CSS Future Intersection 13.1 9.4 B A --5 --5 --5 --5 No 7 North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 CSS Future Intersection 11.8 9.3 B A --5 --5 --5 --5 No 8 North Todd Avenue/10th Street CSS/TS 35.2 12.7 E B --5 --5 --5 --5 6.0 4.2 A A 0.50 0.39 A A No North Todd Avenue/ 9 TS 26.2 28.3 C C 0.75 0.68 C B 28.3 28.5 C C 0.76 0.69 C B No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Avenue/ 10 TS 8.7 8.2 A A 0.48 0.45 A A 8.8 8.2 A A 0.49 0.45 A A No Sierra Madre Avenue San Gabriel Avenue/East 11 TS 12.2 14.1 B B 0.52 0.56 A A 12.2 14.1 B B 0.53 0.56 A A No Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Canyon Road/ 12 TS 8.3 8.2 A A 0.40 0.36 A A 8.3 8.2 A A 0.40 0.36 A A No Sierra Madre Boulevard Azusa Avenue/ 13 TS 16.6 12.6 B B 0.61 0.61 B B 17.1 12.7 B B 0.62 0.62 B B No East Foothill Boulevard

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-30 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-12 [continued] Existing With Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Existing Without Project Existing With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Study Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 14 Azusa Avenue/1st Street TS 25.2 25.5 C C 0.67 0.69 B B 25.6 25.7 C C 0.67 0.69 B B No 15 Alameda Avenue/1st Street TS 10.4 14.5 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 28.0 14.6 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 No Notes: BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology results are presented as a volume-to-capacity ratio. 4 ICU not reported for intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. 5 ICU not reported for intersections without a signal. 6 Traffic signal equipment is currently installed, but was not operational (only flashing red) at the time of field review. Traffic signal assumed to be operational by end of January 2018. Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Supplemental Traffic Assessment, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-31 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

As there are no LOS deficiencies, there are no study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under “Existing With Project” conditions.

Future With Project Conditions

Intersection Levels of Service

Table 5.8-13, Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option, summarizes the peak hour LOS results at the study intersections for “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project” conditions for the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Supplemental Traffic Assessment Exhibit 5, Opening Year Cumulative (2019) With Project Traffic Volumes (in PCE), show the trip distribution and peak hour traffic volumes for “Future With Project” conditions.

As shown in Table 5.8-13, under “Future With Project” conditions, the following two deficient intersections would result:

• Mt. Olive Drive/I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) – change in v/c is 0.002 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.011 in the p.m. peak hour, and

• North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2) – change in v/c is 0.005 in the a.m. peak hour and 0.017 in the p.m. peak hour.

However, as shown in Table 5.8-13 and detailed above, the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option’s increase at these two intersections are below the 0.02 v/c increase threshold and LOS does not degrade beyond “Future Without Project” conditions. Thus, the change in v/c for both intersections would not result in a significant impact for the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option based on the City’s performance criteria under “Future With Project” conditions. Similarly, no additional intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable level of service with the addition of Warehousing and Manufacturing Option-generated traffic.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

As there are no LOS deficiencies, there are no study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal under “Existing With Project” conditions.

Standard Conditions of Approval: No standard conditions of approval are applicable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-32 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-13 Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Future Without Project Future With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Mt. Olive Drive/ 1 TS 146.2 137.4 F F 0.99 1.30 E F 147.7 142.2 F F 1.00 1.31 E F No I-605 Ramps/Huntington Drive North Irwindale Avenue/ 2 TS 120.4 134.2 F F 0.95 1.18 E F 115.9 140.4 F F 0.96 1.20 E F No East Foothill Boulevard North Irwindale Avenue/ 3 TS 8.9 10.4 A B --4 --4 --4 --4 10.5 10.4 B B --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Westbound Ramps North Irwindale Avenue/ 4 TS 23.7 27.3 C C --4 --4 --4 --4 24.7 27.7 C C --4 --4 --4 --4 No I-210 Eastbound Ramps North Todd Avenue/ 5 AWS 23.8 12.6 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 24.7 12.9 C B --5 --5 --5 --5 No Sierra Madre Avenue 6 North Todd Avenue/Street A CSS Future Intersection 13.7 10.3 B B --5 --5 --5 --5 7 North Todd Avenue/Driveway 1 CSS Future Intersection 12.3 9.6 B A --5 --5 --5 --5 8 North Todd Avenue/10th Street TS 6.0 4.2 A A 0.68 0.52 B A 6.1 4.3 A A 0.69 0.54 B A No North Todd Avenue/ 9 TS 34.6 31.7 C C 0.82 0.75 D C 37.6 35.0 D C 0.83 0.76 D C No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Avenue/ 10 TS 9.0 8.4 A A 0.52 0.49 A A 9.0 8.5 A A 0.52 0.50 A A No Sierra Madre Avenue San Gabriel Avenue/ 11 TS 12.9 15.4 B B 0.57 0.61 A B 12.9 15.4 B B 0.58 0.62 A B No East Foothill Boulevard San Gabriel Canyon Road/ 12 TS 8.4 8.3 A A 0.43 0.39 A A 8.4 8.4 A A 0.44 0.39 A A No Sierra Madre Boulevard Azusa Avenue/ 13 TS 21.7 14.7 C B 0.68 0.68 B B 22.5 14.8 C B 0.69 0.69 B B No East Foothill Boulevard

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-33 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Table 5.8-13 [continued] Future Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Analysis – Warehousing and Manufacturing Option

Future Without Project Future With Project Significant Traffic Delay Delay Intersection LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS LOS ICU (v/c)3 LOS Project Control1 (seconds)2 (seconds)2 Impact? A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 14 Azusa Avenue/1st Street TS 27.7 28.3 C C 0.71 0.75 C C 27.8 28.6 C C 0.72 0.76 C C No 15 Alameda Avenue/1st Street TS 37.2 16.3 D B --4 --4 --4 --4 38.8 16.4 D B --4 --4 --4 --4 No Notes: BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement 2 Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology results are presented as a volume-to-capacity ratio. 4 ICU not reported for intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. 5 ICU not reported for intersections without a signal. 6 Traffic signal equipment is currently installed, but was not operational (only flashing red) at the time of field review. Traffic signal assumed to be operational by end of January 2018. Source: Urban Crossroads, Azusa Business Center Supplemental Traffic Assessment, January 29, 2018; included as Appendix 11.7, Traffic Impact Analysis.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-34 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

HAZARDOUS TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

TRA-3 Would the Project result in a hazardous traffic condition either on-site or in the surrounding area?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

The proposed industrial business park would develop seven large industrial buildings on-site. On- site circulation would be provided through a series of internal roads and drive aisles that would circumnavigate and provide access to the seven buildings; refer to Exhibit 3-3a, Warehouse Only Option, and Exhibit 3-3b, Warehouse/Manufacturing Option. All roads on-site would be paved and would comply with existing City and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) requirements for emergency access. On-site roads, drive aisles, and parking configurations would undergo a detailed site plan review by the City and LACFD to ensure that appropriate widths, turning radii, and signage comply with existing standards for safety and circulation. Thus, the Warehouse Only Option is not expected to result in hazardous traffic conditions related to on-site circulation.

As part of the Warehouse Only Option, two full access, stop-controlled driveways are proposed to provide access to the Site along North Todd Avenue:

• North Todd Avenue/Street A (No. 6): This driveway would be improved with a stop control on the eastbound approach. The intersection would be constructed with the following geometrics:

− Northbound Approach: One shared left-through lane and one through lane. − Southbound Approach: One through lane and one shared through-right turn lane. − Eastbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane. − Westbound Approach: Not applicable.

• N. Todd Avenue & Driveway 1 (No. 7): This driveway would be improved with a stop control on the eastbound approach. The intersection would be constructed with the following geometrics:

− Northbound Approach: One shared left-through lane and one through lane. − Southbound Approach: One through lane and one shared through-right turn lane. − Eastbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane. − Westbound Approach: Not applicable.

In addition, due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks (up to 4-axles), the Project driveways and adjacent intersections anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks were evaluated to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks would have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers; refer to Exhibit 5.8-2, Truck Access. As shown, Street A would adequately provide a curb radius of 45 feet for the northwest corner to accommodate the turning movements of heavy trucks. Similarly, Driveway 1 would also provide a 45-foot curb radius for the southwest corner to accommodate the turning movements of heavy trucks. Thus, the Warehouse Only Option would not create any hazards due to sharp curves or dangerous intersections.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-35 Traffic and Circulation Source: Urban Crossroads; dated January 31, 2018.

CANYON CITY BUSINESS CENTER NOT TO SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Truck Access 05/18 | JN 163170 Exhibit 5.8-2 Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Further, sight distance at each Project access point would be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Azusa sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Overall, the proposed on- and off-site circulation improvements would be required to comply with existing State and local safety design requirements, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The analysis for the proposed Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Both development options would utilize the same two driveways along North Todd Avenue (Driveway 1 and Street A) and internal circulation on-site between the seven proposed industrial buildings would be the same. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Standard Conditions of Approval: No standard conditions of approval are applicable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

EMERGENCY ACCESS

TRA-4 Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

Local access to the Site is provided via West Foothill Boulevard, West Sierra Madre Avenue, and North Todd Avenue. These roadways may be interrupted during the construction phase. However, as concluded above under Impact Statement TRA-1, the Warehouse Only Option would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition of Approval TRA-1 to ensure continued public safety and to minimize potential effects of construction activities on study area roadways/intersections. SCA TRA-1 requires that the Applicant prepare and implement a Construction Management Plan for approval by the City Engineer for the purposes of ensuring traffic control and public safety during all stages of construction. Implementation of the Construction Management Plan would identify construction vehicle haul routes, specify hours for hauling or transport activities, establish traffic control measures for any street closure, detour, or circulation disruptions, and prohibit the use of local streets, to name a few. The Construction Management Plan would ensure adequate emergency access in the Site vicinity and minimize construction-related impacts related to traffic delay and circulation safety. Therefore, emergency vehicles would have adequate access to the Site during construction activities. Construction impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As discussed under Impact Statement TRA-3, vehicles are expected to access the Site via two access driveways along North Todd Avenue at A Street and Driveway 1. Illustrations of the Site access configurations are depicted on Exhibit 5.8-2. As shown, the driveways would be improved to provide adequate curb radius for large trucks entering/exiting the Site and for emergency vehicles (i.e., fire trucks and ambulances). Further, as part of the Warehouse Only Option’s entitlement

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-37 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

review process, the City would review all site access improvements to confirm compliance with all applicable safety standards and considerations concerning the proposed access configurations. The Warehouse Only Option would be required to comply with applicable Municipal Code regulations for emergency vehicle access, and all appropriate fire and emergency access conditions would be incorporated into the design of the Project. Therefore, Warehouse Only Option operations would result in adequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The analysis for the proposed Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Under both development options, the Project would be accessed via West Foothill Boulevard, West Sierra Madre Avenue, and North Todd Avenue, and the Site would have two improved driveways (Driveway 1 and Street A). As such, impacts regarding emergency access to the Site vicinity would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Standard Conditions of Approval: Refer to SCA TRA-1.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

˜ Would construction activities associated with the Project, and other related cumulative projects, cause a cumulatively considerable effect on the existing traffic?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

Construction activities associated with the Warehouse Only Option and cumulative projects may overlap, resulting in traffic impacts to local roadways. However, as stated, construction of the Warehouse Only Option would not result in significant traffic impacts to study intersections. Further, implementation of SCA TRA-1 would include preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which would further reduce construction-related traffic impacts on the local circulation system within the Site vicinity. Cumulative development projects would also be required to reduce construction traffic impacts on the local circulation system and implement any required mitigation measures that may be prescribed pursuant to CEQA provisions. Therefore, the Warehouse Only Option’s contribution to cumulative construction traffic impacts would not be considerable.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The Warehouse Only Option and Warehousing and Manufacturing Option would have similar construction phases, activities, equipment, and duration. As such, the analysis for the Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Cumulative impacts

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-38 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

related to construction traffic would not be considerable with implementation of Standard Condition of Approval TRA-1.

Standard Conditions of Approval: Refer to SCA TRA-1.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION

˜ Would implementation of the Project and other related cumulative projects, cause a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic for existing and future cumulative conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

All intersections would continue operating at an acceptable LOS under their existing configurations and control under the “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project” conditions. As detailed in Table 5.8-9, cumulative project impacts would lead to deficient intersections at Mt. Olive Drive/I- 605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) and North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2). However, the Warehouse Only Option’s increase at these two intersections are below regulatory thresholds. Thus, cumulative impacts under “Future With Project” conditions for the Warehouse Only Option are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

In addition, other cumulative projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, as they are implemented within the City of Azusa. Each cumulative project would undergo a similar plan review process as the Project, to determine potential traffic impacts. Individual projects would be required to implement required mitigation measures that may be prescribed pursuant to CEQA provisions. Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

Similar to the Warehouse Only Option, all intersections would continue operating at an acceptable LOS under their existing configurations and control under the “Future Without Project” and “Future With Project” conditions under the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. As shown in Table 5.8-13, cumulative project impacts would lead to deficient intersections at Mt. Olive Drive/I- 605 Ramps/Huntington Drive (No. 1) and North Irwindale Avenue/East Foothill Boulevard (No. 2). However, the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option’s increase at these two intersections are below regulatory thresholds. Thus, cumulative impacts under “Future With Project” conditions for the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

In addition, other cumulative projects would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, as they are implemented within the City of Azusa. Each cumulative project would undergo a similar plan review process as the Project, to determine potential traffic impacts. Individual projects would be

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-39 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

required to implement required mitigation measures that may be prescribed pursuant to CEQA provisions. Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Standard Conditions of Approval: No standard conditions of approval are applicable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

HAZARDOUS TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

˜ Would development of the Project, and other related cumulative projects, cause cumulatively considerable hazardous traffic conditions?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Projects Map, shows the closest cumulative projects to the Site to be a senior housing facility (California Grand Villages) and Tenth Street Center Industrial Park. The California Grand Villages is planned directly east of the Site and would have an entry driveway on North Todd Avenue. Proposed Street A into the Site and the proposed driveway for the California Grand Villages on North Todd Avenue are approximately 150 feet apart. Based on queuing analysis, the 150 feet of storage between Street A and the driveway for the California Grand Villages is sufficient to accommodate the projected queues. The highest queue observed for the northbound left turn lane at Street A is 55 feet in the a.m. peak hour with 15 feet for the opposing southbound left turn lane at the California Grand Villages driveway. The available storage between Street A and the California Grand Villages driveway could accommodate up to two northbound left turning trucks at Street A without obstructing the driveway for the California Grand Villages project. Thus, no cumulative considerable hazardous traffic conditions would occur.

The Tenth Street Center Industrial Park is located directly south of the Site on 1001 North Todd Avenue and is partially operational with site access via A Street along North Todd Avenue. A Street is approximately 500 feet south of proposed Driveway 1. Given the distance between the two driveways, the Project would not create any cumulatively considerable hazardous traffic conditions in relation to the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park site.

Overall, the Project would not interact with identified cumulative projects in a way that would create a cumulatively considerable hazardous traffic condition. Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The analysis for the Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Both development options would provide access to the Site via Street A and Driveway 1. Similar truck access improvements at these driveways would be implemented to ensure sufficient curb radius for the wide turning radius of large trucks. As such, impacts related to hazardous traffic conditions would not be cumulatively considerable.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-40 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

Standard Conditions of Approval: No standard conditions of approval are applicable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

EMERGENCY ACCESS

˜ Would the Project in conjunction with other related projects result in cumulatively considerable impacts to emergency access?

Impact Analysis:

WAREHOUSE ONLY OPTION

The closest related projects that may have a cumulative impact to emergency access in the Site vicinity are the California Grand Villages and Tenth Street Center Industrial Park. As stated above, the Warehouse Only Option would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction. A Construction Management Plan would be prepared and implemented, further reducing traffic delays or emergency access impacts during construction (SCA TRA-1). Similar to the Warehouse Only Option, cumulative projects would also be required to comply with applicable safety standards for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, impacts related to construction-related emergency access would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Warehouse Only Option’s proposed driveway improvements would provide adequate space for large trucks associated with the Project and emergency vehicles. As part of the entitlement review process, other cumulative projects would also be reviewed by the City for compliance with all applicable safety standards and considerations concerning adequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access during operations would not be cumulatively considerable.

WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING OPTION

The analysis for the Warehouse Only Option is also applicable to the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option. Both development options would be required to comply with SCA TRA-1 which would include preparation of a Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan would detail traffic control measures that ensure continued public safety and adequate emergency access to the Site during all phases of construction. Similarly, both development options would also implement driveway improvements to ensure adequate emergency access. Thus, impacts related to emergency access under the Warehousing and Manufacturing Option would be not be cumulatively considerable.

Standard Conditions of Approval: Refer to SCA TRA-1.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-41 Traffic and Circulation Environmental Impact Report Canyon City Business Center Project

5.8.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

No significant unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation have been identified with implementation of standard conditions of approval.

Public Review Draft | May 2018 5.8-42 Traffic and Circulation