DOCSLIB.ORG

Valley & Spruce Project Initial Study and Mitigated

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VALLEY & SPRUCE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

City of Rialto

December 2017

VALLEY & SPRUCE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared For: City of Rialto 150 S. Palm Avenue Rialto, CA 92376

Prepared By:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101

December 2017 095894012 Copyright © 2017 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................1 II. Description of Proposed Project...........................................................................................................2 III. Required Permits...................................................................................................................................8 IV. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.........................................................................................9 V. Determination........................................................................................................................................9 VI. Environmental Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 10

  • 1.
  • Aesthetics................................................................................................................................ 10

Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................... 14 Air Quality................................................................................................................................. 17 Biological Resources............................................................................................................... 24 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................. 29 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................... 34 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 39 Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................... 41 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 44 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................... 48 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................. 50 Noise........................................................................................................................................ 52 Population and Housing ......................................................................................................... 65 Public Services........................................................................................................................ 67 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 70 Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................................. 71 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 88 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................. 90 Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................... 96
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
VII. Preparers............................................................................................................................................. 98 VIII.References.......................................................................................................................................... 98

Valley & Spruce Project| i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Site Plan........................................................................................................................................6 Figure 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan........................................................................................................7 Figure 5: Maximum Truck Traffic Vibration Levels vs. Distance ............................................................ 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin....................................................................... 18 Table 2: SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds ....................................................................................... 18 Table 3: Construction Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation ............................................. 19 Table 4: Operational Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation............................................... 20 Table 5: Health Risk Results – Valley and Spruce Avenue Warehouse ................................................ 22 Table 6: CNDDB Species Habitat Assessment Results .......................................................................... 25 Table 7: GHG Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation........................................................... 40 Table 8: Existing (Ambient) Short-Term Noise Level Measurements1,3................................................. 55 Table 9: Existing (Ambient) Long-Term (24-hour) Noise Level Measurements1 ................................... 55 Table 10: Construction Equipment Noise Levels.................................................................................... 56 Table 11: Summary of Project Onsite Operations Maximum Noise Levels........................................... 58 Table 12: Traffic Noise Levels – 2019 Project Contributions................................................................ 59 Table 13: Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria....................................................... 60 Table 14: Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .................................................................... 60 Table 15: FTA Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria............................................................................ 60 Table 16: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .............................................................................. 63 Table 17: City of Rialto Roadway Capacity.............................................................................................. 72 Table 18: Summary of Intersection Operations, Existing Conditions .................................................... 74 Table 19: Summary of Roadway Analysis, Existing Conditions.............................................................. 75 Table 20: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year (2019) Existing Plus Growth................ 76 Table 21: Summary of Roadway Analysis, Opening Year (2019) Existing Plus Growth ....................... 77 Table 22: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year (2019) - Cumulative Without Project .. 78 Table 23: Summary of Roadway Analysis, Opening Year (2019) - Cumulative Without Project.......... 79 Table 24: Summary of Project Trip Generation....................................................................................... 80

Valley & Spruce Project| ii

Table 25: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year (2019) - Existing Plus Growth.............. 81 Table 26: Summary of Roadway Analysis, Opening Year (2019) – Existing Plus Growth Plus Project82 Table 27: Summary of Intersection Operation, Opening Year (2019) Cumulative Plus Project.......... 83 Table 28: Summary of Roadway Analysis, Opening Year (2019) Cumulative Plus Project.................. 84 Table 29: Peak Hour Link Analysis, Opening Year (2019) Cumulative Plus Project............................. 85 Table 30: Estimated Wastewater Generation......................................................................................... 92 Table 31: WVWD Minimum Three Year Supply 2016-2018 .................................................................. 94 Table 32: WVWD Water Supply and Demands Estimates for years 2020-2040.................................. 94

APPENDICES

A. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Health Risk Assessment Study B. Biotic Resources Report C. Cultural Resource Study Findings Memorandum D. Geotechnical Investigation E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment F. Hydrology Calculations G. Water Quality Management Plan H. Noise & Vibration Study I-1. Traffic Impact Study I-2. Email Correspondence with County of San Bernardino Dated 8/14/2017 Regarding Traffic Study
Scoping

Valley & Spruce Project| iii

  • I .
  • I n i t i a l S t u d y

Background and Project Description Project Title

Valley & Spruce Project

Lead Agency Name and Address

City of Rialto 150 S. Palm Avenue Rialto, CA 92376

Contact Person and Phone Number

Gina Gibson-Williams, Planning Manager (909) 820-2535

Project Location

The Valley & Spruce Project is located in the City of Rialto north of Interstate 10 (I-10) and west of Interstate 215 (I-215), as depicted in Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The overall Project site is located on approximately 16.91 acres at the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, as depicted in Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map.

Project Applicant

PDC OC/IE LLC

General Plan Designation

The City’s General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Business Park, Specific Plan Overlay

(Gateway Specific Plan Area).

Zoning

The current zoning for the Project site is Gateway Specific Plan (Industrial Park (I-P)).

Project Setting

The Project site is located in a predominately industrial and commercial area. The land uses surrounding the Project site consist of a mix of uses including industrial, commercial, residential, a major transportation corridor, and schools. Immediately south of the proposed Project site is the Interstate 10 (I-10) and the Union Pacific Rail Yard, to the east and west are commercial, warehousing, and industrial uses, to the northwest are residential uses and a school, and to the north and northeast are an auto sales yard, vacant property, and a school.

Valley & Spruce Project| 1

I I . D e s c r i p t i o n o f P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t

The proposed Valley & Spruce Project (proposed Project) is comprised of one 404,837 sf warehouse distribution building with approximately 5,000 sf of office space and associated parking and landscaping on approximately 16.9 acres as shown in Figure 3, Site Plan and Figure 4, Conceptual Landscape Plan. The proposed project would require a Precise Plan of Design (PPD); a Variance to allow for a maximum building height of 47 feet; a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to allow for parcel consolidation; and a Conditional Development Permit (CDP) to allow for site development within 300 feet of a of public education facility. For additional information regarding the requested land use entitlements, please reference Section III, Required Permits.

The industrial warehouse building would be one level and would include 49 dock doors and two drive thru doors on the southern side of the building. South of the building, adjacent to the dock doors, would be 69 trailer parking spaces. Surface parking totaling 220 standard stalls and 5 dedicated ADA stalls, would be located on both the eastern, western and southern sides of the building. Landscaping in the amount of 91,026 sf is anticipated for the site. Roadway frontage improvements including sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements would be provided along Spruce Avenue, Valley Boulevard and Cactus Avenue as well as the removal or relocation of existing street lights and power poles along Spruce Avenue and Cactus Avenue.

The proposed industrial warehouse Project is currently planned as a “speculative building.” Therefore, the future tenants of the building are not currently known. Without knowing the future tenants, an exact number of future employees or hours of operation cannot be determined. Therefore, this Initial Study and associated technical reports use approximate potential on-site employees, hours of operation, and vehicular traffic generation based on the Project’s proposed square footage and use as warehouse distribution buildings. In an abundance of caution, this Initial Study and the associated technical reports have assumed uses and intensities that may be greater than what might actually be expected at buildout and operation, resulting in a possible conservative/worst-case estimation of impacts.

Access and Parking

Vehicular access provisions for the Project site would consist of four full movement driveways, two would be located on Cactus Avenue and two on Spruce Avenue. No access is proposed on Valley Boulevard. The south driveways on both Spruce Avenue and Cactus Avenue would be for trucks and passenger vehicles and the north driveways on Spruce Avenue and Cactus Avenue would be for passenger vehicles. All Project driveways would be unsignalized. Street improvements would be provided along Spruce Avenue, Valley Boulevard and Cactus Avenue to include improvements to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, traffic signal equipment and signing and striping as required. The proposed Project is expected to also include the relocation of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Valley Boulevard as well as a new traffic signal at the intersection of Spruce Avenue and Valley Boulevard.

Landscaping

Proposed landscaping would cover approximately 12.4 percent or 91,026 sf of the site. Landscaping would be installed in all areas not devoted to buildings, parking, traffic and specific user requirements, in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 18.61.250 and Section 18.61.270 which specify landscape design guidelines. Setbacks would be 25 feet along Valley Boulevard, Cactus Avenue and Spruce Avenue. There would be no setback on the southern portion of the site, adjacent to I-10.

Construction and Phasing

Construction of the proposed Project is expected to commence in August 2018 with a construction duration of approximately 9 months and would be completed in one phase. Total grading for the proposed Project is estimated to require 91,555 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 91,555 cy of fill; earthwork would balance on-site and no import or export of soils is required.

Valley & Spruce Project| 2

Existing Project Site

The Project site is located on Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 0253-251-01, 0253-251-02, 0253-251-03, 0253-251-04 and 0253-251-07. The Project site is currently a largely disturbed area comprised of disked non-native grassland vegetation with small developed patches comprised of sidewalks and cement pads. A former storage yard occupied the site until it was demolished/removed in September 2017. No structures are currently located on the site. There is existing utility access (water, sewer, electricity, gas) to the Project site.

Valley & Spruce Project| 3

Project Site

Rialto, CA

Source: Google Maps, 2017

FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map

Valley & Spruce Project

Rialto, CA

W Valley Blvd

Project Location

10

Source: Google Earth, 2017

FIGURE 2: Project Vicinity Map

Valley & Spruce Project

Rialto, CA

FIGURE 3 - Site Plan

Valley & Spruce Project

Rialto, CA

PLANTING LEGEND

SHRUBS SYMBOL

  • GROUNDCOVER
  • TREES

  • SYMBOL
  • BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
  • SIZE
  • QTY

22

  • WUCOLS REMARKS
  • BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
  • SIZE
  • QTY

191 WUCOLS REMARKS L

  • SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
  • SIZE
  • SPACING

6' O.C.
WUCOLS REMARKS

  • L
  • Arbutus unedo
  • Acacia redolens 'Low Boy'

Acacia

  • 1
  • Gal
  • 5
  • Gal

Strawberry Tree
Cercidium 'Desert Museum' Blue Palo Verde

  • 36" Box
  • L
  • Multi

Calliandra californica Baja Fairy Duster

  • 5
  • Gal
  • 50
  • L
  • Baccharis pilularis

Coyote Bush

  • 1
  • Gal
  • 24" O.C.
  • L

Lavendula 'Goodwin Creek Grey' Lavender
1555Gal Gal Gal Gal
115 298 164 143
LLLL
Carex praegracilis Cluster Field Sedge

  • Seed
  • Hydro-

Seed
LL
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow
24" Box 24" Box
18 52
LLMulti
Leptospermum s. 'Ruby Glow' New Zealand Tea Tree

  • Lantana montevidensis
  • 1

1Gal Gal
24" O.C. 24" O.C.
Purple and White Lantana
Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa
Standard
Leucophyllum f. 'Green Cloud'

  • Texas Ranger
  • Leymus c. 'Canyon Prince'

California Rye Grass
LLL
Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry
Rosa californica California Wild Rose
21Gal Gal
30" O.C. 30" O.C.
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
24" Box 15 Gal
22 12
MLStandard Multi
Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary
555Gal Gal Gal
123 201 337
LLL
Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus'

  • Prostrate Rosemary
  • Salvia greggii

  • Autumn Sage
  • Heteromeles arbutifolia

Toyon
Senna artemisioides Feathery Cassia
Prosopis chiliensis Chilean Mesquite
36" Box 15 Gal

  • 2
  • M

MStandard Standard
Sambucus mexicana Mexican Elderberry
55Gal Gal

  • 55
  • L

L
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box
17
Westingia fruticosa Coast Rosemary
584
ACCENTS

  • SYMBOL
  • BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
  • SIZE
  • QTY

13 WUCOLS REMARKS L
Agave villmoriniana Agave

  • 5
  • Gal

Gal
Anigozanthos flavidus Kangaroo Paw
55555

  • 55
  • L

LLML
Dasylerion wheeleri Desert Spoon
Gal Gal Gal Gal
24
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
106 173 240
Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass Pennisetum s. 'Cupreum' Purple Fountain Grass

N

  • 0
  • 20' 40'
  • 80'

FIGURE 4 - Conceptual Landscape Plan

Valley & Spruce Project

Rialto, CA

I I I . R e q u i r e d P e r m i t s

The City of Rialto (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Initial Study. As part of the proposed Project’s implementation, the City will also consider the following discretionary approvals:

▪▪▪▪

Precise Plan of Design (PPD) Variance (for building height) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) Conditional Development Permit (CDP)
The PPD package is comprised of the following components: site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevation plan, conceptual grading plan, preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, color elevations, color and materials board, and conceptual landscape plan. The Gateway Specific Plan designates a maximum building height of 35 feet per Section 18.35.030 of the Gateway Specific Plan. The requested building height variance to increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to a maximum building height of 47 feet would allow the Applicant to construct a state of the art industrial building which would be competitive in the marketplace and attract quality tenancy for the life of the asset. The TPM would allow for the consolidation of five parcels into one parcel. The CDP would allow for site development within 300 feet of a public education facility as the proposed Project site is located less than 300 feet southwest of Joe Baca Middle School and less than 300 feet south of Ruth Grimes Elementary School, per the requirements set forth in Section 18.35.020(C) of the Gateway Specific Plan.

Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents. Other permits required for the proposed Project may include the issuance of encroachment permits for new driveways, sidewalks, and utilities, walls, fences, security and parking area lighting; building permits; and permits for new utility connections. These additional permits are considered ministerial, and thus issuance of these permits would not trigger the need to further comply with CEQA. Development of the proposed Project does not require the issuance of any discretionary permits from any other federal, State, or local agency.

Recommended publications
  • MCO Arrival Wayfnding Map

    MCO Arrival Wayfnding Map

    MCO Arrival Wayfnding Map N SIDE Gates 1-29 Level 1 Gates 100-129 Ground Transportation & Baggage Claim (8A) Level 2 Baggage Claim Gates 10-19 Gates Ticketing Locations 20-29 Gates 100-111 A-1 A-2 Level 3 A-3 A-4 2 1 Gates Gates 1-9 112-129 Hyatt Regency - Lvl.4 - Lvl.4 Regency Hyatt Security Checkpoint To Gates 70 - 129 70 Gates To Food Court To Gates 1-59 1-59 Gates To Security Checkpoint Gates 70-79 Gates 50-59 To Parking “C” Gates 3 90-99 4 B-1 B-2 Level 3 B-3 B-4 Gates Gates 30-39 Ticketing Locations Gates 80-89 40-49 Gates 70-99 Level 2 Gates 30-59 Baggage Claim Level 1 Ground Transportation & Baggage Claim (28B) SIDE C Check-in and baggage claim locations subject to change. Please check signage on arrival. *Map not to scale Find it ALL in One Place Welcome to Orlando Download the Orlando MCO App Available for International Airport (MCO) OrlandoAirports.net /flymco @MCO @flymco Flight Arrival Guide 03/18 To reach the Main Terminal, The journey to the To retrieve checked baggage, take follow directions on the overhead Main Terminal (A-Side or B-Side) the stairs, escalator or elevator down signage to the shuttle station 2 takes just over one minute. As the 4 6 to the Arrivals/Baggage Claim on which is located in the center train transports you, observe the Level 2. Check the monitors to of the Airside Terminal. signage and listen to the instructions determine the correct carousel directing you to either Baggage Claim A for your flight.
  • GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC

    GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 18–956. Argued October 7, 2020—Decided April 5, 2021 Oracle America, Inc., owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform that uses the popular Java computer programming language. In 2005, Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform for mobile devices. To allow the millions of programmers familiar with the Java programming language to work with its new Android plat- form, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE pro- gram. The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro- gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. Over the course of protracted litigation, the lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the copied lines from the API, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying constituted a permissible “fair use” of that material freeing Google from copyright liability. In the proceedings below, the Federal Circuit held that the copied lines are copyrightable.
  • Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No

    Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No

    Submitted by the expert from OICA Informal document GRSG-110-08-Rev.1 (110th GRSG, 26-29 April 2016, agenda item 2(a)) Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No. 100 (Electric Power Train Vehicle) vs. UN Regulation No. 107 Annex 12 (Construction of M2/M3 Vehicles) for Electrical Safety 1. At 110th session of GRSG Belgium proposes to amend UN R107 annex 12 by deleting the requirements for trolleybuses (see GRSG/2016/05) and transfer the requirements into UN R100 (see GRSP/2016/07), which will be on the agenda of upcoming GRSP session in May 2016. 2. Due to the design of a trolleybus and stated in UN Regulation No. 107, trolleybuses are dual- mode vehicles. They can operate either: (a) in trolley mode, when connected to the overhead contact line (OCL), or (b) in bus mode when not connected to the OCL. When not connected to the OCL, they can also be (c) in charging mode, where they are stationary and plugged into the power grid for battery charging. 3. The basic principles of the design of the electric powertrain of the trolleybus and the connection to the OCL is based on international standards developed for trams and trains and is implemented and well accepted in the market worldwide. 4. Due to the fact that the trolleybus is used on public roads the trolleybus has to fulfil the regulations under the umbrella of the UNECE regulatory framework due to the existing national regulations (e.g. European frame work directive). 5. Therefore the annex 12 in UN R107 was amended to align the additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses with the corresponding electrical standards.
  • Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall, 104 S

    Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall, 104 S

    MINUTES OF CLAREMORE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 104 S. MUSKOGEE, CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA MARCH 03, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Brant Shallenburger at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Nan Pope called roll. The following were: Present: Brant Shallenburger, Buddy Robertson, Tony Mullenger, Flo Guthrie, Mick Webber, Terry Chase, Tom Lehman, Paula Watson Absent: Don Myers Staff Present: City Manager Troy Powell, Nan Pope, Serena Kauk, Matt Mueller, Randy Elliott, Cassie Sowers, Phil Stowell, Steve Lett, Daryl Golbek, Joe Kays, Gene Edwards, Tim Miller, Tamryn Cluck, Mark Dowler Pledge of Allegiance by all. Invocation by James Graham, Verdigris United Methodist Church. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman that the agenda for the regular CPWA meeting of March 03, 2008, be approved as written. 8 yes, Mullenger, Lehman, Robertson, Guthrie, Shallenburger, Webber, Chase, Watson. ITEMS UNFORESEEN AT THE TIME AGENDA WAS POSTED None CALL TO THE PUBLIC None CURRENT BUSINESS Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman to approve the following consent items: (a) Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority meeting on February 18, 2008, as printed. (b) All claims as printed. (c) Approve budget supplement for upgrading the electric distribution system and adding an additional Substation for the new Oklahoma Plaza Development - $586,985 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (d) Approve budget supplement for purchase of an additional concrete control house for new Substation #5 for Oklahoma Plaza Development - $93,946 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (e) Approve budget supplement for electrical engineering contract with Ledbetter, Corner and Associates for engineering design phase for Substation #5 - Oklahoma Plaza Development - $198,488 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment.
  • Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)

    Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)

    7UDQVLW&DSDFLW\DQG4XDOLW\RI6HUYLFH0DQXDO PART 2 BUS TRANSIT CAPACITY CONTENTS 1. BUS CAPACITY BASICS ....................................................................................... 2-1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 2-1 Types of Bus Facilities and Service ............................................................................ 2-3 Factors Influencing Bus Capacity ............................................................................... 2-5 Vehicle Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-5 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-13 Fundamental Capacity Calculations .......................................................................... 2-15 Vehicle Capacity................................................................................................... 2-15 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-22 Planning Applications ............................................................................................... 2-23 2. OPERATING ISSUES............................................................................................ 2-25 Introduction..............................................................................................................
  • Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA

    Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA

    Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA Matthew Barrett Metro Transportation Research Library, Archive & Public Records - metro.net/library Transportation Research Library & Archive • Originally the library of the Los • Transportation research library for Angeles Railway (1895-1945), employees, consultants, students, and intended to serve as both academics, other government public outreach and an agencies and the general public. employee resource. • Partner of the National • Repository of federally funded Transportation Library, member of transportation research starting Transportation Knowledge in 1971. Networks, and affiliate of the National Academies’ Transportation • Began computer cataloging into Research Board (TRB). OCLC’s World Catalog using Library of Congress Subject • Largest transit operator-owned Headings and honoring library, forth largest transportation interlibrary loan requests from library collection after U.C. outside institutions in 1978. Berkeley, Northwestern University and the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center. • Archive of Los Angeles transit history from 1873-present. • Member of Getty/USC’s L.A. as Subject forum. Accessing the Library • Online: metro.net/library – Library Catalog librarycat.metro.net – Daily aggregated transportation news headlines: headlines.metroprimaryresources.info – Highlights of current and historical documents in our collection: metroprimaryresources.info – Photos: flickr.com/metrolibraryarchive – Film/Video: youtube/metrolibrarian – Social Media: facebook, twitter, tumblr, google+,
  • Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System

    Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System

    ARIELI ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING Report No. 1302 ELECTRIC TROLLEYBUSES FOR THE LACMTA’S BUS SYSTEM PREPARED FOR THE ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUM UNDER CONTRACT NO. OP 3320661 - 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California Air Resources Board (CARB) Adopted Urban Bus Transit Rule for 2010 Emission Standards requires that MTA, starting in 2010, set aside 15% of all bus purchases to acquire Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). Currently, none of the buses in the MTA’s inventory can be classified as ZEV, nor there are any transit buses [defined as propelled by an internal combustion engine (ICE) powered by either diesel or alternate fuels] available on the market that can be classified as ZEV. The California emission standards are well ahead of those for the rest of the United States and the manufacturers will not develop suitable vehicles on their own unless incentivized by large customers such as LACMTA. Failure to meet the 2010 Emission Standards will result in regulatory punitive fines and potentially litigation. It is important to note here that this is not the first time that the subject of incorporating electric trolleybuses into the MTA’s bus system comes before the MTA Board of Directors. In the 1992 30-Year Integrated Transportation Plan, electric trolleybuses were the preferred solution to meet CARB air regulations. The Plan provided for 18 routes, 300 miles of overhead wires and 400 peak electric trolleybuses by 2004 to be increased to 1,100 peak electric trolleybuses by 2010. Eventually, the Board voted to terminate the project. After reviewing the various technologies that might qualify as zero emissions under CARB rule, the report focuses on electric trolleybuses as the technology of choice.
  • The Neighborly Substation the Neighborly Substation Electricity, Zoning, and Urban Design

    The Neighborly Substation the Neighborly Substation Electricity, Zoning, and Urban Design

    MANHATTAN INSTITUTE CENTER FORTHE RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORLY SUBstATION Hope Cohen 2008 er B ecem D THE NEIGHBORLY SUBstATION THE NEIGHBORLY SUBstATION Electricity, Zoning, and Urban Design Hope Cohen Deputy Director Center for Rethinking Development Manhattan Institute In 1879, the remarkable thing about Edison’s new lightbulb was that it didn’t burst into flames as soon as it was lit. That disposed of the first key problem of the electrical age: how to confine and tame electricity to the point where it could be usefully integrated into offices, homes, and every corner of daily life. Edison then designed and built six twenty-seven-ton, hundred-kilowatt “Jumbo” Engine-Driven Dynamos, deployed them in lower Manhattan, and the rest is history. “We will make electric light so cheap,” Edison promised, “that only the rich will be able to burn candles.” There was more taming to come first, however. An electrical fire caused by faulty wiring seriously FOREWORD damaged the library at one of Edison’s early installations—J. P. Morgan’s Madison Avenue brownstone. Fast-forward to the massive blackout of August 2003. Batteries and standby generators kicked in to keep trading alive on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. But the Amex failed to open—it had backup generators for the trading-floor computers but depended on Consolidated Edison to cool them, so that they wouldn’t melt into puddles of silicon. Banks kept their ATM-control computers running at their central offices, but most of the ATMs themselves went dead. Cell-phone service deteriorated fast, because soaring call volumes quickly drained the cell- tower backup batteries.
  • Virginia Supplement to the Commercial Driver's

    Virginia Supplement to the Commercial Driver's

    www.dmvNow.com Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Post Office Box 27412 Richmond, Virginia 23269-0001 (804) 497-7100 Please recycle. Virginia Supplement to the Commercial Driver License Manual This publication contains information that Virginia commercial motor vehicle operators must know, in addition to the information in the national standard CDL manual. Who are Commercial Drivers? Eligibility for a Commercial Permit or License Commercial drivers are all persons, paid or volunteer, who The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) operate commercial motor vehicles. Volunteer drivers of requires that applicants for a commercial driver’s license or church buses, private or public school buses and mechanics learner’s permit be either a U.S. citizen or a Legal Permanent who test drive commercial vehicles must meet commercial Resident of the U.S. As a result, you are required to present driver’s license requirements. one of the following to DMV when applying. If you previously presented one of these documents to DMV, you will not be Commercial driver’s license requirements don’t apply to: asked to present it for subsequent applications: operators of emergency vehicles, such as firefighters Valid, unexpired, U.S. passport active duty military personnel operating military vehicles Certified copy of a U.S. state, jurisdiction, or territory operators of farm vehicles when: Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by the U.S. used by farmers Department of State used to move farm goods, supplies or machinery U.S. Certificate of Naturalization to or from their farm U.S. Certificate of Citizenship not used as a common or contract motor carrier, Valid, unexpired U.S.
  • GREEN YOUR BUS RIDE Clean Buses in Latin America Summary Report

    GREEN YOUR BUS RIDE Clean Buses in Latin America Summary Report

    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized GREEN YOUR BUS RIDE Clean Buses in Latin America Summary report January 2019 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized i Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Transport is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, responsible for 23% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Driven by the unprecedented rate of urbanization and demand for transportation, transport has become the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Latin America.1 1 IEA (2015), IADB (2013). ii Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Overview 1 1 Introduction 7 Overview of Clean Bus Technologies 8 2 Total Costs of Ownership 11 | World Bank TCO Estimates 12 3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 15 4 Enabling Environment 21 What makes a good enabling environment for the implementation of clean buses? 22 Diagnosis of Current Situation A. Public Transport Systems 24 B. Environmental Policies 26 C. Energy Sector 28 D. Governance and Markets 30 E. Funding and Finance 32 Self Evaluations 33 5 General Recommendations 35 6 City-Specific Recommendations and Implementation Roadmaps 39 A. Buenos Aires 40 B. Mexico City 44 C. Montevideo 47 D. Santiago 50 E. São Paulo 53 Conclusions 57 References 59 Appendix A: Key Assumptions for World Bank TCO Analysis 61 Appendix B: TCO Estimates for each of the Five Cities 65 iii Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Acknowledgements This report is a product of the staff of The This report was developed by Steer for the World Bank with external contributions. The NDC Clean Bus in Latin America and the findings, interpretations, and conclusions Caribbean (LAC) Project led by Bianca expressed in this volume do not necessarily Bianchi Alves and Kavita Sethi, and the team, reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board including Abel Lopez Dodero, Alejandro of Executive Directors, or the governments Hoyos Guerrero, Diego Puga, Eugenia they represent.
  • LM123/LM323A/LM323 3-Amp, 5-Volt Positive Regulator Datasheet (Rev. B)

    LM123/LM323A/LM323 3-Amp, 5-Volt Positive Regulator Datasheet (Rev. B)

    LM123, LM323-N, LM323A www.ti.com SNVS757B –MAY 2004–REVISED NOVEMBER 2004 LM123/LM323A/LM323-N 3-Amp, 5-Volt Positive Regulator Check for Samples: LM123, LM323-N, LM323A 1FEATURES The 3 amp regulator is virtually blowout proof. Current limiting, power limiting, and thermal shutdown 2• Ensured 1% Initial Accuracy (A Version) provide the same high level of reliability obtained with • 3 Amp Output Current these techniques in the LM109 1 amp regulator. • Internal Current and Thermal Limiting No external components are required for operation of • 0.01Ω Typical Output Impedance the LM123. If the device is more than 4 inches from • 7.5V Minimum Input Voltage the filter capacitor, however, a 1 μF solid tantalum capacitor should be used on the input. A 0.1 μF or • 30W Power Dissipation larger capacitor may be used on the output to reduce • P+ Product Enhancement tested load transient spikes created by fast switching digital logic, or to swamp out stray load capacitance. DESCRIPTION An overall worst case specification for the combined The LM123 is a three-terminal positive regulator with effects of input voltage, load currents, ambient a preset 5V output and a load driving capability of 3 temperature, and power dissipation ensure that the amps. New circuit design and processing techniques LM123 will perform satisfactorily as a system are used to provide the high output current without element. sacrificing the regulation characteristics of lower current devices. For applications requiring other voltages, see LM150 series adjustable regulator data sheet. The LM323A offers improved precision over the standard LM323-N. Parameters with tightened Operation is specified over the junction temperature specifications include output voltage tolerance, line range −55°C to +150°C for LM123, −40°C to +125°C regulation, and load regulation.
  • 1981 Caltrans Inventory of Pacific Electric Routes

    1981 Caltrans Inventory of Pacific Electric Routes

    1981 Inventory of PACIFIC ELECTRIC ROUTES I J..,. I ~ " HE 5428 . red by I58 ANGELES - DISTRICT 7 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BRANCH rI P37 c.2 " ' archive 1981 INVENTORY OF PACIFIC ELECTRIC ROUTES • PREPARED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) DISTRICT 07 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BRANCH FEBRUARY 1982 • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Pacific Electric Railway Company Map 3a Inventory Map 3b II. NQR'I'HIRN AND EASTERN DISTRICTS 4 A. San Bernardino Line 6 B. Monrovia-Glendora Line 14 C. Alhambra-San Gabriel Line 19 D. Pasadena Short Line 21 E. Pasadena Oak Knoll Line 23 F. Sierra Madre Line 25 G. South Pasadena Line 27 H. North Lake Avenue Line 30 10 North Fair Oaks Avenue Line 31 J. East Colorado Street Line 32 K. Pomona-Upland Line 34 L. San Bernardino-Riverside Line 36 M. Riverside-Corona Line 41 III. WESTERN DISTRICT 45 A. Glendale-Burbank Line 47 B. Hollywood Line Segment via Hill Street 52 C. South Hollywood-Sherman Line 55 D. Subway Hollywood Line 58 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd. ) -PAGE III. WESTERN DISTRICT (Conta. ) E. San Fernando valley Line 61 F. Hollywood-Venice Line 68 o. Venice Short Line 71 H. Santa Monica via Sawtelle Line 76 I. westgate Line 80 J. Santa Monica Air Line 84 K. Soldier's Home Branch Line 93 L. Redondo Beach-Del Rey Line 96 M. Inglewood Line 102 IV. SOUTHIRN DISTRICT 106 A. Long Beach Line 108 B. American Avenue-North Long Beach Line 116 c. Newport-Balboa Line 118 D. E1 Segundo Line 123 E. San Pedro via Dominguez Line 129 F.