HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials Distributed at MeetingCity of Glendale
Historic District
Process
Public Input
Administrative
Historic District Application
Planning Department
review and recommendation
I
Historic Preservation Commission
Preliminary Review
Vote to
proceed
Vote to
not proceed
Public Meetina — Review of District Pr000sal
Notice and inforrination sent to owners and residents
in proposed Idistrict and within a 500' radius
Petition
Proponents circulate petition requesting historic
resource survey of area
(requires 25+% 1 iomeowner support Win 3 months to
proceed — mav beqin before public meetinq)
4
Planning Department completes Historic
j Resources Survey
l
Public Meetina - Review of Survev
Notice and information sent to all owners and
residents within proposed district
N
Historic Preservation Commission
review and recommendation
l
Options to make changes
and resubmit
or
appeal to City Council
Petition
Proponents circulate petition requesting a historic
district overlay zone
(requires 50+% homeowner support wrin 6 months to
proceed — may begin before public meeting)
Historic Preservation Commission
review and final recommendation
N
Planning Commission
review and final recommendation
Approval = new Historic District I I
Denial = no district City Council
I final determination
Revised 03/09
ARCHDIA PUBLIC LIBRARY
Public Computer Users,
17.2�t 13 5
1 in Users tcrabyt-
20 West Duarte Rd., Arcadia CA 91 006
(626) 821 -5567 library. ci. acadia. ca. us
il
ARCAUTA
LIEBRARY
i 0
'�;l
247 13,043
New Items Added
22,537
20,298
Electroszic items
2,239
o Ebooks
Up 42.40/0
Volunteers Hours Worked �.
ILA
Engaging and partnering
with the community
215,952
Web Site Visitors
66%
Reference
Questions
Answered
ti
V�
Total Libraryvisits
553m236
ild `
` l �
r
I
Y
•
Ell U
111:S91Ci111OIIC
It is honor to be
liv
my part of an
011tstanAinn team of tnlanfaA
y
staff who give so much of
a
who
themselves to support the
Library's mission of service to
our community. Together with
our dedicated Board of Trustees,
Friends of the Library, and
Library Foundation, we are
strongly committed to educating,
informing, and inspiring our
community. 4,580 JF10,322 IF 12,319
Adults Teens Children
Mary Beth Hayes, Director
29ol5l �
Library • .
Cardholders
lie
SR--
State Route 710 North Study
As Caltrans and Metro prepare to release the draft environmental document for the 710 North Study in
February 2015, the publi : is encouraged to become engaged and learn the facts for themselves. Below are
some key facts to address misconceptions surrounding the Study.
Study Process
CLAIM: The 710 North tudy is skewed to support a freeway tunnel alternative.
FACT: Nothing has beet decided. By law, Caltrans and Metro are equally evaluating the alternatives being
considered in the Study:
• Bus Rapid Transit
• Freeway Tunnel
• Light Rail Transit
• No -Build
• Transportation System Management /Transportation Demand Management
Health Risk Assessment
CLAIM: The 710 North 'tudy does not evaluate health risks.
FACT: As a part of the 7 10 North Study, a Health Risk Assessment is being prepared to address the effect of
current and future exposures to mobile chemicals, such as gasoline and diesel exhaust emissions, to a broad
population, such as a cit i or community.
Cost - Benefit Analysis
CLAIM: A cost - benefit analysis for the 710 North Study will not be released.
FACT: A cost - benefit analysis will be made available in February 2015 along with the draft environmental
document. The cost - benefit analysis is one of many tools used to evaluate alternatives.
Increased Truck Traffic
CLAIM: The freeway tunnel will invite more trucks to travel through the area for goods transport from the
ports.
FACT: The vast majorit'i of the trucks that already travel within the Study area are local trucks that are
delivering merchandise `o local businesses. Cargo trucks traveling to and from the ports typically begin /end
in the area south of State Route 60 or distribution centers in the Inland Empire. The tunnel alternative looks
at the variation of allowii ig or prohibiting truck travel. Nothing has been decided.
Freeway Tunnel Safety
CLAIM: A freeway tunnel is unsafe.
FACT: Safety is the top 1 nority for Caltrans and Metro. The safety elements for the freeway tunnel alternative
will comply with applica le regulatory requirements. Some of the design, safety and operational features,
include but are not limit 2d to, the following:
• Prohibition of vehicles with flammable /hazardous cargo
• Fire detection systems
• Water suppression system
• Protected pedestrian walkways
• Air scrubbers at each end of the tunnel (portal)
• Operations and Ivlaintenance Building at each portal
• 24 -hour surveiM nce
• Variable messag � signs
• Emergency telephones
• Co- located first sponders at Operations and Maintenance Building
Haling of Excavated Material During Freeway Tunnel Construction
CLAIM: Trucks will use local streets to haul excavated material from freeway tunnel excavation sites.
FACT: Any increased track activity related to the tunnel constructed will be addressed in the draft
environmental document. Based on preliminary evaluation, the material from tunnel excavation will be
disposed predominantly using freeways. Rail is also being considered for disposal of material.
Freeway Tunnel Tolling Costs
CLAIM: The freeway tu-inel toll will cost travelers $20 per trip.
FACT: A toll option has not been adopted, so it would be premature to determine a toll. No such decisions can
be made until after the completion of the final environmental document, a preferred alternative has been
identified, and a record of decision has been approved.
September 4, 2014
b
SR -710
orth Study
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the State Route 710 North Study?
Caltrans and Metro are working together to find solutions that improve mobility and relieve traffic
congestion between the western San Gabriel Valley and the east /northeast area of Los Angeles. The Study
examines a 100 sq tare mile area. It is funded by Measure R, which was passed by two- thirds of Los
Angeles County vc ters in 2008, mandating transportation upgrades throughout the County including the
710 freeway. The raeasure specifically allocated $780 million for the 710 North Study.
2. Who is working or i the Study, and what are the roles of Caltrans and Metro?
Caltrans is the lead agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and th � California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Metro is responsible for managing the
study efforts in cooperation with Caltrans. Although Caltrans and Metro are project participants, other
federal, state, regional and local agencies have a statutory responsibility to advise and provide comments
throughout the environmental review process. These agencies are referred to as cooperating and /or
participating agencies.
3. Why is the Study n eeded?
The existing transportation network in the Study area was started more than half a century ago but was
never completed ar.d not equipped to meet a growing population. From 1960 to 2010, the Study area
population grew by more than half a million people, from 772,053 to 1,279,603 (US Census). By 2035, the
Study area population is expected to reach 1.33 million people and have an employment base of 507,000
jobs (Southern Califor Zia Association of Governments).
Caltrans reports tha three of the top ten afternoon bottlenecks in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties are
in or near the Stud), area. The weekday delays at these three bottlenecks costs taxpayers $21 million
annually and the associated increase in CO2 emission is approximately 5,000 tons per year (Source: Annual
Urban Mobility Report, 2012), equal to the approximate weight of 2,800 passenger vehicles.
Without changes or upgrades, the network will continue to operate at bottleneck levels, and worsen as
traffic demands inc: ease — meaning increased traffic accidents, air pollution and related illnesses, and
diminish the Southern California economy and quality of life.
4. What type of enviro: unental/safety impacts does the Study look at for each of the alternatives?
State and federal laves require that transportation projects be subjected to a detailed environmental
assessment. A few f the environmental impacts that are being considered within the Study include, but
are not limited to, air quality, water quality, noise, and potential health risks.
In addition, the Study looks at light rail transit tunnel and freeway tunnel seismic and ground control
measures, and fire life safety provisions that include, fire detection and suppression systems and
communication strategies with first responders.
August 20, 2014
5. What are the
of the 710 North Study?
Identify transportz�tion solutions that:
> Improve 'a' vel time
> Improve nobility and connectivity between the 10 and 210 freeways
> Reduce co gestion on the freeway system and local streets
> Increase p,xblic transit ridership
> Minimize environmental impacts due to traffic congestion
> Assure consistency with regional transportation plans and strategies
> Maximize tax payer dollars
6. What are the traffic alternatives being considered in this Study?
The Study is equally evaluating five alternatives:
• Bus Rapid Transit
• Freeway Tunnel
• Light Rail Transit
• No Build
• Transportz tion Systems Management /Transportation Demand Management
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
The BRT would operate as an express bus for longer distance travel at higher speeds, greater frequency bus
service, minimal stops, and may potentially run in dedicated bus lanes during peak hours.
Freewav Tunnel
The underground r )adway would extend the 710 North freeway from where it currently ends, just south of
Valley Boulevard, to the 210 and 134 freeway interchange in Pasadena. Variations being reviewed for this
alternative include:
• Single and twin tunnels
• With or without tolls
• With or wi thout trucks
• Possible express bus service lane at peak hours
Wht Rail Transit ( T)
The LRT Alternativ would have elevated and underground segments and would connect passengers to
bus lines traveling o adjacent communities.
No Build
The No Build alternative assumes zero transportation improvements beyond those already planned in the
Southern California. Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan that are scheduled to be
completed by 2035.
Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
This alternative butt on the existing transportation system with traffic signal upgrades and
nization
synchro, s and intersection improvements, bus transit enhancement, and promotes
commuter ridesharL-.
August 20, 2014
7. If the tunnel alter iative is selected, would it be tolled and primarily used by trucks to and from the ports?
The Study is evaluating variations for the freeway tunnel alternative that would either allow or exclude
trucks, anje pI r t with or without tolls. Port trucks typically head east to major distribution centers
located in Inla d Empire. To learn more about goods movement, read the Goods Movement FAQs in
the Study bpag .: www.metro.net /sr710studv
8. What is the cost tc our economy if we do not take action?
A 2014 Los Angelus Economic Development Corporation ( LAEDC) study shows that the status quo
negatively impacts the economy and quality of life for Southern California commuters. The LAEDC found
that travel delay in the approximate 100 square miles of the 710 North Study cost taxpayers $852.9 million
in 2008, and is expected to increase to $1.2 billion annually in 2035, if nothing is done. The LAEDC Study
confirms the exisfng transportation system in the Study area is a major contributor to the cost.
Moreover, residents and businesses in the broader region are affected every day as traffic delays are
estimated to increase an additional 61 hours (or 2 %z days) annually to commuters.
9. How can the public get involved in the process?
A draft environmental document will be released and circulated for public review and comment in
February 2015. Caltrans extended the standard 45 -day public review and comment period to 90 days, and
will hold two pubLc hearings during this period. The public will have several options to submit
comments:
• In person at the public hearings
• By U.S. M iil
• Online through the Caltrans public comment website
To sign -up and ge: regular updates, visit the 710 North Study website: www.metro.net /sr710study.
10. When and where will the Study be available to the public?
In February 2015, the draft environmental document will be posted on the Caltrans and Metro websites,
and links will be provided on Metro social media platforms. Local libraries will be provided with CD
copies of the document and will include print copies of the Executive Summary translated into Spanish,
Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. Individuals in the 710 North Study database will be notified by e -mail
when it is available.
August 20, 2014
The California Environmental uality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are
laws that require government agencies to identify the
significant environmental impacts of their actions and
to avoid, minimize and /or mitigate any adverse effects.
What will be studied?
When projects require approv is under both CEQA
and NEPA, a joint Environmen t Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statem (EIR /EIS) is
prepared. An EIR /EIS explores the proposed project's
environmental impacts on a broad range of topics,
including traffic, community effects, air quality, public
health, noise, visual disruption, soil, water pollution,
cultural resources and biological resources.
Where are we now?
The Draft Environmental Impact Report /Statement for
the State Route 710 North Study will be released for
public review and comment in February 2015, which will
identify potential environmental impacts and ways to
address them. Be sure to join our mailing list to receive
notice of the Draft EIR /EIS release.
What to expect next?
Upon release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Statement there is a minimum public review period of
45 days, however Caltrans has decided to have a 90 -day
public review period for the State Route 710 North Study.
During this time, Metro and Caltrans will hold two public
hearings to present key findings from the Draft EIR /EIS
and invite comments from the community. Responses to
substantive comments will be arepared and provided in
writing as part of the Final EIR LEIS.
a) Metro
metro. net:
We want your comments.
During the public review period, you will be able to
submit comments on the Draft EIR /EIS in person
at the public hearings, by U.S. mail or online at the
Caltrans website. Your comments on the Draft EIR /EIS
could include:
• What is needed to ensure the Draft EIR /EIS adequately
identifies significant environmental impacts
• Suggested methods to avoid and /or mitigate impacts
• Suggestions on additional impacts, alternatives, and /or
mitigation measures
To ensure your comments are effective and constructive,
you can also provide support with evidence such as data,
references, or other facts.
Stay up to date.
join our mailing list at metro. net 1sr7iostudy to get email
updates on:
• Study progress
• Draft EIR /EIS release
• Public hearings
You can also connect with us at:
® State Route 710 North Study
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
855.4s 8.7100 (855.477.7100)
sr7lostudy@metro.net
120 metro. net /sr7iostudy
® @sr7lostudy
C1facebook.com /sr7iostudy
CA*
amww
CEQA PROCESS
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
> ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
> COMMUNITY MEETINGS
> IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES F
ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE
> DRAFT EIR
> PUBLIC & AGENCY REVIEW
> STATE CLEARINGHOUSE R
> PUBLIC HEARING
> LEAD AGENCY REVIEW OF
RESPONSES TO COMMEN-
ON THE DEIR
> IDENTIFY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
• FINAL EIR
• STATEMENT OF OVERRIDIP
CONSIDERATIONS
• NOTICE OF DETERMINAT f
• MITIGATION MONITORI
PROGRAM
CDMetro
NEPA PROCESS
INITIATE NOTICE OF
PROJECT
ffhjl
AGENCY DECISION
• DRAFT EIS
• EPA FILING AND PUBLISHED
IN FEDERAL REGISTER
• PUBLIC & AGENCY REVIEW
> PUBLIC HEARING
> LEAD AGENCY REVIEW OF
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DEIS
> IDENTIFY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
> FINAL EIS
• FINAL EIS MADE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW
• ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS RECORD
• RECORD OF DECISION
Ls
0
[Jett =i
d
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
> ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
> COMMUNITY MEETINGS
> IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE
• DRAFT EIS
• EPA FILING AND PUBLISHED
IN FEDERAL REGISTER
• PUBLIC & AGENCY REVIEW
> PUBLIC HEARING
> LEAD AGENCY REVIEW OF
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DEIS
> IDENTIFY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
> FINAL EIS
• FINAL EIS MADE AVAILABLE
FOR REVIEW
• ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS RECORD
• RECORD OF DECISION
Ls
0
[Jett =i
d