Loading...
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