Covina City Council
March 19, 2024

i. Action: “Improve access to the Covina Metrolink Station and the Azusa A Line Station by building quality north-south bike facilities.”
The department also received a public comment requesting that a traffic signal be installed on the southeast corner of Covina Park, at the intersection of Badillo Street and Fourth Avenue. Coincidentally, the Public Works department is in the process of installing a traffic signal at that location, and so a revision was made to the Plan on page 51, reflecting the proposed traffic signal, and updating the recommendation on Badillo and Third from a traffic signal to pedestrian hybrid beacon or pedestrian signal.

A legal ad notifying the public of the hearing was published in the San Gabriel Valley Examiner on Thursday, March 7, 2024. The public was also notified via social media, and through a notification email list.

To comply with the grant requirements, the City must adopt the plan and file a Notice of Exemption to the Los Angeles County Clerk by March 31, 2024, and submit a final report and reimbursement request to Caltrans by May 2024. The document is primarily meant to be used as a guide that lays out feasible goals and actions and recommends priority projects prepared as “grant cut sheets” that staff can incorporate into future grant applications. City staff is already considering applying for specific grant opportunities such as the “Safe Streets for All” grant program which is currently accepting applications until May 2024. Additional community outreach would be required to advance in any of the selected projects, as well as further CEQA analysis.

DISCUSSION;
The Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan was developed using a multi-disciplinary approach. The consultant team that prepared the plan consisted of lead consultant Fehr & Peers (Transportation Planning Firm) and sub-consultants Kosmont Companies (Economic Development), CWE (civil engineering), M.I.G (Equity, urban design, & civic engagement). The project development consisted of the following major milestones to date:

Table 1. Project Milestones
Mile Stone Date
Grant Award/Notice to Proceed December 2021
RFP Release January 2022
Covina/Consultant Kick Off April 2022
Civic Engagement Strategy July 2022
Planning Commission/Public Update & Civic Engagement Round 1 August-October 2022 Existing Conditions Reports December 2022
Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission/Public Update April 2023 Civic Engagement Round 2 May 2023
Planning Commission/ Public Update June 2023
75% Draft Plan November 2023
Civic Engagement Round 3 November 2023
100% Draft Plan January 2024
Planning Commission and Transportation & Mobility Advisory Commission recommend approval to the City Council
February 2024
The Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan is organized into six (6) chapters as noted below:

Chapter 1: Vision
The Vision chapter lays out the Goals, objectives, and recommended actions for the City to create more vibrant and active streets. The Vision chapter has 5 primary goals which cover a range of topics including addressing safety concerns, encouraging economic development, and encouraging investment in quality infrastructure.

Chapter 2: Covina Today

The Covina Today chapter summarizes findings from the existing conditions studies and reports (received and filed by the Covina City Council in December 2022). This chapter includes exhibits and graphics demonstrating existing transit, pedestrian, and cyclist conditions within the study area.

Chapter 3: Community Feedback
The Community Feedback chapter summarized the various civic engagement activities throughout the planning project, which included several pop-up events, online engagement and tailored community feedback sessions.

Chapter 4: Active Streets Recommendations
This chapter identifies the equity priority areas based on assessing data from CalEnviro Screen 4.0, Healthy Places Index, and UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project which was used in assessing priority projects in later chapters. This chapter also includes recommendations to improve/expand on the existing bicycle network in Covina and provides crosswalk policy recommendations, and economic development and urban design strategies.

Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines chapter consists of the “Active Transportation Toolbox”, “Urban Design Primer”, “Intersection Design Primer”, and “Uncontrolled Crosswalk Policy”. This chapter was prepared in such a way as to allow flexibility when determining which treatments should be administered for projects that are considered for implementation at a later time, and to demonstrate design considerations on various street types (Arterial, Collector, and Local). The “Active Transportation Toolbox” features tools/facilities concepts by user type, Bike or Pedestrian, and as mitigation tools concerning speed, curb space, and stormwater capture. This chapter is important in that it can be utilized in future civic engagement activities to determine if specific tools are preferred by the community when selecting a project. Staff can also narrow down tool selections based on road type suitability.

Chapter 6: Funding and Implementation Strategy
The Funding and Implementation Strategy chapter provides a list of potential project corridors and highlights the eight (8) priority corridors consisting of fifteen (15) projects. The high-priority project areas were based on a weighted point system and three (3) additional points were offered to project areas if the project falls within a census tract related to limited park access, a high pollution burden, or limited automobile access. Priority criteria are shown in Table 2, and the resulting priority corridors are shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Prioritized Project List Criteria (point system on page 114 of the Draft Final Plan) Bike network, pedestrian priority area, and urban design recommendations were consolidated into corridor projects for the purpose of prioritization. Corridors were then prioritized based on the criteria in the table below.

Criteria Criteria explanation Possible
Points
Expands opportunity for investment in
historically marginalized communities
The corridor project is within an equity priority area, as mapped in Chapter 4: Active Streets Recommendations. 1
Provides immediate benefits to safety
and comfort
The corridor project includes targeted bicycle and pedestrian safety benefits. 1
Improved access to transit
The corridor project is located within ¼ mile of or provides a direct connection to a transit station or bus stop. Transit stops are mapped in Chapter 1: Covina Today.
1 Provides access to local destinations
The corridor project is located within or provides a connection to schools, parks, and major employers/retail centers. These destinations are mapped in Chapter 1: Covina Today
1

Increases climate resiliency
The corridor project includes green infrastructure amenities that provide water and air quality benefits beyond those related to reductions in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)
1 Implementation can be streamlined
The corridor project could be accommodated within the existing right of way with no changes to auto capacity or parking, or if the city felt it had significant community support.
1 Can be funded through existing city The corridor project could be implemented with repaving or other routine maintenance activities 1
Increase access in a community with a
high pollution burden, limited park
access, and/or limited automobile
access
The corridor project falls within a census tract that meets these equity criteria 3
Table 3. Top Eight Priority Project Corridors Summary
Project Extent Project(s)
Project/Corridor Name and Extent Bike Pedestrian Streetscape Workman Street and Hollenbeck Avenue, From Workman Elementary to Puente Avenue
X X
Second Avenue (Pedestrian Priority Area C) from San Bernardino Road to Rowland Street
X X
Covina Boulevard from Hollenbeck Avenue to Grand Avenue (Pedestrian Priority Area B)
X X X
Edna Bicycle Boulevard from Azusa Avenue to Covina Blvd X Fourth Avenue (Pedestrian Priority Area C) from San Bernardino Road to Puente Street
X
Barranca Avenue (Pedestrian Priority Areas B & E), from Arrow Highway to Workman Avenue
X X X
Hollenbeck Avenue (Pedestrian priority Area D) from Arrow Highway to Workman Avenue
X X
Puente Street from Armel Drive to Grand Avenue X
This Chapter also provides a summary of potential funding sources and a cost estimate for each project. This information is key in applying for upcoming competitive grants to use towards implementation.

Civic Engagement
Since the project kick-off with the consultant team in April 2022, community input was included in the plan through various strategies.

Civic Engagement Activities:
 A Spanish/English online survey (14 months)
 Two Planning Commission updates
 One Traffic and Mobility Advisory Commission update
 Four (4) pop-up events
 Community 10-mile bike ride
 Walk audit focus group
 Social media postings throughout the project lifespan  A dedicated webpage with regular updates
 Notification List
 School focus group

Community-desired improvements/feedback included:
 Prioritizing bike lanes
 Crosswalk enhancements
 Traffic calming
 Flashing crosswalk lights
 Increase safety & shade
Civic engagement made up a significant component of the project (25%) and was broken up into three rounds to include public input at different phases of the project. Ten events were held and 246 responses were received via the online survey. More detailed information regarding the outreach activities can be found within Chapter 3:

Community Feedback, of the draft plan, and within the Existing Conditions Report.

It is important to note that civic engagement will not stop after this planning project. Rather, it is expected that further civic engagement should be conducted with a focus on the particular area in which a priority project is located, should the city pursue implementation. Additionally, while specific projects have been identified in the plan with recommendations, the exact treatments selected for a given corridor will be determined based on further community participation, feasibility assessment, and formal pre-construction planning. Project selection and implementation phasing will also be determined based on funding source availability such as other grants or restricted funding sources.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None at this time.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has analyzed the proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan “Plan” and determined that the proposed Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 1500 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.20. CEQA Section 21080.20 exempts active transportation plans from CEQA. The proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan is a plan developed by the City of Covina that is meant to promote and encourage people to take alternative travel options to single-occupancy vehicle trips through increasing safety, comfort, and connectivity of pedestrian, cyclist, and public transportation within the identified study area. It is therefore an active transportation plan exempt from CEQA.

Respectfully submitted,

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION CC 2024-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE COVINA ACTIVE STREETS AND

MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA SECTION 21080.20
WHEREAS, in December 2021, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), awarded the City of Covina a grant under the “Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program” to develop the Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan (“CASMCP”); and
WHEREAS, the goal of the grant program is to support Caltrans's Mission to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability; and
WHEREAS, the CASMCP supports the Caltrans mission, and also builds upon the City of Covina’s existing planning framework, including the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Covina Town Center Specific Plan, providing a set of feasible recommendations with clear steps to implementation for first/last mile needs, and active transportation in Covina; and WHEREAS, there were numerous community-focused outreach meetings, including a bike ride, school feedback session, walking tour feedback session, several pop-up locations, and online engagement to incorporate civic engagement throughout the lifespan of the project; and, WHEREAS, the CASMCP proposes priority pedestrian areas, identifies equity areas, recommends additional and improved networks for pedestrian, cyclist, and roller travel, and prioritizes projects in disadvantaged areas; and
WHEREAS, SB 922, until January 1, 2030, accelerates the approval of sustainable, climate-friendly bicycle and pedestrian projects by exempting them from CEQA; and WHEREAS, the CASMCP is an active transportation plan covered by CEQA Section 21080.20; and
WHEREAS, The Covina Comprehensive General Plan has policies specifically related to supporting and improving upon local transportation programs, including encouraging bikeways and providing an alternative mode of transportation; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission and Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission, at a duly noticed Joint Meeting, considered the proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity plan and any comments received before or at the public meeting, at which time the City staff and lead consultant presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support or in opposition of the proposed project, the Planning Commission at a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2024-001 PC and the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Commission approved, at a 4-0 vote through minute action, recommending that the City Council adopt the Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan; and

Resolution CC 2024-12 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the City Council of the City of Covina held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolutions.

SECTION 2. Based on the entire record before the City Council of the City of Covina, all written and oral evidence presented was considered and reviewed, and the City Council finds that the CASMCP is consistent with and furthers the General Plan and Covina Town Center Specific Plan for reasons, including but not limited those below:

The CASMCP will promote public health, safety, and welfare, and will leave the General Plan an integrated and internally consistent statement of policies, including but not limited to those mentioned below:

Circulation Element; Policy Area 1 – Maintenance and improvement of public rights of way and related infrastructure to accommodate growth.

16. Monitor and, where administratively and financially possible, consider expanding the City’s bikeways and relates facilities in appropriate areas, such as near or linking schools, parks, and major commercial activities and employment centers, for functional as well as recreational uses, in a manner that best meets local conditions and needs.

Natural Resources and Open Space Element ; Policy Area 1 – Water Resources and Air Quality p. Encourage and support the use of mass transit, wherever possible, and work with transit operators to provide the best, most efficient service for local businesses to reduce vehicular travel and air pollution.
q. Encourage the continuation of and improvement of local transportation programs. r. Encourage bikeways, where feasible, to provide an alternative mode of transportation.

Furthermore, the CASMC is consistent with the Covina Town Center Specific Plan. The CASMCP includes as an objective to increase connectivity to the Town Center and incorporates actions from the Covina Town Center Specific Plan to connect the Metrolink to the Town Center and to capitalize on alley connections to increase accessibility and walkability between the Town Center and adjacent districts.

SECTION 3. After giving full consideration to all evidence presented at the March 19, 2024, Public Hearing, the City Council of the City of Covina hereby adopts the Covina Active Streets and Multi-Modal Connectivity Plan.

Resolution CC 2024-12 Page 3 of 3
SECTION 4. City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of the CASMCP is exempt from review under CEQA and qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.20 because the CASMCP is an “active transportation plan” developed by the City that promotes and encourages people to choose walking, bicycling, or rolling through the creation of safe, comfortable, connected, and accessible walking, bicycling, or rolling networks, and encourages alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips. Staff of the City is hereby directed to prepare and post a notice of exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED and PASSED this 19th day of March, 2024.

City of Covina, California
BY:

WALTER ALLEN, III, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
FABIAN VELEZ, Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Fabian Velez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2024-12 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
______________________________________
FABIAN VELEZ, Chief Deputy City Clerk

ADOPTED: JANUARY 2024
covina
active
streets &
multimodal
connectivity
plan
January 2024

ATTACHMENT B

2 Acknowledgements
City of Covina
Daniella Andrade, Project Manager
Brian Lee, Director of Community Development
Andy Bullington, Director of Public Works
Alan Sands, Finance Manager
Consultant Team
Fehr & Peers
Natalie Chyba
Melody Wu
Miguel Nuñez
Sebastian Silva
MIG
Ryan Kucinski
Esmeralda García
Sara Perez Rojas
Jackie Martinez
CWE
Dr. Narasimha Murthy
Kosmont
Thomas Jirovsky
Robert Valenti
This project was funded in part by:

Caltrans Fiscal Year 2021-22 Sustainable
Transportation Planning Grant Program

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 3
Executive Summary
About the Plan
The CASMCP embraces Covina’s vision of a
comprehensive active transportation plan.

The Plan is rooted in mobility, first/last mile needs, and fully integrating the City’s long-term vision for economic development and urban design.

The CASMCP builds on the City’s solid planning foundation, including the Covina Bicycle Master Plan and the Covina Town Center Specific Plan, to create a feasible set of
recommendations with clear steps to implementation.

CHAPTER 1
The Vision
Chapter 1 identifies the goals and objectives of the
CASMCP. Within these goals and objectives are specific
actions that address the City's vision to create active, resilient, and vibrant streets.

CHAPTER 2
Covina Today
Chapter 2 lays the foundation of understanding existing opportunities and challenges for people walking,
biking, and rolling in Covina and is the backbone for
our recommendations established in Chapter 4. While
much of this task is rooted in data and research, the
findings were groundtruthed with the community
through engagement activities referenced in Chapter

3. The findings are consolidated into a set of project
goals and a list of project priorities in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 3
Community Feedback
Chapter 3 summarizes the three rounds of engagement
that were conducted over the course of the CASMCP.

Engagement activities were designed to elevate awareness of the Plan and build an understanding of community
priorities for active transportation in Covina. Over 10 events were held over the course of the project, as well as an online survey that captured 246 responses.PR 4
CHAPTER 4
Active Streets Recommendations
Chapter 4 introduces a refreshed bicycle
network, crosswalk policy recommendations,
pedestrian priority areas, and supporting economic
development and urban design strategies.

These recommendations build off the needs
assessment conducted in Chapter 2 and community
feedback summarized in Chapter 3. The Plan is
rooted in mobility and first/last mile needs, and
integrating into the City's long-term vision for
economic development and urban design.

CHAPTER 5
Design Guidelines
Chapter 5 establishes design guidelines for
implementation of the Chapter 4 recommendations.

Design guidance includes an active transportation
and urban design toolkit, crosswalk policy, and
intersection design primer to ensure that the
CASMCP can be a go-to resource for City staff.

CHAPTER 6
Funding &
Implementation Strategy
Chapter 6 includes a prioritized list of projects,
capital improvement plan and funding strategy
for the recommendations outlined in this Plan.

Covina is an active, vibrant
city that caters to its diverse
community through food,
culture, and entertainment.

The hub of the City is it’s downtown.

Restaurants, residents, bars, businesses,
and public space create an inviting space
that locals and visitors gravitate toward.

The downtown and surrounding
areas make up our Study Area.

City of Covina
Boundary
Study Area

Covina
Metrolink Station
Foothill Transit Center
Covina Park & Ride
Downtown LA—
San Bernardino
281
490 Downtown LA—
Grand Ave, Glendora
APU—
Puente Hills Mall
Covina BikeHub
Metrolink Parking
·
10 39
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
Badillo St
St
Cypress St Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Arrow
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave
Grand Ave
Wingate St

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave
College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Study Area
Emanate Health
Inter-Community Hospital
Rowland
Convalescent
Hospital
Cougar
Park
Covina
Park
Edna
Park
Heritage
Plaza Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Ben Lomond
Elementary
Trade Tech
Academy
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
City
Hall
Post
Office
Police Dept
Fire
Station
Public
Works
District
Field
Office
Fire Station
Public
Library
To
Metro
A (Gold)
Line

0.25 0.5 Study Area mi
2 Miles

2.25 Miles

in this pLAN
1 2 3 4
The
Vision
page 8
› Plan Goals and
Objectives
Active Streets
Recommendations
40 › Equity Priority Areas
› Bike Network
› Pedestrian
Priority Areas
› Urban Design
Recommendations
› Uncontrolled Crosswalk
Recommendations
Covina
Today
16 › Community Makeup
› Major Destinations
› Pedestrian Conditions
› Bicycle Conditions
› Transit Conditions
Community
Feedback
32 › Engagement Timeline
› Key Takeaways

5 6 A
Appendices
› Existing Conditions
Report
› Equity Study
› Economic
Development Study
› Engagement
Summary
Design
Guidelines
52 › Active Transportation
Toolbox
› Urban Design Primer
› Intersection
Design Primer
› Uncontrolled
Crosswalk Policy
Funding &
Implementation
Strategy
112
› Prioritized
Project List
› Right-of-Way
Analysis
› Funding Strategy
› Cost Estimates
› Priority Project
Cutsheets

The
Vision
The Covina Active
Streets and Multimodal
Connectivity Plan (CASMCP)
is an extension of the City’s
strength and resilience, and
a pivotal point for the City’s
transportation system.

This is an exciting time for the City
of Covina. The City is coming out of
the COVID-19 pandemic stronger and
more resilient than ever, evident in the
renewed vibrancy downtown, exciting
new development opportunities, and
commitment to creating beautiful public
outdoor spaces.

Chapter 1

10 Goal #1
Provide
comfortable
walking and
biking facilities
Provide safe
and comfortable
mobility options for
everyone through
pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly
streets.

Objective #1
Implement a continuous network of bike boulevards, bike lanes, protected bike facilities, and shared-use paths that provide direct connections throughout the study area. Implement streetscape improvements in pedestrian priority areas.

Actions
› Implement the bike network. Prioritize construction of bicycle infrastructure that eliminates gaps in the existing bicycle network to increase connectivity throughout the city. Actively pursue grants and other funding opportunities for bike network implementation. › Implement the pedestrian priority area recommendations. Integrate urban design and streetscape improvements into all city projects, considering street trees, landscaping, public art, wayfinding, and other urban design elements such as bus stop conditions. Bring all uncontrolled crosswalks into alignment with the crosswalk policy by 2029. › Set context-sensitive speed limits. A pedestrian or cyclist struck by a vehicle travelling at 40 miles per hour has just a 20% chance of survival.

Conduct a speed reduction survey to identify locations that may be eligible for speed limit adjustments per California AB43 (2023).

Objective #2
Improve safety at intersections and reduce the frequency and severity of collisions by implementing targeted improvements at marked crosswalks and enhancing bicycle facilities.

Actions
› Apply the crosswalk policy included in the Plan to uncontrolled crosswalk locations to determine potential upgrades to existing marked crossings and identify treatment options for future marked crossings. Install recommended safety measures such as high-visibility signage and striping, pedestrian-activated warning systems, pedestrian refuge islands, improved street lighting, and intersection control. › Implement traffic calming measures, such as reducing speed limits, installing raised crosswalks, and adding curb extensions to create safer and more comfortable pedestrian environments. › Meet bi-annually with relevant departments and agencies including Planning, Public Works, Police, Parks & Recreation, and Foothill Transit to identify and discuss strategies to improve bicycle and pedestrian visibility and safety at intersections within the study area.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 11 Vision
Goal #2
Build climate
resiliency
Reduce
transportationrelated climate
impacts by
encouraging the use
of active modes.

Build climate
resiliency through
increased green
space.

Objective #1
Expand the existing tree canopy and shade infrastructure to provide relief for people walking, biking, and waiting for transit.

Actions
› Plant 300 drought-tolerant shade trees per year, resulting in 1,500 new trees by 2029. Coordinate with Los Angeles County and community partners to identify opportunities for collaboration. › Work with Foothill Transit to install five new bus shelters annually, resulting in 100% of bus stops having shelter by 2029.

Objective #2
Implement, monitor, evaluate, and refine policies to encourage mode shift towards active transportation and transit, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and localized pollution burden.

Actions
› Work with large employers to triple active transportation and transit commutes by 2029. Build an incentive program and surveys to track progress for employers to pass on to staff. Incentives such as transit passes, route planning services, and e-bike subsidies have been shown to be effective at achieving mode shift in other cities. › Partner with local organizations such as ActiveSGV and CicLAvia to host car-free events that encourage people to walk and ride their bikes. These events could include additional services like bike maintenance and repair to support and facilitate active transportation. › Develop a Safe Routes to School program to encourage walking, biking, and taking transit for school trips. Building walking, biking, and taking transit into routines of young people can result in continued active commuting into adulthood.
› Implement parking maximums, in accordance with AB-2097 (2022), to incentivize walking, biking, and taking transit. Parking maximums also lower overall development costs, creating opportunities for the integration of additional affordable housing units. › Monitor emerging technologies that may help to reduce greenhouse gases. This could include AI-driven technologies that minimize idling time for autos, or EV-readiness strategies.

12 Goal #3
Encourage
economic
development
Support economic
development and
local businesses
by providing
increased access
to neighborhood
destinations.

Objective #1
Increase multimodal transportation options along the
identified Economic Development Corridors—Citrus
Avenue, Badillo Street, and San Bernadino Road.

Actions
› Improve the walkability of these corridors by implementing streetscape and pedestrian infrastructure enhancements. › Work with businesses to optimize use of the curb through more efficient parking, loading zones, and parklets.
› Educate business owners on the economic
benefits of complete streets projects.

Objective #2
Increase connectivity to the Town Center.

Actions
› Connect the Covina Metrolink Station to the Town Center via a “gateway” concept encouraging transit riders to walk from the station to the Town Center. (action from Covina Town Center Specific Plan) › Capitalize on alley connections to increase accessibility and walkability between the Town Center and adjacent districts through strategies such as lighting, signage, landscaping, and plazas and parklets for placemaking, where appropriate. (from Covina Town Center Specific Plan) › Identify residents who live and work within the city and offer personalized commute planning services to support their transition to active modes of transportation at least once a week. Consider partnering with ActiveSGV or advertising their e-bike rental program to provide access for Covina residents.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 13 Vision
Goal #4
Provide
equitable,
cost-effective
transportation
options
Reduce the burden
of household
transportation
costs by providing
affordable
transportation
options through
walking, biking, and
access to transit.

Objective #1
Prioritize transportation investments in Equity Priority Areas to reduce the burden of transportation costs.

Actions
› Improve access to the Covina Metrolink Station and the Azusa A Line Station by building quality north-south bike facilities. Work with the City of Azusa to identify route alignment and joint project development strategies. Work with City of Azusa by installing bikeways and walkways that provide first and last mile connections. › Ensure that bikeway design prioritizes accessibility and does not create additional barriers for people with disabilities. › Implement anti-displacement policy measures in tandem with infrastructure investments to minimize displacement in communities within Equity Priority Areas.
› Implement parking maximums, in accordance with AB-2097 (2022), to incentivize walking, biking, and taking transit. Parking maximums also lower overall development costs, creating opportunities for the integration of additional affordable housing units. › Develop and implement an inclusive public engagement
policy for future planning efforts. Work with communitybased organizations to develop the policy.

Objective #2
Provide subsidies to reduce the cost burden of alternative modes.

Actions
› Provide financial incentives or rebates for the purchase of new bicycles, electric bicycles, and bicycles accessible for individuals with disabilities. › Help residents play a role in creating shaded, walkable neighborhoods. Organize free tree giveaways and other
native plant landscaping rebates for residents.

14 Goal #5
Implement
and maintain
Invest in quality
infrastructure
through innovative
design and creative
funding approaches.

Objective #1
Identify funding sources that can be used for new infrastructure as well as improvements for existing infrastructure.

Actions
› Investigate opportunities to leverage private developments, such as impact fees, in-lieu parking fees, and requirements to implement elements of the Plan within a certain area of the development. Actively pursue technical assistance programs or program grants to assist in the implementation of programs/ special funds to fund active transportation and transit improvements. › Strategically pursue grant opportunities and combine funding sources to fund multi-benefit projects. For example, leverage Measures W, H, A, and M to fund a single project that incorporates transportation, open space, and climate resilience components. › Ensure all capital improvement plan projects incorporate the recommendations in this Plan.

Objective #2
Identify and leverage resources to implement
improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks.

Actions
› Identify a staff person who leads active transportation planning and funding by allocating at least half of their staff time on safety and active transportation by 2025.
› Develop a complete streets checklist for repaving so active transportation and safety improvements are integrated into routine maintenance activities. › Coordinate future Covina Town Center improvement projects to maximize the use of public and private funding for infrastructure improvements.

Objective #3
Maintain bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
to provide continued comfort of users.

Actions
› Set aside funding for landscape maintenance and tree watering. › Ensure the City’s street sweeping contract includes street sweepers for separated facilities.
› Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian network repair and maintenance needs into the regular roadway maintenance program, paying particular attention to sweeping and pothole repair on bicycle facilities.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 15 Vision
Page Intentionally Left Blank

Covina
Today
Chapter 2

18 Covina Today
90 miles of roadway
Existing Infrastructure demographics and mode choice
48%
of residents speak a language
other than English at home
49 signalized intersections
74%
of residents are people of color
67 bus stops
75%
of commuters choose to drive alone
16%
tree canopy coverage
19%
have commute times less
than 15 minutes
292
crosswalks

3.6 miles of bike lanes

1.2 miles of bike routes with sharrows
Study Area AT-A-GLANCE

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 19 existing conditions

EXISTING NEEDS OPPORTUNITIES
The existing conditions process
exposed several key areas that guided
the CASMCP recommendations.

The study area has one “Disadvantaged
Community” as defined by SB 350/CalEnviroScreen
and two “Sensitive Communities” as defined by
UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project.

Investments should be prioritized in these two
communities to limit the burden of pollution and
climate change. Infrastructure investments should
be paired with policy adjustments to minimize
displacement following increased investment.

A significant portion of Covina residents live and
work in Covina, but still choose to drive to work.

Providing safe, comfortable, and reliable biking
and transit options could lead to mode shift for
those who have shorter commuting distances.

Crossing infrastructure is typically limited
to standard crosswalk striping.

There are opportunities to enhance crosswalks
through tools such as intersection control, highvisibility signing and striping, and curb extensions.

Existing bicycle facilities are typically limited to
standard bike lanes with some additional features like
buffers and green bike boxes at select locations.

There are opportunities to enhance
both the connectivity and comfort of
bike facilities by identifying a low-stress
network throughout the study area.

Wide curb-to-curb widths and underutilized space on
major roads is typically entirely dedicated to auto uses.

There are opportunities to rebalance the rightof-way and create more space for dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

The City has a tree canopy coverage of about 16%. With the average August temperature in Covina above 90 degrees and rising, there
are opportunities to expand the existing tree
canopy and shade to provide relief for people
walking, biking, and waiting for transit.

The large majority of bicycle and pedestrian injury
collisions are occurring at intersections.

Providing design treatments focused on
improving safety and comfort at intersections
could help reduce collision frequency and severity.

Commercial and retail development potential along
Citrus Avenue, San Bernardino Road, and Badillo Street
and the 12 potential transit-oriented development
sites in the study area provide a look-ahead at major
destinations and travel patterns in the coming years.

The multidisciplinary nature of the CASMCP
provides an exciting opportunity to align
recommended investments with forecasted growth.

20 Source: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, US Census
ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates (Race), Languages Spoken at Home, Age and Sex (Median Age). Median Income, Commuting Characteristics By Sex (Vehicle Availability) Over 70% of Covina
residents are
people of color.

Almost half of residents
speak a language other than
English at home.

Race Covina LA County
Hispanic or Latino 49% 59%
White alone 26% 23%
Asian & Pacific Islander alone 15% 13%
Black or African American alone 8% 3%
Two or More Races <1% 2%
American Indian & Alaska Native alone <1% <1%
Other Race <1% <1%
Languages Spoken at Home Covina LA County
English Only 52% 43%
Language other than English 48% 57%
Vehicle Availability Covina LA County
None 3% 4%
1 or more 98% 96%
Median Income Covina LA County
$70,780 $68,040
Median Age Covina LA County
37 37
Demographics
Community Makeup

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 21 existing conditions
Almost 20% of
commute times
in Covina are less
than 15 minutes.

These shorter trips could
present an opportunity
for mode shift if safe,
comfortable, and reliable
biking and transit options
were provided.

People may also prefer not
to drive for local trips to
schools, parks, or shopping,
but don’t currently feel they
have a viable alternative.

Source: Journey to work mode split, Census Households without vehicles, Census Overall mode split, California Household Travel Survey commute mode share
Drive Alone
75%
Worked from Home
Other 1% 6%
Walk 1%
Bike 1%
Transit 5%
Shared Ride
12%
75% of Covina's
commuters choose
to drive alone.

Covina is a predominately
auto-oriented community.
all trips mode share
Drive Alone
43%
Walk 4% Other 1%
Bike 1%
Transit 1%
Shared Ride
50%
Mode Choice
Community Makeup

22 Top
Employers
Town Center Specific Plan
·
10 39
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
B
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
Holt Ave
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Glendora Ave
Glendora Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hwy Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Emanate Health
Inter-Community
Hospital
Rowland
Convalescent
Hospital
Cougar
Park
Covina
Park
Edna
Park
Heritage
Plaza Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Ben Lomond
Elementary
Trade Tech
Academy
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
City
Hall
Post
Office
Police Dept
Fire
Station
Public
Works
District
Field
Office
Fire Station
Public
Library
Covina Valley Unified
School District
IKEA
Charter Healthcare of
San Gabriel Valley
VITAS
Healthcare
The Home Depot
Walmart
Composite Horizons LLC
City of
Covina
Citrus Valley
Health CenterIntercommunity
Among the top ten
employers in the City, three
are healthcare related,
three are school districts/
local government, three
are major big box retailers,
and one is an aerospace
components firm.

Five of these major employers
have operations within the
CASMCP area, with several
others located just outside
of CASMCP boundaries,
suggesting workers at these
companies could benefit
from active transportation
improvements.

Major Destinations

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 23 existing conditions
East Via Verde Street
Covina Hills Rd
Badillo St
Bonnie Cove Ave
Sunflower Ave
Valley Center Ave
Reeder Ave
Charter Oak Unified
School District
Key Corridors
& TOD Sites
·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
TOD Opportunity Sites
Active Streets Corridors
Economic Development Corridors
TOD & Active Street Corridors
Multiple TOD (Transportation
Oriented Development)
opportunity sites can be
found within the CASMCP
area. Many of these sites lie
directly adjacent to, or within
economic development zones
and active transportation
corridors.

In cojunction with
CASMCP, these potential
TOD sites could increase
mobility and access to
Covina for residents
and pave the way for the
economic benefits of new
development, especially
in downtown Covina.

Major Destinations

·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Emanate Health
Inter-Community
Hospital
Rowland
Convalescent
Hospital
Cougar
Park
Covina
Park
Edna
Park
Heritage
Plaza Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Ben Lomond
Elementary
Trade Tech
Academy
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley High
City
Hall
Post
Office
Police Dept
Fire
Station
Public
Works
District
Field
Office
Fire Station
Public
Library
24 80% (233 of 292 total)
of crosswalks are controlled
(either by stop control or
signals)
100% (49 of 49 total)
of signalized intersections
with marked crosswalks
along at least one leg
Pedestrian
Crosswalks
& Sidewalk
Gaps
86% (42 of 49 total)
of signalized intersections
with marked crosswalks on
all legs
Crosswalks
& Sidewalk Gaps
Sidewalk Gap
Uncontrolled Crosswalk
Signalized Crosswalk
Stop-Controlled Crosswalk
Ongoing Improvements
The City is actively working
on sidewalk improvements
on Workman Street
between Citrus Avenue
and Hollenbeck Avenue.

The City is making
crosswalk upgrades to
two midblock crosswalks
on College Avenue,
including installation of
in-pavement flashers.

Pedestrian Conditions

East Via Verde Street
enega Ave
ovina Blvd
Covina Hills Rd
Badillo St
ypress St
Holt Ave
Glendora Ave
Bonnie Cove Ave
Sunflower Ave
Valley Center Ave
Glendora Ave
Reeder Ave
wy
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 25 existing conditions
Badillo Street
/Amel Drive
Multi-lane uncontrolled
crosswalk with high-visibility
crosswalk striping
Midblock on
Citrus Avenue
Decorative uncontrolled midblock
crosswalk near downtown
College Street
/3rd Avenue
All-way stop control with
standard crosswalk striping
Italia Street
/2nd Avenue
Side-street stop controlled
intersection with crossings on
all approaches, including two
that cross six lanes of traffic
Puente Street near
Sierra Middle School
Pedestrian flashing beacons ahead
of an unsignalized crosswalk
Midblock on
Rowland Avenue
Pedestrian crossing signage
in a school zone
Image Sources: Google Earth
Typical Unsignalized Pedestrian
Crosswalk Conditions
Pedestrian Conditions

26 The City of Covina
has a 16% tree
canopy coverage,
compared to the
County average
of 20%.

The average August
temperature in Covina is 91°.
90° is the threshold for
“extreme heat conditions”,
requiring your body to work
extra hard to maintain
normal temperatures.

Tree Canopy
Source: Los Angeles County Tree Canopy Map Viewer (Tree People) Weather Spark Climate Comparison Ready.gov/heat
Pedestrian Conditions

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 27 existing conditions
Bike
Facilities
·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
90 miles of roadway

3.6 miles of Class II bike lanes

1.2 miles of Class III bike routes
with sharrows

0.75 miles of planned Class II
bike lanes on Citrus Avenue
between Badillo Street and
Workman Street

BY CLASSIFICATION
Existing Bike Facilities
Bike Lanes
Bike Routes with Sharrows
Bicycle Conditions

28 Bike lanes in the study area
are typically 5-6 feet in width
and positioned between the
parking lane and auto lanes.

Bike stencils are used at
the intersection, but not
typically used midblock.

Conflict striping and green
paint are not typical.

Mixing zones to accommodate
right turns are common
throughout the study area.

Front St/Citrus Ave
Green bike boxes
Badillo St
Buffered Bike Lanes
2nd St
Bike Route signage
Typical Bike Facility Treatments
Other Bike Treatments in the Study Area
Image Source: Google Earth
Bicycle Conditions

851
284
284
284
492
488
488
488
488
488 488
480
480
480
480 480 281 281
281
281
281
190
190
190
490 490
490
490
280
Covina
Metrolink Station
Foothill Transit Center
Covina Park & Ride
Downtown LA—
San Bernardino
281
490 Downtown LA—
Grand Ave, Glendora
APU—
Puente Hills Mall
Covina BikeHub
Metrolink Parking
·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
To
Metro A
(Gold) Line
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 29 existing conditions
Transit
Ridership
Transit Boardings
Low
Medium
High
The study area’s most active bus stops are
along its periphery on Azusa Avenue and
Arrow Highway.

The Azusa Avenue corridor provides direct access to the Azusa A Line Station to the north.

Transit Conditions

30 Transit Stop
Amenities
Covina
Metrolink Station
Foothill Transit Center
Covina Park & Ride
Downtown LA—
San Bernardino
281
490 Downtown LA—
Grand Ave, Glendora
APU—
Puente Hills Mall
Covina BikeHub
Metrolink Parking
·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Transit Stop Amenities
Bus Stops with Bench & Shelter
Bus Stops with Bench
Bus Stops with No Amenities
97% (65 out of 67)
of stops have a place to sit
(bench or shelter)
51% (34 out of 67)
of stops have shade (shelter)
ongoing improvements
Ongoing transit stop
improvements include the
installation of five new bus
shelters on Grand Avenue.
<1% (2 out of 67)
of stop have no amenities
Transit Conditions

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 31 existing conditions
East Via Verde Street
enega Ave
ovina Blvd
Covina Hills Rd
Badillo St
ypress St
Holt Ave
Glendora Ave
Bonnie Cove Ave
Sunflower Ave
Valley Center Ave
Glendora Ave
Reeder Ave
wy
Transit
Accessibility
·
10 39
Ci
Covina Blvd Co
Rowland Ave
Badillo St Badillo St
Glendora Ave
Cypress St Cypress St Cy
San Dimas Wash
Cypress St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Lark Ellen Ave
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Lark Ellen Ave
Vincent Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hw
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St
San Bernardino Rd

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Covina
Metrolink Station
Foothill Transit Center
Covina Park & Ride
Downtown LA—
San Bernardino
281
490 Downtown LA—
Grand Ave, Glendora
APU—
Puente Hills Mall
Covina BikeHub
Metrolink Parking
CASMCP Study Area

BUS STOPS BY AMENITIES
5-Minute (1/4-Mile)
Walk Shed
From Bus Stops
Bus Stops with Bench & Shelter
Bus Stops with Bench
Bus Stops with No Amenities
Bus Stops with Bench & Shelter
Bus Stops with Bench
Bus Stops with No Amenities
70%
of the study area
within a 5-minute
walk of a bus stop
97%
of stops have a
marked crosswalk
within 250’
3%
of bus stops are
located midblock
Transit Conditions

Community
Feedback
Chapter 3

34 Outreach
Timeline
August 23, 2022
Project Update
@ Covina Planning
Commission
April 11, 2023
Project Update
@ Covina Transportation
and Mobility Advisory
Commission
August 26, 2022
Pop-Up
@ Covina Farmers Market
October 4, 2022
Pop-Up
@ National Night Out
2022 2023
246
Online Survey Responses
August 2022 - October 2023
Groundtruthing
Existing Conditions
Public feedback was collected

AUG OCT APR

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 35 community engagement
Understanding
Community Priorities
Confirming
Community Priorities
May 6, 2023
Community Bike Ride
& Feedback Session
led by ActiveSGV
May 11, 2023
Parents & Educators
Working Session
with Covina Unified School
District; led by Fehr & Peers
and ActiveSGV
September 30, 2023
Pop-Up
@ Sacred Heart Annual
Festival
October 14, 2023
Pop-Up
@ Thunderfest Car Show and
Music Festival
May 21, 2023
Community Walk &
Feedback Session
led by MIG
June 13, 2023
Project Update
@ Covina Planning
Commission

MAY JUN SEP- OCT
60 cyclists joined a 10-mile ride
around the study area and
to the Gold Line station
8 participants explored and
conducted a walk audit
of Downtown Covina
12 parents and staff joined
a Parents & Educators
Working Session

36 Improvements Covina stakeholders would like to see:
“More lighting needed.

Dangerous crossing
uncontrolled intersections
especially at dusk."
“More controlled
intersection around
all parks.”
“Improve access from
Metrolink parking
structure to station."
“Improve ped[estrian]
crossings/connections
to Covina Park."
“Need Class 1 or 2
bike lanes [in] north/
south [direction].”
“Will bike ride more if it
was safer to do so.”
“Improve visibility of
bike lane on Badillo."
“Prioritize bike lanes on
larger, quiet streets."
“Need more bike parking."
“Addressing poor
compliance with yielding
and turn restrictions."
“More crosswalk
enhancements."
“More streetscape
enhancements."
“Traffic calming to
make people feel more
comfortable walking/
taking transit."
“[Cars drive] fast on Citrus."
“Less potholes.

Fix the streets.”
“[Shade] very limited, more
tree canopy needed.”
“Vacant lot at Citrus/
San Bernardino is
an eyesore."
Engagement Highlights

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 37 Engagement Highlights community engagement

38 Online Survey
Takeaways
Desired Improvements
Social conditions
Transportation conditions
Lack of bike infrastructure
Physical conditions
Weather
Distance
Poor or no transit service/amenities
I already use active transportation
I like to drive
Other - Write In
I haven’t considered it
42 35
31 26
26 18
12 10
10 9
4 Votes
4 21 Crosswalks/signals
35 Bike lanes/ Bike-friendly infrastructure
17 Sidewalks
18 Flashing Crosswalk Lights
17 Lighting
20 Safety
6 Street/Road Conditions
14 Shade/Tree canopy
15 Social Conditions
14 Speed Humps
6 Car Free Zones
5 Bike Parking
15 Traffic Calming/Slow Zones
13 Transit conditions/ More Routes
3 Curb Extensions
3 Wash Trails
5 Accessibility/ Visibility/ Signage
6 EV Charging
7 Business Diversity/ Less Vacancy
7 Beautification/ Cleanliness
Votes
Barriers to Walking & Biking A community survey was
developed to understand
existing mobility patterns and
preferences throughout the
study area.

More details on the survey are
included in the Appendices.
246
Online Survey Responses
August 2022 - October 2023
› Safety (vehicle speeds
& special conditions)
› Inadequate crosswalks
› Inadequate lighting
› Comfort/lack of shade
› Safety
› Security/ bike friendly
infrastructure
› Safety
› Reliability/convenience
Primary Concerns
Engagement Highlights

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 39 Engagement Highlights community engagement

Active
Streets
Recommendations
Chapter 4

42 Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas Equity Priority
Areas
Study area-specific equity
priority areas were defined
to understand existing
disproportionate impacts of
displacement and pollution burden.

The equity priority areas were
developed by analyzing three
data sources (CalEnviroScreen,
Healthy Places Index, and UC
Berkeley Urban Displacement
Project) to assess what
challenges each census tract
experiences and whether certain
census blocks experience
more inequities than others.

The highlighted areas represent
the outcomes of this analysis
and are defined as the equity
priority areas for this Plan.

Equity priority areas were
used to prioritize projects
recommended in this Plan.

The outcomes of that analysis
are included in the Funding &
Implementation Strategy chapter.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Scores are composed of 21 indicators representing the product of pollution burdens and population characteristics, to produce an overall score for each census tract. A percentile ranking for a census tract above seventy-five means that the census tract is in the top 25% of all CalEnviroScreen scores statewide.

Healthy Places Index
Scores are composed of 23 community characteristics to quantify various factors that shape health. These scores can be used to identify health inequities by comparing the well-being and health of communities.

UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
Analyzes a set of criteria that would make it difficult for a household to afford changes in housing costs in the event of increased development. These communities vulnerable to displacement are referred to as sensitive communities.

See Appendices for more information

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 43 recommended active transportation network
Identified Equity Priority Areas form a contiguous area stretching from the southwestern edge of the study area and city to the northeast.

Cienega Ave Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
St Badillo St
Cypress St Cypress St
Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
Channel
St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow Hwy Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave Wingate St

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Benwood St
Grandview Ave
Edna Pl Edna Pl Edna Pl 1st Ave
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Nubia St
Grondahl St
Fairvale Ave
Ranger Dr
Hurst St
Hepner Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Covina Recreation Village Covina Recreation Village
Equity Priority Area

44 Bike Network
This bike network establishes a
low-stressi network of bicycle
facilities that provides:
› Connections to parks and schools
› Continuous connections on major
corridors, including identified
Economic Development Corridors
› Connections on neighborhood
streets wherever possible
Once implemented, the
recommended bike network would
be an almost six-fold increase in
the bikeway miles in the study area,
providing meaningful connections
to the places people want to go.

The FHWA Bikeway Selection
Guide was used as a starting point
for establishing bikeway type
recommendations for each street.

Refer to the Chapter 5 Design
Guidelines for best practices
on implementation.

Separated Bikeways
› New 20.0 mi
› Upgraded 4.5 mi
Bike Lanes
› New 2.0 mi
› Upgraded 0.5 mi
› Maintained 0.6 mi
Bike Boulevards
› New 4.6 mi
Shared Use/Bike Paths
› New 1.6 mi
What do we mean by
low-stress?
We mean bicycle facilities that
are comfortable to everyone,
regardless of age or ability.

We considered auto speeds
and volumes to identify the
bikeway type that is most
appropriate for each street.

The higher the speeds and
volumes, the more protection
there should be. Separated
bikeways are recommended
on the streets with the
highest combination of speed
and volume.

Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 45 recommended active transportation network
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
St Badillo St
Cypress St
Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
Channel
St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave
College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Benwood St
Grandview Ave
Edna Pl Edna Pl Edna Pl 1st Ave
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Nubia St
Grondahl St
Fairvale Ave
Ranger Dr
Hurst St
Hepner Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Covina Recreation Village Covina Recreation Village
Cougar
Park
Covina
Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Trade Tech
Academy
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
Kaiser Permanente
under construction
Covina
Park
Edna
Park
Heritage
Plaza Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Ben Lomond
Elementary
Trade Tech
Academy
Bridge over
San Dimas Wash
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
·
10 39
Separated Bikeways Class IV
Bike Lanes Class II
Bike Boulevards Class III
Shared Use/Bike Paths Class I
Upgrade Existing Facility
Maintain Existing Bike Lanes
Arrow Highway outside
the city's jurisdiction

46 Pedestrian
Priority Areas
The pedestrian priority
areas are areas with:
› Overlap of major destinations,
including parks and schools,
major employers, churches,
grocers, and transit stops
› Fatal and severe pedestrian
collision history
› Equity Priority Areas
Streetscape projects were
identified for each pedestrian
priority area to enhance the
walkability of these areas.

Refer to the Chapter 5 Design
Guidelines for best practices
on implementation.

Sidewalk Zone Amenities
› Lighting
› Street furniture
› Bicycle racks and corrals
› Transit amenities
› Permeable paving
Sidewalk Expansion
› New and widened sidewalks
› Treelets
› Curb extensions at intersections
Green Infrastructure
› Street trees
› Stormwater capture
Curbspace Management
› EV charging
› On-street parking
› Commercial/Service loading
› Pick-up/drop-off zones
› Micromobility parking
Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 47 recommended active transportation network
Pedestrian
Priority Area
A
B
C
D E
Potential
Expansion
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
Badillo St
St
Cypress St
Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
Channel
St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave
College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Edna Pl
1st Ave
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Nubia St
Grondahl St
Fairvale Ave
Ranger Dr
Covina Recreation Village Covina Recreation Village
FAIR District FAIR District
·
10 39
CASMCP Study Area
Parks and Schools
Major Employers
Churches and Grocers
Transit Stops
Pedestrian Priority Area (PPA)
Economic Development
Corridors
5-MINUTE WALK TO
Arrow Highway outside
the city's jurisdiction
A
B
C
D E

48 Pedestrian Priority Area A From To
Azusa Avenue Arrow Highway Covina Boulevard
Arrow Highway Azusa Avenue Hollenbeck Avenue
Grondahl Street Armel Drive San Dimas Wash
Pedestrian Priority Area B
Residential Streets Park Avenue, Reed Street Edna Place, Kelby Park Barranca Avenue Covina Boulevard San Bernardino Boulevard Covina Boulevard Grand Avenue Citrus Avenue
Pedestrian Priority Area C
Second Avenue San Bernardino Boulevard Puente Street
Badillo Street Barranca Avenue Hollenbeck Avenue
Front Street Citrus Avenue Barranca Avenue
Pedestrian Priority Area D
Workman Street and Hollenbeck Avenue Workman Elementary Puente Avenue Residential Streets: Armel, Easbury, S. Heathdale Rowland Street Workman Street Rowland Street Armel Drive Citrus Avenue
Pedestrian Priority Area E
Rowland Street Citrus Avenue Delay Avenue
Barranca Avenue Puente Street Workman Avenue
Residential Streets Workman Avenue,
Rowland Street
Barranca Avenue,
Oak Tree Drive
Primary
Secondary
Refer to the Chapter 5 Design
Guidelines for best practices
on implementation.

Urban Design Recommendations
in Pedestrian Priority Areas
Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 49 recommended active transportation network
Lighting
Street Furniture
Bicycle Parking
Transit Amenities
Permeable Paving
New and Widened
Sidewalks
Treelet
Curb Extension
Street Trees
Stormwater Capture
Permeable Paving
EV Charing
On-Street Parking
Commercial Loading
Pick-up/drop-off zones
Micro Mobility Parking
Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas

50 Uncontrolled
Crosswalk
Recommendations
There are 58 uncontrolled crosswalks
throughout the study area, many of which
provide access to businesses, schools,
parks, and transit stops. Improvements
at these locations could dramatically
increase pedestrian comfort when
accessing these local destinations.

The FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
was used as a starting point for these
recommendations. Each recommendation
was established considering location
context, auto speed, auto volumes, and
number of lanes. The Crosswalk Policy
provides the specific thresholds used
for each treatment recommendation.

Refer to the Chapter 5 Design Guidelines
for best practices on implementation.

High-visibility
Crosswalk Striping
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
or Pedestrian Signals
Lane Reconfigurationsi
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs)
Traffic Signals
Slip Lane Closures
What do lane
reconfigurations have to
do with pedestrian safety?
Research shows dropping from
a 4-lane roadway to a 3-lane
roadway can reduce crashes
up to 47%1.There are several
reasons why having multiple
lanes in each direction makes
for a uncomfortable pedestrian
environment. The two primary
reasons are speeding and the
introduction of a “multiple threat
condition”.

CAR
1(CMF Clearinghouse, CMF ID: 2841)
Speeding: When there is too much
auto capacity for the demand on
the roadway, it gives drivers a lot
of room to pick up speed. High
speeds lead to less time for drivers
to react, smaller lines of sight, and
higher severity of crashes.

Multiple threat condition: When
the crosswalk is uncontrolled, one
car may stop for a pedestrian in
one lane and unintentionally block
the line of sight of the pedestrian
and oncoming traffic in the
neighboring lane.

Urban Design Recommendations in Pedestrian Priority Areas

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 51 recommended active transportation network
Cienega Ave
Covina Blvd Covina Blvd
Rowland Ave
Badillo St
St
Cypress St
Cypress St
San Dimas Wash
Channel
St
San Bernardino Rd
San Bernardino Rd
Rowland St
Workman Ave Workman St Hollenbeck St Hollenbeck St
Puente Ave Puente St Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Azusa Ave
Azusa Ave Azusa Ave
Arrow Hwy Arrow
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Citrus Ave Grand Ave
Wingate St

C O V I N A

U N I N C O R P O R A T E D

L A C O U N T Y
Big Dalton Wash
4th Ave
3rd Ave 3rd Ave
College St
Center St
Dexter St
Italia St
School St
Front St
Benwood St
Grandview Ave
Edna Pl Edna Pl Edna Pl 1st Ave
Cottage Dr
Orange St
2nd Ave
2nd Ave
1st Ave
San Jose Ave
Nubia St
Grondahl St
Fairvale Ave
Ranger Dr
Hurst St
Hepner Ave
CASMCP Study Area
Covina Recreation Village Covina Recreation Village
Cougar
Park
Covina
Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Trade Tech
Academy
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
Kaiser Permanente
under construction
Covina
Park
Edna
Park
Heritage
Plaza Park
Kelby
Park
Hollenbeck
Park
Covina
Elementary
Sierra Vista
Middle
Ben Lomond
Elementary
Trade Tech
Academy
Bridge over
San Dimas Wash
Cypress
Elementary
Covina
High
Sacred
Heart
Barranca
Elementary
Fairvalley
High
·
10 39
Covina
Metrolink
Station
Foothill
Transit
Center
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Install RRFB
Install PHB or Pedestrian Signal
Lane Reconfiguration or PHB/Ped Signal
Install Traffic Signal
Close Slip Lane
These recommendations assume that the recommended bike network and associated lane reconfigurations will be installed in parallel with these recommendations. If the existing lane configuration will remain, more significant improvements may be needed at some locations.

Utilize the Crosswalk Policy to determine the appropriate treatment.

Design
Guidelines
Chapter 5

54 bike facilities
Roadway
› Bike Path
› Separated Bikeway
› Buffered Bike Lane
› Bike Lane
› Bike Boulevard
Intersection/Crossings
› Bicycle Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
› Green Conflict Striping
› Bike Box
› Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Signal Adjustments
› Bicycle Signal/Exclusive
Bike Phase
› Bike Detection
› Extend Green Time For Bikes
› Separate Right-Turn Phasing
› Protected Left Turns
Other
› Wayfinding
› Bicycle Parking
(Bicycle Racks and Corrals)
Roadway
› New and Widened Sidewalk
› Parkway/Landscaping
› Paving Materials
Intersection/Crossings
› Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
› Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
› Curb Extension (Bulbout)
› Refuge Island
› High-Visibility Crosswalks
with Advance Stop Bars/
Yield Markings
› Slip Lane Closure
› Raised Crosswalk
› Raised Intersection
Signal adjustments:
› Pedestrian Countdown
Signal Head
› Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
› Pedestrian Detection
› Extended Pedestrian
Crossing Time
› Shorten Cycle Length
› Pedestrian Scramble
› Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
› Separate Right-Turn Phasing
› Protected Left Turns
Pedestrian Facilities
Active Transportation Toolbox
Other
› Far-side Bus Stops
› Roadway and Intersection
Lighting
› Pedestrian Ligting
› Street Furniture
› Transit Amenities
› Street Trees

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 55 Stormwater capture
Roadway
› Flow-Through Planters
› Infiltration Planter
› Bioswales
› Permeable Paving
Speed Management
Roadway
› Speed Feedback Sign
› Speed Limit Reduction
› Centerline Hardening/
Median Island
› Curb Extension (Bulbout)
› Speed Hump/Table
› Lateral Shift
› Mini Roundabout/ Traffic Circle
Curbspace management
Roadway
› Treelet
› Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging
› On-Street Parking
› Commercial/Service
Loading Zones
› Pick-up/Drop-off Zones
› Shared Micromobility
Parking Zones
design guidelines
active transportation toolbox

56 Intersection Roadway Unsignalized Signalized Arterial Collector Local
Bike Facilities
Bike Path
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
Bike Boulevard
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Green Conflict Striping
Bike Box
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bike Detection
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Protected Left Turns
Wayfinding
Bicycle Parking (Bicycle Racks and Corrals)
Pedestrian Facilities
New and Widened Sidewalk
Parkway/Landscaping
Paving Materials
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Curb Extension (Bulbout)
Refuge Island
High-Visibility Crosswalks with Advance Stop Bars/Yield Markings Slip Lane Closure
Raised Crosswalk
Raised Intersection
Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian Detection
Extended Pedestrian Crossing Time
Shorten Cycle Length
Pedestrian Scramble
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Protected Left Turns
Recommended
Suitability of Treatments

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 57 Intersection Roadway Unsignalized Signalized Arterial Collector Local
Pedestrian Facilities
Far Side Bus Stops
Roadway and Intersection Lighting
Pedestrian Lighting
Street Furniture
Transit Amenities
Street Trees
Speed Management
Speed Feedback Sign
Speed Limit Reduction
Centerline Hardening/ Median Island
Curb Extension (Bulbout)
Speed Hump/Table
Lateral Shift
Mini Roundabout/ Traffic Circle
Stormwater Capture
Flow-through Planters
Infiltration Planter
Bioswales
Permeable Paving
Curbspace Management
Treelet
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging
On-Street Parking
Commercial/Service Loading Zones
Pick-up/Drop-off Zones
Shared Micromobility Parking Zone
design guidelines
active transportation toolbox

Title
description
applicable
resources

SUITABILITY
See right panel
photo
Bike Lane
A bike lane provides dedicated street space,
typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes,
with designated lane markings, pavement
legends, and signage. Bike lanes improve
safety by reducing conflicts between bicycles
and vehicles on the road and by creating a
road-narrowing effect with buffers or vertical
barriers, which may reduce vehicle speeds.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 9C
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
LOCAL
58 example of what you'll see in this toolbox
suitable street
Contexts
For Bikeways,
Pedestrian Facilities &
Speed Management

SIGNALIZED

UNSIGNALIZED

ARTERIAL

COLLECTOR
LOCAL

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
includes all the above
While these tools are
suitable for certain
street contexts, the tool’s
viability may depend on
several factors such as
engineering feasibility,
community preference,
and surrounding land use

Bike Path Separated Bikeway
A bike path provides a completely separate
right of way that is designated for the exclusive
use of people riding bicycles and walking with
minimal cross-flow traffic. Paths and trails offer
opportunities for the lowest stress bicycle travel.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
A separated bikeway provides dedicated street
space, typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel
lanes, with physical separation from vehicle
traffic, designated lane markings, pavement
legends, and signage. Physical separation may
consist of plastic posts, parked vehicles, or
a curb. Separated bikeways improve safety
by reducing conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles on the road and by creating a roadnarrowing effect with buffers or vertical barriers, which may reduce vehicle speeds.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-89-02 Class
IV Bikeway Guidance
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: City of Orlando Image Source: Denver North Star covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 59 design guidelines
Bike Facilities active transportation toolbox

60 Bike Lane
LOCAL
A bike lane provides dedicated street space,
typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes,
with designated lane markings, pavement
legends, and signage. Bike lanes improve
safety by reducing conflicts between bicycles
and vehicles on the road and by creating a
road-narrowing effect with buffers or vertical
barriers, which may reduce vehicle speeds.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 9C
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Buffered Bike Lane
A buffered bike lane is a conventional bike lane
paired with a designated buffer space, typically
marked with pavement markings or physical
barriers, separating the bike lane from the
adjacent vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.

The buffer space provides greater shy distance
between motor vehicles, reducing the risk of
collisions with vehicles, opening car doors, or
encroachments in to the bike lane by parked cars.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: City of Covina Image Source: NACTO
Bike Facilities
Image Source: NACTO

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 61 design guidelines

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX
Bike Boulevard
A bike boulevard is a street with low vehicle
traffic volumes and speeds, designated to give
bicyclists travel priority and create a low-stress
cycling experience. Bike boulevards typically
feature various traffic calming measures to
reduce vehicle speeds and prioritize bicycles,
such as branded wayfinding, pavement markings,
traffic diverters, and landscaping. Sharrows
are the most common pavement marker used
on bike boulevard. They should be centered
in the travel lane, at least three feet away
from parked cars (outside the "door" zone).

Implement traffic calming features every 250
feet to encourage slow, attentive driving.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
LOCAL
Image Source: Los Angeles Eco-Village
Bike Facilities
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Solid green paint across an intersection that
signifies the path of the bicycle crossing.

Increases visibility and safety of bicyclists
traveling through an intersection.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide
• MUTCD Interim Approval IA-14
Image Source: NACTO

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS

62 Green Conflict Striping
Dashed green markings in bike lanes through
conflict areas such as at turn pockets, driveways,
and intersections. Signals to drivers and
bikers to take caution and look for conflicts.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Image Source: City of Covina

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Bike Facilities
Bike Box
A bike box is a designated area at the head
of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that provides bicyclists with a safe and
visible way to get ahead of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: NACTO

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 63 design guidelines
Bike Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX
Bicycle Signal/ Exclusive Bike Phase
A bicycle signal/exclusive bike phase is
specifically designed to control the movement
of bicycles at intersections, operating either
independently or in coordination with traffic
signal. It separates bicycle movements
from conflicting motor vehicle, streetcar,
light rail, or pedestrian movements
enhancing safety and visibility for cyclist
navigating through an intersection.

REFER TO:
• CA MUTCD Chapter 4D
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: Bike Portland
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
A two-stage turn queue bike box is a designated
area marked at the head of the intersection,
just in front of the motor vehicle stop line, for
cyclists to position themselves ahead of the
motor vehicles. The two-stage turn queue bike
box provides bicyclists with a means of safely
making a left turn at a multi-lane signalized
intersection from a bike lane or cycle track.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: NACTO

64 Bike Detection
Bike detection is a technology used to
identify the presence of a bicycle at signalized
intersections or along roadways, either through
use of push-buttons, in-pavement loops, or by
video or infrared cameras, to call a green light
for bicyclists and reduce delay for bicycle travel.

Provides appropriate signal timing or priority
for bicyclists, which can discourage red light
running, increase convenience, and safety.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 9C
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: Victoria News
Bike Facilities
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Extending green time for bikes prolongs the
green phase when bicyclists are present to
provide additional time for bicyclists to clear
the intersection. Longer green times reduce
risk of conflicts between bicyclists and turning
vehicles, improve visibility of bicyclists and
pedestrians, and reduce the need for rushed
maneuvering that could lead to unsafe behavior.

REFER TO:
• MUTCD IA-16
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• ITE Signal Timing and Phasing for Bicycles

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: Irvine Standard

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 65 Separate Right-Turn Phasing
A separate right-turn phasing provides a green
arrow phase for right-turning vehicles. Avoids
conflicts between right-turning traffic and
bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the intersection
on their right. See the intersection design
primer for more details on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• NCHRP Document 284: Decision-Making
Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing
• NCHRP Report 812: Signal Timing
Manual (Second Edition)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: Gaston Gazette
design guidelines
Bike Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX
Protected Left Turns
A protected left-turn shields the left turning
movement from oncoming traffic at signalized
intersections (with existing left turns pockets).

The purpose of a protected left turn is to
improve safety by preventing conflicts between
turning vehicles and oncoming traffic, allowing
for smoother and more efficient traffic flow
at intersections. See the intersection design
primer for more details on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4C
• FHWA Signalized Intersections
Information Guide Second Edition

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: City of Surrey

66 Wayfinding
A network of signs providing clear navigation
information, typically highlighting nearby
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Effective
wayfinding can reduce confusion among
all road users, help to reduce crossings
at locations with poor sight distance or
limited crossing enhancements, and guide
pedestrians in high pedestrian traffic areas.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 9B

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: Solano Transportation Authority
Bike Facilities

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Bicycle Parking
(Bicycle Racks and Corrals)
Bicycle parking provide a dedicated secure
space for people to store their bicycles. They
are meant for short stays and usually located
in the sidewalk, but can also be installed
in the roadway adjacent to the curb.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Place bicycle racks near the entrance of
buildings and other high visibility areas.
• Install bicycle racks that support the
frame of the bicycle, not just the wheel.
• Where sidewalk space is limited and bicycle
activity is strong, place bike corrals in
the street area adjacent to the curb.
• The style of bicycle racks should be intuitive
to use. Inverted U racks are a simple and
common style that provide two-point contact.
• Prioritize siting bicycle racks at key community
serving destinations (e.g. medical services,
grocery stores, and schools) and near transit.

Image Source: Solano Transportation Authority

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 67 design guidelines
Parkway/Landscaping
Separating drivers from bicyclists and
pedestrians using parkways and/or
landscaping provides more space between
modes produce a traffic calming effect and
beautify a corridor. See Stormwater Capture
treatments for opportunities to integrate
climate resilience into parkways.

REFER TO:
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: Planetizen
Pedestrian Facilities
New and Widened Sidewalk
New and widened sidewalks provide a more
comfortable space for pedestrians, particularly
in locations with high volumes of pedestrians,
and provide space to accommodate people
in wheelchairs. New and widened sidewalks
improve safety by minimizing collisions
with pedestrians walking in the road.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: NACTO

68 design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Paving Materials
Pavements are part of the hardscape and
are used on sidewalks and road surfaces.

Pavements can come in a variety of materials
and can be used for decorative purposes and
creating a sense of place. See Permeable
Paving for stormwater runoff benefits.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Use decorative paving materials in areas
with high volumes of pedestrian activity,
such as along plazas, major transit stops,
schools, and commercial centers.
• Incorporate recycled content into the paving
materials to enhance sustainability.
• Paving materials should accommodate all users,
including wheel chairs and scooters, paying
special attention to ADA-compliant accessibility.

Image Source: American Society of Landscape Architects
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
A pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB) is used
at unsignalized intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists to
stop with a series of red and yellow lights.

Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in dark
until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton
or other form of detection providing enhanced
pedestrian visibility. See the The Crosswalk
Policy for more guidance on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 2009 Edition Chapter 4F
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks

UNSIGNALIZED COLLECTOR
Image Source: City of San Luis Obispo

ARTERIAL

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 69 design guidelines
Curb Extension (Bulbout)
A curb extension is a traffic calming measure
which widens the sidewalk for a short distance
to enhance the pedestrian crossing and
reduce vehicle speeds. For the pedestrian, this
reduces the crossing distance and improves
pedestrian visibility. For the vehicle, this
visual narrowing encourages drivers to reduce
speed when approaching intersection and
modifies the turning movement geometry
to encourage sharper, slower turns.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
Image Source: City of Covina

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Pedestrian Facilities
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is a
pedestrian-activated flashing light with additional
signage to alert motorists of a pedestrian crossing.

An RRFB improves safety by increasing the visibility
of marked crosswalks and provides motorists
a cue to slow down and yield to pedestrians at
uncontrolled intersections. See the The Crosswalk
Policy for more guidance on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks
• MUTCD Interim Approval IA-21
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

UNSIGNALIZED COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: City of Covina

70 design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Curb Extension (Bulbout) POTENTIAL CONFIGURATIONS
In addition to using curb extensions
for traffic calming purposes, they can
also increase the space available to
accommodate various amenities.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Include landscape planting, bioswale
planting, bike parking, or seating within
the curb extension as space permits.
• Ensure that street furnishings or other abovegrade objects within the curb extension do not obstruct pedestrian through travel on sidewalks
and interere with intersection sight lines.
• Engage community members to identify
what elements should be incorporated
in the curb extension design.
• Participate in Park(ing) Day, which is a
global, public, participatory project where
residents can be provided the opportunity
to re-design parking spaces into temporary
green, open, and social spaces.

Seating Community Garden Bioswale

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 71 design guidelines
High-Visibility Crosswalks with
Advance Stop Bars/ Yield Markings
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped pattern
with ladder markings made of high-visibility
material, such as thermoplastic tape, instead
of paint. A high-visibility crosswalk improves
safety by increasing the visibility of marked
crosswalks and provides motorists a cue to slow
down and yield to pedestrians. Advance stop
bars are used on the approaches to a signalized
intersection. Advance yield lines are used on
the approaches to an unsignalized intersection.

REFER TO:
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: NACTO
Pedestrian Facilities
Refuge Island
A raised median, or refuge island, is a raised
barrier in the center of the roadway that can
restrict certain turning movements and provide
a place for pedestrians to wait if they are unable
to finish crossing the intersection. A raised
median improves safety by reducing the number
of potential conflict points with designated zones
for vehicles to turn, and a pedestrian refuge
island improves safety by reducing the exposure
time for pedestrians crossing the intersection.

REFER TO:
• CA 2014 MUTCD Chapter 2B and 3B
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: NACTO

72 Slip Lane Closure
A slip lane closure modifies the corner of an
intersection to remove the sweeping right
turn lane for vehicles. This results in shorter
crossings for pedestrians, reduced speed
for turning vehicles, better sight lines, and
space for landscaping and other amenities.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: Streetsblog USA
Raised Crosswalk
A raised crosswalk is a pedestrian crosswalk
that is typically elevated 3-6 inches above the
road or at sidewalk level. A Raised Crosswalk
improves safety by increasing crosswalk and
pedestrian visibility and slowing down motorists.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety
at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: New York City Street Design Manual
design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 73 design guidelines
Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head
A pedestrian countdown signal displays
“countdown” of seconds remaining on the
pedestrian signal. Countdown indications
improve safety for all road users providing
pedestrians real-time information about the
time remaining to safely cross an intersection,
and are required for all newly installed traffic
signals where pedestrian signals are installed.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4E

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: The Spokesman-Review
LOCAL
Pedestrian Facilities
Raised Intersection
A raised intersection elevates the
intersection bringing vehicles to sidewalk
level. Serves as a traffic calming measure
by creating a visual and physical reminder
for drivers to reduce their speed.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans DRAFT DIB-82 Pedestrian Accessibility
Guidelines for Highway Projects
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
Image Source: NACTO

UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED COLLECTOR LOCAL

74 Leading Pedestrian Interval and
Pedestrian Recall
At intersection locations that have a high volume
of turning vehicle and have high pedestrian
versus vehicle crashes, a leading pedestrian
interval gives pedestrians the opportunity
to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before
vehicles are given a green indication. With this
head start, pedestrians can better establish
their presence in the crosswalk before
vehicles have priority to turn left or right.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4E
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Pedestrian Detection
Pedestrian detection is an intersection treatment
that relies on sensors to detect when a pedestrian
is waiting at a crosswalk and automatically
triggers the pedestrian "WALK" phase.

REFER TO:
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4E
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)"

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 75 design guidelines
Shorten Cycle Length
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a significant
impact on the quality of the urban realm and
consequently, the opportunities for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and transit vehicles to operate safely
along a corridor. Long signal cycles, compounded
over multiple intersections, can make crossing
a street or walking even a short distance
prohibitive and frustrating. Shortening cycle
lengths decrease exposure to conflicts, reduce
wait time, and improve intersection capacity.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: City of San Gabriel
LOCAL
Pedestrian Facilities
Extended Pedestrian Crossing Time
Extended pedestrian crossing time reduces
crossings at inappropriate times, ensures that
pedestrians have enough time to safely cross the
roadway, and improves pedestrians visibility.

REFER TO:
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4E
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)"

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: LA Walks
LOCAL

76 Pedestrian Scramble
A pedestrian scramble is a form of pedestrian
"WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in
which all vehicular traffic is required to stop,
allowing pedestrians to safely cross through
the intersection in any direction, including
diagonally. The pedestrian exclusive phase
significantly reduces conflicts at intersections
and provides maximum pedestrian visibility.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 2009 Edition Chapter 3B
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: Rebuilding Place in the
Urban Space (Pasadena, CA)
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements should
be considered at skewed intersections, or where
exclusive pedestrian “WALK” phases, Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), sight distance issues,
or high pedestrian volumes are present. Can help
prevent crashes between vehicles turning right on
red from one street and through vehicles on the
cross street, and crashes involving pedestrians.

REFER TO:
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 2B
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: UNC at Chapel Hill
LOCAL
design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 77 design guidelines
Protected Left Turns
A protected left turn is a traffic signal
configuration that allows vehicles to make a
left turn at an intersection while being shielded
from conflicting traffic. Left turns are widely
recognized as the highest-risk movements at
signalized intersections, so providing protected
left-turn phases for signalized intersections
significantly improves the safety for vehicles
making the left-turn maneuver and the conflicting
pedestrians. See the intersection design
primer for more details on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• MUTCD 2009 Edition Chapter 4C
• FHWA Signalized Intersections
Information Guide Second Edition

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: City of Surrey
Pedestrian Facilities
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
A separate right-turn phasing provides a
green arrow phase for right-turning vehicles.

The separate phasing avoids conflicts
between right-turning traffic and bicyclists
or pedestrians crossing the intersection
on their right. See the intersection design
primer for more details on when to apply.

REFER TO:
• NCHRP Document 284: Decision-Making
Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing
• NCHRP Report 812: Signal Timing
Manual (Second Edition)

SIGNALIZED ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Image Source: Gaston Gazette

78 Roadway and Intersection Lighting
Adding intersection and/or pedestrianscale lighting at intersections improves safety by increasing visibility of all road
users. This design treatment improves safety
for all users by increasing the visibility of
pedestrians at intersections at night.

REFER TO:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (Version 1.6)
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Far-side Bus Stops
Far-side bus stops allow the bus to stop after the
crosswalk, improving visibility of pedestrians at
the intersection. The bus stop length should be
long enough to allow at least 10' of clear space
between the stopped bus and the crosswalk.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
Image Source: NACTO

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 79 Pedestrian Facilities design guidelines
Pedestrian Lighting
Pedestrian lighting is directed toward
the sidewalk. It is positioned lower than
roadway lighting and is more closely spaced.

Pedestrian lighting improves the visibility of
pedestrians , enhances the feeling of personal
security, and can beautify a corridor.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Provide pedestrian lighting in addition
to overhead lighting for vehicles.
• Space light fixtures to provide uniform
illumination of roadways and sidewalks.
• Focus lighting from fixtures directly onto the
street to minimize glare and light pollution.
• The style of the street fixtures should
complement other streetscape elements.
• Prioritize siting pedestrian lighting near
schools, parks, senior centers, and other
areas frequented by vulnerable user groups
(e.g. women, children, and seniors).

Image Source: NACTO

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Street Furniture
Street furniture are amenities located in the
public right-of-way that provide a functional
service to pedestrians. Furnishings may include
elements such as benches, trash and recycling
receptacles, landscaped planters, and kiosks.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Street furniture should encourage
pedestrian activity while maintaining
physical and visual access to buildings.
• Street furniture should be made of durable,
high-quality materials and should complement
the design of other streetscape elements.
• Regularly-spaced street furniture should
be placed adjacent to pedestrian lighting.
• Ensure that street furniture is comfortable
and practical for all users. Avoid employing
defensive architecture which is hostile towards
youth, transit riders, and unhoused individuals.

Image Source: Benchmark Street Furniture

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR

80 design guidelines
Pedestrian Facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX
Transit Amenities
Transit amenities are features that enhance
user experience and support an increased use of
transit. Basic amenities include shade structures,
seating, and trash receptacles. Enhanced features
include WiFi, phone charging stations, etc.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Seating, trash cans, and lighting should be
provided at all bus stops, as feasible.
• Trees and other green elements should be
integrated into the stop area to provide shade.
• At major transfer stops, stop design
should provide a clear/unobstructed path
of travel between stops and visual cues
(e.g. wayfinding signs, consistent paving
treatment, etc.) to link transit facilities.
• Ensure language accessibility for critical
information displayed at stops.

Image Source: NACTO

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
Street Trees
Street trees are located within the sidewalk
area. Healthy street trees not only provide
shade and aesthetic value, they can also
contribute significantly to green stormwater
management and biodiversity.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Design tree pits and trenches with
adequate root space for the tree species
underneath the sidewalk or street.
• Plant native, climate-appropriate tree
species that will be able to withstand the
likely stormwater runoff and detained
ponding depth, and that will support
infiltration and transpiration.
• Select tree species that will not lift or damage
sidewalks to maintain consistent sidewalk
access for persons with disabilities.

Image Source: Cherokee Tree Care

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 81 design guidelines
Speed Feedback Sign
A speed feedback sign notifies drivers of their
current speed, usually followed by a reminder of
the posted speed limit. A speed feedback sign
improves safety by providing a cue for drivers to
check their speed and slow down, if necessary.

REFER TO:
• CA MUTCD 2014 Chapter 2B

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: City of Covina
Speed Limit Reduction
Setting speed limits to reflect the surrounding
context of the roadway and that meet with
driver expectations can help improve driver
respect for speed limits. Lower speed limits
allow for shorter stopping distances, reduce
the likelihood of collisions, decrease the
severity of crashes, and enhance the overall
experience for pedestrian and bicyclists.

REFER TO:
• Assembly Bill 43

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Image Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Speed Management

82 Centerline Hardening/Median Island
Centerline hardening is the installation of
physical barriers or delineators separating
two opposing traffic lanes. The enhanced
visibility and lane narrowing reduces lane
departure crashes and head on-crashes.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
Image Source: IIHS
Curb Extension (Bulbout)
A curb extension is a traffic calming measure
which widens the sidewalk for a short distance
to enhance the pedestrian crossing and
reduce vehicle speeds. For the pedestrian, this
reduces the crossing distance and improves
pedestrian visibility. For the vehicle, this
visual narrowing encourages drivers to reduce
speed when approaching intersection and
modifies the turning movement geometry
to encourage sharper, slower turns.

REFER TO:
• NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
Image Source: SF Better Streets

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
design guidelines
Speed Management ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 83 design guidelines
Speed Hump/Table
A speed hump/table is a traffic calming device
that uses vertical defection to raise the entire
wheelbase of a vehicle and encourage motorists
to travel at slower speeds to avoid damage
to the undercarriage of an automobile.

REFER TO:
• CA MUTCD 2014 Chapter 2C and 3B
LOCAL
Image Source: PEDBIKESAFE
Lateral Shift
A lateral shift consists of curb extensions,
or edge islands, along a straight roadway
that causes vehicles to jog. Multiple lateral
shifts can be applied to form an "S" shaped
curve, referred to as a chicane. Chicanes are
designed to improve safety by reducing vehicle
speeds, increasing drivers attentiveness, and
promoting a more organized flow of traffic.

REFER TO:
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
LOCAL
Image Source: FHWA

COLLECTOR
Speed Management

84 Mini Roundabout/Traffic Circle
Traffic circles, also referred to as mini
roundabouts, are a type of roundabout typically
small in diameter, with on-lane and a fully
traversable central island. Traffic circles decrease
vehicle speeds and severity of collisions, while
reducing congestion and improving traffic flow.

REFER TO:
• FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks
• FHWA Selecting Pedestrian Safety
Improvements (Crash Types/
Countermeasure Matrix)
• NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide
Image Source: NACTO

COLLECTOR
LOCAL

UNSIGNALIZED
design guidelines
Speed Management ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 85 design guidelines
General Guidance
• Prioritize using native and drought
tolerant plantings as much as possible.
• Regularly maintain green elements to
avoid obstructing travel paths.
• Green elements should not obstruct sightlines,
traffic signage, and other traffic control devices.
• For separated bikeways, prioritize using
green elements to create a physical barrier
between automobiles and bicyclists.

Integrating Stormwater Capture into Active Transportation Treatments Traffic calming measures, such as separated bikeways, curb extensions, new and widened sidewalks, pinch points, lateral shifts, median islands, and mini roundabouts/ traffic circles, provide opportunities for ecological and aesthetic enhancements.

Image Source: NACTO; Be Heard Vancouver Image Source: ?? • Pinch point infrastructure is best suited for
collecting stormwater on streets that are
crested, or highest at the middle of the street,
and that carry stormwater along the curb.
• Ensure the boundaries of the vegetated basin
are well marked and visible to all road users
with the use of flashing/reflective markers.

Conventional stormwater controls move stormwater off-site and into storm drains as quickly as possible, but stormwater capture strategies aim to provide on-site retention and treatment to reduce urban runoff and naturally reduce contaminants. Common treatments in the public right-of-way include planters, bioswales, filter strips, and infiltration trenches.

Stormwater Capture

86 Flow-Through Planters
Flow-through planters are contained in an
impermeable structure and do not allow for
filtration into surrounding natural soils.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Locate flow-through planters on noninfiltration areas, constrained sites next to buildings, areas with setback limitations,
poorly draining soils, steep slopes (>4%),
or areas with contaminated soils.
• Ensure appropriate media composition
for soil construction.
• Use native plantings that can handle seasonal
flooding and require minimal irrigation.

Image Source: IIHS
Infiltration Planter
Infiltration planters have impermeable sides
to keep water from saturating nearby topsoil,
while the bottom is open to allow for water
to percolate the surrounding subsoil.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Infiltration planters are placed where site
conditions are appropriate for allowing water
to infiltrate surrounding native soils.
• Infiltration planters requires geotechnical
investigation and soil feasibility studies.
• Utility boxes adjacent to infiltration
planters may require waterproofing
or watertight installation.
• Vegetation used should grow taller than
the planter’s walls for aesthetic purposes,
but not tall enough to block sight lines.

Image Source: SF Better Streets

ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS ALL ROADWAY CONTEXTS
design guidelines
Stormwater Capture ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 87 design guidelines
A bioswale is a broad, shallow channel
with dense, low-lying vegetation and a
very gradual downstream slope.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Bioswales are most appropriate in
areas with lower-density development
such as residential neighborhoods and
on streets with gradual slopes.
• Vegetation should be composed of diverse
and native plantings and compatible
with the local environment.
• Ensure appropriate media composition
for soil construction.
• Do not place bioswales in areas
with low filtration rates.

Bioswale
Image Source: NACTO

COLLECTOR LOCAL
Stormwater Capture
Permeable Paving
Image Source: Bosnu
Permeable paving is pavement made of pervious
materials that allows stormwater to seep
through the surface down to the underlying
layers of soil and gravel. This helps manage
stormwater runoff from paved surfaces and
supports recharging groundwater aquifers.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Implement permeable pavements within
the roadway or sidewalk to reduce
impervious surfaces and manage runoff
from adjacent impervious areas.
• Prioritize placing permeable paving in areas
where there is limited space in the right-of-way
for more intensive stormwater infrastructure.
• Paving materials should accommodate all users,
including wheel chairs and scooters, paying
special attention to ADA-compliant accessibility

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL

88 Treelet
A treelet is a curbed tree well that is
extended into the parking lane. Treelets
are typically used as an alternative to
planting when the sidewalk is narrow.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Placement should be between parallel
parking spaces. Consider treelets in curb
space that are too small for on-street
parking, such as between curb cuts.
• Treelet island length and width shall vary
with on-street parking conditions and
existing utilities. Typically the treelet should
extend the full width of the existing parking
lane without conflicting with the existing
curb and gutter and bicycle lanes.
• Treelets should not obstruct sight-lines
for drivers, pedestrians, or bicyclists.
• Incorporate green elements wherever
possible to address urban heat island effect
and other climate change related issues.

Image Source: Bike Portland

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging
EV charging stations are equipment that
supply electrical power for plug-in electric
vehicles or e-bikes. Curbside charging stations
can provide a useful amenity and encourage
longer stays in commercial areas.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Drivers side charge ports are the most
common amongst automakers. Provide ample
width in the parking lane to allow drivers to
comfortably plug in from the drivers side
(which is often adjacent to the traffic lane).
• Consider e-bike charging along with vehicle charging. • Provide clear visual cues (e.g. striping and
signage) for EV charging spaces.
• Prioritize EV charging infrastructure adjacent to
close key destinations such as schools, medical
and employment centers, and commercial areas.
• EV charging is an investment that can further lock
cities into the existing curb line. Consider any long
term investments in transit, bike, or pedestrian
infrastructure that may impact the existing curb
line before placing EV charging stations.

Image Source: plugNYC

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
design guidelines
Curbspace Management ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 89 design guidelines
On-Street Parking
On-street parking has typically served a variety of
purposes between short- or long-term timelines,
for visitors or local residents and is often free.

Best practice for on-street parking is dynamic
pricing to distribute on-street parking utilization
and complement off-street parking structures.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Manage curb space by clearly marking on-street
parking spaces with “L” or “T” shaped striping.
• Employ tools to utilize on-street parking as
short-term parking with pricing or time limits.
• Plant treelets between parallel parking
spaces to address urban heat island effect
and other climate change related issues.
• Install accessible parking stalls in alignment
with state and federal requirements.

Image Source: Seattle DOT

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
Commercial/Service Loading Zones
Designated commercial/service loading areas are
helpful for accomodating business operations
and provide flexibility for other parking needs
such as postal workers and public safety.

These areas could often share locations
with ride-share pick-up/drop-off zones.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Limit commercial loading time
to 30 minutes or less.
• Utilize dynamic curbspace management
techniques and implement consider
implementing operational hours as necessary
(i.e. commercial loading allowed only during
peak hours). Allow passenger loading when
outside of commercial loading operating hours.
• Establish loading zones in areas that are
as close to the receiving areas of shipping/
receiving businesses as possible.
• Enforce proper use of commercial
loading zones so that trucks do not block
bicyclist or pedestrian infrastructure.

Image Source: Live 5 News WCSC
Curbspace Management

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL

Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zones
Image Source: Curb IQ
Pick-up/drop-off zones are designated areas
to load/unload passengers, including those
using ride sharing services. They are meant
to prioritize pedestrian safety while also
managing roadway congestion and improving
traffic flow by allowing loading to happen at
the curb rather than in the travel lane.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Place pick-up/drop-off areas in areas
with high passenger loading activities.
• Limit passenger loading time to 10 minutes or
less and restrict loading to passengers only.
• In areas with high pick-up/drop-off activity
and high parking demand, consider converting
parking spots into designated pick-up and
drop-off zones during high-traffic hours.
• Paint the curb a different color to indicate the
space is not solely for parking. Provide clear
signage that is visible to passengers and drivers.
• Place pick-up/drop-off areas where there are
accessible paths of travel and ample space to get
into and out of a vehicle with a mobility device.

ARTERIAL COLLECTOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
Shared Micromobility Parking Zones
Shared micromobility devices are small mobility
devices, such as e-scooters and bicycles,
that typically operate at a speed of 15 mph
or lower. Designated parking zones for these
devices can minimize clutter on the sidewalk.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Prioritize siting shared micromobility
parking zones along streets with bicycle
lanes or where there are gaps in transit.
• Geofenced parking is preferred wherever
space permits. Provide visible markings
on the ground surface. Cap the capacity
to avoid overcrowding, typically a
maximum of 10 scooters in one space.
• When shared micromobility operators rebalance
devices to meet demand, require a percentage
of their fleet is rebalanced in equity priority
areas or where transit service gaps exist.

Image Source: LAist
90 design guidelines
Curbspace Management ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 91 design guidelines

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLBOX
Page Intentionally Left Blank

urban design primer
This design primer demonstrates how walking, biking, and transit facilities can be integrated with green infrastructure and curbspace management strategies.

These renderings provide just one example of how a typical arterial, collector, and local street in the study area can be reimagined. There are countless ways to combine treatments to create multi-benefit projects.

Figuring out the right combination will require engineering feasibility and community engagement. 2 Collector
Road
60' concept
3 Local Street
without Sidewalk
36' concept
Arterial with
Frontage Road
80' to 126' concept
1 Design Principles
design guidelines
92 Page 462 of 823
Design
Considerations
› Align pedestrian lighting, public
signage/art, trash, and other
amenities with crossings
› Introduce treelets to breakup
long parking sections
› Pedestrian crossing across nonfrontage road (depends upon road speed, adjacent uses, and
distances to nearest crossing)
One of the most significant opportunities to improve a community-wide growth in active transportation mindset and sustainability performance is through local placemaking that can be found in the frontage roads and medians along Arterial and Collector streets. These frontage roads and medians throughout the city create excessively wide roadways, provide exess parking that is not utilized on residential streets, and provides no landscaping. These spaces should reclaim the medianside parking lane and be transformed into neighborhood assets that create publicly available open spaces, which the specific program can be determined by the neighborhood. These spaces can hold walking paths, small playgrounds, bioswales and butterfly gardens, community gardens, large transit shelters, and many other programs in addition to supporting the undergrounding of utilities. All of these improvements can be made without corresponding updates to arterials/collectors.

Arterial with Frontage Road 1 80' to 126' Concept
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 93 Urban Design Primer design guidelines

Existing
Bus Sign / No
transit amenities
Few street trees in
public parkways
12' or greater
width travel lanes
Overhead utilities
Vehicle scale lighting
on one side of street
Inadequate landscape areas
for healthy tree growth
Excess, impermeable pavement
Excess, underutilized
on-street parking
Arterial with Frontage Road
80' to 126' Concept
94 Urban Design Primer

Potential
Transit amenities
Utilities underground
Community
garden
raised beds
Narrower lane width
Treelets and
larger parkways Permeable paving and seating
Expanded
center median
with bioswale,
pathway,
parkway,
street trees,
and/or other
programs
Wayfinding
or public
art
Pedestrian
lighting
Option for one-way or
two-way yield street
on frontage road w/
on-street parking
Enhanced crosswalk treatments
such as RRFBs and PHBs
Bicycle facilities can
also be integrated as
defined in the bike
network.

Pedestrian crossing
with curb extensions
shadowing onstreet parking
Arterial with Frontage Road
80' to 126' Concept
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 95 Urban Design Primer design guidelines

96 Urban Design Primer
Page Intentionally Left Blank

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 97 Urban Design Primer design guidelines
Design
Considerations
› Program the bicycle buffer
spaces for multiple elements to
free up space on the sidewalk
› Align pedestrian lighting, public
signage/art, trash, and other
amenities with crossings
› Incorporate speed management
treatments to improve
safety for all users
Collector streets vary in their general typology (residential, commercial, or mixed), speeds, traffic volumes, and bike facilities. Where supported by traffic volumes, the placemaking, economic development potential, safety, and sustainability can all be significantly improved by repurposing a travel lane for a separated bikeway. Doing so would allow the bike lane buffer space to be designed in many variations that could all act as an extension of the sidewalk and pedestrian realm, host a variety of curbspace management elements, and provide general traffic calming.

Raising the bike lane to the same level of the sidewalk, providing buffer space, and creating demarcations through changes in pavement material and small landscape areas would provide the most flexibility and ADA accessibility. Elements like transit amenities, bike-share stations, and pedestrian crossings should be co-located to provide connections to options between active and transit transportaion modes.

Collector Road 2 60' Concept

On-street parking (un-marked)
Limited or no street trees
and public parkways
Vehicle-scale lighting
Bus stop sign
Few pedestrian amenities
Surface parking, vacant,
and/or underutilized sites
10' wide sidewalk
Existing
Collector Road
60' Concept
98 Urban Design Primer

Enhanced crosswalk
treatments such as raised
crosswalks and RRFBs
Different pavement materials
to differentiate zones
Bike lane buffer: EV
charging,pick-up/dropoff zones, bike parking,
pedestrian lighting,
stormwater capture,
and other program
Creative /
placemaking
seating and
elements
Alignment of
pedestrian crossing
with outdoor spaces
Transit
amenities
Bike shareand
micromobility
parking
Widenened sidewalk or
raised separated bikeway
Street trees
and bioswale in
sidewalk zone
Landfill,
Recycle,
Compost
Receptacles
Pedestrian
lighting
Potential
Collector Road
60' Concept
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 99 Urban Design Primer design guidelines

100
Urban Design Primer
Page Intentionally Left Blank

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 101 Urban Design Primer design guidelines
Design
Considerations
• Provide a balance between regular
rhythms (e.g., street trees and
lighting at regular intervals) with
elements in varying locations
• Reduce asphalt material within
the roadway for permeable
and sustainable materials
• Implement bike boulevard
elements, with traffic calming
features every 250 feet.

Local streets provide opportunities for active transportation and sustainability elements due to lower demand for traffic and parking, that can provide significant benefits to safety and quality of life for local residents. Many local streets within the study area do not currently have sidewalks. Additionally, vehicle-oriented street lights are often located only on one side of the street and street trees are infrequent. Permeable paving should be considered for sidewalks, which will eliminate sidewalks raised by tree roots and provide more sustainable materials than concrete. New lighting should be at pedestrian scale. Electric lines can be placed under permeable sidewalks for easy maintenance, which can provide opportunities to add public EV charging. Street trees should be planted in continuous parkway strips that could provide small bioswale areas, or they could be planted in bioswale treelets as a way to separate on-street parking spaces.

Local Street without Sidewalk 3 36' Concept

Property Line
No Sidewalks
Pole lighting typically on
one side of the street
Public Right-of-Way
Few street trees
Existing
Local Street without Sidewalk
36' Concept
102
Urban Design Primer

Bicycle parking with
updated permeable
paving zone
Permeable Paving Sidewalk
Seating
Pedestrian lighting on
both sides of street
Community Garden
Raised Bed
Bioswale in public parkway
EV charging station
New street trees
in public parkway
Bicycle Boulevard
Designations
Street trees in
treelets, where there
is sufficient room
to keep one onstreet parking space
between curb cuts.

Bioswale/treelet
Potential
Local Street without Sidewalk
36' Concept
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 103 Urban Design Primer design guidelines

Design Principles
There are three core design principles to keep in mind when designing safe, comfortable, and intuitive intersections. These design principles are rooted in the Caltrans-adopted Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe System framework.

The right combination of these tools will vary by intersection and will be dependent on several factors, including how much right-of-way is available, existing intersection control, surrounding land use, turning movement volumes, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and collision history. Consult the Design Guidelines (Chapter 5, CASMCP) for further descriptions and design guidance for these treatments.

Separate major movements and
mitigate conflict points through
signal phasing. Provide separate
phasing for high-volume movements through protected left and right turns, bicycle signals, exclusive pedestrian or bike phases, extended green/crossing times for
bicyclists and pedestrians, leading
pedestrian intervals, and pedestrian scrambles.
2 Separate Users
in Time
Organize the intersection so it is
clear where everyone should queue
and proceed through the intersection. Provide dedicated, separated space by user groups (pedestrians, bicyclists, and autos) through treatments such as protected
intersections, bus boarding islands,
striped bicycle crossings, bike
boxes, two-stage turn bike boxes,
curb extensions, refuge islands,
and high-visibility crosswalks.
3 Separate Users
in space
manage
speeds
Kinetic energy (the combination
of speed and mass) is the primary
indicator of the severity of a crash.

Managing speeds is critical to reducing the likelihood and severity of crashes. Manage speeds through
intersections through context-appropriate speed limit setting, centerline hardening, intersection
tightening, roundabouts, and raised
crosswalks or intersections.
1 intersection design primer
design guidelines
104 Page 474 of 823
Effects of Speeding
manage speeds
Sources: Fatality Analysis Reporting System; Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020, DOT HS 813 118, June 2021; AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death; National Traffic Speeds Survey III: 2015, DOT HS 812 485, March 2018 Speed is a fundamental predictor of crash survival.

Increasing vehicle speeds from 23 mph to 58 mph increases the likelihood of a pedestrian death when hit from 10% to 90%.

Lower speeds increase a driver’s field of vision and allows for more time to react to unexpected situations in the roadway. The yellow circles above show how a driver’s field of vision changes when they travel at various speeds

HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:

RISK OF DEATH
MPH
23 10%

HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:

RISK OF DEATH
MPH
42 50%

HIT BY A VEHICLE
TRAVELING AT:

RISK OF DEATH
MPH
58 90%
covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 105 Intersection Design Primer design guidelines

Bike Control Types
“Bikes Use Ped Signal” Signage
“Bikes Use Ped Signal” signage instructs cyclists to
cross the intersection with pedestrians during the
pedestrian crossing phase. This control option does
not have the same protected phase requirements as a
bike signal head and can be used in low volume scenarios when cost, auto delay, or right of way constraints are barriers to applying bike signal heads. If using this control option, it should be paired with protected intersection design to increase visibility of people riding bikes and allocate space at the intersection for them
to queue. This control option is most applicable with
curb-adjacent bike facilities that can easily see the
pedestrian signal in their sight lines. In low auto turn volume conditions it can be used as-is, but should be
paired with protected intersection design and separate
signal phasing for medium- to high-turn volume conditions. The next page shows suggested volume thresholds for signal treatments.

Typical Applications
• Multimodal corridors where auto or transit
delay must also be considered
• Locations where the existing right of
way does not allow for turn pockets for
protected auto movements required
in the application of bike signals
• In quick-build or lower-cost
intersection design projects
Bike Signal Heads
Bike signal heads are an electrically powered traffic
control device that provide guidance to bikes at an
intersection when it is their turn to cross. CAMUTCD
requires that bike signal heads only be used to indicate a protected movement for bikes similar to how a left
turn arrow for cars operates. Because there can be no
conflicting auto movement during the bike signal phase, often an additional right turn lane and separate phase is required.

Typical Applications
• Where auto-turn movements are high
• Where there are spatial constraints to
applying protected intersection design
• Complex intersections that otherwise
may be difficult to navigate
• Where there are transitions between bike
facilities, such as a two-way separated
facility transitioning to bike lanes
Separate Users in Time
106
Intersection Design Primer

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 107 design guidelines
Protected
Right Turn
Horizontal Offset
(Protected Corner)
Protected
Left Turn
The thresholds shown in the flow chart are helpful rules of thumb for when to consider providing protected left and right turns for separated bikeways. Protected left and right turns may also be warranted if there is high pedestrian activity or collision history involving turning vehicles.

Is it a single conflicting
lane with low left turn
volume (≤ 50 v/h)?
Yes
Right Turn
Conflicts
Left Turn
Conflicts
No Remove Left Turn Conflict
Provide separate phases for left
turning vehicles and bicycles
Allow Permissive Left Turn
Provide clear sight distance and
consider flashing yellow arrow
Allow Permissive Right Turn Provide horizontal offset or consider bike phase
Allow Permissive Right Turn
Provide clear sight distance
Remove Right Turn Conflict
Provide separate phases for right
turns and bicycles
What is the peak hour
right turn volume?
≤ 50 v/h
51-149 v/h
≥ 150 v/h
Protected Turn Phasing
Separation guidance for one-way separated bikeways at signalized locations Separate Users in Time
Intersection Design Primer

108
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 7
Applying the Design Principles
Separate Users in space
Intersection Design Primer

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 109 design guidelines
Intersection Design Considerations
Calming Turning
Vehicles
Lower speeds of turning vehicles to lower the likelihood of injury collisions. In this example, horizontal offsets are used to protect the bike staging area and slow turning vehicles. Consider turn radii no greater than 15 feet. Other treatments include centerline hardening. 2 Provide Clear
Sightlines
Provide clear sight lines by maintaining landscaping and parking restrictions. In this example, landscaping in the bike buffer is removed closer to the intersection. Maintain at least 40’ of red curb in advance of the crosswalk or intersection.
3 Provide The
Appropriate
Pedestrian Crossing
Treatment
Ensure that pedestrian crossing treatments are context sensitive. In this example, high-visibility crosswalks are used to indicate pedestrian right-of-way and median refuges between the bike facility and auto lanes are provided. For uncontrolled crosswalk locations, follow guidance included in the Uncontrolled Crosswalk Policy.
4 Maintain Emergency
Vehicle Access
Solutions for designing with emergency access in mind include utilizing flexible physical barriers or mountable curbs accommodating size and increase maneuverability, implementing signal preemption systems, and limiting visual obstructions at the intersection to enhance line of sight. These measures aim to ensure that emergency vehicles can reach their destinations efficiently while maintaining the safety and functionality of protected intersection.

In this example, horizontal offsets/corner radii are set with a passenger car as the design vehicle, but can be constructed as mountable curb to accommodate larger vehicles. The benefit is slowing turning vehicles down through the tighter curb radii, while maintaining emergency access.
5 Manage Driveway
and Loading Conflict
Points
Conflicts between driveways or passenger loading zones and bicycle facilities pose safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Provide clear line of sight at driveways, ensure driveways are well-lit, provide conflict striping through the bike facility, and use signage for all modes. 6 Provide Clear Wayfinding
Wayfinding helps everyone navigate the intersection more efficiently. Provide wayfinding in advance of the intersection and at key decision points to provide users with enough time to safely transition to the appropriate turn lane or staging area. 8 Accommodate a
Right Turn Pocket
If right turn volumes are high, a protected right turn phase may be required. In this example, the bike lane-adjacent auto lane is used as a trap-right. Advanced signage and pavement markings in advance of the intersection would be required.

If a protected intersection is not provided and a right turn pocket is still needed, maintain the bicycle travel lane to the intersection by providing a ‘bicycle pocket’ to the left of the right turn lane and reinforce the bicycles right of way with conflict striping to signify the vehicle merge and signage.
7 Provide Transitions
between Facilities
Consider major destinations and common auto, bike, and pedestrian movements when designing an intersection. In this example, a protected intersection is used to facilitate bicycle movements between the two perpendicular bicycle facilities and crosswalks are provided across all approaches.

Protected intersections are most effective at locations where two bicycle facilities intersect, at wide and complex intersections, or at intersections with high bicycle and pedestrian volumes.

Installing protected intersections provides dedicated spaces for cyclists, but also provides greater separation and protection between pedestrians and vehicles. Staging areas are provided in all four corners of the intersection so that cyclists can make two-stage turn movements in a counter-clockwise direction around the intersection. Refuge islands between the bike lane and auto lane provide additional space for pedestrians to queue, shortening their crossing distance across auto traffic. Protected intersections are compatible with all bicycle facility types. 1 Intersection Design Primer

OR
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OR
25 20 pedestrians per hour
cross (in any two hours,
not necessarily
consecutive)
Location connects two
pedestrian generators
such as a school, park,
bus stop, hospital,
neighborhood serving
commercial center, or
multi-family residential
Insufficient need to
justify marked crossing
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least
300 ft or more away
Low speed (posted or
prima facie 25 MPH),
2-lane roadway
Direct pedestrians to
the nearest marked or
protected crossing
Pedestrians can be
easily seen from a
feasible stopping sight
distance
It is feasible to remove
sight obstruction or
lower the speed limit
Consider installing a
stop sign, signal, or
grade separation
Install crosswalk.

Implement treatments
identified in the table
to the right.

Should A
Crosswalk Be
Installed?
110
Uncontrolled Crosswalk Policy

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 111 design guidelines
Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit & ADT
ADT <9,000 ADT 9,000-15,000 ADT >15,000
≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph 2 Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3
3 Lanes with raised median 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3
3 Lanes without raised median 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3
4+ lanes with raised median 4* 4* 4 4* 4 4 3 3 3
4+ lanes without raised median 4* 4* 4 4* 4 4 3 3 3
Recommended
Crosswalk
Treatments
1s may be bumped to 2 if there is
pedestrian collision history at that
location.

If a PHB or RRFB is recommended
and there are two uncontrolled
crosswalks in the same direction
at the same intersection, consider
installing a full signal instead. In
these locations, a full traffic signal
will likely be more cost efficient and
intuitive to users than installing two
separate RRFBs or PHBs.
1 Install high-visibility crosswalk
striping and advanced yield
markings and signage.

Provide at least 20' of red
curb on the approaches. If
width allows, install curb
extensions on both sides.
2 Install a Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon plus all #1 improvements. If space allows,
install a median if none present.
3 Install a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon or Pedestrian Signal
plus all #1 improvements.

If space allows, install a
median if none present.
4 Existing average daily
traffic (ADT) does not
support the current lane
configuration. Implement a
lane reconfiguration plus all
#1 improvements. If a lane
reconfiguration is infeasible,
install a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon or Pedestrian Signal
plus all #1 improvements.
*For lower volume, lower
speed contexts, an RRFB may
be considered instead of a
PHB or Pedestrian Signal.

Uncontrolled Crosswalk Policy

Funding &
Implementation
Strategy
Chapter 6

114
Expands opportunity for investment in
historically marginalized communities
A corridor project received one point if the project
is within an equity priority area, as mapped in the
Active Streets Recommendations chapter.

Provides immediate benefits to safety and
comfort
A corridor project received one point if the project includes targeted bicycle and pedestrian safety benefits.

Improves access to transit A corridor project received one point if the project is located within ¼ mile of or provides direct connection to a transit station or bus stop. Transit stops are mapped in the Covina Today chapter.

Provides access to local destinations A corridor project received one point if it is located within or provides connection to schools, parks and
major employers/retail centers. These destinations
are mapped in the Covina Today chapter.

Increases climate resiliency A corridor project received one point if it includes green infrastructure amenities that provide water
and air quality benefits beyond those related to
reductions in vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT).

Implementation can be streamlined A corridor project received one point if it could be accommodated within the existing right of way with
no changes to existing auto capacity or parking, or if
the city felt it had significant community support.

Can be funded through existing city sources A corridor project received one point if it could be implemented with repaving or other routine maintenance activities.

Increases access in a community with high
pollution burden, limited park access, and/or
limited automobile access
A corridor project received up to three points,
one point for each criteria, if it falls within census
tracts that meet these equity criteria.

Prioritized Project List
Prioritized Project List
Bike network, pedestrian priority area, and urban design recommendations were consolidated into corridor projects for the purpose of prioritization.

Corridors were then prioritized based on the criteria in the table below.

The following table presents the prioritized project list. The highlighted corridors are the highest priority for the city. Planning level concepts for these corridors are presented later in this chapter.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 115 Prioritized Project List funding & implementation strategy Page Intentionally Left Blank

116
Prioritized Project List
Prioritized Project List
Project Geographic Extents Project Components
E/W or N/S
Corridor/Project
Name
From
To
Bike
Pedestrian
Urban Design
- Workman Street and Hollenbeck Avenue (PPA A) Workman Elementary Puente Avenue X X N/S 2nd Avenue (PPA C) San Bernardino Road Rowland Street X X E/W Covina Boulevard (PPA B) Hollenbeck Avenue Grand Avenue X X X E/W Edna Bicycle Boulevard Azusa Avenue Covina Blvd X
N/S 4th Avenue (PPA C) San Bernardino Road Puente Street X N/S Barranca Avenue (PPA B/PPA E) City Boundary (North) City Boundary (South) X X X N/S Hollenbeck Avenue (PPA D) Arrow Highway Workman Avenue X X E/W Puente Street Armel Drive Grand Avenue X
- Residential Streetscape Project (PPA E) Workman Avenue, Rowland Street Barranca Avenue, Oak Tree Drive X X
E/W Rowland Street (PPA D/PPA E) Armel Drive De Lay Avenue X X X - Workman Avenue/Aldenville Avenue (PPA D) - - X
N/S Grand Avenue Arrow Highway City Boundary (South)
- Residential Streetscape Project (PPA D) Armel Drive, Rowland Street Heathdale Avenue, Workman Street X X - S Shoppers Lane - - X
E/W Badillo Street (PPA C) Azusa Avenue Grand Avenue X X X N/S Azusa Avenue (PPA A) Arrow Highway Badillo Street X X - Channel Oak Creek Trail (PPA E) San Bernardino Road Workman Avenue X X X N/S Citrus Avenue (PPA C) Arrow Highway Workman Avenue X E/W Edna Place (PPA B) Barranca Avenue Grand Avenue
- Frontage Roads (Study Area Wide) - - X X
N/S Hepner Avenue (PPA D) Puente Street Rowland Street
- Residential Streetscape Project (PPA B) Park Ave, Reed St Edna Place, Kelby Park X X N/S 2nd Avenue Workman Avenue Rowland Street
E/W College Street (PPA C) 4th Avenue San Jose Avenue X N/S Fairvale/Ranger Bicycle Boulevard Covina Boulevard Fairvale High School E/W Grondahl Street (PPA A) Hollenbeck Avenue San Dimas Wash X X X E/W Workman Avenue (PPA E) Citrus Avenue Barranca Avenue X E/W Cienega Avenue Barranca Avenue Grand Avenue
E/W Front Street (PPA C) Citrus Avenue Barranca Avenue X X E/W San Bernardino Road (PPA C) Azusa Avenue Grand Avenue X E/W Cottage Drive (PPA C) 3rd Avenu Citrus Avenue X X X - Cypress Street/Prospero Drive - - X
- Cypress Street/4th Avenue - - X

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 117 Prioritized Project List funding & implementation strategy Prioritization Metrics Census Tracts with:

Total Points
Investment
in historically
marginalized
communities
Safety and
comfort
Improves access
to transit
Provides
access to local
destinations
Increases climate resiliency
throughout the
city
Implementation
can be
streamlined
Can be funded
through existing
sources
Low Park Access
Low Automobile
Access
High Pollution
Burden
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 8
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8
1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 7
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 7
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 7
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 6
1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 6
1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 6
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 6
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 6
1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5
0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4
0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

118
A planning-level feasibility check was conducted to determine right-of-way trade-offs that may be necessary in order to implement the recommended bike network. The existing auto and parking capacity was compared to the existing curb-to-curb width to determine if the recommended bike facility could fit without any changes to capacity. Average daily traffic (ADT) was also analyzed determine if a lane reconfiguration is feasible. This is a planninglevel feasibility analysis to help inform the trade-offs that may be required to implement the bike network. Additional engineering feasibility review and stakeholder engagement will be required to move these projects forward. The minimim width assumptions and ADT thresholds applied are presented in the tables below. The analysis is presented on page 120.

Applied Preferred Minimum Widths
Applied Lane Reconfiguration Volume Thresholds
Bike Network Recommendations
Right-of-Way Analysis
Facility Preferred Min Width (ft)
General Purpose Through Lane 11
Center Turn Lane 10
Parking Lane 8
Facility
Min Width (ft) Total Minimum Rightof-way Required (ft) Buffer Bike Lane Bike Lane 3 5 16
Separated Bikeway (Parking-Protected) 5 5 20
Separated Bikeway (No Parking Present) 3 5 16
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Lane Reconfiguration Assumption <18,000 Lane reconfiguration is feasible
18,000-25,000 Proceed with caution
>25,000 Additional analysis required
Bike Network Recommendations Right-of-Way Analysis
These are the minimum bike facility widths considered in this analysis. The preferred minimum width for a bike lane is 6 feet, excluding the gutter.

FHWA cites 25,000 ADT as the upper limit for a 4 to 3 lane reconfiguration.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 119 Bike Network Recommendations Right-of-Way Analysis funding & implementation strategy Page Intentionally Left Blank

120
Bike Network Recommendations Right-of-Way Analysis
Roadway Recommended
Bike Facility
Existing
typical
curbto-curb
(feet)
# of
General
Purpose
Lanes
# of
Parking
Lanes
Raised
Median
Width
(feet)
Required
Minimum
Curb-to-Curb
for Auto
Lanes (feet)
Remaining
Curb-toCurb for
Bike Facility
(feet)
Does
the bike
facility
fit?
2nd
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
82 5 2 0 70 12 No
Azusa
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
82 4 2 14 74 8 No
Badillo
Street
Separated
Bikeway
80 5 2 0 70 10 No
Barranca
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
60 4 2 0 60 0 No
Cienega
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
60 2 1 0 30 30 Yes
Citrus
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
84 4 2 16 76 8 No
Covina
Boulevard
Separated
Bikeway
60 4 2 0 60 0 No
Front
Street
Bike Lane 50 2 2 0 38 12 Yes
Grand
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
80 4 2 16 76 4 No
Hollenbeck
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
60 4 2 0 60 0 No
Rowland
Street
Separated
Bikeway
80 4 2 20 80 0 No
San
Bernardino
Road
Separated
Bikeway
60 4 2 0 60 0 No
Workman
Avenue
Separated
Bikeway
50 3 1 0 41 9 No
Bike Network Recommendations
Right-of-Way Planning-Level Analysis
This is a planning-level feasibility analysis to help inform the trade-offs that may be required to implement the bike network. Additional engineering feasibility review and stakeholder engagement will be required to move these projects forward.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 121 Bike Network Recommendations Right-of-Way Analysis funding & implementation strategy Maximum
Observed
Average Daily
Traffic (2021)
Max Posted
Speed
Based on ADT, is this a lane
reconfiguration candidate?
Bike facility
fits (no
trade-offs)
Move forward
with lane
reconfiguration
feasibility
analysis and
engagement
Conduct further
analysis and
consider
parking removal
6,000 35 Yes
✓
27,200 40 Additional analysis required ✓
14,500 30 Yes
✓
17,400 40 Yes ✓
3,300 40 Already one lane in each
direction ✓
17,000 40 Yes ✓
8,400 40 Yes
✓
- 25 Already one lane in each
direction ✓
28,100 40 Additional analysis required
✓
14,900 40 Yes ✓
12,300 40 Yes ✓
11,200 35 Yes
✓
9,400 35 Already one lane in each
direction ✓

122
The project list included in this Plan will require strategic funding approaches to implement within a reasonable time horizon. Funding streams available to the City include grants, regularly funding maintenance work, development permits, and the City's Capital Improvement Program.

Grants
The table on the next page includes outside funding sources at the local, state, and federal level that may be applicable
Maintenance Work
In most instances, signage and restriping improvements can be carried out sooner and at lower costs if the work coincides with scheduled maintenance work on the roadways. This is often the most efficient way to build out the active transportation network as funds are already assigned to maintaining the existing roadway network. Developing a complete streets checklist for repaving can help ensure active transportation and safety improvements are integrated into routine maintenance activities.

Development Permits
The City may, consistent with application legal requirements, collect funds or require construction of frontage improvements or dedication of right-of-way from permittees where improvements are identified in the CASMCP and other planning documents.

Capital Improvement Program
The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning tool used to identify and implement short term and long-term capital needs. Revisit the CIP list to ensure planned projects incorporate the recommendations in this Plan. in future CIPs, incorporate the project list.

Funding Strategy
Bike Network Recommendations Funding Strategy

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 123 funding & implementation strategy
Competitive Grant Programs for
Transportation and Green Infrastructure
Bike Network Recommendations Funding Strategy
Grant Name Eligible Project Types
Federal Grants
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity (RAISE)
Surface transportation projects that have a significant local or regional impact.

Safe Streets and Roads 4 All Planning, infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets.

Reconnecting Communities Community-centered transportation connection projects, with a priority for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Five Star and
Urban Waters Restoration
Projects that include ecological improvements along
with targeted community outreach, education and
stewardship, such as green infrastructure and tree
canopy.

Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation (SMART)
Projects that utilize technology to improve transportation efficiency and safety.

Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Public electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

State Grants
Active Transportation Program Projects that to encourage an increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.

Highway Safety Improvement Program Infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs).

California Urban Greening Program Projects that result in the conversion of an existing built environment into green space (e.g., parks, street trees, bioswales, green streets, urban trails).

Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grants Planning activities to evaluate project concepts based on technical analysis and community engagement activities.

Proposition 1 - Stormwater Grant Program Multi-benefit storm water management projects which may include green infrastructure, rainwater and storm
water capture projects and storm water treatment
facilities.

Clean California Projects that beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Typically, affordable housing projects are the primary project seeking AHSC funding and transit and active
transportation improvements can
improve competitiveness of the funding pursuit.

Coordination with community development and land
development projects can provide an opportunity to
incorporate active transportation projects into AHSC
pursuits.

Table is continued on next page.

124
Bike Network Recommendations Funding Strategy
Grant Name Eligible Project Types
Regional Grants
LA Metro Active Transport, Transit and First/Last Mile
Program (MAT) (Measure M)
Projects that improve and grow the active transportation network and expand the reach of transit.

SCAG Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Projects that reduce vehicle-miles-travelled and support the region’s housing goals by providing affordable,
multimodal transportation options.

San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy Programs
Planning and implementation projects that create,
expand, and/or improve public open space throughout
the region by improving access, habitat quality, water
security, and wildfire resilience. Eligible project examples include urban greening, park expansion, and trails.

LA County Regional Parks & Open Space District
Regional Recreation, Multi-Use Trails and Accessibility (Measure A)
Projects that improve, connect, and protect regional
recreational facilities, trails, and accessibility.

LA County Safe Clean Water Program (Measure W) Multi-benefit stormwater capture projects and programs, with an emphasis on projects that improve green space
and recreational opportunities.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 125 funding & implementation strategy
This Plan includes a wide range of projects
with varying degrees of cost. Project cost
estimates were developed to give a general
idea of the anticipated cost for the projects. Soft
costs, including permitting and environmental
support, design and preliminary engineering,
specifications and estimates, utility
coordination, drainage and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention (SWPP), construction
management and inspection, mobilization, traffic
control, and general contingencies, were considered.

Soft costs are typically calculated as a percent
of construction costs but can vary depending on
the type, size, and complexity of the project. The
table to the right shows the breakdown of soft
costs as a percentage of construction costs
applied to these planning-level cost estimates.

The costs in this Plan are for informational purposes
only. More detailed cost estimates should be
developed for each project in the design phase.

Capital Improvement Plan
Bike Network Recommendations Capital Improvement Plan
Typical Soft Cost Assumptions Applied
Construction Allowances
Mobilization 10%
Traffic Control 5%
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans
5%
Utilities 15%
Drainage 30%
Contigency 25%
Program/Project Soft Costs
Preliminary Engineering 10%
Environmental Clearance 10%
Final Design/ PS&E 15%
Construction Management 15%
Quick-build is an approach to building
infrastructure using low-cost, shorter-term
materials to lessen construction impacts and
implementation timelines. Bicycle facilities
and pedestrian crossing improvements can
be installed with quick-build materials to
provide near-term safety benefits while waiting
for funding for the permanent project.

Permanent-build projects typically include
modifications to the curb line, utility work,
and/or durable materials such as concrete.

Project elements could include street trees,
stormwater retention features, lighting, and
sidewalk improvements. Bicycle facilities and
pedestrian crossing improvements are built
using more durable materials than quickbuild projects, such as concrete barriers.

Permanent improvements can replace quickbuild elements over time as the project evolves and based on public input, interest, and use.

What is a Quick-Build vs. Permanent Build?
Quick-Build
Permanent-Build

126
Corridor/Project Name From To
Permanent
Build
Cost
Quick
Build
Cost*
Workman Street and
Hollenbeck Avenue (PPA D) Workman Elementary Puente Avenue $4.75-7.5M - 2nd Avenue (PPA C) San Bernardino Road Rowland Street $4.75-7.75M $0.75-1.25M Covina Boulevard (PPA B) Hollenbeck Avenue Grand Avenue $6.5-10.75M $1-1.5M Edna Bicycle Boulevard Azusa Avenue Covina Blvd $2.5-4M $1.25-2.25M 4th Avenue (PPA C) San Bernardino Road Puente Street $1.5-2.5M $375-600K Barranca Avenue (PPA B/PPA E) City Boundary (North) City Boundary (South) $10.5-17.5M $1.5-2.25M Hollenbeck Avenue (PPA D) Arrow Highway Workman Avenue $8.5-14M $1.25-2M Puente Street Armel Drive Grand Avenue $4-6.5M $1.25-2.25M Residential Streetscape Project
(PPA E)
Workman Avenue,
Rowland Street
Barranca Avenue,
Oak Tree Drive $1.25-2M -
Rowland Street (PPA D/PPA E) Armel Drive De Lay Avenue $11.25-18.75M $1.25-2M Workman Avenue/
Aldenville Avenue (PPA D) - - $100-175K $100-175K
Grand Avenue Arrow Highway City Boundary (South) $8.5-13.75M $1.25-2M Residential Streetscape Project
(PPA D)
Armel Drive,
Rowland Street
Heathdale Avenue,
Workman Street $1.25-2M -
S Shoppers Lane - - $25-50K $25-50K
Badillo Street (PPA C) Azusa Avenue Grand Avenue $12-19.75M $1.25-2M Azusa Avenue (PPA A) Arrow Highway Badillo Street $8.5-13.75M $0.75-1.25M Channel Oak Creek Trail (PPA E) San Bernardino Road Workman Avenue $10-16.25M - Citrus Avenue (PPAC) Arrow Highway Workman Avenue $11-18.25M $1.5-2.5M Edna Place (PPA B) Barranca Avenue Grand Avenue $0.6-1M $325-525K Hepner Avenue (PPA D) Puente Street Rowland Street $375-625K $200-325K Residential Streetscape Project
(PPA B) Park Ave, Reed St Edna Place, Kelby Park $1-2M - 2nd Avenue Workman Avenue Rowland Street $300-500K $150-250K College Street (PPA C) 4th Avenue San Jose Avenue $325-525K $100-175K Fairvale/Ranger Bicycle Boulevard Covina Boulevard Fairvale High School $400-675K $225-350K Grondahl Street (PPA A) Hollenbeck Avenue San Dimas Wash $1.5-2.5M $175-275K Workman Avenue (PPA E) Citrus Avenue Barranca Avenue $4.5-7.5M $250-500K Cienega Avenue Barranca Avenue Grand Avenue $2-3.5M $275-450K Front Street (PPA C) Citrus Avenue Barranca Avenue $3.5-5.5M $75-125K San Bernardino Road (PPA C) Azusa Avenue Grand Avenue $8-13.25M $1.5-2.25M Cottage Drive (PPA C) 3rd Avenue Citrus Avenue $1.25-1.75M - Cypress Street/Prospero Drive - - $1-1.5M -
Cypress Street/4th Avenue - - $1-1.5M -
Bike Network Recommendations Capital Improvement Plan
*Quick-build costs include all in-road bicycle and pedestrian project elements, and exclude all streetscape improvements.

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 127 funding & implementation strategy
Miles of New Bike FacilitiesMiles of Streetscape ImprovementsShared Use/Bike PathSeparated BikewayBike LaneBike BoulevardTraffic Signal/PHB/Ped SignalRRFBSigning & Striping UpgradesClose Slip LaneStreet TreesLandscaping/Stormwater RetentionPedestrian-Scale LightingNew/Widened Sidewalk - 0.9 ✓ ✓ ✓

0.9 0.4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

1.5 - ✓ ✓ ✓

2.1 - ✓

0.5 - ✓ ✓ ✓

2.1 0.6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2.1 0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓

1.8 - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
- 1.0 ✓ ✓

1.6 - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
- - ✓

2.2 - ✓
- 1.0 ✓ ✓
- - ✓

2.0 0.6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

1.4 0.5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

1.3 - ✓

2.2 - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

0.5 - ✓

0.3 - ✓
- 1.0 ✓ ✓

0.2 - ✓

0.6 - ✓

0.3 - ✓

0.2 0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

0.5 - ✓ ✓

0.5 - ✓

0.5 0.5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2.0 - ✓ ✓ ✓

0.1 - ✓ ✓
- - ✓
- - ✓

128
priority project
Workman Street & Hollenbeck Avenue
Pedestrian and Streetscape Enhancements
Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and comfort
• Improves access to transit
on Rowland Avenue
• Provides increased
access to schools
• Builds climate resilience
through green infrastructure
and tree canopy
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Permanent Build
$4.75-7.5M
Hollenbeck - 1
Armel DrEastbury Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Workman Ave
Workman St
Separated Bikeway
with lane reduction
Puente Ave
Rowland St
+
+
NEW
Street trees,
pedestrian-scale
lighting, widened
sidewalks
COVINA

HIGH SCHOOL

WORKMAN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
"\\fpla03.fpainc.local\Data\Jobs\Active\33
Purpose
Provide a more comfortable route to school for
Workman Elementary School and Covina High School
students and faculty by increasing tree canopy and
green infrastructure, providing pedestrian-scale
lighting, and installing crosswalk enhancements.

Protected
Intersection

0.25 mi
Design Treatments
Bike Facilities
Street Trees,
Pedestrian-scale
Lighting, and
Widened
Sidewalks
Curb
Extension
Transit
Shelter
Stormwater
Capture
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
+
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Design Treatments
Bike Facilities
Street Trees,
Pedestrian-scale
Lighting, and
Widened
Sidewalks
Curb
Extension
Transit
Shelter
Stormwater
Capture
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
+
Conflict Zone
Marking
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 129 funding & implementation strategy
Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and
comfort for all users
• Improves access to transit
on Badillo Street
• Provides increased access to Covina
Park, Emanate Health Inter-Community
Hospital, downtown Covina, and
Covina Valley USD District Field
• Can be implemented through repaving
and other quick-build methods
Considerations
• Sharrows should be installed at least
every 250' and be spaced in the center
of the lane out of the door zone
• Traffic calming elements (traffic circle,
speed humps) should be spaced every
250'-400' to effectively manage speeds
Permanent Build
$1.5-2.5M
Quick Build
$375-600K
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Puente Ave Puente St
College St
Center St
Dexter St
Badillo St
3rd Ave
4th Ave
San Bernardino Rd
Va el ncia Ave
Raised corner buer
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Bike Lane
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Pedestrian
Collision:
1 Severe
Injury
1 7
1 S
COVINA
PARK

EMANATE HEALTH

INTER-COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT FIELD
priority project
4th Avenue
Bicycle Boulevard
Purpose
Provide a bicycle boulevard and improve pedestrian safety along 4th Avenue. Incorporate landscaping and green
infrastructure into curb extensions and traffic circles.

0.25 mi
Speed Hump High Visibility
Crosswalk
Traffic Circle Curb Extension
Traffic Signal
Bike Facilities
Design Treatments
Bicycle
Crossing
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments

130
priority project
Barranca Avenue
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streetscape (Sheet 1 of 2)
Barranca Ave - 3
Barranca Ave
Covina Blvd
Cienega Ave
Arrow Highway
Cypress St
Edna Pl
S
Bernardino Rd
Separated Bikeway
Tudor St
Benwood St
Stormwater capture
and greening
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
with lane reduction
+

BEN LOMOND

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
KELBY
PARK
Street trees
Street trees
Street trees

RAILROAD
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
North (Arrow Hwy- Cypress St)

0.25 mi Purpose
Improve comfort and safety
of people walking, biking, and
driving, and beautify the corridor
through active transportation
and streetscape investments.

Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and comfort of all
users-Improves access to transit on
Puente Avenue and Rowland Avenue
• Provides increased access to local
destinations, including Kelby Park, Ben
Lomond Elementary School, Covina
Elementary School, Sofive Covina, and Ikea.
• Builds climate resilience through green
infrastructure and tree canopy
Considerations
• Where feasible, incorporate
landscaping into bikeway buffer
• Will likely require coordination with California
Public Utilities Commission at railroad crossing
• Consider a bicycle signal and allbike phase at Puente when the bike path along the wash is complete
• Bicycle facility start and end points should be
further evaluated to ensure it is adequately
connected to the broader network
• Refer to the Right-of-Way Analysis for more
details on lane conversion feasibility
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Protected
Intersection
Design Treatments
Bike Facilities
Transit
Shelter
Stormwater
Capture
Design Treatments
Curb
Extension
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
+
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Close Slip Lane Two-Stage
Turn Queue Box
Conflict Zone
Marking
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments
Bicycle
Crossing
Permanent Build
$10.5-17.5M
Quick Build
$2.25-3.75M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 131 funding & implementation strategy priority project
Barranca Avenue
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streetscape (Sheet 2 of 2)
Barranca Ave
Barranca Ave
Puente St
Badillo St
Covina Blvd
Cypress St
Edna Pl
San Bernardino Rd
Benwood St
School St
Italia St
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Bike Path
Bike Path
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard
+
+
KELBY
PARK
COVINA

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Street trees
Street trees

RAILROAD
Barranca Ave
Barranca Ave
Puente St
Badillo St
Rowland St
San Bernardino Fwy
School St
Italia St
Workman St
Separated Bikeway
Bike Path
Bike Path
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
+
COVINA

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BARRANCA

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
IKEA
Center (Cypress St-Badillo St)
South (Badillo St-South City Boundary)
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Bike Facilities
Street Trees,
Storm Water
Capture and
Greening
Transit
Shelter
Stormwater
Capture
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon

132
priority project
Hollenbeck Avenue
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streetscape (Sheet 1 of 2)
Hollenbeck Ave
Covina Blvd
Arrow Highway
Cypress St
Edna Pl
Nubia St

HOLLENBECK
PARK
Green infrastructure
Green infrastructure

CYPRESS
PARK

RAILROAD
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway with
Lane Reconfiguration
North (Arrow Hwy- Cypress St)

0.25 mi
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Purpose
Improve comfort and safety
of people walking, biking, and
driving, and beautify the corridor
through active transportation
and streetscape investments.

Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and comfort for all users
• Improves access to transit on Badillo
Avenue and Rowland Avenue
• Provides increased access to Hollenbeck
Park, Cypress Park, and Covina High School
• Builds climate resilience through green
infrastructure and tree canopy
Considerations
• Consider green infrastructure and
opportunities along frontage roads
• Where feasible, incorporate
landscaping into bikeway buffer
• Will likely require coordination with California
Public Utilities Commission at railroad crossing
• Bicycle facility start and end points should be
further evaluated to ensure it is adequately
connected to the broader network.
• Refer to the Right-of-Way Analysis for more
details on lane conversion feasibility
Protected
Intersection
Design Treatments
Transit
Shelter
Stormwater
Capture
Design Treatments
Bike Facilities Street Trees,
Storm Water
Capture and
Greening
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Two-Stage +
Turn Queue Box
Bicycle
Crossing
Permanent Build
$8.5-14M
Quick Build
$1.25-2M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 133 funding & implementation strategy priority project
Hollenbeck Avenue
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streetscape (Sheet 2 of 2)
Hollenbeck Ave
Puente Ave
Badillo St
Covina Blvd
Cypress St
Edna Pl
San Bernardino Rd
Green infrastructure
Green infrastructure

CYPRESS
PARK

RAILROAD
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
E E/W
+
COVINA

HIGH SCHOOL
E/W
Puente Ave
Badillo St
Rowland St
Workman St
San Bernardino Fwy
San Bernardino Rd
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
+
COVINA

HIGH SCHOOL
E/W
E

SACRED HEART

CATHOLIC SCHOOL
Center (Cypress St-Badillo St
South (Puente Ave-Badillo St
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Conflict Zone
Marking Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide Treatments

134
priority project
Puente Street - 5
Hollenbeck Ave
Citrus Ave2nd Ave
Puente Ave Puente St
4th Ave
Hepner Ave
Rowland St
Bike Collision:
1 Complaint of Pain
Ped Collision:
1 Visible Injury
Bike Collision:
1 Complaint of Pain
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
Lane Reconfiguration
+

COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT FIELD
COVINA

HIGH SCHOOL
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Puente Street
Bicycle Boulevard (Sheet 1 of 2)
Purpose
Provide a bicycle boulevard
and improve pedestrian
safety along Puente Street.

Utilize excess width in
lane reconfiguration
candidate segments to
install green infrastructure
and landscaping.

Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and
comfort for all users
• Improves access to transit
on Citrus Avenue, 2nd
Avenue, Barranca Avenue,
and Grand Avenue
• Provides increased access
to Covina High School, Sierra
Madre Middle SChool, and Covina
Valley USD District Field
• Wide right-of-way in some
segments provides opportunities
for green infrastructure,
increasing tree canopy, and
providing landscaping
Considerations
• Sharrows should be installed
at least every 250' and be
spaced in the center of the
lane out of the door zone
• Traffic calming elements
(speed humps) should be
spaced every 250'-400' to
effectively manage speeds
• Consider a bicycle signal and
all-bike phase at Barranca
Avenue when the bike path
along the wash is complete
• Bicycle facility start and end points
should be further evaluated to
ensure it is adequately connected
to the broader network
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Permanent Build
$4-6.5M
Quick Build
$3-5M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 135 funding & implementation strategy priority project
2nd Ave
Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Badillo St
San Bernardino Fwy
San Jose Ave
Monte Vista Ave
De Lay Ave
Separated Bikeway Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Bike Path
Lane Reconfiguration
+

SIERRA VISTA

MIDDLE SCHOOL

0.25 mi
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Puente Street
Bicycle Boulevard (Sheet 2 of 2)
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments
Speed Hump
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Curb Extension
Traffic Circle
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Bike Facilities
Lane
Reconfiguration
Design Treatments
Bicycle
Crossing
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
+ Stormwater
Capture

136
priority project
Covina Blvd - 6
Hollenbeck Ave
Citrus Ave
Fairvale Ave
Cypress St
1st Ave
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
with lane reduction
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard
Bike Boulevard

FOOTHILL TRANSIT CENTER

CYPRESS
PARK
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Covina Boulevard
Separated Bikeway (Sheet 1 of 2)
Purpose
Re-envision Covina
Boulevard as a vibrant
active transportation
corridor providing direct
access to Foothill Transit
Center with integrated
storm water capture
and investments in
the tree canopy.

Benefits
• Investment in historically
marginalized community
• Improves safety and
comfort for all users
• Improves access to Foothill Transit
Center, a major transit hub in the city
• Provides increased access
to Cypress Park and Ben
Lomond Elementary School
• Lane reconfiguration provides
opportunities for green
infrastructure, increasing stormwater
capture and tree canopy
Considerations
• Where feasible, incorporate
landscaping into bikeway buffer
• Bicycle facility start and end points
should be further evaluated to
ensure it is adequately connected
to the broader network
• Refer to the Right-of-Way
Analysis for more details on
lane conversion feasibility
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Permanent Build
$6.5-10.75M
Quick Build
$1-1.5M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 137 funding & implementation strategy priority project
Grandview Ave
Barranca Ave
Grand Ave
Covina Blvd
Cienega Ave
Benwood St
Cypress St
Separated Bikeway Separated Bikeway

BEN LOMOND

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

0.25 mi
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Covina Boulevard
Separated Bikeway (Sheet 2 of 2)
Conflict Zone
Marking
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Bike Facilities
Design Treatments
Stormwater
Capture
Bicycle
Crossing

138
priority project
Edna Bicycle Boulevard - 7
Azusa Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Edna Pl
5th Ave4th Ave
Fenimore Ave
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
E E/W

NORTHVIEW

HIGH SCHOOL
Edna Bicycle Boulevard - 7
Azusa Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Edna Pl
5th Ave4th Ave
Fenimore Ave
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
E E/W

NORTHVIEW

HIGH SCHOOL
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Edna Place
Bicycle Boulevard (Sheet 1 of 2)
Purpose
Design a high-quality, region-leading bicycle boulevard that provides a low-stress connection between
Northview High School, the Metrolink Station, Kelby
Park, and Ben Lomond Elementary. Improve property
values and increase climate resiliency through
investments in quality landscaping in traffic circles
Benefits
• Investment in historically marginalized community
• Improves safety and comfort for all users
• Improves access to the Covina Metrolink Station,
Northview High School, the Metrolink Station,
Kelby Park, and Ben Lomond Elementary
• Transportation improvements can be implemented
through repaving and other quick-build methods.

Landscaping would require concrete traffic circles.

Considerations
• Sharrows should be installed every 250' and be
spaced in the center of the lane out of the door zone
• Traffic calming elements (traffic circle,
speed humps) should be spaced every 250'-
400' to effectively manage speeds
• As a long-term investment, explore the
feasibility of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over
the railroad at Valencia Place to increase the
accessibility of the Edna Bike Boulevard.

Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Permanent Build
$2.5 - 4M
Quick Build
$1.25-2.25M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 139 funding & implementation strategy priority project
Citrus Ave
Barranca Ave
Covina Blvd
Cypress St
Edna Pl
Benwood St
Hurst St
1st St
Grandview Ave
Calvados Ave EDNA
PARK
Park Ave
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard

COVINA STATION
KELBY
PARK

BEN LOMOND

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

0.25 mi
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement Edna Place
Bicycle Boulevard (Sheet 2 of 2)
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments
Speed Hump High Visibility
Crosswalk
Curb Extension Traffic Circle
Bike Facilities
Design Treatments
Bicycle
Crossing

140
priority project
enue -8
Rowland St
Puente St
2nd Ave
Badillo St
College St
San Bernardino Rd
Front St
School St
Italia St
Center St
Dexter St
Bike Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
Bike Lane
Separated Bikeway
Separated Bikeway
Sidewalk widening,
stormwater retention,
street trees
Bike Lane

CIVIC CENTER
PARK

COVINA PUBLIC

LIBRARY
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard

0.25 mi
Project implementation will require further engineering feasibility, design, and community engagement 2nd Avenue
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streetscape Project
Purpose
Install a separated bikeway on 2nd
Avenue. Between Badillo and Front, widen
sidewalks, install green infrastructure,
and add to the tree canopy to create
a gateway to Recreation Village.

Benefits
• Investment in historically marginalized communityImproves safety and comfort for all users • Improves access to transit along 2nd Avenue
• Improves access to Civic Center Park, Covina Public
Library, and the future Recreation Village
• Wide right-of-way provides opporutnities for climate resilient infrastructure beyond the transportation improvements, including enhanced tree canopy and stormwater capture features
Considerations
• Where feasible, incorporate landscaping into bikeway buffer • Bicycle facility start and end points should be further evaluated to ensure it is adequately connected to the broader network • Refer to the Right-of-Way Analysis for more
details on lane reconfiguration feasibility
Conflict Zone
Marking
Wayfinding
Bike Detection
Intersection
Tightening
P Daylighting
Corridor-wide
Treatments
High Visibility Crosswalk
Bike Facilities
Sidewalk Widening,
Stormwater Retention,
Street Trees
Design Treatments
Bus boarding island
Planning-level Cost Estimate
(Construction & Design)
Permanent Build
$4.75M-7.75M
Quick Build
$0.75-1.25M

covina active streets & multimodal connectivity plan 141 funding & implementation strategy
Citrus Ave
San Jose Ave
Page Intentionally Left Blank

› Existing Conditions Report
› Equity Study
› Economic Development Study
› Engagement Summary
Appendix

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior

ATTACHMENT C

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing
Conditions
Report
City Mobility Snapshot
Existing Transportation Facilities
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Comfort
Major Destinations and Accessibility
Appendix A: Equity Technical Study
Appendix B: Urban Design Technical Study
Appendix C: Market Study
Appendix D: Infrastructure Technical Study

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Introduction
The Covina Active Streets and
Multimodal Connectivity Plan
(CASMCP) will develop active
transportation recommendations for the
core of the City surrounding downtown.

This existing conditions report lays the
groundwork for understanding the
existing opportunities and needs of
mobility in the study area through the lens
of first/last mile access to transit, equity,
urban design, infrastructure, and market
trends.

As part of this existing conditions process,
technical studies were completed for
each of these disciplines. Key takeaways
from each technical study have been
woven into the body of the report. The
equity, urban design, infrastructure, and
market trends technical studies are
included as an appendix. The first/last mile
and mobility needs study is fully
embedded into the body of this report.

This report is broken into four key sections: • City Mobility Snapshot provides a brief overview of key demographics and travel
patterns throughout the City. • Existing Transportation Facilities presents an overview of existing transit, bike, and
pedestrian facilities provided throughout
the study area. • Pedestrian and Bike Comfort and Safety analyzes speed and collision history in the
study area. • Major Destinations and Accessibility
provides an overview of key points of
interest in the City and their accessibility via
transit and active transportation.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Introduction Study Area
Covina is an active, vibrant city
that caters to its diverse
community through food, culture,
and entertainment.

The hub of the City is it’s
downtown. Restaurants, bars,
businesses, and public space
create an inviting space that
residents gravitate toward.

The downtown and surrounding
areas make up our study area.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Introduction Key Takeaways
The existing conditions process helped expose several key areas that could become the focus of the CASMCP recommendations. The following are the key needs and opportunities: • The study area has one “Disadvantaged Community” as defined by SB 350/CalEnviroScreen and two “Sensitive Communities” as defined by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project. Investments should be prioritized in these two communities to limit the burden of pollution and climate change.

Infrastructure investments should be paired with policy adjustments to minimize displacement following increased investment. • A significant portion of Covina residents live and work in Covina, but still choose to drive to work.

Providing safe, comfortable, and reliable biking and transit options could lead to mode shift for those who have shorter commuting distances. • Crossing infrastructure is typically limited to standard crosswalk striping. There are opportunities to enhance crosswalks through tools such as intersection control, high-visibility signing and striping, and curb extensions. • Existing bicycle facilities are typically limited to Class II bike lanes with some additional features like buffers and green bike boxes at select locations. There are opportunities to enhance both the connectivity and comfort of bike facilities by identifying a low-stress network throughout the study area.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Introduction Key Takeaways
• Wide curb-to-curb widths and underutilized space currently dedicated to autos provide an opportunity to rebalance the right-of-way and create more space for dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. • The City has a tree canopy coverage of about 16%. With the average August temperature in Covina above 90° and rising, there are opportunities to expand the existing tree canopy and shade to provide relief for people walking, biking, and waiting for transit. • The large majority of bicycle and pedestrian injury collisions are occurring at intersections. Providing design treatments focused on improving safety and comfort at intersections could help reduce collision frequency and severity. • Commercial and retail development potential along Citrus Avenue, San Bernardino Road, and Badillo Street and the 12 potential transit-oriented development sites in the study area provide a look-ahead at major destinations and travel patterns in the coming years. The multidisciplinary nature of the CASMCP provides an exciting opportunity to align recommended investments with forecasted growth.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
City Mobility
Snapshot
Demographics
Journey to work mode breakdown
CHTS all trips breakdown
Worker inflow/outflow
Commute times
Existing transit ridership

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
City Mobility Snapshot Demographic Highlights

L A N G U A G E S S P O K E N A T H O M E
Covina LA County
English Only 52% 43%
Language other than English 48% 57%

V E H I C L E A V A I L A B I L I T Y
Covina LA County
None 2.5% 3.9%
1 or more 97.5% 96.1%

M E D I A N I N C O M E
Covina LA County
$70,780 $68,044
The City of Covina is
diverse. Almost half
of residents speak a
language other than
English at home and
over 70% of residents
are people of color.

Source:
2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, US Census
ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates (Race), Languages Spoken at Home, Age and Sex (Median Age). Median Income, Commuting Characteristics By Sex (Vehicle Availability)

R A C E
Covina LA County
Hispanic or Latino 49% 59%
White alone 26% 23%
Asian & Pacific Islander alone 15% 13%
Black or African American alone 8% 3%
Two or More Races <1% 2%
American Indian & Alaska Native alone <1% <1%
Other Race <1% <1%

M E D I A N A G E
Covina LA County
English Only 37.3 36.5

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
A majority of block groups in the study area
fall within or above the City’s median
income. Lower-income block groups are
mostly located east of Citrus Avenue.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
City Mobility Snapshot Median Income
Source:

California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data Viewer; ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Two census tracts in the study area
contain “Sensitive Communities”. A
“Sensitive Community” is defined as having a
large proportion of very low-income
residents, renters, people of color, and rent
increases above the county median.

One census tract is a designated
“Disadvantaged Community”.
“Disadvantaged Communities” are defined
as those disproportionately affected by a
combination of economic, health, and
environmental burdens. These communities
have a CalEnviroScreen score in the 75th
percentile or higher.

For more information on these data sources
and their associated indicators, please see
the Equity Technical Study included as an
appendix.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
City Mobility Snapshot Sensitive Communities
Source:

California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data Viewer; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (UDP)

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Source:

Journey to work mode split, Census
Households without vehicles, Census
Overall mode split, California Household Travel Survey
City Mobility Snapshot Mode Share
Drive
Alone, 43%
Shared
Ride, 50%
Transit, 1%
Bike, 1%
Walk, 4% Other, 1%
Drive Alone,
75%
Shared Ride, 12%
Transit, 5%
Bike, 1%
Walk, 1%
Other, 1%
Worked at
Home, 6%
Commute Mode Share
All Trips Mode Share
Covina is an auto-oriented
community, with 75% of
commuters choosing to drive alone.

However, almost 20% of commute
times in Covina are less than 15
minutes. These shorter trips could
present an opportunity for mode
shift if safe, comfortable, and
reliable biking and transit options
were provided.

People may also prefer not to drive
for local trips to schools, parks, or
shopping, but don’t currently feel
they have a viable alternative.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
City Mobility Snapshot Mode Share
A community survey was developed to understand existing mobility patterns and preferences throughout the study area. The survey was live from August through October 2022. 58 responses were received. Key takeaways from the survey are included below. More details on the survey are included in Appendix A and B.

P R I M A R Y C O N C E R N S B A R R I E R S T O W A L K I N G &

B I K I N G

D E S I R E D I M P R O V E M E N T S
» Safety
» Inadequate
crosswalks
» Comfort/lack of
shade
» Safety
» Security/ bike
friendly
infrastructure
» Safety
» Reliability/conve
nience
0 10 20 30
Distance
Weather
Physical conditions
Transportation
conditions
Social conditions
Lack of bike
infrastructure
Poor or no transit
service/amenities
I haven’t considered
it
I like to drive
I already use active
transportation…
Other - Write In
0 5 10 15 20
Crosswalks/Signals
Bike lanes
Speed bumps
Street lighting
Sidewalk
Safety
Visibility
Shade/Tree Canopy
Connectivity
Beautification
Dedicated bus lane
Bike-friendly…
Security
Street/Road…
Signs
Trash cans
Local bus/shuttle
Social conditions
Transit conditions
Bike-friendly
infrastructure
Street/Road Conditions

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Covina has a very
balanced employment
ratio, with almost just
as many workers
commuting into Covina
as out.

Approx. 7% of
residents/workers stay
within the City, while
the vast majority
commute to/from other
locations
City Mobility Snapshot Worker Inflow/Outflow
Workers living &
employed in Covina
1,675
Workers employed in Covina,
but living outside
21,817
Workers living in
Covina, but employed
outside
21,273
Worker Inflow/Outflow (2019)
Source:

U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2019)
More information on commute travel patterns can be
found in the Market Technical Study.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
City Mobility Snapshot Transit Ridership
Source:

Foothill Transit 2018 Ridership Data
The study area’s most active bus stops are
along its periphery on Azusa Avenue and Arrow
Highway. The Azusa Avenue corridor provides
direct access to the Azusa L (Gold) Line Station
to the north.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing
Transportation
Facilities
Pedestrian facilities
Bike facilities
Transit lines/stops
Tree canopy
Major road right-of-way (ROWs)

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
Existing Transportation Facilities Pedestrian Crosswalks & Sidewalk Gaps 100% 49 of 49 total
Of signalized intersections with
marked crosswalks along at least one leg
86% 42 of 49 total
Of signalized intersections with
marked crosswalks on all legs
80% 233 of 292 total
Of crosswalks are controlled (either by stop
control or signals)
Ongoing sidewalk and crosswalk improvements
include: • Sidewalk improvements on Workman
Street between Citrus Avenue and
Hollenbeck Avenue
• Crosswalk upgrades at two midblock
crosswalks on College Avenue (near Badillo
Street and Orange Street), including
installation of in-pavement flashers

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Badillo Street/Amel Drive
Multi-lane uncontrolled crosswalk with highvisibility crosswalk striping Puente Street near Sierra Middle School
Pedestrian flashers ahead of an unsignalized
crosswalk. Limited visibility of the specific
crosswalk location due to faded pavement
markings.

Italia Street/2nd Avenue
Side-street stop control with standard crosswalk
striping. Pedestrians cross six lanes of traffic.

Midblock on Citrus Avenue
Decorative uncontrolled midblock crosswalk near
downtown
Midblock on Rowland Avenue
Pedestrian crossing signage in a school zone with
limited visibility of the specific crosswalk location
due to faded pavement markings.

College Street/3rd Avenue
All-way stop control with standard crosswalk
striping
Existing Transportation Facilities Typical Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Conditions Image Source: Google Earth

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Bike Facilities
90 miles of roadway

3.6 miles of Class II bike lanes

1.2 miles of Class III bike routes with
sharrows

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
There are opportunities to enhance both the
connectivity and comfort of bike facilities by
identifying a low-stress network throughout
the study area.

This could include adding new facilities on key
arterials and collectors, identifying critical
neighborhood streets, and enhancing
existing facilities.

0.75 miles of planned Class II bike lanes
on Citrus Avenue between Badillo Street and
Workman Street

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Typical Bike Facility Treatments Bike lanes in the study area are typically 5-6 feet
in width and positioned between the parking
lane and auto lanes. Bike stencils are used at the intersection, but not typically used midblock.

Mixing zones to accommodate right turns are
common throughout the study area.

Conflict striping and green paint are not typical
Other Bike Treatments in the Study Area
Front Street/2nd Street
Green bike boxes
Badillo Street
Buffered Bike Lanes
2nd Street
Bike Route signage
Image Source: Google Earth

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Transit Service
Foothill Transit is the primary bus transit
operator in Covina, operating nine routes in the
study area.

Metrolink also serves Covina; the San
Bernardino line stops in the study area.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Route Route Name Weekday Weekend/Holiday
Peak Off-Peak Hours Peak Off-Peak Hours
190 El Monte - West Covina - Pomona 20 30 5am-1am 30-60 60 6am-1am 280* Azusa - Puente Hills Mall via Azusa Ave 15* 20 5am-12pm 30 30 6am-11pm 281 Glendora - Azusa - West Covina - Puente Hills Mall 30 30 5am-10pm 60 60 6am-8pm 284 West Covina - Covina - San Dimas - Glendora 60 60 6am-9pm 45 90 6am-6pm 480 Montclair - Pomona - West Covina via Mission Blvd 20 30 5am-12am 30 60 5am-12am 488 Glendora - West Covina - El Monte 25 60 4am-10pm 60 60 7am-11pm 490* Grand Ave. Park & Ride - Covina Transit Center -
Downtown Los Angeles Express Service 15* 30 5am-8pm n/a 492 Montclair - Arcadia - El Monte via Arrow Hwy 20 30 5am-11pm 30 30 6am-11pm 851 Covina - Glendora 30 – peak only n/a 7am-4pm n/a
Metrolink San Bernardino 25 60 5am-10pm 60 120 7am-10pm Source: Foothill Transit November 2021 Timetables; Metrolink April 2022 Timetables *High Frequency Routes are routes with 15 minutes or better frequency during weekday service Existing Transportation Facilities Transit Service Headways and Hours of Operation

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Transit Stop Amenities 97% 65 of 67 total
Of Stops have a place to sit (bench or shelter)
51% 34 of 67 total
Of stops have shade (shelter)
<1% 2 of 67 total
Of stops have no amenities

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
Ongoing transit stop improvements include: • Installation of five new bus shelters on Grand Avenue

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Tree Canopy
The City of Covina has a 16% tree canopy
coverage, compared to the County average
of 20%.

The average August temperature in Covina
is 91°. 90° is the threshold for “extreme heat
conditions”, requiring your body to work
extra hard to maintain normal temperatures.

There is a critical opportunity to expand
shade coverage to provide relief for people
walking, biking, and waiting for transit.

Planting new trees would require utility and
maintenance coordination to ensure new
trees don’t conflict with existing utility
locations and can be watered regularly.

Source:

Los Angeles County Tree Canopy Map Viewer (Tree People) Weather Spark Climate Comparison
Ready.gov/heat

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Excess roadway capacity along major
arterials can lead to increased speeds
and limited spaces for people to walk
and bike.

Concrete center medians typically
lack green space or placemaking and
increase the impermeable surface of
the roadway, placing an increased
burden on stormwater systems.

Similarly, frontage roads tend to lack
green space and placemaking
amenities.

Right-turn merge lanes and wide curb
radii increase crossing distances for
pedestrians and allow for high speeds
of turning vehicles.

Center medians can be redesigned to
provide natural habitat, placemaking,
and green stormwater infrastructure.

Small, narrow spaces can be
repurposed to provide pedestrian
walking paths, tree canopy, and open
space.

Curb extensions can be added to
shorten pedestrian crossing
distances, slow vehicle turning
movements, and provide green
infrastructure.

Rebalancing the right-of-way can
help create protected facilities and
increased green infrastructure.

Existing Transportation Facilities Vehicle Space Placemaking Opportunities Image Source: Google Earth.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Transportation Facilities Curb-to-Curb on Major Roads The curb-to-curb in the study area varies from
50 to 80 feet.

These wide roads present an opportunity to
rebalance the right-of-way to provide
dedicated space for people walking, biking, and
on transit.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Pedestrian and Bike
Comfort and Safety
Pedestrian safety
Bike safety
Wejo speed data

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Facilities
Comfort & Safety Pedestrian Injury Collision History
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Injury Collisions Collision Average = 12.2/year KSI Average = 2.2/year
Source:

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2011-2020
Note that 2020 data is provisional.

There were 122 reported
pedestrian injury collisions in
the study area between 2011
and 2020.

Killed and Severely Injured
(KSI) collisions are collisions
that resulted in a fatality of
life-altering injury.

While there has been a
downward trend in total injury
collisions since 2016, KSI
collision trends have not seen
that same trend.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Comfort & Safety Pedestrian Injury Collision History
Of the 122 injury pedestrian collisions, 64%
occurred at an intersection. 9 of the 29 injury collisions where the pedestrian was “crossing not in a crosswalk”
occurred at an intersection. K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
Pedestrian Action %
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 56%
Crossing in Crosswalk not at intersection 3%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 27%
In Road, Including Shoulder 8%
Not in Road 5%
Not Stated 1%
Source:

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2011-2020
Note that 2020 data is provisional.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Comfort & Safety Bicycle Injury Collision History
Source:

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2011-2020
Note that 2020 data is provisional.

There were 92 reported bicycle
injury collisions in the study area
between 2011 and 2020.

While there has been a downward
trend in total injury collisions since
2017, KSI collision trends have not
seen that same trend.

There have been no bike-involved
fatalities over the ten-year period
in the study area.
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Injury Collisions Collision Average = 9.2/year
KSI Average = 0.5/year

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Comfort & Safety Bicycle Injury Collision History
63% of bicycle collisions occurred at
intersections.
28% occurred on a street with an existing
dedicated bike facility despite just 5% of
roads having facilities, suggesting that more
robust treatments may be needed.
“Wrong side of road” collisions occur when a
bicyclist is biking contraflow to traffic, either in
the roadway or on the sidewalk. This commonly
occurs when the on-road bicycle facility is
uncomfortable, and bicyclists want to be able
to see the cars ahead of them. Education,
encouragement, and enhanced bike facilities
can help mitigate this behavior.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
Top 5 Primary Collision Factors (PCF) %
Wrong Side of Road 47%
Vehicle Right of Way Violation 12%
Traffic Signals and Signs 11%
Improper Turning 9%
Other Hazardous Violation 7%
Source:

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2011-2020
Note that 2020 data is provisional.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Facilities
Comfort & Safety Auto Speeds Weekday Average
Speed is the most significant factor in
determining severity of collisions. As speed
increases, so does the likelihood of a serious
injury or fatality.

As speed increases from 20 miles per hour
(MPH) to 40 MPH, the likelihood of a
pedestrian surviving a crash drops from 90% to
20%.

Speed management will be an important
focus in creating safe and comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
Source:

Wejo Data, 2019.

ITE Safe Systems Framework
There are a handful of residential roadway
segments shown on the map where data shows
average speeds beyond 40 MPH. We would like
to explore further with the City the feasibility of
speeding on these segments, or if this is data
noise.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Facilities
Comfort & Safety Auto Speeds Weekday Overnight
Source:

Wejo Data, 2019
The number of high-speed segments where the
average speed is 40 MPH or more increases in
the overnight hours and over the weekend
when streets are less congested.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
There are a handful of residential roadway
segments shown on the map where data shows
average speeds beyond 40 MPH. We would like
to explore further with the City the feasibility of
speeding on these segments, or if this is data
noise.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Existing Facilities
Comfort & Safety Auto Speeds Weekend Daily
Source:

Wejo Data, 2019
There are a handful of residential roadway
segments shown on the map where data shows
average speeds beyond 40 MPH. We would like
to explore further with the City the feasibility of
speeding on these segments, or if this is data
noise.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Major Destinations
& Accessibility
Key districts in the study area
Transit accessibility
Location of top employers
Access to grocery stores & parks
Economic development corridors and Transit-Oriented-Development sites

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Covina Town Square | Several shopping
centers within this area. There are also a few
adjacent multi-family residential developments
such as the Nantucket Village and Covina
Grand Apartments
Health Services | Location of local hospital and
several dental and health clinics
Downtown | Small retailers and local
restaurants. Has a more walkable and
pedestrian-oriented environment. Also contains
several civic facilities (library, city hall) and
museums.

Auto Dealership | Location of several auto
dealerships (Chevrolet, Kia, Buick), light auto
repair services, such as oil changes, and car
rentals.

Industrial Park | Heavier industrial uses
including auto body repair shops.

Business Park | Several offices in light
manufacturing and professional services. Also
contains Arrow Lodge Brewing.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S
A
F
E
C
B
D
Major Destinations & Accessibility Key Districts

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Major Destinations & Accessibility Transit Accessibility 70% of the study area within a 5-minute
walk of a bus stop
3% of bus stops are located midblock
97% of stops have a marked crosswalk
within 250’

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Major Destinations & Accessibility Top Employers
Employer Sector Employees
Covina Unified School District Education 1,365
Citrus Valley Health Partners –
Intercommunity Healthcare 829
Charter Oak Unified School District Education 630
Charter Healthcare of San Gabriel Valley Healthcare 535 Ikea Retail 325
Walmart Retail 265
City of Covina Government 244
VITAS Innovative Hospice Care Healthcare 221
The Home Depot Retail 211
Composites Horizons LLC Aerospace 204
Among the top ten employers in the City, three are healthcare related, three are school districts / local government, three are major big box retailers, and one is an aerospace components firm.

Five of these major employers have operations within the CASMCP area, with several others located just outside of CASMCP boundaries, suggesting workers at these firms could benefit from active transportation improvements.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Major Destinations & Accessibility Existing Parks & Groceries 75% of the study area is within a ½-mile
radius from either recreational space or
grocery stores.

While a ½-mile to 1-mile may be too far to
walk for some pedestrians, that is just a two-tofour-minute bike ride for the average rider.

There are opportunities to promote access to
these destinations by providing direct bicycle
connections.

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Major Destinations & Accessibility Key Corridors and TOD Sites

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Study
• Demographics
• Socioeconomics
• CalEnviroScreen
• Disadvantaged Communities
• Sensitive Communities
• Healthy Places Index
• Park Access
• Grocery Store Access
• Housing and Transportation Affordability Index
Existing
Conditions

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Demographic Snapshot of the City
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
American Indian & Alaska Native alone
Two or more races
Black or African American alone
Asian & Pacific Islander alone
White alone
Hispanic or Latino
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles County
(Countywide)
Race & Ethnicity
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Senior Adult (65+)
Middle Age (45-64)
Young Adults (25-44
College Age (18-24)
School Age (5-17)
Pre-school (Under 5 years)
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles County
(Countywide)
Age
In both Covina and the Los Angeles County, Hispanic
or Latino residents make up the largest ethnic group.

Covina has approximately 20 percent more Hispanic or
Latino residents than the County.

Covina has a similar age composition as the County.

The median age for Covina is 37.3 years old and 36.5
years old for the County.

Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Predominant Population
Hispanic or Latino residents are a
predominant population in the
City. Within the study area, most
Census tracts contain a Sizeable
Hispanic majority. One Census
tract contains a Slim Hispanic
majority.

The map indicates the extent to which one
group is dominant over the next most populous.
• Predominant means the group contains 50%
or more people than the next most populous.
• Sizeable means the group contains 10-20%
more people than the next most populous.
• Slim means the group contains 10 percent or
less people than the next most populous.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development, AFFH Data Viewer; US Census Bureau SFI and TIGER data sets 2010

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Demographic Snapshot of the City
Median Income
$70,780
78% 74%
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles
County
(Countywide)
Drive Alone No Vehicle Available
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles
County
(Countywide)

2.5% 3.9%
The median income is 4 percent higher in Covina than
in the County. In the City, there are no significant
disparities between groups, unlike in the County
where most people of color have significantly lower
incomes than White residents.

Covina has a similar commuting and vehicle
accessibility trends as the County. Roughly ¾ of
residents in both the County and City drive alone to
work. The County has a slightly higher proportion of
households without a vehicle.
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
Other
American Indian & Alaska Native alone
Two or more races
Black or African American alone
Asian & Pacific Islander alone
White alone
Hispanic or Latino
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles County
(Countywide)
$68,044
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Median Income
A majority of block groups in the
study area fall within or above the
City’s median income. Lowerincome block groups are mostly located east of Citrus Avenue.

Note: Median Income shown at Block Group geography level.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development, AFFH Data Viewer; ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Demographics of Survey Respondents
An online survey has been used to hear more from residents about how they travel and move about the downtown
Covina area. The survey is meant to inform the public about the project, but to also get an initial understanding of existing conditions from residents themselves. The following provides a brief summary of the information gathered so far.

Based on 58 completed online surveys:
» Race and ethnicity of survey respondents are a similar proportion to citywide demographics.
» The age composition of survey respondents is similar to that of the city but missing the over 65 age groups.
» A majority of survey respondents are women.

Given the total number of survey responses, the survey may not accurately reflect the city’s population and
demographics because of the small sample size. However, these responses do provide some insight into emerging
trends. See pages 36 and 37 for more details on the survey methodology.

Race and Ethnicity Age Gender
Woman
Man
Non-binary
I prefer not to answer
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
I prefer not to answer
Over 75
65-74
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
18-24
Under 18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
I prefer not to answer
Alaskan Native
First Nation/American Indian/Indigenous
Middle Eastern/North African
Black or African American
Pacific Islander
Asian or Asian American or South Asian
White/European American
Hispanic or Latino/x

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
78% 74%
Covina
(Citywide)
Los Angeles
County
(Countywide)
Covina Los Angeles
County

2.5% 3.9%
Do you have access to a personal vehicle?
86% said yes versus only 3.5% that said no
Drive Alone No Vehicle Available
Census Demographic Data
Access to vehicles among survey respondents is
similar to citywide demographic information.

Given the total number of survey responses, the
survey may not accurately reflect the city’s population and demographics because of the small sample size
Equity Transportation Habits of Survey Respondents
I own a personal vehicle
My household has access to
a personal vehicle
No, I do not have access to a
personal vehicle

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Alternative Transportation Habits of Survey Respondents Respondents were asked to describe their tendency to use alternative means of transportation, specifically for walking, biking, and taking transit. For each of these three modes they were asked how often they used that mode for their trips. They were also asked to indicate top concerns that kept them from using any of these modes.

Responses show:
» People are more likely to walk than bike or take transit. » The interested but concerned cohort is consistent in size for walking, biking, and transit.
» Not interested cohort is larger for bicycling and taking transit compared to walking.
» Inaccessibility is an issue for all three modes, but larger for bicycles and transit.

Top Concerns:
» Safety
» Security/ bike
friendly
infrastructure
Top Concerns:
» Safety
» Inadequate
crosswalks
» Comfort/lack
of shade
Top Concerns:
» Safety
» Reliability/co
nvenience
I walk/bike/take transit for a majority of trips
I walk/bike/take transit for some trips
I would like to state walking/biking/taking transit but have concerns Walking/biking/taking transit is not an accessible option for me I am not interested in walking/biking/taking transit
I walk/bike/take transit for as many trips as I can

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Why did you rank your first choice first?
Rank the modes of transportation you
use most often to get downtown
Equity Active Transportation Habits – Downtown Covina
Personal vehicle is the most popular mode used to get
to Downtown. This correlates with the citywide
household access to vehicles.

Walking is the second most popular way for people to
get to Downtown. This follows a higher preference of
people to walk places as compared to bicycle and
transit generally.

Choosing to use a personal automobile is used most
often because of its convenience and availability.

People who choose to walk do so more for enjoyment
and convenience, just above what is affordable and
available to them.

Note: Other-write in was safety.

Survey Respondents:
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Convenient Available Affordable Enjoyment Other- Write in Personal Vehicle Walk Bike Transit Other

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Indices and Tools that Identify Community Inequities Identifying Community Inequities
This study used three publicly available tools to identify inequities within the study area. Each of these tools examine a variety of factors relating to the social, health, and environmental conditions of communities statewide.

While two of these indices evaluate similar indicators, each one has a different focus.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 identifies communities most affected by pollution and the population characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to pollution effects. It uses two groups of indicators to produce an overall composite score; pollution burdens and population characteristics.

Produced by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Healthy Places Index 3.0 quantifies factors that shape health to compare the health and well-being of communities and identify where health inequities exist. It combines 23 community characteristics into a single indexed score.

Produced by the California Public Health Alliance.

Sensitive Communities identifies communities vulnerable to displacement by analyzing criteria that would make it difficult for a household to afford drastic shifts in housing costs in the event of increased development.

Produced by the UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement Project.

For the purposes of this study, both the similarities and variations in the three indices help identify potentially differing opportunities, challenges, and priorities within different neighborhoods in the study area. For example, one neighborhood might be more concerned about housing issues versus transportation-related burdens.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Pollution Burden
» Ozone
» PM 2.5
» Children’s Lead Risk
from Housing
» Diesel Particulate
Matter
» Drinking Water
Contaminant
» Pesticide Use
» Toxic Release from
Facilities
» Traffic Impacts
» Cleanup Sites
» Groundwater Threats
» Hazardous Waste
Generators & Facilities
» Impaired Water Bodies
» Solid Waste and
Facilities
Population
Characteristics
» Asthma
» Cardiovascular Disease
» Low Birth Weight
Infants
» Educational Attainment
» Housing Burden
» Linguistic Isolation
» Poverty
» Unemployment
Healthy Places Index 3.0
» Population above
Poverty
» Population that is
Employed
» Per Capita Income
» Pre-School Enrollment
» High School Enrollment
» Bachelor’s Degree
Attainment
» 2020 Census Response
Rate
» Registered Voters
» Automobile Access
» Active Commuting
» Park Access
» Retail Density
» Tree Canopy
» Homeownership
» Housing Habitability
» Low-Income
Homeowner Severe
Housing Cost Burden
» Low-Income Renter
Severe Housing Cost
Burden
» Uncrowded Housing
» Diesel PM
» Drinking Water
» Ozone
» PM 2.5
» Insured Adults
Sensitive Communities
» Share of very low
income residents is
above 20%
AND
» Share of renters is
above 40%
» Share of people of
color is above 50%
» Share of very-low
income households
that are severely rent
burdened above
county median
» Tracts or areas in close
proximity have been
experiencing
displacement
pressures.

Displacement pressure is
defined as:
» Percent change in rent
above county median
for rent increases,
2012-2017
OR
» Difference between
tract median rent and
median rent for
surrounding tracts
above median for all
tracts in county (rent
gap), 2017
Comparison of Indicators

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
2 Census tracts contain Sensitive
Communities
A sensitive Community is defined as having a
large proportion of very low-income residents,
renters, people of color, and rent increases
above the county median.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development, AFFH Data Viewer; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
Note: The UDP uses ACS 2012-2017 5-Year Estimates data.

Equity Communities Vulnerable to Displacement

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Composite Score and Disadvantaged Communities 1 Census tract qualifies as a Disadvantaged
Community (DAC)
Disadvantaged Communities are defined as
those disproportionately affected by a
combination of economic, health, and
environmental burdens. These communities have
a CalEnviroScreen score in the 75th percentile or
higher.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development, AFFH Data Viewer; CalEnviroScreen 4.0

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity CalEnviroScreen 4.0 - Pollution Burdens
PM 2.5 and Ozone are the
highest-ranking pollution burdens
throughout the study area.

A majority of the top pollution burdens within
the study area and the disadvantaged
community relates to transportation.

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

D I S A D V A N T A G E D C O M M U N I T Y

S T A T S
86th percentile traffic impacts
Traffic impacts is a measure of the number of
vehicles on the roads in an area.
85th percentile PM 2.5
Particulate Matter, or PM 2.5, is an air pollutant
that contains a mixture of organic chemicals,
dust, soot, and metals. These particles usually
come from cars, trucks, factories and other
activities.
77th percentile ozone
Ozone is found in smog and at ground level it is
formed when pollutants chemically react in the
presence of sunlight. Cars, factories, farms, are
some main sources of ozone pollution.

Pollution Burdens
CalEnviroScreen pollution
burden score uses various
pollution indicators to
represent potential
exposures to pollutants and
adverse environmental
conditions caused by
pollution.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Population Characteristics A majority of Census tracts have a
population score within the 50th
to 65th percentile range, including
the disadvantaged community.

Within the disadvantaged community, there are
only two indicators that scored in the 75th
percentile or higher ranking.

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

D I S A D V A N T A G E D C O M M U N I T Y

S T A T S
96th percentile housing burden
Housing burdened low income households are
households that are both low income and highly
burdened by housings costs. Severe cost burden is
defined as paying more than 50 percent of income
on housing.
85th percentile linguistic isolation
Linguistic isolation is a term used by the US Census
Bureau to describe limited English-speaking
households. Members in these households speak a
language other than English and speak English less
than “very well.”
Population Characteristics
CalEnviroScreen’s population
characteristics score uses
both health and
socioeconomic indicators
that can contribute to a
community’s vulnerability to
pollution.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores for Census Tract in the Study Area Census Tracts
Percentiles and Indicators
CES 4.0 Percentile Pollution Indicators
Percentile
Population
Characteristics
Percentile
Census Tracts in Study Area
4036 49 79 30
4037.21 54 63 44
4037.22 64 75 51
4038.01 49 40 51
4058 62 82 44
4059 51 36 56
4060 51 47 50
4061.01 59 62 51
4061.02 65 63 59
4062 77 81 66

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Pollution Burden Scores and Indicators
Census
Tracts
Percentiles and Indicators
Pollution ScoreCleanup SitesGrndwaterThreatsToxic Release InventoryPM2.5TrafficDiesel PMDrinking WaterOzoneLead Study Area
4036 79 0 0 77 87 91 51 96 77 72
4037.21 63 9 28 76 80 34 32 91 79 64
4037.22 75 0 23 76 86 41 31 92 78 85
4038.01 40 0 4 75 87 30 45 77 80 53
4058 82 71 25 77 72 47 72 30 80 81
4059 36 2 2 75 75 38 33 42 80 85
4060 47 9 5 77 75 39 37 79 79 79
4061.01 62 19 17 77 80 31 54 50 78 80
4061.02 63 5 5 77 85 31 78 50 77 82
4062 81 0 0 78 85 86 75 93 77 76
The study will not be able to address pollution burdens outside the realm of transportation because the study focus is to create better conditions for alternative means of transportation. Although these areas experience a number of burdens, addressing the ones related to transportation – i.e., improving walking, biking, and transit conditions could relieve pollution burdens related to transportation (e.g. PM 2.5, diesel PM, traffic, and ozone) by encouraging residents to drive less - will contribute to addressing burdens overall.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Population Characteristics Scores and Indicators Census
Tracts
Percentiles and Indicators
Population ScoreAsthmaLow Birth WeightCardio Disease
Edu. Attainmt.Linguistic IsolationPovertyUnemploy.

Housing Burden
Study Area
4036 30 29 68 15 58 56 30 6 28
4037.21 44 48 42 37 45 29 38 72 59
4037.22 51 61 31 49 57 47 60 50 56
4038.01 51 52 43 53 40 50 50 81 39
4058 44 51 41 48 66 58 36 49 15
4059 56 59 18 61 74 51 74 87 26
4060 50 46 62 37 53 55 37 63 47
4061.01 51 72 39 49 48 47 35 43 65
4061.02 59 81 48 62 45 27 57 51 58
4062 66 36 72 23 73 85 70 58 96

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Healthy Places Index

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S
49th percentile HPI composite score
Two of the lowest ranking categories within the
study area relate to housing and transportation.

The low scores within the study area are largely
driven by the low scores in the disadvantaged
community. 4
th percentile transportation category
» % of households with access to an auto » % of workers commuting by alternative modes
10th percentile housing category » % of occupied housing units by property owners
» % households with complete kitchen and
plumbing
» % of low income homeowners paying more
than 50% of income on housing
» % of low income renter households paying
more than 50% of income on housing
» % of households with less or equal to 1
occupant per room
Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California, California Healthy Places Index 3.0

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Healthy Places Index Indicators and Percentile Score Comparison Healthy Places Index Indicators and Community
Characteristics Covina Study Area
4036 4037.21 4037.22 4038.01 4058 4059 4060 4061.01 4061.02 4062 Economic 63.3 7.9 56.7 66.3 37.3 43.6 55.6 28.9 55.4 77.5 50.2 41.2 Above Poverty 58.3 44.8 54.9 55.1 28.3 42.7 61.1 19.9 59.1 62.5 39.2 30.7 Employed 80.1 36.4 70.2 93.7 62.1 50.1 70.8 48.5 69.6 98.8 80.0 66.8 Per Capita Income 48.2 39.4 47.2 43.8 29.8 42.4 32.7 28.5 36.5 48.9 36.6 37.0 Education 60.0 13.8 81.3 69.7 40.8 57.0 54.1 61.4 60.0 56.6 48.8 4.9 Pre-School Enrollment 55.9 55.3 52.1 33.1 28.4 47.1 27.5 34.2 47.3 46.1 39.1 29.1 High School Enrollment 35.2 23.9 63.0 63.0 24.5 63.0 63.0 25.5 9.2 63.0 63.0 8.7 Bachelor’s Degree Attainment 23.9 38.1 95.1 87.6 49.7 56.9 68.4 77.8 95.1 57.3 48.8 12.1 Social 52.1 7.2 58.3 47.1 29.1 44.2 49.1 50.7 52.5 39.0 34.0 35.3 2020 Census Response Rate 63.5 48.7 54.1 50.3 25.8 48.1 64.5 57.3 54.1 35.3 N/A 40.1 Voting 28.7 12.4 57.5 41.6 32.6 38.9 35.0 41.4 46.7 41.3 32.8 31.5 Transportation 52.5 3.9 86.7 19.4 82.4 75.5 86.7 47.7 84.1 38.1 10.0 4.3 Automobile Access 36.4 50.6 88.8 28.9 65.5 75.7 93.3 49.3 60.2 36.6 19.8 7.4 Active Commuting 74.8 50.2 62.5 48.1 68.2 53.7 59.7 52.3 72.6 60.7 44.5 71.3 » Lower percentile scores indicate less healthy conditions. » The Study Area percentile scores represent the combined score of all the Census tracts in the study area. » Percentile ranking is based on comparisons relative to that geography. For example, Study Area compares to other state Census tracts, Covina to other state cities, and Los Angeles County to other state Counties.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Healthy Places Index Indicators
Healthy Places Index Indicators and Community
Characteristics Covina Study Area
4036 4037.21 4037.22 4038.01 4058 4059 4060 4061.01 4061.02 4062 Neighborhood 39.2 17.9 26.4 57.0 34.7 18.8 25.9 32.3 35.4 56.7 41.1 13.3 Park Access 57.7 32.8 20.4 80.1 38.8 22.3 29.5 47.4 37.4 80.1 36.0 13.4 Retail Density 91.2 37.2 81.7 77.5 82.5 78.7 81.6 35.5 79.7 71.4 91.6 89.1 Tree Canopy 21.6 42.7 76.1 16.4 18.2 12.4 20.3 15.2 40.8 27.5 17.5 13.2 Housing 32.1 9.6 76.9 44.6 28.3 47.0 68.0 61.5 50.6 50.0 23.7 11.2 Homeownership 27.9 49.6 73.7 48.2 28.3 57.9 56.0 63.7 63.0 28.0 8.8 26.5 Housing Habitability 37.7 41.4 56.9 49.4 12.1 23.9 80.9 80.9 38.5 42.5 19.6 26.9 Low-Income Homeowner Severe Housing Cost Burden 47.8 60.3 28.9 41.1 85.6 85.8 89.5 49.3 33.0 46.5 17.0 9.9 Low-Income Renter Severe Housing Cost Burden 56.0 57.8 91.9 15.3 60.3 17.1 64.0 53.3 38.9 56.9 83.0 4.0 Uncrowded Housing 28.9 47.2 41.2 72.2 12.3 42.6 24.6 35.0 47.0 65.1 28.2 33.8 Clean Environment 16.0 11.4 9.7 14.7 27.8 16.7 31.2 37.1 28.4 28.9 24.3 11.8 Diesel PM 21.9 48.8 49.1 68.3 69.3 55.3 27.8 67.4 63.6 45.8 21.8 24.5 Drinking Water 29.8 72.0 1.6 3.4 31.9 13.2 62.3 62.3 33.7 37.8 37.8 7.4 Ozone 19.4 72.9 23.8 22.3 22.3 20.7 18.6 20.7 20.7 22.3 23.8 23.8 PM 2.5 12.9 57.5 12.6 20.3 14.3 13.5 28.7 25.8 24.8 19.7 14.7 15.4 Healthcare Access 47.6 10.0 45.4 38.7 37.8 61.3 41.6 34.6 51.3 70.6 33.4 35.3 Insured Adults 43.9 16.9 45.4 38.7 37.8 61.3 41.6 34.6 51.3 70.6 33.4 35.3 » Lower percentile scores indicate less healthy conditions. » The Study Area percentile scores represent the combined score of all the Census tracts in the study area. » Percentile ranking is based on comparisons relative to that geography. For example, Study Area compares to other state Census tracts, Covina to other state cities, and Los Angeles County to other state Counties.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
The two identified sensitive
communities have differing
conditions.

Census tract 4037.21 is the healthiest tract in the
study area despite it qualifying as a sensitive
community. Census tract 4062 is one of the least
healthy tracts in the study area, indicating it
bears a variety of burdens in addition to
pollution.

Equity Healthy Places Index Scores in Disadvantaged and Sensitive Communities

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S
57th percentile HPI composite score
This tract scores the lowest in clean environment
and transportation but scores well in the
economic, education, and neighborhood
categories likely due to access to parks and
commercial uses on Citrus Avenue.

C E N S U S T R A C T 4 0 3 7 . 2 1
22nd percentile HPI composite score
This tract scores poorly in several categories,
with many ranking in the 15th percentile. Some
of the lowest ranking categories relate to
housing, transportation, and neighborhood
conditions.

C E N S U S T R A C T 4 0 6 2

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Parks and Open Space Inventory
6 City-owned parks
30 Acres of parkland
5acre average park size

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S
Amenities include:
2 pools
1soccer field
1 splash pad
3 basketball courts
7 playgrounds
3community centers
6 multi-purpose fields

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
25%
of study area residents live farther than ½
mile from a park
Generally, the study area has a
good amount of larger park
space, with an average park size
of five acres. However, it still lacks
smaller neighborhood-style parks
or parklets that are less than one
acre in size. These smaller parks
can increase park access where it
is currently lacking.

Source: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Park Access Tool.

Equity Park Access in the Study Area

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
25%
of households live farther than a ½ mile from
a grocery store
Source: ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates
Equity Grocery Store Access in the Study Area

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
58%
Average percent of household income
dedicated to housing and transportation
vs. 59% in Covina; 57% in Los Angeles
County; 84% in California
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index
Equity Housing and Transportation Affordability Index in the Study Area

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S
35%
Average percent of household income
dedicated to housing (e.g., rent, mortgage)
vs. 35% in Covina; 35% in Los Angeles
County; 43% in California
Additionally, city level data show that 41% of all
city households are cost-burdened, meaning
they spend 30% or more of their income on
housing costs. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Tables 2015-2019
24%
Average percent of household income
dedicated to transportation (e.g. auto
payment, fuel, transit costs)
vs. 24% in Covina; 22% in Los Angeles
County; 41% California
Study area is performing
similar to the City of Covina
and LA County. The Study
Area is performing better
than California.

K e y T a k e - a - W a y

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Pedestrian Collisions in Disadvantaged and Sensitive Communities

D A C & S E N S I T I V E C O M M U N I T Y

S T A T S
18 total pedestrian collisions
vs. 122 total pedestrian collisions in whole
study area
DAC and Sensitive Areas = 24% of population
DAC and Sensitive Areas = 14% of collisions
Collisions are concentrated along major
corridors (Badillo, San Bernadino, Arrow
Hwy, and Citrus) rather than within
disadvantaged and sensitive communities.

Source: SWITRS/TIMS, 2011-2020

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Bicycle Collisions in Disadvantaged and Sensitive Communities

D A C & S E N S I T I V E C O M M U N I T Y

S T A T S
14 total bicycle collisions
vs. 92 total pedestrian collisions in whole
study area
DAC and Sensitive Areas = 24% of population
DAC and Sensitive Area = 15% of collisions
Collisions are concentrated along major
corridors (Rowland, Badillo, Arrow Hwy,
Azusa, Grand and Citrus) rather than within
disadvantaged and sensitive communities.

Source: SWITRS/TIMS, 2011-2020

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Transit Amenities in Disadvantaged and Sensitive Communities

D A C & S E N S I T I V E C O M M U N I T Y

S T A T S
50% 4 of 8 total
Of Stops With a Place to Sit Bench Or Shelter
50% 4 of 8 total
Of Stops with Shading Shelter

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Concentrations of
seating availability at
never and always, with
some fairly even
distribution in the
occasionally available
category.

Most of survey
respondents indicated
there is not adequate
shade at a majority of
transit stops.

Adequate lighting is
fairly evenly distributed
from never to always.

When waiting for transit, how often do you have….?
Place to
Sit
Shade
Adequate
Lighting
Never Occasionally Always
Equity Availability of Amenities According to Survey Respondents Page 584 of 823 Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Bus (Foothill Transit) Rail (Metro Gold Line) Train (Metrolink) None of the above Metrolink is slightly
preferred over buses and
Metro Light Rail (Gold
Line).

What are the other transit
modes people use to get
around the City?
What type of transit do you use to get around the City? Equity Alternative Transportation Habits of Survey Respondents Page 585 of 823 Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Emerging Recommendations

1. Active transportation and urban design improvements should prioritize urban greening elements and environmental design. » Pollution conditions are the primary factors for communities and the study area qualifying as disadvantaged or sensitive communities according to several statewide indices.
» Climate change will continue to exacerbate negative environmental conditions: rising temperatures, more prolonged and frequent heat waves, heat island effect, and droughts.

2. Active transportation improvements should consider potential to develop green “filters” along freight and highway corridors to improve air quality.
» Major sources of pollution are related to transportation (Diesel PM, PM 2.5, Ozone) throughout the study area.
» Consider regional and public-private coordination to create improvements to freight and highway network (e.g., fleet electrification, alternative routes, vegetative wall barriers, home filtration systems)

3. Active transportation should prioritize reductions of street space devoted to vehicles on major corridors.
» Majority of pedestrian and bicycle collision occur along major corridors. » These spaces could provide placemaking opportunities to create a more pedestrian oriented environments (e.g., parklets, pedestrian refuge areas, shading)
Census tract 4062 is in close proximity to Interstate 10 and is intersected by major corridors such Rowland Avenue, Hollenbeck Street, and Citrus Avenue.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Equity Emerging Recommendations

4. Active transportation and urban design improvements should begin creating a network of small public spaces and parks. » Study area has multiple large parks with variety of amenities – most of study area is within ¼ mile to these parks. Network of closer, smaller parks and open spaces are lacking.
» Multiple examples of existing spaces that can be designed for small open spaces (e.g., frontage road medians). Summarized in Urban Design Study. » Consider shared-use agreements to allow public use of local school outdoor facilities after school hours.

5. Active transportation and urban design improvements should be prioritized in the two identified sensitive and disadvantaged communities.
» These two communities bear the most burdens related to pollution and/or housing cost of all Census tracts in the study area.
» Tract 4062 is the most impacted by several health, social, and environmental conditions. Tract 4037.21 has relatively healthy neighborhood conditions (park and retail access) but still suffers from housing and pollution-related issues.
» Should also consider policy updates (e.g., targeted rent control) to prevent displacement of existing communities if public realm improvements make neighborhoods more desirable.

Study area lacks network of closer, smaller parks and open spaces. These spaces could be provided through shared-use agreements with local schools.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
The online survey was shared with the community using:
• City Social Media Accounts;
• QR codes at pop-up events such as the Farmer’s Market; • QR codes on information kiosks located in Downtown;
• Paper copies available at public facilities and with community partners.

As of October 17, 2022, we’ve received a total of 58 responses to the survey.

The 58 responses gathered are not representative of the entire community. The responses reflect the habits and thoughts of the community members who we have connected with through the methods listed above.

The number of responses for individual questions varies as a result of conditions and questions being optional. Conditions will only show a follow up question to respondents if a certain response was given. Optional questions allow respondents to only answer questions they feel comfortable responding to as well as limit survey fatigue by not requiring input.

Online Survey Methodology
Equity Survey Methodology Page 588 of 823
Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Social Media exposure data provides insight
on the interest from the community
regarding the Plan and the survey.

A total of 6 Posts were made on the City’s
Instagram account.
• Regular Post (3)
• 24-Hour “Story” (2)
• “Reel” (1)
Total Social Media Engagement:
• 9,332 views
• 238 clicks
• 26 shares
Online Survey Engagement
Equity Survey Methodology Page 589 of 823
Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Study
• Environmental Conditions
• Figure-Ground
• Parks and Tree Canopy
• COVID Public Realm Measures
• Traffic Calming
• Sidewalk Conditions
• Excess/Underutilized Vehicle Space
• Image, Districts, and Barriers
• Stormwater Infrastructure
Existing
Conditions

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Environmental Conditions

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Mountain vistas typically available
from all north-south streets.

North mountain views and southern
sun can inform tree planting location
to preserve views and provide shade.

Prevailing and Santa Ana winds
predominately E-W, which could
inform screens for shelters and open
spaces.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Building Footprints

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Size of the CASMCP Study Area is
more community planning scale
than neighborhood urban design.

Still, clear built form patterns are
visible at this scale:
• Consistent detached residential
form within residential
neighborhoods between major
corridors;
• Gaps in walkable urban form
spread throughout study area
and typical along major
corridors
• Significant gaps in walkable
urban form (surface parking
lots, vacant uses, suburban
development pattern)
immediately surrounding
walkable Downtown along
Citrus and Civic Center Park.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Tree Canopy in Downtown and Sensitive and Disadvantaged Communities

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Based on a visual survey, the tree
cover is generally the strongest
along residential streets, near
parks and schools, and along
Citrus Avenue in downtown. Tree
cover is sparse along industrial
areas and major arterials.

No significant discrepancy in tree
canopy between Downtown and
Disadvantaged/Sensitive
Neighborhoods.

While there appears to be some
street tree canopy, a majority of
street segments are without
shade and areas are still
dominated by concrete.

Source: Google Maps, 2022

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Temporary COVID-19 Measures – Repurposed Parking Spaces

1. Covina Town Square

4. Shoppers Lane

2. Arrow Lodge Brewing

6. Citrus Avenue outdoor
dining on both sides of
the street

3. Citrus Plaza

5. Citrus Avenue outdoor
dining on one side of the
street
During the COVID-19
pandemic, many commercial
businesses repurposed parking
spaces into outdoor dining
areas. These locations could
potentially provide
opportunities and/or
partnerships for
implementation of permanent
pedestrian improvements. It
also highlights potential
placemaking opportunities in
vehicle spaces that are not
heavily used.

Source: Google Streetview, December 2020

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Placemaking Opportunities in Vehicle Spaces Page 596 of 823 Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Precedent Photos
Left-turn median on Rowland Avenue
should be studied for needed capacity
and opportunity for new multi-modal
space and lane realignments.

Raised center median on Covina
Boulevard provides no shade,
increases burden on stormwater
infrastructure and encourages
speeding.

Frontage road on Covina Boulevard
with concrete median provides no
shade, poor pedestrian paths, and
excess parking and travel capacity.

Right-turn merge lane (Hollenbeck
and San Bernardino) creates poor
intersections for pedestrians with long
crossing distances and unsafe turning.

Center median in Paso Robles provides
natural habitat, placemaking, and
green stormwater infrastructure.

Parkways in Mexico City provide
pedestrian walking path, tree canopy,
and open space in small and narrow
spaces.

Curb extensions shorten pedestrian
crossing distances, slow vehicle
turning movements, and can be
designed for placemaking or green
infrastructure.

Transformation of Rosemead
Boulevard in Temple City created a
protected bicycle lane and green
infrastructure from excess roadway
capacity.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Missing Sidewalks
Many residential neighborhoods are missing
sidewalks, which makes walking inconvenient
and uncomfortable. This could be a
significant barrier in encouraging residents to
walk more in their neighborhoods.

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Barriers

1. Lack of sidewalks in residential
neighborhoods

2. Only one N-S bikeway connection
to broader regional network

3. Minimal wayfinding signage along
the perimeter of downtown.

Existing signage along Citrus
Avenue is incohesive

4. Sparse shading and areas to sit
along major corridors

5. Large surface parking lots around
shopping centers

6. Limited crossing opportunities
along schools and parks

7. Minimal high frequency transit
connections to the Metrolink
Station

8. Incompatible land uses surround
the Metrolink Station.

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Examples of Existing Barriers
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
No sidewalks in residential areas
(Rowland St and Hollenbeck Ave)
make walking inconvenient and
uncomfortable
San Gabriel River Trail Entrance at
Ramona Blvd/Badillo St with only one
bike route connection to broader
network
Inconsistent wayfinding style does not
support a unifying look or style for
downtown
Sparse shading in public right of way
on Hollenbeck Ave lends to
uncomfortable walking conditions
One signalized crosswalk at Barranca
Elementary School lends to
uncomfortable walking conditions at
key activity centers
One bus route with direct connection
to Metrolink Station indicated limited
transit connectivity to broader transit
network
More compatible uses surrounding the
station could be transit-oriented, such
as a mix of residential and small-scale
retail.

Large surface parking lots fronting
shopping centers create longer
walking paths to shop entrances and
often puts pedestrians in conflict with
motor vehicles.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Survey Responses Where Do You Live? What is your neighborhood? – Emerging Insights from Survey Respondents

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Responses were spread out within
and outside of the study area. Of
respondents that described
neighborhoods (by name and
their boundaries), there are a
variety of sizes and potentially
overlapping areas north of
Downtown.

While the sample size of the survey respondents
is not large enough to be statistically
representative of the entire community, there are
some insights into how respondents view their
neighborhoods:

Real and perceived neighborhood
boundaries by residents can
provide multiple inputs to urban
design and active transportation:
• Neighborhood edges identify
barriers not easily crossed by
communities
• Identify what amenities and
services are available/lacking
within neighborhoods
• What land uses are important
to organizing neighborhoods
in the Study Area
P u r p o s e
No strong identity of districts or
defined neighborhoods – suggest
opportunity for neighborhood
building.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Survey Responses What are issues for walking and biking? – Emerging Insights from Survey Respondents

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Issues described are mostly
located along major corridors.

Concentrations of issues noted:
• Badillo Street
• San Bernardino Road
• Around Covina Park
• North-South Connections/Crosswalks
There tends to be an overlap of issues regarding
homeless, trash, high vehicle speeds, and unsafe
crossings. Although survey respondents were
spread throughout the Study Area and City,
issues appear concentrated between San
Bernardino and Badillo.

While the survey is only a small sampling, these
issues correlate with data found elsewhere in
this study. This includes bicycle and pedestrian
collisions mostly occurring along major corridors
or in the downtown area. Furthermore, the
comments received describe actual experiences
by respondents that are still of important note.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Landmarks, Nodes, Edges

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Co-location of elements that
contribute to neighborhoods and
connectivity, as well as barriers
and negative elements (e.g.,
landmarks located along barrier
corridor). Transforming barriers
into desirable places could have
compounding positive effects
building upon existing assets.

Most E-W and N-S major
corridors act as barriers – they
fragment residential
neighborhoods.

Washes currently act as edges
that don’t encourage
permeability.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Districts
A. Covina Town Square | Several shopping centers
within this area. There are also a few adjacent multifamily residential developments such as the Nantucket Village and Covina Grand Apartments
B. Health Services | Location of local hospital and
several dental and health clinics
C. Downtown | Small retailers and local restaurants.

Has a more walkable and pedestrian-oriented
environment. Also contains several civic facilities
(library, city hall) and museums.

D. Auto Dealership | Location of several auto
dealerships (Chevrolet, Kia, Buick), light auto repair
services, such as oil changes, and car rentals.

E. Industrial Park | Heavier industrial uses including
auto body repair shops.

F. Business Park | Several offices in light
manufacturing and professional services. Also
contains Arrow Lodge Brewing.

S T U D Y A R E A S T A T S
Known districts are concentrated
at commercial areas. They
typically correspond with barrier
elements.

A
F
E
C
B
D

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Stormwater Infrastructure

K E Y T A K E - A - WAYS
Multiple washes connect through
the study area – existing washes
are underutilized and could
provide opportunities for multipurpose pathways, greening, and small open spaces.

Stormwater catch basins are
located throughout study area –
mostly located along major
corridors but also within
residential areas. These provide
opportunities for creating small,
neighborhood open spaces with a
variety of activities.

Coordinate stormwater
opportunities with San Gabriel
Valley Greenway Network
Implementation Plan.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
What conditions keep you from using active transportation options to get downtown? Survey Responses Active Transportation Habits – Downtown Covina 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Distance Weather Physical conditions Transportation
conditions
Social conditions Lack of bike
infrastructure
Poor or no transit
service/amenities
I haven’t
considered it
I like to drive I already use active
transportation
options
Other - Write In

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
What improvements would you like to see for pedestrians, bikers, and public transit users? Survey Responses Active Transportation Opportunities
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
San Dimas Wash at Barranca Avenue – provides multiple opportunities from small, neighborhood open space for local residents; multi-modal transportation corridors; placemaking opportunities responding to, and promoting, adjacent development; and opportunities to provide a naturalized environment to improve climate resiliency, reduce heat island impacts, reduce grey infrastructure, and improve water quality and water capture.

Urban Design Emerging Recommendations

1. Concentrate active transportation improvements on major corridors to increase placemaking and breakdown barriers. • Many major corridors include frontage roads with concrete medians between frontage road and arterial. These provide excess parking on frontage road and could provide placemaking and open space opportunities.
• Remove merge lanes at intersections and replace with pedestrian space. • Employ typical traffic calming, reduction of space devoted to vehicles, etc.

2. The CASMCP Study Area is a large area that can be considered holistically; it can also support multiple neighborhood centers and can be considered at multiple smaller scales.
• Downtown is beyond the typical walkshed for large majority of the Study Area.
• Propose neighborhood centers at locations so the entire Study area is within a ½ mile walkshed. Develop tailored public- and private- realm strategies to encourage public and private realm redevelopment to create walkable town centers.

3. Integrate and leverage small urban design improvements with other disciplines – multi-modal transportation, stormwater, climate resiliency and adaptation, etc.
• There are many underutilized areas that could provide passive or active benefits to neighborhood character and active transportation modes:
concrete medians (center and frontage), stormwater catch basins. • Urban design improvements need to leverage available funding opportunities for improvements – street resurfacing, stormwater/water quality improvements, etc.

Pedestrian Environment
Bicycle Environment
Transit Environment
Transportation Behavior
Urban Design Emerging Recommendations

4. Next steps of this study should develop more engagement for how people define their immediate neighborhood and that relationship to their active transportation behaviors.
• Where are formal and informal neighborhood boundaries? • What are the sizes of neighborhoods in Covina and what services and opportunities are available within neighborhoods? I.e., grocery stores, transit stops, neighborhood services, etc.
• How often are people walking/biking within their neighborhoods (dog walk, to the park, etc.) versus walking/biking to places outside their neighborhoods?
Census tract 4062 is in close proximity to Interstate 10, more than a mile from Downtown, and bordered by Azusa Avenue. These factors create barriers and represents car-oriented development patterns. There is opportunity for multi-disciplinary approach to encourage a walkable neighborhood center.

1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 630
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF COVINA

CASMCP MARKET STUDY
November 2022

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2
 Kosmont Companies (“Kosmont”) is a nationally-recognized real estate and economics advisory firm providing market and economic development services for hundreds of public and private sector clients during the past 35 years.
 Kosmont has been retained to assist Fehr & Peers with the City’s Active Streets and Multimodal Connectivity Plan (“CASMCP”), evaluating existing conditions within the key corridors related to demographic, economic and real estate market opportunities for multi-family, retail, office and hospitality development based on transit improvements.
 Transit systems serving downtown Covina include the Foothill Transit Center, Park & Ride and the Metrolink Station. Located a few miles north on Citrus is the Azusa Metro Gold Line.  Covina has three vibrant commercial corridors (Citrus Ave., San Bernardino Road and Badillo Ave.) with hundreds of residential units blended with over 1 million SF of retail. The CASMCP will play a major role in improving the economic strength of those corridors by encouraging more pedestrian activity.

OVERVIEW

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3

DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS
 Covina has a population of ~51,300, seeing total population growth of ~7.7% since 2000  Average Household Size is 3.0 persons, and the Median Age is 37.1 years; ~29% of residents achieved at least a bachelors degree, lower than county / state averages
 City Average Household Income is $109,300, approx. ~10% lower than Los Angeles County and 20% lower than statewide levels
 Approximately 77,500 people live within a 5-minute drive of the downtown Covina area  Covina sees a small net Inflow of 544 jobs, with 21,800 workers commuting from nearby communities to jobs in the City of Covina and 21,300 workers commuting to surrounding job centers such as Los Angeles, West Covina, Industry, and Glendora  Jobs in the City are primarily in the Health Care, Retail Trade, Administration / Support, and Accommodation / Food Service sectors
 Residents of the City are primarily employed in the Health Care, Education, Retail Trade, and Accommodation / Food Service sectors
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed July 2022) Page 612 of 823 KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4

POPULATION & INCOME

CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
Covina
City
Los Angeles
County
California
State
Population 51,300 9,992,600 39,770,500
Households 16,900 3,425,800 13,570,100
Average HH Size 3.0 2.9 2.9
Median Age 37.1 36.4 36.7
% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 28.9% 37.0% 37.8%
Per Capita Income $36,000 $41,200 $44,300
Median HH Income $84,600 $81,400 $88,900
Average HH Income $109,300 $119,800 $129,400
Median Home Value $616,300 $690,900 $629,200
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed July 2022) Page 613 of 823 KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5
5 Minutes
15 Minutes
10 Minutes

DRIVE TIMES
FROM

INTERSECTION

OF N CITRUS AVE
& E SAN

BERNARDINO RD
5 Minutes
City Limits
15 Minutes
10 Minutes
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online
(Accessed July 2022)

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6

POPULATION & INCOME
5-, 10-, AND 15-MINUTE DRIVE TIME AREAS
5 Minute
Drive
10 Minute
Drive
15 Minute
Drive
Population 77,500 278,600 673,600
Households 24,500 85,500 199,800
Average HH Size 3.1 3.2 3.3
Median Age 35.7 36.4 35.9
% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 26.8% 29.4% 29.3%
Per Capita Income $32,700 $35,300 $33,800
Median HH Income $82,400 $90,300 $87,900
Average HH Income $103,000 $114,900 $113,500
Median Home Value $594,100 $621,900 $615,100
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed July 2022) Page 615 of 823 KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7

MAJOR EMPLOYERS
CITY’S LARGEST EMPLOYERS ARE EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, AND MAJOR RETAILERS Major Employers in Covina
Major Employer Type Employees In CASMCP Study
Area?
Covina Valley Unified School
District* Education 1,365 Yes
Citrus Valley Health PartnersIntercommunity* Healthcare 829 Yes Charter Oak Unified School
District Education 630 East of Area
Charter Homehealth Healthcare 535 East of Area
Ikea U.S. West, Inc.* Retail 325 Yes
Wal-Mart Retail 265 Just West of Area
City of Covina* Government 244 Yes
VITAS Innovative Hospice
Care* Healthcare 221 Yes
The Home Depot Retail 211 Just West of Area
Composites Horizons LLC Aerospace 204 West of Area
Source: City of Covina ACFR (FY 2020-21)
Among the top ten employers in the City,
three are healthcare related, three are school
districts / local government, three are major
big box retailers, and one is an aerospace
components firm.

Five of these major employers have operations
within the CASMCP area, with several others
located just outside of CASMCP boundaries,
suggesting workers at these firms could
benefit from active transportation
improvements.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION & COMMUTE TIME
Approximately 75% of Covina
workers drove alone to work,
similar to County and State
averages.

An estimated 12% of Covina
workers carpool, 5% use public
transportation and 6% are working
from home.

Means of Transportation to Work
Covina
City LA County California
Drove Alone to
Work 74.7% 72.2% 72.1%
Carpooled 12.2% 9.5% 10.0%
Public
Transportation 4.9% 5.4% 4.6%
Bicycle 0.5% 0.7% 0.8%
Walked 0.9% 2.6% 2.5%
Other 0.9% 1.7% 1.6%
Worked at Home 6.0% 8.0% 8.4%
Commute Time
Covina
City LA County California
Less than 15
minutes 19% 17% 21%
15 - 29 minutes 27% 32% 35%
30 - 44 minutes 22% 26% 22%
45- 59 minutes 11% 11% 9%
60- 89 minutes 15% 11% 8%
90+ minutes 6% 4% 4%
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed July 2022) Page 617 of 823 KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9

WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW

CITY SEES SMALL NET OUTFLOW OF WORKERS
Worker Inflow/Outflow (2019)
Workers Living & Working 1,675
Workers Coming (Inflow) 21,817
Workers Going (Outflow) 21,273
Net Inflow/Outflow 544
Employment Ratio* 1.02 Workers employed in the City
but living outside
Workers living & employed in
the City
Workers living in the City but
employed outside
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for
Economic Studies (2019, Accessed July 2022)
Notes: *Employment Ratio = People
employed within City (living and working in City
+ those who come into the City for work) /
Employed population of City (living and working
in City + workers who live in the City, but work
outside of the City)
Covina sees a small net inflow of
workers from other communities.

Approx. 7% of residents/workers stay
within the city, while the vast majority
commute to/from other locations.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10
Outflow:

Where Covina Residents Commute To
City Count Percentage
Los Angeles 2,889 12.6%
Covina 1,675 7.3%
West Covina 966 4.2%
Industry 747 3.3%
Glendora 560 2.4%
Ontario 498 2.2%
San Dimas 487 2.1%
Anaheim 475 2.1%
Pasadena 474 2.1%
Pomona 474 2.1%
Baldwin Park 442 1.9%
Azusa 406 1.8%
El Monte 398 1.7%
Irwindale 361 1.6%
Arcadia 359 1.6%
Monrovia 324 1.4%
Chino 323 1.4%
Brea 301 1.3%
Irvine 276 1.2%
Duarte 256 1.1%
Other 10,257 44.7%
Inflow:

Where Covina Workers Come From
City Count Percentage
Covina 1,675 7.1%
Los Angeles 1,399 6.0%
West Covina 1,374 5.8%
Pomona 886 3.8%
Glendora 781 3.3%
Azusa 608 2.6%
Baldwin Park 603 2.6%
San Dimas 527 2.2%
Rancho Cucamonga 460 2.0%
Ontario 439 1.9%
El Monte 381 1.6%
Upland 372 1.6%
Fontana 369 1.6%
Vincent 357 1.5%
Chino 351 1.5%
Anaheim 330 1.4%
La Verne 307 1.3%
Chino Hills 293 1.2%
Diamond Bar 275 1.2%
La Puente 265 1.1%
Other 11,440 48.7%
WORKER

DESTINATIONS &

ORIGINS

CITY OF COVINA
 Workers who live in Covina primarily
work in Los Angeles, Covina, West
Covina, Industry, and Glendora.
 Employees who work in Covina
primarily live in Covina, Los Angeles,
West Covina, Pomona, and Glendora.
 Approx. 18% of Covina residents
commute to locations in Covina or
adjoining communities, and ~21% of
Covina workers come from Covina or
adjoining communities; these
commuters would be the most likely
to shift modes of transportation.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11

EMPLOYMENT BY

INDUSTRY

CITY OF COVINA
 Workers who live in Covina primarily
work in the Health Care, Education,
Retail Trade, Accommodation / Food
Service, and Manufacturing industries.
 Employees who work in Covina
primarily work in the Health Care,
Retail Trade, Administration / Support,
Accommodation / Food Service, and
Education industries.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, OnTheMap, 2019; accessed July 2022 City Resident Employed Population
(Age 16+)
Industry Sector Count %
Health Care and Social Assistance 3,658 15.9%
Educational Services 2,371 10.3%
Retail Trade 2,311 10.1%
Accommodation and Food Services 2,092 9.1%
Manufacturing 1,758 7.7%
Administration & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation 1,673 7.3%
Wholesale Trade 1,377 6.0%
Construction 1,192 5.2%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services 1,090 4.7%
Public Administration 1,005 4.4%
Transportation and Warehousing 993 4.3%
Finance and Insurance 723 3.2%
Other Services (excluding Public
Administration) 702 3.1%
Information 493 2.1%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 396 1.7%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 385 1.7%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 349 1.5%
Utilities 235 1.0%
Workers Employed Within City
Industry Sector Count %
Health Care and Social Assistance 5,355 22.8%
Retail Trade 3,015 12.8%
Administration & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation 2,897 12.3%
Accommodation and Food Services 2,426 10.3%
Educational Services 2,204 9.4%
Manufacturing 1,371 5.8%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services 1,266 5.4%
Construction 872 3.7%
Other Services (excluding Public
Administration) 861 3.7%
Public Administration 665 2.8%
Finance and Insurance 622 2.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 511 2.2%
Wholesale Trade 491 2.1%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 485 2.1%
Transportation and Warehousing 241 1.0%
Information 101 0.4%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 90 0.4%
Utilities 15 0.1%

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

SUPPLY & DEMAND SUMMARY
 The Eastern San Gabriel Valley retail submarket has seen little growth, with the submarket seeing a decline of -220,000 SF of retail space over the past 5 years. The City has captured ~10% of the regional supply in the local submarket. The City’s vacancy rate has fallen from ~10% in 2014 to 4.7% in 2022, with NNN rents approaching $21.80.  The Eastern San Gabriel Valley office submarket is stable, growing 1.6% over the past decade, with Covina providing ~11% of regional supply. New development activity is focused on medical office and build-to-suits for traditional tenants. Much of the office inventory in the downtown Covina area is medical office, centered around the Citrus Valley Intercommunity Hospital. Vacancy has fallen from ~12% in 2011 to ~3% in 2022, with gross rents of $23.  The multi-family residential submarket is extremely strong. The City of Covina represents ~8% of regional supply, with the City’s inventory adding 42 units over the past decade. Vacancy reached new lows of 1.5% starting in 2020; while rents have grown steadily, reaching ~$1,800 per month per unit in 2022.  The City of Covina only has two hotels: the 262-room midscale Vanllee Hotel & Suites located near the I-10 and the 26- room economy Evergreen Inn located on Arrow Highway. A 68-room midscale Avid Covina hotel is proposed for a site on Azusa Ave near San Bernardino Road.

Source: CoStar (Accessed July 2022)