Agenda packet — West Covina City Council, August 5, 2025

CITY OF WEST COVINA

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY
UPDATED July 31, 2025
AUGUST 5, 2025, 7:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1444 W. GARVEY AVENUE SOUTH
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91790
Mayor Tony Wu
Mayor Pro Tem Letty Lopez-Viado
Councilman Ollie Cantos
Councilwoman Rosario Diaz
Councilmember Brian Gutierrez
Please turn off all cell phones and other electronic devices prior to entering the Council Chambers

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you will need special assistance at a Council meeting, please call (626) 939-8433 (voice) or (626) 960-4422 (TTY) from 8am to 5pm Monday through Thursday. Please call at least one day prior to the meeting date to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is possible. For sign language interpreter services at Council meetings, please request no less than four working days prior to the meeting.

AGENDA MATERIAL
Agenda material is available for review at the City Clerk's Office, Room 317 in City Hall, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue South, West Covina and at www.westcovina.org. Any writings or documents regarding any item on this agenda, not exempt from public disclosure, provided to a majority of the City Council that is distributed less than 72 hours before the meeting, will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, Room 317 of City Hall located at 1444 W.

Garvey Avenue South, West Covina, during normal business hours.

NOTICE
The City Council will regularly convene on the first and third Tuesday of the month. The West Covina Community Development Commission, West Covina Public Financing Authority and the West Covina Community Services Foundation are agencies on which the City Council serves as members. Agendas may contain items for these boards, as necessary.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
Any person wishing to address the City Council on any matter listed on the agenda, excluding any matter set for a public hearing, or on any other matter within their jurisdiction must complete a speaker card that is provided at the entrance to the Council Chambers and submit the card to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of Oral Communications. No speaker cards will be accepted after the commencement of Oral Communications, except at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

Please identify on the speaker card whether you are speaking on an agenda item or non-agenda. Requests to speak on agenda items will be heard prior to requests to speak on non-agenda items. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker, unless modified by the Presiding Officer or the City Council.

Any testimony or comments regarding a matter set for a public hearing will be heard during the hearing.

While members of the public are free to level criticism of City policies and the action(s) or proposed action(s) of the City Council or its members, members of the public may not engage in behavior that is disruptive to the orderly conduct of the meeting, including, but not limited to, speaking off topic, speaking beyond the speaker’s allotted time limit, making slanderous or profane remarks or using loud, threatening, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting. Members of the public may not threaten any person with physical harm or act in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as an imminent threat of physical harm. The City of West Covina will not tolerate harassment based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or age.

RULES OF DECORUM
Excerpts from the West Covina Municipal Code and Penal Code pertaining to the Rules of Decorum will be found at the end of agenda.

AGENDA
CITY OF WEST COVINA
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TUESDAY AUGUST 5, 2025, 7:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING

INVOCATION
Led by Pastor Samuel Martinez from Amazing Love Ministries

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Councilwoman Diaz

ROLL CALL

REPORTING OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION

PRESENTATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Three (3) minutes per speaker
Please step forward to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record when recognized by the Mayor.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager's report on current City projects.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote.

There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council/Community Development Commission request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion or action.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
1) CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES REGULAR COMMISSION MEETINGS HELD ON MARCH 11, 2025, AND MAY 13, 2025.

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Community and Senior Services Commission meeting minutes from its regular meetings on March 11, 2025, and May 13, 2025.

ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - Procedural Waiver. Waive full reading of each ordinance on the ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - Procedural Waiver. Waive full reading of each ordinance on the agenda and authorize the approval of each ordinance by title only.

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
2) CONSIDERATION ACCEPTANCE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE FY 23-24 RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT - PROJECT NO. C24008
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Onyx Paving Company for the FY 23-24 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C24008) with a final contract amount of $5,103,895.25; and

2. Authorize the Acting City Manager and Deputy City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion and file the Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder; and

3. Authorize the Acting City Manager to release retention once appropriate. 3) CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ACTING CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED

APPOINTMENTS OF KAREN OGAWA AS FINANCE DIRECTOR, CARMELITA

UNDERWOOD AS HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, AND NILESH

MEHTA AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
It is recommended that the City Council approve the following proposed appointments:

1. Karen Ogawa to the position of Finance Director;

2. Carmelita Underwood to the position of Human Resources/Risk Management Director and

3. Nilesh Mehta to the position of Assistant City Manager.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4) CONSIDERATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025
5) ACCEPTANCE DEDICATION OF EASEMENT AT 1731 WEST SAN BERNARDINO ROAD

FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION PURPOSES AND ACCESS, MAINTENANCE AND INDEMNITY

AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF IRWINDALE
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

Accept the approximately 144.5 square foot easement located in the north-west corner of the property at 1731 West San Bernardino Road; and

1. Authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the easement and record the easement with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder; and

2. Authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the Access, Maintenance and Indemnity Agreement with the City of Irwindale.

3. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS
6) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE WEST COVINA CITYWIDE SEWER SERVICE

CHARGE COLLECTION METHOD AND ASSOCIATED REPORT
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES TO BE COLLECTED ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 TAX ROLL
7) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST

COVINA CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
8) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 4, 6 AND 7
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-61 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7

MAYOR/COUNCILMEMBERS REPORTS
AB 1234 Conference and Meeting Report (verbal, if any)
(In accordance with AB 1234, Councilmembers shall make a brief report or file a written report on any meeting/event/conference attended at City expense.)

CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR REPORTS, STUDIES OR INVESTIGATION (Per City of West Covina Standing Rules 4.f - Requests for reports, studies, or investigations that are not readily available must be placed on the City Council/Successor Agency agenda as items of business and must be approved by a majority of the City Council/Successor Agency Board.)

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT
Next Tentative City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting Date August 19, 2025 7:00 PM
RULES OF DECORUM
The following are excerpts from the West Covina Municipal Code:

Sec. 2-48. Manner of addressing council; time limit; persons addressing may be sworn.

Each person addressing the council shall step up to the rostrum, shall give his or her name and city of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and unless further time is granted by the council, shall limit his or her address to five (5) minutes.
a.
b. The city council may establish a limit on the duration of oral communications.

All remarks shall be addressed to the council as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than the council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the council, without the permission of the presiding officer. No question shall be asked of a councilmember except through the presiding officer.
c.

The presiding officer may require any person to be sworn as a witness before addressing the council on any subject. Any such person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify truthfully, willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false may be held to answer criminally and subject to the penalty prescribed for perjury by the provisions of the Penal Code of the state. d.

Sec. 2-50. Decorum--Required.

While the council is in session, the members shall preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or disrupt the proceedings or the peace of the council nor interrupt any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the council or its presiding officer, except as otherwise herein provided. a.

Members of the public shall not willfully disrupt the meeting or act in a manner that actually impairs the orderly conduct of the meeting. For the purposes of this code, “willfully disrupt” includes, but is not limited to, continuing to do any of the following after being warned by the Mayor that continuing to do so will be a violation of the law:
a. Addressing the Mayor and City Council without first being recognized. b. Persisting in addressing a subject or subjects, other than that before the Mayor and City Council. c. Repetitiously addressing the same subject.
d. Failing to relinquish the podium when directed to do so.

From the audience, interrupting or attempting to interrupt, a speaker, the Mayor, a council member, or a staff member or shouting or attempting to shout over a speaker, the Mayor, a council member or a staff member. e.

As a speaker, interrupting or attempting to interrupt the Mayor, a council member, or a staff member, or shouting over or attempting to shout over the Mayor, a council member, or a staff member. Nothing in this section or any rules of the council shall be construed to prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the City or of the acts or omissions of the City Council. It shall be unlawful to violate the provisions of this Section.
f.
b.

If any subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase or word of this Section 2-50 is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Section. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this section and each subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or words had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Sec. 2-52. Persons authorized to be within council area.

No person, except city officials, their representatives and members of the news media shall be permitted within the rail in front of the council chamber without the express consent of the council.

The following are excerpts from the Penal Code
148(a) (1) Every Person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
403 Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 303 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina | Office of the City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES REGULAR COMMISSION MEETINGS HELD ON MARCH 11, 2025, AND MAY 13, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Community and Senior Services Commission meeting minutes from its regular meetings on March 11, 2025, and May 13, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

The Community and Senior Services Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters pertaining to the community service needs of the citizens of West Covina relating to public recreational services, cultural activities and special events, youth services, public transportation, neighborhood and human relations, human rights, and senior services. The Commission consists of ten (10) Commissioners that are appointed by the City Council.

DISCUSSION:

The regular meeting on March 11, 2025, Commission meeting minutes were approved at the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on May 13, 2025. The Commission meeting minutes were approved by a vote of 6 to 0, with 3 Commissioners absent.

The regular meeting on May 13, 2025, Commission meeting minutes were approved at the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on July 8, 2025. The Commission meeting minutes were approved by a vote of 10 to 0, with 0 Commissioners absent.

Prepared by: Deborah Johnston, Administrative Assistant II Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Community & Senior Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes from March 11, 2025.

Attachment No. 2 - Community & Senior Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes from May 13, 2025.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: A Creative and Active Community CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: A Creative and Active Community Enhance City Image and Effectiveness

PUBLIC COMMENTS

ADDRESSING THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION Any person wishing to address the Commission on any matter listed on the agenda or on any other matter within their jurisdiction should complete a speaker card that is provided at the entrance to the Council Chambers and submit the card to the Commission Secretary
Please identify on the speaker card whether you are speaking on an agenda item or non-agenda. Requests to speak on agenda items will be heard prior to requests to speak on non-agenda items. All comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

CITY OF WEST COVINA

COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025, 6:00 PM

REGULAR MEETING
WEST COVINA CITY HALL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE CENTER (MRC) ROOM 314 AT 1444 W GARVEY AVE. WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91790

MINUTES
Chair Vacant
Vice-Chair Sherry Fischer
Commissioner Gia Cabalyan
Commissioner Hector Diaz
Commissioner Michael Flowers
Commissioner Jennifer Gutierrez
Commissioner Gayle Mason
Commissioner Chatur Patel
Commissioner Betty Valles
Commissioner Garrett Viado

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The Commission complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you will need special assistance at Commission Meetings, please call (626) 939-8433 (voice) or (626) 960-4422 (TTY) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to make arrangements.

AGENDA MATERIAL
Agenda material is available for review at the West Covina City Clerk’s Office, Room 317 in City Hall, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue and at www.westcovina.org. Any writings or documents regarding any item on this agenda not exempt from public disclosure, provided to a majority of the Commission that is distributed less than 72 hours before the meeting, will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, Room 317 of City Hall during normal business hours.

No Quorum Called By: Susie Perez, Deputy Director of Community Services – at 06;15 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Cablayan, Fischer, Mason, Patel, Valles.

Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Diaz, Flowers, Gutierrez, Viado.

Staff Present: Susie Perez, Deputy Community Services Director, Leslie Bravo, Community Services Coordinator, Leslie Godinez, Community Services Coordinator, Clarissa Romero, Community Services Coordinator, Kiarah Albert, Community Services Coordinator, Miguel Quijada, Community Services Coordinator and Deborah Johnston, Administrative Assistant II.

Signature: ___________________________ Date: 03/12/2025 Deborah Johnston, Administrative Assistant II
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

PUBLIC COMMENTS

CITY OF WEST COVINA

COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025, 6:00 PM

REGULAR MEETING
WEST COVINA CITY HALL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE CENTER (MRC) ROOM 314 AT 1444 W GARVEY AVE. WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91790

MINUTES

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Chair Vacant
Vice-Chair Sherry Fischer
Commissioner Gia Cabalyan
Commissioner Hector Diaz
Commissioner Michael Flowers
Commissioner Jennifer Gutierrez
Commissioner Gayle Mason
Commissioner Chatur Patel
Commissioner Betty Valles
Commissioner Garrett Viado
The Commission complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you will need special assistance at Commission Meetings, please call (626) 939-8433 (voice) or (626) 960-4422 (TTY) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to make arrangements.

CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Mason
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER by Commissioner Mason ATTACHMENT NO. 2

ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Cablayan, Diaz, Gutierrez, Mason, Valles and Viado.

Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Fischer, Flowers and Patel.

Staff Present: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager, Susie Perez, Deputy Community Services Director and Vanessa Ibanez, Community Services Supervisor.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Three (3) minutes per speaker
Please state your name and city of residence for the record when recognized by the Commission Chair.

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
1) COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 11, 2025.

It is recommended that the Commission approve the Community and Senior Services Commission Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2025.

Call for a vote to approve by: Commissioner Mason, all present in favor, motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 with 3 absent.

AYES: Commissioners, Cablayan, Diaz, Gutierrez, Mason, Valles and Viado NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Fischer, Flowers and Patel.

ABSTAIN: None

NEW BUSINESS
2) SELECTION OF THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY & SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION.

Selection of Vice-Chair of the Community and Senior Services Commission Motion by Commissioner Valles, 2nd by Commissioner Diaz, to table this item for the next Commission meeting and inform the current Commissioners that attendance is required at the next meeting or notification of their attendance to their perspective councilperson with Commissions recommendation of immediate removal from service based on West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 2, Section 2-67(d). Motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 with 3 absent.

AYES: Commissioners, Cablayan, Diaz, Gutierrez, Mason, Valles and Viado NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Fischer, Flowers and Patel.

ABSTAIN: None
3) SELECTION OF CHAIR FOR THE COMMUNITY & SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION.

Selection of Chair of the Community and Senior Services Commission Motion by Nomination by Commissioner Valles, to nominate Commissioner Gayle Mason to the seat of Chair.

Call for a vote to approve by: Commissioner Mason, all present in favor, motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 with 3 absent.

AYES: Commissioners, Cablayan, Diaz, Gutierrez, Mason, Valles and Viado NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Fischer, Flowers and Patel.

ABSTAIN: None
4) SELECTION OF AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
a. Capital Improvement Project (4 Commissioners)
b. Homeless Sub Committee (4 Commissioners)
c. Sub Committee (4 Commissioners)
d. Sub Committee (4 Commissioners)
Motion by Commissioner Mason, 2nd by Commissioner Cablayan, to table this item for the next Commission meeting, motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 with 3 absent.

AYES: Commissioners, Cablayan, Diaz, Gutierrez, Mason, Valles and Viado NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Fischer, Flowers and Patel.

ABSTAIN: None
5) AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS
None.
6) COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
Commissioner Gutierrez: Continues to assist with youth sports team.

Commissioner Valles: Used the services for AARP Free Tax preparation. Notified staff that AARP spoke highly of the staff and facility.

Commissioner Cablayan: Attended Spring Festival, Swearing in of new Police Chief and a few other events throughout the city.

Commissioner Diaz: Attended Health & Wellness Expo and Senior Softball Tournament.

Commissioner Viado: His 1
st meeting and has attended several city events.

Commissioner Mason: Spring Festival and a few other events throughout the city. 7) ITEMS TO BE AGENDIZED
Selection of Vice Chair of the Commission.

Selection of AD HOC Committee Members.
8) ADJOURNMENT at 6:27 PM By: Chair Mason.

Signature: ______________ Date: 06/11/2025
Deborah Johnston, Administrative Assistant II
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina | Office of the City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION ACCEPTANCE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE FY 23-24 RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT - PROJECT NO. C24008
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Accept the work performed by Onyx Paving Company for the FY 23-24 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C24008) with a final contract amount of $5,103,895.25; and

2. Authorize the Acting City Manager and Deputy City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion and file the Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder; and

3. Authorize the Acting City Manager to release retention once appropriate.

BACKGROUND:

On October 1, 2024, the City Council awarded a public works agreement totaling $4,324,000.00 to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for the FY 23-24 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C24008).

The project construction budget also included a contingency budget of $864,800 (20% of agreement amount) for any unforeseen conditions as necessary. The total established construction budget was $5,188,800.00.

The work consisted of furnishing all materials, equipment, tools, labor, and incidentals as described in detail in the Bidding and Contract Documents, Plans, and Specifications to construct the project. Major work components included construction of slurry seal, asphalt concrete coldmill and overlay, reconstruction of localized asphalt repairs, restoration of traffic loops, installation of traffic striping, and all related work as per plans and specifications.

DISCUSSION:

All required improvements were constructed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications.

The work was performed within the contractually specified duration and to the City Engineer’s satisfaction. Construction costs totaled $5,103,895.25, which is within the approved construction budget.

Staff recommends that the City Council accept the work performed by Onyx Paving Company, authorize the execution and filing of the Notice of Completion, and authorize the release of retention once appropriate.
appropriate.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve Staff's recommendation; or

2. Provide alternative direction.

Construction Contract $4,324,000.00
20% Contingency $864,800,00
Total Construction Budget $5,188,800.00
Actual Expenditures $5,103,895.25
(Over)/Under Budget $84,904.75
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Notice of Completion
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: A Well-Planned Community Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of West Covina
1444 W. Garvey Ave. S.

West Covina, CA 91790
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES –
GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 6103, 27383
SPACE ABOVE LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(California Civil Code § 9204)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. Name and Address of Owner. The City of West Covina (“City”), a municipal corporation, whose address is 1444 W. Garvey Ave. S., West Covina, CA 91790, is the fee owner of the public work of improvement described herein and of the property containing said public work of improvement.

2. Description of Public Work of Improvement. The public work of improvement is the project known as:

FY 23-24 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (Project No. C24008).

3. Location of Public Work of Improvement. The public work of improvement is generally located on residential streets between South Glendora Avenue and South Lark Ellen Avenue, south of the I-10 Freeway, in the City of West Covina, CA 91791.

4. Award of Contract; Contractor. On October 1, 2024, the City awarded a contract to construct the public work of improvement to Onyx Paving Company, Inc., 2890 E. La Cresta Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806.

5. Date of Completion. The public work of improvement was completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer on: April 7, 2025.

6. Date of Acceptance. The City Council accepted the public work of improvement on August 5, 2025. _______________________________________
Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager Date
City of West Covina

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of West Covina, the declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on _____________________, at West Covina, California. _______________________________
Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3

APPOINTMENTS OF KAREN OGAWA AS FINANCE DIRECTOR, CARMELITA

UNDERWOOD AS HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, AND

NILESH MEHTA AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the following proposed appointments:

1. Karen Ogawa to the position of Finance Director;

2. Carmelita Underwood to the position of Human Resources/Risk Management Director and

3. Nilesh Mehta to the position of Assistant City Manager.

BACKGROUND:

Section 2-151(g) of the West Covina Municipal Code provides that "it shall be the duty of the city manager to appoint, remove, promote and demote any and all officers and employees of the city, except the city clerk, city attorney and city treasurer, subject to the rules and regulations of any applicable civil service or other personnel system in effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city manager shall not appoint or promote a person to serve as the director of a department, unless a majority of the city council first voted in favor of the city manager's proposed appointment or promotion." DISCUSSION:

The City of West Covina currently has vacancies for the positions of Finance Director, Human Resources/Risk Management Director and Assistant City Manager. These executive roles are essential to the effective management and oversight of City operations. Recognizing the operational need to restore capacity at the executive level, the Acting City Manager conducted a recruitment for each of these positions and is proposing the following appointments:

1. Karen Ogawa to the position of Finance Director;

2. Carmelita Underwood to the position of Human Resources/Risk Management Director; and

3. Nilesh Mehta to the position of Assistant City Manager.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this staff report.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve staff's recommendation; or

2. Provide alternate directions.

Prepared by: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Compensation for these executive-level positions is included in the adopted budget for the current fiscal year.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Achieve Fiscal Sustainability and Financial Stability A Well-Planned Community
Maintain Good Intergovernmental Relations
Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina | Office of the City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025
BACKGROUND:

Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (“LMD1”) and Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (“LMD2”) (collectively referred to as “Districts”) were formed in 1970, as a planned community development known as Woodside Village that began with “clustered” housing units on smaller lots and numerous open space areas. This combination of small lots and open space areas were developed to provide more cost-effective housing and create a park-like setting. In order to pay for maintenance of the open space areas, the Districts were formed as ad valorem (Latin word for “according to value”) assessment districts pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911. LMD1 is located south of Amar Road, east of Azusa Avenue, between Temple Avenue and Shadow Oak Drive and consists of 872 properties (Attachment No. 4). LMD2 is located north of Amar Road, between Lark Ellen Avenue and Azusa Avenue and consists of 787 properties (Attachment No. 5).

The assessments within an ad valorem district are based on property value rather than benefit as in other districts, which were formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. In 1972, Proposition 92 capped the assessment rates for ad valorem districts at their 1972 rate, which for LMD1 was 18.75 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value.

In July 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 431 that allowed the City of West Covina to access existing funds in the Districts. It expanded the Districts’ eligible uses of its funds that the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911 restricted, allowing those funds to be used pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

DISCUSSION:

Rates
For FY 2025-26, the LMD1 assessment rate is proposed to be maintained at the current rate of $0.1188 per 100 dollars of assessed property value. At this rate, the annual assessment for a home and property valued at $400,000 would be $475.20. The total projected revenue is $701,302 including $8,602 in interest, which will continue to fund the current maintenance. Attachment No. 3 shows the history of assessment rates in this district for the last 15 years.

There have been no increases in assessment rates over the last fifteen years. The LMD2 assessment rate is proposed to be maintained at the current rate of $0.0660 per 100 dollars of assessed value. At this rate, the annual assessment for a home and property valued at $400,000 would be $264.00. The total projected revenue is $256,324 including $1,824 in interest, which will continue to fund the current maintenance activities. Attachment No. 3 shows the history of assessment rates in this district for the last 15 years. There have been no increases in assessment rates over the last eight years.

Maintenance
LMD1 contains landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees. The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas includes fire clearing along the entire slope and irrigation maintenance and repairs.

LMD2 contains lighted paseos landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees.

The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas includes continued fire clearing along the entire slope, and irrigation maintenance and repairs, modification of the paseo lighting to LED for energy cost savings, repair and replacement of light standards, hardscape repair and replacement of off-grade, cracked and broken areas, tree trimming of the hillside trees on a trimming cycle, and landscape maintenance including trash removal and clearing of the hillside plants and shrubbery.

In FY 2023-24, the City entered into a new landscaping contract that increased the scope of services to include the entire hillside that will be trimmed to a maximum of 4 feet in height. The previous contract scope only addressed 4 feet from the sidewalk or property line. This work continued through FY 2024-25 and will be maintained for FY 2025-26.

If determined that rates are to be increased in the future, it would require a vote by the affected property owners. Pending completion of further analysis, this report recommends that assessment rates be maintained at their current levels for FY 2025-26.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve staff's recommendation; or
Reduce the assessment rates; LMD1 and LMD2's reserves will be depleted at a faster pace requiring the City's General Fund to subsidize the district; or

2. 3. Provide alternative direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) and generally exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of the continuing maintenance and operations of landscaping and irrigation within the districts, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Burns, Deputy Community Development Director Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:

For FY 2025-26, the LMD1 assessment rate is proposed to be maintained at the current rate of 11.88 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value. The projected income from the recommended rates is $692,700.

The LMD2 assessment rate is proposed to be maintained at the current rate of 6.60 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value. The projected income from the recommended rate is $254,500.

Furthermore, a portion of LMD2 overlaid by Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (LMD4). LMD4 benefit assessment district was formed in 1975 to encompass the previously remaining undeveloped areas of the Woodside Village planned community development. As a result, a portion of the assessment collected from LMD2 is reimbursed to LMD4. In turn, this benefit assessment within the overlaid portion of LMD4 is reduced proportionately to reflect this reimbursement. For FY 2025-26, the reimbursement is $9,000 to reflect the appropriate share of the actual assessment collections. LMD4 rates will be adopted by the City Council separately.

For FY 2025-26, below are the Capital Improvement Projects for existing maintenance:

DISTRICT PROJECT AMOUNT
LMD 1 Hardscape improvements, light
replacement/repair, landscaping/slope
maintenance, and tree trimming, removal, and
replacement.
$175,000
LMD 2 Hardscape improvements, light
replacement/repair, landscaping/slope
maintenance, and tree trimming, removal, and
replacement
$200,000
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 2025-43
Attachment No. 2 - Resolution No. 2025-44
Attachment No. 3 - 15-year Rate History
Attachment No. 4 - LMD 1 Map
Attachment No. 5 - LMD 2 Map
Attachment No. 6 - LMD 1 Financial Report
Attachment No. 7 - LMD 2 Financial Report
Attachment No. 8 - LMD 1, 10-year Projection
Attachment No. 9 - LMD 2, 10-year Projection
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Achieve Fiscal Sustainability and Financial Stability A Well-Planned Community
Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-43

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE

ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025
$583,080,808

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

SECTION 1. As applicable, the assessment levied on the real property is exempt from the application of Article XIII A, Section 1 (A) and Article XIII C of the Constitution of the State of California and is levied for the benefit of the residents of the City of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (“LMD1”).

SECTION 2. The amount of funds necessary to be raised by the assessment, upon the assessable property within LMD1, for the current Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025, is hereby fixed as follows:

For the cost of maintaining and operating the open space, improvements, and facilities thereon within the LMD1 in the amount of $812,018 including a Capital Improvement Project.

SECTION 3. For the purpose of raising the funding necessary to be raised by the assessment upon the assessable property within LMD1, as revenue to maintain and operate the open space, improvements and facilities within the LMD1, the rate is hereby fixed and the assessment is hereby set on all assessable real property in the LMD1 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025, at the rate of 0.1188 cents upon 100 dollars of assessed value of said assessable real property as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Assessment Appeals Board of the County of Los Angeles and with respect to certain property as assessed by the State Board of Equalization and equalized by said Board as follows:

Estimated Assessed Value of Land within Entire District Benefit Assessment Rate $0.1188 per one hundred dollars No separate tax is being levied upon the assessable property within any zone in LMD1 for the Fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and no funds are being raised to finance special services within LMD1.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the levy and collection of these assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under § 15273 of the Guidelines. In addition, the capital improvements proposed for LMD1 are of minor nature and, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements for environmental compliance.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte
City Attorney
Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- 43 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at their regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-44

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE

ASSESSMENT RATE FOR WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025

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

SECTION 2. The amount of funds necessary to be raised by the assessment, upon the assessable property within LMD2, for the current Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025, is hereby fixed as follows:

For the cost of maintaining and operating the open space, improvements, and facilities thereon within the LMD2 in the amount of $487,480 including a Capital Improvement Project.

SECTION 3. For the purpose of raising the funding necessary to be raised by the assessment upon the assessable property within LMD2, as revenue to maintain and operate the open space, improvements and facilities within the LMD2, the rate is hereby fixed and the assessment is hereby set on all assessable real property in the LMD2 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025, at the rate of $0.0660 upon 100 dollars of assessed value of said assessable real property as assessed by the County Assessor and equalized by the Assessment Appeals Board of the County of Los Angeles and with respect to certain property as assessed by the State Board of Equalization and equalized by said Board as follows:

Estimated Assessed Value of Land within Entire District $385,606,061 Benefit Assessment Rate $0.0660 per hundred dollars
No separate tax is being levied upon the assessable property within LMD2 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025, and no funds are being raised to finance special services within LMD2.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the levy and collection of these assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under § 15273 of the Guidelines. In addition, the capital improvements proposed for LMD2 are of minor nature and, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements for environmental compliance.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte
City Attorney
Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-44 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at their regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
West Covina
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and No. 2
15 Year Rate History
LMD 1 LMD 2
Fiscal Year
Rate per $100 of
Assessed Value
Assessments for
Assessed Value of
$400,000
Rate per $100 of
Assessed Value
Assessments for
Assessed Value of
$400,000
Proposed 2025-26 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2024-25 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2023-24 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2022-23 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2021-22 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2020-21 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2019-20 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2018-19 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2017-18 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2016-17 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2015-16 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2014-15 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2013-14 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2012-13 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
2011-12 $0.1188 $475.20 $0.0660 $264.00
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO.

Landscape Maintenance
District 1
Legend
City of West Covina Boundary
Maintenance District 1
Park
Open Space
Parcels
575 287.5 0 575 Feet
¯
ATTACHMENT NO.

Landscape Maintenance
District 2
Legend
City of West Covina Boundary
Maintenance District 2
Parks
Open Space
Parcels
300 150
¯
0 300 Feet
City of West Covina
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Financial Report
Estimated Costs for Landscape Maintenance
Beginning Fund Balances $4,301,120
Revenues
Assessment Income (Total Balance to Levy) $692,700
Interest $8,602
Total Projected Revenues $701,302
Expenditures
Direct Costs
Personnel Services $156,928
Maintenance Contracts $361,760
Utilities $55,900
Maintenance Supplies $8,000
Property & Liability Insurance $96,240
Capital Improvement Project $75,000
Total Direct Costs $753,828
Administrative Costs
Levy Admin & Professional Services $11,690
City Overhead & Administration $46,500
Total Administrative Costs $58,190
Total Expenditures $812,018
Ending Fund Balance (estimated) $4,190,404
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
City of West Covina
Landscape Maintenance District No. 2
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Financial Report
Estimated Costs for Landscape Maintenance
Beginning Fund Balances $912,185
Revenues
Assessments $254,500
Interest $1,824
Total Projected Revenues $256,324
Expenditures
Direct Costs
Personnel Services $143,070
Maintenance Contracts $255,420
Utilities $10,900
Maintenance Supplies $0
Property & Liability Insurance $48,120
Total Direct Costs $457,510
Administrative Costs
Levy Admin & Professional Services $10,440
City Overhead & Administration $19,530
Total Administrative Costs $29,970
Total Expenditures $487,480
Ending Fund Balance (estimated) $681,029
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Percent Increase 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Fiscal Year 25-26(1) 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $692,700 $699,627 $706,623 $713,690 $720,826 $728,035 $735,315 $742,668 $750,095 $757,596 Interest (1) $8,602 $8,381 $8,270 $8,119 $7,926 $7,688 $7,403 $7,071 $6,687 $6,251 Total Revenues $701,302 $708,008 $714,894 $721,809 $728,752 $735,722 $742,718 $749,739 $756,782 $763,846 Prior Year Balance $4,301,120 $4,190,404 $4,135,156 $4,059,622 $3,962,864 $3,843,908 $3,701,744 $3,535,323 $3,343,558 $3,125,318 Total Funding $5,002,422 $4,898,412 $4,850,050 $4,781,431 $4,691,616 $4,579,630 $4,444,463 $4,285,062 $4,100,340 $3,889,164 Operating Exp. (2) $737,018 $763,256 $790,428 $818,567 $847,708 $877,886 $909,139 $941,504 $975,022 $1,009,733 CIP $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $812,018 $763,256 $790,428 $818,567 $847,708 $877,886 $909,139 $941,504 $975,022 $1,009,733 Ending Balance $4,190,404 $4,135,156 $4,059,622 $3,962,864 $3,843,908 $3,701,744 $3,535,323 $3,343,558 $3,125,318 $2,879,431 Rate per $100 of Assessed Value $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 $0.1188 Assessments for Assessed Value of $400,000 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 $475.20 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) West Covina Lighting and Maintenance District No. 1
10 Year Fiscal Projection
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
Percent Increase 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Fiscal Year 25-26(1) 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $254,500 $257,045 $259,615 $262,212 $264,834 $267,482 $270,157 $272,858 $275,587 $278,343 Interest (1) $1,824 $1,362 $869 $345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $256,324 $258,407 $260,485 $262,556 $264,834 $267,482 $270,157 $272,858 $275,587 $278,343 Prior Year Balance $912,185 $681,029 $434,602 $172,280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Funding $1,168,509 $939,436 $695,087 $434,837 $264,834 $267,482 $270,157 $272,858 $275,587 $278,343 Operating Exp. (2) $487,480 $504,834 $522,806 $541,418 $560,693 $580,653 $601,325 $622,732 $644,901 $667,860 CIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $487,480 $504,834 $522,806 $541,418 $560,693 $580,653 $601,325 $622,732 $644,901 $667,860 Ending Balance/(Funding Shortfall) $681,029 $434,602 $172,280 ($106,582) ($295,859) ($313,171) ($331,168) ($349,873) ($369,314) ($389,517) Rate per $100 of Assessed Value $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 $0.0660 Assessments for Assessed Value of $400,000 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 $264.00 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) West Covina Lighting and Maintenance District No. 2
10 Year Fiscal Projection
Attachment No. 9
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina | Office of the City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE DEDICATION OF EASEMENT AT 1731 WEST SAN BERNARDINO

ROAD FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION PURPOSES AND ACCESS, MAINTENANCE AND

INDEMNITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF IRWINDALE
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

Accept the approximately 144.5 square foot easement located in the north-west corner of the property at 1731 West San Bernardino Road; and

1. Authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the easement and record the easement with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder; and

2. Authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the Access, Maintenance and Indemnity Agreement with the City of Irwindale.

3. BACKGROUND:

Based on a Traffic Study conducted as part of the City of Irwindale’s Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR, a new traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road and Los Angeles Street. As part of this improvement, the City of Irwindale will be doing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades to the railroad crossing located to the south of the intersection along North Azusa Canyon Road and installing a raised median along a portion of North Azusa Canyon Road.

In order to install the new ADA crossing at the railroad track, the City of Irwindale is working with the property owner of 1731 W. San Bernardino Road and the City (West Covina), so that an easement can be dedicated to the City because there is currently not enough room in the public right of way for the ADA improvements. The proposed easement is approximately 144.5 square feet. The easement agreement and easement information are included in this report as Attachment No.1 and is indicated in the following figure:

Figure 1: Map showing the proposed easement in the northwest corner of 1731 West San Bernardino Road
California Government Code (Section 65402) states: (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.

The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body.

The easement was brought before the Planning Commission during a regular meeting on February 11, 2025 at which time the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 25-6161 (Attachment No. 4), determining that the easement at 1731 West San Bernardino Road to be dedicated to the City is in conformance with the goals and policies of the West Covina General Plan.

DISCUSSION:

In order for the City to accept an easement dedication, it must first be determined that the easement is in conformance with the City’s General Plan. Following approval by the Planning Commission, the City Council must formally accept the easement dedication, which will then be signed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder.

In addition to the easement acceptance, the Access, Maintenance, and Indemnity Agreement (Attachment No. 2) grants the City of Irwindale the right to access and maintain the traffic signal proposed at the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Azusa Canyon Road, including within the area of the dedicated easement. Furthermore, the agreement provides that the City of Irwindale shall indemnify the City of West Covina against any claims, demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, suits, or expenses resulting from property damage or bodily injury arising out of the exercise of the rights granted under the agreement, except in cases where such damage or injury is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City of West Covina
LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the Access, Maintenance and Indemnity Agreement and approved it as to form and will review the final form of the agreement prior to execution.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve Staff's recommendation; or

2. Choose to not accept the easement; or

3. Provide alternative direction.

Prepared by: Robert Ortega, CIP Project Manager
Additional Approval: Jo-Anne Burns, Deputy Community Development Director Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Attachments
Attachment No.1 - Easement Agreement
Attachment No.2 - Access, Maintenance, and Indemnity Agreement Attachment No.3 - Addendum No. 1 to Final Environmental Impact Report Attachment No. 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-6161 CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: A Well-Planned Community Maintain Good Intergovernmental Relations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Page 1 of 6 ends

ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
This ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
(“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF IRWINDALE, a municipal corporation and Charter City (“Irwindale”), and CITY OF WEST COVINA, a municipal corporation (“West Covina”).

Irwindale and West Covina may be referred to herein individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. West Covina is the holder of that certain easement granted to it on _____by West Covina by Natural Green Farming LLC (“Easement”). A copy of the Easement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. The Easement area is located at the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Azusa Canyon Road, more particularly described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Easement Area”), for pedestrian access and traffic signal maintenance, with the right to grant all or a portion of the Easement Area to others.

B. West Covina and Irwindale share the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Azusa Canyon Road (“Intersection”), along with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) who operates railroad rights-of-way.

C. Irwindale’s portion of the Intersection borders the Easement Area. Irwindale is working on a capital improvement project for construction and installation of a traffic signal at the Intersection (“Traffic Signal”), and requires an access to the Easement Area, for purposes of installation of the Traffic Signal, and regular maintenance of the traffic related infrastructure.

D. West Covina will grant Irwindale access to the Easement Area for access, installation, and regular maintenance of the Traffic Signal and its related infrastructure, provided that Irwindale provides 100% routine preventative and extraordinary maintenance services for the Traffic Signal, assumes all of West Covina’s obligations and responsibilities under the Easement, and indemnifies West Covina from any claims and liabilities relating to its use of the Easement Area.

E. Irwindale currently contracts the maintenance of its city owned traffic signals with the City of Santa Fe Springs which has specialized knowledge, training, and experience in the routine preventative and extraordinary maintenance services of traffic signals.

F. Irwindale will utilize the City of Santa Fe Springs to maintain such Traffic Signal in accordance with the executed agreement between Irwindale and City of Santa Fe Springs dated July 26, 2023 (“Maintenance Agreement”) and any subsequent agreement thereto.

G. The installation of the Traffic Signal and granting of access is in the Parties’ best interest as it will promote and facilitate pedestrian and vehicular safety, and provide a public ATTACHMENT NO.2

Page 2 of 6 ends

benefit to the community.

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements by the Parties set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Grant of Access. West Covina hereby grants to Irwindale for the benefit of the public access to the Easement Area described in Exhibit “B” for access, installation, and maintenance of the Traffic Signal, including the right at Irwindale’s own cost and expense, to construct, use, maintain, alter, add to, repair, replace, and remove all facilities therefore or connected therewith, upon, over, on across and through the Easement Area. Irwindale shall have the right to take all actions necessary with respect to the maintenance and repair of the Traffic Signal.

2. Maintenance. Irwindale shall maintain the Traffic Signal in good and safe condition and repair and in compliance with all laws, at Irwindale’s sole cost and expense. Irwindale may utilize the City of Santa Fe Springs Traffic Signal Maintenance Division to perform the tasks described and set forth in the Maintenance Agreement, or any subsequent agreement thereto, which shall be incorporated herein as though set forth in full as Exhibit “C”. It is understood that West Covina shall not be a third party beneficiary to the Maintenance Agreement.

Irwindale covenants that it shall perform all work required and exercise all rights granted hereunder at its sole cost and expense and in a safe and clean manner and shall at all times comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

3. Indemnity. Irwindale shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless West Covina from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, suits and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) for property damage or bodily injury (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of exercising the rights hereunder granted to Irwindale and all covenants thereto, except to the extent the property damage or bodily injury is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of West Covina. West Covina shall immediately notify Irwindale of any Claims received, and Irwindale shall have the obligation to defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said Claims and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith.

Irwindale agrees to be bound by the terms, obligations and conditions set forth in the Easement as if it was the Grantee under the Easement. Irwindale shall indemnify and hold harmless West Covina for any and all actions, violations or disregarding of those terms, obligations and conditions.

4. Term. This Agreement and the access granted herein shall continue in full force and effect until such time as the Traffic Signal is permanently removed or with the unanimous written consent of all of the Parties.

5. Notices. Any notice, payment, demand, offer or communication required or permitted to be given by any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes if sent by registered or certified mail, postage and charges prepaid, or by overnight courier addressed to the applicable Party as set forth below:

Page 3 of 6 ends

To West Covina:
1444 West Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, CA 91790
Attn: City Manager
To Irwindale:
5050 N. Irwindale Drive
Irwindale, CA 91706
Attn: City Manager
Any such notice shall be deemed to be given on the date of delivery to the address set forth above as may be changed from time to time, or the date of refusal of delivery. The address for notice may be changed by either Party by giving notice of such change to the other Party in the manner provided herein for giving notice. For the purposes of changing such address, unless and until such written notice is received, the last address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes.

6. Amendment. This Agreement may only be changed by a written amendment executed by authorized representatives of the Parties.

7. Attorneys’ Fees. In any lawsuit to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from the opposing party.

8. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement represents a negotiated document reflecting a joint effort in the drafting of its provisions. As a result, neither Party shall be viewed as a drafter with respect to interpretation of this Agreement.

9. Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or void under applicable law, that provision shall be deleted, but the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

10. No Waiver. A waiver of any right under this Agreement must be set forth in writing and signed by the waiving Party in order to be effective. Any waiver shall be strictly construed and shall not waive any rights not expressly set forth in the written waiver.

11. Time of the Essence. Time is expressly of the essence as to every act and obligation set forth in this Agreement.

12. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and may be executed by electronic signatures. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.

Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by a .pdf data file or other scanned executed counterpart by email shall be equally as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement. Each duplicate and counterpart shall be equally admissible in evidence, and each shall fully bind each party who has executed it. The parties waive all right

Page 4 of 6 ends

to challenge the admissibility or authenticity of this Agreement in a court of law based solely on the absence of an original signature.

13. Incorporation. The recitals hereto and all exhibits, schedules and attachments attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement by this reference.

14. Section Titles. Section titles in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be construed to alter the content of sections.

15. Cooperation. The Parties shall reasonably cooperate with each other in connection with this Agreement.

16. Merger. This Agreement, together with any documents referred to herein, sets forth the full agreement between the Parties regarding the matters addressed in this Agreement. All prior agreements and understandings that conflict with the foregoing are terminated and of no further force or effect. The Parties are entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each Party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

17. Warranty of Authority. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has full power and authority to do so, and that no other authorizations or approvals of any kind are necessary.
[Signatures On The Following Page]

Page 5 of 6 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives on the date first above written.

CITY OF WEST COVINA
City of West Covina, a California municipal
corporation
By: ______________________________
Milan Mrakich
Its: Acting City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________
Lisa Sherrick, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Thomas P. Duarte
City Attorney

CITY OF IRWINDALE
City of Irwindale, a California municipal
corporation
By: ________________________________
Julian A. Miranda
Its: City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________
Laura M. Nieto
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 6 of 6 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Adrian R. Guerra
City Attorney
Exhibit “A”
Easement
Exhibit “B”
Easement Area
Exhibit “C”
Maintenance Agreement
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Addendum No. 1 – Final Environmental Impact Report
Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project
City of Irwindale
(State Clearinghouse No. 2014031051)
November 2016
Prepared by:

The City of Irwindale
5050 North Irwindale Avenue
Irwindale, California 91706
Gustavo Romo
Community Development Director
(626) 430-2206
With assistance from:

Harvey Consulting Group, LLC
Jeffrey G. Harvey, Ph.D.

Principal & Senior Scientist
(916) 799-6065
City of Irwindale – Addendum No. 1: Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Final EIR November 2016
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Description of the Proposed Action.........................................1

1.2 CEQA Guidance and Basis for an Addendum to the FEIR ................................2

1.3 Conclusion Regarding Use of Addendum...........................................................3 SECTION 2.0 REVIEW OF THE FEIR ANALYSES AND ADDENDUM NO. 1 MODIFICATIONS ...........................................................................................4

2.1 Updated Air Quality, Greenhouse gases and Health Risk Assessment...............6

2.2 Updated Noise Assessment ...............................................................................17

2.3 Updated Traffic Generation and Circulation Assessment.................................22 SECTION 3.0 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................30 SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................31 TECHNICAL APPENDICES.....................................................................................................32 Appendix A – Updated Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment, November 2016 Appendix B – Updated Noise Assessment, November 2016
Appendix C – Updated Traffic Impact Assessment, November 2016

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.0-1 Review of FEIR Impact Analyses and Addendum No. 1 Modifications.................4 Table 2.3-1 Intersection Analysis Locations.............................................................................23 Table 2.3-2 Impacted Intersections...........................................................................................23 Table 2.3-3 Intersections Operating at Unacceptable Level of Service ....................................26 City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 1 ends

Addendum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project
City of Irwindale

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Addendum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project has been prepared by the City of Irwindale to evaluate a change in operations allowing an annual extraction of aggregate of up to 1.5 million tons per year (MTY).

The FEIR was certified and the Project was approved by the City on December 3, 2014. The approval was for United Rock Products Company (URP) – under lease from the City – to mine remaining aggregate reserves on the existing ±189 acre Olive Pit with average extraction rate of up to 1.0 MTY, and reclamation of the eastern portion of the pit to yield 32 net developable acres, with the balance of the site to be reclaimed for use as open space and/or stormwater retention basin.

1.1 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The approved Project involves three components: 1) construction of a new on-site access road and relocation of the on-site access point; 2) phased extraction of mineral resources (Phases I and II); and 3) site reclamation (Phases I and II). The first operational phase at the site will include extraction of the eastern portion of the site, followed by reclamation of this area to create an approximately 32-acre pad suitable for future development. Reclamation will involve filling the extraction void with compacted inert fill materials. The second operational phase will include extraction of the remainder of the site utilizing both dry and underwater extraction processes.

Reclamation of the Phase 2 area will involve stabilization of slopes created during extractive operations, to be completed as final slopes become available for this purpose.

The Project is expected to yield approximately 32-million tons of recoverable aggregate reserves that meet the quality standards of applicable California governmental agencies. Average production was approved to be approximately one-million tons of aggregate per year beginning in 2016 / 2017. At that rate, extraction would occur for a period of approximately 32 years with concurrent filling operations for reclamation commencing in the first of two phases. Final reclamation of the eastern 32 acres will involve backfilling and compaction to street level for potential future urban development. The remainder of the property was approved to be reclaimed for the potential end land use of storm water retention and groundwater recharge, and/or a flood control facility, and/or open space recreational land uses.

Extractive activities will utilize both dry and wet operations and will be subject to the City’s guidelines for slope stability and public safety. All mined material will be transported about 3.3 City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 2 ends

miles from the Olive Pit to URP’s existing processing facility located in URP’s Pit No. 4 at 1245 E. Arrow Highway in Irwindale. Loaded trucks will exit the Olive Pit at Cypress Avenue, travel north on Azusa Canyon Road to Arrow Highway, and then west across the I-605 to Pit 4. This transport route lies entirely within the City of Irwindale and will not utilize any adjacent cities streets or State highways.

United Rock Products has requested a change in operations to allow extraction of up to 1.5 million tons per year, based upon market demand. All other approved elements of the Project will remain the same, including hours of operation, truck routing, and mining and reclamation specifications and methods. No additional employees or equipment will be utilized within the mine site to accomplish the increased extraction rate, but the number of daily truck trips will increase by 1.5 times. Mining and reclamation of the site would be accelerated over a shorter period, and possibly over as few as 21-22 years rather than 32+ years.

This addendum to the FEIR addresses potential changes in impacts as reported in the FEIR, with a focus on impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, and related health risks.

The analysis also evaluates whether mitigation requirements imposed as conditions of approval would need to be modified or supplemented.

1.2 CEQA GUIDANCE AND BASIS FOR AN ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR As the Lead Agency under CEQA, Irwindale certified the FEIR evaluating and disclosing the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. When an EIR has been certified and the project is modified or otherwise changed after certification, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for and appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in §21166 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), which specifically provides that a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required unless one or more of the following occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.

Pursuant to the 2016 State CEQA Guidelines §15164, and with reference to §15162, an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required when City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 3 ends

changes or additions are necessary, but where none of the conditions call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR. This addendum has been prepared to assess the requested increased aggregate extraction rate and reclamation timing. The addendum is required to include an explanation of the decision not to prepare a Supplemental EIR, supported by substantial evidence pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines §15164(e).

The proposed action, as set forth and described in this Addendum No.1 to the FEIR, would not result in any change to mining or reclamation activities at the site, except that the allowable maximum annual extraction rate would increase from 1.0 MTY to 1.5 MTY, and the total time for completion of mining and subsequent reclamation of the site will be reduced from approximately 32 years to approximately 22 years. No change from the permitted mining depth, total materials mined, fill quantities, or post-reclamation land uses would occur from the proposed modification. Truck haul routes, processing location and number of employees are the same for both operational levels. Therefore, no substantial change or circumstance leading to a major revision would occur as a result of the proposed action.

Review of the impact analysis for each resource topic area is summarized below in Table 1 – Review of Impact Analyses. Chapters from the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation FEIR are referenced in the table. Updated assessments of air quality, greenhouse gases, health risks, noise and traffic are presented, with more detailed technical assessments of these topics contained in the supporting appendices A, B and C attached to this Addendum.

Based upon these assessments, the City concludes that the proposed action is within the scope of the Olive Pit FEIR and this Addendum No. 1 fulfills the CEQA review necessary for an addendum to an EIR. The proposed action would not result in any new significant impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR. Minor enhancements to mitigation requirements for traffic, air quality and noise are identified, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines §15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The enhancements to mitigation measures for traffic, air quality and noise are incorporated into the Project’s mitigation requirements as mandatory conditions of approval.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 4 ends

2.0 REVIEW OF THE FEIR IMPACT ANALYSES AND
ADDENDUM No. 1 MODIFICATIONS
As explained in the summary assessments that follow, and detailed in the attached technical appendices, the increased extraction rate would not be expected to result in any new impacts from those identified in the Olive Pit FEIR, but the magnitude of impacts for air quality, noise and traffic will be somewhat greater, requiring adjustments to mitigation requirements to address those increased effects. From a comprehensive project perspective, no changes to the types and number of mining equipment and employees, processing site, or depth of mining are proposed, and the long term reclamation and land use plans are not modified in any way. The increased extraction rate will result in reducing the total duration of both mining and reclamation activities, effectively leading to completion of operations about a decade earlier than for the currently approved operations, considered to be a beneficial change. Table 2.0-1 – Review of FEIR Impact Analysis and Addendum No. 1 Modifications briefly summarizes the proposed action as it relates to each resource area evaluated in the Olive Pit FEIR.

TABLE 2.0-1
REVIEW OF FEIR IMPACT ANALYSES and ADDENDUM No. 1

MODIFICATIONS

OLIVE PIT FEIR CHAPTER IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.1 Effects Not Found To Be
Significant
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.1-1
through 3.1-3) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

3.2 Aesthetics
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.2-1
through 3.2-11) remains accurate and is unchanged
by the Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

3.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases
and Health Risk Assessment
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.3-1
through 3.3-47) remains essentially accurate, and is
updated in this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit
FEIR to assess the increased emissions associated
with a higher extraction rate and adjust mitigation
requirements accordingly. See Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gases and Health Risk Assessment text
below, and Appendix A attached to this Addendum.

3.4 Biological Resources
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.4-1
through 3.4-32) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 5 ends

TABLE 2.0-1
REVIEW OF FEIR IMPACT ANALYSES and ADDENDUM No. 1

MODIFICATIONS

OLIVE PIT FEIR CHAPTER IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral
Resources
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.5-1
through 3.5-28) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

3.6 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.6-1
through 3.6-15) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

3.7 Land Use and Planning
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.7-1
through 3.7-19) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

3.8 Noise
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.8-1
through 3.8-33) remains essentially accurate, and is
updated in this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit
FEIR to assess the increased noise from mining and
traffic for a higher extraction rate and adjust
mitigation requirements as needed. See Noise
Assessment text below, and Appendix B attached to
this Addendum.

3.9 Traffic Generation and
Circulation
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.9-1
through 3.9-92) remains essentially accurate, and is
updated in this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit
FEIR to assess the increased number of truck trips
needed for a greater extraction rate, and adjust
mitigation requirements accordingly. See Traffic
Generation and Circulation Assessment text below,
and Appendix C attached to this Addendum.

3.10 Water Quality and Hydrology
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 3.10-1
through 3.10-21) remains accurate and is
unchanged by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit
FEIR.

4.0 Mandatory CEQA
Considerations
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 4.0-1
through 4.0-7) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

5.0 Alternatives to the 1.5 MTY
project
This chapter of the Olive Pit FEIR (pages 5.0-1
through 5.0-18) remains accurate and is unchanged
by this Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit FEIR.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 6 ends

As stated in the FEIR, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity of the Olive Pit include residential uses to the north, south, and west. Under the proposed modified extraction rate, haul truck traffic will be increased approximately 1.5 times, with attendant increases in air emissions, greenhouse gases and related health risks, and noise. Updated assessments of these environmental topics to account for the proposed increased extraction rate are presented below.

2.1 UPDATED AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GASES AND HEALTH

RISK ASSESSMENT
The updated assessment of air quality, greenhouses gases and associated health risks was prepared by Harvey Consulting Group’s team member, The RCH Group, and is the same consulting team that assisted the City of Irwindale in preparation of the 2014 Olive Pit EIR. This section presents a summary of their results. The full updated assessment is presented in Appendix A to this Addendum No. 1.

The updated air quality assessment evaluates air quality impacts of the increased processing levels and resultant haul truck trips for the change of operations from 1.0 million tons per year (MTY) to 1.5 MTY for the Irwindale Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. The Olive Pit Mine FEIR determined that air quality impacts of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were significant and unavoidable. This air quality assessment revises the air quality assessment and determines whether the change in operations would create any new significant air quality impacts or previous impacts that are substantially more severe as a result of the increased extraction rate. Other issues related to air emissions covered in this air quality technical report include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the assessment of emissions related to air quality health risks (health risk assessment or HRA).

The haul truck trips and number of haul trucks idling onsite are proposed to increase from 262 truck trips (within the FEIR) to 392 truck trips. Thus, the air emissions resulting from haul truck trips would increase. Throughput is proposed to increase from 1.0 to 1.5 MTY, thus, the fugitive dust from material handling, material processing, and unpaved surfaces would also increase.

The following discussion includes each of the air quality impacts described in the FEIR, states the results documented in the FEIR and the results associated with the increased extraction rate.

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 within the Final EIR shall continue to be implemented to reduce fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions. Additional mitigation measures are included to reduce the impacts of higher extraction rate, as needed.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 7 ends

IMPACT AQ-1
Would Project-related construction activities conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (SCAQMD 2012 AQMP, dated February 2013) or violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of SCAQMD?
Less than Significant
Construction activities (i.e., access road construction, site preparation, equipment staging, paving) would not be changed to accommodate the higher extraction rate. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.

As shown in Table 1: Estimated Daily Emissions from Project Construction (pounds) in Appendix A, the estimated daily emissions for all construction related emissions (including combustion engines and evaporative emissions), would be less than the significance criteria. The estimated daily ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Emissions of SO2 and lead would be less than 0.1 pounds per day and less than the respective significance thresholds.

IMPACT AQ-2
Would the operation of the 1.5 MTY project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (SCAQMD 2012 AQMP, dated February 2013) or violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of SCAQMD?
Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
As described in the FEIR, material would continue to be extracted through dry mining; thereafter, the use of a dredge or other method for extracting material below the water table would be used. As materials are extracted, it would continue to be transported from the pit to the loading area by off the road haul trucks or conveyor, and subsequently placed in overhead hoppers. On road haul trucks would continue to be loaded at the hoppers through an automated process. The trucks then proceed from the site to the United Rock Products processing plant located at 1245 East Arrow Highway in Irwindale.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 8 ends

Operation of the 1.5 MTY project would require the use of heavy-duty equipment, such as excavators, loaders, forklifts, off-road haul trucks. This equipment would be used to load and unload material and otherwise sort and handle material. Emissions from this equipment were estimated using the same approach as construction emissions. Emission factors from the OFFROAD emissions model were used to estimate emissions. All equipment would work during business hours except the road grader, which would work about 25 percent of the time. Hours of operation (business hours) are 7 am to 7 pm, six days a week (or 306 days per year). Off-road mining equipment would remain onsite and at the bottom of the pit at all times. The hours of operation and the number of days per year of operations is not proposed to change. No changes to the type and number of off-road onsite heavy duty equipment are proposed, and thus, no changes in the off-road equipment usage were analyzed.

Vehicular emissions were computed using the CARB’s emission factor model, EMFAC, to estimate on-road emissions. Employee trips were modeled using the light-duty auto classification. Paved road dust, break wear, and tire wear particulate emissions were also accounted for and included in the analysis using EMFAC factors and methodologies from CARB and the USEPA. The 1.5 MTY project would include approximately six employees, each traveling a round trip distance of 15 miles; assuming 306 working days a year (six-day work week, with six holidays). No changes in the number of employees are proposed and thus, no changes in the employee vehicles trips were analyzed.

Haul trucks were modeled using the “T7” classification, which is a heavy-heavy duty truck emission factor. Paved road dust, break wear, and tire wear particulate emissions were also accounted for and included in the analysis using EMFAC factors and methodologies from CARB and the USEPA. Haul trucks would only be at the loading area during operating hours when picking up a load. The haul truck trips and number of haul trucks idling onsite are proposed to increase from 262 truck trips (within the Final EIR) to 392 truck trips as a result of the increased extraction rate, with corresponding increase in air emissions resulting from haul truck trips.

Fugitive dust emissions were determined for the aggregate processing operations which include screening, material transfer to conveyors, truck loading/unloading as well as the material handling and storage operations. The emission factors were determined using the methodology found in Section 11 – Mineral Products Industry and Section 13 – Miscellaneous Sources of USEPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). SCAQMD’s fugitive dust mitigation measures were applied to the applicable uncontrolled pollutant emission rates. The material throughput is proposed to increase from 1.0 to 1.5 MTY, thus, the fugitive dust from material handling, material processing, and unpaved surfaces would increase from that previously assessed in the FEIR.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 9 ends

The unmitigated emissions for a 1.5 MTY operation are provided in Table 2 Estimated Daily

1.5 MTY project Unmitigated Emissions (pounds) in Appendix A. Without mitigation, the 1.5 MTY operations would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and be potentially significant for NOx and PM10 emissions.

The 1.5 MTY operations emissions using Tier 3 emission standard equipment are provided in Appendix A, Table 3 Estimated Daily 1.5 MTY project Emissions (pounds) with Tier 3 Equipment. Table 4 Estimated Daily 1.5 MTY project Emissions (pounds) with Tier 4 Equipment in Appendix A presents the emissions associated with the 1.5 MTY operation using Tier 4 emission standard equipment.

The 1.5 MTY operation’s mitigated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and thus, be less than significant for ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The 1.5 MTY emissions (using Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 emission standard equipment) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and be potentially significant for NOx emissions. However, the increase from 1.0 MTY to 1.5 MTY would only increase the NOx emissions by approximately 12 pounds per day, which is less than SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the change in operations would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous NOx emissions. Nevertheless, as disclosed in the FEIR, the NOx emissions associated with operational activities would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of SCAQMD and result in a significant unavoidable impact of NOx emissions. This conclusion remains unchanged from the FEIR.

IMPACT AQ-3
Would Project-related construction and operational activities potentially cause an exceedance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants? Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 Concentrations Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation for PM10 Concentrations The American Meteorological Society/USEPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee Model (AERMOD) was used to model the air dispersion of pollutants from the Project site and from off-site ambient air concentrations in order to evaluate compliance with the NAAQS and CAAQS. This model, which has been approved for use by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 10 ends

The estimated ambient air quality concentrations within the Final EIR (at 1 MTY) and the proposed increase (at 1.5 MTY) are provided in Table 6 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations in Appendix A. Without mitigation, Table 6 shows that the 1.5 MTY project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 and PM2.5 ambient concentrations. All other pollutants (CO, NO2, and SO2) would be a less than significant impacts on ambient air quality concentrations.

With Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 (using Tier 3 emission standard equipment), Table 6 in Appendix A shows that the 1.5 MTY project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 ambient concentrations. With Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 (using Tier 4 emission standard equipment), Table 6 in Appendix A also shows that the 1.5 MTY project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 ambient concentrations. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are included to reduce the PM10 impacts to less than significant.

Notably, the estimated project incremental PM10 24-hour concentrations which are greater than the threshold of 2.5 µg/m3 occurs at locations within 50 meters (165 feet) to the south of the facility (within open space and industrial/commercial land uses) and at locations within the southwest corner of the fenceline out to 25 meters (80 feet) within a residential area. The estimated project incremental PM10 24-hour concentration is below the significance threshold within locations beyond 50 meters (165 feet) from the project site to the south and southwest and at all locations to the east (commercial/industrial areas) and to the north (residential). These locations of potentially elevated PM10 concentrations encompass a relatively small geographical area. Secondly, a vast majority of the potentially significant PM10 impact is related to fugitive dust emissions from traffic/wind erosion on unpaved surfaces and material processing units (screening, hopper, conveyors).

In conclusion, with regard to the ambient concentrations, the 1.5 MTY project’s CO, NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 impacts would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous air quality impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15. The 1.5 MTY project’s incremental PM10 impacts would be a potentially significant air quality impact that was not identified in the FEIR and requires additional mitigation measures to avoid a Significant and Unavoidable PM10 impact.

1.5 MTY project (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 11 ends

MM AQ-8
The Project Operator shall require all on-site off-road heavy-duty equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) to meet USEPA Tier 3 and/or 4 emissions standards;1 based on availability at the initiation of the Project. In addition, all equipment shall be outfitted with the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of the certified tier specification for each piece of heavy-duty equipment, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the City prior to operation of the Project.

At a minimum, the Project Operator shall require upon occupancy that all heavy duty trucks entering the property must meet or exceed 2010 engine emission standards specified in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.5, Chapter 1, Section 2025. The Project Operator shall require further mitigation that requires phase-in for non-diesel powered trucks (e.g., natural gas trucks) as commercially-available and as a part of the bidding process during the replacement of diesel-powered trucks.

MM AQ-15
The initial 1000 200 feet of the access road shall be paved. The remaining length of the unpaved road shall be treated with dust palliatives and watered for dust control and soil stabilization. [Provides for an increase in the fugitive dust control efficiency for unpaved truck traffic from 84 to 92 percent].2
MM AQ-16
Require construction of three-sided enclosures with 50 percent porosity for storage piles. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency for storage piles of 75 percent].3 MM AQ-17
Water the storage piles at a rate of 1.4 gallons/hour-yard2, or apply cover when wind events are declared. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency for storage piles of 90 percent].4 1 Construction equipment with Tier 3 and 4 engines comprise nearly 50 and 22 percent, respectively, of the statewide construction equipment fleet and CARB Regulations will result in the percentage increasing over the next several years.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 12 ends

MM AQ-18
Operations on unpaved surfaces and material processing shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency of over 90 percent].5 MM AQ-19
Plant tree windbreaks on the windward (southwest fenceline) perimeter of the project site. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency of 4 to 15 percent].6 As shown in Table 7 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations with Additional Mitigation Measures in Appendix A, the project incremental PM10 impacts (using Tier 3 emission standard equipment and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19) would be 2.5 (calculated as 2.47) µg/m3 for 24-hour impact and 0.3 µg/m3 for annual impacts. The project incremental PM10 impacts (using Tier 4 emission standard equipment and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19) would be less than 2.1 µg/m3 for 24-hour impact and 0.4 µg/m3 for annual impacts.

In conclusion, with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19 (using Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 emission standard equipment), the 1.5 MTY project’s incremental PM10 impacts would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous PM10 concentrations. Therefore, the 1.5 MTY project would have a less than significant impact on PM10 concentrations.

IMPACT AQ-4
Would Project-related operational activities cause an exceedance of the CAAQS for CO at traffic intersections?
Less than Significant Impact
Increased traffic volumes due to the 1.5 MTY project result in increased pollutant emissions in the vicinity of the roads utilized by this traffic, which can cause pollutant levels to exceed the ambient air quality standards. CO and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) are the pollutants of major concern along roadways.
4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 13 ends

There is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation congestion and CO impacts; because exhaust from vehicular traffic is the primary source of CO. CO is a localized pollutant that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections.

The SCAQMD suggests that localized CO impacts be considered at intersections that change from level of service (LOS) A, B, or C to D or worse as a result of the 1.5 MTY project and for all intersections rated D or worse where the 1.5 MTY project increases the volume-to-capacity by two percent or more.

Traffic volumes at the 1.5 MTY project intersections are not projected to exceed the traffic volumes of the three worst-case intersections in the Air Basin either on a per lane basis or total traffic. Further, these intersections do not have any characteristics that would result in higher CO concentrations than the worst-case intersections. Therefore, no exceedance of the CO AAQS would be expected at any of these intersections and impacts would be less than significant.

Would Project-related operational activities cause an exceedance of the CAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 at traffic intersections?
Less than Significant Impact
Roads with substantial diesel truck volumes have the potential to result in particulate hot spots.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has published guidance on performing a qualitative analysis of particulate hot spots because at this time a reliable and accurate methodology for quantitatively assessing particulate hotspots has not been established. The FHWA guidance considers a road with an average daily diesel truck volume of 10,000 or less does not have the potential to result in a hot spot. None of the local roads in the project area would be expected to have this level of diesel truck traffic. The 1.5 MTY project would result in 392 one-way truck trips per day.

Generally, a project is not of concern unless it changes capacity or alignment of a road with more than 125,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) and eight percent trucks, more than 10,000 truck AADT (eight percent of 125,000), or otherwise may substantially increase or concentrate diesel exhaust emissions (such as bus terminals and transfer points, designated truck routes, and freight intermodal terminals).

The 1.5 MTY project would not cause diesel truck traffic volumes at a level to be a project of concern. Thus, the Project is not anticipated to cause or significantly contribute to any particulate matter concentrations exceeding the AAQS along local roadways serving the Project.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 14 ends

IMPACT AQ-5
Would Project operational activities expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC)?
Less than Significant Impact
The 1.5 MTY project-related health risk and hazards were compared to the significance thresholds. A HRA was conducted in accordance with technical guidelines developed by the federal and California agencies consistent with the FEIR assessment (i.e., USEPA, CalEPAOEHHA) and the SCAQMD.

The SCAQMD has established the CEQA significance threshold for individuals exposed to TAC sources as the increased incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or greater. The HRA analyzed the potential incremental cancer risks to residents in the project vicinity of the 1.5 MTY project, using emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC and OFFROAD emission models.

Within the FEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risks from all equipment and trucks would be

1.8 (residential adult receptor), 0.9 (residential child receptor), 0.4 (off-site worker), and 0.2 (school children receptor) cancers per million, which are less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million.

For the 1.5 MTY project, the maximum incremental cancer risks from all equipment and trucks would be 1.9 (residential adult receptor), 0.9 (residential child receptor), 0.4 (off-site worker), and 0.2 (school children receptor) cancers per million, which are less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million.

Exposure to non–carcinogenic substances would be significant if the Hazard Index (HI) exceeds

1.0. The Hazard Index is the ratio of a hazardous air pollutant concentration to its Reference Concentration, or safe exposure level. If this “hazard index” exceeds one, people are exposed to levels of hazardous air pollutants that may pose non-cancer health risks. The maximum chronic hazard index for the 1.5 MTY project is 0.1 and thus less than significant. The maximum acute hazard index for the 1.5 MTY project is 0.1 and thus less than significant.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 15 ends

IMPACT AQ-6
Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people? Less than Significant Impact
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. There are no associated odors with the 1.5 MTY project’s type of mining activities. Thus, it is determined that the 1.5 MTY project would not create odors affecting a substantial amount of people and this impact would be less than significant.

IMPACT AQ-7
Would the Project conflict with implementation of State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Less than Significant Impact
The primary source of GHG associated with the 1.5 MTY project would occur from ongoing mining operations and movement of the rock for processing. For the 1.5 MTY project, the City is adopting the SCAQMD, 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year industrial project screening threshold as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance from Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines.

Within the FEIR, the annual GHG emissions were determined to be 3,574 MT CO2e, and average annual GHG emissions of 3,049 MT CO2e. These GHG emissions were below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year.

With the 1.5 MTY project, the annual GHG emissions were determined to be 3,574 MT CO2e, and an average annual GHG emissions of 3,049 MT CO2e. These GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year.

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19, and adherence to various federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, would result in the following findings of potential air quality emissions and impacts, GHG emissions, odor and health risk assessment impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Olive Pit Mine. All impacts from the 1.5 MTY project related to air quality, GHG emissions, and health risks would be less than City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 16 ends

significant with mitigation except NOx operational emissions, which are significant and unavoidable, as was determined for the 1.0 MTY project in the FEIR.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Would the Project result in a cumulative impact of criteria pollutants including ozone precursors (NOx) emissions?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
The 1.5 MTY project would result in a potentially significant NOx emissions during operations and the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. Therefore, the

1.5 MTY project would result in a regional cumulative impact given that the Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. This is the same finding that was made for the

1.0 MTY project evaluated in the FEIR, and is not a changed finding resulting from the increased extraction rate.

The other criteria air pollutants (CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds and would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Air Basin.

The GHG emissions from the 1.5 MTY project would be less than significant impact. Since all GHG impacts are essentially cumulative impacts (any single project would not have an effect on global climate change), the 1.5 MTY project would not have cumulative effect and this impact would be less than significant.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 17 ends

2.2 UPDATED NOISE ASSESSMENT
The updated assessment of noise was prepared by Harvey Consulting Group’s team member, The RCH Group, and is the same consulting team that assisted the City of Irwindale in preparation of the 2014 Olive Pit EIR. This section presents a summary of their results. The full updated assessment is presented in Appendix B to this Addendum No. 1.

The updated noise assessment evaluates noise impacts relative to the proposed change in annual mining throughput from 1 million tons per year (MTY) to 1.5 MTY for the Irwindale Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. The FEIR determined that all noise impacts were less than significant with mitigation. The conclusions of this updated assessment are that with the implementation of revised Mitigation Measure N-3 there would be no new significant noise impacts or substantially more severe noise impacts.

This noise assessment evaluates each of the impact questions in the Noise chapter of the FEIR and determines if the increase in annual mining throughput would create a new significant noise impact.

THRESHOLD N-1
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies?
Construction Activities
Construction activities would be the same as what was analyzed in the FEIR. Construction noise would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

Mining and Reclamation Activities
The FEIR analyzed operation in the following phases: Phase I Extraction, Phase II Extraction, Phase I Reclamation and Phase II Reclamation. Since the mining and reclamation equipment, locations and hours of operation would be the same in all phases as what was analyzed in the FEIR, noise levels from mining and reclamation activities at the project site at an annual throughput of 1.5 MTY would be consistent with what was analyzed in the FEIR. Mining and reclamation noise was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the FEIR and no new significant noise impacts would occur with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput with incorporation of the noise mitigation measures from the FEIR.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 18 ends

Traffic Related Noise
Traffic noise from over-the-road haul trucks transporting extraction materials was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the FEIR. Consistent with what was analyzed in the FEIR, extraction transportation would be conducted Monday through Saturday during the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. using the haul truck route displayed on Figure 2.0-20 from the FEIR; (see Appendix B).

The FEIR analyzed six roadway segments along the project haul truck route and the a.m. peak hour was chosen for the traffic noise analysis because the a.m. peak hour had greater existing traffic volumes and a greater increase in vehicle traffic due to the project. The roadway segments along the project haul route during the a.m. peak hour were analyzed to estimate project increases and resulting traffic-generated noise increases on roadway links affected by projectrelated traffic.

Noise levels from haul truck traffic were determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model FHWA-RD-77-108 and the turning movements in the Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Urban Crossroads (Urban Crossroads, 2014). The TIA included traffic scenarios including existing (2014), Existing Plus Project (2014), Future Plus Project (2016), Future No Project (2035), and Future Plus Project (2035) conditions.

The detailed updated noise assessment contained in Appendix B includes tables that represent peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1 MTY (approved project) and

1.5 MTY (proposed increase). Tables 1 and 2 represent unmitigated and mitigated peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1 MTY and are Tables 3.8-11 and 3.8-12 of the FEIR. Table 3 represents peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of

1.5 MT with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM N-3 from the FEIR. Table 4 represents peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1.5 MT with incorporation of a revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 from the FEIR.

The impact of the project noise would be significant if Columns “B-A” and “E-D” show a noise increase of 1.5 dBA or more. Column “B-A” compares existing traffic noise in 2014 plus the project to the existing traffic noise in 2014. Column “E-D” compares future traffic noise in 2035 plus the project to the future traffic noise in 2035 without the project.

The impact of cumulative traffic noise (from other projects and this project) would be significant if Columns “C-A” and “E-A” show a noise increase of 1.5 dBA or more. Column “C-A” compares future traffic noise in 2016 plus the project to existing traffic noise in 2014. Column “E-A” compares future traffic noise in 2035 plus the project to the existing traffic noise in 2014.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 19 ends

A noise of increase of 1.5 dBA or more in columns “C-A” and “E-A” may not be a significant cumulative impact because the increase in traffic noise could be coming from other non-project sources. These cumulative impacts would occur with or without the project.

The proposed increase to 1.5 MTY would create new potentially significant project noise impacts in columns “B-A” and “E-D” on roadway segment four and new potentially significant cumulative noise impacts in columns “C-A” and “E-A” on roadway segments one, three and four; (see Table 3, Appendix B: Updated Noise Assessment).

With implementation of these revisions to Mitigation Measure MM N-3 there would be no increase in project traffic noise from the levels in the FEIR with the increase in annual mining throughput to 1.5 MTY. Also, none of the roadway segments have noise increases greater than

1.5 dBA (as shown in Table 4, columns “B-A” or “E-D”, Appendix B). Mitigation Measure MM N-3 is revised as follows (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):

MM N-3
The applicant has included the following mitigation measures as part of the 1.5 MTY project. The applicant shall ensure the following:
• All trucks shall be equipped with Diesel Particulate Filters or a resonator to reduce noise by 3 to 6 five dBA.
• No Jake Brakes shall be used.
• All trucks shall be equipped with single exhaust, vertical straight stacks and no turndown.
• Trucks shall also be equipped with automatic transmissions to eliminate unnecessary engine revving.

THRESHOLD N-2
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels?
The proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a change in mining and reclamation equipment on-site or the locations of mining and reclamation activities. Impact N-2 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-3
Would the project result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 20 ends

The proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a change in mining and reclamation equipment on-site, the locations of mining and reclamation activities or the hours of operation. Mining and reclamation noise levels at the project site would be consistent with the estimates in the FEIR. Background noise levels during hours of operation at residential receptors to the north, south and west were higher than mining and reclamation noise level estimates.

Mining and reclamation activities with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As noted earlier (Threshold N-1 discussion), the increase in over-the-road haul truck trips with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput would create a new potentially significant noise impact and a new potentially significant cumulative noise impact. However, potentially significant traffic noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3. Impact N-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-4
Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction activities would be the same as what was analyzed in the FEIR. Impact N-4 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-5
Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has been adopted, within two miles of a public airport and therefore expose people residing or working in the project areas to excess noise levels?
The project site is not located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport and therefore would not expose people working in the project area to excess noise levels. Impact N-5 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-6
Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore would not expose people working the project areas to excessive noise levels. Impact N-6 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 21 ends

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The FEIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM N-1, MM N-2, and MM N-3, all project related noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

The proposed increase in annual mining throughput to 1.5 MTY would not result in a new significant noise impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM N-1 and MM N-2 in the FEIR and implementation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 shown below. Mitigation Measure MM N-3 is revised as follows (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse impact on noise?
The FEIR concluded that cumulative traffic noise would be significant with project traffic and traffic from other cumulative projects, but the contribution of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. As indicated in the FEIR:
• The increases contributed by the project are 1.0 dBA or less in all cases. Since most people cannot perceive a 1 dBA increase in sound levels (unless in controlled conditions in an acoustics lab), the project contribution (of 1 dBA or less on each roadway segment) is not considered to be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative traffic noise impact.
• The total cumulative impact (project traffic and traffic from other cumulative impacts) is just barely over the 1.5 dBA threshold).

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 22 ends

With incorporation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 there would be no increase in project traffic noise associated with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput to 1.5 MTY compared to project traffic noise at 1.0 MTY analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from the 1.5 MTY project would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

2.3 UPDATED TRAFFIC GENERATION AND CIRCULATION

ASSESSMENT
The updated assessment of traffic generation and circulation was prepared by Harvey Consulting Group’s team member, Urban Crossroads, Inc., and is the same consulting team that assisted the City of Irwindale in preparation of the 2014 Olive Pit EIR. This section presents a summary of their results. The full updated assessment is presented in Appendix A to this Addendum No. 1.

The updated traffic impact analysis evaluates the proposed increased extraction rate for the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project from a traffic circulation standpoint. The 1.5 MTY project is to increase the maximum allowed annual extraction rate to 1.5 MTY from the currently approved 1.0 MTY.

Table 2.3-1 identifies intersection analysis locations which include the proposed site access driveways, adjacent roadways, and intersections around the site, including the major signalized intersections providing access from the site to the nearest regional corridor (I-605 Freeway). The intersection analysis locations have been selected based on locations where the project is anticipated to contribute 50 (or more) peak hour trips. The intersection analysis locations have also been refined based on the traffic study scoping and discussions with City staff during preparation of the 2014 EIR.

The San Gabriel Freeway (I-605) and the Foothill Freeway (I-210) ramps located in the City of Irwindale are the only Los Angeles County Congestion Management (CMP) - designated facilities in the City of Irwindale.

The following summarizes the principal findings in the updated traffic impact analysis report (Appendix C of this Addendum No. 1):

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 23 ends

Table 2.3-1 Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection Location Traffic Control Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized
Irwindale
and West
Covina
2 Azusa Canyon Road / Cypress Street Signalized Irwindale 3 Azusa Canyon Road / Olive Street Signalized Irwindale 4 Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale 5 Maine Avenue / Arrow Highway Signalized
Irwindale
and Baldwin
Park
6 Arrow Highway / Live Oak Avenue Signalized Irwindale
7 Arrow Highway / Rivergrade Road Signalized Irwindale
8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Lane / Arrow Highway Unsignalized Caltrans 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway Signalized Caltrans 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale 11 URP2 Driveway 1 / Arrow Highway Unsignalized Irwindale 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Unsignalized Irwindale 13 Maine Avenue / Los Angeles Street Signalized Baldwin Park
14 Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Baldwin Park
15 Ped Xing / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale
16 Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street - (Future) Unsignalized Irwindale For Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions, the following intersections operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

Table 2.3-2: Impacted Intersections
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale At an unsignalized intersection, a significant impact occurs when the minor stop-controlled approach operates at unacceptable level of service (“E” or worse) and does not have acceptable operation in terms of total control delay, and the addition of more than 50 peak-hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approach.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 24 ends

Based on the intersection analysis results and numbers of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions).

The westbound left turn movement (from adjacent Private Driveway) at the intersection of Avenida Barbosa/URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) is the only minor approach anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS “E”) and the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the westbound left turns at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS. Therefore, the project impact at this location is considered less-than significant and improvements are not recommended.

For Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to previously identified locations under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions.

At a signalized intersection, a significant impact occurs when an intersection operates at unacceptable level of service (“E” or worse) for baseline conditions and the project adds more than 50 peak hour project trips. Based on the intersection analysis results and numbers of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Interim Year 2016 Without Project to Interim Year 2016 With Project conditions).

For Long Range (2035) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to previously identified locations under Interim Year (2016) Conditions.

The following improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 25 ends

1. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

2. 2016 Without and With Project Conditions:

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
• Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane. • Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

3. 2035 Without and With Project Conditions:

I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9)
• Construct a 2nd southbound left turn lane.
- It should be noted that this improvement is consistent with the Traffic/Circulation Study Draft for 1-605 Northbound Off-Ramp/Live Oak Avenue Interchange Improvements (November 2013) prepared by AECOM. Caltrans or the City may accept fair share funding contributions towards future improvements of its facilities so long as improvements are reasonably expected to be implemented in a reasonable time frame.

The project will be fully responsible for the intersection improvement at Azusa Canyon Road/Los Angeles Street (#1) to mitigate the project’s direct impact to pre-project conditions.

This section of the report summarizes the overall findings and provides recommendations regarding project related traffic improvements.

Findings
Existing Conditions
Regional access to the site is provided by a number of major freeways, including Interstate Freeway 10 (I-10) to the south, I-605 Freeway to the west and I-210 Freeway to the north. Local access to the project site is anticipated to be provided by the following roadways:
• Los Angeles Street
• Azusa Canyon Road
City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 26 ends

For Existing (2014) conditions, the following intersections currently operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours:

Table 2.3-3: Intersections Operating at Unacceptable Level of Service Based on the traffic signal warrants for Existing (2014) traffic conditions, the intersections of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) and Phelan Avenue /Los Angeles Street (#14) both appear to warrant a traffic signal.

The intersection of Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street (#14) appears to warrant a traffic signal, however, this intersection is expected to continue to operate at acceptable level of service “C” or better with an all-way-stop control through 2035 conditions. Therefore, a project significant impact is not anticipated and installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this location.

Project Development
Table 2-1 in Appendix C presents the project’s trip generation. The 1.5 MTY project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,256 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip-ends per day with 193 AM peak hour trips and 131 PM peak hour trips.

Future Traffic Conditions
For Existing (2014) Plus Project, no new intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service in addition to the previously identified locations under Existing (2014) conditions. It should be noted however that addition of project traffic will increase delay but will continue to operate at the same level of service as existing conditions (LOS “E”).

Based on the intersection analysis results and numbers of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions). It should be noted that the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the deficient movement (westbound left turn) at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS.

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 27 ends

Therefore, the project impact at this location is considered less-than significant and improvements are not recommended.

For Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to the previously identified locations under Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions.

Based on the intersection analysis results and number of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Interim Year 2016 Without Project to Interim Year 2016 With Project conditions).

For Long Range (2035) Without and With Project conditions, the I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to the previously identified locations under Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions.

Project Recommendations
Recommended off-site and on-site improvements are presented on exhibit’s 7-A through 7- D in Appendix C. It should be noted that the off-site improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant and result in acceptable level of service operations with the addition of project traffic.

Exhibit 7-A in Appendix C illustrates the Existing Plus Project off-site improvements. For Existing plus Project conditions, the project will be required to construct the following improvement to mitigate the project’s direct impact:

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 28 ends

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
• Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

Exhibit 7-B in Appendix C illustrates the Interim Year (2016) With Project off-site improvements. The project shall pay its fair share for the following improvement to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
• Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane. • Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

Exhibit 7-C in Appendix C illustrates the Long Range (2035) With Project off-site improvements. The project shall pay its fair share for the following improvement to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

Exhibit 7-D in Appendix C presents the on-site improvements related to the project access intersection. As shown on Exhibit 7-D, the recommended on-site improvements are as follows:

Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street (#16) – To mitigate potential traffic impacts at this location the project shall be required to install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics prior to commencement of operations:
• Northbound Approach: N/A
• Southbound Approach: One left turn lane and one right turn lane. • Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through lane and 2nd through lane. • Westbound Approach: Two through lanes and one defacto right turn lane.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 29 ends

1.5 MTY project. The only bike path within the City of Irwindale is located on the River bed, west of Rivergrade Road and north of Arrow Highway. Based on the existing uses near the project site, and the project’s trip generation characteristics, pedestrian activity is anticipated to be nominal.

The recommended project off-site and on-site improvements provide for safe and efficient access conditions, and accommodate the travel activities associated with the 1.5 MTY project. Furthermore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that would result in a decrease of the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 30 ends

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed action is within the scope of the Olive Pit FEIR and this Addendum No. 1 fulfills the CEQA review necessary for an addendum to an EIR. Based upon the foregoing analysis and related modifications to mitigation requirements, the proposed increased extraction rate from 1.0 MTY to 1.5 MTY is determined to be consistent with the description of the environmental setting, environmental impacts and mitigation measures as set forth in the originally certified Olive Pit FEIR.

Minor enhancements to mitigation requirements for traffic, air quality and noise are identified, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines §15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. All other applicable and relevant mitigation measures to the mining, reclamation and long term land use plan that were included in the Olive Pit FEIR are incorporated by reference herein and are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Olive Pit FEIR (refer to Chapter 9.0 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). The modified and supplemental mitigation measures for air quality, noise and traffic identified herein are incorporated in mandatory mitigation requirements as conditions of approval for the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. No further environmental review is required.

Because there are no new or substantially more severe impacts, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review. However, the City shall make the Addendum available to the public and consider it in conjunction with all of the associated documents in the record as a part of making its decision to permit the increased extraction rate. No formal noticing or recirculation of the Olive Pit FEIR is required since conditions permitting adoption of an Addendum are satisfied. Upon adoption by the City of Irwindale, this Addendum will be inserted as a part of the Vulcan FEIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(c)).

This Addendum No. 1 to the Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final Environmental Impact Report and the complete 2014 FEIR are available for review during normal business hours at the Irwindale City Hall: 5050 Irwindale Boulevard, Irwindale, California 91706.

City of Irwindale: Addendum No. 1 – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR November 2016

Page 31 ends

4.0 REFERENCES
On-File with the City of Irwindale Planning Department:

Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2014031051 (Certified by the City of Irwindale City Council on December 3, 2014).

United Rock Company, Olive Pit, Request for Modification of Operations to Allow Extraction of Up to 1.5 Million Tons of Aggregate Per Year (September 2016).

Appendix A
Updated Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
November 2016
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Technical Report
Olive Pit Mine
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Prepared by:

RCH Group
11060 White Rock Road
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
November 11, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Olive Pit Mine Environmental Impact Report Addendum
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment Page
Section 1. Introduction 1
Section 2. Project Overview 1
Section 3. Impact Analysis and Mitigation 2
Impact AQ-1: Construction Activities 3
Impact AQ-2: Operational Emissions 4
Impact AQ-3: Ambient Air Quality Standards 8
Impact AQ-4: CO and PM Intersection Hot Spot 13
Impact AQ-5: Toxic Air Contaminants 14
Impact AQ-6: Odor Impacts 15
Impact AQ-7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 15
Section 4. Significance After Mitigation 16
Section 3. Cumulative Impacts 16
Table 1 – Estimated Daily Emissions from Project Construction (pounds) 4 Table 2 – Estimated Daily Proposed Project Unmitigated Emissions (pounds) 6 Table 3 – Estimated Daily Proposed Project Mitigated Emissions (pounds) with Tier 3 Equipment 7
Table 4 – Estimated Daily Proposed Project Mitigated Emissions (pounds) with Tier 4 Equipment 8
Table 5 – SCAQMD Ambient Air Quality Standards Significance Thresholds 9 Table 6 – Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 10 Table 7 – Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations
with Additional Mitigation 11
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following air quality technical report analyzes air quality impacts relative to the change of operations from 1.0 million tons per year (MTY) to 1.5 MTY for the Irwindale Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. The Proposed Project is the modifications associated with the increased processing levels and resultant haul truck trips. The Olive Pit Mine Final EIR determined that air quality impacts of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were significant and unavoidable. This air quality technical report revises the air quality assessment and determines whether the change in operations would create any new significant air quality impacts or previous impacts that are substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project. Other issues related to air emissions covered in this air quality technical report include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the assessment of emissions related to air quality health risks (health risk assessment or HRA).

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project-related operations include the following:
 off-site vehicle emissions (haul trucks and employee traffic),  onsite idling emissions,
 onsite fugitive dust emissions from material handling, material processing, and unpaved surfaces; and
 onsite heavy duty equipment emissions.

No changes in the number of employees are proposed and thus, no changes in the employee vehicles trips were analyzed. No changes to the type and number of off-road onsite heavy duty equipment are proposed, and thus, no changes in the off-road equipment usage were analyzed.

The hours of operation and the number of days per year of operations is not proposed to change.

The haul truck trips and number of haul trucks idling onsite are proposed to increase from 262 truck trips (within the Final EIR) to 392 truck trips as a result of the Proposed Project. Thus, the air emissions resulting from haul truck trips would increase with the Proposed Project. The material throughput is proposed to increase from 1.0 to 1.5 MTY, thus, the fugitive dust from material handling, material processing, and unpaved surfaces would also increase with the Proposed Project.
2 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
The air quality analysis includes a review of criteria pollutant1emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO)2, NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC) as reactive organic gases (ROG)3, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (coarse or PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (fine or PM2.5),
4 and lead (Pb). The HRA addresses the diesel
particulate matter (DPM) emissions from on-site equipment and haul trucks and crystalline silica from fugitive dust (material handling and unpaved roads). An assessment of GHG emissions is also included.

Intermittent (short-term construction emissions that occur from activities, such as site-grading paving) and long-term impacts related to the operation of the Proposed Project are evaluated.

The analysis focuses on daily and annual emissions from construction and operations (mobile, area, stationary, and fugitive sources) activities. The air quality analysis is consistent with the methods described in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

As with the Final EIR, regulatory models used to estimate air quality impacts include:
 California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC5emissions inventory model. EMFAC is the latest emission inventory model that calculates emission inventories and emission rates for motor vehicles operating on roads in California. This model reflects CARB’s current understanding of how vehicles travel and how much they emit. EMFAC can be used to show how California motor vehicle emissions have changed over time and are projected to change in the future.
 CARB OFFROAD6emissions inventory model. OFFROAD is the latest emission inventory model that calculates emission inventories and emission rates for off-road equipment such as loaders, excavators, and off-road haul trucks operating in California.

1 Criteria air pollutants refer to those air pollutants for which the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). 2 CO is a non–reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion of organic material, and is mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic, and in wintertime, with wood–burning stoves and fireplaces. 3 VOC means any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions and thus, a precursor of ozone formation. ROG are any reactive compounds of carbon, excluding methane, CO, CO2 carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and other exempt compounds. The terms VOC and ROG are often used interchangeably.
4 PM10 and PM2.5 consists of airborne particles that measure 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs, causing adverse health effects. 5 California Air Resources Board, CARB EMFAC2011 User’s Guide, December 20, 2012, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm
6 California Air Resources Board, OFFROAD Instructions, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/info_1085/oei_write_up.pdf 3 This model reflects CARB’s current understanding of how equipment operates and how much they emit. OFFROAD can be used to show how California off-road equipment emissions have changed over time and are projected to change in the future.  United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s AP 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors contains emission factors for stationary point and area emission sources such as those associated with mineral processing, unpaved surfaces, and aggregate handling and storage.
 AERMOD (American Meteorological Society/USEPA Regulatory Model) is an atmospheric dispersion model which can simulate point, area, volume, and line emissions sources and has the capability to include simple, intermediate, and complex terrain along with meteorological conditions and multiple receptor locations. 7,8 AERMOD is
commonly executed to yield 1-hour maximum and annual average concentrations (in micrograms per cubic meter or µg/m3) at each receptor.

The following discussion includes each of the air quality impacts described in the Final EIR, states the results documented in the Final EIR and the results associated with the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 within the Final EIR shall continue to be implemented as part of the Proposed Project to reduce fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions. Additional mitigation measures are included to reduce the Proposed Project impacts, if applicable.

Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing

7 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Preferred/Recommended Models, AERMOD Modeling System, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod. 8 Title 40 CFR Part 51, Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf. 4 system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Air emissions associated with the Proposed Project construction activities would be expected to be less than that estimated within the Final EIR.

As shown in Table 1 Estimated Daily Emissions from Project Construction (pounds), the estimated daily emissions for all construction related emissions (including combustion engines and evaporative emissions), would be less than the significance criteria, assuming compliance with Rules 402 and 403. The emission estimates assume compliance with Rule 402 and 403. The estimated daily ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Emissions of SO2 and lead would be less than 0.1 pounds per day and less than the respective significance thresholds.

Table 1: Estimated Daily Emissions from Project Construction (pounds) Emission Source ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 6.5 32.5 23.0 8.4 5.0
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55
IMPACT AQ-2
Would the operation of the Proposed Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (SCAQMD 2012 AQMP, dated February 2013) or violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of SCAQMD?
Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
Material would continue to be extracted through dry mining; thereafter, the use of a dredge or other method for extracting material below the water table would be used. As materials are extracted, it would continue to be transported from the pit to the loading area by off the road haul trucks or conveyor, and subsequently placed in overhead hoppers. On road haul trucks would continue to be loaded at the hoppers through an automated process. The trucks then proceed from the site to the United Rock Products processing plant located at 1245 East Arrow Highway in Irwindale. The first phase includes mining the eastern portion of the site, followed by reclamation of this area to create an approximate 32 acre pad suitable for development.

Reclamation would involve filling the extraction void with inert fill materials. The second phase includes mining the remainder of the site utilizing both dry and underwater mining processes. 5 Operation of the Proposed Project would require the use of heavy-duty equipment, such as excavators, loaders, forklifts, off-road haul trucks. This equipment would be used to load and unload material and otherwise sort and handle material. Emissions from this equipment were estimated using the same approach as construction emissions. Emission factors from the OFFROAD emissions model were used to estimate emissions. All equipment would work during business hours except the road grader, which would work 25 percent of the time. Hours of operation (business hours) are 6 am to 6 pm, six days a week (or 306 days per year). Off-road mining equipment would remain onsite and at the bottom of the pit at all times. The hours of operation and the number of days per year of operations is not proposed to change. No changes to the type and number of off-road onsite heavy duty equipment are proposed, and thus, no changes in the off-road equipment usage were analyzed.

Vehicular emissions were computed using the CARB’s emission factor model, EMFAC, to estimate on-road emissions. Employee trips were modeled using the light-duty auto classification. Paved road dust, break wear, and tire wear particulate emissions were also accounted for and included in the analysis using EMFAC factors and methodologies from CARB and the USEPA. The Proposed Project would include approximately six employees, each traveling a round trip distance of 15 miles; assuming 306 working days a year (six-day work week, with six holidays). No changes in the number of employees are proposed and thus, no changes in the employee vehicles trips were analyzed.

Haul trucks were modeled using the T7 classification, which is a heavy-heavy duty truck emission factor for public vehicles. Paved road dust, break wear, and tire wear particulate emissions were also accounted for and included in the analysis using EMFAC factors and methodologies from CARB and the USEPA. Haul trucks would only be at the loading area during operating hours when picking up a load. The haul truck trips and number of haul trucks idling onsite are proposed to increase from 262 truck trips (within the Final EIR) to 392 truck trips as a result of the Proposed Project. Thus, the air emissions resulting from haul truck trips would increase with the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project unmitigated emissions are provided in Table 2 Estimated Daily Proposed Project Unmitigated Emissions (pounds). Without mitigation, the Proposed Project operations 6 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and be potentially significant for NOx and PM10 emissions.

Table 2: Estimated Daily Proposed Project Unmitigated Emissions (pounds) Project Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Equipment 7.71 86.6 40.8 3.45 3.17
Employee Trips <0.01 0.02 0.21 <0.01 <0.01
Offsite Haul Truck Trips 0.36 41.0 1.70 0.21 0.19
Haul Truck Idle 0.22 1.98 1.25 <0.01 <0.01
Fugitive Dust - - - 243 30.4
Hopper/Conveyer - - - 48.5 7.28
Total Proposed Project (Addendum at 1.5 MTY) 9.50 153 51.9 296 41.8 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No Yes No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Total Project (Final EIR at 1.0 MTY) 9.31 137 50.8 199 26.5 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No Yes No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Increase Associated with Proposed Project (1.5
MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 0.19 16.0 1.10 97.0 15.3
Percent Increase Associated with Proposed
Project (1.5 MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 2.0% 10.5% 2.1% 32.8% 36.6% The Proposed Project emissions using Tier 3 emission standard equipment are provided in Table 3 Estimated Daily Proposed Project Emissions (pounds) with Tier 3 Equipment. Table 4 Estimated Daily Proposed Project Emissions (pounds) with Tier 4 Equipment presents the emissions associated with the Proposed Project using Tier 4 emission standard equipment.

The Proposed Project mitigated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and thus, be less than significant for ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Proposed Project emissions (using Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 emission standard equipment) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and be potentially significant for NOx emissions. However, the Proposed Project (increase from 1.0 MTY to 1.5 MTY) would only increase the NOx emissions by approximately 12 pounds per day, which is less than SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the change in Proposed Project operations would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous NOx emissions.

Nevertheless, the NOx emissions associated with operational activities would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and violate any air quality standards or 7 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of SCAQMD and result in a significant unavoidable impact of NOx emissions.

Table 3: Estimated Daily Proposed Project Mitigated Emissions (pounds) with Tier 3 Equipment
Project Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Equipment 8.14 81.1 48.6 3.12 2.87
Employee Trips <0.01 0.01 0.17 <0.01 <0.01
Offsite Haul Truck Trips 0.40 33.2 1.75 0.19 0.17
Haul Truck Idle 0.24 1.70 1.37 <0.01 <0.01
Fugitive Dust - - - 39.8 5.01
Hopper/Conveyer - - - 4.34 0.65
Total Proposed Project (Addendum at 1.5 MTY) 8.79 116 51.9 47.5 8.70 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Total Project (Final EIR at 1.0 MTY) 8.57 104 50.8 34.1 6.58 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Increase Associated with Proposed Project (1.5
MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 0.22 12.0 1.10 13.4 2.12
Percent Increase Associated with Proposed
Project (1.5 MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 2.6% 11.5% 2.2% 39.3% 32.2% 8 Table 4: Estimated Daily Proposed Project Mitigated Emissions (pounds) with Tier 4 Equipment
Project Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Equipment 6.90 43.8 48.6 0.55 0.54
Employee Trips <0.01 0.01 0.17 <0.01 <0.01
Offsite Haul Truck Trips 0.53 33.2 1.75 0.13 0.12
Haul Truck Idle 0.27 1.70 1.37 0.01 0.01
Fugitive Dust - - - 39.8 5.01
Hopper/Conveyer - - - 4.34 0.65
Total Proposed Project (Addendum at 1.5 MTY) 7.69 78.7 51.9 44.8 6.32 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Total Project (Final EIR at 1.0 MTY) 7.43 67.0 50.8 33.5 4.22 Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55
Increase Associated with Proposed Project (1.5
MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 0.26 11.7 1.10 11.3 2.10
Percent Increase Associated with Proposed Project
(1.5 MTY versus 1.0 MTY) 3.4% 14.9% 2.1% 25.2% 33.2%
IMPACT AQ-3
Would Project-related construction and operational activities potentially cause an exceedance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants? Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 Concentrations Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation for PM10 Concentrations The American Meteorological Society/USEPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee Model (AERMOD) was used to model the air dispersion of pollutants from the Project site and from off-site ambient air concentrations in order to evaluate compliance with the NAAQS and CAAQS. This model, which has been approved for use by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD.

Using dispersion modeling, the project would result in a significant operational air quality impact if regional emissions exceed the significance concentration thresholds set forth in Table 5 SCAQMD Ambient Air Quality Standards Significance Thresholds. 9 Table 5: SCAQMD Ambient Air Quality Standards Significance Thresholds Pollutant Averaging Period Pollutant Concentration
CO 1-hour /8-hour SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the attainment standards of 20 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour).

NO2 1-hour SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standard 0.18 ppm.

Annual 0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)
PM10 24-hour 10.4 µg/m3(Construction) and 2.5 µg/m3(operation) Annual 1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5 24-hour 10.4 µg/m3(Construction) and 2.5 µg/m3(operation) SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html
The estimated ambient air quality concentrations within the Final EIR (at 1 MTY) and the Proposed Project (at 1.5 MTY) are provided in Table 6 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations. Without mitigation, Table 6 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations shows that the Proposed Project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 and PM2.5 ambient concentrations. All other pollutants (CO, NO2, and SO2) would be a less than significant impacts on ambient air quality concentrations.

With Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 (using Tier 3 emission standard equipment), Table 6 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations shows that the Proposed Project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 ambient concentrations. With Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-15 (using Tier 4 emission standard equipment), Table 6 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations also shows that the Proposed Project would be a potentially significant impact for PM10 ambient concentrations. Therefore, additional mitigation measures are included to reduce the PM10 impacts to less than significant.

Notably, the estimated project incremental PM10 24-hour concentrations which are greater than the threshold of 2.5 µg/m3occurs at locations within 50 meters (165 feet) to the south of the facility (within open space and industrial/commercial land uses) and at locations within the southwest corner of the fenceline out to 25 meters (80 feet) within a residential area. The estimated project incremental PM10 24-hour concentrations is below the significance threshold within locations beyond 50 meters (165 feet) from the Proposed Project to the south and southwest and at all locations to the east (commercial/industrial areas) and to the north (residential). These locations of potentially elevated PM10 concentrations encompass a relative small geographical area. Secondly, a vast majority of the potentially significant PM10 impact is related to fugitive dust emissions from traffic/wind erosion on unpaved surfaces and material processing units (screening, hopper, conveyors).

In conclusion, with regard to the ambient concentrations, the Proposed Project CO, NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 impacts would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous air quality impacts with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through 10 AQ-15. The Proposed Project incremental PM10 impacts would be a new potentially significant impact on air quality which was not within the Final EIR and would require additional mitigation measures or be a Significant and Unavoidable PM10 impact. If the additional mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures AQ-8 and AQ-15 through AQ-19) were not implemented but the Proposed Project was limited to 1.3 MTY then the Proposed Project would also be a less than significant impacts on O, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations.

Table 6: Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations
Project Condition NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Final EIR at 1.0 MTY
Unmitigated 0.15/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 9.4/1.2 1.7
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No
Mitigated with Tier 3 Equipment 0.12/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 2.2/0.03 0.6 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No
Mitigated with Tier 4 Equipment 0.11/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 1.9/0.03 0.2 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 0.18/0.03 20/9 0.04 2.5/1.0 2.5 Proposed Project at 1.5 MTY with Final EIR
Mitigation Measures
Mitigated with Tier 3 Equipment 0.13/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 3.2/0.4 0.7 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No
Mitigated with Tier 4 Equipment 0.11/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 2.9/0.4 0.4 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 0.18/0.03 20/9 0.04 2.5/1.0 2.5 Note: NO2 impacts (in ppm) are for 1-hour and annual averaging periods. CO impacts (in ppm) are for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging periods. PM10 impacts (in µg/m3) are for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. PM2.5 impacts (in µg/m3) are for 24- hour averaging periods.

The following mitigation measures (modifications to Mitigation Measures AQ-8 and AQ-15 and the addition of Mitigation Measures AQ-16 through AQ-19) have been identified to reduce the potential significant air quality impacts to PM10 concentrations from the Proposed Project at 1.5 MTY (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):
11 MM AQ-8
The Project Operator shall require all on-site off-road heavy-duty equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) to meet USEPA Tier 3 and/or 4 emissions standards;9based on availability at the initiation of the Project. In addition, all equipment shall be outfitted with the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of the certified tier specification for each piece of heavy-duty equipment, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the City prior to operation of the Project.

The Project Operator shall require further mitigation that requires phase-in for non-diesel powered trucks (e.g., natural gas trucks) as commercially-available and as a part of the bidding process during the replacement of diesel-powered trucks.

9 Construction equipment with Tier 3 and 4 engines comprise nearly 50 and 22 percent, respectively, of the statewide construction equipment fleet and CARB Regulations will result in the percentage increasing over the next several years.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 12 MM AQ-17
Water the storage piles by hand at a rate of 1.4 gallons/hour-yard2, or apply cover when wind events are declared. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency for storage piles of 90 percent].12
MM AQ-18
Operations on unpaved surfaces and material processing shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency of over 90 percent].13 MM AQ-19
Plant tree windbreaks on the windward (southwest fenceline) perimeter of project site. [Provides for a fugitive dust control efficiency of 4 to 15 percent].14 As shown in Table 7 Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations with Additional Mitigation Measures, The project incremental PM10 impacts (using Tier 3 emission standard equipment and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19) would be 2.5 (calculated as 2.47) µg/m3 for 24-hour impact and 0.3 µg/m3for annual impacts. The project incremental PM10 impacts (using Tier 4 emission standard equipment and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19) would be less than 2.1 µg/m3 for 24-hour impact and 0.4 µg/m3for annual impacts.

In conclusion, with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19 (using Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 emission standard equipment), the Proposed Project incremental PM10 impacts would not create any new significant air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of previous PM10 concentrations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be a less than significant impact on PM10 concentrations.

12 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-controlefficiencies 13 Table 7: Estimated Ambient Air Quality Concentrations with Additional Mitigation Project Condition NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project at 1.5 MTY
Mitigated with Tier 3 Equipment 0.13/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 2.5/0.3 0.6 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No
Mitigated with Tier 4 Equipment 0.11/0.02 3.1/1.4 <0.01 2.2/0.3 0.3 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 0.18/0.03 20/9 0.04 2.5/1.0 2.5 Note: NO2 impacts (in ppm) are for 1-hour and annual averaging periods. CO impacts (in ppm) are for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging periods. PM10 impacts (in µg/m3) are for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. PM2.5 impacts (in µg/m3) are for 24- hour averaging periods.

There is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation congestion and CO impacts; because exhaust from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO. CO is a localized pollutant that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections.

The SCAQMD suggests that localized CO impacts be considered at intersections that change from level of service (LOS) A, B, or C to D or worse as a result of the Proposed Project and for all intersections rated D or worse where the Proposed Project increases the volume-to-capacity by two percent or more.

Traffic volumes at the Proposed Project intersections are not projected to exceed the traffic volumes of the three worst-case intersections in the Air Basin either on a per lane basis or total traffic. Further, these intersections do not have any characteristics that would result in higher CO concentrations than the worst-case intersections. Therefore, an exceedance of the CO AAQS would not be expected at any of these intersections and impacts would be less than significant. 14 Would Project-related operational activities cause an exceedance of the CAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 at traffic intersections?
Less than Significant Impact
Roads with substantial diesel truck volumes have the potential to result in particulate hot spots.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has published guidance on performing a qualitative analysis of particulate hot spots because at this time a reliable and accurate methodology for quantitatively assessing particulate hotspots has not been established. The FHWA guidance considers a road with an average daily diesel truck volume of 10,000 or less does not have the potential to result in a hot spot. None of the local roads in the project area would be expected to have this level of diesel truck traffic. The Proposed Project would result in 392 one-way truck trips per day.

Generally, a project is not a project of concern unless it changes capacity or alignment of a road with more than 125,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) and eight percent trucks, more than 10,000 truck AADT (eight percent of 125,000), or otherwise may substantially increase or concentrate diesel exhaust emissions (such as bus terminals and transfer points, designated truck routes, and freight intermodal terminals).

The Proposed Project would not cause diesel truck traffic volumes at a level to be a project of concern. Thus, the Project is not anticipated to cause or significantly contribute to any particulate matter concentrations exceeding the AAQS along local roadways serving the Project.

IMPACT AQ-5
Would Project operational activities expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC)?
Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project-related health risk and hazards were compared to the significance thresholds. A HRA was conducted in accordance with technical guidelines developed by the federal and California agencies (i.e., USEPA, CalEPA-OEHHA) and the SCAQMD.

The SCAQMD has established the CEQA significance threshold for individuals exposed to TAC sources as the increased incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or greater. The HRA analyzed the potential incremental cancer risks to residents in the project vicinity of the Proposed Project, using emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC and OFFROAD emission models.

Emissions were input into the USEPA approved dispersion model AERMOD to calculate ambient air concentrations at receptors in the project vicinity. This assessment is intended to provide a worst–case estimate of the increased exposure by employing a standard emission estimation program and an accepted pollutant dispersion model. 15 Within the Final EIR, the maximum incremental cancer risks from all equipment and trucks would be 1.8 (residential adult receptor), 0.9 (residential child receptor), 0.4 (off-site worker), and 0.2 (school children receptor) cancers per million, which are less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million.

For the Proposed Project, the maximum incremental cancer risks from all equipment and trucks would be 1.9 (residential adult receptor), 0.9 (residential child receptor), 0.4 (off-site worker), and 0.2 (school children receptor) cancers per million, which are less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million.

Exposure to non–carcinogenic substances would be significant if the Hazard Index (HI) exceeds

1.0. The Hazard Index is the ratio of a hazardous air pollutant concentration to its Reference Concentration, or safe exposure level. If this “hazard index” exceeds one, people are exposed to levels of hazardous air pollutants that may pose non-cancer health risks. The maximum chronic hazard index for the Proposed Project is 0.1 and thus less than significant. The maximum acute hazard index for the Proposed Project is 0.1 and thus less than significant.

IMPACT AQ-6
Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people? Less than Significant Impact
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. There are no associated odors with the Proposed Project’s type of mining activities. Thus, it is determined that the Proposed Project would not create odors affecting a substantial amount of people and this impact would be less than significant.

IMPACT AQ-7
Would the Project conflict with implementation of State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Less than Significant Impact
The primary source of GHG associated with the Proposed Project would occur from ongoing mining operations and movement of the rock for processing. For the Proposed Project, the City is adopting the SCAQMD, 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year industrial project screening threshold as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance from Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines.
16 Within the Final EIR, the annual GHG emissions of 3,574 MT CO2e and an average annual GHG emissions of 3,049 MT CO2e were determined. These GHG emissions were below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year.

With the Proposed Project, the annual GHG emissions of 3,574 MT CO2e and an average annual GHG emissions of 3,049 MT CO2e. These GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than Significant Impact for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-19, and adherence to various federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, would result in the following findings of potential air quality emissions and impacts, GHG emissions, odor and health risk assessment impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Olive Pit Mine. All impacts from the Proposed Project related to air quality, GHG emissions, and health risks would be less than significant with mitigation except NOx operational emissions, which are significant and unavoidable.

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Would the Project result in a cumulative impact of criteria pollutants including ozone precursors (NOx) emissions?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact for NOx Emissions
The Proposed Project would result in a potentially significant NOx emissions during operations and the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a regional cumulative impact given that the Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. The other criteria air pollutants (CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds and would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Air Basin.

The GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would be less than significant impact. Since all GHG impacts are essentially cumulative impacts (any single project would not have an effect on global climate change), the Proposed Project would not have cumulative effect and this impact would be less than significant.

Appendix B
Updated Noise Assessment
November 2016
Noise Technical Report
Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum
Prepared for:

City of Irwindale
5050 N. Irwindale Ave.

Irwindale, CA 91706
Prepared by:

RCH Group
11060 White Rock Road Suite 150-A
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum
Noise Technical Report
Page

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Project Overview 1

3.0 Impact Analysis and Mitigation 1

4.0 Significance After Mitigation 9

5.0 Cumulative Impacts 9
Table 1 – Unmitigated Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity at 1 MTY Existing (2014) Versus Future (2016 and 2035) 4 Table 2 – Mitigated Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity at 1 MTY Existing (2014) Versus Future (2016 and 2035) 5 Table 3 – Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity at 1.5 MTY Existing (2014) Versus Future (2016 and 2035) With Mitigation Measure MM N-3 From Final EIR 6
Table 4 – Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity at 1.5 MTY Existing (2014) Versus Future (2016 and 2035) With Revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 7

ATTACHMENTS
Noise Appendix
Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 1 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following noise technical report analyzes noise impacts relative to the proposed change in annual mining throughput from 1 million tons per year (MTY) to 1.5 MTY for the Irwindale Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project. The Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR determined that all noise impacts were less than significant. This report revises the noise assessment and determines whether the change in operations would create a new significant noise impact. The conclusions of this report are that with the implementation of revised Mitigation Measure N-3 there would be no new significant noise impacts or substantially more severe noise impacts.

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed increase in annual mining throughput from 1 MTY to 1.5 MTY would increase the number of over-the-road haul trucks by 50 percent. 262 one-way daily trips were analyzed in the Final EIR, thus 392 one-way daily trips is used in this report to analyze the increase in annual mining throughput. The over-the-road haul trucks would use the same haul route analyzed in the Final EIR. No change in mining and reclamation equipment, number of employees or hours of operation would occur. Mining and reclamation would occur six days per week, 52 weeks per year, less six holidays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The proposed increase in annual mining throughput would reduce the years of mining from 32 years to 22 to 23 years.

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
This noise report analyzes each of the impact questions in the Noise Section of Final EIR and determines if the increase in annual mining throughput would create a new significant noise impact.

THRESHOLD N-1
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies?
Construction Activities
Construction activities would be the same as what was analyzed in the Final EIR. Construction noise would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

Mining and Reclamation Activities
The Final EIR analyzed operation in the following phases: Phase I Extraction, Phase II Extraction, Phase I Reclamation and Phase II Reclamation. Since the mining and reclamation equipment, locations and hours of operation would be the same in all phases as what was analyzed in the Final EIR, noise levels from mining and reclamation activities at the project site Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 2 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
at an annual throughput of 1.5 MTY would be consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR. Mining and reclamation noise was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the Final EIR and no new significant noise impacts would occur with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput with incorporation of the noise mitigation measures from the Final EIR.

Traffic Related Noise
Traffic noise from over-the-road haul trucks transporting extraction materials was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the Final EIR. Consistent with what was analyzed in the Final EIR, extraction transportation would be conducted Monday through Saturday during the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. using the haul truck route displayed on Figure 2.0- 20 from the Final EIR (See Appendix).

The Final EIR analyzed six roadway segments along the project haul truck route and the a.m. peak hour was chosen for the traffic noise analysis because the a.m. peak hour had greater existing traffic volumes and a greater increase in vehicle traffic due to the project. The roadway segments along the project haul route during the a.m. peak hour were analyzed to estimate project increases and resulting traffic-generated noise increases on roadway links affected by project-related traffic.

The following tables represent peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1 MTY (approved project) and 1.5 MTY (proposed increase). Table 1 and 2 represent unmitigated and mitigated peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1 MTY and are Tables 3.8-11 and 3.8-12 of the Final EIR. Table 3 represents peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1.5 MT with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM N-3 from the Final EIR. Table 4 represents peak-hour traffic noise levels at an annual mining throughput of 1.5 MT with incorporation of a revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 from the Final EIR.

Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 3 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
A noise of increase of 1.5 dBA or more in columns “C-A” and “E-A” may not be a significant cumulative impact because the increase in traffic noise could be coming from other non-project sources. These cumulative impacts would occur with or without the project.

As shown in Table 3, the proposed increase to 1.5 MTY would create new potentially significant project noise impacts in columns “B-A” and “E-D” on roadway segment four and new potentially significant cumulative noise impacts in columns “C-A” and “E-A” on roadway segments one, three and four.

Table 4 shows traffic noise levels at 1.5 MTY with implementation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3. With implementation of these revisions to Mitigation Measure MM N-3 there would be no increase in project traffic noise from the levels in the Final EIR (even with the increase in annual mining throughput). Also, as can be seen in Table 4, none of the roadway segments have noise increases greater than 1.5 dBA (in columns “B-A” or “E-D”).

Mitigation Measure MM N-3 is revised as follows (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):

MM N-3
The applicant has included the following mitigation measures as part of the Proposed Project. The applicant shall ensure the following:
• All trucks shall be equipped with Diesel Particulate Filters or a resonator to reduce noise by 3 to 6 five dBA.
• No Jake Brakes shall be used.
• All trucks shall be equipped with single exhaust, vertical straight stacks and no turndown.
• Trucks shall also be equipped with automatic transmissions to eliminate unnecessary engine revving.

TABLE 1: UNMITIGATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AT 1 MTY EXISTING (2014) VERSUS FUTURE (2016 AND 2035)
Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 4 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
Source: RCH Group, Inc., 2014
Roadway Segment
A.M. Peak Hour Noise Levels, dBA, Leq
(A)
Existing
(2014)
(B)
Existing
Plus
Project
(2014)
(C)
Future
Plus
Project
(2016)
(B-A)
Net Change
Existing
Plus Project
vs. Existing
(C-A)
Net Change
Future Plus
Project
(2016) vs.

Existing
(D)
Future
No
Project
(2035)
(E)
Future
Plus
Project
(2035)
(E-D)
Net Change
Future +
Project (2035)
vs. Future No
Project (2035)
(E-A)
Net Change
Future (2035) +
Project vs.

Existing (2014)

1. Azusa Canyon Rd. south
of Arrow Hwy. b,c 67.5 69.2 69.4 1.8 1.9 67.9 69.6 1.7 2.1

2. Arrow Hwy. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c 74.1 74.6 75.0 0.5 0.8 74.7 75.1 0.4 1.0

3. Azusa Canyon Rd. north
of Los Angeles St.b,c 67.5 69.2 69.4 1.7 1.9 67.9 69.6 1.6 2.1

4. Los Angeles St. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c 66.5 68.6 68.8 2.1 2.3 67.0 68.9 2.0 2.4

5. Arrow Hwy. east of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c 72.2 73.0 74.0 0.8 1.8 73.6 74.2 0.6 2.0

6. Arrow Hwy. west of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c 73.1 73.7 74.4 0.6 1.3 74.1 74.6 0.5 1.5 a. Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA Leq if existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA, Ldn at existing residences, per Federal Interagency Committee on Noise standards for transportation noise. Increases 1.5 dBA or greater are in bold and underlined text.
b. Road center to receptor distance is 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) for all roadway segments. Noise levels were determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model FHWA-RD-77-108 calculations. c. The analysis considered the vehicle mix based on existing vehicle type counts and project trip generation by vehicle type. Existing heavy trucks are assumed to be 1% of auto vehicle mix. Traffic speeds for all vehicle classes were set at 40 mph on all roads except Arrow Highway, which is assumed to be 45 mph.

TABLE 2: MITIGATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AT 1 MTY EXISTING (2014) VERSUS FUTURE (2016 AND 2035)
Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 5 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
Source: RCH Group, Inc., 2014
Roadway Segment
A.M. Peak Hour Noise Levels, dBA, Leq
(A)
Existing
(2014)
(B)
Existing
Plus
Project
(2014)
(C)
Future
Plus
Project
(2016)
(B-A)
Net Change
Existing
Plus Project
vs. Existing
(C-A)
Net Change
Future Plus
Project
(2016) vs.

Existing
(D)
Future
No
Project
(2035)
(E)
Future
Plus
Project
(2035)
(E-D)
Net Change
Future +
Project (2035)
vs. Future No
Project (2035)
(E-A)
Net Change
Future (2035) +
Project vs.

Existing (2014)

1. Azusa Canyon Rd.
south of Arrow Hwy. b,c 67.5 68.4 68.6 0.9 1.1 67.9 68.8 0.9 1.3

2. Arrow Hwy. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 74.1 74.4 74.7 0.3 0.6 74.7 74.9 0.2 0.8

3. Azusa Canyon Rd. north
of Los Angeles St.b,c,d 67.5 68.4 68.6 0.9 1.1 67.9 68.8 0.9 1.3

4. Los Angeles St. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 66.5 67.7 67.8 1.2 1.3 67.0 68.0 1.0 1.5

5. Arrow Hwy. east of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 72.2 72.6 73.7 0.4 1.5 73.6 73.9 0.3 1.7

6. Arrow Hwy. west of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 73.1 73.4 74.1 0.3 1.0 74.1 74.3 0.2 1.2 a. Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA Leq if existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA, Ldn at existing residences, per Federal Interagency Committee on Noise standards for transportation noise. Increases 1.5 dBA or greater are in bold and underlined text.
b. Road center to receptor distance is 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) for all roadway segments. Noise levels were determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model FHWA-RD-77-108 calculations. c. The analysis considered the vehicle mix based on existing vehicle type counts and project trip generation by vehicle type. Existing heavy trucks are assumed to be 1% of auto vehicle mix. Traffic speeds for all vehicle classes were set at 40 mph on all roads except Arrow Highway, which is assumed to be 45 mph.
d. The analysis assumed the noise reduction measures in MM N-3. A conservative 3 dBA reduction was assumed for Proposed Project trucks.

TABLE 3: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AT 1.5 MTY EXISTING (2014) VERSUS FUTURE (2016 AND 2035) WITH MITIGATION MEASURE MM N-3 FROM FINAL EIR Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 6 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
Source: RCH Group, Inc., 2016
Roadway Segment
A.M. Peak Hour Noise Levels, dBA, Leq
(A)
Existing
(2014)
(B)
Existing
Plus
Project
(2014)
(C)
Future
Plus
Project
(2016)
(B-A)
Net Change
Existing
Plus Project
vs. Existing
(C-A)
Net Change
Future Plus
Project
(2016) vs.

Existing
(D)
Future
No
Project
(2035)
(E)
Future
Plus
Project
(2035)
(E-D)
Net Change
Future +
Project (2035)
vs. Future No
Project (2035)
(E-A)
Net Change
Future (2035) +
Project vs.

Existing (2014)

1. Azusa Canyon Rd.
south of Arrow Hwy. b,c 67.5 68.8 69.0 1.3 1.5 67.9 69.2 1.3 1.7

2. Arrow Hwy. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 74.1 74.5 74.8 0.4 0.7 74.7 75.0 0.3 0.9

3. Azusa Canyon Rd. north
of Los Angeles St.b,c,d 67.5 68.8 69.0 1.3 1.5 67.9 69.2 1.3 1.7

4. Los Angeles St. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 66.5 68.2 68.3 1.7 1.8 67.0 68.5 1.5 2.0

5. Arrow Hwy. east of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 72.2 72.7 73.8 0.5 1.6 73.6 74.0 0.4 1.8

6. Arrow Hwy. west of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 73.1 73.5 74.2 0.4 1.1 74.1 74.4 0.3 1.3 a. Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA Leq if existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA, Ldn at existing residences, per Federal Interagency Committee on Noise standards for transportation noise. Increases 1.5 dBA or greater are in bold and underlined text.
b. Road center to receptor distance is 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) for all roadway segments. Noise levels were determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model FHWA-RD-77-108 calculations. c. The analysis considered the vehicle mix based on existing vehicle type counts and project trip generation by vehicle type. Existing heavy trucks are assumed to be 1% of auto vehicle mix. Traffic speeds for all vehicle classes were set at 40 mph on all roads except Arrow Highway, which is assumed to be 45 mph.
d. The analysis assumed the noise reduction measures in MM N-3. A conservative 3 dBA reduction was assumed for Proposed Project trucks.

TABLE 4: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AT 1.5 MTY EXISTING (2014) VERSUS FUTURE (2016 AND 2035) WITH REVISED MITIGATION MEASURE MM N-3 Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 7 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
Source: RCH Group, Inc., 2016
Roadway Segment
A.M. Peak Hour Noise Levels, dBA, Leq
(A)
Existing
(2014)
(B)
Existing
Plus
Project
(2014)
(C)
Future
Plus
Project
(2016)
(B-A)
Net Change
Existing
Plus Project
vs. Existing
(C-A)
Net Change
Future Plus
Project
(2016) vs.

Existing
(D)
Future
No
Project
(2035)
(E)
Future
Plus
Project
(2035)
(E-D)
Net Change
Future +
Project (2035)
vs. Future No
Project (2035)
(E-A)
Net Change
Future (2035) +
Project vs.

Existing (2014)

1. Azusa Canyon Rd.
south of Arrow Hwy. b,c 67.5 68.4 68.5 0.9 1.0 67.9 68.8 0.9 1.3

2. Arrow Hwy. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 74.1 74.3 74.6 0.2 0.5 74.7 74.9 0.2 0.8

3. Azusa Canyon Rd. north
of Los Angeles St.b,c,d 67.5 68.4 68.6 0.9 1.1 67.9 68.8 0.9 1.3

4. Los Angeles St. west of
Azusa Canyon Rd. b,c,d 66.5 67.7 67.8 1.2 1.3 67.0 68.0 1.0 1.5

5. Arrow Hwy. east of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 72.2 72.6 73.7 0.4 1.5 73.6 73.9 0.3 1.7

6. Arrow Hwy. west of
Rivergrade Rd. b,c,d 73.1 73.4 74.1 0.3 1.0 74.1 74.3 0.2 1.2 a. Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise from traffic is greater than the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA Leq if existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA, Ldn at existing residences, per Federal Interagency Committee on Noise standards for transportation noise. Increases 1.5 dBA or greater are in bold and underlined text.
b. Road center to receptor distance is 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) for all roadway segments. Noise levels were determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model FHWA-RD-77-108 calculations. c. The analysis considered the vehicle mix based on existing vehicle type counts and project trip generation by vehicle type. Existing heavy trucks are assumed to be 1% of auto vehicle mix. Traffic speeds for all vehicle classes were set at 40 mph on all roads except Arrow Highway, which is assumed to be 45 mph.
d. The analysis assumed the noise reduction measures in Revised MM N-3. A 5 dBA reduction was assumed for Proposed Project trucks.

Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 8 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
THRESHOLD N-2
Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels?
The proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a change in mining and reclamation equipment on-site or the locations of mining and reclamation activities. Impact N-2 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-3
Would the project result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a change in mining and reclamation equipment on-site, the locations of mining and reclamation activities or the hours of operation. Mining and reclamation noise levels at the project site would be consistent with the estimates in the Final EIR. Background noise levels during hours of operation at residential receptors to the north, south and west were higher than mining and reclamation noise level estimates. Mining and reclamation activities with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As noted earlier (Threshold N-1 discussion), the increase in over-the-road haul truck trips with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput would create a new potentially significant noise impact and a new potentially significant cumulative noise impact. However, potentially significant traffic noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3. Impact N-3 would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

THRESHOLD N-4
Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction activities would be the same as what was analyzed in the Final EIR. Impact N-4 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 9 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
THRESHOLD N-6
Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore would not expose people working the project areas to excessive noise levels. Impact N-6 would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Final EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM N-1, MM N-2, and MM N-3, all project related noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure MM N-3 is revised as follows (additions are shown in underline and deleted text is show in strikethrough):

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Would the project, combined with other related cumulative projects, have a substantial adverse impact on noise?
The Final EIR concluded that cumulative traffic noise would be significant with project traffic and traffic from other cumulative projects, but the contribution of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. As indicated in the Final EIR. • The increases contributed by the project are 1.0 dBA or less in all cases. Since most people cannot perceive a 1 dBA increase in sound levels (unless in controlled conditions in an acoustics lab), the project contribution (of 1 dBA or less on each roadway segment) is not considered to be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative traffic noise impact.

Olive Mine and Reclamation Project EIR Addendum 10 Noise Technical Report November 2016 RCH Group
• The total cumulative impact (project traffic and traffic from other cumulative impacts) is just barely over the 1.5 dBA threshold).

With incorporation of revised Mitigation Measure MM N-3 there would be no increase in project traffic noise associated with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput to 1.5 MTY compared to project traffic noise at 1.0 MTY analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from the proposed project would remain less than significant with the proposed increase in annual mining throughput.

Noise Appendix
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Irwindale – Olive Pit Mine and Reclamation Project Final EIR October 2014

Page 2 ends

Figure 2.0-20 Access Route to Processing Area
Figure 2.0-20
Appendix C
Updated Traffic Impact Assessment
November 2016
Olive Pit Mining and
Reclamation Site
Revised Truck Activity Evaluation

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:

Jeff Harvey, PhD.

HARVEY CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
2146 Gold Claims Court
Gold River, CA 95670
PREPARED BY:

Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
[email protected]
(949) 660‐1994 x208
John Kain, AICP
[email protected]
(949) 660‐1994 x211
Janette Cachola
[email protected]
(949) 660‐1994 x249
NOVEMBER 14, 2016
10568‐02 Report.docx

Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ................................................................... 7

1.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Traffic Operations Analysis ....................................................................................... 10

1.3.1 Intersection Delay Analysis Methodology

1.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology .......................................................... 14

1.5 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact ......................................................... 15

1.5.1 Definition of Deficiency

1.5.2 Definition of Significant Impact

1.6 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Consistency Requirements ....................................................................................... 17

1.7 Principal Findings ...................................................................................................... 18

1.8 Project Fair Share Calculations ................................................................................ 19

1.9 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 19

1.9.1 Off-Site Improvements

1.9.2 On-Site Circulation Recommendations

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 23

2.1 Location ..................................................................................................................... 23

2.2 Land Use and Intensity ............................................................................................. 23

2.3 Project Access ........................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Phasing and Timing .................................................................................................. 23

2.5 Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................. 24

2.6 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................. 28

2.7 Project Only Volumes ................................................................................................ 28 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Section Page

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 35

3.1 Existing Roadway System Circulation Network ........................................................ 35

3.2 Transit Service .......................................................................................................... 37

3.3 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................ 37

3.4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 37

3.5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 37

3.6 Existing (2014) Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 41

3.6.1 Existing Intersection Delay Analysis

3.6.2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

3.7 Planned Transportation Improvements and Relationships to General Plan ........... 46

4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................... 55

4.1 Existing Plus Project ................................................................................................ 55

4.2 Interim Year (2016) Without Project ......................................................................... 55

4.3 Interim Year (2016) With Project .............................................................................. 65

4.4 Long Range (2035) Without Project ......................................................................... 65

4.5 Long Range (2035) With Project .............................................................................. 75

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 83

5.1 Delay, Capacity, Level of Service and Improvement Analysis ................................. 83

5.1.1 Existing Plus Project

5.1.2 Interim Year (2016) Without Project

5.1.3 Interim Year (2016) With Project

5.1.4 Long Range (2035) Without Project

5.1.5 Long Range (2035) With Project
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Section Page

6.0 IMPROVEMENT AND PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION ............................. 101

6.1 Off-Site Recommended Improvements ................................................................. 101

6.2 2035 With Project Fair Share Percentage .............................................................. 102

7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 105

7.1 Findings ................................................................................................................... 105

7.1.1 Existing Conditions

7.1.2 Project Development

7.1.3 Future Traffic Conditions

7.2 Project Recommendations ...................................................................................... 107

Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
Scoping Letter ....................................................................................................................................A Daily Traffic Count Data .....................................................................................................................B Peak Hour Traffic Count Data and Volume Development Summary .............................................. C Existing (2014) Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets .................................................................................................... D Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets .....................................................................................E Cumulative Project Trip Distributions ................................................................................................ F Los Angeles CMP Growth Factor Excerpts ..................................................................................... G Existing Plus Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets .................................................................................................... H Interim Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets ................................................................................................ I Interim Year (2016) With Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets ............................................................................................... J Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets .............................................................................................. K Long Range (2035) With Project Buildout Conditions
Intersection Analysis Worksheets ............................................................................................... L Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
ES-A Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 2 ES-B Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 3 1-A Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 8 2-A Truck Outbound Trip Distribution ......................................................................................... 25 2-B Truck Inbound Trip Distribution ............................................................................................ 26 2-C Employee (Passenger Car) Trip Distribution ....................................................................... 27 2-D Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ..................................................................................... 29 2-E Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ....................................................................... 30 2-F Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ....................................................................... 31 2-G Project Only Peak Hour Link Volumes ................................................................................. 33 3-A Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ............................................ 36 3-B Foothill Transit Agency Bus Routes ..................................................................................... 38 3-C Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................ 39 3-D Existing (2014) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ........................................................................ 40 3-E Existing (2014) AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ......................................................... 42 3-F Existing (2014) PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ......................................................... 43 3-G City of Irwindale General Plan Circulation Element ............................................................. 47 3-H City of Irwindale General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ................................................... 48 3-I County of Los Angeles General Plan Circulation Element ................................................. 49 3-J County of Los Angeles General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ........................................ 50 3-K City of Baldwin Park General Plan Circulation Element ...................................................... 52 3-L City of Baldwin Park General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ............................................. 53 3-M City of Irwindale Truck Routes ............................................................................................. 54 4-A Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ............................................................... 56 4-B Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................ 57 4-C Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................ 58 4-D Cumulative Development Location Map .............................................................................. 59 4-E Cumulative Average Daily Traffic (ADT) .............................................................................. 66 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONT.)
Exhibit Page
4-F Cumulative AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................................ 67 4-G Cumulative PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................................ 68 4-H Interim Year (2016) Without Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ....................................... 69 4-I Interim Year (2016) Without Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................ 70 4-J Interim Year (2016) Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................ 71 4-K Interim Year (2016) With Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ............................................ 72 4-L Interim Year (2016) With Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .............................. 73 4-M Interim Year (2016) With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .............................. 74 4-N Long Range (2035) Without Project Average Daily Traffic ................................................. 76 4-O Long Range (2035) Without Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................ 77 4-P Long Range (2035) Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................ 78 4-Q Long Range (2035) With Project Average Daily Traffic ....................................................... 79 4-R Long Range (2035) With Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ............................. 80 4-S Long Range (2035) With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ............................. 81 7-A Existing Plus Project Conditions Required Off-Site Improvements ................................... 109 7-B Interim Year (2016) With Project Conditions Required Off-Site Improvements ................ 110 7-C Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions Required Off-Site Improvements ................ 111 7-D Site Access Recommendations ......................................................................................... 112 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
ES-1 Intersection Analysis Locations .............................................................................................. 4 2-1 Project Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................... 28 3-1 Existing (2014) Conditions Intersection Analysis Summary ................................................ 45 4-1 Other Development Trip Generation Summary ................................................................... 61 5-1 Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Analysis Summary ....................................... 84 5-2 Existing and Existing Plus Project
Intersection Analysis Summary Comparison ....................................................................... 86 5-3 Interim Year (2016) Without Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 88 5-4 Interim Year (2016) With Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 90 5-5 Interim Year (2016) Intersection Analysis Summary Comparison ...................................... 92 5-6 Long Range (2035) Without Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 94 5-7 Long Range (2035) With Project Conditions
Intersection Analysis Summary ............................................................................................ 96 5-8 Long Range (2035) Intersection Analysis Summary Comparison ...................................... 97 6-1 Long Range (2035) With Project Buildout
Fair Share Percentages For Off-Site Improvements ......................................................... 103 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the proposed Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed project is located north of Los Angeles Street, south of Olive Street, and west of Azusa Canyon Road, in the City of Irwindale. Exhibit ES-A illustrates the general vicinity of the project site.

The Proposed Project plans involve three components: 1) construction of a new on-site access road; 2) phased extraction of mineral resources; and 3) site reclamation. The first operational phase at the site will include mining the eastern portion of the site, followed by reclamation of this area to create an approximately 32-acre pad suitable for future development. Reclamation will involve filling the extraction void with inert fill materials. The second operational phase will include mining the remainder of the site utilizing both dry and underwater mining processes.

Exhibit ES-B illustrates the intersection analysis locations which include the proposed site access driveways, adjacent roadways, and intersections around the site, including the major signalized intersections providing access from the site to the nearest regional corridor (I-605 Freeway). The intersection analysis locations have been selected based on locations where the project is anticipated to contribute 50 (or more) peak hour trips. The intersection analysis locations have also been refined based on the traffic study scoping presented in Appendix “A” and discussions with City staff. The San Gabriel Freeway (I-605) and the Foothill Freeway (I-210) ramps located in the City of Irwindale are the only Los Angeles County Congestion Management (CMP) - designated facilities in the City of Irwindale. Table ES-1 summarizes the intersection analysis locations identified on Exhibit ES-B:

Table ES-1 Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection Location Traffic Control Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Irwindale and West Covina 2 Azusa Canyon Road / Cypress Street Signalized Irwindale 3 Azusa Canyon Road / Olive Street Signalized Irwindale 4 Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale 1 2
3 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
Table ES-1 Intersection Analysis Locations (Continued)
ID Intersection Location Traffic Control Jurisdiction
5 Maine Avenue / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale and Baldwin Park 6 Arrow Highway / Live Oak Avenue Signalized Irwindale
7 Arrow Highway / Rivergrade Road Signalized Irwindale
8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Lane / Arrow Highway Unsignalized Caltrans 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway Signalized Caltrans 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale 11 URP2 Driveway 1 / Arrow Highway Unsignalized Irwindale 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Unsignalized Irwindale 13 Maine Avenue / Los Angeles Street Signalized Baldwin Park 14 Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Baldwin Park 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Highway Signalized Irwindale
16 Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street - (Future) Unsignalized Irwindale The following summarizes the principal findings in the traffic analysis portions of this report:

For Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions, the following intersections operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale At an unsignalized intersection, a significant impact occurs when the minor stop-controlled approach operates at unacceptable level of service (“E” or worse) and does not have acceptable operation in terms of total control delay, and the addition of more than 50 peakhour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approach.

Based on the intersection analysis results and number of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions). 4 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
It should be noted that the westbound left turn movement (from adjacent Private Driveway) at the intersection of Avenida Barbosa/URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) is the only minor approach anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS “E”) and the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the westbound left turns at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS. Therefore, the project impact at this location is considered less-than significant and improvements are not recommended.

At a signalized intersection, a significant impact occurs when an intersection operates at unacceptable level of service (“E” or worse) for baseline conditions and the project adds more than 50 peak hour project trips. Based on the intersection analysis results and number of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Interim Year 2016 Without Project to Interim Year 2016 With Project conditions).

Based on the intersection analysis results and number of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Long Range 2035 Without Project to Long Range 2035 With Project conditions). 5 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.docx)
The following improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant.

1. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases. 2. 2016 Without and With Project Conditions:

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

3. 2035 Without and With Project Conditions:

Caltrans or the City may accept fair share funding contributions towards future improvements of its facilities so long as improvements are reasonably expected to be implemented in a reasonable time frame.

The project will be fully responsible for the intersection improvement at Azusa Canyon Road/Los Angeles Street (#1) to mitigate the project’s direct impact to pre-project conditions.

The project will be partially responsible and contribute on a fair share basis for the intersection improvement at Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) and I-605 SB Off-Ramp/Arrow Highway (#9) to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact to pre-project conditions. 6 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

OLIVE PIT MINING AND RECLAMATION PROJECT

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the proposed Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed project is located north of Los Angeles Street, south of Olive Street, and west of Azusa Canyon Road, in the City of Irwindale.

To satisfy the environmental analysis requirements per the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the following time frames / scenarios will be evaluated in the traffic analysis:
 Existing (2014) Conditions
 Existing Plus Project Conditions
 Interim Year (2016) Conditions Without and With the Project  Long Range (2035) Conditions Without and With the Project

1.2 Project Description
Exhibit 1-A shows the site plan of the proposed project. The Project is approximately 190 acres in size and the proposed Project plans involve three components: 1) construction of a new on-site access road; 2) phased extraction of mineral resources; and 3) site reclamation. The first operational phase at the site will include mining the eastern portion of the site, followed by reclamation of this area to create an approximately 32-acre pad suitable for future development. Reclamation will involve filling the extraction void with inert fill materials. The second operational phase will include mining the remainder of the site utilizing both dry and underwater mining processes.
7 8
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Material excavated in the pit will be transported up the access road to the loading area by conveyor or off-road haul trucks and subsequently placed in overhead hoppers.

Over-the-road haul trucks will be loaded at the hoppers through an automated process.

Extracted materials will then be transported approximately 3 miles from the pit to the processing plant located at 1245 E Arrow Highway in Irwindale.

United Rock proposes to extract an average of 1.5 million tons per year during Phase I.

This mining activity will typically occur 6 days per week, excluding holidays. This amounts to approximately 306 working days a year (306 days = 52 weeks per year x 6 work days per week, less 6 holidays). The average truck load conveys approximately 25 tons of aggregate material. On an annual basis, 60,000 truck trips are required to transport 1.5 million tons. The average daily activity equals 196 round trips (60,000 annual trips / 306 working days). This will result in 392 one-way truck trips a day (both entering and exiting truck trips).

Operational components of the Project include the following:
 A locking gate will be placed at the entrance to the site to prevent unauthorized access during non-business hours.
 An approximate 5-acre area at the entrance to the site will be used as the "loading area". The loading area will allow for storing mined materials and loading of over-the-road haul trucks. Haul trucks will access this location to be loaded with material for transport to the processing area.  Hours of operation for the extraction of resources will occur between 6:00AM. and 6:00PM.
 Transportation to the processing plant will be conducted during the hours of 7:00AM- 5:00PM. Trucks leaving the Olive Pit site at or near to 5:00PM will be on the roadway system during the typical evening peak period (4:00PM – 6:00PM).
9 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
 All trucks shall be equipped with Diesel Particulate Filters or a resonator to reduce noise by 3 to 6 dBA. In addition, no Jake Brakes will be used.  All trucks shall be equipped with single exhaust, vertical straight stacks and no turndown. All trucks shall be equipped with automatic transmissions, which eliminate unnecessary engine revving.
 A walking park and landscape screening will be placed along the northern border of the pit to create a visual buffer between residences north of Olive Street and the Olive Pit.

For the purpose of this TIA report, the truck trips have been converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE). The project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,256 (PCE) trip-ends per day, with 193 AM peak hour (PCE) trips and 131 PM peak hour (PCE) trips.

1.3 Traffic Operations Analysis

1.3.1 Intersection Delay Analysis Methodology
For this study, the technical guide used in the evaluation of traffic operations is the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate Level of Service (LOS) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted.

The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are:
 LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
10 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
 LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.  LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream.
 LOS "D" represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
 LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement.
 LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations.

Uninterrupted flow is generally found only on limited access (freeway) facilities in urban areas. The level of service is based on the HCM, Table 3-1.

The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.

The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle for the overall intersection is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at the study intersections have been evaluated using an HCM intersection analysis program (Synchro Version 8). The level of service has been determined at signalized 11 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
intersections using data collected describing the intersection configuration, traffic signal timing, and traffic volumes to calculate average intersection delay.

The study area intersections which are stop sign controlled with stop-control on the minor street only have been analyzed using the two-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection analysis methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the major street. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on total delay per vehicle for the worst minor street movement(s).

The levels of service are defined in terms of average delay for the HCM intersection analysis methodology is as follows:

Level of
Service
Average Total Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Signalized Unsignalized
A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00
B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00
C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00
D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00
E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00
F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up
Urban segments (i.e., segments on roadways that are generally signalized) do not typically require segment analysis. Segment requirements can normally be determined by the analysis of lane requirements at intersections.

For Existing and Future ‘Without Project’ conditions LOS analysis, the existing signal timing plans (provided by City of Irwindale staff and Caltrans staff) have been utilized for the study area intersections. For ‘With Project’ conditions, the existing signal timing plans in conjunction with potential signal optimization timing opportunities (e.g. – lengthier green times and separate / protected left turn phases, where necessary) were used to calculate ‘With Project’ LOS. 12 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Pursuant to City or Irwindale Traffic Impact Analysis Policy Guidelines, the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology is used to evaluate study area intersections. The HCM 2010 utilizes a saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) per lane in each scenario for intersection delay calculation purposes. In addition, all signalized study area intersections are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. To calculate an ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection.

ICU is usually expressed as a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The V/C represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. ICU analysis is performed using the Synchro 8 software.

For CMP intersections, a saturation flow rate of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green (vhpg) per lane and 2,880 vehicles per hour of green (vhpg) per dual turn lanes will be utilized in each scenario for Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation purposes. Per the City of Irwindale 2020 General Plan, the only CMP-designated facilities within the City of Irwindale are the I-605 and I-210 ramps. Therefore, ICU results based on LA CMP parameters are also presented in this report for the signalized intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp/Arrow Highway (#9).

For unsignalized study area intersections, explicit ICU volume to capacity ratios cannot be calculated. Per the County of Los Angeles CMP guidelines (page B-5), the V/C ratio for an unsignalized intersection must be converted/extracted from the HCM analysis.

For all study area signalized intersections, ICU analysis has also been performed using the Synchro 8 software. It should be noted that the Synchro v/c output results are discussed in the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports under Section B (page insert) and indicated that the v/c ratio results in the Synchro are based on ICU and should be presented in addition to delay information. Therefore, consistent with the City’s guidelines, both the Synchro v/c ratio (ICU) and delay results are presented in this report. The V/C ratio and 13 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
corresponding Level of Service (LOS) are as follows:

Level of Service Critical Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
A 0.00 - 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70
C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.81 - 0.90
E 0.91 - 1.00
F >1.00

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

The signal warrant criteria for Existing (2014) conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. Both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the 2012 CA MUTCD indicate that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. Specifically, this TIA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for Existing (2014) traffic conditions. Warrant 3 criteria are basically identical for both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the 2012 CA MUTCD. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.

For future (new) unsignalized intersections, future traffic conditions have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets.
14 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area intersections:

ID Intersection Location Traffic
Control Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Irwindale and West Covina 8 I-605 NB Ramp-Live Oak Lane /Arrow Hwy. Unsignalized Caltrans 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Unsignalized Irwindale 14 Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Baldwin Park 16 Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street Unsignalized Irwindale It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above LOS “D” or operate below LOS “D” and not meet a signal warrant.

1.5 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact
The following definitions of deficiencies and significant impacts have been developed in accordance with City of Irwindale requirements.

1.5.1 Definition of Deficiency
The City of Irwindale requires the following LOS criteria be implemented:
 LOS will not exceed LOS “D” at all intersections (excluding State Highway facilities) on arterial and collector streets.

The City of Baldwin Park General Plan (November 2002) states that the City will maintain level of service “D” at all City intersections. As such, LOS “D” has also been considered acceptable at any intersections within the City of Baldwin Park. 15 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

1.5.2 Definition of Significant Impact
 When a signalized intersection operates at mid-range LOS “D” (45.0 seconds) or better under existing or future baseline conditions, and the addition of project trips degrades the intersection operations to LOS “E” or “F”. The project mitigation should bring the facility to operate at mid-range LOS “D” at minimum.
 When a signalized intersection operates at mid-range LOS “E” (67.5 seconds) for State Highways or better under existing or future baseline conditions, and the addition of project trips degrades the intersection operations to 67.6 seconds (LOS “E”) or worse (LOS “F”). The project mitigation should bring the facility to operate at mid-range LOS “E” at minimum.
 When a signalized intersection operates at LOS “E” for non-state or LOS “F” (for State) under existing or future baseline conditions, and the addition of more than 50 peak hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the intersection. The project mitigation should bring the facility to pre-project conditions.
 At an unsignalized intersection, when the minor stop-controlled approach operates at LOS “F” and does not have acceptable operation in terms of total control delay, and the addition of project trips increases the total control delay to more than 4.0 vehicle hours for a single lane approach or 5.0 vehicle hours for a multi-lane approach. The project mitigation should bring the facility to operate at LOS “E” (at a minimum) or bring the total control delay to less than 4.0 vehicle-hours for a single lane approach or 5.0 vehicle-hours for a multi-lane approach (at a minimum).  At an unsignalized intersection, when the minor stop controlled approach operates at LOS “F” and does not have an acceptable operation in terms of total control delay, and the addition of more than 50 peak hour project trips 16 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approach. The project mitigation should bring the facility to pre-project conditions.

1.6 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Consistency Requirements The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Irwindale in Los Angeles County. Therefore, this traffic study is required to address all CMP requirements of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program. The purpose of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. The goals of the CMP are summarized below:
 To link local land use decisions with their impacts on regional transportation, and air quality;
 To develop a partnership among transportation decision makers on devising appropriate transportation solutions that include all modes of travel; and  To provide transportation projects which are eligible to compete for state gas tax funds.

The CMP offers the following mechanisms to meet these goals:
 Tracking and analysis to determine how the regional highway and transit systems are performing;
 Analysis of the impacts of local land use decisions on regional transportation;  Local implementation of Transportation Demand Management design guidelines that ensure new development includes improvements supportive of transit and TDM;
 Tracking new building activity throughout Los Angeles County; and Implementation of local strategies which benefit the regional transportation system and offset the impact of new development.
17 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

1.7 Principal Findings
For Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions, the following intersections operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale Based on the traffic signal warrants for Existing (2014) traffic conditions, the intersections of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) and Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street (#14) both appear to warrant a traffic signal.

As mentioned previously, a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should be noted that even though the intersection of Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street (#14) appear to warrant a traffic signal, this intersection is expected to continue operate at acceptable level of service “C” or better with an all-way-stop control through 2035 conditions and consequently a project related significant impact is not anticipated at this location. Therefore, installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended
For Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to the previously identified locations under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions.
18 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
For Long Range (2035) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of I605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to the previously identified locations under Interim Year (2016) Conditions.

1.8 Project Fair Share Calculations
Per City of Irwindale Guidelines, the project shall pay its fair share of improvements to eliminate any of the significant impacts. Based on the intersection analysis results (see Table 5-8), the project is anticipated to contribute additional traffic causing significant impacts up to 2035 conditions, fair share calculation is therefore based on 2035 conditions to address all significant impacts caused by the project.

The project fair share percentages (%) towards the required improvements have also been calculated. Table 6-1 summarizes the 2035 With Project fair share percentages for the proposed project. As shown on Table 6-1, the project contributes approximately 26% of the new traffic at the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) and 23% of the new traffic at the intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9). In addition, the project will be fully responsible for the intersection improvement at Azusa Canyon Road/Los Angeles Street (#1) to mitigate the project’s direct impact to pre-project conditions.

1.9 Recommendations

1.9.1 Off-Site Improvements
These improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project conditions, thus reducing the Projects impact to less-thansignificant and result in acceptable traffic operations with the addition of project traffic.
19 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Existing plus Project conditions, the following improvements are recommended:

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions, the following improvements are recommended, in addition to the improvement identified under :

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

Long Range (2035) Without and With Project conditions, the following improvements are recommended, in addition to the improvements identified under Interim Year (2016) conditions:

1.9.2 On-Site Circulation Recommendations
The recommended site access driveway improvements for the Project are described below. Construction of on-site and site adjacent improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.

Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street (#16) – Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
20 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
 Northbound Approach: N/A
 Southbound Approach: One left turn lane and one right turn lane.  Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through lane and 2nd through lane.  Westbound Approach: Two through lanes and one defacto right turn lane.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at the project access point should be reviewed with respect to applicable local jurisdiction’s sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. If the local jurisdiction does not have sight distance standards, Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards should be used.
21 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
22 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location
The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of Azusa Canyon Road and Los Angeles Street in the City of Irwindale, as previously shown on Exhibit 1-A.

2.2 Land Use and Intensity
The project site is approximately 190 acres in size and is currently zoned for Quarry Overlay – Residential/Commercial land use in the City’s General Plan. The project site is located in an industrial area, with various commercial/industrial, and residential land uses in surrounding areas.

2.3 Project Access
Access on-to the site will be relocated from Olive Street to the southern portion of the property along Los Angeles Street. The new access road will be constructed with a combination of on-site materials and inert fill materials from off-site sources. The access road will ascend from the bottom of the pit along the southern edge of the property to the southeastern corner of the site where it will exit at Los Angeles Street. The new access road will be constructed with a 45-foot wide road bed at a maximum grade of 8 percent.

Beginning at Los Angeles Street, the first 200 feet of the access road will be paved. The remaining length of the road will be treated with dust palliatives and watered for dust control and soil stabilization. As shown previously, Exhibit 1-A illustrates the proposed Access for the project.

2.4 Phasing and Timing
The project will be constructed in one phase and expected to become operational in 2016.
23 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

2.5 Project Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. Over-the-road haul trucks will proceed approximately 3 miles to United Rock's existing Pit No.2 located at 1245 E Arrow Highway in Irwindale. Trucks will reach this location by exiting the site at Los Angeles Street, turning north onto Azusa Canyon, then proceeding west on Arrow Highway to Pit No.2. From there, a conveyor will move materials to the processing plant (United Rocks Pit No. 4) which is adjacent to Pit No. 2.

The project truck trip outbound distribution pattern is shown on Exhibit 2-A. As presented on Exhibit 2-A, the outbound route from the Olive Pit mining site involves the following roadway segments:
 Los Angeles Street, eastbound from Project driveway to Azusa Canyon Road.  Azusa Canyon Road, northbound from Los Angeles Street to Arrow Highway.  Arrow Highway, westbound from Azusa Canyon Road to URP Pit No. 2 Driveway 1.

The project truck trip inbound/return distribution pattern is shown on Exhibit 2-B. As presented on Exhibit 2-B, the inbound route from the URP Pit No. 2 to the Olive Pit mining site involves the following roadway segments:
 Avenida Barbosa, southbound from URP Pit No. 2 Driveway to Arrow Highway.  Arrow Highway, eastbound from Avenida Barbosa to Azusa Canyon Road.  Azusa Canyon Road, southbound from Arrow Highway to Los Angeles Street.  Los Angeles Street, westbound from Azusa Canyon Road to Olive Pit mining site Project Driveway.

The project’s truck route is very specific and will only pass through Los Angeles Street, Azusa Canyon Road, and Arrow Highway as described above.

The project employee/visitor trip distribution is shown on Exhibit 2-C. 24 25
26 27
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

2.6 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

Anticipated truck traffic will be approximately 392 daily truck trips (196 out bound loads).

Transportation to the processing plant will be conducted during the hours of 7:00AM5:00PM. Trucks leaving the Olive Pit site at or near to 5:00PM will be on the roadway system during the typical evening peak period (4:00PM – 6:00PM). Trip Generation estimates for the Project are shown in Table 2-1. Traffic activity levels for Phase 1 reclamation, Phase 2 extraction, and Phase 2 reclamation will generate traffic at a level commensurate to or less than Phase 1 mining operations described previously.

TABLE 2‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Aggregate Trucks1 30 29 59 20 19 39 392
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE = 3.0)2 90 87 177 60 57 117 1,176 Net Truck Trips (PCE) 90 87 177 60 57 117 1,176
Employees/Visitors (Passenger Car)3 12 4 16 6 8 14 80
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (PCE)4 102 91 193 66 65 131 1,256
1 Daily truck trips are based on the number of trucks estimated for 1.5 million tons per year. 2 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 3.0 is assumed for aggregate trucks. 3 Daily quantities assume 2 trips per employee/visitor. AM and PM peak hour to daily relationships have been based on ITE Land Use Code "140 EMP" (Manufacturing). 4
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (PCE) = "Net Truck Trips (PCE)" + "Employees/Visitors (Passenger Car)" As shown on Table 2-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 1,256 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip-ends per day with 193 PCE AM peak hour trips and 131 PCE PM peak hour trips.

2.7 Project Only Volumes
The project only related average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are shown on Exhibit 2-D.

Similarly, Exhibit 2-E and Exhibit 2-F present the project only AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. As shown on these exhibits, Los Angeles Street (immediately 28 29
30 31
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
east of Project Driveway), Azusa Canyon Road, and Arrow Highway are projected to carry the most project related traffic with approximately 800 vehicles per day (vpd). “Project only” peak hour 2-way (link) traffic volumes are presented on Exhibit 2-G. As shown on Exhibit 2-G, the project is anticipated to generate the most peak hour trips along Los Angeles Street (immediately east of Project Driveway), Azusa Canyon Road, and Arrow Highway. The 117 AM and 78 PM trips along Arrow Highway is reflective of the truck trips traveling to URP2 location. By comparing Exhibit 2-G and Exhibit ES-B (intersection analysis location map), all major intersections projected to carry 50 (or more) peak hour trips have been evaluated in this traffic study. 32 33
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
34 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS
This section of the report summarizes existing roadway and traffic conditions in the study area.

All major intersections anticipated to carry 50 (or more) peak hour trips (passenger car equivalents) have been evaluated in this traffic study. The existing number of lanes and traffic control devices for existing intersections are presented, along with existing traffic count data collected for this study. This data was used to analyze existing traffic operations in the study area. Existing plans for roadway improvements are also described in this section.

3.1 Existing Roadway System Circulation Network
The study area includes a total of sixteen (16) existing and future intersections as shown on Exhibit ES-B. Of these sixteen (16) intersections, the existing study area circulation network includes fifteen (15) intersections analysis locations shown on Table ES-1. The last intersection in the study area is future planned intersection (Project driveway) that does not currently exist.

Exhibit 3-A identifies the existing number of through lanes and intersection controls for the study area roadways. As shown on Exhibit 3-A, Los Angeles Street (west of Azusa Canyon Road), Azusa Canyon Road (north of Los Angeles Street), and Arrow Highway (between Azusa Canyon Road and I-605 Ramps) exist today as four (4) lane divided roadways. Arrow Highway, east of Azusa Canyon Road, exists as a five (5) lane divided roadway. The speed limit on both Los Angeles Street and Arrow Highway is currently 45 miles per hour (mph), while Azusa Canyon Road speed limit is currently 40 miles per hour (mph). As also shown on Exhibit 3-A, most of the existing study area intersections are signalized, with the exception of Azusa Canyon Road/Los Angeles Street (#1), I-605 Freeway Northbound Ramps/Live Oak Lane (private industrial road) and Arrow Highway (#8), URP2 Driveway 1/Arrow Highway (#11), Avenida Barbosa/URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) (#12), and Phelan Avenue/Los Angeles Street (#14).
35 36
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

3.2 Transit Service
The study area is currently served by the Foothill Transit Agency with bus service along Live Oak Avenue via Route 492 and Arrow Highway via Route 272. Portions of Olive Street and Maine Avenue, within the study area, are also served by the Baldwin Park Transit Agency via Teal Line route.

Exhibit 3-B illustrates the Foothill Transit Agency bus routes for the study area.

3.3 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities (e.g., crosswalks, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-C. As shown in Exhibit 3-C, the only existing bike path within the study area is located on the riverbed.

3.4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 3-D depicts the current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the study area. The existing data shown on Exhibit 3-D has been based on May 2014 traffic data (see Appendix "B"). The traffic count data was collected while school was in session.

As shown on Exhibit 3-D, the highest daily traffic volumes in the study area occur on Arrow Highway, west of Maine Avenue, which currently carries approximately 43,900 vehicles per day (VPD).

3.5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak period turning movement counts conducted on May 2014. Turning Movement traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "C”. The AM peak hour traffic volumes were determined by counting the two hour period between 7 - 9 AM in the morning. Similarly, the PM peak hour traffic volumes were identified by counting the two hour period from 4 - 6 PM in the evening. The highest four consecutive 15-minute periods traffic counts have 37 38
39 40
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
been used for analysis. The count includes the vehicle classification as shown below per the City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines:
 passenger cars
 buses/recreational vehicles
 3 axle trucks
 4 or more axle trucks
To represent the impact large trucks, buses and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow; trucks are converted into passenger car equivalents (PCEs). By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and decelerate is also much longer than for passenger cars, and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. For the purpose of this analysis, a PCE factor of 1.5 will be applied to 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to estimate each turning movement.

The overall existing count volumes illustrated on the exhibits and used for the analysis for the study are calculated passenger car equivalent (PCE) volumes. These raw PCE volumes are then reviewed for flow conservation between closely spaced intersections and adjusted to ensure reasonable flow conservation if necessary was also performed.

The final Existing (2014) AM and PM Peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-E and Exhibit 3-F, respectively.

3.6 Existing (2014) Traffic Conditions
The existing conditions analyses include intersection delay and level of service operations.

The analysis methodologies were described previously in Section 1. 41 42
43 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

3.6.1 Existing Intersection Delay Analysis
Existing (2014) peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for study area intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3-1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at each analysis location. The supporting HCM delay and ICU calculation worksheets are provided as Appendix “D”.

For Existing (2014) conditions, the following study area intersection currently operates at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale Even though the ICU results show that intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) operates at LOS “E” with 0.92 v/c during the AM peak hour under Existing (2014) conditions, the HCM results show that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better). It should be noted that the City of Irwindale (local lead agency) Policy Guidelines states under Section V-B that the traffic study shall identify and analyze all the impacts to the operational conditions (LOS) of the transportation facilities in the project in accordance with the HCM methodology.

Therefore, the intersection delay based on the HCM methodology is primarily utilized to determine intersection deficiencies and significant impacts. The v/c ratio is included because the City’s Policy Guidelines also indicate that both delay and v/c ratio be presented.

HCM results present a more accurate representation of the intersection operational level. Unlike the ICU methodology, HCM results take into consideration more than just peak hour volumes and lane capacities on intersection approach legs. 44 TABLE 3-1
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 25.6 40.5 D E NA NA NA NA 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.2 27.1 C C 0.43 0.58 A A 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 12012d11d11d 13.9 24.5 B C 0.39 0.30 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy. TS 1.5 0.5 111012d12d 48.1 48.5 D D 0.92 0.75 E C 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 20100002d130 16.2 11.4 B B 0.76 0.80 C C 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 10.9 23.3 B C 0.59 0.74 A C 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 7.7 6.0 A A 0.65 0.39 B A 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 11.0 13.1 B B NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 15.1 8.7 B A 0.84 0.42 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.84 0.48 D A 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 000201120021 27.5 22.7 C C 0.73 0.44 C A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 000001020030 20.2 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private) 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 2.7 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 41.0 15.4 E C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 120120120120 25.5 27.4 C C 0.52 0.61 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.8 15.9 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.7 0.4 A A 0.61 0.38 B A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. - - - - -----
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1>> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane 2 Delay and level of service (LOS) is calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 8. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. "NA" value is shown for unsignalized ICU values. 3 AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop. 4 The Synchro v/c output results are discussed in the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports under Section B (page insert) and indicated that the v/c ratio results in the Synchro are based on ICU and should be presented in addition to delay information. It should be noted that the I-605 ramp intersections along Arrow Highway are identified as CMP intersections. Therefore, ICU results based on the LA CMP parameters are also presented for the signalized intersection of I-605 SB ramps / Arrow Highway (#9). 5 Volume-to-Capacity ratio (v/c) and level of service (LOS) is calculated based on the LA CMP Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology using the following analysis software: Traffix Version 8.0 R1. 6 LOS based on average delay (unsignalized intersection). 7 LOS based on the minor approach operating condition (unsignalized intersection). * BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).

DOES NOT EXIST
EXISTING (2014) CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
(V/C) SERVICE
ICU4 LEVEL OF
HCM HCM ICU4
_______________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\3-1 45 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
HCM data inputs include turning movements volumes, lane geometries, signal phasing, signal timing, lane widths, heavy vehicles, lane utilization, left turns, right turns, and pedestrian activity affecting turn movements.

3.6.2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Based on the traffic signal warrants for Existing (2014) traffic conditions, the intersections of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) and Phelan Avenue /Los Angeles Street (#14) both appear to warrant a traffic signal (see Appendix “E”).

3.7 Planned Transportation Improvements and Relationships to General Plan The City of Irwindale roadway classifications and typical roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Exhibit 3-G and Exhibit 3-H, respectively. These exhibits show the nature of the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed site and how access will be provided to the surrounding areas.

The County of Los Angeles roadway classifications and typical roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Exhibit 3-I and 3-J, respectively.
46 47
48 49
50 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
The City of Baldwin Park roadway classifications and typical roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Exhibit 3-K and 3-L, respectively. As shown on Exhibit 3-K, Baldwin Park Boulevard is classified as an Arterial in the study area.

Exhibit 3-M illustrates the City of Irwindale truck routes. As shown on Exhibit 3-M, Arrow Highway and Live Oak Avenue are designated truck routes, as is Irwindale Avenue. Local truck access is also allowed on Los Angeles Street, Azusa Canyon Road, and the other local streets serving industrial uses in the study area. 51 52
53 54
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
This section of the report discusses the volume calculation methodology utilized to forecast the future traffic volumes for the following scenarios:
 Existing (2014) Conditions
 Existing Plus Project Conditions
 Interim Year (2016) Conditions Without and With the Project  Long Range (2035) Conditions Without and With the Project

4.1 Existing Plus Project
For Existing Plus Project conditions, project only traffic volumes were added to the existing (2013) traffic volumes (presented in Section 3 of this report). Exhibit 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C present the Existing Plus Project ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes respectively.

4.2 Interim Year (2016) Without Project
For Interim Year (2016) Without Project conditions, an ambient growth rate of 2.0% per year (consistent with City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines) was applied to the existing (2014) for two (2) years (a total background growth of 4.04%) in addition to the cumulative project / other development data. Other cumulative development has been obtained from the City of Irwindale and other nearby cities and grouped into twelve (12) traffic analysis zone (TAZ) locations. The TAZ locations of the anticipated cumulative development projects are shown on Exhibit 4-D. The following projects have been identified by the various jurisdictions:
55 56
57 58
59 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
CITY  OF IRWINDALE PROJECTS
● Kare Youth League/Santa Fe Dam Sports Park ● Hotel ‐ 15744  Arrow  Hwy. ● City Infill Housing Project ● Mod 4‐06 to CUP  67‐6 ‐ 16025  Cypress St. ● Ahern  Rentals ‐ 13645  Live Oak Ln. ● Athens‐Irwindale MRF and Transfer Station CITY  OF AZUSA PROJECTS
● Waste  Management MRF & Transfer Station ● Mixed  Use Project ‐ NEC of Dalton & Foothill ● Downtown Azusa Project 1 ‐ 619/621 N. Azusa ● Block  36 ‐ SEC of Azusa Av. & Foothill Bl. ● Residential Project ‐ 710 S. Azusa Av. ● Target Project ‐ 809 N Azusa Av. ● Gladstone Mixed  Use ‐ 890 Gladstone St. ● Azusa  Rock  Revised CUP & Reclamation Plan ● Residential ‐ 523‐531 Arrow Hwy. ● Residential ‐ 9th St. & Alameda Av. ● Monrovia Nursery ‐ Specific Plan ● Commercial ‐ 880 S Azusa Av. ● Azusa  Pacific University ‐ Specific Plan
CITY  OF COVINA PROJECTS
● Taco  Bell ‐ 301 N Citrus  Av. ● Mixed  Use Condominiums ‐ Citrus  Av. & Italia  St. ● Jack in the Box/CVS ‐ 545 S. Citrus  Av. ● Rose Gardens at Santa Teresita ● Lowes ‐ 1348 N Azusa  Av. ● Andres Duarte Terrace Phase II ● Condominiums ‐ 615 N 3rd St. ● Huntington Counts Phase  III ● Residential ‐ 436 E Cypress St. ● Huntington Counts Phase  II ● Condominiums Citrus Av. & Italia St. ● Attalla Ranch (Las Lomas Est.) CITY  OF BALDWIN PARK PROJECTS
● Residential ‐ 13655  Foster Av. ● Residential ‐ 4143 Hornbrook Av. ● Residential ‐ 3346  Vineland Av. ● Residential ‐ 4455  Park  Av. ● Residential ‐ 13732  Monterey Av. ● Residential ‐ 4819  Lante  St. ● Residential ‐ 13734  Monterey Av. ● Residential ‐ 4820‐28 Fortin  Av. ● Residential ‐ 13736  Monterey Av. ● Commercial ‐ 4341 Maine  Av. ● Residential ‐ 12723  Bess Av. ● Restaurant ‐ 14622  Dalewood St. ● Residential ‐ 12725  Bess Av. ● Warehouse ‐ 5029 Bleecker St. ● Residential ‐ 12727  Bess Av. ● Office ‐ 4814  Maine  Av. ● Residential ‐ 3138  Magum St. ● Office ‐ 3323 Baldwin Park Bl. ● Residential ‐ 4859  Marion Av. ● Office ‐ 13329  Garvey Av. ● Residential ‐ 4861 Marion Av. ● Fueling Facility (Truck Fleet) ‐13940  Live Oak Av. ● Residential ‐ 4503 Park Av. ● Inst.Facility w/Parking Structure ‐14403  Pacific Av.

CITY OF WEST COVINA PROJECTS
● Westfield Expansion ‐ 112 Plaza Dr. ● Mixed‐Use ‐ 1045‐1052 West Grondahl St. ● McIntyre Square Exp. ‐2612‐1698 E.Garvey ● Medical Imaging Center ‐ 1700 West Covina Pkwy. ● West Covina Senior Villas ‐ 1838 E Workman Av. ● Office ‐ SEC of West Covina Pwy. & W Garvey S.

CITY  OF GLENDORA PROJECTS
● Diamond Ridge ● Glendora Marketplace
● Cataract ● Wildwood Canyon
● JPI Sevilla Project ● Monrovia Nursery
● Glendora Station   ● Grand‐Foothill
● Tract  46680 ● Grand  Av. Retail  Center
● Tract  46916 ● WalMart Expansion
● Tract  45858 ● Route  66 Specific Plan
Table 4-1 summarizes the anticipated cumulative development projects’ trip generation per TAZ.
60 TABLE 4-1
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Kare Youth League/
Santa Fe Dam Sports Park
NEC of Arrow Highway & I-605
Youth sports park 17.0 AC 15 13 28 40 40 80 710 City of Irwindale
2 Ahern Rentals
13645 Live Oak Lane
Replace 23,000 SF bldg. with
29,000 SF building 6 TSF 5 1 6 1 5 6 42 City of Irwindale Collection and Roll-Off Trucks - - 130 143 273 211 170 381 4,450 Self-Haul Trucks - - 18 29 47 18 18 36 374
Transfer Trucks - - 89 89 178 33 52 85 2,068
Employees 345 EMP 95 35 130 51 65 116 690
Convenience Market w/ Pumps - - 18 18 36 23 23 46 751
350 314 664 336 328 664 8,333
4 Warehouse - 5029 Bleecker St. Warehouse 8.748 TSF 2 1 3 1 2 3 31 Baldwin Park Residential - 4859 Marion Av.

Residential - 4861 Marion Av.

Residential - 4819 Lante St.

Residential - 4820-28 Fortin Av.

Office - 4814 Maine Av. Office 6.3 TSF 9 1 10 0 2 2 69
9 5 14 4 2 6 109
6 Commercial - 4341 Maine Av. Commercial 4.5 TSF 3 2 5 10 7 17 193 City of Baldwin Park
Fast-Food Rest. w/ Drive- Thru 1.188 TSF 30 29 59 21 19 40 589 Pharmacy / Drug Store 10.658 TSF 20 14 34 45 45 90 960
50 43 93 66 64 130 1,549
Residential - 13655 Foster Av. Medium-Density Residential 10 DU 1 4 5 4 2 6 67 Residential 3346 Vineland Av. Medium-Density Residential 15 DU 2 6 8 6 3 9 100 Residential - 13732 Monterey Av.

Residential - 13734 Monterey Av.

Residential - 13736 Monterey Av.

Residential - 12723 Bess Av.

Residential - 12725 Bess Av.

Residential - 12727 Bess Av.

Residential - 3138 Magum St.

Residential - 4143 Hornbrook Av.

Restaurant - 14622 Dalewood St. Rest. 15.295 TSF 92 85 177 101 70 171 1,945 Office - 3323 Baldwin Park Bl. Office 4.95 TSF 7 1 8 1 6 7 54 13329 Garvey Av. Office / Warehouse 13.62 TSF 19 3 22 3 17 20 150 Institutional Facility with Parking
Structure -14403 Pacific Av. Institution 176.2 TSF 870 166 1,036 66 147 213 12,145 Westfield Expansion
112 Plaza Dr. Shopping Center 32 TSF 20 12 32 73 47 120 1,418 City of West Covina
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY1
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Subtotal
Commercial
(Jack in the Box & CVS Pharmacy)
545 S Citrus Avenue
3 Athens-Irwindale MRF &
Transfer Station2
8 City of
Irwindale
40 2
ID Jurisdiction
TAZ 3 Subtotal
TAZ 5 Subtotal
4 40
City of
Baldwin Park
0 2 20 City of
Baldwin Park
80 City of
Baldwin Park
City of
Covina
Project Name/Location Land Use Quantity [b]
AM Peak Hour
8 DU 0 8 8 80 8
5 Single Family Residential 44 0DU 4
7 Single Family Residential 2 02 2 Residential - 4503 Park Av. & Residential - 4455 Park Av. DU
Single Family Residential
______________________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.xlsx)
R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\4-1 61 TABLE 4-1
In Out Total In Out Total
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY1
PM Peak Hour
ID Project Name/Location Land Use Quantity [b] Daily Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour
Rest. 4.8 TSF 29 27 56 32 22 54 610
Retail 4.8 TSF 3 2 5 11 7 18 206
32 29 61 43 29 72 816
West Covina Senior Villas
1838 E Workman Av. High-Density Residential 65 DU 7 27 34 22 12 34 432 Medical / Professional Office
SEC of W. Covina Pwy. & W Garvey S.

Office 55 TSF 75 10 85 14 68 82 606 City of
West Covina
1,175 394 1,569 407 465 872 19,362 --
9 Hotel - 15744 Arrow Hwy. Hotel 120 RM 41 26 67 37 34 71 980 City of Irwindale
10 Mod 4-06 to CUP 67-6
16025 Cypress Street
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Church 12.227 TSF 4 3 7 3 4 7 111 City of Irwindale
Waste Management Materials
Recycling Facility & Transfer Station
501 West Gladstone
125,000 sf processing building with
offices to receive, process and transfer
up to 3,800 tons per day of solid waste.
3800 Tons/
Day 224 148 372 400 320 720 4,294
Residential - 710 S. Azusa Av. Residential Condominiums 81 DU 6 30 36 28 14 42 471 Residential Apartments 9 DU 1 4 5 4 2 6 60
Retail/Commercial 4.443 TSF 3 2 5 10 6 16 191
4 6 10 14 8 22 251
Residential - 523-531 Arrow Hwy. Residential Condominiums 28 DU 2 10 12 10 5 15 163 Commercial - 880 S Azusa Av. Commercial 47 TSF 29 18 47 107 68 175 2,018 Lowes - 1348 N Azusa Av. Home Improvement Store 111.348 TSF 80 60 140 127 137 264 3,318 Taco Bell - 301 N Citrus Av. Fast-Food Rest. w/ Drive-Thru 3.445 TSF 87 83 170 60 55 115 1,709 Condominiums - 615 N 3rd St. Condominiums 30 DU 2 11 13 10 5 15 174 Residential - 436 E Cypress St. Single Family Residential 1 DU 0 1 1 1 0 1 10 Condominiums - Citrus Av. & Italia St. Condominiums 37 DU 3 14 17 13 6 19 215 Retail 4.366 TSF 3 2 5 10 6 16 187
Residential Condominiums 4 DU 0 1 1 1 1 2 23
3 3 6 11 7 18 210
Residential 412 DU 42 168 210 166 89 255 2,740
Commercial 20 TSF 12 8 20 46 29 75 859
54 176 230 212 118 330 3,599
Medical Imaging Center
1700 West Covina Pkwy. Medical Office 9.3 TSF 13 2 15 2 12 14 102 507 562 1,069 995 755 1,750 16,534 --
City Infill Housing Project Single Family Units 7 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Irwindale
Rest. 3.9 TSF 23 22 45 26 18 44 496
Office 1.035 TSF 1 0 1 0 1 2 11
24 22 46 26 19 46 507
Single Family Units 752 DU 141 423 564 478 281 759 7,197 Residential Condominiums 823 DU 62 301 363 287 141 428 4,782 Elementary School 245 STU 61 50 111 18 19 37 316
Middle School 175 STU 52 43 95 14 14 28 284
Park 6 AC0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Transit Commercial 50 TSF 31 20 51 114 73 187 2,147
347 837 1,184 911 528 1,439 14,735
TAZ 8 Subtotal
Mixed Use Condominiums
Citrus Avenue & Italia Street
Gladstone Mixed Use
890 Gladstone Street
8 City of
West Covina
City of
Azusa
Monrovia Nursery
Specific Plan
Subtotal
TAZ 11 Subtotal
McIntyre Square Expansion
2612-1698 E Garvey Av.

Downtown Azusa Project 1
619/621 North Azusa Av.
12 Subtotal
11 Subtotal
City of Covina
City of
West Covina
City of
Azusa
Subtotal
Mixed-Use Project
1045-1052 West Grondahl St.

Subtotal
Subtotal
______________________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.xlsx)
R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\4-1 62 TABLE 4-1
In Out Total In Out Total
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY1
PM Peak Hour
ID Project Name/Location Land Use Quantity [b] Daily Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour
East Campus 874 STU 147 37 184 55 128 183 2,080
West Campus 2,550 STU 428 107 535 161 375 536 6,069
575 144 719 216 503 719 8,149
Residential 73 DU 7 30 37 29 16 45 485
Retail 8 TSF 5 3 8 18 12 30 344
12 33 45 47 28 75 829
Residential Apartments 110 DU 11 45 56 44 24 68 732
Office 29.2 TSF 40 5 45 7 36 43 321
Retail/Commercial 30 TSF 18 12 30 68 44 112 1,288
Rest. 7.5 TSF 45 41 86 49 34 83 954
114 103 217 168 138 306 3,295
Target Project - 809 N Azusa Av. Retail 150 TSF 92 59 151 341 218 559 6,441 Azusa Rock Revised CUP &
Reclamation Plan [a] Northerly
terminus of Encanto Pkwy. & Fish
Cyn. Rd.

Mineral Resource - Mining 56 56 112 19 19 38 0
Residential - 9th St. & Alameda Av. Residential Townhomes 14 DU 1 5 6 5 2 7 81 Rose Gardens at Santa Teresita
800 Buena Vista Street Nursing Facility, Assisted Living 229.292 TSF 21 11 32 22 28 50 610 Andres Duarte Terrace Phase II
1700 Huntington Drive High-Density Residential 43 DU 4 18 22 17 9 26 286 Huntington Counts Phase III
2400 Huntington Drive Medium-Density Residential 16 DU 2 7 9 6 3 9 106 Huntington Courts Phase II
2400 Huntington Drive
Residential
(Single/Multi-Family) 14 DU 1 6 7 6 3 9 93
Attalla Ranch (Las Lomas Est.)
NEC of Sunnydale & Woodbluff Single Family Residential 15 DU 3 8 11 10 6 16 144 Quality Rest. 6.5 TSF 0 0 0 33 16 49 585
Office 30 TSF 41 6 47 8 37 45 330
41 6 47 41 53 94 915
Cataract Condominiums 17 DU 1 6 7 6 3 9 99
Condomiums 161 DU 12 59 71 56 28 84 935
Office 12 TSF 16 2 18 3 15 18 132
28 61 89 59 43 102 1,067
Residential 87 DU 9 35 44 35 19 54 579
Office 5 TSF 7 1 8 1 6 7 55
16 36 52 36 25 61 634
Tract 46680 Single Family Residential 14 DU 3 8 11 9 5 14 134 Tract 46916 Single Family Residential 16 DU 3 9 12 10 6 16 153 Tract 45858 Single Family Residential 13 DU 2 7 9 8 5 13 124 Retail 50 TSF 31 20 51 114 73 187 2,147
Quality Rest. 4.2 TSF N/A N/A 0 21 10 31 378
31 20 51 135 83 218 2,525
Wildwood Canyon Single Family Residential 54 DU 10 30 40 34 20 54 517 Monrovia Nursery Single Family Residential 54 DU 10 30 40 34 20 54 517 Block 36
SEC of Azusa Av. &
Foothill Bl.

Subtotal
JPI Sevilla Project
Subtotal
Azusa Pacific University
Specific Plan
Glendora Station
Mixed Use Project
NEC of Dalton Avenue &
Foothill Bl.

Subtotal
Subtotal
Revised CUP &
Reclamation Plan;
Modify operations &
reclamation
approach
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Diamond Ridge
12 City of
Glendora
City of
Azusa
City of
Duarte
Glendora Marketplace
______________________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.xlsx)
R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\4-1 63 TABLE 4-1
In Out Total In Out Total
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY1
PM Peak Hour
ID Project Name/Location Land Use Quantity [b] Daily Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour
Townhouses 18 DU 6 30 36 29 14 43 105
Condominiums 64 DU 2 12 14 12 6 18 372
8 42 50 41 20 61 477
General Commercial 14 TSF 9 5 14 32 20 52 601
Quality Rest. 4.2 TSF N/A N/A N/A 21 10 31 378
9 5 14 53 30 83 979
WalMart Expansion Retail/Grocery 20 TSF 14 7 21 50 50 100 1,145 Office 750 TSF 1,023 140 1,163 190 928 1,118 8,258
Commercial 750 TSF 458 293 751 1,706 1,091 2,797 32,205 Apartments 225 DU 23 92 115 91 49 140 1,496
1,504 525 2,029 1,987 2,068 4,055 41,959
2,932 2,101 5,033 4,297 3,935 8,233 86,521 --
1 Source: Transportation Study for the Athens Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (01/2012). Prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting Inc.

Trip Generation, 8th Edition , Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008. Notes:
[a] Materials processed through conveyor belts, trucks pick up material at Foothill & Irwindale; study intersections not impacted [b] DU:Dwelling Unit; SF: Square Feet
2 Source: Athens-Irwindale Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis (02/2014). Prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Subtotal
Grand-Foothill
12 Grand Avenue Retail Center
Subtotal
TAZ 12 Subtotal
City of
Glendora
Subtotal
Route 66 Specific Plan
______________________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568-02 Report.xlsx)
R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\4-1 64 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Trip distribution assumptions have been obtained from the cumulative project traffic study reports where available, or developed independently for those projects where published information was not available. The trip distributions for each of the cumulative development projects are included as Appendix “F” of this report.

Based on the identified trip generation and distributions for other developments on arterial highways throughout the study area, other cumulative development project daily traffic volumes and AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been developed and are shown on Exhibit 4-E, Exhibit 4-F, and Exhibit 4-G, respectively.

Exhibit 4-H, Exhibit 4-I, and Exhibit 4-J present the Interim Year (2016) Without Project ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively.

4.3 Interim Year (2016) With Project
For Interim Year (2016) With Project conditions, project only traffic volumes were added to the Interim Year Without Project volumes described above. Exhibit 4-K, Exhibit 4-L, and Exhibit 4-M present the Interim Year (2016) With Project ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively.

4.4 Long Range (2035) Without Project
Per Appendix D in the Los Angeles County 2010 CMP, the background traffic growth estimates for Horizon Year must use the generalized growth factor (at a minimum) shown in Exhibit D-1 of the LA CMP. Based on Exhibit D-1 of the LA CMP, a general traffic volume growth factor of 1.106 is used for cities (including Irwindale) within the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 26 for Horizon Year 2035. Therefore, Long Range baseline volumes were developed by applying a general growth factor of 1.106 to existing volumes to reflect 2035 conditions, as identified in the Los Angeles County CMP, in addition to the cumulative project / other development data.
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Appendix “G” of this report contains the relevant excerpts from the Los Angeles County CMP traffic impact analysis guidelines.

Exhibit 4-N, Exhibit 4-O, and Exhibit 4-P present the Long Range (2035) Without Project ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively.

4.5 Long Range (2035) With Project
For Long Range (2035) With Project conditions, “project only” traffic volumes were added to the Long Range (2035) Without Project volumes described above. Exhibit 4-Q, Exhibit 4-R, and 4-S present the Long Range (2035) with Project ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively.
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
82 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

5.1 Delay, Capacity, Level of Service, and Improvements.

5.1.1 Existing Plus Project
HCM delay and ICU calculations for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in Table 5-1. The operation analysis worksheets are included in Appendix “H”. Table 5-1 shows the operations analysis at the study area intersections with and without improvements. For Existing Plus Project conditions, the following study area intersection are anticipated to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale Even though the ICU results show that intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) operates at LOS “E” during the AM peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions, the HCM results show that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better). The HCM results present a more accurate representation of the intersection operational level.

Table 5-2 provides a summary comparison of the intersection analysis operations for Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions. Table 5-2 also identifies any “significant impacts” (as defined in the City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines).

As shown on Table 5-2, a significant impact is projected for the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1), based on the minor approach operating conditions.

It should be noted that the westbound left turn movement (from adjacent Private Driveway) at the intersection of Avenida Barbosa/URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) is the only minor approach anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS “E”). 83 TABLE 5-1
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
- Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 35.0 42.1 D E NA NA NA NA - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 35.2 49.8 D D 0.64 0.85 B D 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.4 26.9 C C 0.47 0.60 A A 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 12012d11d11d 21.0 27.4 C C 0.40 0.32 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy. TS 1.5 0.5 111012d12d 55.0 39.6 D D 0.95 0.77 E C 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 20100002d130 16.6 11.7 B B 0.78 0.80 C C 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 13.0 25.4 B C 0.62 0.75 B C 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 7.6 5.8 A A 0.68 0.41 B A 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 11.5 13.5 B B NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 16.0 8.5 B A 0.87 0.44 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.86 0.49 D A 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 000201120021 29.2 25.1 C C 0.79 0.46 C A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 000001020030 21.3 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private) 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 3.7 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.8 11.4 A B NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 49.4 16.4 E C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 120120120120 25.5 27.4 C C 0.52 0.61 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.9 16.1 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.7 0.4 A A 0.64 0.40 B A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 02002d 18.0 18.1 C C ---- 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
HCM HCM ICU4
ICU4 LEVEL OF
(V/C) SERVICE
_______________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-1 84 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Providing physical improvements (such as adding capacity for the westbound left turns) will not solve this problem because of the high northbound through traffic along Avenida Barbosa impede the westbound left turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended because traffic volumes do not warrant signal control. Furthermore, the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the westbound left turns at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS. Therefore, a project significant impact at this location is not expected and improvements are not recommended.

As shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, the following improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant and result in acceptable level of service operations with the addition of project traffic:

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

5.1.2 Interim Year (2016) Without Project
HCM delay and ICU calculations for Interim Year (2016) Without Project conditions are shown in Table 5-3. The operation analysis worksheets are included in Appendix “I”. Table 5-3 shows the operations analysis at the study area intersections with and without improvements. For Interim Year (2016) Without Project conditions, the following study area intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 4 Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway Irwindale
12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale 85 TABLE 5-2
DELAY2 LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE2

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.

Without Improvements
● Existing (2014) AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 25.6 40.5 D E NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 35.0 42.1 D E NA NA NA NA YES 185 124 With Improvements
● Existing + Project TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 35.2 49.8 D D 0.64 0.85 B D NO 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St.
● Existing (2014) TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.2 27.1 C C 0.43 0.58 A A● Existing + Project TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.4 26.9 C C 0.47 0.60 A A NO 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St.
● Existing (2014) TS 12012d11d11d 13.9 24.5 B C 0.39 0.30 A A● Existing + Project TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 1 d 1 1 d 21.0 27.4 C C 0.40 0.32 A A NO 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) TS 1.5 0.5 111012d12d 48.1 48.5 D D 0.92 0.75 E C● Existing + Project TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 55.0 39.6 D D 0.95 0.77 E C NO 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) TS 20100002d130 16.2 11.4 B B 0.76 0.80 C C● Existing + Project TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 1 3 0 16.6 11.7 B B 0.78 0.80 C C NO 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av.
● Existing (2014) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 10.9 23.3 B C 0.59 0.74 A C● Existing + Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 13.0 25.4 B C 0.62 0.75 B C NO 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd.
● Existing (2014) TS 120021201000 7.7 6.0 A A 0.65 0.39 B A● Existing + Project TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 7.6 5.8 A A 0.68 0.41 B A NO 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 11.0 13.1 B B NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 11.5 13.5 B B NA NA NA NA NO 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 15.1 8.7 B A 0.84 0.42 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.84 0.48 D A ● Existing + Project TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 16.0 8.5 B A 0.87 0.44 D A NO - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.86 0.49 D A

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON

EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
ICU7 LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (V/C) SERVICE
Added
Project
Traffic TRAFFIC
Control3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1 HCM HCM ICU7
#

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WESTINTERSECTION
_____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-2 86 TABLE 5-2
DELAY2 LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE2

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON

EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
ICU7 LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (V/C) SERVICE
Added
Project
Traffic TRAFFIC
Control3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1 HCM HCM ICU7
#

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WESTINTERSECTION
10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) TS 000201120021 27.5 22.7 C C 0.73 0.44 C A● Existing + Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 29.2 25.1 C C 0.79 0.46 C A NO 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) CSS 000001020030 20.2 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 21.3 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA NO 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private)
● Existing (2014)5 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 2.7 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project5 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 3.7 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA NO - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)6
● Existing (2014) CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.8 11.4 A B NA NA NA NA NO - Private Dwy. (westbound approach)6
● Existing (2014) CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 41.0 15.4 E C NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 49.4 16.4 E C NA NA NA NA NO 0 0 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St.
● Existing (2014) TS 120120120120 25.5 27.4 C C 0.52 0.61 A B● Existing + Project TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 25.5 27.4 C C 0.52 0.61 A B NO 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St.
● Existing (2014) AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.8 15.9 B C NA NA NA NA● Existing + Project AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.9 16.1 B C NA NA NA NA NO 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy.
● Existing (2014) TS 000000020020 0.7 0.4 A A 0.61 0.38 B A● Existing + Project TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.7 0.4 A A 0.64 0.40 B A NO 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1>> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 2 Delay and level of service (LOS) is calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 8. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. "NA" value is shown for unsignalized ICU values. 3 AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop.4 Per City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines, a significant impact is identified if one of the following criterias are met:
● For Signalized Intersections
- When an intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("D" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS ("E" or "F"). - When a State Highway intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("E" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS "F". - When an intersection operates at LOS "F" for baseline conditions and the project adds more than 50 peak hour project trips . ● For Unsignalized Intersections
- When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F" and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control delay, and the addition of project increases the total control delay to more than 4.0 hours for single lane approach and 5.0 hours for multilane approach. - When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F" and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control delay, and the addition of project of more than 50 peak-hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approach. 5 LOS based on average delay (unsignalized intersection).6 LOS based on minor approach operating condition (unsignalized intersection).7 The Synchro v/c output results are discussed in the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports under Section B (page insert) and indicated that the v/c ratio results in the Synchro are based on ICU and should be presented in addition to delay information. = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). BOLD _____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-2 87 TABLE 5-3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
- Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 30.3 43.6 D E NA NA NA NA - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 28.4 51.6 C D 0.61 0.84 B D 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.4 28.0 C C 0.46 0.60 A A 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 1 d 1 1 d 13.9 25.1 B C 0.41 0.32 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 63.8 69.4 EE 0.98 0.81 E D - With Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 3 01 3 0 32.0 34.2 C C 0.77 0.67 C B 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 1 3 0 17.4 13.0 B B 0.81 0.84 D D 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 12.7 30.1 B C 0.64 0.80 B C 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 9.4 8.7 A A 0.74 0.51 C A 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 12.4 15.1 B C NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 40.0 12.1 D B 1.00 0.56 E A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.98 0.61 E B 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 30.0 24.9 C C 0.78 0.48 C A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 21.7 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private) 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 3.1 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 47.9 15.9 E C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 25.8 27.9 C C 0.55 0.64 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 14.7 17.3 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.8 0.5 A A 0.70 0.46 B A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. - --------
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

DOES NOT EXIST
INTERIM YEAR (2016) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
HCM HCM ICU4
ICU4 LEVEL OF
(V/C) SERVICE
_______________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-3 88 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Even though the ICU results show that intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) operates at LOS “E” during the AM peak hour under Interim Year (2016) Without Project conditions, the HCM results show that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better). The HCM results present a more accurate representation of the intersection operational level.

5.1.3 Interim Year (2016) With Project
HCM delay and ICU calculations for Interim Year (2016) With Project conditions are shown in Table 5-4. The operation analysis worksheets are included in Appendix “J”. Table 5-4 shows the operations analysis at the study area intersections with and without improvements. For Interim (2016) With Project conditions, no additional intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service compared to Interim Year (2016) Without Project conditions.

Even though the ICU results show that intersection of I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9) operates at LOS “E” during the AM peak hour under Interim Year (2016) With Project conditions, the HCM results show that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better). The HCM results present a more accurate representation of the intersection operational level.

Table 5-5 summarizes the intersection analysis operations for Interim Year (2016) Without Project and Interim Year With Project conditions. Table 5-5 also identifies any “significant impacts” (as defined in the City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines).

As shown on Table 5-5, a significant impact is projected for the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) and Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4).

As mentioned previously, a significant impact is not anticipated at the intersection Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) since the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the westbound left turns (deficient 89 TABLE 5-4
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
- Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 35.6 45.1 EE NA NA NA NA - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 33.2 52.4 C D 0.67 0.88 B D 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.6 27.3 C C 0.49 0.63 A B 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 1 d 1 1 d 17.3 30.1 B C 0.41 0.33 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 72.7 71.2 EE 1.01 0.83 F D - With Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 3 01 3 0 37.1 43.4 D D 0.80 0.71 C C 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 1 3 0 18.0 13.6 B B 0.83 0.84 D D 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 14.8 36.1 B D 0.70 0.82 B D 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 9.6 8.7 A A 0.77 0.55 C A 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 13.0 15.7 B C NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 51.0 12.0 D B 1.03 0.58 F A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.01 0.62 F B 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 34.7 25.1 C C 0.84 0.50 D A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 23.0 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private) 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.2 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.8 11.5 A B NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 59.1 17.1 F C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 25.8 27.9 C C 0.55 0.64 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 14.7 17.6 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.9 0.6 A A 0.73 0.48 C A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 d 18.7 19.1 C C ---- 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

ICU4 LEVEL OF
(V/C) SERVICE
HCM HCM ICU4
INTERIM YEAR (2016) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
_______________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact Analysis R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-4 90 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
movement) at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS.

As shown in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, the following improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant and result in acceptable level of service operations with the addition of project traffic:

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

5.1.4 Long Range (2035) Without Project
HCM delay and ICU calculations for Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions are shown in Table 5-6. The operation analysis worksheets are included in Appendix “K”. Table 5-6 shows the operations analysis at the study area intersections with and without improvements. For Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions the following study area intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry:

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.

Without Improvements
● 2016 Without Project AWS 0 1! 0111111111 30.3 43.6 D E NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project AWS 0 1! 0111111111 35.6 45.1 EE NA NA NA NA YES 185 124 With Improvements
● 2016 With Project TS 0 1! 0 1 1 1> 11 1> 111 33.2 52.4 C D 0.67 0.88 B D NO 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St.
● 2016 Without Project TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.4 28.0 C C 0.46 0.60 A A● 2016 With Project TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.6 27.3 C C 0.49 0.63 A B NO 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St.
● 2016 Without Project TS 12012d11d11d 13.9 25.1 B C 0.41 0.32 A A● 2016 With Project TS 12012d11d11d 17.3 30.1 B C 0.41 0.33 A A NO 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.

Without Improvements
● 2016 Without Project TS 21111012d12d 63.8 69.4 EE 0.98 0.81 E D● 2016 With Project TS 21111012d12d 72.7 71.2 EE 1.01 0.83 F D YES 180 120 With Improvements
● 2016 Without Project TS 2111101 3 01 3 0 32.0 34.2 C C 0.77 0.67 C B● 2016 With Project TS 2111101 3 01 3 0 37.1 43.4 D D 0.80 0.71 C C NO 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project TS 20100002d130 17.4 13.0 B B 0.81 0.84 D D● 2016 With Project TS 20100002d130 18.0 13.6 B B 0.83 0.84 D D NO 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av.
● 2016 Without Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 12.7 30.1 B C 0.64 0.80 B C● 2016 With Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 14.8 36.1 B D 0.70 0.82 B D NO 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd.
● 2016 Without Project TS 120021201000 9.4 8.7 A A 0.74 0.51 C A● 2016 With Project TS 120021201000 9.6 8.7 A A 0.77 0.55 C A NO 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 12.4 15.1 B C NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 13.0 15.7 B C NA NA NA NA NO 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 40.0 12.1 D B 1.00 0.56 E A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.98 0.61 E B ● 2016 With Project TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 51.0 12.0 D B 1.03 0.58 F A NO - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.01 0.62 F B

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
INTERIM YEAR (2016)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON
Added
Project
Traffic
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICU7 LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND
#

TRAFFIC
Control 3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES 1

BOUND (V/C) SERVICE

INTERSECTION
HCM HCM ICU7
_____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-5 92 TABLE 5-5
DELAY2 LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE2

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
INTERIM YEAR (2016)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON
Added
Project
Traffic
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICU7 LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND
#

TRAFFIC
Control 3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES 1

BOUND (V/C) SERVICE

INTERSECTION
HCM HCM ICU7
10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project TS 000201120021 30.0 24.9 C C 0.78 0.48 C A● 2016 With Project TS 000201120021 34.7 25.1 C C 0.84 0.50 D A NO 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project CSS 000001020030 21.7 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project CSS 000001020030 23.0 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA NO 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private)
● 2016 Without Project 5 CSS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 3.1 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project 5 CSS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.2 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA NO - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach) 6
● 2016 Without Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.8 11.5 A B NA NA NA NA NO - Private Dwy. (westbound approach) 6
● 2016 Without Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 47.9 15.9 E C NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 59.1 17.1 F C NA NA NA NA NO 0 0 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St.
● 2016 Without Project TS 120120120120 25.8 27.9 C C 0.55 0.64 A B● 2016 With Project TS 120120120120 25.8 27.9 C C 0.55 0.64 A B NO 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St.
● 2016 Without Project AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 14.7 17.3 B C NA NA NA NA● 2016 With Project AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 14.7 17.6 B C NA NA NA NA NO 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy.
● 2016 Without Project TS 000000020020 0.8 0.5 A A 0.70 0.46 B A● 2016 With Project TS 000000020020 0.9 0.6 A A 0.73 0.48 C A NO 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lan L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1>> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 2 Delay and level of service (LOS) is calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 8. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with t signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. "NA" value is shown for unsignalized ICU va 3 AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop4 Per City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines, a significant impact is identified if one of the following criterias are me ● For Signalized Intersections
- When an intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("D" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS ("E" or "F")- When a State Highway intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("E" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS "F"- When an intersection operates at LOS "F" for baseline conditions and the project adds more than 50 peak hour project trips ● For Unsignalized Intersections
- When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F"and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control dela, and the addition of project increases the total control delay to more than 4.0 hours for single lane approach and 5.0 hours for multilane approac- When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F"and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control dela, and the addition of project of more than 50 peak-hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approac 5 LOS based on average delay (unsignalized intersection6 LOS based on minor approach operating condition (unsignalized intersection7 The Synchro v/c output results are discussed in the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports under Section B (page insert) and indicated that the v/c ratio results in the Synchro are based on ICU and should be presented in addition to delay inform = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). BOLD _____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-5 93 TABLE 5-6
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
- Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 33.5 45.0 D E NA NA NA NA - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 33.8 53.2 C D 0.64 0.85 B D 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.6 30.0 C C 0.49 0.65 A B 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 1 d 1 1 d 13.7 26.1 B C 0.43 0.37 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 82.5 84.8 FF 1.04 0.86 F D - With Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 3 01 3 0 37.4 45.4 D D 0.81 0.71 D C 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 1 3 0 19.3 15.0 B B 0.86 0.89 D D 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 13.4 36.5 B D 0.78 0.85 C D 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 10.1 8.9 B A 0.78 0.57 C A 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 12.8 15.8 B C NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 57.3 12.5 E B 1.06 0.59 F A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.03 0.63 F B - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 14.5 9.1 B A 0.84 0.44 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.86 0.51 D A 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 43.9 25.8 D C 0.83 0.50 D A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 23.4 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.2 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 63.8 16.7 F C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 26.3 28.9 C C 0.60 0.68 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.4 20.4 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.8 0.6 A A 0.73 0.49 C A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. - --------
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

DOES NOT EXIST
LONG RANGE (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS

5.1.5 Long Range (2035) With Project
HCM delay and ICU calculations for Long Range (2035) With Project Buildout conditions are shown in Table 5-7. The operation analysis worksheets are included in Appendix “L”. Table 5-7 shows the operations analysis at the study area intersections with and without improvements. For Long Range (2035) With Project conditions, no additional intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service compared to Long Range (2035) Without Project conditions.

Table 5-8 summarizes the intersection analysis operations for Long Range (2035) Without Project and Long Range (2035) With Project Buildout conditions. Table 5-8 also identifies any “significant impacts” (as defined in the City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines). As shown on Table 5-8, significant impacts are projected for the following locations:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 4 Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway Irwindale
9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway Caltrans
As mentioned previously, a significant impact is not anticipated at the intersection Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) since the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the westbound left turns (deficient movement) at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS.

As shown in Table 5-6 and Table 5-7, the following improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant and result in acceptable level of service operations with the addition of project traffic:
95 TABLE 5-7
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE2
# INTERSECTION CONTROL3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
- Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 37.5 46.4 EE NA NA NA NA - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 37.2 53.7 D D 0.71 0.89 C D 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St. TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 31.4 29.2 C C 0.52 0.67 A B 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 1 d 1 1 d 20.7 30.9 C C 0.44 0.35 A A 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 92.8 85.9 FF 1.07 0.88 F D - With Improvements TS 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 3 01 3 0 42.5 37.9 D D 0.85 0.75 D C 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy. TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 1 3 0 20.4 16.1 C B 0.88 0.89 D D 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 15.6 43.8 B D 0.85 0.87 D D 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd. TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 10.4 8.9 B A 0.81 0.62 D B 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 13.5 16.4 B C NA NA NA NA 9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy.
- Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 69.9 12.4 E B 1.09 0.61 F B - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.06 0.65 F B - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 15.5 9.0 B A 0.87 0.45 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.89 0.52 D A 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 40.3 25.9 D C 0.89 0.52 D A 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 24.8 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 6 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.6 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.9 11.8 A B NA NA NA NA - Adjacent Dwy. (westbound approach)7 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 81.7 18.0 F C NA NA NA NA 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 26.4 29.0 C C 0.60 0.68 A B 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St. AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.6 20.7 B C NA NA NA NA 15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy. TS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.9 0.6 A A 0.76 0.51 C A 16 Project Dwy. / Los Angeles St. CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 d 20.1 20.4 C C ---- 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

ICU4 LEVEL OF
(V/C) SERVICE
HCM HCM ICU4
LONG RANGE (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.

Without Improvements
● 2035 Without Project AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 33.5 45.0 D E NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 37.5 46.4 EE NA NA NA NA YES 185 124 With Improvements
● 2035 With Project TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1> 0.5 0.5 1 37.2 53.7 D D 0.71 0.89 C D NO 2 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Cypress St.
● 2035 Without Project TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 30.6 30.0 C C 0.52 0.65 A B● 2035 With Project TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1! 1 31.4 29.2 C C 0.52 0.67 A B NO 3 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Olive St.
● 2035 Without Project TS 12012d11d11d 13.7 26.1 B C 0.43 0.37 A A● 2035 With Project TS 12012d11d11d 20.7 30.9 C C 0.44 0.35 A A NO 4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.

Without Improvements
● 2035 Without Project TS 1.5 0.5 111012d12d 82.5 84.8 FF 1.04 0.86 F D● 2035 With Project TS 1.5 0.5 111012d12d 92.8 85.9 FF 1.07 0.88 F D YES 180 120 With Improvements
● 2035 Without Project TS 1.5 0.5 11101 3 01 3 0 37.4 45.4 D D 0.81 0.71 D C● 2035 With Project TS 1.5 0.5 11101 3 01 3 0 42.5 37.9 D D 0.85 0.75 D C NO 5 Maine Av. / Arrow Hwy.
● 2035 Without Project TS 20100002d130 19.3 15.0 B B 0.86 0.89 D D● 2035 With Project TS 20100002d130 20.4 16.1 C B 0.88 0.89 D D NO 6 Arrow Hwy. / Live Oak Av.
● 2035 Without Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 13.4 36.5 B D 0.78 0.85 C D● 2035 With Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2>> 15.6 43.8 B D 0.85 0.87 D D NO 7 Arrow Hwy. / Rivergrade Rd.
● 2035 Without Project TS 120021201000 10.1 8.9 B A 0.78 0.57 C A● 2035 With Project TS 120021201000 10.4 8.9 B A 0.81 0.62 D B NO 8 I-605 NB Ramp - Live Oak Ln. / Arrow Hwy.
● 2035 Without Project CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 12.8 15.8 B C NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 d 0 2 1>> 13.5 16.4 B C NA NA NA NA NO LONG RANGE (2035)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON
#

TRAFFIC
Control3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1 HCM HCM ICU7

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
Added
Project
Traffic
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICU7

INTERSECTION

LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (V/C) SERVICE
_____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-8 97 TABLE 5-8
DELAY2 LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE2

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
LONG RANGE (2035)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON
#

TRAFFIC
Control3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1 HCM HCM ICU7

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
Added
Project
Traffic
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICU7

INTERSECTION

LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (V/C) SERVICE
9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Hwy.

Without Improvements
● 2035 Without Project TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 57.3 12.5 E B 1.06 0.59 F A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.03 0.63 F B ● 2035 With Project TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 69.9 12.4 E B 1.09 0.61 F B YES 177 117 - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 1.06 0.65 F B With Improvements
● 2035 Without Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 14.5 9.1 B A 0.84 0.44 D A - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.86 0.51 D A ● 2035 With Project TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 15.5 9.0 B A 0.87 0.45 D A NO - LA CMP ICU Results5 TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 0 0 2 0 - - - - 0.89 0.52 D A 10 Avenida Barbosa / Arrow Hwy.
● 2035 Without Project TS 000201120021 43.9 25.8 D C 0.83 0.50 D A● 2035 With Project TS 000201120021 40.3 25.9 D C 0.89 0.52 D A NO 11 URP2 Dwy. 1 / Arrow Hwy.
● 2035 Without Project CSS 000001020030 23.4 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project CSS 000001020030 24.8 0.0 C A NA NA NA NA NO 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Dwy. 2 (Private)
● 2035 Without Project 5 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.2 0.2 A A NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project 5 CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.6 0.8 A A NA NA NA NA NO - URP2 Dwy. 2 (eastbound approach)6
● 2035 Without Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 A A NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 1! 0 - - - 9.9 11.8 A B NA NA NA NA NO - Private Dwy. (westbound approach)6
● 2035 Without Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 63.8 16.7 F C NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project CSS 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 - - - 0 1! 0 81.7 18.0 F C NA NA NA NA NO 0 0 13 Maine Av. / Los Angeles St.
● 2035 Without Project TS 120120120120 26.3 28.9 C C 0.60 0.68 A B● 2035 With Project TS 120120120120 26.4 29.0 C C 0.60 0.68 A B NO 14 Phelan Av. / Los Angeles St.
● 2035 Without Project AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.4 20.4 B C NA NA NA NA● 2035 With Project AWS 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 2 0 13.6 20.7 B C NA NA NA NA NO _____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-8 98 TABLE 5-8
DELAY2 LEVEL OF
(SECS.) SERVICE2

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
LONG RANGE (2035)

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY COMPARISON
#

TRAFFIC
Control3
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES1 HCM HCM ICU7

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT?4
Added
Project
Traffic
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- ICU7

INTERSECTION

LEVEL OF

BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (V/C) SERVICE
15 Ped Xing / Arrow Hwy.
● 2035 Without Project TS 000000020020 0.8 0.6 A A 0.73 0.49 C A● 2035 With Project TS 000000020020 0.9 0.6 A A 0.76 0.51 C A NO 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width (23') for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1>> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; > = Right Turn Overlap Phase; 1 = Improvement 2 Delay and level of service (LOS) is calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 8. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. "NA" value is shown for unsignalized ICU values. 3 AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop.4 Per City of Irwindale traffic study guidelines, a significant impact is identified if one of the following criterias are met:
● For Signalized Intersections
- When an intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("D" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS ("E" or "F"). - When a State Highway intersection operates at acceptable LOS ("E" or better) for baseline conditions and the addition of project results in unacceptable LOS "F". - When an intersection operates at LOS "F" for baseline conditions and the project adds more than 50 peak hour project trips . ● For Unsignalized Intersections
- When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F" and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control delay, and the addition of project increases the total control delay to more than 4.0 hours for single lane approach and 5.0 hours for multilane approach. - When the minor stop-contolled approach operates at LOS "F" and does not have acceptable LOS in terms of total control delay, and the addition of project of more than 50 peak-hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the minor approach. 5 LOS based on average delay (unsignalized intersection).6 LOS based on minor approach operating condition (unsignalized intersection).7 The Synchro v/c output results are discussed in the City of Irwindale Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Reports under Section B (page insert) and indicated that the v/c ratio results in the Synchro are based on ICU and should be presented in addition to delay information. = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). BOLD _____________________________Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Project Traffic Impact AnalysisR:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\5-8 99 Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

100
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

6.0 IMPROVEMENT AND PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
This section of the report summarizes the off-site improvements and fair share percentages required to meet level of service requirements at each of the analysis locations where improvements are required. Improvements which will eliminate all anticipated roadway operational deficiencies throughout the study area have been identified for Long Range (2035) With Project Buildout traffic conditions. The improvements were determined through the operations analysis sections of this traffic study. Per City of Irwindale guidelines, the project shall pay its fair share of improvements to eliminate any of the significant impacts identified in the analysis chapters of this report.

6.1 Off-Site Recommended Improvements
For Existing plus Project conditions, the project will be required to construct the following improvement to mitigate the project’s direct impact:

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

For Interim Year (2016) conditions, the project shall pay its fair share for the following improvements to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

Long Range (2035) conditions, the project shall pay its fair share for the following improvement to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

I-605 SB Off-Ramp / Arrow Highway (#9)
 Construct a 2nd southbound left turn lane.
- It should be noted that this improvement is consistent with the Traffic/Circulation Study Draft for 1-605 Northbound 101
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Off-Ramp/Live Oak Avenue Interchange Improvements
(November 2013) prepared by AECOM.
- Caltrans or the City may accept fair share funding contributions towards future improvements of its facilities so long as improvements are reasonably expected to be implemented in a reasonable time frame.

6.2 2035 With Project Fair Share Percentage
Per City of Irwindale Guidelines, the project shall pay its fair share of improvements to eliminate any of the significant impacts. Based on the intersection analysis results, the project is anticipated to contribute additional traffic causing significant impacts up to 2035 conditions, fair share calculation is therefore based on 2035 conditions to address all significant impacts caused by the project.

EXISTING

TRAFFIC
2035

WITHOUT

PROJECT
2035
WITH

PROJECT

TRAFFIC
2035

PROJECT
ONLY

TRAFFIC
TOTAL
NEW
TRAFFIC1
PROJECT %
OF NEW
TRAFFIC2
1 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Los Angeles St.
• AM Peak Hour 1,312 1,457 1,642 185 330 100%3
• PM Peak Hour 1,677 1,859 1,983 124 306 100%3
4 Azusa Cyn. Rd. / Arrow Hwy.
• AM Peak Hour 3,639 4,148 4,328 180 689 26%
• PM Peak Hour 3,357 3,888 4,008 120 651 18%
9 I-605 SB Off-Ramp (NS) / Live Oak Av. (EW)
• AM Peak Hour 3,098 3,676 3,853 177 755 23%
• PM Peak Hour 1,856 2,344 2,461 117 605 19%
1 Total New Traffic = (2035 With Project Traffic - Existing Traffic) 2 Project % of New Traffic = (2035 Project Only Traffic / Total New Traffic) 3 Project is responsible for the recommended improvement at the intersection of Azusa Cyn. Rd./Los Angeles St. 2035 WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT

INTERSECTION

FAIR SHARE PERCENTAGES FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
____________________________________________________________ Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation ProjectTraffic Impact Analysis R:\UXRjobs\_10100-10500\10568\Excel\10568-02 Report.xlsx\6-1 103
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
104
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report summarizes the overall findings and provides recommendations regarding project related traffic improvements.

7.1 Findings

7.1.1 Existing Conditions
Regional access to the site is provided by a number of major freeways, including Interstate Freeway 10 (I-10) to the south, I-605 Freeway to the west and I-210 Freeway to the north. Local access to the project site is anticipated to be provided by the following roadways:
 Los Angeles Street
 Azusa Canyon Road
For Existing (2014) conditions, the following intersection currently operates at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours:

ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street Irwindale and West Covina 12 Avenida Barbosa / URP2 Driveway 2 (Private) Irwindale Based on the traffic signal warrants for Existing (2014) traffic conditions, the intersections of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) and Phelan Avenue /Los Angeles Street (#14) both appear to warrant a traffic signal.

As mentioned previously, even though the intersection of Phelan Avenue / Los Angeles Street (#14) appear to warrant a traffic signal, this intersection is expected to continue operate at acceptable level of service “C” or better with an all-way-stop control through 2035 conditions. Therefore, a project significant impact is not anticipated and installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this location.
105
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

7.1.2 Project Development
The Project is approximately 190 acres in size and the proposed Project plans involve three components: 1) construction of a new on-site access road; 2) phased extraction of mineral resources; and 3) site reclamation.

The project will be constructed in one phase and expected to become operational in 2016.

Table 2-1 (previously presented) present the project’s trip generation. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,256 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trip-ends per day with 193 AM peak hour trips and 131 PM peak hour trips.

7.1.3 Future Traffic Conditions
For Existing (2014) Plus Project, no new intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service in addition to the previously identified locations under Existing (2014) conditions. It should be noted however that addition of project traffic will increase delay but will continue to operate at the same level of service as existing conditions (LOS “E”).

Based on the intersection analysis results and number of traffic added by the Project, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1) is significantly impacted by the project (comparing Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions). It should be noted that the project does not contribute to a traffic volume increase for the deficient movement (westbound left turn) at this intersection and the total/average control delay is operating at acceptable LOS.

Therefore, the project impact at this location is considered less-than significant and improvements are not recommended.
106
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
For Interim Year (2016) Without and With Project conditions, the intersection of Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4) is projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours, with existing geometry, in addition to the previously identified locations under Existing (2014) and Existing Plus Project conditions.

7.2 Project Recommendations
Recommended off-site and on-site improvements are presented on Exhibit’s 7-A through 7-D. It should be noted that the off-site improvements are necessary to reduce the Project’s proportionate increase in delay to pre-project levels or better, thus reducing the Project’s impact to less-than-significant and result in acceptable level of service operations with the addition of project traffic.
107
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
Exhibit 7-A illustrates the Existing Plus Project off-site improvements. For Existing plus Project conditions, the project will be required to construct the following improvement to mitigate the project’s direct impact:

Azusa Canyon Road / Los Angeles Street (#1)
 Install a traffic signal with southbound and eastbound right turn overlap phases.

Exhibit 7-B illustrates the Interim Year (2016) With Project off-site improvements. The project shall pay its fair share for the following improvement to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

Azusa Canyon Road / Arrow Highway (#4)
 Modify striping to provide a 3rd eastbound through lane.  Modify striping to provide a 3rd westbound through lane and 3rd westbound receiving lane.

Exhibit 7-C illustrates the Long Range (2035) With Project off-site improvements. The project shall pay its fair share for the following improvement to mitigate the project’s cumulative impact:

Exhibit 7-D presents the on-site improvements related to the project access intersection.

As shown on Exhibit 7-D, the recommended on-site improvements are as follows:

Project Driveway / Los Angeles Street (#16) – To mitigate potential traffic impacts at this location the project shall be required to install a stop control on 108
109
110
111
112
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)
the southbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics prior to commencement of operations:
 Northbound Approach: N/A
 Southbound Approach: One left turn lane and one right turn lane.  Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through lane and 2nd through lane.  Westbound Approach: Two through lanes and one defacto right turn lane.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

The City has no other plans, ordinances or policies that “establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including related to mass transit and non-motorized travel, such as a pedestrian or bicycle circulation plan, which are applicable to the Proposed Project. The only bike path within the City of Irwindale is located on the River bed, west of Rivergrade Road and north of Arrow Highway. Based on the existing uses near the project site, and the project’s trip generation characteristics, pedestrian activity is anticipated to be nominal.

The recommended project off-site and on-site improvements provide for safe and efficient access conditions, and accommodate the travel activities associated with the Proposed Project. Furthermore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that would result in a decrease of the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

113
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Site Revised Truck Activity Evaluation City of Irwindale, CA (JN: 10568‐02 Report.docx)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
114
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina | Office of the City Manager
DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Milan Mrakich, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE WEST COVINA CITYWIDE SEWER SERVICE

CHARGE COLLECTION METHOD AND ASSOCIATED REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES TO BE COLLECTED ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 TAX ROLL
BACKGROUND:

From 1968 to 1978, the City of West Covina funded the costs of sewer maintenance and operation through the Improvement Act of 1911 ("1911 Act"), which provided an ad valorem (according to value) levy used to pay for these costs. With the passage of Proposition 13, the revenues generated from the 1911 Act were reduced considerably, which made it necessary to find an alternative method of funding sewer maintenance and operation costs. In Fiscal Year 1978-1979, the City Council established the Citywide Sewer Service Charge pursuant to Section 38902 of the Government Code as that alternative method.

The Sewer Service Charge funds the maintenance and operation of the City’s sewer system, assuring that lines are clear and flowing properly. This includes routine video inspections, jetting, and cleaning of sewer lines. The fees also fund capital improvements, including rehabilitation/replacement of sewer mainlines and appurtenances and purchase of sewer maintenance equipment.

The Sewer Service Charge is based on general land use categories: residential and non-residential. A fixed fee is charged for each dwelling unit for residential property and every 667 square feet of floor area for other types of non-residential developments. Additionally, properties not connected to the sewer main lines are exempt from the charge.

DISCUSSION:

State law requires that a specific procedure be followed to collect the Citywide Sewer Service Charge on the annual property tax bill. The initial step is to adopt a resolution setting a date for a public hearing on the proposed rates and method of collection. The process requires that public notices be published in a locally circulated newspaper at least once a week for two consecutive weeks with at least five days intervening between the publication dates, with the noticing period commencing on the first date of publication and ending on the fourteenth day. The City complied with the public hearing notification requirements by publishing a notice two times, with the first notice published on July 22, 2025, followed requirements by publishing a notice two times, with the first notice published on July 22, 2025, followed by a second public hearing notice published on July 28, 2025. Mailing notices to each property owner is only required when the charges are increased above the current sewer service rate.

The purpose of the public hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to voice their concerns on the method of collection. The most efficient and least costly method of collecting the Citywide Sewer Service Charge is to place it on the annual property tax bill. The Citywide Sewer Service Charge will then be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the general property taxes. If the City Council finds that a majority protest is made by the owners of a majority of separate parcels of property described in the report, then the City Council cannot adopt the report and the sewer service charges must be collected separately from the tax roll.

The proposed Sewer Service Charge will remain the same as Fiscal Year 2024-25 at $82.02 per unit. To view the Sewer Assessment Roll and other documents pertaining to the Sewer District, please visit the City website's Engineering Division page, labeled Landscape Maintenance Districts, or visit website.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the resolution and approved as to form.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve staff's recommendation; or

2. Provide alternative direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The collection of the sewer service charges is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the charges are to be used for the maintenance and operation of the City’s sewer system. The collection of the charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the collection of the charges to fund the maintenance and operation of the City’s sewer system will have a significant impact on the environment.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Burns, Deputy Community Development Director Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:

For Fiscal Year 2025-26, the Citywide Sewer Service Charge rates are proposed to remain at $82.02 per unit per year. The projected fund balance for end of Fiscal Year 2024-25 is $13,673,522. The projected revenues for FY 2025-26 inclusive of $3,976,700 in assessments, $354,600 in interest income and $358,300 in ad valorem is $4,689,600. Therefore, total funds available for FY 2025-26 are $18,363,122, there are $2,626,060 adopted budgeted expenditures.

Fiscal Year 2025-26, Sewer Capital Improvement Projects:

Project Description Amount
Area 62 Replace segment on E. Rio Verde Dr. between
S Hollenbeck and S Citrus St.
$1,359,800
Area 82
Replace segment on Lark Ellen between S
Cameron and Vine; Replace segment on E Vine
between S Lark Ellen and Glenview Rd.
$1,391,400
Area
116
Replace segment of Francisquito Ave. between
Orange and Tonopah Ave.
$666,000
TOTAL $3,417,200
The Preliminary Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 contains the following components:

1. Budget and Revenue Summary

2. Capital Improvement Project Fund

3. Proposed Assessment Rate

4. Revised Projected Reserve (Fiscal Year 2025-26)

5. Preliminary Sewer Charge Roll
There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 2025-60
Attachment No. 2 - Preliminary Financial Report For FY 25-26 Attachment No. 3 - 10-Year Projection
Attachment No. 4 - Sewer Capacity Evaluation
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Achieve Fiscal Sustainability and Financial Stability A Well-Planned Community
Maintain Good Intergovernmental Relations
Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-60

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SEWER

SERVICE CHARGES TO BE COLLECTED ON THE FISCAL
YEAR 2025-26 TAX ROLL
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, on June 26, 1978, in accordance with Section 38902 of the California Government Code, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5726, establishing a sewer service charge exclusively for sewer operation, maintenance, and capital costs. The City collects the sewer service charge as part of the property tax roll; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8019, amending Resolution No. 5726 to adjust the schedule of charges so that the fees collected bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing the services; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-55, adopting a five-year schedule of annual sewer service charges for Fiscal Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, the five-year schedule was adopted following proceedings conducted pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution, which was added to the California Constitution in 1996 as part of Proposition 218; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 5473, a report has been filed with the City Clerk containing a description of each parcel of real property receiving sewer services and the amount of the charge for each parcel for Fiscal Year 2025-26, computed in conformity with the schedule of charges previously adopted by the City Council (the “Report”); and
WHEREAS, the Report is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, there is no proposed increase to the rate of the sewer service charge for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 5473 et seq. requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing regarding collecting the sewer service charge as part of the tax roll; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2025-51, adopted on July 15, 2025, the City Council declared its intent to collect the sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 2025-26 on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the City’s general taxes; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2025-51, the City Council also set August 5, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 1444 West Garvey Avenue South in the City of West Covina as the time and place for a public hearing (the “Hearing”) on the Report; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Hearing was published as required by law; and WHEREAS, at the Hearing, the City Council heard and considered all objections or protests, if any, to the Report; and
WHEREAS, a protest was not made by the owners of a majority of separate parcels of property described in the Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to cause the collection of the sewer service charges as listed in the Report.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council determines that the charges set forth in the Report are correct and approves each such charge. For Fiscal Year 2025-26, the charges shall be collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the City’s general taxes.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that the collection of the sewer service charges is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the charges are to be used for the maintenance and operation of the City’s sewer system. The City Council also finds and determines that the collection of the charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the collection of the charges to fund the maintenance and operation of the City’s sewer system will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the Report with the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controlled pursuant to Section 5473.4 of the California Health and Safety Code.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Monique S. De La Rosa
City Attorney Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-60 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
1 CITY OF WEST COVINA
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL
REPORT: CITYWIDE SEWER SERVICE CHARGE
Intent Meeting: June 15, 2025
Public Hearing: August 5, 2025
Prepared by:
101 Progress, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
www.weareharris.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Financial Report
Citywide Sewer
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
2 BUDGET AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Previous Fiscal Year Fund Balance $13,673,522
Revenues
Assessment Income (Total Balance to Levy) $3,976,700
Property Tax Revenue (Ad Valorem) $358,300
Interest $354,600
Total Project Revenue $4,689,600
Expenditures
Operating
Maintenance
Personnel Services $1,641,466
Material and Services $51,462
Professional Services $15,000
Maintenance Contracts $257,340
Utilites $22,200
Vehicles $200,000
Fuel and Oil $28,121
Property & Liability Insurance $77,780
Total Maintenance $2,293,369
Engineering & Incidental
Personnel Services $34,197
Material and Services $43,838
Consultant Services $0
Property & Liability Insurance $77,780
Administration & Overhead $116,250
Capital Assests $26,900
Total Engineering & Incidental $298,965
Community Enhancement
Personnel Services $34,197
Total Community Enhancement $34,197
Capital Improvments $3,417,200
Total Operating and Capital Improvements Budget $6,043,731 Ending Fund Balance $12,319,391
City of West Covina
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Estimated costs for Sewer Maintenance
Financial Report
Citywide Sewer
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND
For Fiscal Year 2025/2026, below are the Capital Improvement Projects:

ASSESSMENT RATE
For FY 2025/26, the rate will remain the same as FY 2024/2025 at $82.02 per unit.

Residential 1 DU = 1 unit
Commercial 667 sq ft = 1 unit

REVISED PROJECTED RESERVE

PRELIMINARY SEWER CHARGE ROLL
The FY 2025/2026 preliminary sewer charge roll is voluminous, has been submitted to the City Clerk, and is hereby included by reference.
www.WeAreHarris.com
Donna Segura
Project Manager
[email protected]
P: 949.536.2512
Project Description Amount
Area 62 Replace segment on E Rio Verde Drive between S Hollenback and S Citrus Street $1,359,800
Area 82 Replace segment on S Lark Ellen between E Cameron and Vine; Replace Segment on E Vine between S Lark Ellen and S Glenview Road $1,391,400 Area 116 Replace segment of Francisquito Avenue between S Orange and S Tonopah Ave $666,000
Total $3,417,200
Fund Balance (as of 06/30/2025) $13,673,522
Projected Revenue $4,689,600
Appropriation (Operating & Capital) ($6,043,731)
Projected Fund Balance (as of 06/30/2026) $12,319,391
Projected Reserve Fiscal Year 2025/2026
Percent Increase 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fiscal Year 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 $3,976,700 Interest (1) $354,600 $24,639 $33,358 $42,095 $50,849 $59,621 $68,410 $77,217 $86,041 $94,883 Property Tax Revenue (Ad Valorem) $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 $358,300 Prior Year Balance $13,673,522 $12,319,391 $16,679,030 $21,047,388 $25,424,483 $29,810,332 $34,204,952 $38,608,362 $43,020,579 $47,441,620 Total Fund $18,363,122 $16,679,030 $21,047,388 $25,424,483 $29,810,332 $34,204,952 $38,608,362 $43,020,579 $47,441,620 $51,871,503 Maintenance Cost (2) $2,626,531 $2,720,036 $2,816,869 $2,917,149 $3,021,000 $3,128,547 $3,239,924 $3,355,265 $3,474,712 $3,598,412 Capital Improvements $3,417,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $6,043,731 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Balance $12,319,391 $16,679,030 $21,047,388 $25,424,483 $29,810,332 $34,204,952 $38,608,362 $43,020,579 $47,441,620 $51,871,503 Assessment Rate (3) $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 $82.02 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) (3) Fiscal Year 25/26 approved maximum rate of $82.02 may not be increased without vote.

West Covina Sewer District
10 Year Fiscal Projection
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Appendix ‘O’
City of West Covina

SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION
2008-2009, Edited October 2016
The City’s previous system capacity analysis was completed in 2009. Since there have been no significant capital improvements since then, the hydraulic model was not updated in this SSMP report. The primary purpose of this Appendix is to capture the methodology that was used in developing the 2009 sewer capacity analysis. The primary update of this Appendix is the cost of the recommended Capital Improvement Projects. The updated (2016 dollars) estimate project costs are provided in Appendix ‘P’. These estimates reflect the cost to replace select pipe segments at certain locations as determined by operating condition.

Appendix ‘P’ includes a more detailed list of recommended CIP projects that considers both calculated pipe operating condition as well as feasibility of updating adjacent pipe segments of differing capacity thresholds as part of the same project rather than as separate projects.

The exhibits of the recommended project locations provided in Appendix ‘O-1’ have not been updated in this report as the hydraulic model has not changed.

Introduction and Summary
The City owns and operates its local wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 227 miles of gravity flow sewer pipelines and two segments of force main (varying in size from 4-inch to 18-inch pipe) and 5,187 manholes. The existing sewer system discharges to trunk sewers that are owned and operated by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and to the adjacent Cities of Baldwin Park and Covina, and some areas of unincorporated county.

The purpose of this evaluation is to identify deficiencies in the existing sewer mainline system, recommend alternatives to eliminate the deficiencies, prioritize the deficient reaches, and provide the City with a basis on which to build a future infrastructure management system.

The 227 miles of local sewer were modeled using HYDRA 6.4 by PIZER. Of the total length, approximately 19,096 feet of the existing system were identified as being critically capacity deficient (Greater than 85% full). These are grouped as priority-one projects requiring timely resolution. The deficient reaches of sewer mainlines are located within SMZs 4, 62, 80, 82, 116, 117, 132 and 161. Please refer to exhibit maps A, B, & C in this Appendix ‘O-1’ for the deficient reach locations. The cost to repair the deficient reaches is estimated to be $8,820,000. Those pipe segments classed as seriously capacity deficient, approximately 30,048 feet of the existing system ( between 64% and 85% full), are grouped as priority-two projects requiring resolution in the near future. The deficient reaches of sewer mainlines are located within SMZs 2, 4, 5, 62, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 105, 116, 117, 132, 139, 140, 151, 153 and 161. Please refer to exhibit maps A, B, & C in this Appendix ‘O-1’ for the deficient reach locations. The cost to repair the deficient reaches is estimated to be $11,840,000.

ATTACHMENT NO.4
Appendix ‘O’
The modeling function was performed utilizing generally accepted sewage generation coefficients in the Los Angeles county region, and land use zoning as shown on a CAD file map identified as: “annZoning CAD Map 04-06” received on December 29, 2008. The zoning map was utilized as representative of the City’s current development condition. This map was overlaid on the sewer system map, developed as part of this project, thereby allowing the modeler to apply the sewage generation coefficients for the respective land zoning within each SMZ throughout the City. This method resulted in defining the cumulative sewage generated and carried through the piping within each SMZ and delivered to the receiving system. However, there was no flow monitoring performed to otherwise validate the modeling data result. In months and years ahead, as maintenance inspections are performed, the modeled areas nearing capacity should be closely monitored for signs of exceeding capacity in order to avoid SSOs, and to refine design parameters for replacement.

As future land use changes occur in the General Plan, the model should be updated to reflect consequences of such changes. The model should also be updated to reflect flow monitoring results as well as the construction of new relief facilities, upgrades, and/or the construction of new sewer lines in order to be fully representative of the community sewer system.

Study Approach
The following tasks were performed in the preparation of this Sewer System Capacity Evaluation Report.

1. The City provided copies of existing sewer system as-built construction plans for use in preparing the initial GIS sewer system mapping and attributes base and for the exhibit maps A, B & C of this Appendix ‘O-1’.

2. The City provided an electronic CAD file of its land use zoning map for use in creating an overlay map of the parcels and sewer maintenance zones in the city system.

3. Willdan developed a computer model (Pizer Hydra) of the City wastewater collection system utilizing the above data.

4. Analysis of the existing wastewater collection system capacity and determination of any capacity deficiencies (refer to the deficiency criteria section of this report and see the exhibit maps in this Appendix ‘O-1’).

5. Development of recommendations for system improvements to correct deficiencies.

6. Preparation of cost estimates for the recommended improvements.

7. Preparation of evaluation findings and recommendations to correct identified deficiencies in a Sewer System Capacity Evaluation Report (this Appendix).

System Criteria and Alternatives
In designing or evaluating a wastewater collection system, the engineer must establish certain criteria upon which to base the design. These include such things as available pipe sizes, Appendix ‘O’
materials, slope, bury or cover, connections, etc. Such criteria are established to ensure that the wastewater collection system can operate effectively under all flow conditions. Each pipe segment must be capable of carrying the peak flows without surcharging the system.

Surcharging the system occurs when the pipe is flowing under pressure. However, many of the initial design assumptions are unnecessary in the analysis of a collection system when the pipe already exists and its diameter and slope are fixed.

In the analysis of an existing sewer system, the Hydra program compares the capacity of each pipe in the system with the peak wastewater flow projected for that particular link or reach of pipe. If the existing pipe size is surcharged, the Hydra program automatically increases the pipe diameter to the next largest standard pipe size that will carry the design flow without being surcharged. At a minimum, all pipes should be 8 inches or larger in diameter and the velocity of flow in the pipe should be greater than 2 feet per second (ft/s). This velocity will prevent deposition of solids in the sewer and help to re-suspend any materials that may have already settled in the pipe. The minimum corresponding slopes to maintain 2 ft/s for various pipe sizes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Minimum Pipe Slopes ft/ft
Sewer Size Slope
8” 0.0028
10” 0.0021
12” 0.0016
15” 0.0012
18” 0.0010
It is important to note that the slopes listed above assume the depth of flow in the pipe is 0.64 percent full. If there is insufficient flow to create this condition, greater slopes than those shown may be required in order to maintain the minimum self cleaning velocity condition.

The design and analysis of gravity sewer pipes is typically based upon the depth to diameter ratio (d/D). Common design criteria for proposed new sewer design is 0.50 (50% full) for 8 to 15-inch diameter pipes and 0.75 (75% full) for 18-inch and larger pipes. The area above the water surface (residual capacity) helps to keep the sewage aerated, reducing the possibility of septic conditions and odors. Existing wastewater systems are typically allowed to flow with less residual capacity because development and redevelopment has occurred or is foreseeable in the near future.

This report establishes the hydraulic design criteria for existing sewer pipes by classifying “over capacity” pipes as any with a d/D greater than 0.64. This d/D ratio was arrived at by taking 75 percent of the depth to diameter ratio of a pipe having maximum stable flow capacity, which is at a d/D of 0.85 (75% of 85% is 64%). The area above a d/D of 0.85 is considered hydraulically unstable. This reduction results in approximately 35 percent of the pipe’s full flow capacity being reserved for variations in discharges, periodic peaking of Appendix ‘O’
flow, seasonal variations and minor or temporary obstructions. Again, this residual capacity helps to keep the sewage aerated, reducing the possibility of septic conditions and odors.

The residual capacity allows for the possibility that actual wastewater flows may be slightly higher than anticipated, especially during the hours when instantaneous or intermittent peaks may occur. These peaks are generally observed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.

Monday thru Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Peak flows may also be observed during rainfall events due to inflow and infiltration conditions.

Exhibit maps A, B, & C in Appendix ‘O-1’ shows the pipes that are capacity deficient per the

0.64 criteria and also shows the pipes that are deficient per the 0.50 criteria. Only the pipes that exceed the 0.64 criteria are recommended for correction projects.

The design capacity of a gravity pipeline is the calculated capacity of the pipeline based on the Manning formula:

Q=1.486 R2/3 S
1/2 /n where, Q = flow in cubic feet per second
R = hydraulic radius in feet = A/ P
A = cross-sectional area of the pipe in square feet
P = wetted perimeter in feet
S = slope of the pipe in feet of rise per foot of length n = Manning’s friction factor
Sewer system capacity is established using a Manning’s fiction factor of 0.013 for vitrified clay pipe.

Alternatives
The following alternatives were considered in developing the recommended schedule of deficiency correction projects.

1. Construction of a parallel sewer facility to carry the excess sewage flow is an obvious solution to most of the deficiencies; however, this solution is not necessarily the most economical or practical approach. In some instances rerouting of tributary areas or the construction of a single relief sewer line can be planned in such a way that it will relieve several main sewer lines thereby avoiding the construction of parallel or replacement facilities and the related cost.

2. In other instances, replacement of the existing sewer with a larger size may be the preferred alternative. The replacement or upsizing of the line may include open trench installation or pipe bursting (if surrounding condition are conducive), and the use of temporary bypass pumping. The decision as to which correction alternative to construct is typically made just prior to the design phase after careful consideration of all design constraints such as existing utilities and the costs associated with potential Appendix ‘O’
utility relocation to provide additional space for the construction of a replacement sewer line.

The engineer’s opinion of budget figures (See Appendix ‘P’) was prepared based on the cost to remove and replace the existing sewer with a larger size, as this is the most conservative cost approach.

It is suggested the where the depth of flow exceeds the design criteria of 0.64 d/D, but does not exceed the maximum stable flow capacity of 0.85 d/D, that consideration be given to allowing these sewers to flow in a slightly overloaded condition in lieu of building a more costly relief facility. This overloading occurs only during peak flow conditions that are short in duration. However, the City should frequently monitor these sewers in order to under take a future corrective action as the overloading problem becomes worse.

Analysis of Existing Sewer System
The City’s sewer system was modeled using Pizer Hydra Ver. 6.4. The Hydra program is designed to provide analysis of both the existing sewer system and the design of any new sewer lines.

After defining (laying out) the existing sewer system, the network was divided into 179 SMZ’s or sewer drainage areas, based upon city sewer records, for input into the computer model. The input data consisted of a numerical designation for each manhole and length of sewer pipe between manholes, the slope of the line, and flow line elevation of each manhole.

Computation of Wastewater Inflows
Once the schematic of the sewer system network was established, data was compiled on each SMZ, General Plan land uses (zoning), and related factors that affect the volume of wastewater generated. Next, it was necessary to compute the area of each type of land use; e.g., low-density residential, medium-density residential, high-density residential, commercial, industrial, schools, etc., within each drainage boundary. The unit flow coefficients (see Table 2) were then applied to the computed areas of land use within each SMZ. The unit flow coefficients, when applied to the land use areas, provide peak flow rates for each particular land use category. The wastewater inflows calculated for the various land use categories within the SMZ were then accumulated to provide the calculated peak flow for the entire drainage area. The accumulation of estimated wastewater flow is accomplished totally within the computer program.

Table 2
Unit Flow Coefficients for Peak Flow Rates
Zone Cu. Ft. per
sec. per acre
Gallons per
day per acre
R-1 0.004 2585
R2 0.008 5171
R3 0.012 7756
Appendix ‘O’
R-P,
Commercial 0.015 9695
Manufacturing 0.021 13573
Institutional 0.015 9695
Flow Monitoring
There was no flow monitoring performed under the contract services for preparation of this SSMP. However, flow confirmation work can be undertaken at any time in the future.

Typically, as maintenance inspection findings indicate changed pipeline capacity conditions for those pipe segments near capacity as indicated in the modeling evaluation results. Flow monitoring results can be used to verify and/or calibrate the sewer flow modeling work for a SMZ as affected by changes in development or observed manhole inspections of flow conditions. Also, additional future flow monitoring is recommended at near capacity locations, during periods of rain, to verify or deny potential inflow and infiltration problems, and to refine design parameters, especially for the higher density residential zones.

For each site monitored, the flow data should be reviewed and compared to the contributing SMZ area. The peak monitored flow rate must be compared to the design flow rate and the shape of the outflow curve compared to the SMZ modeled result. An expected difference between the monitored flow and the design flow is between 150 to 250 percent. This difference is expected because the design flow rate includes the maximum flow rate expected from each development type which contains both wet weather inflow/infiltration and design peaking safety factors.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Within the initial introduction and summary section, both the critically deficient (> 85% full) and seriously deficient (between 64% and 85% full) pipe segments were described and referenced. Before undertaking design and construction or identifying further project priorities, the performance of select flow monitoring is recommended at crucial locations, especially during periods of rain to verify or deny any potential inflow and infiltration problems. Also to confirm the actual in-system flow conditions which can and do vary do to water usage and customer practices in waste disposal. The findings identified in this evaluation and report are for planning guidance in addressing the sewer system capacity conditions. Further pre-design refinement and analysis will be necessary before initiation of a final design of improvements for the facilities is under taken.

In the event of any land use changes to the General Plan, upon which this study was based, the model should be updated to reflect the consequences of such changes. The model should also be updated to reflect the construction of new sewer lines.

Appendix ‘O’
Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects
Presented in the engineer’s opinion of cost (Appendix ‘P’) is a remove and replace approach to correct the identified deficient pipe segments. This is usually a conservative approach to costing and should be refined by thorough engineering evaluation and assessment of the specific conditions and replacement options before proceeding with a specific correction project.

The following criteria for defining and prioritizing relief facility need was used:

Priority 1
Sewers with critical deficiencies of d/D > 0.85, are recommended for correction first.

Sewers meeting these criteria are ranked highest.

Priority 2
Sewers with critical deficiencies of 0.64 < d/D < 0.85 are recommended for correction second. Sewers meeting these criteria are ranked lower.

Priority 3
Sewers with a d/D < 0.64 are not capacity deficient; therefore, are not ranked here.

Sewer System Improvements Costs
The unit prices shown in the engineer’s opinion of cost (see Appendix ‘P’) represent the anticipated construction cost only as applicable for mid 2016. Bid prices received on jobs of similar nature in Southern California area were one source of information used to derive the cost figure. In addition, manufacturers, suppliers of material and equipment, and local contractors were consulted on various cost items. An additional 35% of construction cost is added to cover the cost of contingencies, design engineering, contract administration and construction observation.

The engineer’s opinion of cost does not include an adjustment for inflation. Construction costs can be expected to fluctuate as corresponding changes occur in the national or local economy. One available indicator of these changes is the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. This index is compiled from actual construction cost data for materials and labor and is reported in Engineering NewsRecord magazine. It is suggested that this index be used to update the unit prices presented in Appendix ‘P’ and in adjusting the estimate from the date of the initial estimates.

Appendix ‘O’
Financing of Improvements
General
Funding considerations are often the deciding factor in scoping and implementation of a project. There are, of course, numerous methods or mix of methods, which could be used to finance the implementation of a sewer system capital improvement plan (CIP), and the ongoing operations and maintenance activities. Among these methods are:

1. Pay-as-You-Go Financing (rates, fees and charges based)

2. State Assistance Programs

3. Municipal Securities

4. Improvement Districts

5. Federal Assistance Programs
In the discussion that follows, the above funding options are briefly described and their adaptability to specific circumstances of a sewer system CIP are noted. In evaluating specific funding programs, services of financial and legal experts in such issues are recommended.

Methods of Financing

1. Pay-as-You-Go Financing:

Development of cash reserves or capital improvement funds, from an agency’s revenue base, is often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" funding. This method avoids interest payments on other types of debt financing. Under this form of financing, the initial capital cost of a project must be accumulated in advance of construction, which can cause a delay in project implementation. If delay is not a crucial factor, this is a cost effective method due to the absence of debt financing costs. This method has sometimes been used together with various forms of short-term financing to construct needed sewer infrastructure.

2. State Assistance Programs:

Under the rules and regulations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA) and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the State has enacted the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWSRF), respectively. These programs are funded by Federal grants, State funds and Revenue bonds. The CWSRF Loan Program provides low-interest loan funding for construction of publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities, sewers, sewer interceptors, water recycling facilities, as well as implementation of non-point source (NPS) projects or programs. There are different types of funding assistance available under these programs.

Appendix ‘O’
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/ The Department of Water Resources administers the State bond law programs for Water supply/Water quality, Water conservation, Flood management and Regional water management. www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov
The State Water Resources Control Board administers the State revolving fund loans, Water recycling grants & loans, Small community grants, Agricultural drainage loans, Agricultural drainage management loans, Clean beaches initiative grants, Agricultural water quality grants, Areas of special biological significance (ASBS) grants, Storm water grants, and Santa Monica bay restoration commission grants. www.waterboards.ca.gov
The State Department of Public Health administers the DWSRF, Proposition 84 funding for public water systems, and Proposition 50 for the water security, clean drinking water, coastal and beach protection act of 2002 loans. www.cdph.ca.gov

Various types of infrastructure improvement/construction loans can be arranged through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) www.ibank,ca,gov
Limited amounts of public works grant funds have been available to agencies from the State Office of Economic Development. Use of such grant funds must result in the creation of new, permanent jobs in the private sector. In order to ensure that the funds are ultimately assisting those in most need, projects eligible for consideration must be those in areas designated eligible for HUD Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG), EDA Sudden or Long-term Economic Deterioration, or EDA Designated Special Impact Area.

3. Municipal Securities:

Historically, general obligation bonds (GOB’s) had been a prevalent method of financing various public works improvements. They are secured by an agency’s total assets and payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable properties within the agency’s boundary. However, the Jarvis-Gann Amendment (Proposition 13 of 1978) prohibits the levying of ad valorem property taxes beyond pre-existing authorizations and levels (preJuly 1, 1978). Therefore, authorization and issuance of GOB’s is not considered feasible under current law.

An option to GOB’s is the issuance of a specific type note or bond form, such as a revenue anticipation note (RAN) or a tax anticipation note (TAN) or a certificate of participation (COP) or various combinations of available authorities that can be used to fund public infrastructure needs. These types of municipal securities (Munis) are generally tax-exempt and commonly used to fund public works infrastructure and facilities. Many states also exempt their securities from their own taxes, which makes those securities particularly attractive investments for their own residents.

Appendix ‘O’
TAN’s and RAN’s are instruments backed by anticipated taxes or revenues respectively.

When these types of notes are considered for funding of needed infrastructure, a specified source of tax or revenue stream is identified and pledged for repayment of the debt. For example, with sewer facilities, all or a portion of the sewer service revenue fees/charges could be used as backing for the debt instrument selected. Then other local revenue sources could be considered for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) or some acceptable mix and match of funds specified to secure the debt and accomplish the O&M.

COP’s are another form of municipal funding instrument available. These generally require the facility improvement being funded to be named as security for the investment with a lease back of the facility by the municipality. In turn, the municipality pledges some revenue stream(s) that would be used to repay the investor held notes.

When Munis are being considered for funding of improvements, consultation with an experienced and qualified financing consultant and bond counsel are a must.

4. Improvement Districts:

In general, special assessment district procedures have been established by statute to provide for financing of construction and/or acquisition of public works improvements, such as sewer systems, and for assessing the cost of such improvements to the benefiting properties. Under all assessment proceedings, the cost of the work is assessed against properties within the benefited area. The assessments are levied in specific amounts against each individual property on the basis of the benefit each parcel receives. The property owner may pay the assessment in cash during the cash collection period of 30 days. But, if any assessments are not paid in cash during that period, bonds are usually issued to represent the unpaid assessments and the benefited properties are assessed on their annual property tax bill over a usual period of 10 to 20 years.

The City of West Covina utilizes Government Code Section 38902 to establish sewer service charges. While an assessment district proceeding may be a reasonable and equitable means for financing sewer system improvements, further evaluation and stakeholder involvement is a usual practice to determine the viability and practicality of utilizing such financing method.

5. Federal Assistance Programs:

There are, and have been, a series of federal grant and loan programs which may be applicable to public infrastructure projects. However, the qualification criteria for such programs vary from time to time and their funding or continuation is subject to congressional appropriations. Therefore, such programs should not be considered as a likely source of funds unless a funding commitment letter has been received.

Historically, federal programs administered by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) provide financial and technical assistance to aid the economic development of areas with high unemployment or low family income levels.

Communities must make long-range plans for economic growth in order to be eligible for EDA financial assistance, in the form of grants and loans for public works and Appendix ‘O’
development that generates jobs and economic opportunity. Typical public works projects include construction of roads, water and sewer lines, and public facilities. To determine the status requires timely monitoring.

Under the rules and regulations of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program can fund housing and community development needs. This includes part or all of improvements necessary to upgrade existing sewer facilities. Those qualifying geographic areas within the City that have the greatest overall deficiency in physical infrastructure receive the highest priority according to CDBG criteria. When the sewer system has a defined deficiency, then it is appropriate to use CDBG funds to meet health and safety standards as well as to encourage up-grading of abutting housing and physical environment.

The primary statutory objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income.

Communities receiving CDBG funds through the State may use the funds for many kinds of community development activities including, but not limited to:
 acquisition of property for public purposes;
 construction or reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities, neighborhood centers, recreation facilities, and other public works;  demolition;
 rehabilitation of public and private buildings;
 public services;
 planning activities;
 assistance to nonprofit entities for community development activities; and  assistance to private, for profit entities to carry out economic development activities (including assistance to micro-enterprises).
www.hcd.ca.gov/ca/cdbg/about/html
The United State Department of Agriculture Rural Development Program provides communities with population less than 50,000 a variety of direct-guaranteed-loans and /or grants. These include water and wastewater system improvement funding. www.rurdev.usa.gov/ca
Appendix ‘O’
APPENDIX ‘O-1’
Sewer System Capacity Analysis
Deficient Pipes Exhibits

AGENDA ITEM NO. 7

WEST COVINA CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BACKGROUND:

The Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District ("Citywide District") was established in 1976. As the name implies, this District encompasses the entire City. Prior to Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Citywide District funded a variety of public improvements and services which included: street tree maintenance, median maintenance, park maintenance, municipal pool maintenance, area lighting maintenance, traffic signal maintenance, traffic engineering, and street lighting engineering. Since the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996 and the subsequent property owner approval in July 1997, the Citywide District assessment currently funds only those services that have been designated as a "Special Benefit", which is the maintenance of most of the streetlights and street trees within the City.

The Citywide District funds the operation and maintenance of assessable (special benefit) street trees and street lighting. These funds are used for the operations and maintenance of streetlights, trimming of street trees, and removal and replacement of diseased street trees (due to disease, emergency uprooting or downed trees/limbs, et cetera).

DISCUSSION:

The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) (the "Act") specifies the procedures for annual renewals of maintenance districts. The initial steps in the process include:

1. Adoption of a resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer's Report.

2. Approval of the Engineer’s Report.

Adoption of a Resolution of Intention concerning the levy and collection of assessments and setting a public hearing.

3. At the regular meeting on July 15, 2025, the City Council (1) adopted Resolution No. 2025-52, ordering Harris and Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer, to prepare and file an Engineer's Report, (2) approved the Preliminary Engineer's Report; and (3) adopted Resolution No. 2025-53, declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments for FY 2025-26 and setting August 5, 2025 as the date for the public hearing on the proposed assessments.

The next step is conducting the public hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment for the Citywide District either as proposed or as revised by the City Council. The adoption of the resolution levies the assessment for the upcoming Fiscal Year.

The approval of the Preliminary Engineer's Report by the City Council does not commit the City Council to adopt the proposed assessments for the Citywide District. At the public hearing, the City Council is required to consider all comments for and against the proposed assessment. During or after the public hearing, the City Council may order maintaining or reducing the proposed rates and/or revising expenditures that are funded by the Citywide District. The City Council's action only becomes final when the assessments are confirmed by resolution upon completion of the public hearing.

The voter-approved rates for the Citywide District included a provision for not more than a 2% annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase for the one-year period from March 2024 to March 2025 for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim areas was 3%. Therefore, current rates may increase a maximum of 2.00%. This increase will permit the District to provide the standard level of service in the District.

The assessment rates in the Citywide District are based on the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) method.

In this methodology, a single-family residential parcel will equal one EDU and pay an assessment of $61.20 per year, an increase of $1.20 per year from Fiscal Year 2024-25.

During the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year, the City entered into a new agreement for median and landscaping services that addresses increased scope of landscape and median maintenance needs. This scope of work will continue and be maintained throughout FY 2025-2026.

As costs have risen, maintenance has suffered. A full study is needed to ascertain what a proper level of maintenance would cost and explore how to properly set the assessment rate. Such a study will take several months and, if rates are to be increased, would require a vote by the affected property owners.

Pending completion of a further analysis, this report recommends that assessment rates be increased by the property owner-approved CPI increase of 2% for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the resolution and approved it as to form.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Increase current assessment rates by 2.00% based on the current escalation formula; or Maintain the current assessment rates. Maintaining the rates at their current levels (0% increase) would deplete the reserves at a faster pace and require the General Fund to subsidize the district in future years; or

2. 3. Provide alternative direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and supplies and equipment. The levy and collection of the assessments is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Burns, Deputy Community Development Director Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:

For FY 2025-26, the Engineer’s Report for the Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District proposes to use the voter approved adjustment to increase the assessment rates by 2.00% from their current levels, which is $60.00, to $61.20. This is the amount of increase allowed under Proposition 218.

The total projected income from the recommended rates is $1,899,239. The estimated operating costs for the district in FY2025-26 is $2,296,615.

There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves in an assessment district.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 2025-59
Attachment No. 2 - Engineer's Report
Attachment No. 3 - 10-Year Projection
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: A Well-Planned Community Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-59

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE

DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITYWIDE

LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2025-26
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, the City’s Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District (the “District”) has been established pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.) (the “Act”) to fund the maintenance and servicing of certain public street lighting and street trees in the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the District, the City annually levies an assessment against real property; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-52, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council directed Harris & Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer (the “Engineer”), to prepare and file a report regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment to be levied in connection with the District; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer filed said report, entitled “City of West Covina, Preliminary Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District (the “Preliminary Report”); and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council, by minute action, approved the Preliminary Report; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-53, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council declared its intention to levy and collect assessments within the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and set a public hearing for August 5, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. regarding the assessments (the “Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has filed the final report, entitled “City of West Covina, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District” (the “Report”), which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, at the Hearing, which was noticed as required by law, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard and the City Council considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested person; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 as set forth in the Report.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the Report as filed.

SECTION 2. The City Council confirms the diagram and assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as set forth in the Report.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and equipment and supplies. The City Council also finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to file the diagram and assessment, or a certified copy thereof, with the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Monique S. De La Rosa
City Attorney Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-59 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
1 CITY OF WEST COVINA
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ENGINEER’S REPORT:

CITYWIDE LIGHTING & MAINTENANCE

DISTRICT
Intent Meeting: July 15, 2025
Public Hearing: August 5, 2025
Prepared by:
101 Progress, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
www.weareharris.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Impacts of Proposition 218 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Part I - Plans and Specifications .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Part II - Estimate of Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Part III - Assessment Roll ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Part IV - Method Of Apportionment ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Part V - Assesssment Diagram .............................................................................................................................................. 19

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
3 IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION 218
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" which added Article XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 establishes new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts. Proposition 218 also requires that with certain specified exceptions, which are described below, all existing assessment districts must be ratified by the property owners within the District using the new procedures.

Some of these exceptions include:
1) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital cost or maintenance and operation expenses for streets.
2) Any assessments levied pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment was initially imposed.

However, even if assessments are initially exempt from Proposition 218, if the assessments are increased in the future, the City will need to comply with the provisions of Proposition 218 for that portion of the increased assessment unless the increase in assessment was anticipated in the assessment formula (e.g., CPI increase).

Proposition 218 does not define this term “streets”, however, following the passage of Proposition 218 based on conversations with other public agency officials, attorneys, assessment engineers and Senate Bill 919, we determined that “streets” include all public improvements located within the street right-of-way. This would include median and parkway landscaping, traffic signals, safety lighting and street lighting.

It was also determined that if assessments were imposed as a condition of development and property owners agreed to the imposition of assessments and subsequently signed a development agreement confirming so, then this would suffice for the requirement of signing a petition.

The more difficult question arose in those situations where the levy of assessments was imposed as a condition of approval for land development or subdivision where the property owner did not enter into a development agreement. In those cases, if the landscape, park, or streetlight facilities and the resulting assessment were a condition of the land development or subdivisions approval and the property owner acquiesces to the levy of assessment, it is reasoned that this was a functional equivalent of giving express consent or signing a petition requesting the imposition of the assessment. Even the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association seems to tacitly support this conclusion in its "Statement of Drafters' Intent".

When discussing the exemption for existing assessments imposed pursuant to a petition, the taxpayers' association said:
"This provision exempts most land secured financing arrangements used by developers." Clearly acceptance of a condition of approval of a development or subdivision which requires that imposition of assessments is a common form of land secured financing used by developers to fund street lighting or landscape maintenance.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
4 STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
Statement of Assessment Engineer
AGENCY: CITY OF WEST COVINA
PROJECT: CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF WEST COVINA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for the Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District of the City of West Covina to provide street tree maintenance, median maintenance, park maintenance, municipal pool maintenance, area lighting maintenance, traffic signal maintenance, traffic engineering, and street lighting engineering services upon each lot or parcel of land in the district in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500) (“Act”), Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the State of California Constitution, and in accordance with the City of West Covina’s Resolution being adopted by the City Council for the Consolidated Landscape Maintenance District on the 1st day of July, this Report has been ordered for:

CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
(Hereinafter referred to as the “District”),
I, Alison Bouley, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following five (5) parts:

PART I
Plans and Specifications: Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Public Works Department and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART II
Estimate of Cost: An estimate of the costs of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Public Works Department and incorporated herein by reference.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
5 PART III
Assessment Roll: The proposed assessment and the amount of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this Report.

PART IV
Method of Assessment: The method of assessment indicates the proposed levy of the net amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements to be levied upon the parcels of land within the District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such parcels. The quantification of benefit identifies, separates and quantifies the general and special benefits received by each parcel in the District, for the services received and the improvements provided.

PART V
Assessment Diagram: The diagram of the District boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the District, and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District, are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and by reference, made part of this Report.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2025
___________________________
Alison Bouley, P.E., Assessment Engineer
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
6 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to set forth findings and the engineering analysis for the City of West Covina (the “City”) Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District (the “District”) for Fiscal Year 2025-26, in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”) which is Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (The “Act”). The District is necessary to finance the cost of providing streetlight and street tree maintenance which provides a special benefit to real property in the City.

The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of certain public improvements, which include the facilities existing within the proposed assessment district. In accordance with this Act, the City Council established the District in 1976 pursuant to the Act. Prior to Fiscal Year (“FY”) 1997-98 the District funded a variety of public improvements and services which included: street tree maintenance, median maintenance, park maintenance, municipal pool maintenance, area lighting maintenance, traffic signal maintenance, traffic engineering, and street lighting engineering. Since the passage of Proposition 218 (“Proposition”) in November 1996 and the subsequent property owner approval in July 1997, the District assessment currently funds only those services that have been designated as a "Special Benefit", which is the maintenance of most of the streetlights and street trees within the City. These funds are used for the operations and maintenance of streetlights, trimming of street trees, and removal and replacement of diseased street trees.

In FY 2017/2018, the City conducted a property owner protest ballot proceeding for a proposed Maximum Assessment increase of 12%. Based on the results of the protest ballot, the City Council declined to adopt the new Maximum Assessment increase.

The costs of operation, maintenance and servicing of improvements to be funded by the District will be apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the special benefit it receives. The method of assessment may be amended, subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, from time to time by the City Council, in order to apportion the costs in relation to the benefits being received. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

As required by the Act, this Engineer's Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated, maintained and serviced by the District for FY 2025-26, provides an estimated budget for the District, and lists the proposed assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the District. Following the approval of the preliminary report, either as submitted or as modified, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. All property owners must be noticed in accordance with Section 22626 of the Streets and Highways Code prior to the Public Hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as originally proposed or as modified.

Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor's roll will be prepared and filed with the County Tax Collector's office to be included on the FY 2025-26 tax roll.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
7 PART I - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced include street lighting facilities and street trees.

The District will fund the costs in connection with the district maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. The facilities are described as follows:

Landscaping Improvements
Facilities include but are not limited to trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in public right-of-way, parkways, and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District.

Lighting Improvements
Facilities include but are not limited to poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, conductors, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting in the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District.

The public lighting system shall be maintained to provide adequate illumination. Electricity for streetlights shall be furnished by the Southern California Edison Company, and it shall be adequate for the intended purpose. Rates for power shall be those authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. “Maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. “Servicing” means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities and furnishing of electrical energy for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities.

The detailed plans and specifications of the District improvements are on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
8 PART II - ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting and landscaping can be recovered by the District. Maintenance can include the repair and replacement of existing facilities. Servicing can include electrical and associated costs from a public utility. Incidental expenses, including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees, printing, posting, and mailing of notices, and all other costs associated with the annual collection process can also be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up to track the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on June 30th must be carried over to the next fiscal year unless they are designated for a special purpose.

The estimated costs of the operation, servicing and maintenance of the improvements for Fiscal Year 2025-26, are summarized in the table on the following page.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
9 TABLE 1

CITYWIDE LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

ESTIMATED COSTS
Total
Beginning Fund Balance $401,117
Revenues
Assessments $1,893,939
Interest $5,300
General Fund $0
Total Projected Revenue $1,899,239
Expenditures
Direct Costs
Personnel Services $125,862
Maintenance Contracts $618,000
Utilities $1,239,000
Maintenance Supplies $80,113
Property & Liability Insurance $144,360
Administrative Costs
Levy Admin & Professional Services $15,000
City Overhead & Administration $74,280
Total Expenditures $2,296,615
Ending Fund Balance (estimated) $3,741
Total
Beginning Fund Balance $401,117
Revenues
Assessments $1,893,939
Interest $5,300
General Fund $0
Total Projected Revenue $1,899,239
Expenditures
Direct Costs
Direct Lighting $1,457,779
Zone A $54,500
Zone B $27,733
Subtotal $1,540,012
Street Trees
Direct Street Trees $756,603
Subtotal $756,603
Total Expenditures $2,296,615
Ending Fund Balance (estimated) $3,741
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
10 PART III - ASSESSMENT ROLL
The proposed assessment and the amount of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this report.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
11 PART IV - METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by Agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals, landscaping, parks and recreation facilities.

Section 22573 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

The determination of whether of not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California]."
The Act permits the designation of benefit zones within any individual assessment district if "by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22547). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." Excepted from the assessment would be the areas of all publicly owned property in use in the performance of a public function.

Special Benefit Determination
The assessment is proposed to be levied to defray the cost of the operation, servicing, and maintenance of street trees and street lighting and appurtenant facilities, including but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contracting services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these services.

Street Lighting Benefit
Proper maintenance and operation of the street lighting system benefits all properties within the District by providing security, safety and community character and vitality as outlined below.

1. Security and Safety Benefit. Mitigates crime, alleviates the fear of crime, and enhances pedestrian safety.

2. Community Character and Vitality Benefit. Promotes social interaction, promotes business and industry, and contributes to a positive nighttime visual image.

3. Lighting Intensity Benefit. As the lighting levels increase, so do the benefits associated with the lighting. Lighting standards usually require approximately twice the level of lighting in commercial/industrial areas than in residential area.

Parcels, which are located on streets with streetlights, receive a special lighting benefit. Parcels which are located on private streets receive a substantially reduced benefit from local lighting, parcels which do not have any local streetlights receive no benefit from street lighting.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
12 Lighting at the street intersection, which is defined as safety lighting, is considered to be the minimum lighting requirement for vehicular safety; therefore, safety lighting represents the general benefit portion of street lighting.

Additionally, lights, which are on arterials of the City, which do not have parcels fronting on them, are considered a general benefit. Those general benefit portions of the City's lighting budget will not be assessed.

Benefit Zones – Street Lighting
Most parcels within the City front on streets with streetlights and therefore receive a direct lighting benefit. However, there are some areas in the City, which have a higher level of lighting, and these have been designated as additional Benefit Zones.

Zone A. The Civic Center and Plaza at West Covina areas receive a higher level of street lighting.

Zone B. The properties along Glendora Avenue from Walnut Creek Parkway to the I-10 Freeway receive a higher level of street lighting than Zone A.

Those parcels which also have public lighting in adjacent alleyways receive an equal amount of benefit for the alley lights as for the streetlights, therefore, these parcels are assessed two times the benefit of the basic local lighting. The parcels that front streets without streetlights do not receive a local lighting benefit and therefore are not assessed.

Street Trees
Trees, landscaping, hardscaping and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings.

The City maintains street trees throughout the City. The trees are located within the public right-of-way and provide an aesthetically pleasing environment, shade, beautification, and according to some authorities’ air purification and sound attenuation. These positive attributes increase the desirability of properties located on streets that have trees on them.

More importantly, proper maintenance of these facilities, especially routine trimming of street trees and removal/replacement of deceased trees, is essential to the safety of adjacent properties.

Parcels that are located on streets which do not have trees do not benefit and are not assessed. Street trees on arterials of the City that do not have parcels fronting on them are considered a general benefit. There are approximately seven hundred and eighty-four (784) such trees out of approximately twenty-seven thousand forty-eight (27,048) street trees in the City, or 2.90%. Therefore, 2.90% of the City street tree budget will be funded through the City’s General Fund account.

Assessment Methodology
The method of apportionment utilized for the District calculates the receipt of special benefit from the respective improvements based on the actual or proposed land use of the parcels. The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is equated to the overall land use of the parcel based on the parcel’s actual land use or proposed planned development and is reliant upon the special benefit received from the improvements planned or existing within the District.

To identify and determine the special benefit to be received by each parcel, it is necessary to consider the entire scope of each District improvements as well as individual property development within the Districts. The costs associated with the improvements shall be fairly distributed among the parcels based upon the special benefit received by each parcel.

Additionally, in compliance with the Constitution, each parcel’s assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred to that parcel. The benefit formula used to determine the assessment obligation is Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
13 therefore based upon both the improvements that benefit the parcels as well as the proposed land use of each property as compared to other parcels that benefit from those specific improvements.

Equivalent Dwelling Units
Since the assessments will be levied against parcels of property as shown on the tax rolls, the final charges must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number. If assessments were to be spread just by parcel, not considering land use or parcel size, a single-family parcel would be paying the same as a fifty (50) unit apartment parcel or a large commercial establishment in a similar zone and this would not be equitable and would not satisfy the Proposition 218 requirements.

The single-family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of assessment and is defined as one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”). A methodology has been developed to calculate the EDUs for other residential land uses and for non-residential parcels. Every land-use is converted to EDUs: parcels containing apartments are converted to EDUs based on the number of dwelling units on each parcel of land; commercial and industrial parcels are converted based on the lot size of each parcel of land.

The EDU method is seen as the most appropriate and equitable method of spread for landscape and lighting districts, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements are apportioned as a function of land-use type and size.

Single-Family Residential - The single-family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of the benefit assessment. The basic unit shall be called an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Parcels zoned for single-family residential uses are assessed 1.00 EDU.

Multi-Family Residential - Multiple residential (including condominiums) land use equivalencies are determined based on the number of dwelling units on each parcel. Due to population density and size of structure relative to the typical singlefamily residence, each dwelling unit defined as multi-family residential, including condominiums, would be 0.75 EDU.

Benefits to a multi-family residential property do not increase proportionately as the number of units increase. Therefore, the population per unit decreases as the residential land use density increases and there is a corresponding reduction in benefit to a parcel. Also, as the number of dwelling units increases, the average value per rental unit decreases. Therefore, there is a reduced benefit to a parcel as the number of dwelling units increases. By decreasing the equivalency as the number of units increases, a reasonable benefit assessment is achieved. Therefore, the equivalency is reduced to 0.50 EDU per dwelling unit, for five (5) through fifteen (15) dwelling units (as parcels with 5 to 15 units are considered "high medium density" as opposed to the "low density" of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes), and the equivalency is reduced to 0.25 EDU per dwelling unit for more than 15 units, which are considered to be "high density". Fifteen units are established as the limit of the "high medium density" category as State law (California Title 25, Section 42) requires that apartment complexes with 16 or more dwelling units have a manager located on the premises, which is an indication of "high density".

Mobile Homes - Mobile home parks, and mobile homes located within mobile home parks, are converted to EDUs based on the population density and size of structure relative to a single-family residence. Therefore, mobile home parks and mobile homes located within mobile home parks would be assessed 0.50 EDU per mobile home. No decrease would be applied to this factor, as mobile homes are all separate dwellings with no common walls.

Non-Residential - In converting improved non-residential properties to EDUs, the factor used is the City of West Covina's average density for single-family residential areas, which are five (5) dwelling units per acre. All properties developed for non-residential uses are therefore assigned 5.00 EDUs per acre for the first five (5) acres. It is our experience, based upon a review of large non-residential parcels, that the utilization of that portion of non-residential property greater than 5 Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
14 acres more closely resembles that of vacant land as it is typically undeveloped. Therefore, after the first 5 acres, each additional acre will be charged 25% of 5.00 EDUs which results in 1.25 EDUs per acre, similar to vacant land as described below.

Vacant Property
Vacant property is described, as parcels with no improved structures. These properties receive benefits based on their land, as this is the basis of their value. Based on the opinions of professional appraisers, appraising current market property values for real estate in Southern California, the land value portion of the property typically ranges from 20 to 30 percent of the property's total value. Additionally, the utilization of vacant property is significantly less than improved property, and vacant property has a traffic generation rate of 0. Therefore, it is recommended that vacant property be assessed at the rate of 25 percent of improved property.

Vacant Residential - Parcels defined as residential parcels, which do not have structures on the parcels, are assessed 25% of the parcel with a single-family dwelling thereon. The parcel will be assessed 0.25 EDU per parcel.

Vacant Non-Residential - Parcels defined as parcels which are not residential parcels and which do not have structures on the parcel area assessed based upon the acreage of the parcel. The parcels will be assessed at the rate of 25% of the developed non-residential properties, or 1.25 EDU per acre or any portion thereof, with a minimum of 0.25 EDU per parcel and up to a maximum of 5 acres (6.25 EDUs) per parcel, as parcels over five (5) acres may be considered as open space, and no longer receive any benefit.

Public Property - Article XIIID of the California Constitution requires that all benefiting public properties be assessed for their fair share of the benefit. Public property, which is developed and used for residential or business purposes will be assessed the same as private property with the same use. Schools will be assessed as Commercial/Industrial uses. Parks will be assessed as vacant property.

Exempt - Excepted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements, and right-of-way, public greenbelts, parkways and that portion of property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private commercial, industrial and institutional activities. Also, excepted from assessments would be utility right-of-way, common areas (such as in condominium complexes), landlocked parcels and small parcels vacated by the City as these parcels have little or no value and therefore do not benefit from the improvements.

The land use classification for each parcel has been based on the Los Angeles County Assessor's Roll.

TABLE 2

LAND USE CODES AND EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Land Use Codes Total EDU
Single-Family Residential 1.00 per unit
Condominium 0.75 per unit
Multi-Family Residential

0.75 per unit
for the first 4 units

0.50 per unit
over 4 and up to 15 units

0.25 per unit
over 15 units
Mobile Home Parks 0.50 per DU
Non-Residential

5.00 per acre
for the first 5 acres 1.25 per acre over 5 acres
Vacant Residential 0.25 per parcel
Vacant Non-Residential 1.25 per acre (5 acre maximum)
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
15 Benefit Factors
There are varying levels of benefit to property from the operation and maintenance of street lighting and street trees based on the different types of property use. Because the benefit to the property varies depending on the type of land use of the property, a Benefit Factor is applied to the EDU formula for each property for each type of improvement to obtain Benefit Units for each Property.
(Equivalent Dwelling Unit) x (Benefit Factor) = Benefit Units The following table outlines the Benefit Factors for street lighting:

TABLE 3

STREET LIGHTING BENEFIT FACTORS
Residential Commercial/Industrial
Security & Safety 1 1
Community Character & Vitality 1 1
Lighting Intensity 1 2
Total 3 4
Schools will receive a residential benefit factor, as they tend to be in residential areas and benefit similarly to residential property. Parks are assessed as vacant land and receive a non-residential benefit factor.

Benefit Units
The budget for basic lighting is $1,454,779. The proposed applied basic lighting assessment rate is estimated at $13.98 per BU, which includes the costs of basic lighting and associated capital improvements and contribution to reserves totaling $1,449,130. Accordingly, a single-family residential parcel’s assessment would equal 3 BU x $13.987/BU = $41.94/ The following table provides a preliminary summary of Street Lighting Benefit Units (BU's) for the City.

TABLE 4

STREET LIGHTING BENEFIT UNITS
Land Use Parcels Dwellings Acres EDU's
Benefit
Factor
Benefit
Units
Single Family
Residential 20,744 20,744 - 20,744.00 3.00 62,232.00
Condominium 3,688 3,688 - 2,766.00 3.00 8,298.00
Multi-Family Residential 493 8,104 - 3,086.00 3.00 9,258.00 Mobile Home Parks 2 265 - 108.00 3.00 324.00
Commercial 683 - 1,319.96 4,148.54 4.00 16,594.14
Vacant SFR 243 - 52.38 60.75 3.00 182.25
Vacant Non-SFR 337 - 1,028.25 1,692.24 4.00 6,768.95
Totals 26,190 32,801 2,400.59 32,605.53 23.00 103,657.34 Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
16 Lighting Benefit Zone A
The budget for Zone A lighting is $54,500. The proposed applied preliminary basic lighting assessment rate is estimated at $42.50 per BU, which includes the costs of Zone A lighting and associated capital improvements, and contribution to reserves totaling $73,680. The following table shows the preliminary summary of the BUs in Zone A.

TABLE 5

ZONE A BENEFIT UNITS
Land Use Parcels Acreage EDU's Benefit Factors Benefit Units Commercial 43 69.94 280.72 4 1,122.89
Vacant Non-SFR 17 50.58 152.69 4 610.76
Totals 60 120.52 433.41 1,733.65
Lighting Benefit Zone B
The budget for Zone B lighting is $27,733 and is additional to the budget for Zone A. The proposed applied preliminary basic lighting assessment rate is estimated at $24.76 per BU plus $42.50 per BU for Zone A, for a total applied assessment rate of $67.26 per BU, which includes the costs lighting and associated capital improvements, and contribution to reserves totaling $9,103. The following table shows the preliminary summary of the BUs in Zone B.

TABLE 6

ZONE B BENEFIT UNITS
Land Use Parcels Acreage EDU's Benefit Factors Benefit Units Commercial 24 6.15 30.74 4 122.95
Vacant Non-SFR 3 2.48 3.10 4 12.39
Totals 27 8.63 33.84 135.34
No additional factors have been assigned for street trees; therefore, the Benefit Unit factors are the same as the EDU factors for each land use.

Street Tree Benefit
The total budget for Street Trees is $839,603. The proposed applied preliminary assessment rate is estimated at $19.28 per BU, which includes the costs of street tree maintenance and associated capital improvements, and contribution to reserves totaling $628,746. A single-family residential parcel’s assessment would be equal to 1 BU x $19.28/BU = $19.28.

The following table provides a preliminary summary of Street Tree Benefit Units (BUs) for the City.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
17 TABLE 7

STREET TREE BENEFIT UNITS
Land Use Parcels Dwellings Acres EDU's
Benefit
Factor
Benefit
Units
Single Family
Residential 20,744 20,744 - 20,744.00 1 20,744.00
Condominium 3,688 3,688 - 2,766.00 1 2,766.00
Multi-Family Residential 493 8,104 - 3,086.00 1 3,086.00 Mobile Home Parks 2 265 - 108.00 1 108.00
Commercial 683 - 1,319.96 4,154.33 1 4,154.33
Vacant SFR 243 - 52.38 60.75 1 60.75
Vacant Non-SFR 337 - 1,028.25 1,692.24 1 1,692.24
Totals 26,190 32,801 2,400.59 32,611.32 7 32,611.32
Assessment Rate Summary
The following table summarizes the Applied and Maximum Assessment rates for parcels in each of the zones of benefits:

TABLE 8
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
ASSESSMENT RATE SUMMARY Benefit Category
FY 24-25
Maximum Rate
per Benefit Unit Escalator
FY 25-26
Maximum Rate
per Benefit Unit
FY 25-26 Applied
Rate per Benefit
Unit
Basic Local Lighting $13.71 1.02 $13.98 $13.98
Zone A $41.67 1.02 $42.50 $42.50
Zone B $65.95 1.02 $67.27 $67.26
Street Trees $18.91 1.02 $19.29 $19.28
Assessment Range Formula
Any new or increased assessment requires certain noticing and meeting requirements by law. Prior to the passage of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Articles XIIIC and XIIID), legislative changes in the Brown Act defined a "new or increased assessment" to exclude certain conditions. These conditions included "any assessment that does not exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments previously adopted by the agency or approved by the voters in the area where the assessment is imposed." This definition and conditions were later confirmed through Senate Bill 919 (the Proposition 218 implementing legislation).

The purpose of establishing an assessment range formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustment to annual assessments without requiring costly noticing and mailing procedures, which could add to the District costs and assessments. As part of the District formation, balloting of property owners is required pursuant to the Article XIIID Section 4. The property owner ballots include an Assessment to be approved, as well as the approval of an assessment range formula.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
18 The Maximum Assessment is equal to the initial Assessment approved by property owners adjusted annually by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim for All Urban Consumers from March to March up to 2%. As of January 2018, the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Consumer Price Index region name changed to Los-Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Consumer Price Index. Each Fiscal Year, the Maximum Assessment will be recalculated, and a new Maximum Assessment established. For Fiscal Year 2025-26, CPI increased

3.00%, therefore percentage increase is 2%.

The Maximum Assessment is adjusted annually and is calculated independent of the annual budgets and proposed assessments established for each Zone of the District. Any proposed annual assessment (rate per EBU) less than or equal to this Maximum Assessment (for each Zone) is not considered an increased assessment, even if the proposed assessment is much greater than the assessment applied in the prior Fiscal Year.

Assessment Range Formula
The following table shows the 15-year rate history for a typical Single-Family Residential Property. The proposed rate for FY 2025-26 shows a 2% increase from the prior year.

TABLE 9
15-YEAR RATE HISTORY

FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

Fiscal Year Assessment
Proposed 2025-26 $61.20
2024-25 $60.00
2023-24 $58.85
2022-23 $57.68
2021-22 $56.54
2020-21 $55.45
2019-20 $53.34
2018-19 $52.29
2017-18 $52.29
2016-17 $51.28
2015-16 $50.41
2014-15 $50.15
2013-14 $49.66
2012-13 $48.69
2011-12 $47.73
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
19 PART V - ASSESSSMENT DIAGRAM
The assessment diagram for the District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer. www.WeAreHarris.com
Donna Segura
Project Manager
[email protected]
P: 949.536.2512

Percent Increase 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Fiscal Year 25-26(1) 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $1,893,939 $1,931,818 $1,970,454 $2,009,863 $2,050,061 $2,091,062 $2,132,883 $2,175,541 $2,219,051 $2,263,433 Interest (2) $5,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer from General Fund (3) $0 $446,557 $492,590 $540,866 $591,474 $644,512 $700,077 $758,273 $819,206 $882,987 Total Revenues $1,899,239 $2,378,374 $2,463,045 $2,550,729 $2,641,535 $2,735,574 $2,832,960 $2,933,813 $3,038,257 $3,146,419 Prior Year Balance $401,117 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 Total Funding $2,300,356 $2,382,116 $2,466,786 $2,554,470 $2,645,276 $2,739,315 $2,836,701 $2,937,554 $3,041,998 $3,150,160 Maintenance Costs (4) $2,296,615 $2,378,374 $2,463,045 $2,550,729 $2,641,535 $2,735,574 $2,832,960 $2,933,813 $3,038,257 $3,146,419 Total Cost $2,296,615 $2,378,374 $2,463,045 $2,550,729 $2,641,535 $2,735,574 $2,832,960 $2,933,813 $3,038,257 $3,146,419 Ending Balance $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 $3,741 Typical Assessment for SFR (5) $61.20 $62.42 $63.66 $64.93 $66.22 $67.54 $68.89 $70.26 $71.66 $73.09 (1) FY 25-26 Assessment Revenue is based on FY 24-25 actual assessment revenue of $1,856,803.02 as submitted to the Los Angeles County Assessor. (2)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (3) Shortfall will be covered using the General Fund.
(4) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) (5) Fiscal Year 25/26 approved maximum highest rate of $61.20 escalated by assumed 2% applied CPI.

West Covina Citywide Lighting and Maintenance District
10 Year Existing Plus 2% Projected Fiscal Projection
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-61 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
BACKGROUND:

Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (“LMD4”) was established in 1975. This district is in the southeasterly part of the City. The assessments collected are used to maintain landscaping, irrigation, hardscape (e.g., sidewalks, walls, etc.), and area lighting on 130 acres of public open space within the boundaries of the district. To encourage innovative housing types and neighborhood designs and to preserve the ridge lines in the San Jose Hills, this area was originally developed with relatively narrow street rights-of-way and small lot sizes. The resulting surplus land was converted to landscaped slope areas and park-like "green belt" areas containing walkways, landscaping, and lighting.

Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (“LMD6”) was established in 1980 at the request of the owner of the development in lieu of forming a Homeowners’ Association. LMD6 is located in the easterly end of the City known as South Hills. The funds collected by LMD6 are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries. LMD6 contains 238 single-family dwellings, approximately 12 acres of landscaped and irrigated areas, and approximately 65 acres of natural area.

Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (“LMD7”) was established in 1980 at the request of the owner of the development in lieu of forming a Homeowners' Association. LMD7 is generally located at the easterly end of the City. The funds collected by the district are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries. Currently, LMD7 contains 372 improved and 8 unimproved single-family residential parcels. When development is 100 percent complete, LMD7 will contain 380 developed single-family residential parcels, 25 acres of landscaped and irrigated area, and 105 acres of natural area.

DISCUSSION:

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) (the "Act") specifies the procedures for renewal of landscape maintenance districts. The initial steps in the process include:

1. Adoption of a resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer's Report.

2. Approval of the Engineer’s Report.

Adoption of a Resolution of Intention concerning the levy and collection of assessments and setting a public hearing.

3. At its regular meeting on July 15, 2025, the City Council (1) adopted resolutions ordering Harris and Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer, to prepare and file an Engineer's Report for LMD4, LMD6 and LMD7; (2) approved the Preliminary Consolidated Engineer's Report for LMD4, LMD6 and LMD7; and (3) adopted resolutions declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments in LMD4, LMD6 and LMD7 for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and set August 5, 2025 as the date for the public hearing.

The next step is conducting the public hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment for each District either as proposed or as revised by the City Council. The adoption of the resolution levies the assessment for the upcoming Fiscal Year.

The approval of the Preliminary Consolidated Engineer's Report does not commit the City Council to adopt the proposed assessments for the Districts. During or upon the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may order changes in the improvements, any zones within the assessment districts, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment. However, it cannot raise the assessment rates without first complying with the requirements of Proposition 218. The City Council's action only becomes final when the diagram and assessment are confirmed by resolution upon completion of the public hearing.

The Districts contain landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees while LMD4 also contains lighted paseos. The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas includes fire clearing along the entire slope and irrigation, maintenance, and repairs.

As outlined in the July 15, 2025 staff report relating to the Districts, the assessment rates for LMD4 and LMD6 have not been increased in over 15 years while LMD7 has increased very incrementally, which has led to reduced services and increased concerns by residents. As costs have risen, maintenance has suffered.

The City has been working towards addressing the deferred maintenance of the LMDs. In FY 23-24, the City entered into a new landscaping agreement that increased the scope of services to include the entire hillside that will be trimmed to a maximum of 4 feet in height. The previous agreement's scope only addressed 4 feet from the sidewalk or property line. This work continued through FY 24-25 and will be maintained for FY 25-26.

While the assessments will remain at their current levels, the additional scope of services (landscaping, tree trimming) and the CIP's budgets are being funded out of the LMDs' reserves. It is estimated that the current reserves are sufficient to cover the additional services until FY 26-27. To continue with the additional services beyond that, the City will need to do an evaluation of the assessment rates. Staff recommends that the assessment rates be maintained at their current levels for FY 25-26. The annual assessment rates for LMD4 will be maintained at $49.16 for commercial units in A1 zone, $77.89 for condominium units in A2 zone, $49.33 for condominium/apartment units in A3 zone, $232.48 for condominium units in A4 zone, $260.98 for single-family residential in A5 zone, $289.99 for single-family residential in A6 zone, $348.02 for a single dwelling unit in A7 zone, $386.66 for a fourplex unit in the A8 zone, and $464 for a duplex unit in the A9 zone. The annual assessment rates for LMD6 will be maintained at $650 per lot annually ($54.16 per month). The annual assessment rates for LMD7 will be maintained at $464.06 per developed lot and $139.22 per undeveloped lot.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and approved them as to form.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options:

1. Approve staff's recommendations; or

2. Provide alternative direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and supplies and equipment. The levy and collection of the assessments is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Burns, Deputy Community Development Director Additional Approval: Robert Ortega, CIP Project Manager Additional Approval: Roxanne E. Lerma, Assistant City Manager Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 25-26 Consolidated Engineer’s Report for LMD 4, 6 and 7 recommends that the assessment rates be maintained at their current levels. The annual assessment rates for LMD4 will be maintained at $348.02 for a single dwelling unit and $464 for a duplex unit. The projected income from the recommended rates is $1,162,827. The annual assessment rate for LMD6 is based on a special uniform benefit to the property owners and is recommended to remain at its current level of $650 per lot annually ($54.16 per month). The total projected revenue from the recommended rates is $154,700. The annual assessment rates for LMD7 will be maintained at $464.06 per improved lot and $139.22 per unimproved lot. The total projected revenue is $173,744. There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves in an assessment district. Ongoing improvements such as irrigation system improvements, enhancement to existing landscaping, tree trimming, and other extras are being eliminated to maintain the operating budget within projected revenues from the capped assessment rates. The Engineer's Report identifies $175,000 towards Capital Improvement Projects within LMD 4. This could be used for increased maintenance and tree trimming services for the area. A separate budget amendment will be required in the future to be presented with the professional services agreements for City Council consideration.

Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 2025-61
Attachment No. 2 - Resolution No. 2025-62
Attachment No. 3 - Resolution No. 2025-63
Attachment No. 4 - Engineer's Report
Attachment No. 5 - 10-Year Projection
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Achieve Fiscal Sustainability and Financial Stability A Well-Planned Community
Maintain Good Intergovernmental Relations
Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, the City’s Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (the “District”) has been established pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.) (the “Act”) to fund the maintenance and servicing of certain public landscaping and appurtenant facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the District, the City annually levies an assessment against real property; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-45, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council directed Harris & Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer (the “Engineer”), to prepare and file a report regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment to be levied in connection with the District; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer filed said report, entitled “City of West Covina, Preliminary Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6 & 7” (the “Preliminary Consolidated Report”); and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council, by minute action, approved the Preliminary Consolidated Report; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-48, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council declared its intention to levy and collect assessments in connection with the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and set a public hearing for August 5, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. regarding the assessments (the “Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has filed the final report, entitled “City of West Covina, Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6, and 7” (the “Consolidated Report”), which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, at the Hearing, which was noticed as required by law, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard and the City Council considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested person; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the portion of the Consolidated Report relating to the District as filed.

SECTION 2. The City Council confirms the diagram and assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and supplies and equipment. The City Council also finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Monique S. De La Rosa
City Attorney Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-61 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-62

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, the City’s Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (the “District”) has been established pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.) (the “Act”) to fund the maintenance and servicing of certain public landscaping and appurtenant facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the District, the City annually levies an assessment against real property; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-46, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council directed Harris & Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer (the “Engineer”), to prepare and file a report regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment to be levied in connection with the District; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer filed said report, entitled “City of West Covina, Preliminary Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6 & 7” (the “Preliminary Consolidated Report”); and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council, by minute action, approved the Preliminary Consolidated Report; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-49, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council declared its intention to levy and collect assessments in connection with the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and set a public hearing for August 5, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. regarding the assessments (the “Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has filed the final report, entitled “City of West Covina, Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6, and 7” (the “Consolidated Report”), which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, at the Hearing, which was noticed as required by law, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard and the City Council considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested person; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the portion of the Consolidated Report relating to the District as filed.

SECTION 2. The City Council confirms the diagram and assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and supplies and equipment. The City Council also finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Monique S. De La Rosa
City Attorney Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-62 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-63

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:

WHEREAS, the City’s Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (the “District”) has been established pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.) (the “Act”) to fund the maintenance and servicing of certain public landscaping and appurtenant facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the District, the City annually levies an assessment against real property; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-47, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council directed Harris & Associates, Inc., as assessment engineer (the “Engineer”), to prepare and file a report regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment to be levied in connection with the District; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer filed said report, entitled “City of West Covina, Preliminary Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6 & 7” (the “Preliminary Consolidated Report”); and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council, by minute action, approved the Preliminary Consolidated Report; and
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 2025-50, adopted July 15, 2025, the City Council declared its intention to levy and collect assessments in connection with the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and set a public hearing for August 5, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. regarding the assessments (the “Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has filed the final report, entitled “City of West Covina, Consolidated Fiscal Year 2025-26 Engineer’s Report: Landscape Maintenance Districts 4, 6, and 7” (the “Consolidated Report”), which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, at the Hearing, which was noticed as required by law, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard and the City Council considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested person; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy the assessments for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council approves the portion of the Consolidated Report relating to the District as filed.

SECTION 2. The City Council confirms the diagram and assessment for the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as set forth in the Consolidated Report.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proceeds of the assessments are to be used for operating expenses and supplies and equipment. The City Council also finds and determines that the levy and collection of the assessments is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the levy and collection of the assessments to fund maintenance and operations costs for the District will have a significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2025.

Tony Wu
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Monique S. De La Rosa
City Attorney Deputy City Clerk
I, MONIQUE S. DE LA ROSA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-63 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of August, 2025, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Monique S. De La Rosa
Deputy City Clerk
1 CITY OF WEST COVINA
CONSOLIDATED FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
ENGINEER’S REPORT: LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 4, 6, & 7
Intent: July 15, 2025
Hearing: August 5, 2025
Prepared by:
101 Progress, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
www.weareharris.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Impacts of Proposition 218 .........................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................6 Part I - Plans and Specifications ..................................................................................................................................7 Part II - Estimate of Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Part III - Assessment Roll ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Part IV - Method Of Apportionment ......................................................................................................................... 14 Part V - Assessment Diagram .................................................................................................................................... 19

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
3 IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION 218
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" which added Article XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 establishes new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts. Proposition 218 also requires that with certain specified exceptions, which are described below, all existing assessment districts must be ratified by the property owners within the District using the new procedures.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
4 STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
Statement of Assessment Engineer
AGENCY: CITY OF WEST COVINA
PROJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF WEST COVINA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for the Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, Landscape Maintenance District No. 6, and Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 of the City of West Covina to provide continued operation and maintenance of local landscape improvements upon each lot or parcel of land in the district in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
(Hereinafter referred to as the “Districts”),
I, Alison Bouley, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following five (5) parts:

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
5 PART III
Assessment Roll: The proposed assessment and the amount of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this Report.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2025
___________________________
Alison Bouley, P.E., Assessment Engineer
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
6 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to set forth findings and the engineering analysis for the City of West Covina (“City”) districts listed below, herein referred to as the “Districts”, for Fiscal Year 2025-26, in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”) which is Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (The “Act”).
• Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (“LMD 4”) (Formed in 1975) • Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (“LMD 6”) (Formed in 1980) • Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (“LMD 7”) (Formed in 1980) The Districts were created at the request of the owner of the developments in lieu of forming a Homeowner’s Association.

The funds collected by LMD 4 are used to maintain landscaping, irrigation, hardscape, and paseo lighting on 130 acres of public open space within the boundaries of LMD 4. The funds collected by LMD 6 are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries. The funds collected by LMD 7 are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries.

The costs of operation, maintenance and servicing of improvements to be funded by the Districts will be apportioned to each parcel within the applicable District in proportion to the special benefit it receives. The method of assessment may be amended, subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, from time to time by the City Council, in order to apportion the costs in relation to the benefits being received. Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

As required by the Act, this Engineer's Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated, maintained and serviced by the Districts for FY 2025-26, provides an estimated budget for the Districts, and lists the proposed assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the Districts. Following the approval of the preliminary report, either as submitted or as modified, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. All property owners must be noticed in accordance with Section 22626 of the Streets and Highways Code prior to the Public Hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as originally proposed or as modified.

Following the adoption of this resolution, the final assessor's roll will be prepared and filed with the County Tax Collector's office to be included on the FY 2025-26 tax roll.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
7 PART I - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Landscape Maintenance District No. 4
The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced in LMD 4 include public open space area, lighting, parkway, and manufactured slopes and appurtenant facilities. There are approximately 130 acres of open space within LMD 4. LMD 4 contains lighted paseos and approximately 30 to 50-foot landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees. The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas include 3 to 5 feet of fire clearing at the tops and toes of slopes and irrigation maintenance repairs.

LMD 4 will fund the costs in connection with the district maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. The facilities and improvements which have been constructed within LMD 4, and which will be maintained and serviced are described as follows:

Landscaping Improvements
Facilities include but are not limited to landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in public right-of-way, parkways, and dedicated easements within the boundaries of LMD 4.

The detailed plans and specifications of the LMD 4 improvements are on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

Zones of Benefit
The parcels, lots, subdivisions and developments within the LMD 4 are identified and grouped into ten (10) zones of benefit referred to as “Zones”. Each Zone reflects the landscape improvements associated with the development of properties in that Zone, in order to fairly and equitably apportion the net cost of providing those improvements to the properties that receive special benefits from the service and activities associated with those improvements. Most of the parcels in LMD 4 are identified as single-family and multi-family residential properties. All parcels receive special benefits from the improvements because of the increased desirability of a parcel that is located in an area with landscaping, and open space areas. Public agency parcels within LMD 4 will not be used for residential occupancies or commercial/industrial workplaces, and therefore, do not receive special benefit and will not be assessed. The assessments proposed to be levied on each property do not exceed the reasonable cost of proportional special benefit conferred on each property from the funded improvements.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
8 The following is a brief description of the LMD 4 Zones:

Zone A1
Parcels in this zone are commercial properties, which are located at the intersections of major arterial roadways. These parcels benefit from the District improvements to a lesser degree due to their proximity to the open space areas.

Nonetheless, the parcels are benefited by aesthetically pleasing landscaping and open space areas which enhance the desirability of living in the District, because its promotion of evening business and industry vitality, and contribution to a positive nighttime visual image.

Zone A2
Parcels in this zone are condominium type homes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone. Due to the nature and higher density of the parcels and the higher intensity of the property use, the parcels derive benefits such as providing a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle due to the surrounding open space areas. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A3
Parcels in this zone are made up of condominiums and apartment complexes with smaller areas of open space within the zone. Due to the denser housing within this zone, Zone A3 is distinctly benefited by the interspersed open space areas within the zone. Although open space areas are smaller than in other zones, the incorporation of such areas into Zone A3’s higher-intensity property uses peculiarly benefits Zone A3’s parcels by providing aesthetically pleasing landscaping and enhancing the desirability of living in Zone A3. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A4
Parcels in this zone are condominium type homes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the condominiums in this zone, thus providing the zone’s parcels with benefits such as the enhancement of quality of life within the community characterized by openness, landscape and natural vistas, wildlife and relaxed, peaceful living. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A5
Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes with large open space areas in close proximity. Zone A5 parcels derive a benefit particular to their zone, based on the significant size and proximity of the open space areas to the parcels. The large open spaces in the vicinity of the parcels contribute to lower housing density due to the dedication of acreage for landscaping and natural areas, which thereby reduce the number of buildable parcels. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A6
Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone. Having the open space areas along the perimeter of the zone is advantageous to the parcels within Zone A6 due to the open space areas’ positive results on the parcels, such as attracting natural flora and fauna, providing a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
9 Zone A7
Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the single-family homes. These open space areas are connected with paseos that include concrete walkways and lights. These paseos provide for safe pedestrian travel within the zone and into adjacent Zone A9. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A8
Parcels in this zone are made up of fourplexes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone that provide a barrier from the major arterial roadway. The strategic location of open space areas at the fringe create an aesthetically pleasing yet practical perimeter around the zone, which provides a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle by attracting natural flora and fauna to Zone A8 parcels which, because of the close proximity to major arterial roadways, would not otherwise receive such benefit. Moreover, the higher-intensity property use receives a significant benefit from the natural vistas and landscaping provided by the open space areas. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A9
Parcels in this zone are made up of duplexes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the duplexes and are connected by paseos. The paseos are improved with concrete walkways and lights. These paseos provide for safe pedestrian travel within the zone and into adjacent Zone A7 and promote social interaction. Each parcel is assessed per dwelling unit.

Zone A10
Parcels in this zone are made up of exempt properties. Exempted parcels include all publicly owned property that do not benefit from the District Improvements such as: public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all public easements, and right of ways, all public parks, public greenbelts and parkways, and all public property being used for public purposes.

Landscape Maintenance District No. 6
LMD 6 is located in the easterly end of the City known as South Hills, on the westerly facing slopes of the San Jose Hills and includes 238 single family dwellings. The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced in LMD 6 include public open space, manufactured slopes, and appurtenant facilities. There are approximately 12 acres of landscaped and irrigated area and 65 acres of natural open space within LMD 6. LMD 6 contains approximately 30 to 50-foot landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees. The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas includes 3 to 5-feet of fire clearing at the tops and toes of slopes and irrigation maintenance repairs.

LMD 6 will fund the costs in connection with LMD 6 maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. The facilities are described as follows:

Landscaping Improvements
Facilities include but are not limited to trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in open spaces and dedicated easements within the boundaries of LMD 6.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
10 The detailed plans and specifications of the LMD 6 improvements are on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

Landscape Maintenance District No. 7
LMD 7 is generally located in the easterly end of the City on the north-facing slopes of the San Jose Hills and includes 372 developed single-family residential parcels, approximately 19.5 acres of landscaped and irrigated areas and 92 acres of natural area. Upon completion, LMD 7 will contain 380 developed single family residential parcels, 25 acres of landscaped and irrigated areas and 105 acres of natural open space. The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced in LMD 7 include public open spaces and manufactured slopes and appurtenant facilities. LMD 7 contains landscaped hillside slopes vegetated with plants, shrubbery, and trees. The current scope of work for the operations, maintenance, and care of these areas include 3 to 5 feet of fire clearing at the tops and toes of slopes and irrigation maintenance and repairs.

LMD 7 will fund the costs in connection with LMD 7 maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. The facilities are described as follows:

Landscaping Improvements
Facilities include but are not limited to trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in public open space areas and dedicated easements within the boundaries of LMD 7.

The detailed plans and specifications of the LMD 7 Improvements are on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

The following is a brief description of the LMD 7 Zones:

Zone C1
Parcels in this zone are made up of undeveloped parcels.

Zone C2
Parcels in this zone are made up of developed parcels.

The detailed plans and specifications of the District improvements are on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and by reference are made part of this Report.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
11 PART II - ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting and landscaping can be recovered by the Districts. Maintenance can include the repair and replacement of existing facilities. Servicing can include electrical and associated costs from a public utility. Incidental expenses, including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees, printing, posting, and mailing of notices, and all other costs associated with the annual collection process can also be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up to track the revenues and expenditures of the Districts. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the Districts by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on June 30th must be carried over to the next fiscal year unless they are designated for a special purpose.

The estimated costs of the operation, servicing and maintenance of the improvements for Fiscal Year 2025-26, are summarized in the table below.

Capital Improvement Projects
Funding for the capital improvement projects listed below are included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget for the amounts reflected in Table 1 below.
 Replacement of hardscape,
 Repair and replacement of light standards,
 Conversion of existing light fixtures to LED fixtures.  Comprehensive tree removal and replacement
TABLE 1
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PROJECT BUDGETS
District Estimated Costs
LMD 4 $175,000
LMD 6 $0
LMD 7 $0
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
12 TABLE 2
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

ESTIMATED COSTS
LMD 4 LMD 6 LMD 7
Beginning Fund Balances $1,722,907 $188,344 $298,697
Revenues
Assessments $1,162,827 $154,700 $173,744
Interest $54,600 $8,300 $11,700
General Fund $0 $0 $0
Total Projected Revenues $1,217,427 $163,000 $185,444
Expenditures
Direct Costs
Personnel Services $183,363 $33,781 $33,781
Maintenance Contracts $979,400 $213,120 $248,920
Utilities $341,800 $16,100 $22,400
Maintenance Supplies $10,000 $0 $0
Property & Liability Insurance $48,120 $24,060 $24,060
NPDES $75,000 $5,000 $5,000
Capital Improvement Project $175,000 $0 $0
Total Direct Costs $1,812,683 $292,061 $334,161
Administrative Costs
Levy Admin & Professional Services $19,650 $16,020 $16,140 City Overhead & Administration $169,790 $28,180 $27,480 Total Administrative Costs $189,440 $44,200 $43,620
Total Expenditures $2,002,123 $336,261 $377,781
Ending Fund Balance (estimated) $938,211 $15,083 $106,360 Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
13 PART III - ASSESSMENT ROLL
The proposed assessment and the amount of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor’s Office, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this report.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
14 PART IV - METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by Agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals, landscaping, parks and recreation facilities.

Special Benefit Determination
Each of the improvements, the associated costs and assessments of the Districts have been reviewed, identified, and allocated based on special benefit pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and 1972 Act. The improvements associated with each District have been identified as necessary, required and/or desired for the orderly development of the properties within the Districts to their full potential, consistent with the proposed development plans and applicable portions of the development. As such, these improvements would be necessary and required of individual property owners for the development of such properties, and the ongoing operation, servicing and maintenance of these improvements would be the financial obligation of those properties. Therefore, the improvements and the annual costs of ensuring the maintenance and operation of the improvements are of special benefit to the properties in the Districts.

The method of apportionment (method of assessment) is based on the premise that each assessed parcel within the Districts receives special benefit from the improvements where the parcel is located as well as from adjacent landscaping and public street lighting improvements. The desirability and security of properties is enhanced by the presence of street lighting, well maintained landscaping and open space areas in close proximity to those properties.

The special benefits associated with local landscaping improvements are specifically:
 Enhanced desirability of properties due to proximity and accessibility of the improvements.  Reduction of dust and debris
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
15  Improved aesthetic appeal provided by a positive representation of area.  Increased sense of pride in ownership from well-maintained improvements.

The special benefits associated with local streetlighting improvements are specifically:
 Mitigates property damage due to criminal activity.
 Serves as a deterrent to graffiti and vandalism.
 Alleviates the fear of crime, which increases the desirability of property.  Increased nighttime visibility for access of emergency vehicles  Improved ingress to and egress from property
 Reduced vandalism and other criminal acts and damage to improvements or property  Promotes a reassuring entry into the neighborhood.
 Provides a positive nighttime visual image.

Parcels, which are located on streets with streetlights, receive a special lighting benefit. Parcels which are located on private streets receive a substantially reduced benefit from local lighting, parcel which do not have any local streetlights receive no benefit from street lighting.

Lighting at the street intersection, which is defined as safety lighting, is considered to be the minimum lighting requirement for vehicular safety; therefore, safety lighting represents the general benefit portion of street lighting.

Assessment Methodology
The method of apportionment for the Districts calculates the receipt of special benefit from the respective improvements based on the actual or proposed land use of the parcels. The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is equated to the overall land use of the parcel based on the parcel’s actual land use or proposed planned development and is reliant upon the special benefit received from the improvements planned for each District.

Additionally, in compliance with the Constitution, each parcel’s assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred to that parcel. The benefit formula used to determine the assessment obligation is therefore based upon both the improvements that benefit the parcels as well as the proposed land use of each property as compared to other parcels that benefit from those specific improvements.

Assessment Units
Since the assessments will be levied against parcels of property as shown on the tax rolls, the final charges must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number. If assessments were to be spread just by parcel, not considering land use or parcel size, a single-family parcel would be paying the same as a fifty (50) unit apartment parcel or a large commercial establishment in a similar zone and this would not be equitable and would not satisfy the Proposition 218 requirements To assess benefits equitably, it is necessary to relate the different types of parcel improvements to each other. The Assessment Unit (“AU”) method of assessment apportionment uses the single-family home site as the basic unit of Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
16 assessment. A single-family home site equals one AU. Every other land use is converted to AUs based on an assessment formula that equates the property’s specific development status, type of development (land use), and size of property, as compared to a single-family home site.

The AU method of apportioning benefit is typically seen as the most appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for districts formed under the 1972 Act, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements are apportioned as a function of land use type, size, and development. The following formula is used to calculate each parcel’s AU (proportional benefit) for LMD 4 and LMD 6.

Parcel Type AU x Acreage/Dwelling Units/Parcel/Lot = Parcel AU The total number of AUs is the sum of the individual AUs applied to the parcels that receive a special benefit from the improvements. An assessment amount per AU (“Rate”) is established by taking the total cost of the improvements (including administration costs) and dividing that amount by the total number of AUs of the parcels benefiting from the improvements. This Rate is then applied back to each parcel’s individual AU to determine the parcel’s proportionate benefit and assessment obligation.

Total Balance to Levy / Total AU = Rate per AU
Rate per AU x Parcel AU = Parcel Levy Amount
Landscape Maintenance District No. 4
Single-Family Residential – This land use is defined as fully subdivided residential home site with or without a structure or planned single-family residential lot as identified by a submitted or approved tentative tract map of final tract map.

This land use is assessed, 1.0 AU per lot or parcel. This is the base value that other land use types are compared and weighted against (i.e., Assessment Unit or AU).

Multi-Family Residential – This land use is defined as a fully subdivided residential parcels that includes duplexes, apartments and condominiums identified by a submitted or approved tentative tract map or final tract map. This land use is assessed, 1.0 AU per dwelling unit.

Developed Commercial – This land use is defined as property developed for either commercial or industrial use. This type of property receives greater benefit than Single Family or Multi-Family property due to typically larger lot size in relation to residential properties. The commercial properties within Zone A1 are grouped into three different areas with predesignated assessment units at the time of formation. For any newly developed commercial properties, they will be assessed, 4.0 AU per acreage with a minimum of 4.0 AU.

Exempt Parcels – This land use identified properties that are not assessed and are assigned 0.0 AU. This land use classification may include, but is not limited, to lots or parcels identified as public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space area and right of ways; common areas, sliver parcels and bifurcated lots or any other property that cannot be developed; park properties and other publicly owned properties that are part of the District improvements and are therefore exempted from assessment.

The following table provides a listing of land use types, land use code designations, the Equivalent Benefit Unit factor applied to that land use type, and the multiplying factor used to calculate each parcel’s individual AU.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
17 TABLE 3
LMD 4 – LAND USE CODES AND ASSESSMENT UNITS
Land Use Assessment Units Multiplier
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.00 Lot/Parcel
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) 1.00 Unit
Developed Commercial (COM) 4.00 Acre
Exempt Parcels (EXE) 0.00 Parcel
Each parcel’s AU correlates the parcel’s special benefit received as compared to the other parcels benefitting from the improvements. Table 4 below summarizes the LMD 4 assessment rates.

TABLE 4
LMD 4 – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Landscape Maintenance District No. 6
Single-Family Residential – This land use is defined as fully subdivided residential home site with or without a structure or planned single-family residential lot as identified by a submitted or approved tentative tract map of final tract map.

This land use is assessed, 1.0 AU per lot or parcel. This is the base value that other land use types are compared and weighted against (i.e., Assessment Unit or AU).

Table 5 below summarizes the LMD 6 assessment rates.

Benefit Zone % of Budget Parcel Count
Assessment
Units
FY 2024/25
Assessment
Rates
FY 2025/26
Proposed
Assessment
Rates
Total
Assessment
A1 1.91% 30 451.00 $49.16 $49.16 $22,171.16
A2 1.45% 216 216.00 $77.89 $77.89 $16,824.24
A3 5.74% 326 1,353.00 $49.33 $49.33 $66,743.49
A4 9.96% 498 498.00 $232.48 $232.48 $115,775.04
A5 3.52% 157 157.00 $260.98 $260.98 $40,973.86
A6 6.13% 246 246.00 $289.99 $289.99 $71,337.54
A7 44.98% 1,503 1,503.00 $348.02 $348.02 $523,074.06
A8 15.69% 118 472.00 $386.66 $386.66 $182,503.52
A9 10.61% 133 266.00 $464.00 $464.00 $123,424.00
A10 0.00% 3 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total 100.00% 3,230 5,162.00 $1,162,826.91
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
18 TABLE 5
LMD 6 – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7
Table 6 below summarizes the LMD 7 assessment rates.

TABLE 6
LMD 7 – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON

Land Use Class Parcel Count AU
FY 2024/25
Assessment Rates
FY 2025/26
Proposed
Assessment Rates Total Assessment
Single Family Residential 238 238.00 $650.00 $650.00 $154,700.00 Total 238 238.00 $154,700.00
Zone Parcel Count
FY 2024/25
Assessment Rates
FY 2025/26
Proposed
Assessment Rates Total Assessment
C1 8 $139.22 $139.22 $1,113.76
C2 372 $464.06 $464.06 $172,630.32
Total 380 $173,744.08
Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
19 PART V - ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Districts, boundaries of any open space within the Districts, and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Districts is on file in the office of the City Public Works Department and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions shown on the Los Angeles County Assessor’s parcel maps for the current year are incorporated by reference and made part of this Report.

Consolidated Engineer’s Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 4,6, and 7
City of West Covina
Fiscal Year 2025-26
20 www.WeAreHarris.com
Donna Segura
Project Manager
[email protected]
P: 949.536.2512
Percent Increase 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fiscal Year 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 $1,162,827 Interest (1) $54,600 $1,876 $421 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fund (2) $0 $0 $585,535 $866,462 $938,705 $1,013,519 $1,090,997 $1,171,233 $1,254,326 $1,340,377 Prior Year Balance $1,722,907 $938,211 $210,746 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fund $2,940,334 $2,102,914 $1,959,530 $2,029,289 $2,101,532 $2,176,346 $2,253,824 $2,334,060 $2,417,153 $2,503,204 Maintenance Cost (3) $1,827,123 $1,892,169 $1,959,530 $2,029,289 $2,101,532 $2,176,346 $2,253,824 $2,334,060 $2,417,153 $2,503,204 Capital Improvments $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $2,002,123 $1,892,169 $1,959,530 $2,029,289 $2,101,532 $2,176,346 $2,253,824 $2,334,060 $2,417,153 $2,503,204 Ending Balance $938,211 $210,746 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Assessment Rate (4) $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 $464.00 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) Shortfall will be covered using the General Fund.
(3) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) (4) Fiscal Year 25/26 approved maximum rate of $464 may not be increased without vote.

West Covina Lighting and Maintenance District #4
10 Year Fiscal Projection
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Percent Increase 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fiscal Year 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 $154,700 Interest (1) $8,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fund (2) $0 $178,449 $205,929 $218,767 $232,063 $245,832 $260,090 $274,857 $290,149 $305,986 Prior Year Balance $188,344 $15,083 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fund $351,344 $348,232 $360,629 $373,467 $386,763 $400,532 $414,790 $429,557 $444,849 $460,686 Maintenance Cost (3) $336,261 $348,232 $360,629 $373,467 $386,763 $400,532 $414,790 $429,557 $444,849 $460,686 Total Cost $336,261 $348,232 $360,629 $373,467 $386,763 $400,532 $414,790 $429,557 $444,849 $460,686 Ending Balance $15,083 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Assessment Rate (4) $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) Shortfall will be covered using the General Fund.
(3) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) (4) Fiscal Year 25/26 approved maximum rate of $650 may not be increased without vote.

West Covina Lighting and Maintenance District #6
10 Year Fiscal Projection
Percent Increase 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fiscal Year 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Assessment Income $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 $173,744 Interest (1) $11,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fund (2) $0 $111,126 $231,414 $245,837 $260,775 $276,243 $292,263 $308,853 $326,033 $343,825 Prior Year Balance $298,697 $106,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fund $484,141 $391,230 $405,158 $419,581 $434,519 $449,987 $466,007 $482,597 $499,777 $517,569 Maintenance Cost (3) $377,781 $391,230 $405,158 $419,581 $434,519 $449,987 $466,007 $482,597 $499,777 $517,569 Total Cost $377,781 $391,230 $405,158 $419,581 $434,519 $449,987 $466,007 $482,597 $499,777 $517,569 Ending Balance $106,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Undeveloped Lot Rate (4),(6) $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 $139.22 Developed Lot Rate (5),(6) $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 $464.06 (1)Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance. (2) Shortfall will be covered using the General Fund.
(3) 3.56% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation (average CPI 2023 to 2025) (4) Zone 1, undeveloped lots
(5) Zone 2, developed lots
(6) Fiscal Year 25/26 approved maximum rate, may not be increased without vote.

West Covina Lighting and Maintenance District #7
10 Year Fiscal Projection

West Covina City CouncilAugust 5, 2025

West Covina City Council
August 5, 2025