Agenda packet — Pico Rivera City Council, January 24, 2023 (part 10 of 13)

uses, and residential uses in floors two through six (proposed project) on a 2.85-acre site in Pico Rivera. (IS/MND, pp. 1, 11.)
The proposed Project would develop 255 dwelling units (approximately 258,720 square feet) consisting of a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three bedrooms; up to 5,730 square feet of retail; up to 1,750 square feet of ground-floor lobby/leasing space; up to 17,010 square feet of rooftop pool/community recreation; and up to 190,000 square feet of parking. (See, IS/MND, pp. 11-12.) Thirteen residential units would be dedicated as affordable.

The first floor of the proposed building is a mix of retail, residential, public seating areas, and a main lobby/leasing office. Floors two through six include residential units, parking, and related residential amenities. Parking levels would extend from all floors that are interior to the building and one level of subterranean parking. The roof deck of the parking structure would include a pool and recreation facilities such as a gym and clubhouse for use by residents only. According to the Project applicant, the building would have a wrap-style design, i.e., the commercial space and apartments “wrap” around the internal parking structure. (See, e.g., id., p. 13 [Figure 4 - Site Plan].)
The Project is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (APN: 6370-027-018) in the central part of Pico Rivera in Los Angeles County, California. The Project site is bounded by Washington Boulevard to the south and adjacent commercial uses to the north, east, and west. A single-family residential neighborhood borders the site to the northwest. (IS/MND, p. 1; see also, id., p. 9 [Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph of Project site].) The General Plan designation is MixedUse/Housing Element Site Opportunity Area 8 (the Rosemead Boulevard and Washington Boulevard Opportunity Area). The zoning is General Commercial (C-G).

The 2.85 acres project site is currently vacant and fenced off with no public access.

According to the IS/MND, the Project site was previously developed with a commercial building that operated as a nightclub until March 2015 and was subsequently demolished in 2020. (IS/MND, p. 1.) The site is currently paved and contains ornamental landscaping, including palm trees.

Implementation of the proposed Project would require a General Plan amendment, zone code amendment, zone reclassification, conditional use permit, and approval of a Specific Plan.

The City prepared an IS/MND for the proposed Project. Based on the IS/MND’s findings, the City concluded that the impacts of the proposed Project would be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures for the following areas:
● Air Quality
● Biological Resources
● Cultural Resources
● Noise
● Tribal Cultural Resources
(IS/MND, p. 38.)
Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 3 of 12 ends

However, based on the information provided in the IS/MND and associated appendices, we recommend that the Planning Division of the Community & Economic Development Department refrain from approving the Project and MND until the City prepares an EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the indoor and outdoor air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts related to the proposed Project.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319–20 [“CBE v. SCAQMD”] [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also, 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 [“CBE v. CRA”].)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 [“Bakersfield Citizens”]; Pocket Protectors v.

City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 4 of 12 ends

where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.

San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA. The MND must “separately identify and analyze the significance of the impacts … before proposing mitigation measures….” (Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658.) A “mitigation measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, (PRC § 21002.1(a)), while a “project” is defined as including “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).)
To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of the project description. (Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.) Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” (Mission Bay Alliance v.

Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 5 of 12 ends

The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the CEQA, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [emph. in original].)
CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121-23.)
III. DISCUSSION
There is a fair argument that the proposed Project may have unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is therefore required to adequately analyze and mitigate the impacts of the Project.

A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 6 of 12 ends

emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (August 5, 2022) (Exhibit A). Mr.

Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, hotels, and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. A, pp. 2-3.)
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., pp. 3-4) This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Id., p. 3.)
In addition, Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that the employees of the Project’s commercial spaces are expected to experience significant work-day exposures. (Id., pp. 4-5.) This exposure of employees would result in “significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.” (Id., p. 4.) Assuming they work eight hour days, five days per week, an employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 17.7 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., pp. 4-5.) This is more than the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. (Ex. A, p. 5.) Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. East Washington Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Crossway Drive, etc.) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air. (Id., pp. 10-12.) No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future residents and employees of the Project.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Id., p. 5.) Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 7 of 12 ends

requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. (Id., pp. 12-13.) The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. (See, Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 [“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”].) In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. (Ex. A, pp. 6-10.) Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.

Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emph. added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 8 of 12 ends

directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emph. in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

B. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

1. The IS/MND relied on unsubstantiated input parameters to estimate project emissions and thus the Project may result in significant air quality impacts.

After reviewing the IS/MND and the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses’ CalEEMod output files, included as Appendix A to the IS/MND, several model inputs used to generate a project’s construction and operation emissions were found to not be consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that Project construction and operation will have on local and regional air quality.

Specifically, several values used in the IS/MND and the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses were found to be either inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND or otherwise unjustified, including:

1. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Architectural Coating Emission Factor;

2. Failure to Substantiate Amount of Material Export;

3. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Number of Gas Fireplaces;

4. Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages;

5. Failure to Model Proposed Amount of Solid Waste;

6. Unsubstantiated Reductions to Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Rates;

7. Unsubstantiated Reductions to Wastewater System Treatment Percentages; and

8. Incorrect Application of Construction-Related Mitigation Measures.

As a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project’s construction and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. Thus, an EIR is needed to adequately address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 9 of 12 ends

2. The IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate health risks from diesel particulate matter emissions and thus the Project may result in significant health impacts as a result of diesel particulate matter emissions.

An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the significant health impacts to individuals and workers from the Project’s operational and construction-related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. The IS/MND incorrectly concluded that the Project would have a less-thansignificant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (See, IS/MND, pp. 56-57.) However, the IS/MND fails to mention or evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation whatsoever. As such, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. The IS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). (See, “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.) Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact of the Project to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Without conducting a quantified construction and operational HRA, the IS/MND also fails to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors from the Project’s construction and operation together. This is incorrect, and as a result, the IS/MND’s evaluation cannot be relied upon to determine Project significance. OEHHA guidance requires that the excess cancer risk be calculated separately for all sensitive receptor age bins, then summed to evaluate the total cancer risk posed by all Project activities. Therefore, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

Thus, to more accurately determine the health risks associated with the Project’s operational and construction-related DPM emissions, an EIR should be prepared that includes updated health risk calculations using correct guidance.

3. The IS/MND failed to adequately analyze greenhouse gas impacts and thus the Project may result in significant greenhouse gas emissions.

Review of the IS/MND and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses (included at Appendix A), found that the City failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 10 of 12 ends

emissions of 2,958 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (IS/MND, p. 72, Table 13.) Furthermore, the IS/MND’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to conclude that the Project would result in a lessthan-significant GHG impact. (Id., pp. 72-73.) However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.

First, the IS/MND’s analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared and emissions remodeled and compared to the applicable thresholds.

Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. When compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project’s GHG emissions are demonstrably significant.

Third, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB’s Scoping Plan. As a result, the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Instead, an EIR should be prepared that includes a quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing the appropriate standards, as well as mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels.

C. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impacts.

Review of the proposed Project and the Noise and Vibration Analysis, which is included as Appendix D to the IS/MND, provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts.

According to the IS/MND, “[t]he nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences adjacent to the proposed project site, to the north and west.” (IS/MND, p. 85.) Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, “construction-related noise levels could, at times, exceed the 80 dBA Leq(8hr) threshold at the nearest sensitive receptors, and therefore this impact would be potentially significant,” without adequate mitigation. (IS/MND, p. 89.) Moreover, the IS/MND found that Project construction could also result in vibration annoyance and vibration-induced architectural damage to nearby, sensitive receptors (i.e. single-family residences to the north and west) that would exceed threshold levels without adequate mitigation. Specifically, the IS/MND stated:

A significant impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 72 VdB at sensitive receptors. Vibration from the project would be generated from temporary construction activities…. The nearest acoustical center to single-family residences to the west would be approximately 95 feet away from the proposed project. The nearest acoustical center to single-family residences to the north Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 11 of 12 ends

would be approximately 210 feet away…. [V]ibration levels could potentially exceed the 72 VdB threshold at residences to the west during paving if a vibratory roller is used. (IS/MND, p. 94 [emph. added].) A significant impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV at the façade of the surrounding structures. Construction activity could occur within 15 feet of sensitive receptors (single-family residences to the north and west). This would include grading and paving…. [V]ibration levels could exceed

0.20 in/sec PPV. Specifically, if a vibratory roller is used within 25 feet of a residential structure and if grading equipment such as a large dozer operates within approximately 15 feet of a nearby residential structure. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. (Id., pp. 94-95 [emph. added].) Although the IS/MND concludes that noise mitigation measures will place noise impacts under significant thresholds, the IS/MND and related appendix fail to provide substantial evidence that demonstrates that these mitigation measures would actually reduce significant noise impacts to less than significant levels. Instead, the IS/MND and appendix provide substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant construction and vibration noise impacts for which the IS/MND fails to adequately mitigate.

As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that would foreclose the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.) The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. (See, Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732.) Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND is inadequate and an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. SAFER reserves the light to supplement these comments in advance of and during public hearings concerning the Project. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) Thank you for your attention to these comments.

Mercury Mixed-Use Development Project, 8825 Washington Boulevard Comment on IS/MND
August 5, 2022

Page 12 of 12 ends

Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: August 5, 2022
To: Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: The Mercury Project, Pico Rivera, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4618)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain 2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to The Mercury Project, Pico Rivera, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.
4 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial building spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because these commercial building spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the commercial building space employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 5 of 19
20 m3of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review 6 of 19
and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2of material/m2floor area, units of furnishings/m2floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, 7 of 19
adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined 8 of 19
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝑖𝑛 =
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. 9 of 19
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as 10 of 19
mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
11 of 19
This Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., East Washington Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Crossway Drive etc.). The Project Initial Study (Placeworks, 2022) contains no assessment of the existing or future ambient noise levels (dBA CNEL), only the projected Project noise level increases are reported in Table 17.

Because of Project’s proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic, an acoustic study needs to conducted to determine the sound transmission class rating of the building exterior elements required to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. This Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal nonattainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour 12 of 19
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
13 of 19
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 14 of 19
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. 15 of 19
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Placeworks. 2022. Initial Study - The Mercury Project, Pico Rivera, CA.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management 16 of 19
District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
17 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2(0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2(1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2(2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 19 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

Attachment B

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MEMORANDUM
DATE November 3, 2022
TO City of Pico Rivera
Community and Economic Development Department
ADDRESS 6615 Passons Blvd
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
CONTACT Julia Gonzalez, Deputy Director
FROM Addie Farrell, Principal in Charge
Mariana Zimmermann, Project Manager
SUBJECT Response to Comments Received on The Mercury MND PROJECT NUMBER OPL-01
The Mercury Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) went out for public review between July 8, 2022, and August 6, 2022, and a community meeting was held on August 11, 2022. A total of 16 public comments from agencies, organizations, and residents and interested parties were received; an overview of commenting agencies or persons is listed in Table 1. While responses to comments are not required for an MND, this memo provides responses to each comment received.

Table 1 Comments Received
Number
Reference Commenting Agency/Person Date
Agencies
A1 California Department of Transportation District 7 (Caltrans) August 2, 2022 Organizations
O1
Lozeau | Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) August 5, 2022
O2
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWCC) August 5, 2022
Residents and Interested Parties
R1 Maria Susana Corcedo August 11, 2022
R2 Leticia Santillan August 11, 2022
R3 Elvia Alvarado August 11, 2022
November 3, 2022 | Page 2
Table 1 Comments Received
Number
Reference Commenting Agency/Person Date
R4 Miguel Santillan August 11, 2022
R5 [no name given] August 11, 2022
R6 Maricela Lizarraga August 11, 2022
R7 Rafael Gonzales August 11, 2022
R8 Veronica Malvido August 11, 2022
R9 [no name given] August 11, 2022
R10 [two residents, no names given] August 11, 2022
R11 Emmanuel Sandoval August 12, 2022
R12 Veronica Malvido August 16, 2022
R13 Brad Morgan August 19, 2022
Response to Comments
This section contains the responses to comments on the MND. The comment letter is first displayed, then the responses. Each comment letter is bracketed and labeled, and responses are provided for each bracketed comment.

November 3, 2022 | Page 3
Letter A1 – California Department of Transportation (4 pages) November 3, 2022 | Page 4
November 3, 2022 | Page 5
November 3, 2022 | Page 6
November 3, 2022 | Page 7
A1. Response to Comments from Miya Edmonson from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), dated August 2, 2022.

A1-1 This comment expresses a statement of appreciation to the City of Pico Rivera for including Caltrans in the environmental review process and describes the proposed development project and current regulatory framework. These comments are introductory in nature and do not express a concern regarding the adequacy of the IS/MND analysis nor the transportation impact analysis report. The commenter also expresses acknowledgement and support for development projects that prioritize alternative modes of travel.

As outlined in the Section 3.17, Transportation, and Appendix F of the IS/MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report), a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis consistent with the California Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory was prepared for the proposed Project. Project-specific regional travel demand modeling was conducted using the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). As discussed on pages 109 through 111, the VMT reducing strategies, referred to as transportation demand management (TDM) strategies contained in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity1(“2021 Handbook”), were evaluated to determine the applicability to the proposed project. The proposed project incorporates the following TDM measures: “Increase Residential Density,” “Integrated Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing,” and “limited Residential Parking Supply” (see pages 110 and 111).

The proposed project would support pedestrian and bicycling and alternative modes as transit. As discussed in Transportation threshold (a), the proposed project would support the City’s Circulation Element, including goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, safety, and others. As discussed under Transportation threshold (c), the proposed project would not introduce hazards due to geometric design features nor incompatible uses. The proposed project would support vehicle and pedestrian safety. The comment does not express a concern regarding the adequacy of the MND, and the comments will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to a final decision on the proposed project.

A1-2 This comment describes the existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site and acknowledges the proposed project features to encourage and enhance pedestrian access and circulation to and from the project site as outlined in Section 3.17, Transportation, and Appendix F of the IS/MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report).

This comment also acknowledges the proposed bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the 1 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Final Draft, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021, adopted December 15, 2021.

November 3, 2022 | Page 8
proposed project as part of the County’s bicycle roadway network, as summarized in Appendix F of the MND.

As noted by the commenter, the proposed project would include landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site as well to the adjacent public facilities along the Washington Boulevard project frontage to access nearby pedestrian and transit facilities. In addition, the proposed project is planned to provide bicycle parking and storage, with a minimum of 12 long-term bicycle spaces and a minimum of four shortterm bicycle spaces. Thus, the proposed project would provide residents and visitors convenient access to public transit and opportunities for walking and biking, which would facilitate a reduction in regional VMT and related vehicular-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The comment does not express a concern regarding the adequacy of the pedestrian and bicycle discussion in the IS/MND or within Appendix F of the MND.

The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to a final decision on the proposed project.

A1-3 This comment acknowledges the public transit services that are provided in the vicinity of the proposed project as described in the IS/MND and Appendix F of the IS/MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report). The commenter also acknowledges the current evaluation of the extension of the Metro L (Gold) Line further east, which is planned to extend along portions of Washington Boulevard within the project vicinity via aerial and/or at-grade (street level) configurations with a potential above-grade station at Rosemead Boulevard. The proposed project has purposely been sited to be in close proximity to these services so as to encourage future residents’ use of other modes of transportation. It is important to note that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is currently circulating for public review (as of the writing of these responses), and this Metro L Line (former Gold Line) extension is currently forecast to open and become operational in Year 2035, which is well beyond the opening date of the proposed project. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the analysis. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their required review and consideration prior to a final decision on the Project.

A1-4 This comment acknowledges and describes the results of the VMT analysis/assessment and conclusions as outlined in the IS/MND and within Appendix F of the IS/MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report). The commenter acknowledges that the TDM measures, which have been incorporated into the project design, are expected to reduce the proposed project’s VMT to a less than significant level. As such, the commenter acknowledges that development of the proposed project would not result in a significant residential (household) VMT impact based on the City’s significance thresholds and mitigation measures are not warranted. The commenter provides the opinion that the VMT calculation is based on a VMT model in which the outcome is speculative and without validation.

November 3, 2022 | Page 9
The adopted CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 explains that a lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled and may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled. As outlined in the MND Transportation Section and Appendix F of the MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report), a VMT analysis consistent with the California Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory was prepared for the proposed Project. Project-specific regional travel demand modeling was conducted using the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). According to the Los Angeles County Senate Bill (SB) 743 Implementation and CEQA Updates Report, 2 the
SCAG RTDM is the best available tool to estimate VMT in Los Angeles County. The VMT model used in the project-level VMT impact analysis is the same model utilized to develop the relevant thresholds of significance, and therefore rely on the same travel demand database.

The commenter further expresses the opinion that post-development surveys/interviews should be conducted to determine the actual VMT for monitoring purposes and for future project thresholds in the area, and that additional mitigation measures should be implemented in the event the post-development VMT analysis discloses significant impacts. The VMT calculations and thresholds are based upon average trip making behaviors in the project area and the City of Pico Rivera, respectively (similar to the vehicle trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which represent an average of driveway count studies conducted at existing land uses).

While monitoring of actual travel behavior may improve future transportation model calibration and validation efforts, it is noted that the actual VMT generated by a residential project will depend on the individual circumstances of the residents at any given time. Actual VMT may vary year to year over the life of the project, and even month to month assuming a static mix of residents. It is for this reason that average travel behaviors are utilized when establishing thresholds and preparing project-level VMT calculations. The VMT estimates provided in the MND likely overstates travel by project residents. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially and likely permanently changed telework, which was not considered in the SCAG RTDM prepared pre-pandemic. By example, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) determined, based on an employment travel survey,
3 that in February 2020 (prepandemic), an average of 0.76 days per five-day work week, or 15.1 percent of working days, were worked via teleworking. OCTA further found that teleworking increased to an average of 2.56 days per work week, or 52.8 percent of working days, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, surveyed employees expect to telework 1.55 days per work week on average, or 31.2 percent of working days, in post-pandemic conditions. It is therefore expected that the percent of employees teleworking will remain elevated in 2 Los Angeles County Senate Bill (SB) 743 Implementation and CEQA Updates Report, Fehr & Peers, June 2020. 3 “Employment & Travel Survey: Summary Report of Pandemic Impacts,” prepared for OCTA by True North Research, Inc., December 14, 2021.

November 3, 2022 | Page 10
the post-pandemic period, substantially reducing VMT, which is not considered in the SCAG RTDM and therefore not in the VMT analysis provided in the MND.

A1-5 The commenter provides a reminder regarding the need of a Caltrans transportation permit for use of any oversized transport vehicles on State highways during construction of the proposed project and expresses the preference that large-sized truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. A construction phasing analysis has been prepared for the proposed project and is provided in Chapter 6.0 of the Transportation Impact Analysis Report contained within Appendix F of the IS/MND. As discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report, the Applicant is preparing a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, and it is anticipated that most haul truck activity to and from the project site would occur outside of the morning and afternoon peak hours (see page 57 of Appendix F). The project developer will comply with regulations pertaining to oversized-transport vehicles on State highways. The comments will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed project.

O1-1 This comment introduces the comment letter. Reponses to comments from Lozeau | Drury LLP, on behalf of SAFER are provided in response to Comments O1-2 through O1-

21. O1-2 This comment provides an overview of the proposed project and requests that the City prepare an EIR. Reponses to comments from Lozeau | Drury LLP, on behalf of SAFER are provided in response to Comments O1-4 through O1-21. No further response is needed.

O1-3 The comment provides legal background and does not provide any specific comment on the adequacy of the IS/MND or noncompliance with CEQA. A specific response is not required.

O1-4 The commenter notes that formaldehyde, a substance commonly found in building materials and furnishings, may result in future resident and worker cancer risk. The IS/MND evaluates the potential of the proposed project to result in physical impacts to the environment. Although health effects of a project may be included in the IS/MND, evidence of health impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment are beyond the scope of CEQA.

The commenter speculates about the types of indoor building materials that would be used during construction. There is no evidence that the proposed project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. As described on page 54 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with CALGreen, which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building “shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 California Code of Regulations Section 93120 et seq.).” CALGreen established planning and design standards for reducing internal air contaminants. Mitigation to reduce the formaldehyde content of building materials used during construction is not warranted.

In summary, without evidence that building materials that will be used in project construction will emit formaldehyde gas in levels that will exceed the State’s emission limits, the commenter’s assertion that future project employees or guests could be at risk for carcinogens constitutes speculation and does not constitute a fair argument. The commenter speculates that the proposed project could have an effect on the future residents of the project, which is not considered to be an impact under CEQA and need not be analyzed in the IS/MND.

O1-5 The commenter speculates that employees of the proposed project’s commercial spaces would experience significant work-day exposures to formaldehyde. As stated in Response to Comment O1-4, there is no evidence that the proposed project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health, including commercial employees. As described on page 54 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with CALGreen, which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building “shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 California Code of Regulations Section 93120 et seq.).” CALGreen established planning November 3, 2022 | Page 44
and design standards for reducing internal air contaminants. Impacts of the environment on the proposed project are not CEQA impacts and need not be analyzed in the IS/MND.

O1-6 The commenter states that the high cancer risk from indoor air emissions would be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk from the proposed project’s location near roadways and the PM2.5 levels present in the ambient air. With regard to outdoor PM2.5 concentrations, the California Building Code (Title 24), Part 6 (California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards) as well as Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen]) has standards for enhanced filtration for multi-family residential buildings to improve indoor air quality. Under Title 24, Part 6, Section 120.1(b)(1)(C) and Part 11 (Section 5.504.5.3), multifamily residential buildings that are four stories or higher are required to use MERV-13 filters, which filter 80 to 90 percent of particulates between 1.0 to 3.0 microns and over 90 percent of particulates between 3 to 10 microns. As a result, high efficiency air filters are already required. Additionally, as stated above in Response to Comment O1-4, impacts of the environment on the project are not impacts under CEQA and need not be analyzed in the IS/MND.

O1-7 The commenter concludes that the environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and that mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce risk of formaldehyde exposure. In addition, the commenter suggests mitigation measures available to reduce these health risks. As stated in Response to Comment O1-4, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CALGreen building code that all interior wood products meet CARB’s existing formaldehyde standards. Mitigation to reduce the formaldehyde content of building materials used during construction is not warranted.

O1-8 The commenter notes that the City must investigate issues related to the proposed project’s environmental impacts. The commenter also notes the investigatory path should include an EIR to evaluate the proposed project’s formaldehyde emissions and to establish mitigation measures to reduce cancer risk below the South Coast AQMD threshold. As the proposed project would be required to comply with CARB’s existing standards and its emissions are below the South Coast AQMD thresholds, developing an EIR to evaluate formaldehyde emissions is not warranted.

O1-9 The commenter notes that formaldehyde emissions are not an existing environmental condition and that an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate the impacts on the future residents and commercial employees There is no evidence that the proposed project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable existing standards and thresholds. There are no unusual circumstances that would trigger mitigation or preparation of an EIR to reduce the effects of formaldehyde on future residents and commercial employees. The proposed project was adequately analyzed in the IS/MND, and an EIR is not warranted.

O1-10 The commenter notes that several values used for the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses were inconsistent with the IS/MND or otherwise unsubstantiated. These changes were based on project-specific information provided by the applicant and noted under Section 1.3, User Entered Comments & Non-Default, of the CalEEMod outputs for construction, mitigated construction, and operational models (see Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses, Assumption Worksheets). Each of these changes are addressed below:

November 3, 2022 | Page 45
• Architectural coating emissions factor: In compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, flat and non-flat coats have a current limit of 50 grams per liter. Interior and Exterior VOC content has been changed to 50 grams per liter.
• Material Export volumes: Materials export volumes and distance to the export site are based on project-specific information provided by the applicant. • Number of gas fireplaces: The proposed project would not include fireplaces in any of the units. However, the project would include up to 3 barbecue grills, which are assumed to be used over the weekends.
• Fleet Mix: Fleet mix was adjusted to 97 percent light duty, 2 percent medium duty, and 1 percent heavy duty vehicles to better reflect the proposed uses, which results in a higher proportion of passenger vehicles than the regional fleet mix.
• Solid waste tonnage: CalEEMod default values were used for solid waste tonnage. As seen in CalEEMod Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod, default values for solid waste is based on annual waste disposal rates from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) data for individual land uses.
• Indoor and outdoor water use. CalEEMod default values were used for indoor and outdoor water use. As seen in CalEEMod Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod, default values for indoor and outdoor water use are based on the Pacific Institute “Waste Not Want Not” report for all of California in the year 2000.4For land uses not included in this report such as the library, place of worship, movie theater, arena, and civic center uses, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation’s Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water report was used in its place.5
• Wastewater treatment percentage: The percentages in the model are based on statewide data of the primary treatment methods. For example, in the state of California, 10.33 percent of wastewater is treated using septic tanks. As discussed on page 69, the project would not involve use of septic tanks; therefore, septic tanks were zeroed out in the model. Similarly, while there may be some anaerobic bacteria digest sludge during the wastewater treatment process, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) does not primarily treat wastewater in open-air facultative lagoons. LACSD’s anerobic processes are enclosed in an anerobic digestion tank.6 Methane gas generated in the anaerobic digestion process is used to produce power and digester heating 4Gleick, P.H.; Haasz, D.; Henges-Jeck, C.; Srinivasan, V.; Cushing, K.K.; Mann, A. 2003, November. Waste Not, Want Not:

The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. https://pacinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/waste_not_want_not_full_report3.pdf 5 Dziegielewski; B.; Kiefer, J.C.; Optiz, E.M.; Porter, G.A.; Lantz, G.L.; DeOreo, W.B.; Mayer, P.W.; Nelson, J.O. 2000, January. Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. 6 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2022, October 13 (accessed). Wastewater Treatment Process at JWPCP. https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/joint-water-pollution-controlplant/wastewater-treatment-process-at-jwpcp.

November 3, 2022 | Page 46
steam in a Total Energy Facility that utilizes gas turbines and waste-heat recovery steam generators, and the electricity generated is used to offset the plant’s energy use. As a result, modeling in CalEEMod is conservative for LACSD’s facilities and correctly adjusts the wastewater percentages to reflect the treatment processes of LACSD’s facilities.
• Application of Construction Mitigation Measures: Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would exceed the VOC threshold for South Coast AQMD. The measure needed to mitigate this impact would be to require use of low-VOC paints, which reduce the impact to less-than-significant.

In addition, as documented in the IS/MND, modeling presents a conservative estimate of the emissions associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the assumptions used for input into the modeling are well supported, and no revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

O1-11 The commenter asserts that the IS/MND did not adequately evaluate diesel particulate matter or toxic air contaminants during construction and operation because it does not include a health risk analysis. Consistent with CARB and South Coast AQMD guidance, including CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook and South Coast AQMD’s “Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning,” the project—which proposes residential and commercial uses—is not considered a substantial source of DPM. Moreover, typical sources of other hazardous TACs include manufacturing processes, automotive repair, dry cleaning facilities, and other facilities that process toxic materials. The proposed project does not propose these types of uses, and the commenter has not presented any evidence that TACs or DPM would be generated by operation of the proposed project in any meaningful amount such that significant impacts may result. Therefore, as stated in the IS/MND, no operational HRA is needed for the proposed project.

For the project construction activities that would generate TACs and DPM, the air quality analysis includes a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis for project construction and concludes no significant impact with regard to the LSTs. The use of the LSTs for the air quality analysis to assess potential construction emissions risks was appropriate and consistent with South Coast AQMD Methodology. First, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, on page 55 of the IS/MND, LSTs are tied to ambient air quality standards and calibrated to assess localized air quality impacts. As stated in the South Coast AQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project in the South Coast Air Basin that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area. If the calculated emissions for the proposed construction or operational activities are below the LST emission levels found on the LST mass rate lookup tables and no potentially significant impacts are found to be associated with other environmental issues, then the proposed construction or operation activity would not have a significant impact on air quality. The results of the construction LST analysis is provided on page 56 of the IS/MND and concludes that localized construction emissions would not significantly impact nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, based on the Draft 2022 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Management Plan, as seen in the Black Box Measure Policy Brief, Tier 4 equipment is readily available and makes up approximately 50 percent November 3, 2022 | Page 47
of the available off-road equipment population in California between the Tier 4 Interim and Tier 4 final equipment.7
In addition to project construction, the commenter asserts that the IS/MND’s LST analysis fails to account for DPM and TAC emissions from project operation. As discussed above, the proposed uses of the project are not anticipated to generate substantial amounts of DPM or TACs because they do not include trucking, manufacturing, industrial processes, or other uses that are linked to TAC and DPM emissions. It should also be noted that South Coast AQMD rules impose specific emissions reduction measures that target TACs and DPM, such as Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Source Review.

Neither a construction HRA nor an operational HRA are required. The IS/MND adequately analyzes air quality impacts of the construction and operational phases of the proposed project and no further analysis is warranted.

O1-12 The commenter notes that the proposed project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirement to correlate the increase in emissions to the impacts on human health and inconsistent with the latest guidance from OEHHA. South Coast AQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Rather, their current recommendation is to utilize the LST screening tools to determine if a construction HRA is warranted. As stated in response to Comment O1-11, use of the LSTs for the air quality analysis to assess potential construction emissions risks was appropriate and consistent with South Coast AQMD Methodology, as they represent the maximum emissions from a project in the South Coast Air Basin that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Localized health risks are discussed on pages 55 and 56 of the IS/MND, which conclude localized construction emissions would not significantly impact nearby sensitive receptors during the 23-month construction period. In addition, operationally, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant DPM or TACs as it is not considered a substantial source of DPM and would not include typical sources of other hazardous TACs, such as manufacturing processes, automotive repair, dry cleaning facilities, and other facilities that process toxic materials. Neither a construction HRA nor an operational HRA is required. The IS/MND adequately analyzes air quality impacts of the proposed project and no further analysis is warranted.

O1-13 The commenter notes that the proposed project does not compare the excess health risk impact of the proposed project to the South Coast AQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. As stated in responses to Comment O1-11 and Comment O1-12, South Coast AQMD does not require a health risk assessment for short-term emissions from construction activities, and use of the LSTs for the air quality analysis to assess potential construction emissions risks was appropriate and consistent with South Coast AQMD Methodology, as they represent the maximum emissions from a project in the South Coast Air Basin that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. In addition, operationally, the 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2022. Policy Brief Black Box Measures. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-qualitymanagement-plan/combined-bb-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=8 November 3, 2022 | Page 48
proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant DPM or TACs as it is not considered a substantial source of DPM and would not include typical sources of other hazardous TACs, such as manufacturing processes, automotive repair, dry cleaning facilities, and other facilities that process toxic materials. Neither a construction HRA nor an operational HRA is required. The IS/MND adequately analyzes the air quality impacts of the proposed project and no further analysis is warranted.

O1-14 The commenter states that the GHG analysis is inadequate for three specific reasons, which are addressed in Responses to Comments O1-15, O1-16, and O1-17. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020 RTP/SCS, as seen on page 72 and 73 of the IS/MND. In addition, the commenter does not provide any evidence of additional feasible mitigation measures for the City to consider.

However, the proposed project has no control over state and regional solutions to reduce mobile emissions, and the use of mass transit, alternative modes of transportation, and electric vehicles cannot be estimated with certainty. See response to Comment O1-10; as documented in the IS/MND, modeling presents a conservative estimate of the emissions associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project does not require mitigation measures and an EIR would not be required.

O1-15 See response to Comment O1-10. The commenter notes that the IS/MND analysis relies on a flawed air model. The data used for modeling were based on project-specific information provided by the applicant. Any changes to the default data are noted under Section 1.3, User Entered Comments & Non-Default, of the CalEEMod outputs for construction, mitigated construction, and operational models. It is standard practice to update inputs in CalEEMod when more accurate project-specific information is available, to better capture the proposed project.

O1-16 The commenter notes that the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. This statement is incorrect as the South Coast AQMD Working Group GHG threshold remains unchanged and is 3,000 MTCO2e/year for all land use types. As documented in Appendix A, this threshold is based on an emissions capture approach that identifies projects that generate a de minimus amount of emissions. South Coast AQMD did not provide comments on continued use of the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold. The threshold is not directly tied to the State’s GHG reduction targets because it is based on an emissions capture approach. As a result, the threshold is not outdated. Additionally, the commenter has not provided evidence on use of an alternative GHG metric. Also see response to Comment O1-10 regarding emissions modeling. As noted in this response, emissions modeling conducted for the proposed project provides a conservative estimate of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project.

O1-17 The comment asserts that the IS/MND was required to use a performance-based standard to demonstrate consistency with the Scoping Plan.

See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7(a) (significance threshold can be qualitative or quantitative). It has been determined that a quantitative threshold cannot be derived from the Scoping Plan that would be relevant to CEQA review because the Scoping Plan does not specifically identify separate targets for existing versus new sources of emissions, targets for individual regions within the state, or targets for individual project types. Until CARB provides additional data on quantitative analysis for emissions forecast, consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan can only be based on the policies and measures for November 3, 2022 | Page 49
the individual sectors identified in the Scoping Plan. A qualitative GHG emissions analysis has been identified by the courts as adequate under CEQA (City of Long Beach, et al., Xavier Becerra (Attorney General, as Intervener) v. City of Los Angeles, (BNSF Railway Company, Real Party in Interest) (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 465). The IS/MND documents the proposed project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan and that the proposed project would not conflict with the Statewide GHG reduction goals.

For the reasons outlined, no such quantitative analysis with the CARB Scoping Plan was required. CEQA gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, how to assess potential GHG impacts. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4.) Pursuant to League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation v. County of Placer (2022), a numerical threshold from an air pollution control district is a permissible option that complies with CEQA and was used to evaluate whether or not the proposed project would generate a substantial increase in magnitude of GHG emissions.

Likewise, the CEQA Guidelines identify qualitative analyses as appropriate methods. Here, the IS/MND uses two methods to assess whether the project’s GHG emissions should be considered significant: (1) against the South Coast AQMD’s numerical threshold (under threshold [a]) and (2) a qualitative analysis of the project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan (under threshold [b]). Overall, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD standard and would not have a significant impact with respect to Scoping Plan consistency. The GHG analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA.

O1-18 Unlike vibratory rollers which use a combination of weight and vibration, a static roller uses weight only. Therefore, the impact for vibration levels for both annoyance (VdB) and damage would be adequately mitigated.

The use of off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less would fall under what is considered a small bulldozer. As shown in IS/MND Table 19, Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, levels would not exceed the 0.20 threshold and adequately mitigate vibration impacts.

O1-19 The IS/MND has shown that the potentially significant impacts would be adequately mitigated. Please refer to responses on comments 01-18 and O2-22.

O1-20 See response to Comments O1-4 through O1-19, which substantiate the adequacy of the IS/MND.

O1-21 Please refer to Responses O1-4 through O1-9, regarding the commenter’s indoor air quality concerns. The IS/MND evaluates the potential of the project to result in physical impacts to the environment. Although social effects of a project may be included in the IS/MND, evidence of social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment are beyond the scope of CEQA. There are no unusual circumstances that would trigger an exception to this precedent.

The commenter speculates about the types of indoor building materials that would be used during construction. As stated in Responses O1-4 and O1-5, there is no evidence that the project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. As described on page 54 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with CALGreen, which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building “shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as November 3, 2022 | Page 50
specified in California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 California Code of Regulations § 93120 et seq.).” CALGreen established planning and design standards for reducing internal air contaminants.

In summary, without evidence that the building materials that will be used in project construction will emit formaldehyde gas in levels that will exceed the State’s emission limits, the commenter’s assertion that future project employees or guests could be at risk for carcinogens constitutes speculation.

The commenter speculates that the proposed project could have an effect on the future residents, employers, and visitors, which is not considered an impact under CEQA and need not be analyzed in the IS/MND.

As stated in Response O1-6 with regard to outdoor PM2.5 concentrations, the California Building Code (Title 24), Part 6 (California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards) and Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen]) have standards for enhanced filtration for multifamily residential buildings to improve indoor air quality.

Under Title 24, Part 6, § 120.1(b)(1)(C) and Part 11 Section 5.504.5.3, multifamily residential buildings that are four stories or higher are required to use MERV-13 filters, which filter 80 to 90 percent of particulates between 1.0 and 3.0 microns and over 90 percent of particulates between 3 and 10 microns. As a result, high efficiency air filters are already required. Further, as stated above, impacts of the environment on the proposed project are not impacts under CEQA.

As stated in Responses O1-4 through O1-9, the proposed project would be required to comply with CARB’s existing standards, and mitigation to reduce the formaldehyde content of building materials used during construction is not warranted.

November 3, 2022 | Page 75
O2. Response to Comments from Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh, Mitchel M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC), dated August 5, 2022.

O2-1 This comment introduces the comment letter and provides an overview of SWRCC. The City will add the commenter to the project’s distribution list.

O2-2 The commenter states that the City should require the use of local skilled and trained workforce. The comment has no bearing on the environmental impacts assessed in the IS/MND. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

O2-3 The commenter asserts that local hire and skilled and trained workforce would reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the proposed project. The commenter asserts that local hire provisions can reduce vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide localized economic benefits. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

O2-4 The commenter states that a skilled and trained workforce requirement promotes the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. Economic impacts of a project that do not result in a physical change to the environmental are outside the scope of CEQA. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is warranted.

O2-5 The commenter states that local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies improve the jobs-housing balance, decreasing length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is warranted.

O2-6 The commenter generally notes that cities are adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements in general plans and municipal codes. This comment is a general comment about the City’s General Plan and municipal code, and it does not directly apply to the proposed project. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. No further response is warranted.

O2-7 The commenter states that jobs closer to residential areas have significant environmental benefits, such as the use of alternative modes of transportation instead of driving. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is warranted.

O2-8 The commenter asserts that local hire mandates and skill-training reduce vehicle miles traveled. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is warranted.

O2-9 The commenter asserts that an EIR should be prepared for the proposed project and that the IS/MND is inadequate. Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-11 through O2-28, November 3, 2022 | Page 76
which provide responses to each comment in the letter. As discussed in these responses, the proposed project is adequately analyzed in the IS/MND, and an EIR is not warranted.

O2-10 The commenter asserts that the IS/MND should be revised and recirculated. Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-11 through O2-28, which provide responses to each comment in the letter. As discussed in these responses, the proposed project is adequately analyzed in the IS/MND, and the IS/MND does not need to be revised and recirculated.

O2-11 The commenter asserts that the City must adopt findings of significance due to the potential health impacts on construction workers from COVID-19. Construction contractors are expected to comply with the City and County’s COVID-19 mandates and directives set forth public health guidelines. While it is important to take precautions and provide a safe work environment, the impact of the environment on activities associated with the proposed project is outside of the scope of CEQA.

O2-12 The commenter recommends that additional CEQA mitigation measures be adopted to mitigate health risks from construction activities to the workers. Pursuant to the decision in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (Case No. S213478), CEQA evaluates a project’s impact on the environment, not the environment’s impact on a project. No further response is warranted.

O2-13 The commenter notes the requirements of an environmental document based on the CEQA guidelines for an EIR. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the requirement to evaluate alternatives is only necessary if the proposed project would generate a significant and unavoidable impact and would warrant preparation of an EIR.

The IS/MND utilizes the South Coast AQMD thresholds to substantiate the less than significant findings for construction and operational phase air quality impacts. There is no evidence provided by the commenter on use of alternative threshold metrics.

Furthermore, the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds are supported by substantial evidence that is recommended for use by the agency that is tasked with ensuring air quality achieves the State and National ambient air quality standards. As a result, use of the South Coast AQMD thresholds to substantiate less than significant air quality impacts is used for the vast majority of all projects in the South Coast AQMD region. The proposed project has been analyzed based on the most current information provided by the applicant, and construction and operational emissions would be less than the applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds.

O2-14 The commenter notes that using the preliminary information from the applicant and estimates CalEEMod, Version 2020.4, would not be sufficient to determine the quantity of pollutants, if the construction duration is longer than anticipated or more equipment is used than anticipated. While lead agencies must use their best efforts to disclose all that they reasonably can about a project’s potentially significant environmental impacts, they are not required to foresee the unforeseeable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15144). The proposed project has been analyzed based on the most current project-specific information provided by the applicant, which is documented in Appendix A to the IS/MND, and as demonstrated, construction and operational emissions would be less than the applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds.

November 3, 2022 | Page 77
O2-15 South Coast AQMD does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for shortterm emissions from construction equipment. Rather, South Coast AQMD’s current recommendation is to utilize the LST screening tools to determine if a construction health risk assessment is warranted. As stated in Response to Comment O1-11, use of the LSTs for the air quality analysis to assess potential construction emissions risks was appropriate and consistent with South Coast AQMD Methodology, as they represent the maximum emissions from a project in the South Coast Air Basin that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown on pages 54 through 56 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds for construction, operations, or project level LSTs for construction. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant and the IS/MND would not warrant recirculation.

O2-16 The commenter provides a summary of the requirements for mitigation measures. No further response regarding this summary is needed.

The commenter states that the Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is insufficient because it is limited by season, time of day, and weather conditions. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is an industry-accepted mitigation measure and reflects the regulatory requirements set forth by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Biological resources are evaluated in Section

3.5, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND. As described in that discussion, the project site is entirely paved and disturbed in an urbanized area. The project site contains only limited ornamental landscaping. It does not contain habitat. While the construction period could span multiple seasons, different times of the day, and weather conditions, the ornamental landscaping and trees would be removed only once. Once the ornamental landscaping and trees are removed from the project site and the project site is an active construction zone, it will not be suitable for nesting birds. Therefore, the mitigation measure is adequate. No further analysis is warranted.

O2-17 The commenter states that the MND fails to assess all wildlife species potentially impacted by the proposed project. Biological resources are evaluated in Section 3.5, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND. Analysis is provided for each threshold under Section 3.5, Biological Resources. The project site is entirely developed and disturbed in an urbanized area. The project site contains only limited ornamental landscaping. It does not contain habitat nor does the commenter indicate differently. The commenter merely states that the analysis is inadequate and does not provide any evidence to support that claim. Further, CDFW had the opportunity to comment during the public review period and did not provide any comments on the proposed project. No further response on this point is necessary.

The commenter states that the IS/MND fails to adequately mitigate impacts to nesting birds and provides an excerpt to California Department of Fish and Wildlife letter for the “Boutique Purple Development” project in the City of Adelanto. As discussed in Response to Comment O2-16, above, the IS/MND provides an analysis for each biological resources threshold and adequately discloses and identifies that birds could use the trees on-site for nests. As discussed on page 59 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable CDFW and federal regulations protecting nesting birds. The MND further requires that the proposed project implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a preconstruction survey for nesting birds. The Boutique Purple Development project that the commenter references is an undeveloped project November 3, 2022 | Page 78
site that is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped land—not comparable to the conditions on or surrounding the subject project site. CDFW is a Trustee Agency and Responsible Agency for the Boutique Purple Development project, meaning that CDFW is responsible for protecting resources on-site and discretionary approval over the Boutique Purple Development project. Unlike the Boutique Purple Development project, the proposed project is in a completely urbanized area and the project site is paved and disturbed and does not contain habitat. The proposed project would be required to comply all applicable California and federal laws governing nesting birds.

O2-18 Section 3.6, Energy, of the IS/MND identified sources of energy use from residential and commercial uses in terms of electricity and natural gas as well as fuel use during construction and operation of the project. The IS/MND is also consistent with each of the following considerations from Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. • Project energy requirements and energy use efficiency: Project energy requirements may be seen on pages 63 through 65 of the IS/MND. Overall, the project will consume 2,176,599 kWh/year and 4,052,705 kBTU/year and would consume gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity during the construction and operational phases. The proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, as seen in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, there will be 44 electric vehicle charging stations for residents and 3 additional stations for retail uses. In accordance with the Specific Plan and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, development of the proposed project would also include a photovoltaic system. • Project effects on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity: Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (through SCE infrastructure) and SoCalGas provide the electricity and natural gas. As stated on page 118 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not require new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities.
• Project effects on peak period and base period energy demands: The most current data from Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy shows a peak load of 59 megawatts and total energy usage of 212 gigawatts in 2019.8 As the proposed project would have an energy demand of 2,176,599 kWh/year, or approximately 5,963 kWh/day, the overall impact on peak period and base period energy demands would be negligible.
• Project compliance with existing energy standards: As stated on page 64 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, as stated on page 118, development of the proposed project would comply with regulations and standards pertaining to natural gas and would not require new or expanded electric power facilities other than connections to the existing electricity grid. • Project effects on energy resources: As previously stated, the proposed project would consume 2,176,599 kWh/year and 4,052,705 kBTU/year and would consume gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity during the 8 Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME). 2020, August. 2020 Integrated Resource Plan. https://californiachoiceenergyauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/prime_v1-PUBLIC.pdf November 3, 2022 | Page 79
construction and operational phases. In addition, as mentioned in the Specific Plan, the proposed project would include a photovoltaic system, which would offset some of the energy usage from the project. Furthermore, as stated in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would not require new or expanded electric power facilities other than connections to the existing electricity grid. In addition, the proposed project would comply with regulations and standards pertaining to natural gas and would connect to the existing natural gas infrastructure.
• Project transportation energy use and use of efficient transportation alternatives: As seen on pages 63 and 65 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would consume gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity during the construction and operational phases, with an estimated VMT of 5,680,513 miles annually. Because the proposed project involves development of new residential housing opportunities, it would provide more opportunities for potential new residents to reside in an urbanized area with nearby amenities and public transit options. These features of the proposed project would contribute to minimizing VMT and transportation-related fuel usage. As seen in Section 3.17, Transportation, the residential VMT per capita would be below the City significance threshold of 12.23 VMT per capita, at 12.08. Furthermore, as seen on page 108, project would accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access and encourage use of active transportation modes by providing bicycle lanes and bicycle parking near the project site.

In addition, the modeling assumes that multifamily residential buildings would include use of photovoltaic systems based on the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Specific Plan also states that the proposed project would incorporate PV systems in accordance with state law. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately considers renewable energy systems and conservation efforts that are known to be a part of the project.

Furthermore, construction activities would be conducted in compliance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which would require nonessential idling of construction equipment to be restricted to five minutes or less.

O2-19 The commenter suggests that renewable energy utilized by the proposed project would generate new demand for electricity, natural gas, and/or transportation energy. This is not correct. Use of renewable energy would not result in an increase in energy demand above and beyond the electricity demand for a project. Rather, renewable energy would offset energy demand associated with a project and would reduce the demand on nonrenewable fuel use associated with electricity production. As previously stated, the modeling assumes that multifamily residential buildings would include use of photovoltaic systems based on the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as is assumed in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately considers renewable energy systems and conservation efforts that are known to be a part of the project.

O2-20 The project operational VMT would be substantially less than the baseline VMT thresholds, which is consistent with the goal of reducing VMT through mixed-use, local development and, as a result, reducing energy consumption. As a result, the fuel use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful or inefficient. The energy impact analysis has been analyzed in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. See Section

3.6, Energy.

November 3, 2022 | Page 80
O2-21 The commenter asserts that the IS/MND fails to assess or quantify the proposed project’s anticipated water consumption and wastewater quantity and composition and references pages associated with the Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The IS/MND appropriately quantifies the proposed project’s water consumption and wastewater generation in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems (see pages 117 and page 119 for water consumption analyses and pages 118 and 120 for wastewater generation analyses). The proposed project would generate wastewater that is typical of a mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses. The commenter is confusing the analyses for utilities (e.g., water consumption and wastewater generation) with project site hydrology (e.g., surface runoff). The analysis for water and wastewater are adequately and appropriately discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems.

No further response is necessary.

The commenter asserts that the IS/MND relies solely on regulatory compliance measures to justify a less than significant finding and not project-specific analysis. Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, provides a project-specific analysis for each hydrology and water quality threshold. The comment states that the analysis is insufficient but does not refer to specific threshold or provide evidence to the contrary. Page 65 (referenced in the comment) is associated with Section 3.6, Energy, and does not relate to hydrology. No further response is necessary.

O2-22 The commenter asserts that the IS/MND noise analysis does not show that the proposed mitigation measure (MM N-1) would adequately mitigate noise. All mitigation measures under Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce construction-related noise levels as demonstrated through quantitative modeling. Specifically, the last bullet point under Mitigation Measure N-1 provides details for the construction of a temporary noise barrier to break the line-of-sight and to have a density of 1.5 lb/sqft with no gaps. These details are the requirements needed to reduce levels as stated, “to maintain noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq at the property line.” Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 would adequately mitigate noise levels. No further noise analysis is warranted.

O2-23 The commenter asserts that the IS/MND fails to provide an adequate project description because it does not include a statement of objectives nor economic characteristics. The CEQA Guidelines section that this comment refers to (CEQA Section 15124) is related to the requirements for an environmental impact report, which is not the type of environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project.

A statement of objectives is required for environmental impact reports, but not mitigated negative declarations, which is the environmental document prepared for the proposed project. Section 1.3, Project Description (see pages 11 through 33), provides a thorough discussion of the proposed project components and adequately describes the proposed project. The commenter is referring to an introductory summary that is further expanded on pages 11 through 33.

The comment further states that the IS/MND does not provide a description of the proposed project’s economic characteristics. As defined by CEQA Guideline section 15378, “project” for the purposes of CEQA “means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Economic characteristics of a project only need to be considered if they result in a direct or November 3, 2022 | Page 81
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Economic characteristics that do not result in a physical impact are beyond the scope of CEQA. No further response is needed.

The CEQA section this comment refers to (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124) is the requirements for an environmental impact report. A mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared for the proposed project, not an environmental impact report.

The project description adequately describes the proposed project and meetings the requirements of CEQA. Recirculation is not warranted.

O2-24 This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter. See response to Comments O2-2 through O2-23.

O2-25 The commenter notes that number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to determine construction VMT and emissions. The commenter also suggests that construction VMT and emissions may be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length through a local hire requirement. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. No further comment is warranted.

O2-26 The commenter notes how construction-related worker trips are calculated by CalEEMod in rural and urban settings and suggests that a local hire requirement’s efficacy depends on project location and urbanization. This comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. No further comment is warranted.

O2-27 The commenter provides an example of how a local hire requirement can reduce GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips as compared to default CalEEMod trip length. The commenter, however, does not identify any analysis deficiencies or inaccuracies in the IS/MND. Moreover, the potential benefits of local, skilled labor requirements/policies have not been quantified, and are caveated in the commenter’s references (e.g., the GHG reduction associated with a local hire requirement and anticipated decreased worker trip length would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site). The potential benefits of the recommended requirements, therefore, are speculative. The commenter does not specify how requiring local hire or the other recommendations would achieve further reductions in GHG emissions during construction, nor does the commenter explain whether it is feasible or identify evidence supporting any implied conclusion that reductions would be achieved.

For instance, the commenter does not provide any evidence that construction worker trip distance would be reduced through implementation of such measures. Thus, the comment does not present any evidence or assertions that undermine the analysis or conclusions of the IS/MND.

O2-28 This comment is a disclaimer to the comment letter. No response is warranted.

November 3, 2022 | Page 82
Letter R1– Maria Susana Carcedo (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 83
R1. Response to Comments from Maria Susana Carcedo, dated August 11, 2022.

R1-1 The commenter opines that the City does not need more residents and traffic. The commenter expresses concern with a potential increase in traffic and damage to surrounding residential houses during construction. However, the commenter does not raise any specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues.

The proposed project has been analyzed extensively in the IS/MND, including construction impacts to off-site sensitive residential receptors.

Overall, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and is not found to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs. It would also implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies per the 2021 California Air Quality Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity as project design features that would decrease vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to maximizing mobility and accessibility in the region. Please refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, and Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis Report, The Mercury Project, City of Pico Rivera, California for more information.

As discussed in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, implementation of the proposed project would be confined to the project site, which is entirely vacant. As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality¸ the proposed project would be required to implement fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. As discussed in Section 3.13, Noise, the proposed project would implement mitigation measure N-2, which would ensure that vibration associated with grading and paving activities would not damage nearby residences. No homes are located on the project site, and the proposed project would not damage homes during construction.

The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 84
Letter R2– Leticia Santillan (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 85
R2. Response to Comments from Leticia Santillan, dated August 11, 2022.

R2-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the proposed project. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 86
Letter R3– Elvia Alvarado (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 87
R3. Response to Comments from Elvia Alvarado, dated August 11, 2022.

R3-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the proposed project. However, the commenter does not raise any specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues. The proposed project has been analyzed extensively in the MND, including related to views (refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics), population (refer to Section

3.14, Population and Housing), transportation (refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, and Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis Report, The Mercury Project, City of Pico Rivera, California) and noise (refer to Section 3.13, Noise). No further response is needed.

November 3, 2022 | Page 88
Letter R4– Miguel Santillan (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 89
R4. Response to Comments from Miguel Santillan, dated August 11, 2022.

R4-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the proposed project and asserts that the proposed project would worsen traffic and vandalism. The comment does not raise any specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues.

With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the focus of transportation analysis for purposes of CEQA has shifted from vehicular delay or level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed project’s impact on transportation has been analyzed in Section

3.17, Transportation of the IS/MND and Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis Report, The Mercury Project, City of Pico Rivera, California. The IS/MND shows that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to transportation.

Regarding vandalism, as discussed in the Section 1.3, Project Description, and under threshold (b) of Section 3.15, Public Services, the proposed project would also include design elements that would deter criminal activity, such as security gates, and residentsonly key cards for the residential areas, as well as security lighting for the residential and commercial areas. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to police services.

November 3, 2022 | Page 90
Letter R5– [no name given] (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 91
R5. Response to Comments from [no name given], dated August 11, 2022.

R5-1 The commenter asks whether the number of apartments in the proposed project is the original proposed number of apartments. The commenter accurately notes that the proposed project would have 255 dwelling units (see Section 1.3, Project Description, of the IS/MND). The commenter also asks about the legal occupancy of each dwelling unit type. As discussed on page 12, the project applicant will limit the number of tenants per unit to two persons per bedroom and one person per living room. Please refer to Section

1.3.1.1, Project Description, Residential, of the MND for more information.

R5-2 The commenter asks whether each apartment will have their own water meter and raises concerns over the potentially large water consumption of the apartments and pool amidst a drought in California. The proposed project would install a new water meter and backflow. Final project design and review would be evaluated by the City.

The proposed project’s water demand for indoor and outdoor use is well within the Pico Water District’s groundwater pumping capacity. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s anticipated growth projection and therefore is not anticipated to adversely affect the Pico Water District’s water supplies. Additionally, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Please refer to Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, for more information. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R5-3 The commenter asks what forms of security will be on the premises of the proposed project. Parking security staff will be on-site to ensure that tenants do not park in the adjacent shopping center overnight. The proposed project includes safety and security lighting in residential and commercial areas, primarily along walkways, outdoor parking areas, and steps for pedestrian safety at the ground level. It would also include design elements that would deter criminal activity, such as security gates and residents-only key cards for the residential areas. Please refer to Section 1.3.3, Project Description, and Section 3.15(b), Public Services, Police Protection, for more information.

R5-4 The commenter asserts that with the addition of the new Metro station near the project site the proposed project would increase traffic on Washington Blvd. and surrounding residential streets by decreasing travel lanes to two lanes on each side. Refer to Response to Comment A1-3, which discusses the proposed Metro project. In addition, with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the focus of transportation analysis for purposes of CEQA has shifted from vehicular delay or level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and would implement design features that would contribute to supporting multiple modes of transportation. Please refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, of the MND for more information. The comment does not identify a deficiency in the IS/MND’s analysis. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 92
Letter R6– Maricela Lizarraga (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 93
R6. Response to Comments from Maricela Lizarraga, dated August 11, 2022.

R6-1 The commenter asserts that the proposed project does not make sense and does not provide any specific comments on the project. The MND provides an extensive description of the proposed project (refer to Section 1, Introduction) and analysis of potential environmental impacts (refer to Section 3, Environmental Analysis). The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is required.

R6-2 The commenter states that the proposed project does not have enough parking and states that traffic is already bad. The proposed project’s parking numbers are provided in Table 4, Summary of Parking Spaces, which shows that the proposed project would provide 464 parking spaces. Proposed project parking ratios are similar to other mixeduse developments of its type, size, and urban context. The proposed project’s Transportation Study (contained in Appendix F) determined that the proposed project’s parking requirements are consistent with the empirical parking demand ratios and the ITE published residential parking demand ratio. The proposed project would adequately accommodate parking needs on-site. As discussed in Section 1.3.2.2, Project Parking, the operation of the proposed project would require that residents register their vehicles with the building and adhere to the parking policies in lease/rental agreements. Security staff would monitoring parking at the adjacent shopping center on a 24-hour basis.

Further, the project applicant would identify a Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman in order to keep nearby residential communities informed on various matters and provide an open line of communication. The Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman would efficiently manage parking and enforce changes that the project management team would make to prevent local neighborhood parking intrusion. Refer to pages 19 and 18 of the IS/MND. Parking is no longer a CEQA issue. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

The proposed project is consistent with the Pico Rivera Municipal Code and the General Plan’s Circulation Element. Therefore, the proposed project would support mobility in the region. With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the focus of transportation analysis for purposes of CEQA shifted from vehicular delay or level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, traffic is no longer a CEQA issue. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R6-3 The commenter expresses concern regarding the absence of city council members at the public meeting and does not provide any specific comments on the project. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 94
Letter R7– Rafael Gonzales (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 95
R7. Response to Comments from Rafael Gonzales, dated August 11, 2022.

R7-1 The commenter asks about the impacts of the proposed project’s addition of 255 residential units on schools and parks. The IS/MND provides an analysis on the proposed project’s impact on schools and parks as well as other types of public and recreational facilities in Sections 3.15, Public Services, and 3.16, Recreation, in the MND. The MND concludes that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services and recreational facilities.

November 3, 2022 | Page 96
Letter R8– Veronica Malvido (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 97
R8. Response to Comments from Veronica Malvido, dated August 11, 2022.

R8-1 The commenter asks whether the proposed project will have HVAC units. The proposed project will include HVAC units for residential and commercial uses. No further response is necessary.

R8-2 The commenter states that there is not enough parking. Refer to Response to Comment R6-2 above, which discusses project parking.

November 3, 2022 | Page 98
Letter R9– [no name given] (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 99
R9. Response to Comments from [no name given], dated August 11, 2022.

R9-1 The commenter asks if schools are equipped to handle the proposed project’s students.

The proposed project’s impact on schools is discussed in Section 3.15, Public Service. The analysis takes a conservative approach to determining student generation because it assumes that all units would generate an equal number of high school, middle school, and elementary school students; however, this would not be the case because 194 dwelling units of the 255 dwelling units (approximately 77.6 percent of the dwelling units) would be studio and one-bedrooms. Even with this conservative approach, the IS/MND determined development of the proposed project would not result in the need for construction associated with an expansion of existing or development of new schools such that environmental impacts would result. In addition, as stated on page 99 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to pay school fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50. Therefore, project-related impacts to school facilities would be less than significant. Please refer to Section 3.15(c), Public Services, Schools, for more information.

R9-2 The commenter asks about the proposed project’s impact on police services The IS/MND evaluates the proposed project impact to polices services in Section 3.15(b), Public Services, Police Protection. A service letter and questionnaire were sent to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) requesting input from the LASD on the proposed project. The Pico Rivera Sheriff Station has no deficiencies in police protection services. While the proposed project may lead to an increase in demand for police protection services compared to existing conditions, such as increase in service calls and traffic enforcement, by adding new residents to the area, such an increase is within the projected growth for the city, and LASD has indicated that there are no existing deficiencies. The proposed project would include design features that would deter criminal activity, such as security lights and gates. The proposed project would contribute applicable impact fees and applicable taxes that would fund the police station. As discussed in Section 3.15(b), the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to police protection.

November 3, 2022 | Page 100
Letter R10– [two residents, no names given] (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 101
R10. Response to Comments from [two residents, no names given], dated August 11, 2022.

R10-1 The commenter raises concern regarding the economic impact of multifamily residential units in the short and long term. Although economic effects of the project may be included in the IS/MND, evidence of economic impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment are beyond the scope of CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines 15131, PRC 21082.2(2)).

The commenter also raises concern regarding potential overcrowding and consequent damage to the building. As discussed in Section 1.3, Project Description, the lease agreement for the proposed project would limit the number of tenants per unit to two persons per bedroom and one person per living room (see page 12). As described in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of the IS/MND, the proposed project’s anticipated population and household generation is within the anticipated growth for the City. The proposed project would not generate unplanned nor indirect population growth.

Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on population or building infrastructure.

R10-2 The commenter expresses concern regarding overcrowding at schools. The addition of students generated by the proposed project to area schools would not substantially increase enrollment. Therefore, project-related impacts to school enrollment would be less than significant. Please refer to Response to Comment R9-1. Please refer to Section

3.15(c), Public Services, Schools, for more information.

R10-3 The commenter expresses concern regarding potential illegal dumping and current inaction to address current illegal dumping in other areas. The commenter suggests fining the property owner for illegal dumping if it is not handled immediately. However, no specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R10-4 The commenter recommends that the proposed project include condominiums instead of apartments because the commenter believes that homeowners will take better care of the property. However, no specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R10-5 The commenter expresses concern regarding the potential increase in traffic and speeding cars. With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the focus of transportation analysis for purposes of CEQA has shifted from vehicular delay or level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs. It would also implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies per the 2021 California Air Quality Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity as project design features that would decrease vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to maximizing mobility and accessibility in the region. Please refer to Section

3.17, Transportation, and Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis Report, The November 3, 2022 | Page 102
Mercury Project, City of Pico Rivera, California for more information. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter.

R10-6 The commenter expresses concern about the proposed project’s limited parking and potential parking overflow. Refer to Response to Comment R6-2.

November 3, 2022 | Page 103
Letter R11– Emmanuel Sandoval (2 pages)
November 3, 2022 | Page 104
November 3, 2022 | Page 105
R11. Response to Comments from Emmanuel Sandoval, dated August 12, 2022.

R11-1 The commenter expresses concern about the proposed project’s density and asks why the city would allow such a high increase in density. The proposed project includes discretionary approvals, such as Specific Plan approval and zone reclassification, zone code amendment, and General Plan amendment, which change the current zoning and land use designations on-site to Specific Plan (SP). The Specific Plan would allow for the proposed density. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter.

R11-2 The commenter states that there is no state or assembly bill that allows for the increase in density associated with the proposed project that is not 100% affordable. The proposed project is not seeking a density bonus pursuant to California Density Bonus law.

Nevertheless, the proposed project would include 13 affordable housing units. Refer to Response to Comment R11-1.

R11-3 The commenter expresses concern about local circulation issues resulting from project traffic and site access. Please refer to Section 3.17, Transportation, and the proposed project’s transportation study contained in Appendix F for a discussion of the proposed project’s transportation impacts. With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the focus of transportation analysis for purposes of CEQA has shifted from vehicular delay or level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Vehicle delay, i.e., traffic, is no longer a CEQA issue. As described in the Section 3.17, Transportation, of the IS/MND and Appendix F of the IS/MND (Transportation Impact Analysis Report), vehicular access to the project site will be accommodated via two driveways: one existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and one existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard. Other existing access points along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard are currently provided for the Pico Rivera Marketplace and will not change due to the proposed project. The existing Washington Boulevard driveway closest to the proposed project parking structure access point and located west of the existing McDonald’s fast-food restaurant, would remain and be improved in order to provide handicap accessibility. The commenter is correct that this location is not signalized and is the only eastbound leftturn lane/pocket between Rosemead Boulevard and Crossway Drive. The existing eastbound left-turn movement into the site from Washington Boulevard will continue to be facilitated by the existing eastbound left-turn lane/pocket and median break at this location. Please refer to Appendix F of the IS/MND for a full discussion of forecast project-related vehicle trips at this location. In addition to the vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) analysis, an access and circulation review was conducted as part of the “NonCEQA” operational analysis for the proposed project. Based on the review, it is concluded the proposed project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes will not cause or substantially extend vehicle queuing at the site driveways, including at this referenced eastbound left-turn traffic movement/location.

Please refer to Response to Comment A1-3, which discusses the separate proposed Metro project.

Finally, the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Project was prepared in consultation with City of Pico Rivera staff and the City’s Contract Traffic Consultants and in compliance with City of Pico Rivera’s latest guidelines. The report was reviewed and approved by the City’s Contract Traffic Engineer.

November 3, 2022 | Page 106
R11-4 The commenter suggests that the City should hold a town hall for the residents regarding the proposed project before any vote is cast. The commenter asks for information on the benefits that community residents will receive from the proposed project. The commenter also recommends that the proposed project construct townhomes instead of apartment units and believes that townhomes would bring greater value to the community. The commenter asserts that the approval of the proposed project would allow for more projects with a much higher housing density. The commenter opposes the housing density of the proposed project and lack of affordable housing.

The Applicant would develop a currently vacant lot with a residential and commercial mixed-use project. The City and Applicant undertook a public review process that exceeds the requirements of CEQA for an MND. The City held a public meeting for the proposed project on August 11, 2022 which was open to the public. Comments were received verbally and in writing and responded to herein. In addition, the applicant held two public outreach meetings on June 3, 2021 and November 18, 2021.

Please see Response to Comment R11-1 for a discussion of density and affordable housing. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project.

R12-1 The commenter states that a sofa that was improperly discarded is still present on the curb and asserts that the proposed project would bring similar issues. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R12-2 The commenter raises concern regarding potential increase in traffic on Washington Boulevard caused by the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment R10-5.

R12-3 The commenter raises concern with the proposed project’s impact on rent. The commenter is concerned that the property owner will fail to rent all the residential units and be forced to section them off. Although economic effects of the project may be included in the IS/MND, evidence of economic impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment are beyond the scope of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines 15131, PRC 21082.2(2)). The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R12-4 The commenter asks whether water will be a separate utility bill. Water will be provided to the proposed project in one master meter and each residential unit will have an individual submeter tracking water usage. The proposed project’s water demand is calculated and evaluated in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, which determined that the proposed project would be adequately served by existing water infrastructure and services. Pico Water District’s 2015 UWMP concludes there is an adequate and reliable supply of water to provide for existing demand and estimated growth through year 2040. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R12-5 The commenter suggests tripling the number of parking spaces to accommodate potential population growth. The commenter also recommends enforcing a cap on cars per dwelling. Refer to Response to Comment R6-2 for a discussion of project parking.

All resident policies will be outlined in the lease/rental agreement. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R12-6 The commenter opines that the City should build a project that brings in revenue while also being a community resource. No specific comments regarding the IS/MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

R12-7 The commenter expresses general opposition to the proposed project. No specific comments regarding the MND’s evaluation of environmental issues have been provided by the commenter. The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 112
Letter R13– Brad Morgan (1 page)
November 3, 2022 | Page 113
R13. Response to Comments from Brad Morgan, dated August 19, 2022.

R13-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the proposed project, including concern that the applicant is receiving special permission for the proposed project, which would cause other developers to apply for special zoning. The commenter states that the special zoning of the proposed project will increase unaffordable housing and displace people.

The proposed project seeks to change the current zoning designation of General Commercial (GC) to Specific Plan (SP) and add SP for the project site area to the Zoning Map. Additionally, the proposed project would change the current general plan land use designations of Mixed-Use/Housing Element Site Opportunity Area 8 (the Rosemead Boulevard and Washington Boulevard Opportunity Area) to SP. As detailed in Section

3.11, Land Use and Planning, the intent of the SP land use designation is to be used in combination with the underlying General Plan land use designations to allow for the creation of flexible standards. While the proposed project includes a zone change, zoning code amendment, and a General Plan amendment to redesignate the site as “Specific Plan,” the proposed project supports the intent of the current general plan land use designation on-site.

The City’s General Plan Housing Element identifies 13 areas within the city that have the potential to rezone to accommodate its housing needs under the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The project site is within the Housing Element’s Area 11, which proposes a mixed-use zone and minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.

The proposed project includes a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and five levels of residential units at a density of approximately 89.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would add diversity to the City’s housing stock by providing studio, junior one-bedroom, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units that would serve a range of income levels. The proposed project would also reserve 13 dwelling units as affordable housing. The proposed project is consistent with Goal 2, which encourages access to opportunities for affordable housing, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan Housing Element.

It would be speculative to assume that the proposed project would lead to other projects that would push current residents out. Although social effects of a project may be included in the IS/MND, evidence of social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment are beyond the scope of CEQA.

The City will consider all comments and recommendations as part of its decision-making for this project. No further response is necessary.

November 3, 2022 | Page 114
This page intentionally left blank.