Agenda packet — Pico Rivera City Council, January 24, 2023 (part 2 of 13)

to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 746, General Plan No. 57, Zone Code Amendment No. 187, Zone Reclassification No. 325, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2023, a legal notice was published in the Los Cerritos Newspaper, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 1,000- foot radius from the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing held on January 24, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared as part of this Project’s application, which was circulated in accordance with CEQA. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and find it adequate to assess the environmental impacts of the Project and there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. This approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera. The full record is available for review in the Community and Economic Development Department.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 18.56.090, Conditional Use Permits, of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code the City Council FINDS that the application meets the requirements and findings and therefore shall approve the development of a 255-unit, mixed use development containing 464 parking spaces for the following reasons:
a) The granting of this Conditional Use Permit will be in the interest of the public welfare as the construction of the multi-family residential development would redevelop a site that has been underutilized and is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 3.8-2 which promotes the reuse of vacant, underutilized and inefficient commercial uses for more economically productive purposes, including higher intensity businesses, housing and mixed-use development.

RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 3 of 12 ends

b) The project has been reviewed by utility and municipal agencies for infrastructure impacts and was found not to be a burden and will be adequately served. The mixed-use project will be consistent with the Mercury Specific Plan which must also be approved as part of this entitlement approval.
c) The subject property is suitable for development of this type as the project conforms to Mercury Specific Plan which encourages the development of apartment complexes and provides for the integration of developments and uses of land more closely related to multiple-family residential characteristics best suited to carry out the needs of the community. The project will observe required setbacks per the Mercury Specific Plan which are generally wider than those existing within the Pico Rivera Municipal Code.
d) A Traffic Impact Analysis Report was completed which included a project trip generation, a VMT screening assessment, and an assessment of the potential effects associated with the project. The study concluded that no significant impacts are expected with the project. The City’s traffic engineer reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and concluded that the traffic analysis is complete and accurate and is prepared based on the industry standard practice. e) Adequate consideration for the protection of the environment has been satisfactorily demonstrated pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.
f) The proposed use is consistent with provisions and objectives of the City of Pico Rivera General Plan Policy 5.1-4 which encourages land use decisions to enhance opportunities for development that is compact, walkable and transit oriented. A multi-family residential use is compatible with the surrounding uses and provides a service that is currently underserved in the area. The project site is in close proximity to a mix of commercial uses, thus creating the demand for this project and is conveniently located for residents in the area. g) A General Plan amendment has been submitted to incorporate the Mercury Specific Plan which meets the minimum criteria of Government Code Section 65450 that entails the inclusion of area span, circulation, standards for development and financing pertaining to the adoption of Specific Plans. h) Adequate consideration has been given to assure the conservation and stabilization of property values, the direction of development and land use planning of the area in which the use is proposed to be located and the peculiar RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 4 of 12 ends

suitability of such zone as the proposed development is maintained and consistent with the community’s overall planning goals and programs through the conditions of approval. General Plan Policy 4.1 supports the development of higher density housing along selected arterial corridors as a means to accommodate the City’s projected housing need. The site is zoned Mixed-Use and will accommodate 255 units that will be reserved for Above Moderate housing. The development of the units will help the City meet the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment as required by the State.

SECTION 4. Accordingly, the City Council APPROVES the site legally described on Attachment “A” attached herewith, Conditional Use Permit No. 746 to develop a 255-unit, three (3) to six (6) story mixed-use development containing 255 units and 464 parking spaces subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall comply with the development plans including all architectural detail, colors and specifications dated March 24, 2022 unless otherwise modified herein identified as Attachment “A”.

2. The applicant shall comply with the City of Pico Rivera Building Division requirements identified as Attachment “B”, dated January 25, 2022.

3. The applicant shall comply with the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department requirements identified as Attachment “C”, dated January 27, 2022.

4. The applicant shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department requirements identified as Attachment “D”, dated September 14, 2022.

5. The applicant shall comply with the Pico Water District requirements identified as Attachment “E”, dated November 12, 2021.

6. The applicant shall comply with the Master Sign Program identified as Attachment “F”, dated May 3, 2021.

7. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures as stipulated in the California Environmental Quality Act Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring Program identified as Attachment “G”, dated December 6, 2021.

8. The applicant shall comply with the requirements from Southern California Edison.

9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District.

RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 5 of 12 ends

OPERATIONAL

10.The applicant shall submit a shared driveway access easement per the Fire Department requirements as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report.

11.The apartment manager shall ensure that a Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman is on staff to manage and enforce public complaints regarding parking.

12.The apartment manager shall provide a mailer within 300 feet of the project site advising the public of the Community Liaison/Parking Ombudsman including a direct phone number. Complaints shall be returned within a 24-hour period.

13.The apartment manager shall provide records to the City at the City’s request of any violations or lease terminations that have occurred upon the City’s request.

14.The apartment manager shall ensure that occupancies per unit are not exceeded per the Strategic Market Analysis provided to the City. The lease agreement shall include language limiting occupancy to two people per bedroom plus one additional person. The apartment manager shall ensure this condition is being enforced.

15.The applicant shall install cameras throughout the facility and within the exterior parking and all common areas. All surveillance and security equipment shall be continuously maintained and in operation during business hours. The recordings shall be made available to the City/and or Sheriff’s Department upon request.

CONSTRUCTION-LANDSCAPING

16.A complete landscaped and irrigation plan for the project site shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval in conjunction with submittal of first working drawings for plan check.
a) The final landscape plan will adhere to the State Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Title 24, Part 11, Chapters 4 & 5 of the CalGreen Building Code) in terms of water and irrigation efficiency.
b) All landscaping areas shall be provided with automatic sprinkler system which shall guarantee an adequate supply of water to fulfill the intent of continual plant maintenance.
c) Landscape backflow devices are to be screened from view subject to planning approval.
d) Mature landscaping shall be planted adjacent to the single-family homes to provide immediate screening as determined and approved by the Planning Division.

CONSTRUCTION - UTILITIES
RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 6 of 12 ends

17.All on-site and overhead utility services shall be placed underground to the satisfaction of the City.

18.All utilities such as gas meters, electrical meters, telephone pedestal- mounted terminal boxes, surfaces mounted electrical transformer, fire hydrants and double-checked valves, or any other potential obstructions, shall not be located within the approved landscaped setbacks. Utilities shall be installed underground in a vault having an approved traffic lid.

19.Any mechanical equipment such as air conditioning compressors shall be completely screened as approved by the Planning Division.

CONSTRUCTION – LIGHTING

20.The applicant shall provide a lighting/photometric plan as part of the working/construction drawings.
a. The light fixtures shall be angled away from adjoining properties to prevent any glare off-site.
b. Lighting along walkways and open space areas shall be included to provide safe conditions.
c. Plans shall be approved by the Planning Division.

CONSTRUCTION – DUST CONTROL/EMISSIONS

21.Dust control operations shall be performed by the developer at the time, location and in the amount required and as often as necessary to prevent the excavation or fill work, demolition operation, or other activities from producing dust in amounts harmful to people or causing a nuisance to persons living nearby or occupying buildings in the vicinity of the work. The developer is responsible for compliance with Fugitive Dust Regulations issued by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD).

22.The applicant shall, at minimum, use equipment that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more in use a total of 20 hours or more, unless it can be demonstrated to the Community and Economic Development Department that such equipment is not commercially available. Where such equipment is not commercially available, as demonstrated by the construction contractor, Tier 3 equipment retrofitted with a California Air Resources Board’s Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) shall be used.

23.The applicant shall comply with permit requirements of the South Coast AirQuality Management District (SCAQMD’s Rule 403, Table 1) including but not limited to RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 7 of 12 ends

soil stabilization, proper equipment ventilation and filtering to minimize fugitive and control odors.
a. The applicant shall maintain the public right-of-way and on-site property in a wet down condition to the degree necessary to prevent dust emission and remove any roadway dust spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling.
b. All open storage piles above the height of three (3) feet and occupying an area of 150 or more square feet shall be covered.
c. All grading shall be suspended when wind speed (including instantaneous gusts) exceeds 25 miles per hour.
d. A wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) shall be utilized at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.
e. Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.

24.Prior to disruption of an on-site surface area, install a chain link fence with screen/wind preventive mesh along the perimeter construction limit line. The fence and screen shall be continuously maintained.

25.All trucks and construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition and trucks and construction equipment shall be stored overnight on-site in a secured area in order to minimize truck trips.

26.The applicant shall place all stationary construction equipment so that noiseis directed away from sensitive receptors.

27.All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.

28.Under state law, trucks are prohibited from idling for longer than five minutes, unless they have an Air Quality Management District “Clean-Idle” sticker indicating the engine has very low emissions under idle conditions.

29. All haul truck deliveries shall be subject to the same hours specified for construction. A haul truck route plan shall be provided to the Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to the commencement of any construction activities.

CONSTRUCTION – NOISE/VIBRATION

30.The applicant shall post temporary signs on-site to advise construction workers of quite zones near the single-family homes. Within the quiet zones, there shall RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 8 of 12 ends

be no loud music or excessive noise.

31.The applicant shall post three large laminated or vinyl signs with lettering two (2) inches high providing a complaint phone number where residents can call for noise, vibration or other complaints. The applicant shall ensure that the calls are answered within one (1) hour of receiving the call. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Division.

32.A Noise Study shall be provided and certified by a licensed engineer to the City describing and quantifying the noise sources impacting the building and measures required to meet the 45 db CNEL interior noise level. Detailed calculations will be required to demonstrate a building achieves the interior noise standard of 45 db CNEL. The study shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to building permit issuance.
.

33.Prior to issuance of building permits, a certified vibration study shall be prepared by a qualified licensed vibration engineer and submitted to the City. The report shall describe and quantify the vibration sources impacting the surrounding uses and shall include the soil content, foundation, framing and the measures required to reduce the vibration transmitting into the structure and ensure vibration levels are consistent with the Pico Rivera General Plan.

CONSTRUCTION- STORM WATER

34.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit as part of the final grading plan, a comprehensive water runoff and sedimentation control plan. The Plan shall detail the measures to be implemented to control runoff from the construction sites and preventative measures from water sheet flowing across property lines Erosion Control measures shall be include but are not limited to, scheduling major grading activities during the dry season, use of site watering or dust blankets to control devices during grading. The developer shall comply with the requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

35.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be developed in compliance with Storm Water Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control Mitigation Plan Ordinance adopted and amended by theCity of Pico Rivera.

36.A Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan must be prepared for this site as approved by the Public Works Department.

CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN

37.Drainage gutters, downspouts and similar features shall be completed enclosed and run onto landscape areas.

RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 9 of 12 ends

38.The applicant shall submit details (detailed color board) regarding exterior materials including all features and materials as shown on the plans submitted (Attachment A) including but not limited to, decorative metal items, trim, light fixtures, colored doors, shutters etc. within Building Division Plan Check submittal for Planning Division review and approval. The applicant must demonstrate the exterior building materials are of quality grade and high durability and will not fade.

The applicant shall provide manufacturers information including durability grade.

39.The applicant shall ensure that all property easements are shown on the construction drawings.

40.The applicant shall submit design and calculations and obtain permit and inspection for all development perimeter and retaining walls from the Building Division.

41.Any proposed roof top equipment shall be completely concealed by a parapet wall or screening approved by the Planning Division. As part of the working/construction drawings, the applicant shall provide an elevation showing all roof top equipment is screened.

42.The applicant shall obtain approval from the trash hauling company for the exact size of the trash enclosures and bins required for a project of this size.

43.A 6 to 8 block wall shall be constructed at the rear property lines adjacent to the single-family homes as determined by the City. The applicant shall remove the existing fencing provided permission from the property owners is obtained as approved by the City.

44.Wheel-stops shall be provided and shall be installed not less than 6-inches high and placed to separate parked vehicles from buildings, wall, fences, property lines, walkways or other parking spaces.

OTHER

45.The applicant shall pay a voluntary public benefit fee of $250,000 for public infrastructure and/or public safety to be paid upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

46.The applicant to ensure that all contractors and subcontractors obtain a City of Pico Rivera Business License.

47.The applicant shall commit to conducting outreach to hire construction firms locally.

48.Per the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the applicant shall provide an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program in order to safely mange suspect RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 10 of 12 ends

asbestos-containing material (ACMs) and lead based paint (LBP) located at the subject site.

49.Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contact the United States Post Office with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan or landscape plan and approved by the Planning Division.

50.All construction hours shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Sunday through Saturday.

51.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fee as required by Ordinance No. 887, the Public Image Enhancement Program and fee schedule.

52.All conditions of approval must be listed on the plans submitted for plan check and on the plans for which a building permit is issued.

53.Within five working days, the applicant shall file the Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Recorder. The applicant shall provide proof to the City prior to Plan Check submittal.

54.Failure to comply with all conditions of approval set forth herein may result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.

55.Pursuant to Sections 18.56.110 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, the Zoning Administrator may grant minor modification or set this permit for public hearing at any time to consider modification of any condition or revocation of the permit if noncompliance with the conditions of approval is found.

56.The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, or employees arising out of, or which are related to the applicant’s project or application (collectively referred to as “proceedings”). The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred or awarded in connection with the proceedings whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceedings. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant’s obligation to indemnify the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth herein. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City’s interest in the proceedings.

57.The applicant shall sign, notarize, and return to the Community and Economic Development Department an affidavit accepting all Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 746 prior to submittal of construction plans for plan RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 11 of 12 ends

check. The applicant acknowledges and understands that all conditions set forth in this Resolution are conditions precedent to the grant of approval and failure to comply with any condition contained herein shall render this Conditional Use Permit non-binding as against the City and shall confer applicant no legal rights under the law.

58.The applicant shall be responsible for providing the Community and Economic Development Department with a signed and notarized affidavit from the project contractor and/or individual responsible for the overall construction management accepting all Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 746, prior to building permit issuance. The subject individual acknowledges and understands that all conditions set forth in this Resolution are conditions precedent to the grant of approval andfailure to comply with any condition contained herein shall render the Conditional Use Permit non-binding as against the City and shall confer Applicant no legal right under the law.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND PASSED this 24th day of January 2023.
___________________________
Erik Lutz, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ ________________________________ Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RESOLUTION NO. ____

Page 12 of 12 ends

Attachment A
Conditional Use Permit No. 746
Assessor Parcel Number 6370-027-018
8825 Washington Boulevard, Pico Rivera CA 90660
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s www.danielian.com 949.474.6030 3/24/2022 SHEET INDEX A.01 A.02 A.03 A.04 A.05 PROJECT SUMMARY SITE PLAN TRASH / RECYCLING PLAN FIRE ACCESS PLAN A.10 A.11 A.18 UNIT PLANS A.19 UNIT PLANS A.06 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.07 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.08 A.09 A.12 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 AMENITY DECK FLOOR PLAN A.17 A. R1 A. R2 DEVELOPER: Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 A.21 BUILDING SECTIONS SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL 1 - PARKING PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN 3RD FLOOR PLAN 6TH FLOOR PLAN A.20 UNIT PLANS RENDERING RENDERING OPEN SPACE PLAN A.00 SHADOW STUDY A. R3 BUILDING SECTIONS PICO RIVERA, CA COVER SHEET RENDERING A.22 COLORS & MATERIALS EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS A. R4 RENDERINGS LINE OF SIGHT ANALYSIS L-1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - ROOF TERRACE L-3 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - GROUND LEVEL AMENITY L-4 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - PERIMETER WALL & PILASTER L-5 4TH FLOOR PLAN 5TH FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN A.23 A.25 L-6 PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE - IMAGE BOARD L-7 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - LIGHTING PLAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - PERIMETER FENCE & PILASTER COURTYARD ELEVATIONS A.24 A. R5 RENDERINGS ATTACHMENT A Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 VIEW FROM WASHINGTON BLVD A.R1 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 ENTRY PLAZA / STREET SCENE AT WASHINGTON BLVD A.R2 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 STREET FRONT ALONG WASHINGTON BLVD. A.R3 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 VIEW OF MAIN ENTRANCE LOBBY AND LEASING OFFICE FROM LA FITNESS A.R4 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 VIEW OF AMENITY ROOF DECK A.R5 1 23 1 2 3 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 4/18/2022 PROJECT SUMMARY A.00 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT INFORMATION DEVELOPER: MERCURY BOWL, LLC: GREEN RIVERA, LLC 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-2323 ARCHITECT: DANIELIAN ASSOCIATES 60 CORPORATE PARK IRVINE, CA 92606 TEL: 949.474.6030 CONTACT: MICHAEL BOYD JOANN LEE KIM CIVIL: BUILDING UNIT SUMMARY PARKING CALCULATIONS VICINITY MAP N.T.S N UNIT MIX BY FLOOR GOVERNING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) 2017 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE ( CALGreen) SITE URBAN RESOURCE CIVIL ENGINEER 23 MAUCHLY, SUITE 110 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: 949.727.9095 CONTACT: JAY RUBY SITE ADDRESS: 8825 WASHINGTON BLVD. PICO RIVERA, CA 90660 APN NO. 6370-037-018 TREET
B
WV'S
AT-13 164.27
MH
V V V
F/H
V
S
V
S
S
M
M
M
S
S
200.7
177.6
177.6
176.9
179.8
180.1
178.6
181.1
S
F/H
M
AT-15 163.88
M
AT-14 164.64
FP FP
165
165
NO
PARKING NO PARKING HC van HC BIKE RACKS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE EVCS VAN EVCS EVCS HC USPS PRKG EASEMENT 22.5'X23.5' PME 11 6.5'X11.5' 10'x12' SLAB EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN DW
DW
DW

BIRCHLEAF AVE. McDonald's LA Fitness Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 N 0' SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' SITE PLAN A.01 PROPERTY LINE LEGEND SETBACK SECURITY FENCE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL WASHINGTON BLVD GOODBEE ST.BIRCHLEAF AVE. McDonald's LA Fitness PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE T ADA T T
ADA LOW ROOF 3-STORY ROOF 4-STORY ROOF 5-STORY ROOF 5-STORY WALKWAY TO EXIT ROOF DECK POOL OPEN TO PARKING OPEN TO PARKING TREET
B
WV'S
AT-13 164.27
MH
V V V
F/H
V
S
V
S
S
M
M
S
M
S
S
200.7
177.6
177.6
176.9
179.8
180.1
178.6
181.1
S
F/H
M
AT-15 163.88
M
AT-14 164.64
FP FP
165
165
NO
PARKING NO PARKING Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 OPEN SPACE PLAN N 0' SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' A.02 OPEN SPACE CALCULATION COMMON OPEN SPACE (GROUND FLOOR) TOTAL: 47,465 SF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CALCULATION BUSINESS CENTER (2ND FLOOR) 1,685 SF ROOF DECK 13,580 SF COMMUNITY ROOM (ROOF DECK) 3,430 SF 28,770 SF COMMUNITY ROOM BUSINESS CENTER 35'-0" 35'-0"
20'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 26'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0"
TREET
B
WV'S
AT-13 164.27
V
MH
V
V V V
F/H
V
S
V
S
S
M
M
M
S
S
200.7
177.6
177.6
176.9
179.8
180.1
178.6
181.1
S
F/H
M
AT-15 163.88
M
AT-14 164.64
FP FP
165
165
NO
PARKING NO PARKING HC van HC BIKE RACKS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE EVCS VAN EVCS EVCS HC USPS PRKG EASEMENT 22.5'X23.5' PME 11 6.5'X11.5' 10'x12' SLAB EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN DW
DW
DW

BIRCHLEAF AVE. McDonald's LA Fitness
28'-0"
50'-7"
28'-0" 28'-0"
63'-8" 10'-0"
10'-0" 150 ft 150 ft 148 ft 150 ft 58 ft PR. FH EX. FH EX. FH EX. FH Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 N 0' SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' A.03 FIRE ACCESS PLAN FIRE LANE LEGEND 28'-0" TRUCK TURNING RADIUS 32'-0" HOSE PULL DISTANCE 150' KB KNOX BOX 28'-0" 28'-0" FIRE LANE LEGEND
28'-0" TRUCK TURNING RADIUS 32'-0" HOSE PULL DISTANCE 150' KB KNOX BOX 28'-0" 28'-0" PR. FH EX. FH KB KB KB KB PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT TREET
B
WV'S
AT-13 164.27
MH
V V V
F/H
V
S
V
S
S
M
M
M
S
S
200.7
177.6
177.6
176.9
179.8
180.1
178.6
181.1
S
F/H
M
AT-15 163.88
M
AT-14 164.64
FP FP
165
165
NO
PARKING NO PARKING HC van HC BIKE RACKS CLEAN AIR VEHICLE EVCS VAN EVCS EVCS HC USPS PRKG EASEMENT 22.5'X23.5' PME 11 6.5'X11.5' 10'x12' SLAB EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN DW
DW
DW

BIRCHLEAF AVE. McDonald's LA Fitness Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 N 0' SCALE 3/64" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' A.04 TRASH / RECYCLING PLAN Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 A.05 EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 9 5 48 7 6 KEY MAP 10 9 11 4 7 1 2 3 5 6 8 12 13 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 SHADOW STUDY SUMMER WINTER A.06 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 5:00 PM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 5:00 PM Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 A.07 LINE OF SIGHT ANALYSIS KEY MAP 3 2 1 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 VIEW FROM THE CORNER OF CARRON AND KELTONVIEW VIEW FROM THE CORNER OF CARRON AND CROSSWAY VIEW FROM WASHINGTON AVE. VIEW FROM BIRCHLEAF AVE. VIEW FROM GOODBEE STREET Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.08 SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD) NORTH ELEVATION 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' 13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6" 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6" 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6"
11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 1 CEMENT PLASTER 234567 METAL GUARDRAIL 8 STONE VENEER VERTICAL SIDING METAL FASCIA ELEVATION KEY NOTES TRELLISES STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL COLUMN F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 5 4 1 3 2 7 8 T.O. MAIN RF. T.O. MAIN RF. 64'-7"
66'-7"
11'-6" T.O. RF.
11'-1" T.O. MAIN RF.
64'-7"
64'-7" T.O. MAIN RF. South Elevation North Elevation
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.09 EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 1 CEMENT PLASTER 234567 METAL GUARDRAIL 8 STONE VENEER VERTICAL SIDING METAL FASCIA ELEVATION KEY NOTES TRELLISES STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL COLUMN 5 4 1 3 7 2 811'-6" 11'-6" 10'-6" F.F.
11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. T.O. MAIN RF. 64'-7"
11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
66'-7" T.O. MAIN RF.
66'-7"
11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
64'-7" T.O. RF.
11'-1"
11'-1" T.O. RF. West Elevation East Elevation
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 COURTYARD ELEVATIONS A.10 WEST ELEVATION 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' 13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 1 CEMENT PLASTER 234567 METAL GUARDRAIL 8 STONE VENEER VERTICAL SIDING METAL FASCIA ELEVATION KEY NOTES TRELLISES STOREFRONT SYSTEM METAL COLUMN 3 5 2 810'-6" F.F. 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
66'-7"
11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
64'-7" T.O. RF.
11'-1" East West South EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 5 3 1 5 1 1 2 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
64'-7"
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 BUILDING SECTIONS A.11 SECTION 1 SECTION 2 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. 6F5F4F3F2FF.F. F.F. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PARKING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING ROOF DECK AMENITY V E S T I B U L E 1 2 1 2
11'-6" T.O. MAIN RF.
10'-6" 11'-6" T.O.RF.
11'-6"
11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" F.F.
10'-6" T.O. MAIN RF. GAR. ENTRY
66'-7"
64'-7" T.O. MAIN RF.
11'-1"
11'-6"
64'-7" T.O. MAIN RF.
11'-1"T.O. RF.
66'-7"
2'-0" +166.5 +177.58 +188.08 +198.58 +209.08 +219.58 +231.08 +172.04 +161.25 +156 +166.5 +177.58 +188.08 +198.58 +209.08 +219.58 +231.08 +166.5 2'-0"+166.5 +177.58 +188.08 +198.58 +209.08 +219.58 +231.08 6F5F4F3F2F6F5F4F3F2F +156 +182.83 +193.33 +203.83 +214.33 +224.83 +166.5 +177.58 +188.08 +198.58 +209.08 +219.58 +231.08 10'-6"
Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. CORR. STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIRPARKING Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 BUILDING SECTIONS A.12 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' 11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6"
13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6"
11'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6"
13'-1" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 11'-6"
10'-6" F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. F.F. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PET SPA UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT COURTYARD UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PARKING GAR. ENTRY UNIT→ PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING AMENITY UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT RETAIL UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING

C O R R I D O R

S T A I R C A S E

C O R R I D O R

S T A I R C A S E

C O R R I D O R

S T A I R C A S E
C O R R I D O R 3 3 4 4
V E S T I B U L E T.O.RF. T.O. MAIN RF. T.O. MAIN RF. UNIT T.O.RF.

C O R R I D O R
64'-7"
11'-6" T.O. RF.
64'-7" T.O. MAIN RF.
11'-1"
66'-7"
66'-7"

ELEVATOR

UP UPDN ELEV MECH RM ELEV MECH RM ELEV ELEV
BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 N 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL 1 PARKING PLAN A.13 124'-4" 208'-2" BUILDING PROFILE ABOVE BUILDING PROFILE ABOVE

EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN
DW
DW
DW

DW UP UPDN ELEV MECH RMBIKE RACKS
DW DW MAIL RM / PKG DELIVERY LEASING TRASH ELEC. ELEC. DN TRASH RECYCLE DOG SPA ELEV MECH RM ELEV ELEV COMMERCIAL / RETAIL UP
DNMECH. SHAFT BIKE PARKING LOADING/ MOVE-IN UP
DW DN RAMP DOWN 1:20 MAX. SLOPE DN HC van HC EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP RETAIL - TRASH HOLDING AREA RETAIL - LOADING GROUND LEVEL PARKING U-2D U-1JR U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A Studio Studio Studio Studio U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1B U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A TRANSFORMER SECURED BIKE STORAGE 17'x13' BIKE RACKS +166.5 +166.5 +165.5 +166 HIGH SPEED ROLL-UP GATE UP UP ADA T ADA ADA T ADA UP RAISED TERRANCE V S S
S
NO
PARKING NO Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 GROUND FLOOR PLAN N A.14 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 65'-6" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4" 35'-5" 35'-0" 4,785 SF
1,715 SF CORRIDOR 945 SF 6'-0" 27'-4" 3'-11" 23'-5"
184'-3"
76'-5" 44'-4" 53'-5" 10'-0" 33'-4" 13'-11" 10'-0" 7'-7" 32'-5" 49'-4" 40'-0"
UPDN MECH. SHAFT
DW DW
DW
DW
DW

DW BUSINESS
DW UPDN UP DN EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS MECH. SHAFT UP DN UP DN DN HC van HC STOR ELEV SECURED BIKE STORAGE 17'x13' EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN U-1JR U-2A U-2A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-2D U-2D U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A Studio Studio Studio Studio Studio U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1B U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A Studio Studio U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 2nd FLOOR PLAN N A.15 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 12'-4" 53'-2" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4"
W D DW
DW DW
DW

DW W D DW
DW

DW UPDN
DW UPDN MECH. SHAFT UP DN EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS MECH. SHAFT UP DN DN EVCS van HC STOR ELEV EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN U-1JR U-3A U-2A U-2A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-2D U-2D Studio Studio Studio Studio Studio HC van U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1B U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A Studio Studio U-1A U-1A UP DN U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL SECURED BIKE STORAGE 17'x13' BIKE RACKS

BIKE RACKS
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 3rd FLOOR PLAN N A.16 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 12'-4" 53'-2" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4"
W D DW

DW DW DW
DW

DW UPDN
DW ROOF 3-STORY UPDN MECH. SHAFT UP DN EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS MECH. SHAFT UP DN DN HC HC STOR ELEV EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN EVCS van HC EVCS U-1JR U-3A U-2A U-2A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-2D U-2D Studio Studio Studio Studio Studio U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A Studio Studio U-1A U-1A UP DN U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS SECURED STORAGE 17'x13' Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 4th FLOOR PLAN N A.17 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 12'-4" 53'-2" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4"

DW DW W D DW

DW LOW ROOF

DW UPDN
DW 3-STORY ROOF 4-STORY UPDN MECH. SHAFT UP DN EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS MECH. SHAFT UP DN DN HC STOR ELEV HC EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS UP DN U-1JR U-3A U-2A U-2A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-2D U-2D Studio Studio Studio Studio Studio U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A Studio Studio U-1A U-1A UP DN U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL SECURED STORAGE 17'x13' Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 5th FLOOR PLAN N A.18 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 12'-4" 53'-2" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4"

DW DW W D DW
DW

DW DN DN
DW LOW ROOF 3-STORY ROOF 4-STORY ROOF 5-STORY ROOF 5-STORY UPDN MECH. SHAFT EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS MECH. SHAFT DN DN HC STOR ELEV EVCS EVCS HC UP DN TO 5TH LEVEL PARKING 6TH LEVEL PARKING 5.5TH LEVEL PARKING OPEN TO SKY 42" H CONC. WALL EVCS EVCS U-1JR U-3A U-2A U-2A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-1JR U-2D U-2D Studio U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2C U-2B U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1A U-1B U-1A U-1A Studio Studio U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-2A U-1JR U-1A U-1A U-1JR U-1JR 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL 3HR WL DN BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS SECURED STORAGE 17'x15' OPEN TO SKY LINE OF AMENITY DECK ABOVELINE OF AMENITY DECK ABOVE LINE OF AMENITY DECK ABOVE Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 6th FLOOR PLAN N A.19 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' UNIT TYPE LEGEND 3-BEDROOM UNITS (1,532 SF) 2-BEDROOM UNITS (929 - 1,001 SF) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (601 - 610 SF) JR 1-BEDROOM UNITS (576 SF) STUDIO UNITS (544 SF) 365'-0" 12'-4" 53'-2" 44'-7" 254'-10" 18'-5" 35'-9"
282'-9" 360'-10" 161'-8" 199'-2"
275'-8"
137'-4" 138'-4"

T ADA T T
ADA LOW ROOF 3-STORY ROOF 4-STORY ROOF 5-STORY ROOF 5-STORY DN MECH. SHAFT ELEV AMENITY SPACE 1,500 SF (30'X50') DN WALKWAY TO EXIT ROOF DECK OPEN TO PARKING BELOW (5.5 LEVEL) POOL 40' x 20' POOL EQUP. WM MULI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY RM 1,170 SF (27'X43') OPEN TO PARKING BELOW 38'X19' (760 SF) CO-WORKING CONF. RM. BEER GARDEN FIRE PIT & SITTING AREA OUTDOOR KITCHEN / BBQ ROOF DECK OUTDOOR YOGA / EXERCISE ROOF 6-STORY ROOF 6-STORY Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 AMENITY DECK FLOOR PLAN N A.20 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' HEAT PUMP TYP. HEAT PUMP TYP. HEAT PUMP TYP.

T ADA T T
ADA LOW ROOF 3-STORY ROOF 4-STORY ROOF 5-STORY ROOF 5-STORY WALKWAY TO EXIT ROOF DECK POOL OPEN TO PARKING OPEN TO PARKING Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 ROOF PLAN N A.21 0' SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 10' 20' 40' HEAT PUMP TYP. HEAT PUMP TYP. HEAT PUMP TYP.

DW Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 UNIT PLANS A.22 0' SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1' 5' 10' UNIT-1B UNIT-1A UNIT-1JR 1-BEDROOM (593 S.F.) JR 1-BEDROOM (576 S.F.) STUDIO (544 S.F.) 24'-8" 13'-4" 11'-4" 24'-8" 13'-4" 11'-4" 22'-0" 10'-6" 11'-6" 21'-8" 10'-2" 11'-6" 29'-6"
3'-4" 19'-8" 6'-6"
29'-6"
15'-9" 12'-9"
3'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" 4'-11" 7'-7"
29'-6"
29'-6"
5'-9" 11'-1112" 2'-0" 9'-912"
29'-6"
3'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" 12'-6"
29'-6"
5'-9" 11'-1112" 2'-0" 9'-912" 1-BEDROOM (618 S.F.) BATH BALCONY 60 SF BALCONY 70 SF BALCONY 84 SF BALCONY 60 SF LIVING 12'-6" x 11'-0" KITCHEN BATH BED 11'-3" x 11'-3" KITCHEN BED 11'-3" x 11'-0" GREAT ROOM 12'-2" x 18'-8" BATH LIVING 10'-6" x 12'-2" BED 10'-6" x 11'-2" LIVING SPACE 21'-0" x 12'-2" KITCHEN BATH KITCHEN 29'-6"
11'-10" 11'-11" 5'-9"
29'-6"
15'-9" 10'-9" 3'-0"
1'-0"
DW
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 UNIT PLANS A.23 0' SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1' 5' 10' UNIT-2B UNIT-2A 2-BEDROOM (1,037 S.F.) 2-BEDROOM (946 S.F.) KITCHEN UNIT-2C 2-BEDROOM (956 S.F.) UNIT-2D 2-BEDROOM (997 S.F.) BALCONY 75 SF BALCONY 92 SF BALCONY 93 SF BALCONY 182 SF LIVING 13'-4" x 10'-1" M. BATH W.I.C. M. BED 11'-7" x 11'-8" BATH 2 BED 2 11'-7" x 11'-8" W.I.C. M. BATH M. BED 14'-3" x 12'-6" KITCHEN LIVING 17'-0" x 14'-0" BATH 2 BED 2 11'-9" x 11'-4" M. BED 12'-10" x 13'-0" M. BATH KITCHEN LIVING 13'-0" x 11'-8" BATH 2 W.I.C. BED 2 11'-1" x 10'-10" KITCHEN LIVING 14'-6" x 13'-7" M. BED 11'-0" x 11'-0" M. BATH BATH 2 BED 2 10'-6" x 11'-0" 44'-6" 12'-0" 17'-9" 14'-9" 37'-8" 11'-10" 13'-11" 11'-10" 29'-6"
3'-0" 22'-10" 3'-8" 37'-6" 15'-0" 11'-3" 11'-3"
32'-2"
11'-6" 2'-7" 11'-5" 6'-8"
29'-6"
9'-7" 2'-7" 14'-4" 3'-0"
32'-2"
11'-8" 14'-4" 6'-2"
28'-512" 12'-1" 2'-0" 12'-5" 2'-0"
33'-6"
14'-0" 7'-6" 6'-6" 5'-6" 36'-0" 6'-6" 5'-9" 11'-10" 4'-2" 7'-9" 28'-6"
2'-0" 12'-5" 6'-6" 7'-7" 11'-712" 5'-0" 16'-1012" 33'-6" W D DW Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 UNIT PLAN A.24 0' SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1' 5' 10' UNIT-3A 3-BEDROOM (1,637 S.F.) M. BED 15'-4" x 16'-2" M. BATH KITCHEN W.I.C. BALCONY 158 SF LIVING 16'-8" x 14'-6" DINING 12'-0" x 13'-0" BED 2 11'-3" x 11'-9" BED 3 11'-7" x 11'-9" BATH 2 LAUN. 41'-0" 23'-11" 10'-7" 6'-6" 49'-9"
6'-6" 11'-8" 15'-3" 16'-4"
49'-9"
12'-6" 2'-0" 14'-0" 6'-10" 14'-5" 41'-0" 3'-412 7'-1 7'-3" 8'-3" 15'-0" " 12" P. MOVABLE COUNTER 5'-6" 5'-6" 7'-4"
Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use PICO RIVERA, CA DANIELIAN A S S O C I A T E S a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n e r s 19098.00 3/24/2022 COLORS AND MATERIALS A.25 1 CEMENT PLASTER FINISH COLOR: Dunn-Edwards DE6218, Antique Paper 2 CEMENT PLASTER FINISH COLOR: Dunn-Edwards DE6376, Looking Glass 4 3 CEMENT PLASTER FINISH COLOR: Dunn-Edwards DE5782, By the Bayou CEMENTITIOUS VERTICAL SIDING FINISH COLOR: Dunn-Edwards DET681, Modeme Class 5 METAL RAILINGS / ACCENT COLOR Dunn-Edwards DE6343, Salem Black 6 WINDOWS / STOREFRONT FINISH COLOR: Milgard Windows and Doors Bronze 8 MANUF. STONE VENEER 7 BALCONY RAILING Eldorado Stone Seashell - Cut Coarse Stone 1 2 1 28 4 3 1 6 5,7 821 21 4 1 2 3 4 8 5,7 6 5,7 6 5,7 5

The Mercury Preliminary Plant Palette - Image Board
Optimus Properties, LLC. | 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100 | Los Angeles, CA 90067 | March 23, 2022 DANA POINT CA 92629
34197 COAST HWY SUITE 200
(949) 443-1446
SUMMERS/MURPHY & PARTNERS, INC.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S I G N
SMP Job No. 742141
L-4

ARBUTUS 'MARINA'

MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE

STRELITZIA NICOLAI

GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE

FICUS MICROCARPA 'NITIDA'

INDIAN LAUREL FIG

CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS

MEDITERRANEAN FAN PALM
LAGERSTROEMIA I. 'NATCHEZ'

NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE
AEONIUM A. 'ZWARTKOPF'

PURPLE AEONIUM

AEONIUM CANARIENSE

CANARY ISLAND AEONIUM

AGAVE AMERICANA

CENTURY PLANT

AGAVE ATTENUATA

FOXTAIL AGAVE

AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW'

BLUE GLOW AGAVE

ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR

CAST IRON PLANT
ASPARAGUS D. 'MYERS'

FOXTAIL FERN

CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM

CAPE RUSH
DIANELLA T. 'VARIEGATA'

VARIEGATED FLAX LILY
FURCRAEA F. 'MEDIOPICTA'

MAURITIUS HEMP

PHILODENDRON 'XANADU'

XANADU PHILODENDRON

PHORMIUM 'AMAZING RED'

AMAZING RED FLAX
ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS'

TRAILING ROSEMARY

SANSEVIERIA HYBRID

SNAKE PLANT

SENECIO MANDRALISCAE

BLUE CHALKSTICKS
WESTRINGIA F. 'WYNABBIE GEM'

WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY

SENECIO VITALIS

NARROW-LEAF CHALKSTICKS
PRUNUS C. 'COMPACTA'

COMPACT CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL

LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS

BRISBANE BOX

PYRUS CALLERYANA

FLOWERING PEAR

WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA

CALIFORNIA FAN PALM

ARCHONTOPHOENIX ALEXANDRAE

KING PALM

* * * BUILDING & SAFETY COMMENTS* * *
Conditional Use Permit NO. 746
Case Planner: Julia Gonzalez
Applicant: Jerome Mickelson
Location: 8825 Washington Blvd
Project: New Mix Use Development Approximately 488,000 sq ft, retail and residential.

Reviewed By: Jonathan Flores Date: 11/15/2022

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Indicate on the cover sheet the applicable codes. Note projects submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 California Building Codes.

2. Indicate any deferred submittal; Fire Protection System, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, Electrical Plans.

3. Health Department review and approval are required for food preparation and public pools.

4. Fire department review and approval is required for R-2 occupancy.

5. Note on plans: “Frontage used for allowable area increase per CBC Section 506.2 shall be permanently maintained.

6. For mixed-used occupancies, the allowable area per story shall be based on the most restrictive provisions for each occupancy when the mixed occupancies are treated according to CBC 508.3.2

7. Provide Details, notes, and specifications for the fire protection of elements as required for the type of construction. CBC Table 601 and Section 602

8. Clearly label and identify on plans fire-resistivities corridors, exists enclosures, exit passageways, horizontal exits, occupancy separation walls and floors, fire-resistive shafts, and firewalls, along with their fire-resistive ratings.

9. Grading plans shall be submitted to the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department under separate submittal. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off.

10. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods, to an approved location – public street, public drainage system, etc. Note subterranean parking

11. The City of Pico Rivera is shown to be subject to liquefaction under earthquake loading. This project will be required to conduct geotechnical investigations to address the potential for liquefaction and differential settlement due to earthquake

ATTACHMENT B
ground motions. California Building Code (CBC) Sections 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 require reporting and submittal of such investigations, including recommended liquefaction mitigation measures, to the Building Official. The geotechnical engineer preparing the investigation will also need to sign and stamp the foundation plans for the structures.

12. Parking Calculation shall reflect on plans; Accessible parking space and electric vehicle charging station. Note EVCS- Van Accessible parking space.

13. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible buildings or facilities entrances they serve. Where more than one route is provided, all routes must be accessible. §11B-206.2.1

14. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site. §11B-206.2.2

15. The CBC requires guards to be provided when roof mounted appliances, equipment, fans or other components that require service are located within 10 feet of a roof edge or open side of a walking surface and such edge or open side is located more than 30 inches above the floor, roof or grade below. The guard shall be constructed so as to prevent the passage of a sphere 21 inches in diameter. The guards shall extend a minimum of 30 inches beyond each piece of equipment, appliance, fan or component. The guard should extend a minimum of 42 inches high above the surface of the roof. Show on the plans the minimum 10 feet of clearance from the new mechanical equipment to the roof edge or walking surface edge. Or, include thorough details on the mechanical plans indicating where guards are provided and how the guards are to be constructed. If parapets are provided, to demonstrate compliance with CBC requirements, indicate the location and height of the parapets above the roof surface on the mechanical plans. (CBC 1013.5)

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Residential Code
c. California Electrical Code
d. California Mechanical Code
e. California Plumbing Code
f. California Energy Code
g. California Fire Code
h. California Green Building Standards Code
i. Pico Rivera Municipal Code

2. Any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project shall comply with City Code.

3. All lot lines, easement lines, etc. shall be located in such a manner as to not cause any structure to become non-conforming with the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the Building Code, or any other applicable law, ordinance, or code.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

1. Plans shall be approved by City of Pico Rivera Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and where applicable Los Angeles County Department of Public Works – Industrial Waste Unit and the Los Angeles County Health Department prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.

Los Angeles County Fire Department
5823 Rickenbacker Rd.

Commerce, CA 90040
(323) 890-4125
Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works
900 S Freemont Ave.

Alhambra, CA 91803
(626) 458-5100 Ext. 3517
Los Angeles County Health
Department
5050 Commerce Dr.

Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 430-5560

2. Development Fees will be required to be paid to both the School District and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department prior to issuance of Building Permits.

3. The following items shall be completed and/or submitted to Building & Safety – as applicable – prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:
a. Precise grading plans shall be approved
b. Rough grading completed
c. Compaction certification
d. Pad elevation certification
e. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Inspector

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 27, 2022
TO: Planning Division
FROM: Engineering Division
SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8825 WASHINGTON BLVD – APN 6370-027-018
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed development and provides the following conditions of approval pertaining to the subject project:

GENERAL

1. Pay permit and inspection fees associated with this project in accordance with the latest fee schedule at the time of permit issuance and inspection.

2. Developer shall deposit $20,000 with the City to cover the City’s costs incurred in reviewing the project plans, including the costs of traffic, civil, planning and environmental consultants.

3. Comply with the City’s Community Development Ordinance pertaining to construction debris recycling. Contact the Building Division to obtain a Construction & Demolition Debris Waste Reduction Recycling Plan form(s).

4. Developer shall coordinate with NASA Services at (888) 888-0388 to provide proper construction waste disposal container(s), including facilities for recycling.

5. Developer must comply with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regulations.

6. Sight distance lines shall meet AASHTO guidelines and shall be shown on the improvement plans at intersections and/or driveways.

7. All public and private signage and markings for vehicular traffic shall conform to the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD).

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

8. Grading and drainage plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the

ATTACHMENT C
satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Division. The project shall drain to the street through a parkway drain(s) or storm drain system whenever possible. Show all existing and proposed driveways, curb & gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, street trees, tree wells, street lights, street signs, power poles, fire hydrants, bus stop furnishings, utility boxes, meters, traffic signal poles and cabinets, parkway drains, etc. on the plans.

9. Submit a Geotechnical Report with recommendations for grading, compaction, and remedial measures for seismic hazards including liquefaction.

10. Comply with all Federal, State, and local agency requirements pertaining to the Clean Water Act, which establishes regulations, set forth in the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

11. Comply with the City’s Storm Water Management Ordinance and SUSMP requirements. Implement all NPDES requirements and Best Management Practices during and after construction. Provide and obtain approval of a site-specific Erosion Control Plan and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from the City’s plan-check consultants.

12. As this project falls under one of the SUSMP planning priority categories, a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan must be prepared for this site. All runoff up to the first 0.75 inches of rainfall must be treated/infiltrated. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has instructed the City that infiltration BMPs will be a required component of the SUSMP.

13. Construct entire site with permeable asphalt concrete pavement or approved equal.

A soils test shall be completed to ensure soil permeability rate is adequate. The design shall be approved by the City.

14. All catch basins and on-site storm drain inlet facilities shall be stenciled with the appropriate “No Dumping” message.

15. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent property(ies) must be received and directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement.

16. Developer shall submit design and calculations, and obtain permit and inspection for all development perimeter and retaining walls from the Building Division.

17. Dust control operations shall be performed by the developer at the time, location and in the amount required and as often as necessary to prevent the excavation or fill work, demolition operation, or other activities from producing dust in amounts harmful to people or causing a nuisance to persons living nearby or occupying buildings in the vicinity of the work. The developer is responsible for compliance with Fugitive Dust Regulations issued by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD).

18. Control of dust shall be by sprinkling of water, use of approved dust preventatives, modifications of operations or any other means acceptable to the City Engineer, City of Pico Rivera, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the AQMD, and any Health or Environmental Control Agency having jurisdiction over the area.

The City Engineer shall have the authority to suspend all construction operations if, in his opinion, the developer fails to adequately provide for dust control.

19. A Commercial/Industrial LID Project must incorporate one or more LID system(s) in the project design. The system(s) must be shown on the plans submitted to the City.

Pico Rivera’s Low Impact Development Guidance Manual (attached) is provided as reference on potential LID systems.

20. Where redevelopment results in an alteration to more than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post-construction stormwater quality control requirements, the entire project must be mitigated.

21. Where redevelopment results in an alteration of less than fifty percent of impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to post-construction stormwater quality control requirements, only the alteration must be mitigated, and not the entire development.

22. Surface water generated shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveway into the gutter on Washington Blvd. A parkway drain is required.

RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS

23. Submit a copy of the title report of the property for street right of way verification.

24. Submit ALTA Survey showing all existing utility easement.

25. Easement(s) shall be dedicated to the City of Pico Rivera for all-public sewer and water systems not located within the public right-of-way.

26. Dedication of vehicular rights of ingress and egress to and from adjacent parcels is required.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

27. All public works improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the APWA Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Green Book”) and Pico Rivera City Standards, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

28. Submit street improvement and striping plans prepared by a Registered Civil and Traffic Engineer, respectively, for review and approval. The plans must clearly identify all existing and proposed street improvements, including curb cuts and median openings.

29. All deficient public improvements shall be upgraded to current City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

30. Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk damaged during the project construction shall be reconstructed as required by the City Engineer.

31. Asphalt paving that is damaged during the project construction shall be reconstructed as required by the City Engineer.

32. Construct all new curb and gutter along the entire frontage of Washington Boulevard to match existing.

33. Construct all new full-width sidewalks along the entire frontage of Washington Boulevard to match existing.

34. Close existing driveway(s) or portion(s) thereof on Washington Boulevard, which will no longer be in use as part of the new development, with curb and gutter and fullwidth sidewalk to match existing.

35. Construct new driveways at least 5 feet away from any above-ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of the driveway “X.” Otherwise, the obstruction shall be relocated at the developer’s expense. Ensure that each driveway provides proper pedestrian access across the driveway in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The final layout and site driveway design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.

36. In accordance with California Building Code, Title 24 and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), handicap facilities shall be constructed and existing facilities shall be reconstructed within the project limits, as necessary, in locations specified by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

37. Where utility cuts on concrete pavement are proposed, the entire concrete panel shall be removed and reconstructed.

38. Protect existing street trees and/or construct new tree wells and plant new 24-inch boxed street trees on Washington Boulevard per approval of Street Improvements Plan. The species of any new street trees to be planted shall be in accordance with the Citywide Tree Master Plan. Location of trees to be determined upon submittal of plans.

39. Remove and reconstruct the asphalt street pavement adjacent to the edge of the gutter along Washington Boulevard from property line to centerline. The new pavement structural section shall match the existing pavement in thickness and composition. Remove and repair any failures in the underlying base material within this area as required by the City Engineer. Restore pavement markings as necessary. Repair any visible utility-cut pavement failures up to the street centerline.

40. Construct landscape and hardscape in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Construct irrigation system to adequately irrigate proposed landscaping improvements. Construction of irrigation system shall include, but is not limited to, installation of water lateral to main line, irrigation controller, service pedestal, etc.

41. All on-site parking and circulation areas shall be paved as required by a pavement engineering or geotechnical report prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments.

42. Centerline ties and benchmark monuments shall be preserved. In the event that ties and benchmark monuments are disturbed, a licensed Land Surveyor shall be secured for their reestablishment. All documentation shall be submitted to the City for record keeping.

43. Preserve survey monuments (property corners, centerline ties, etc) in the public right-of-way. All disturbed and removed survey monuments in the public right-of-way shall be re-established and a record of survey shall be filed with the County Surveyor in accordance with applicable provisions of the state law.

44. Developer shall prepare a covenant, subject to City Engineer's approval, for ingress and egress, utility and drainage easement, fire lane, and maintenance of the private driveway.

UTILITIES

45. All utility companies (for non-City owned utilities) shall be contacted to establish appropriate easements to provide services.

46. Developer is responsible for research on private utility lines (Gas, Edison, Telephone, Cable, Irrigation, etc.) to ensure there are no conflicts with the site.

47. All existing on-site utility lines and existing utility lines serving the proposed development, that conflict with this project, shall be relocated, removed, or sealed at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

48. Remove any encroachments or interfering facilities from the public right-of-way as directed by the City Engineer.

49. The subject property shall be served by underground utilities (SCE, Telephone, and Cable TV).

50. All overhead utility services within the perimeter of the project shall be placed underground.

51. Relocation of any public water or sewer lines shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

52. All proposed on-site sewer, water, and drainage facilities shall be private system(s) maintained by the property owner unless otherwise approved by the City as public system(s).

SEWER

53. Conduct a sewer capacity study and provide a copy to the Engineering Division subject to City Engineer’s approval. In the event that proposed sewer discharge from the development exceeds the existing sewer system capacity, developer shall upgrade existing sewer system. The limits of the upgrade shall be to the downstream point of connection to where sufficient capacity exists.

54. Install adequate sewer lateral(s) as necessary to serve the proposed development, and abandon any existing sewer laterals that will not be used, to the satisfaction of the Building Division.

55. Secure and provide copy of sewer connection permit from Los Angeles County Sanitation District at 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA (562) 698-7411.

Contractor License “A” and Public Works permit required.

56. Easements may be required and shall be subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements.

TRAFFIC SAFETY

57. A traffic circulation study shall be prepared by a Registered Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

58. A focused traffic study shall be prepared by a Registered Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The study shall focus on access locations, inbound/outbound turning movements, internal circulation, and parking operations, to determine the need for additional striping, pavement markings, and signage that will improve motor vehicle and pedestrian safety.

59. Ingress and egress on Washington Boulvard to/from the northwest driveway shall be restricted to right-turn only.

60. A Signage and Striping Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

61. Clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at all site driveways.

62. Submit a complete set of plans prepared by a civil/traffic engineer to scale and a traffic impact report. Final conditions and comments cannot be determined until plans are submitted that is sufficiently complete.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
Land Development Unit
5823 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, CA 90040
Telephone (323) 890-4293, Fax (323) 890-9783
EPIC-LA NUMBER: FLDU2021011764 PROJECT NUMBER: CUP746
CITY/COMMUNITY: Pico Rivera STATUS: Cleared
PROJECT ADDRESS: 8825 E Washington Boulevard
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
DATE: 09/14/2022

CONDITIONS
The submittal for review of Conditional Use permit 746, Zone Reclassification No. 325, Zone Code Amendment No. 187 and General Plan Amendment No. 57 has satisfied the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Land Development Unit review.

1. Provide a reciprocal access easement for all lots that share Fire Department access. Submit a copy of the required reciprocal access easement agreement prior to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Engineering Section Building Plan Check Unit prior to building permit issuance.

2. For any questions regarding the report, please contact Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243 or [email protected].

Reviewed by: Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT D

ATTACHMENT E

MAY 5RD, 2021
Sign Program
8825 Washington Blvd.

Pico Rivera, CA 90660

WASHINGTON
and ROSEMEAD

MIXED-USE

ATTACHMENT F

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signage Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 Location Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 South Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 East Elevation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10 Tenant Sign Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 Vinyl Text & Graphics Specification. . . . . . . . . 13 Leasing Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Building ID B-01 and 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16 Building ID B-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18 Parking Entrance Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20

PURPOSE
This sign program provides regulation for the overall quantity, size, placement and materials of all signs in the WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE. Any sign that does not conform to this sign program may be allowed by the City Planning and ownership on a case by case basis. Tenants are allowed to use their own corporate fonts, colors and logos on signs. The sign program for WASHINGTON AND ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE will be used to inform its patrons of its many retail offerings and locations, provide way finding for guests. The signage criteria has been created for the purpose of ensuring functional and coordinated graphics for tenant identification.

INTENT
The guidelines of the program are designed to complement the architectural elements of the buildings and coordinate the type, placement, and physical dimensions of the signage. Tenants are advised to contact the ownership tenant coordinator with any questions or design specific issues before commencing work on design drawings. Prior to fabrication, tenants are required to submit to the ownership for approval (4) copies of detailed drawings indicating: the location, size, copy layouts, colors, materials, finishes, illumination, and method of attachment. The ownership would serve as the administrator of this sign program and will be the final arbitrator regarding compliance.

APPROVAL AND PERMITTING
This criteria complied with the regulations of the City if Pico Rivera but does not imply automatic approval from any governmental agency. Tenants are solely responsible for obtaining approvals from government agencies and all necessary permits from Pico Rivera at their expense prior to installation.

This program will be strictly enforced. All building signs shall be designed, constructed, installed, and maintained to Tenant's sole expense. All signs shall be designed by professionals ( e.g. architects, design firms, or sign manufacture). All nonconforming or unapproved signs must be corrected by the tenant, at tenant's expense. The ownership, ownership's representative, and/or the city of Pico Rivera reserve the right to review the aesthetic design and/or overall quality of all signage.

GENERAL LANDLORD/TENANT REQUIREMENTS:

1. Prior to city submittal or sign fabrication each tenant shall submit to ownership for written approval, fully detailed shop drawings of their proposed sign indicating conformance with the sign criteria herein outlined.

2. The ownership and the city shall determine and approve the availability and position of a tenant name on any ground sign(s).

3. The tenant shall pay for all signs, related materials and installation fees in (Including all inspection costs).

4. The tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all requirements of this sign criteria.

5. It is the responsibility of the tenant’s sign company to verify all conduit and transformer locations and service access prior to fabrication.

6. Should a sign be removed, it is the tenant’s responsibility to patch and paint all holes to match finish and color of adjacent surfaces.

7. The ownership may, at his sole discretion and at tenant’s expense correct, replace, or remove any sign that is installed without written approval and/or is deemed unacceptable pertaining to the sign criteria.

8. If the tenant chooses to change his exterior sign at any time during the term of his/her lease, then the tenant must comply with the requirements set forth herein and any future modifications, revisions or changes which have been made to this sign criteria after the execution of his/her lease agreement. A new permit must be obtained for modification of an approved sign.
3 SIGNAGE CRITERIA

SIGNAGE CRITERIA
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.
4 DESIGN CRITERIA

1. All signs shown meet or exceed all applicable codes.

2. All signs shall meet all requirements of the state of California and the city of Pico Rivera.

3. Tenant is allowed a maximum square footage of er location. 20 sq.ft. p

4. Letter height not to exceed 14” maximum.

5. height not to exceed 14”. Logo

6. Letters and logos are 3/4” push thru translucent acrylic. Direct to print or a digital print may be mounted for logos and letters.

7. Letters and logos will be lit via existing LED’S with in the structure.

8. Text and design must be approved by ownership.

9. All exposed fasteners are to be painted to match background surface.

10. All raceways, transformers, electrical boxes, wiring, conduit, and access doors shall be concealed from view.

11. All tenant signs attached to building wall or fascia shall be connected to a junction box provided by landlord, with the final electrical hook up and connections by Tenant's sign contractor. All Tenant signs shall be connected to a time clock, within the electrical room, with the hours as determined by the ownership.

12. All penetrations of the building structure by Tenant's sign contract are required for sign installation shall be neatly sealed and water tight.

13. All identification labels shall be concealed, except ones required by code. Underwriters Label is required on all the electrical signage.

14. Sign contractor shall repair any damage to common area property caused by their work. Damage to structure that is not repaired by the sign contractor shall become the Tenant's responsibility to correct.

15. Tenant shall be fully responsible for the operation of their sign contractor, and shall indemnify, defend, and hold the ownership, ownership’s representative, and all parties harmless from damage or liabilities on account there of.

16. Sign surfaces that are intended to be flat shall be without oil canning, or other visual deformities.

17. All exposed welded seams and joints shall be finished smooth.

18. The general location of wall signs shall be centered vertically and horizontally on fascias, unless otherwise specified. Signs shall not cover or interrupt major architectural features unless approved by ownership.

19. All supporting structures and background materials for signs shall be opaque and non reflective.

20. Every part of the light source of any illuminated sign allowed by this signage criteria shall be concealed from the view from vehicular traffic in the public right-of way, and the light shall not travel from the light source directly to vehicular traffic in the public right of way but instead shall be visible only from a reflecting or diffusing surface.

PROHIBITED SIGNS

1. No sign shall be installed, relocated, or maintained so as to prevent entry or exit out of any door. No sign shop shall create a safety hazard by obstructing view of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

2. No signs shall be located within a required easement, unless an encroachment permit has been authorized by the affected utility.

3. No sign shall obstruct access to fire hydrants, fire department connection, or fire department access roads.

4. Signs on/or affixed two trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other vehicles which advertise, identify, or provide direction to use or activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries or sales of merchandise or rendering of services from such vehicles are prohibited when such vehicles are located on the Shopping Center property.

5. Signs, which audibly advertise, identify, or provide direction to a use or activity are prohibited.

6. It is unlawful for any Tenant to exhibit, post or display or cause to be exhibited, posted or displayed upon any sign, any content of an obscene, indecent, or immoral nature or unlawful activity.

7. Painted wall signs are prohibited.

SIGNAGE CRITERIA
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.
5 8. Cabinet wall signs are prohibited, except for logos which shall be constructed in a manner similar to channel letter construction unless approved by the ownership.

9. Permanent advertising devices such as attraction boards, posters, banners, and flags are prohibited, except where approved by the ownership.

10. Window signs except where approved by the ownership.

11. All signs prohibited under and subject to the Pico Rivera Ordinance.

ADMINISTRATION

1. The hours per day during which signs can be illuminated shall be determined and controlled by the ownership.

2. The ownership may hire an independent electrical engineer at Tenant's expense to inspect the installation all signs and may require any sign program and or code violations to be corrected at Tenant's expense.

3. The sign contractor shall carry a Worker's Compensation and Public Liability insurance against all damage suffered or performed against any and all persons or property while engaged in the construction or erection of signs in the amount of $5,000,000 per occurrence prior to commencing signage installation.

4. At the expiration or early termination of Tenant's lease, Tenant shall be required to remove their sign, off electrical connection, patch the fascia, and paint the entire fascia to match the surrounding areas at Tenant's Expense within seven (7) days.

5. Sign contractors shall be advised by the Tenant that no substitutions will be expected whatsoever unless indicated in the specifications and approved by the ownership.

Any deviation from the specific patient may result in rejection of the signed by the ownership.

6. Tenant shall maintain their sign in a clean, professional, and functioning matter. Any damage, electrical problems, wear and tear, or other breakage to Tenant signs shall be repaired by tenant within 10 consecutive days from such event.

TEMPORARY SIGNS
SMMC Section 9.61.160 Authorized Temporary Signage in Any Commercial Zone. In any commercial or industrial zone, temporary signage shall be allowed for each and every lot without issuance of a permit and shall not affect the amount or type of signage otherwise allowed by this Code. This signage shall not be restricted by content, but is usually and customarily related to an event such as areal estate sale, construction or remodeling, etc. The signage shall be allowed for each lot as follows:

1. One temporary on-premises sign which is located on the building that is for sale, lease, or rental, not exceeding 24 square feet each, are not higher than 30 inches above the 2nd floor line, and which are limited to one sign for each building, and must be attached to the building, provided said signs are removed within 15 days from the sale, lease or rental of the property. Properties with a lot width of 50 feet or less shall be limited to 16 square feet per site. An additional sign of the same size may be erected if the property borders a second street and the signs are not visible simultaneously.

2. One temporary on-premises sign on property that is ongoing construction or remodeling not exceeding 24 square feet each in area and not more than 6 feet in height above grade and limited to one sign for each street frontage provided the sign is removed within 7 days of completion of any construction or remodeling.

3. One temporary on-premises banner on a business that is newly opened not exceeding 20 percent of a business' front building façade area or one 100 square feet, whichever is less, not extending above the second floor line, and limited to one 60-day period.

4. One temporary on-premises banner on a business where, due to construction activities, the front façade to the building is blocked from the street by barricades or related construction materials or equipment, not exceeding 20 percent of a business' front building façade area or 100 square feet, whichever is less, not extending above the second-floor floor line, and limited to the time that the front façade is blocked from the street.

5. Temporary signs not exceeding 16 square feet in area erected at the same time as the temporary uses allowed by Pico Rivera Municipal Code Section , or 9.31.360 any successor legislation thereto. The signage shall be allowed for the same duration as the temporary use.

6. Temporary window signs not to exceed twenty percent of the first floor's total frontage glass area and limited to two thirty-day periods in any calendar year for each site. Temporary window signs shall not extend above the second floor line.

SIGNAGE CRITERIA
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.
6 Vinyl Text & Graphics
Tenant Signage
PA-01 Parking Sign
L-01 Leasing Sign
PA-01
T-03
V-03
L-01
8825
SITE PLAN/ SIGN LOCATIONS WASHINGTON BLVD. T-02 V-02 T-04 V-04 T-07 V-07 BID-01-03 Building ID Signage
T-01
V-01V-09 T-05 V-05 T-06 V-06 T-08 V-08
T-01-08
V-01-09
BID-03 BID-01
BID-02

SITE PLAN/ SIGN LOCATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATION - SIGN SPECS. 7
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

SIGN HEIGHTS ON PAGE 8

SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD)

PUBLIC STORAGE
194’
76’

T E N A N T N A M E
SOUTH ELEVATION - SIGN SPECS. AND HEIGHTS 8
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD)
B-01
23’(h) X 3’-4”(w) X 5”(d)

BUILDING ID SIGN
76 sq.ft.

B-01 76 sq.ft. + B-02 47 SQ.FT.TOTAL: 123 sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance: 175 sq.ft.

T-01
2 SIGNS
1’- 4”(h) X 10’(w) X 3”(d)

TENANT SIGNAGE

26.6 sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance: 20 sq.ft.

B-02
16’-6”(h) X 2’-8”(w) X 3”(d)

MONUMENT SIGN
47 sq.ft.

The measurements are approximate
We will finalize once we have the
dimensions of the water feature and
wall on which the sign will sit.
10’
11’-5”
13’
35’-9”
5’-6"

T E N A N T N A M E
9 PA-01 SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS
1 Sign 1’-8”h X 26’-6”h= 44sq.ft.

L-01 SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS
1 Sign 7”h x 7’w= 4.1sq.ft.

EAST ELEVATION - SIGN SPECS AND TOTALS
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

BID-01, 02 & 03 SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS
B-01 SOUTH ELEVATION - Sign 23’h x 3’-4”w=76sq.ft.

B-02 SOUTH ELEVATION - Sign 16’-6h x 2’-8”w=47sq.ft.

B-03 EAST ELEVATION - Sign 17’-1”h x 2’-5”w= 43sq.ft.

BID-01-02 - TOTAL SQ.FT. USED TOTAL ALLOWANCE (123sq.ft.) (175sq.ft.) BID-03 - TOTAL SQ.FT. USED TOTAL ALLOWANCE (43sq.ft.) (175sq.ft.) South (193.75’ x 3sq.ft.=581s.q.ft.) East (221’ x 3sq.ft.=663sq.ft.) T-01 SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS
6 Signs 1’-4”h x 15’ w= 20sq.ft.
6 x 20sq.ft.=120sq.ft.
4 Signs 1’-4h x 10’w= 13.5sq.ft.
4 x 13.5sq.ft.= 54sq.ft.

SIGN HEIGHTS ON PAGE 10

EAST ELEVATION
282’

EXIT RESIDENT & GUEST PARKING ENTRANCE
75’-3”

L E A S I N G O F F I C E

T E N A N T N A M E T E N A N T N A M E T E N A N T N A M E T E N A N T N A M E T E N A N T N A M E

T E N A N T N A M E

EXIT RESIDENT & GUEST PARKING ENTRANCE

L E A S I N G O F F I C E

T E N A N T N A M E
EAST ELEVATION - SIGN SPECS. AND HEIGHTS 10
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

EAST ELEVATION
10’-8”
8’
9’-4”
12’-2”

L E A S I N G O F F I C E
9’
9’-7”
21’-8”
39’
T- x 6
1’- 4(h) X 15’(w) X 3”(d)

TENANT SIGNAGE
20 sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance:
20 sq.ft.

B-03
17’-1”(h) X 2’-5”(w) X 5”(d)

BUILDING ID SIGN
43 sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance:
175 sq.ft.

P-01
1’- 4(h) X 26’-7-1/2”(w) X 3”(d)

TENANT SIGNAGE
35’-7” sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance:
60 sq.ft.

LEASING
SIGN

PARKING
SIGN
TENANT
SIGNS

BUSINESS ID
SIGN
TENANT SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - T-01-09 11
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.
1’-4” 15’ (h) x (w)=20sq.ft. - Maximum Allowance: 20 sq.ft. 2 Signs - 1’-4” 20’ (h) x (w)=13.3sq.ft.
2 x 13.3sq.ft.=26.6sq.ft.

Maximum Allowance: 40 sq.ft.

RESTARAUNT/ CAFÉ SIGNAGE
FOR SIGN DETAILS PLEASE SEE PG. 12

T E N A N T N A M E
16” 2.5”

T E N A N T N A M E
16” 2.5”
20’

T E N A N T N A M E
15’
TENANT SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - T-01-08 12
T-01-08 - FRONT- LIT ILLUMINATED TRIMCAPLESS CHANNEL LETTERS & LOGO

1. Tenant is allowed a maximum square footage of 20 sq.ft per location

2. Letter height not to exceed 16”.

3. height not to exceed 16”. Logo

4. Letters and logos are front-lit. Direct to print or a digital print may be mounted for logos and letters.

5. Letters and logos lit with (White LED illumination only)

6. Text and design must be approved by ownership and the City of Pico Rivera.

TENANT SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

Example of Front Lit Channel letter
LED illumination
Trimcapless White Translucent
Acrylic Face
Aluminum Returns & Back
Not to Scale
Section Detail:

Front-Illuminated Channel Numbers w/ Raceway
LISTED
Raceway Painted
to Match Mullion
Mounting Toggle Bolts
2-1/2” Raceway Painted
to Match Steel Awning
Transformer
1/8” Back Plate Attached
to the Raceway Painted to
Match the Mullion
Steel Awning

T E N A N T N A M E
VINYL TEXT & GRAPHICS SPECIFICATIONS - V-01 13

VINYL TEXT & GRAPHICS SPECIFICATIONS
V-01 - INFORMATIONAL VINYL SIGN
2’
1’

1. Copy should consist of tenant name, business hours, directional and similar information only.

2. All text and logos/graphics will be self adhesive vinyl decals.

3. Maximum size of total vinyl allowed is 2 sq.ft.

4. Text and logos/graphics must be approved by ownership.

5. (1) sign is allowed per tenant storefront where there is an entrance and limited to one per building facade.

6. Dimensions below are for illustration purposes only. Size and location of vinyl text and graphics will vary. Location must be on or adjacent to the entrance and may not exceed the top of the doorway. (Ownership to approve location and size.) V-01
1’ H x 2’ W
2 sq.ft.
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE INFORMATIONAL VINYL COULD BE
PLACED ON DOORS.

LEASING SIGN - WASHINGTON BLVD. - L-01 14
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

L E A S I N G O F F I C E

FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
7”
7’
1/2”
7”(h) X 7’(w) X 1/2”(d) (4sq.ft.)
Installed w/
Tape and Silicone
BUILDING ID SIGNS - WASHINGTON BLVD. & NORTH EAST CORNER - B-01 & B-03 15 8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

BUILDING ID SIGNS
B-01 & 03 - HALO-LIT ILLUMINATED REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS w/ 3500K LED’S B-01-SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD) B-03-EAST ELEVATION FOR SIGN DETAILS PLEASE SEE PG. 16 16 8825
BUILDING ID SIGNS - WASHINGTON BLVD. & NORTH EAST CORNER - B-01 & B-03 WASHINGTON BLVD.

BUILDING ID SIGNS
B-02 & 03 - HALO-LIT ILLUMINATED REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS w/ 3500K LED’S 3’-4”
23’
2’-5”
17’-1”
B-01-SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD)
B-03-EAST ELEVATION
LED illumination
3500K
3/16” Clear
Polycarbonate Back
12V Jacketed Cable
Aluminum Face
Painted Gray
(COLOR TBD)
Aluminum Returns
Painted Gray
(COLOR TBD)
Building Fascia
Flexible Conduit
½” Minimum
Power Supply
Housing
Blocking
as Needed
Listed Disconnect
Switch
1½” Spacers
Output 12V dc
Primary Electrical
Source
Not to Scale
Section Detail:

Halo Lit-Illuminated Reverse Channel Letters
5/16” x 3 Screw with
Nylon Anchor
(4 min. per letters)
Electronic Power
Supply
LISTED

EXAMPLE OF HALO

ILLUMINATION
WATER FEATURE BUILDING ID SIGN - WASHINGTON BLVD.. - B-02 17

WATER FEATURE BUILDING ID SIGN
B-02 - NON-ILLUMINATED CUSTOM FABRICATED CHANNEL LETTERS 8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

B-02 SOUTH ELEVATION (WASHINGTON BLVD)
FOR SIGN DETAILS PLEASE SEE PG. 18
WATER FEATURE BUILDING ID SIGN - WASHINGTON BLVD.. - B-02 18 8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

WATER FEATURE BUILDING ID SIGN
B-02 - NON-ILLUMINATED CUSTOM FABRICATED CHANNEL LETTERS

EXIT RESIDENT & GUEST PARKING ENTRANCE
PARKING ENTRANCE SIGN - P-01 19

FRONT VIEW
1’-8”
26’-7-1/2”
1’-8”(h) X 26’-7-1/2”(w) X 8”(d) (44.6 sq.ft.)
10”
8”
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

FOR SIGN DETAILS PLEASE SEE PG. 20

EXIT RESIDENT & GUEST PARKING ENTRANCE
PARKING ENTRANCE SIGN - PA-01 20

PARKING ENTRANCE SIGN
PA-01 - ILLUMINATED PUSH THRU TRANSLUCENT ACRYLIC LETTERS & Not to Scale
Section Detail:

LED-Illuminated Push Thru Acrylic Letters
LISTED
3/4” THICK PUSH THRU WHITE ACRYLIC
1’-8”(h) X 26’-7-1/2”’(w) X 8”(d)
080 ALUMINUM CABINET W/

ROUTED FACE

TRANSFORMER

EXTERIOR CONCRETE CEILING

REDHEAD CONCRETE BOLTS
1” ALUMINUM TUBING

LED ILLUMINATION
8825
WASHINGTON BLVD.

December 6, 2021
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

3.3 AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 The construction contractor(s) shall only use interior paints with a VOC (volatile organic compound) content of 0 grams per liter (g/L) to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a VOC content of 0 g/L. Prior to construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City’s Building Division clearly show the requirement for use on interior paint with a VOC content of 0 g/L for the specified buildings, herein.

Construction Contractor Prior to construction City of Pico Rivera Planning Division

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Preconstruction Avian Survey. If project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the existing trees onsite, which would be removed during construction, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of constructionrelated activities, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a qualified biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction, and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). Additional protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance, and proximity to existing development. The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a qualified biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the Qualified Biologist Prior to construction City of Pico Rivera Planning Division

ATTACHMENT G
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s).

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be identified to be on call during ground-disturbing activities. If archeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 25 feet of the find, and the qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The archaeologist shall make recommendations to the applicant to protect the discovered resources.

Archaeological resources recovered shall be provided to the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC) and Los Angeles Natural History Museum, or any other local museum or repository willing and able to accept and house the resource to preserve for future scientific study.

Qualified Archaeological
Monitor
Prior to issuance of grading
permits
City of Pico Rivera Planning
Division

3.13 NOISE
N-1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on construction plans indicating that during grading, demolition, and construction, the project applicant shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
▪ Per City requirements, construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.;
▪ During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noisecontrol techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible;
▪ Require that impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where Construction Contractor Prior to issuance of
demolition, grading, and/or
building permits
City of Pico Rivera Planning
Division
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools;
▪ Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive residential uses to the north and west;
▪ Stockpiling of materials shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive residential receptors to the north and west; ▪ At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City;
▪ Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes; ▪ During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws; and
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
▪ Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors) to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq at the property line of nearby residences to the north and west. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.

N-2 If paving activity during construction is required within 135 feet of nearby residential structures, use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller shall be employed. Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of nearby residential structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

Construction Contractor During paving activities City of Pico Rivera Planning Division

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
▪ The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” associated with the construction of the proposed project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. ▪ A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

Project Applicant, Native
American Monitor
Prior to commencement of
ground-disturbing activities
City of Pico Rivera Planning
Division
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
▪ The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
▪ On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
▪ Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
▪ Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. ▪ If Native American human remains and/or grave goods
discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
▪ Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). ▪ Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
▪ Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any County Coroner, Native
American Monitor/Qualified
Archaeologist
Discovery of Human
Remains and Associated
Funerary Objects
City of Pico Rivera Planning
Division
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. ▪ Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains
▪ As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
▪ If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
▪ The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

Native American Monitor,
Qualified Archaeologist
If Burial and Funerary
Remains are Discovered
City of Pico Rivera Planning
Division
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
▪ In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
▪ In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
▪ Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. ▪ The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Table
1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Mitigation Measure
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Enclosure 3
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICO

RIVERA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE RECLASSIFICATION
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8825 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FROM GENERAL

COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE TO MERCURY

SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY AS A 255 UNIT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FURTHER
DESIGNATED HEREIN AS ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO. 325
WHEREAS, the Pico Rivera Municipal Code Zoning ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No. 133, on November 2, 1960; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.62.230 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code authorizes the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera, upon receipt of resolution from the Planning Commission of the City of Pico Rivera, upon holding a public hearing, upon hearing all testimony, upon examination and review of the investigative staff reports and upon conclusion of public hearing to make such determinations and findings of fact as deemed necessary to approve a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, per Section 18.62.190 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code the Community and Economic Development Director has initiated the Zone Reclassification; and
WHEREAS, Zone Reclassification No. 325 has been received to change the zone designation from General Commercial and Mixed-Use Overlay to Mercury Specific Plan for the property located at 8825 Washington Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City received concurrent applications including Conditional Use Permit No. 746, Zone Code Amendment No. 187 and General Plan Amendment No. 57 for the development of a 255 unit mixed-use development; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2022, November 18, 2021, and June 3, 2021, community meetings were held to discuss the proposed project; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project, which was available for public comment at the City of Pico Rivera Community and Economic Development Department and was posted at the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) website and at the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office for a 30-day comment period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(a); and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2022 during a regularly scheduled and advertised Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 746, Zone Code Amendment 1c
RESOLUTION NO.______

Page 2 of 4 ends

No. 187, Zone Reclassification No. 325, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2023, a legal notice was published in the Los Cerritos Newspaper, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius from the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing held on December 6, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them herein as substantive part of its findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures for which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted on December 6, 2022 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ____ approved concurrently herewith.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Chapter 18.62, Article III of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera hereby approves the ordinance to change the zone designation from General Commercial and Mixed-Use Overlay to Mercury Specific Plan for the property located at 8825 Washington Boulevard as specifically described in draft Ordinance No. ____ designated and further designated as Zone Reclassification No. 325.

SECTION 4. Further, this resolution with staff report and the recommended Ordinance No. ____ shall constitute a report of the City Council.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds that Zone Reclassification No. 325 shall be approved for the following reasons and findings:
a) The proposed zone reclassification is necessary to provide a more viable development to increase housing opportunities within the City and region. The property has remained vacant for over two (2) years and is planned to be developed with a 255- unit mixed-use development. The development of the units will help to meet the overall RESOLUTION NO.______

Page 3 of 4 ends

housing goals for the State which include making available decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, partnering with the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities, and recognizing that local governments have the responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provisions for housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
b) The proposed zone reclassification is consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan, specifically Goal 3.8-2 that promotes the reuse of vacant, underutilized and inefficient land uses for more economically productive purposes including higher intensity housing and mixed-use development. The 255 mixeduse development will redevelop the underutilized parcel for a higher intensity mixed-use development that includes 255 units with 4,785 square feet of commercial space. The

2.8 parcel is within a saturated commercial area that is expected to lose a component of its commercial viability due to online retail sales and competition from nearby existing regional shopping centers. Inclusive, a market study by Keyster Marston Associates, Inc. determined that there is pent-up demand for new multi-family development due to a lack of new product over the last few decades.
c) The proposed zone reclassification will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety or welfare as a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with a Mitigation Monitoring Program to lessen the impacts to less than significant. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the following analysis, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Geotechnical Engineering, Phase I, Noise, Vibration and Transportation Impact to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the community is preserved. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day comment period and was posted on the City of Pico Rivera website, State Office of Planning and Research, Los Angeles County Recorder and a copy was made available at the Community and Economic Development Department.
d) The proposed zone reclassification to Mercury Specific Plan will allow the construction of a 255-unit mixed use development and is consistent with the existing zoning and provides a use that is currently under-served. The rezoning of the parcel will allow 255 units that will assist with reaching the General Plan’s Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Above Moderate Housing. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment requires that the City plan for 430 above moderate income housing units.

The project includes the development of 255 Above Moderate housing units.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the approval of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
[Signatures on next page]
RESOLUTION NO.______

Page 4 of 4 ends

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Enclosure 4
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICO

RIVERA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE RECLASSIFICATION TO

CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL

AND MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE TO MERCURY SPECIFIC PLAN TO
ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS A 255 UNIT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON ATTACHMENT “A” AND
FURTHER DESIGNATED HEREIN AS ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NO.
325
WHEREAS, Section 18.62.230 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code authorizes the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera, upon receipt of resolution from the Planning Commission of the City of Pico Rivera, upon holding a public hearing, upon hearing all testimony, upon examination and review of the investigative and staff reports and upon conclusion of public hearing to make such determinations and findings of fact as deemed necessary in the best interests of all parties involved and Planning Commission recommendation to approve Zone Reclassification No. 325 to change a zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2022 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the adoption of Zone Reclassification No. 325; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera conducted a public hearing to consider a Zone Reclassification to change the zoning designation from General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed-Use Overlay to Mercury Specific Plan for the property located at 8825 Washington Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, Zone Reclassification No. 325 is part of a project to construct a to develop a 255-unit mixed-use development (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them as substantive part of its findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures for which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a 1d
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 2 OF 4
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ____ on ___________, 2023.

SECTION 3. In accordance with Section 18.66.040 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, the Zone Reclassification of the herein described property at 8825 Washington Boulevard as more particularly described in Attachment “A” are hereby located within the Mercury Specific Plan and further designated herein as Zone Reclassification No. 325.

SECTION 4. The Zone Reclassification shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera by Ordinance No. 534, adopted April 7, 1975.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds that Zone Reclassification No. 325 is consistent with the General Plan in that the zone change will facilitate a more viable development in order to increase housing opportunities within the surrounding area.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section and does hereby declare that the provisions of this ordinance are severable, and if, for any reasons, any sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall therefore cause this ordinance to be posted in five public places within the City as specified in the Pico Rivera Municipal Code within fifteen (15) days of its final passage and this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _______ 2023.
_____________________________
Erik Lutz, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 3 OF 4
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ ________________________________ Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) §

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk of the City of Pico Rivera, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera, held on Tuesday, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________________
Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 4 OF 4
ATTACHMENT “A”
Assessor Parcel Number 6370-002-7018
Enclosure 5
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICO

RIVERA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 18.21, MERCURY SPECIFIC PLAN TO TITLE 18, ZONING,

OF THE PICO RIVERA MUNICIPAL CODE DESIGNATED HEREIN AS
ZONE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 187
WHEREAS, the Pico Rivera Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance was adopted as Ordinance No. 133, on November 2, 1960; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to police power, the City may enact and enforce laws within its City boundaries which promote the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of the community and are not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, in order to encourage adequate property development, periodic revisions to the Pico Rivera Municipal Code are deemed essential and a public necessity to facilitate development; and
WHEREAS, per section 18.62.110, the Community and Economic Development Director has initiated the Zone Code Amendment; and
WHEREAS, certain updates must be made to Title 18, Zoning, of the Pico Rivera Zoning Ordinance to fully actualize the goals, policies and actions as described in the Pico Rivera General Plan updated in 2014; and
WHEREAS, per section 18.62.130 of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council by a formal written resolution after the conclusion of a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2022 the Planning Commission of the City of Pico Rivera conducted a public hearing on the matter of the amendment to the Pico Rivera Municipal Code at a legally noticed public hearing and voted 3-2 to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan No. 57, Conditional Use Permit No. 746, Zone Code Amendment No. 187, Zone Reclassification No. 325, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, a legal notice was published in the Los Cerritos Newspaper, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius from the subject site; and
1e
RESOLUTION NO. ____
PAGE 2 OF 4
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing held on January 24, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them as substantive part of its findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures for which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted on January 24, 2023 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ____ adopted concurrently herewith.

SECTION 3. Pursuant to Chapter 18.62, Article II, Zoning Code Amendments, of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera hereby approves the draft ordinance amending the Pico Rivera Municipal Code including Title 18, Zoning.

SECTION 4. Further, this Resolution with reports, findings and recommendations herein contained and the recommended draft ordinance attached hereto in this matter shall constitute a report of the City Council.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the adding Chapter 18.21, Mercury Specific Plan to Title 18, Zoning, of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code is consistent with and is necessary to the general purpose and provisions of the Zoning Code and General Plan for the following reasons and findings:
a) The Pico Rivera Municipal Code codifies Specific Plan 301 and Specific Plan 400.4 for developments in the City and adding the Mercury Specific Plan is necessary for consistency within development standards as prescribed within the Mercury Specific Plan. The addition of the Mercury Specific Plan to the Municipal Code will clarify that a third Specific Plan has been adopted in the City’s history since its incorporation on January 19, 1958. b) Chapter 18.21, Mercury Specific Plan has been added to provide standards for the orderly development that exceed the current maximums that are prescribed within the General Plan and Pico Rivera Municipal Code that facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of the community. The development of the units will help to RESOLUTION NO. ____
PAGE 3 OF 4
meet the overall housing goals for the State which include making available decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, partnering with the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities, and recognizing that local governments have the responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provisions for housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
c) The proposed amendments are consistent with the spirit and integrity of the General Plan Policy 3.6-2 that encourages land development practices that reduce energy pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as the 255-unit mixed use development is within a central commercial corridor and is anticipated to lessen daily household trips due its proximity to key destinations. The subject site is also near bus transit Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro) line 266 which travels along Rosemead Boulevard and Montebello 50 which travels along Washington Boulevard both having 30–35-minute bus intervals.

Metro is exploring Washington Boulevard for the future extension of the Metro L (Gold Line) Eastside extension with a potential station stop at Rosemead Boulevard or terminus at Greenwood Avenue in the City of Montebello which is approximately 1.4 miles from the subject parcel.
d) The proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy 3.8-2 that promotes the use of vacant, underutilized and inefficient commercial uses for more economically productive purposes, including higher intensity mixed-use housing. The site operated between 1957 and 2018 as a bowling alley, banquet, hall night club and restaurant. The proposed use is consistent with the Policy 3.8-2 which will provide a higher intensity mixed-use development including 255 units and 4,785 square feet of commercial retail. The proposed development will also assist in meeting the General Plan’s Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment by meeting the Above Moderate housing requirement. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment requires that the City plan for 430 Above Moderate Income housing units. The project includes the development of 255 Above Moderate-Income housing units. e)
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves the attached draft ordinance adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. 187.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND PASSED this 24th day of January 2023.
___________________________
Erik Lutz, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. ____
PAGE 4 OF 4
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ ________________________________ Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Enclosure 6
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICO
RIVERA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 18.21, MERCURY SPECIFIC PLAN TO TITLE 18, ZONING, OF THE PICO RIVERA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to its police power, the City may enact and enforce laws within its boundaries which promote the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of the community, and are not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, comprehensive zoning regulations lie within the police power of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code contains language pertaining to Specific Plan 301 and Specific Plan 400.4; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to add Chapter 18.21 to add the Mercury Specific Plan pertinent to the parcel located at 8825 Washington Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pico Rivera conducted a public hearing on the matter of amendments of the Municipal Code including sections of Title 18, Zoning at a legally noticed public hearing held on November 21, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera desires to amend the Pico Rivera Municipal Code as set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Pico Rivera as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them as substantive part of its findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, and following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures for which lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. ____ on January 24, 2023.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the adding Chapter 18.21, Mercury Specific Plan to Title 18, Zoning, of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code is consistent with and is necessary to the general purpose and provisions of the Zoning Code and General Plan and should be approved by the City Council for the following reasons and findings:
1f
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 2 OF 8
a) The Pico Rivera Municipal Code codifies Specific Plan 301 and Specific Plan 400.4 for developments in the City and adding the Mercury Specific Plan is necessary for consistency within development standards as prescribed within the Mercury Specific Plan. The addition of the Mercury Specific Plan to the Municipal Code will clarify that a third Specific Plan has been adopted in the City’s history since its incorporation on January 19, 1958.
b) Chapter 18.21, Mercury Specific Plan has been added to provide standards for the orderly development that exceed the current maximums that are prescribed within the General Plan and Pico Rivera Municipal Code that facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of the community. The development of the units will help to meet the overall housing goals for the State which include making available decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, partnering with the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities, and recognizing that local governments have the responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provisions for housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
c) The proposed amendments are consistent with the spirit and integrity of the General Plan Policy 3.6-2 that encourages land development practices that reduce energy pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as this 255-unit mixed use development is within a central commercial corridor and is anticipated to lessen daily household trips due its proximity to key destinations. The subject site is also near bus transit Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro) line 266 which travels along Rosemead Boulevard and Montebello 50 which travels along Washington Boulevard both having 30–35 minute bus intervals. Metro is exploring a light rail along Washington Boulevard for the extension of the Metro L (Gold Line) Eastside extension with a station stop at Rosemead Boulevard or a terminus at Greenwood Avenue in the City of Montebello which is approximately 1.4 miles from the subject parcel.
d) The proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy 3.8-2 that promotes the use of vacant, underutilized and inefficient commercial uses for more economically productive purposes, including higher intensity mixed-use housing. The site operated between 1957 and 2018 as a bowling alley, banquet, hall night club and restaurant. The proposed use is consistent with the Policy 3.8-2 which will provide a higher intensity mixeduse development including 255 units and 4,785 square feet of commercial retail. The proposed development will also assist in meeting the General Plan’s Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment by meeting the Above Moderate housing requirements. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment requires that the City plan for 430 Above Moderate Income ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 3 OF 8
units housing units. The project includes the development of 255 Above Moderate housing income units.

SECTION 4. Chapter 18.21, Mercury Specific Plan to Title 18 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.21.010 Establishment
There is established a zone which shall hereinafter be known as the “Mercury Specific Plan Zone” (SP-Mercury) and which shall function and serve as set out in this chapter. Prior to commencement of any development within the subject planning area, approval of a master conditional use permit is required.

18.21.020 Scope and Purpose
The intent and purpose of the Mercury Specific Plan zone is to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs to guide the future development of a 2.8-acre site located at 8825 Washington Boulevard. The primary objective of this specific plan is to ensure that the future development of this area is consistent with the objectives outlined in the City’s General Plan.

18.21.030 Land Use Development Standards
The Mercury Specific Plan provides for the following development components:

1. A 255-unit mixed-use development on a 2.8-acre site;

2. A common recreation area which should serve the residential development consisting of 47,465 square feet of common open space;

3. The development of commercial on the first floor with a minimum of 4,785 square feet to 5,500 square feet.

18.21.040 Urban Design Concepts and Development Standards

1. Building height shall not exceed:
70’ (floors 1-6, excluding roof parapet). Rooftop elements such as recreation facilities and infrastructure are allowed up to an additional 11’ excluding roof parapet or screening of rooftop mechanical equipment.

2. Building setbacks are shown in the Table below.

To provide a transition to the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the northwest, a reduction in building massing and activity at this residential ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 4 OF 8
interface has been accomplished through:
a) Reducing the building height to three stories or 36 feet at the residential interface then stepping up to four, five and six stories; and b) Reducing the horizontal and vertical mass of the building at this interface (at ground and upper levels); and
c) Locating rooftop recreation facilities to the southeast corner, away from the residential interface.

Setbacks to Property Boundary (Clockwise from Washington Blvd.) Minimum Setback
South 1 (Residential/Retail to Washington Boulevard property line) 10’ Southwest (Residential to existing commercial property line) 15’ South 2 (Residential to existing commercial property line) 10’ West 1 (Residential to existing commercial property line) 35’ West 2 (Residential to existing residential property line) 30’ North 1 (Residential to wall at Goodbee Street) 10’
North 2 (Residential to existing residential property line) 35’ North 3 (Residential to existing commercial property line) 40’ East (Retail to existing commercial property line including plaza, parking & drive aisle)
50’

3. Allowable projections into setbacks:
a) Architectural projections and overhangs may encroach into setback up to a maximum of 3 feet.
b) Minimum vertical clearance for ground level awnings and canopies shall be 8 feet if it is removable or retractable and 12 feet if it is fixed or permanent. c) Landscape and hardscape design elements and features such as trees, benches, trellises, fountains, planter boxes, walls and fences. Planters shall be designed to enhance the usable space. Large, tall planters can prevent optimal use of open space by making the space feel crowded. 18” high planters are optimal as edges can be used as seat walls. d) Seating areas for retail customers and the public (East side of building at the retail interface). Ideas for seating include: seat walls, planter ledges, free-standing elements, fountain borders, benches, movable seating, fixed seating and seating steps

4. Residential Standards
Minimum dwelling unit size:
a) Studio - 525 square feet
b) Jr. 1-Bedroom - 550 square feet
c) 1-Bedroom - 575 square feet
d) 2-Bedroom - 900 square feet
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 5 OF 8
e) 3-Bedroom - 1,500 square feet

5. Private Open Space shall be a private balcony or patio, directly accessible to a residential dwelling unit, reserved for the private use of residents of the unit and their guests. Private balconies shall meet the minimum areas as shown in the table below.

Private Open Space
Unit Type Balcony Area/Unit (in square feet)
Minimum
Studio 60
Junior -1 Bedroom 60
1 Bedroom 70
2 Bedroom 75
3 Bedroom 150

6. Common Open Space areas are on the ground floor and rooftop pool/recreation area.

Common Open Space Areas Square Feet
Rooftop pool/Community Recreation 17,010
Ground Level Open Space (Resident &
Public)
28,770

7. Commercial Standards
Ground floor retail uses, exclusive of the lobby/leasing area may not exceed 5,500 square feet of leasable space. Canopies, retail related seating and portable signage may extend up to 5 feet beyond the retail facade on the eastern/retail facing edge where space allows such that a 5-foot clear walkway is maintained and pedestrian passage is not impeded. Portable signage may only be placed outside the place of business during business hours.

8. Parking
When calculating parking for the cumulative retail/ commercial uses, the square footage shall be rounded up, or down, to the nearest 250 square feet. All State standards for Accessible Parking (standard vehicle and van), Clean Air Vehicles and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) will be met in accordance with State law. The EVCS spaces will be installed, ready for use.

Unit Type Parking
Factor
No. of Units/Sq. Ft. Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Studio 1 per unit 35 units 35
1 Bedroom 1.4 per unit 159 units 223
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 6 OF 8
2 Bedroom 1.6 per unit 57 units 92
3 Bedroom 2 per unit 4 units 8
Guest 1 per 8 units 255 units 32
Leasing 1 per 250 sq.
ft.
1,750 sq. ft. 7
Retail 1 per 250 sq. ft 5,500 sq. ft. 22
USPS 1 1 1
Total
Parking
420 464

9. Bicycle Parking
a) Long Term - Tenant
Number of bicycle parking provided shall be a minimum of one space per thirtythree automobile parking spaces provided, rounded up to the nearest whole number with a minimum of 12 spaces (464 residential spaces divided by 33 = 14 spaces). A minimum of 42” shall be provided between rows of bicycle parking. At such time that demand for more than 14 spaces is evident, one of the extra car spaces near, or adjacent to, the bicycle parking area may be converted to bicycle parking.
b) Short Term-Tenant
Number of bicycle parking provided shall be 10% of long-term spaces. All bicycle parking intended for tenant use shall be located in the parking garage as close to the main building entrance as practical without obstructing pedestrian access and movement. All bicycle parking areas and racks shall be well lit and maintained regularly.
c) Long Term-Commercial/Retail
Visitor One space per 3,000 square feet of floor area. Location of spaces shall be adjacent or near commercial serving uses at grade and unobstructed. d) Short Term - Commercial/Retail Visitor
Number of bicycle parking spaces provided shall be one space per 4,000 square feet with a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces. These spaces shall be situated such that pedestrian movement is unobstructed. All bicycle parking areas and racks shall be well lit and maintained regularly.

18.21.050 Consistency and Compliance with Mercury Specific Plan All development shall be consistent with the provisions of Mercury Specific Plan, and shall comply with the land use plan, urban design plan and infrastructure plan ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 7 OF 8
contained in the Mercury Specific Plan.

18.21.060 Administration
A. The Community & Economic Development Director shall have the duty to enforce the provisions of the Mercury Specific Plan zone. Any use of a building or structure hereafter erected, built, maintained or used contrary to provisions of the SP-Mercury Zone is prohibited.

B. The Community and Economic Development Director shall have the duty to interpret the provisions of this SP-Mercury zone. All such interpretations shall be prepared in written form and should be permanently maintained. Any person aggrieved by such an interpretation may appeal the decision to the planning commission and if aggrieved by the planning commission, the decision may be appealed to the city council.

C. All development within the planning area should comply with the terms of the Mercury Specific Plan. However, upon application by the developer and upon good cause shown, the Community and Economic Development Director may allow minor variations from the urban design plan upon a finding that such variation is consistent with the design concepts contained in this Mercury Specific Plan. The decision of the Community and Economic Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council in the same manner as a conditional use permit.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section and does hereby declare that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if, for any reasons, any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby finds that there are not newspapers of general circulation published and circulated within the City. The City Clerk shall therefore cause this Ordinance to be posted in five public places within the City as specified in the Pico Rivera Municipal Code within fifteen days of its final passage and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.
[Signatures on the following page]
ORDINANCE NO. ____
PAGE 8 OF 8
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _______ 2023.
_____________________________
Erik Lutz, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ ________________________________ Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) §

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________________
Anna M. Jerome, City Clerk
DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Round 2 Comments
Date: 6.10.2022 Authored by: Martin Leitner

INTRODUCTION
This is the second round of design review for the proposed development project located at 8825 Washington Blvd. Perkins&Will provided an initial review of the project design on 1.10.22. This memo provides an updated review based on the revised project design documents and comments provided by the applicant. Key consideration for the second review is the response to round one comments. Brief summaries of initial review comments are provided for convenience. See initial review document for full comments.

This review considers the proposed design relative to the existing development context and urban design best practices. We also consider the extent to which the proposed design serves as a precedent that will guide future transit-oriented development around Rosemead Station.

This review is prepared in support of the governmental review and discretion to be exercised by the City of Pico Rivera. This review does not supplant or take the place of such discretion and governmental action.

Documents Reviewed
The following documents were provided and reviewed:
• Development plan set dated 3.24.22
• Response comments 3.24.2022
Unless noted otherwise, all dimension and metrics cited are based on information provided in the reviewed documents. Indication of cardinal directions are called out relative to the plan set’s orientation, e.g., “plan north.”

SUMMARY
The project continues to propose significant density on a somewhat constrained site. The removal of one of the two fire lanes has decompresses the site. Design changes to the ground floor frontages along the street and pedestrian walk frontages provide considerable improvements to the project. The applicant team incorporated multiple design review recommendations into the revised design.

That said, the proposed ‘wrap’ building type and the site’s integration with the adjoining commercial strip center continue to drive much of the project’s site design. Furthermore, the project’s site design continues to propose that site areas are either built out or paved over. From the standpoint of stormwater management and urban heat island effect mitigation, this arrangement is unfavorable.

The massing and height adjacent to the existing single-family homes was revised and improved. A holistic review of heights and height transitions is still recommended to inform future development in the TDO area, even if this project proceeds as designed.

Finally, sustainability features including site permeability, solar, stormwater management, and other strategies should be explored to improve the performance of the building. While a commitment to explore sustainability measures was made, it would be desirable to see specific measures identified early in the design process to ensure sustainability is integral to the project’s design.

PROJECT AND CONTEXT
Project and site description
The project description appears generally unchanged from the initial design review.

ENCLOSURE 7
1g
2 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Round 2 Comments DESIGN REVIEW: SITE DESIGN
General site design strategy
The general site design strategy appears largely unchanged. A second fire access lane entering from Washington Blvd was eliminated (see below).

Street frontage
Public streetscape.

Initial Review Recommendation: The public streetscape design should be coordinated with the anticipated future build-out roadway section.

Sidewalk, parkway, and frontage zones should be determined for the entire block frontage so that they are consistent across multiple adjoining developments.

Round 2 Comments: While a coordination of the public streetscape design with the anticipated future roadway section does not appear to have been conducted, several improvements to the streetscape have been made (see below). The public sidewalk does not appear to have been widened. In anticipation of future foot traffic in this TOD area, a 10 to 12-foot sidewalk should be considered.

Private streetscape.

Initial Review Comments: The initial review comments recommended reconsideration of the sloped planters along the street frontage.

Round 2 Comments: The private setback design provides several improvements over the initially reviewed design. • The sloped planters were eliminated and replaced with private porches with level planter areas providing a transition to the public sidewalk.
• Palm trees were replaced with canopy trees.

Street wall.

Initial Review Recommendation: Establish minimum facade lengths for buildings fronting major streets to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Round 2 Comments: The length of the Washington Blvd-facing street wall was lengthened significantly—an improvement to the project design that will set a positive precedent.

Activation.

Initial Review Comments: Initial review recommended considering alternative designs of the Washington Blvd street frontage to improve ground-floor activation. Proposed alternatives included relocation of retail or ground-floor stoops.

Round 2 Comments: Ground-floor stoops are implemented for units along the Washington Blvd frontage, a significant design improvement. • Porches provide direct access to the sidewalk and add activation to the length of the frontage.

Curb cuts.

Initial Review Comments: The project proposes two curb cuts along the Washington Blvd frontage. (Note. Two curb cuts existed in the existing development). Curb cuts disrupt the sidewalk and create areas of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles crossing the sidewalk. To promote walkability, it is recommended to limit the number and the width of curb cuts as much as possible. We recommend reviewing the necessity of the western curb cut. This curb cut appears to provide fire access and access to the electrical transformer. It will likely see very limited used while creating a significant disruption to the street frontage.

Initial Review Recommendation: Limit the number and frequency of curb cuts along public streets. Provide design standards for vehicular ingress and egress points that include criteria for width, curb radii, and ensure sidewalk continuity wherever possible.

Round 2 Comments: The western curb cut was eliminated, reducing the number of project curb cuts to one. This curb cut is shared with the existing retail center. The revised design is a significant improvement over the initial design. 3 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Round 2 Comments On-site circulation
Pedestrian circulation.

Initial Review Recommendation: Require primary building entrances to be located at public streets. Encourage connected sidewalk systems on large sites and between adjoining developments. Integrate ground-floor open spaces with the pedestrian circulation.

Round 2 Comments: Multiple entries are proposed along the pedestrian walk. While the final distribution of entries will likely depend on the number and size of commercial tenants, the design intent is positive.

Towards the northeast corner of the site, a new “vehicular accent paving” area was introduced. While the intent of this feature is not immediately apparent, it could be interpreted as a designated pedestrian crossing area. Given that the backup space of multiple parking stalls adjoins this accent area and that it does not resolve clearly the intended pedestrian circulation, removal of this feature should be considered.

Furthermore, a comprehensive review of the pedestrian circulation and connections between dedicated walk areas should be considered.

Vehicular circulation.

Initial Review Comments: Potential conflicts between surface parking and access to the parking garage entry were called out.

Round 2 Comments: The vehicular circulation was modified and improved.

Parking areas.

Initial Review Recommendations: Consideration of urban heat island effect in parking areas.

Round 2 Comments: Palm trees are replaced with shade trees and will provide increased shading.

Fire access.

Initial Review Recommendations: Recommendation to eliminate on fire access lane as feasible.

Round 2 Comments: The western fire access lane off Washington Blvd is eliminated, a very positive evolution of the site plan.

Open spaces
Game lawn and dog run area.

Initial Review Recommendations: Require minimum areas for permeable or unpaved areas in at-grade open spaces.

Round 2 Comments: Recommendation not implemented. Site areas designated as “open space” and shown in green on landscape plans continue to be dominated by impermeable materials.

Green setback areas.

Initial Review Recommendations: Require clarification of intended plantings, dimensions, and irrigation for proposed landscape areas.

Round 2 Comments: Some of the setback areas have been widened and new pedestrian walkways provided. These are significant improvements. The intent for planting and irrigation of the adjoining landscape areas was not clarified.

Emergency vehicle access and dog run.

Initial Review Comments: Comments highlighted the extensive use of synthetic lawn and narrow dimensions of the paseo.

Round 2 Comments: The revised massing lowers the building height at the courtyard and the synthetic lawn was replaced with paving.

Landscape materials.

Initial Review Recommendations: Consider medium to large canopy trees to provide shade in on-site open areas.

Round 2 Comments: Canopy trees replace palm trees in several landscape areas. Synthetics lawn area is unchanged.

DESIGN REVIEW: BUILDING DESIGN
Building typology
No new comments.
4 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Round 2 Comments Massing and height
The building height and massing strategies were revised. The proposed building now steps down to three stories at the northwest corner of the site.

Façade articulation
No new comments.

Ground floor design
Retail design.

Initial Review Recommendations: Require minimum height, depth, and façade glazing percentage standards for active ground floor frontages.

Round 2 Comments: Retail façade design is improved with expanded glazing areas and a clear height of 12 feet.

Residential lobby.

Round 2 Comments: Residential lobby remains at the back of the site.

Washington Blvd. entrance.

Round 2 Comments: The resolution of the ground floor entry appears better resolved and the street wall was extended.

Parking garage design.

No new comments.

Utilities.

Round 2 Comments: The applicant has committed to locating utility connections out of public view where possible and screening exposed equipment connections with landscape materials or enclosures. www.perkinswill.com
DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA
Date: 1.10.2022 Authored by: Martin Leitner

INTRODUCTION
The City of Pico Rivera has retained Perkins&Will through Rincon Consultants Inc. to provide an architectural and urban design review of the proposed development project at 8825 Washington Blvd. The project is a mixed-use infill project consisting of residential uses partially over ground-floor retail uses with an integrated parking structure and adjoining site improvements. The project proposes 255 residential units and approximately 5.500 sq. ft. of retail uses. It is situated in proximity to the intersection of Washington Blvd and Rosemead Blvd and the future Rosemead transit station.

Documents Reviewed
The following documents were provided and reviewed:
• Development plan set dated 5.7.21
• Specific plan application dated 11.9.20
Unless noted otherwise, all dimension and metrics cited are based on information provided in the reviewed documents. Indication of cardinal directions are called out relative to the plan set’s orientation, e.g., “plan north.”

SUMMARY
The proposed mixed-use infill development achieves significant density on a highly constrained and irregularly shaped site with limited street frontage. It utilizes a cost-effective ‘wrap’ building type with residential uses lining an internal parking structure. This building type requires a large footprint and limits flexibility in terms of massing articulation.

While the proposed mixed-use program and residential density are consistent with transit-oriented development goals, the proposed site and building design misses the opportunity to establish good urban development patterns. As proposed, the design does not establish a pattern of connected, walkable urbanism appropriate for a transit-oriented community. Instead, it enshrines the logic of the adjoining commercial strip center into future development phases.

It appears that the selected building type, a desire to maximize the residential unit yield, compliance with fire access requirements, and maintaining the existing commercial strip center’s vehicular circulation patterns significantly drive the project design. From the site arrangement, the location of retail frontage and building lobby, to the lack of height articulation next to existing single-family homes the building does little to activate the public realm or respond to the existing context.

The site design proposes that most of the site is either built out or paved over while providing only limited shade. From the standpoint of stormwater management and urban heat island effect mitigation, this arrangement is unfavorable. Alternative and more sustainable solutions should be explored.
2 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Modifications to the ground floor design, building entrances, circulation, and open space arrangements would help connect the project to its context and establish a stronger TOD precedent for the area. A revised massing and height development adjacent to the existing single-family homes could be considered for this project and the entire TOD area. In addition, sustainability features including site permeability, solar, stormwater management, and other strategies should be explored to improve the performance of the building.

PROJECT AND CONTEXT
Project and site description
The project is situated on an approximately 2.9-acre site (124,366 sq. ft.). The infill site is located mid-block with a street frontage on Washington Blvd. The mixed-use project consists primarily of residential uses totaling 255 dwelling units (DU) with an effective density of 86 DU per acre. The retail uses are located at grade and total approximately 5,500 sq. ft. The residential and retail uses enclose (‘wrap’) a vehicular parking structure that serves the project.

Neighborhood context
Immediate context. The south side of the project fronts onto Washington Blvd, a multi-lane arterial street. In the future, a new Metro light rail line will run along Washington Blvd. Commercial strip development adjoins the site on three sides, the west, north, and south. The site also shares property lines with 12 single-family properties to the north and west.

Larger context. The context is characterized by almost exclusively single-use buildings ranging between one and three stories in height. Strip commercial development is the predominant use on the Washington Blvd corridor. Low, one to two-story buildings with large footprints are surrounded by large surface parking lots. Individual apartment buildings on and around Washington Blvd rise to three stories. Beyond the corridor, single-family homes are one to two stories in height with significantly smaller footprints.

Planning context
TOD area. We understand that the project site and surrounding areas have been identified as a future transit-oriented development district. A TOD specific plan effort for the area is underway. This project’s timeline is tracking ahead of the specific plan initiative. It is assumed that the existing commercial strip properties may redevelop in the future.

Housing opportunity sites. The project site and surrounding areas have also been identified as housing opportunity areas in the City’s Housing Element Update.

DESIGN REVIEW: SITE DESIGN
General site design strategy
The project design proposes locating a new mixed-use building at the center of the site occupying most of the site. The site perimeter accommodates vehicular and pedestrian circulation, fire department access, code-required fire separation distances, and open space areas.

The parking structure is located at the center of the building with building wings lining it on four sides. This development typology is customarily referred to as a ‘wrap’ project.

The vehicular circulation areas are integrated into the circulation and parking patterns of the existing adjoining commercial strip center. While this arrangement provides efficiencies for the project, it will require that future developments on adjoining sites maintain lanes to accommodate vehicular and fire department access for this project. 3 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Street frontage
Washington Blvd street frontage design shown on Landscape Concept Plan (L-1) Public streetscape. The project’s primary and only street frontage is at Washington Blvd. It measures approximately 272 ft. along the public right of way (Source: LA County Assessor’s Map). The project design proposes a continuous planted parkway between the curb and the public sidewalk. The parkway is planted with medium-sized regularly spaced canopy street trees. Sidewalk shade is an important feature of a successful and resilient streetscape.

If the future configuration of Washington Blvd envisions a vehicular travel lane along the project frontage, it should be considered that large passing vehicles would likely damage the tree canopy. If this is the case, placing the canopy trees on the building side of the sidewalk should eb considered to prevent such damage.

The public sidewalk is continuous measures approximately 8 ft. wide (dimension estimated from provided plans). This dimension seems narrow for a major arterial street in a TOD district where significant pedestrian activity should be anticipated and planned for. A sidewalk width of 10 to 12 ft. minimum should be considered.

Recommendation: The public streetscape design should be coordinated with the anticipated future build-out roadway section. Sidewalk, parkway, and frontage zones should be determined for the entire block frontage so that they are consistent across multiple adjoining developments.

Private streetscape. The private setback consists of a planted area that separates the public sidewalk from the proposed ground-floor units. The planted areas slopes up from the public sidewalk to the unit frontages. While this sloped configuration is generally acceptable, it should be ensured that the sloped design is maintained through the execution of the project. Often sidewalk-adjacent planted areas become 24 to 36 in. high raised boxes to accommodate stormwater filtration. Such raised planters are unsightly and not pedestrian-friendly.

Example of raised stormwater planter (left) and recessed stormwater planter (right). Source: Google 4 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Street wall. Building facades framing the public right of way form street walls. Street walls help create comfortable street spaces or outdoor rooms and enhance the pedestrian experience. The project’s Washington Blvd-facing facade measures approximately 160 ft. east to west. On an overall frontage length of 272 ft. that is a little over half (59%) of the frontage length. While it cannot be expected that a single project establishes a complete pattern of street enclosure for the entire TOD area, lengthening the building’s street frontage would help create a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape and set a positive precedent.

Recommendation: Establish minimum facade lengths for buildings fronting major streets to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Activation. The proposed ground-floor residential units provide less sidewalk activation than retail frontages. In many cases, mandating groundfloor retail uses has led to vacant storefronts, which are not desirable and counterproductive. Since the project already proposes ground-floor retail, the provision of some ground-floor retail fronting onto Washington Blvd should be explored with the applicant. In leu of ground-floor retail, the activation potential of the ground-floor residential units can be increased by providing stoop units with individual unit entries from the sidewalk.

Active ground-floor frontage design on a major arterial on a recently completed project in Carson, CA. Source: Google Curb cuts. The project proposes two curb cuts along the Washington Blvd frontage. Curb cuts disrupt the sidewalk and create areas of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles crossing the sidewalk. To promote walkability, it is recommended to limit the number and the width of curb cuts as much as possible. We recommend revieing the necessity of the western curb cut. This curb cut appears to provide fire access and access to the electrical transformer. It will likely see very limited used while creating a significant disruption to the street frontage.

Should this curb cut need to be maintained, it is recommended to move the fence line forward so that it is in line with the building façade and explore the use of the lane area as a tenant amenity space.

We understand that the eastern curb cut is an existing ingress and egress point. Given its design that completely interrupts the sidewalk presents a significant potential conflict point with pedestrian traffic. To address this issue, the access point should should be redesigned similar to a street intersection. To improve pedestrian safety, the curb radius should be reduced to a minimum and crosswalk markings be applied to delineate the pedestrian crossing area.

Recommendation: Limit the number and frequency of curb cuts along public streets. Provide design standards for vehicular ingress and egress points that include criteria for width, curb radii, and ensure sidewalk continuity wherever possible. 5 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Existing curb cut (left). Source: Google
On-site circulation
Pedestrian circulation. The on-site pedestrian circulation consists of a single walk extending the length of the eastern building facade, turning west along the northern building façade, and terminating mid-façade. The sidewalk provides access from the public sidewalk at Washington Blvd to the main residential lobby at the northeastern corner of the building. The remainder of the sidewalk provides pedestrian access to the surface parking stalls at the back of the building.

While this sidewalk provides basic building access, the pedestrian circulation does not create a larger logical system of pedestrian connections for the district. In this context, it should be noted that the residential lobby is located at the rear of the property and away from the primary street frontage. Relocating this entrance should be explored (see below). Furthermore, connections between the pedestrian circulation and ground-floor open spaces would be desirable.

Recommendation: Require primary building entrances to be located at public streets. Encourage connected sidewalk systems on large sites and between adjoining developments. Integrate ground-floor open spaces with the pedestrian circulation.

Vehicular circulation. Vehicles enter from Washington Blvd and use a shared access lane to approach the parking structure entrance. The vehicular access is lined by surface parking on either side and function as a parking aisle. This configuration is efficient but creates potential conflicts and queueing issues as cars park in surface stalls. A more direct access to the parking structure that is not encumbered by surface parking is encouraged. A direct access to the parking garage from Washington Blvd could be contemplated.

Parking areas. The parking areas are extensively paved and provide only very limited landscaping. The selected trees provide limited shade which can exasperate the urban heat island effect.

Fire access. Fire access is provided via two entry points off Washington Blvd. There is a fire lane at the western end of the project that is short enough not to require a turn-around. The fire lane at the eastern side of the project spans the length of the site, turns west behind the building, and then turns south into a building courtyard. The site area allocated to fire vehicle circulation is significant and shapes the site design by requiring extensive access, clear areas, and paved areas. A thorough review of the fire access strategy is recommended to understand if site areas could be unencumbered to make better use of the areas.

Open spaces
The project’s at-grade open space areas are distributed on the four sides of the project. They are generally narrow and appear to be driven by required setbacks and access requirements. Much of the at-grade open space doubles as a fire lane or accommodate utilities, e.g., electrical transformers and concrete pads. The private streetscape and pedestrian circulation areas have already been discussed above.

The amenity areas at the perimeter of the building abut adjacent commercial properties and single-family homes. The perimeter is screened with a screen wall, which in turn are screened with evergreen hedges.

Game lawn and dog run area. Access to the largest of these areas, the western amenity area, is provided via a ground-floor breezeway. The access point is far from the main lobby and elevator cores. There is no at-grade access from the pedestrian circulation. It is not convenient for most of the residents. Within this space there are two activity areas. The northern area is called out as a dog run, the southern as a game lawn with lounge seating.
6 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA In the landscape plans (L-1) the dark green areas indicate synthetic lawn. The materiality of the light green areas is not identified. All trees are palm trees.

Recommendation: Require minimum areas for permeable or unpaved areas in at-grade open spaces.

Green setback areas. Setback areas are located to the south and west and are very narrow. Given their limited dimension, adjacency to groundfloor units, and the absence of a pedestrian path, they appear not to be intended to be inhabited. The areas are indicated in light green, but the intended plant material is not identified (L-1). A portion of these setback areas accommodates an electrical transformer.

Recommendation: Require clarification of intended plantings, dimensions, and irrigation for proposed landscape areas.

Emergency vehicle access and dog run. A T-shaped area is located at the north of the property. It consists of setback areas a building courtyard.

The dimensions are very limited as is access. The smallest courtyard measures only 22’-4” across with the building rising 64’-7” high on either side. This limits daylight into the open space and limits its use to a passageway.

The geometry larger portion of this open space is driven by the fire access and turn requirements. Since fire trucks require paved areas with high load capacities, the dark green areas indicated on the landscape plan (L-1) are again synthetic grass. The proposed use as a dog run is limited.

Combined with the limited access through building corridors this open space seems to be inconvenient for most residents.

Landscape materials. The project proposes extensive use of synthetic lawn. While this is a low-maintenance water-efficient solution, it does not reduce urban heat the way live plant materials do. It also significantly reduces or prevents percolation of rainwater.

The landscape does not call out a plant material for areas shaded in light green. While these may be turf, the areas are often narrow and have limited lighting. This complicates irrigation and success of plant materials.

The tree selection and plan favors palm trees. The Washingtonia filifera is proposed throughout parking areas where expansive paved areas increase the urban heat island effect. The Washingtonia filifera is a tall tree with a limited canopy and will not provide significant amounts of shade.

Recommendation: Consider medium to large canopy trees to provide shade in on-site open areas.

DESIGN REVIEW: BUILDING DESIGN
Building typology
The project proposes a ‘wrap’ building typology in which primarily residential uses line a central parking structure. This typology is different from ‘podium’ buildings in which residential uses are located above a one to two-story concrete parking podium. Both typologies extensively utilize wood-frame construction for the residential portions of the project and achieve significant densities.

Of the two, the ‘wrap’ building is simpler from a construction standpoint, lower cost, and can accommodate more parking. The ‘wrap’ building is also less flexible and requires a larger footprint that’s driven by the dimensions of the wrapped parking structure.

The ‘podium’ building is slightly more complex and expensive. It achieves higher residential densities. It also allows for smaller building footprints and accommodates more design flexibility when it comes to height and massing.

The choice of the ‘wrap’ building type significantly drives the building and site design.

Massing and height
The building height is six stories. It steps down to five stories adjacent to the single-family homes and rises to seven stories at the enclosed rooftop amenity spaces.

The aerial view photomontages (A.06) show that despite the stepback to five stories, there is a significant height difference between the existing single-family homes and the proposed project. Height transitions to existing single-family homes are commonly a community concern. Many jurisdictions employ transitional height limits at properties abutting single-family districts.

Recommendation: Since this project will likely be precedent-setting for future TOD developments in the area, an exploration of the height adjacency is recommended.
7 DRAFT Architectural and Urban Design Review for 8825 Washington Blvd, Pico Rivera CA Façade articulation
The façade design has a significant amount of articulation through materials, color, and plane changes.

Ground floor design
Retail design. The ground floor can provide significant activation of public site areas. The retail frontage is located at the east building frontage.

The façade design shows significant solid wall areas, which is not conducive to retail activation. More transparency would be desirable.

The shallow store depth of approximately 25 ft. will likely accommodate a limited number of tenants that occupy shallow but longer storefront segments. While the height of the retail space is not clear, the height appears constraining. A clear height of 12 ft. or more would be recommended.

The site’s gradual slope will prove challenges for at-grade retail entrances if all retail spaces share a single slab height. Even small grade changes could require stairs or ramps. To avoid these, it is recommended to explore stepping the ground floor slab to accommodate entrances.

The outdoor dining area is enclosed with solid walls. A more open enclosure design or eliminating the enclosure would create a more inviting ground floor experience.

Recommendation: Require minimum height, depth, and façade glazing percentage standards for active ground floor frontages.

Residential lobby. The residential lobby is located at the northeastern corner of the building. As noted above, this is effectively the back of the building. As a result, all building circulation and resulting activity is oriented away from the public street. Relocating the residential lobby to the Washington Blvd frontage would bring desirable sidewalk activation.

Washington Blvd. entrance. The ground floor plan (A.14) identifies a building entrance at the corner of Washington Blvd and the fire lane. This entrance is recessed and below a deep building overhang. Given the overall building layout and the absence of a elevator in this area it would be anticipated that this entrance would see very little use. In our experience, the space created by the recessed corner will not feel safe or welcoming. Filling in the streetwall to create a continuous frontage would be advisable.

Parking garage design. The parking garage is entirely screened from view. This is very positive and we suggest considering design standards for lining and screening public views of parking garages to be required throughout the TOD district.

Utilities. The treatment of utility POCs is not described in the project proposal. In general, utility connections including water mains, backflow preventers, gas meters, standpipes, and similar items should be located out of sight or screened with enclosures or landscape materials sufficient in height to obscure them from view. In particular, utility connections for retail spaces should be located away from public walks, seating areas, and entries.

The project design indicates two electrical transformers. Consideration should be given to how these are treated visually. The one located at the north of the project appears to be prominently visible from the pedestrian walk. Finding an alternate location for this equipment is recommended.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1 8 0 N o rt h A s h w o o d A v en u e
Ventura, California 93003
805 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 O F F I C E A N D F A X
i n f o @ ri n c o n c o n s u l t a n ts .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s

M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 06/10/22
To: Julia Gonzales, Deputy Director
City of Pico Rivera, Community and Economic Development Department 6615 Passons Boulevard, Pico Rivera, CA 90660
Via: Email – [email protected]
From: Kimiko Lizardi
Director, Environmental and Long-Range Planning
[email protected]
Michael Rocque, MS
Senior Planner
[email protected]
Subject: The Mercury Project Specific Plan Peer Review comments -2 nd Round Review
Project Number: 21-11657
Specific Plan Peer Review comments
Please see below, Rincon’s 2
nd round of comments regarding The Mercury Project Specific Plan Peer Review. Comments are divided by each section of the draft SP document, dated March 24, 2022.

Contents
Chapter I: Introduction

1.2 Community Benefits (New Section)
• This section highlights key benefits to the City in general but does not specifically identify provisions that can be implemented. The project is seeking to exceed baseline densities, height, setbacks, and FAR. The proposed 5% of units you are providing as affordable is minimal, particularly given the density/number of units you are providing. Has there been any further discussion with the City on additional Community Benefits provisions?

1.7 Specific Plan Organization
• The chapters identified in this section should provide a brief narrative explaining the purpose and intent. While not a requirement, Rincon is recommending this be completed.

ENCLOSURE 8
1h
City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 2 ends

Chapter 2: Land Use

2.4 Project Summary
• Table 2-1.
o Revise the residential notes section to specify which floors (1-6) include residential units.
o Under the open space notes, the proposed Community Room should not be counted as open space. This is an amenity space for the residential use. Provide a clear definition and be sure to differentiate between the ground floor/rooftop outdoor open spaces and amenity spaces.

Initial review comment:
• In Table 2-1 it mentions that the project will be providing 13 affordable units, however there is no commitment to this or mention of this throughout the plan. The plan should specifically address how it is going to offer affordable housing and at what income levels, unit mix, and other concessions.

Round 2 comment:
• The table mentions that 13 units will be provided as affordable, however there is no mention of what income level they are being provided at or breakdown of unit mix/type. The City should confirm if they want a commitment as to the income levels/unit types for the affordable units.

2.7 Recreation and Open Space
Initial review comment:
• Where is the open space in the land use summary? In the plan, you are only showing the rooftop recreation area. This doesn’t match the areas identified in the concept exhibit.

Round 2 comment:
• It is noted that you will update this based on the final landscape plan, but a more comprehensive breakdown of open space vs. building amenity space should be provided for what is already being proposed.

Exhibit 2-3: Site Use Concept-Ground Floor
Initial review comment:
• In previous discussions with the City there was the idea of relocating the leasing office to the south end of the building. Was this ruled out?
Round 2 comment:
• Your response is noted. However, follow up and confirmation from the City should be completed. If so, then please disregard this comment.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 3 ends

Exhibit 2-6: Open Space Concept
Initial review comment:
• The Open Space concept as presented does not appear to represent functional open space. The areas defined are merely sidewalk areas and does not provide any amenities within these areas.

Please provide the minimum sizes as well as a complete breakdown (total SF) of each open space area.

Round 2 comment:
• In your response you agree with the above comment, however there is no breakdown of the functional open space areas proposed.

Chapter 3: Infrastructure and Services

3.1.1 Transportation Demand Management
• The inclusion of this subsection is supported and beneficial. Have any other TDM Plan program measures or incentives been thought about to be included? o Parking cash outs
o Incentives for employees who live within ½ mile radius o Transportation allowance for residents for monthly regional transit passes Exhibit 3-1: Vehicular Access
Initial review comment:
• Is garage access happening across the ground floor retail and across the pedestrian plaza as shown in the subsequent exhibit? This does not appear to be a functional use of open space and should not be included in the open space exhibits or counted towards the projects overall open space calculations.

Round 2 comment:
• In your response you agree to the above comment, however the open space exhibit 2-5 still shows resident ground floor open areas as part of the open space. All ground floor areas that include parking or drive aisles should be excluded from any open space areas.

3.2 Infrastructure Plan
Initial review comment:
• Has the City reviewed this plan against water and wastewater master plans? Round 2 comment:
• If this has not been completed, it should be reviewed and vetted that it does not conflict.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 4 ends

Chapter 4: Development Standards and Design Guidelines

4.2 Development Standards
Initial review comment:
• Consider creating table/matrix for all development standards Round 2 comment:
• Noted. However, for readability purposes it should be considered. The City can make this final determination.

4.2.1 Site Development
Initial review comment:
• Please refer to all corrections/edits for this section in the attached track changes document Round 2 comment:
• Please see track change comment as provided:
70’ (floors 1-6, excluding roof parapet). No building or structure shall exceed this maximum building height except rooftop elements such as recreation facilities and infrastructure are allowed up to an additional 11’ excluding roof parapet or screening of rooftopmechanical equipment.

4.2.5 Waste Collection
Initial review comment:
• See previous comment above on Solid Waste. The trash area needs to be defined as to location, size, and accessibility. Current code requires the following for commercial and residential uses:

Commercial: 36SF:5000SF gross floor area
Residential: 6SF/per unit
This can be a starting point to determine appropriate size.

Round 2 comment:
• Based on your response, the proposed 823SF trash room appears to be undersized based on the City’s current standards above. However, confirm this with the City and trash hauler that both the size and location of the trash/recycling area are sufficient.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 5 ends

4.2.7 Bicycle Parking
Initial review comments:
• Project should include a dedicated electric bicycle-sharing program for residents to promote nonvehicular mobility in conjunction with the future rail line. • Include space to accommodate and promote active transportation such as a dedicated and secure bicycle center that integrates bike storage/parking, showers, lockers, and repair services.

The center could also be designed to be partially available to the public. (Community Benefit) Round 2 comment:
• Consider incorporating the comment above into the specific plan as a potential amenity/use rather than a requirement/commitment.

4.3 Land Use Matrix
Initial review comments:
• Use classifications listed in Table 4-4 should be consistent with the use classifications listed in PRMC 18.40.040 for consistency purposes.
• Due to the limited area of approximately 5,000sf of commercial space provided on the ground floor, should consider trimming this down to retail serving uses or personal service and restaurant type uses. Seems to be an array of uses for such a small commercial area.

Round 2 comment:
• Noted on the intent of keeping the amount of uses, however it seems that most of these can be categorized into personal services or general retail store consistent with the Pico Rivera Zoning Code definitions. This would streamline the specific plan allowable uses chart. Additionally, the permitted uses at the rooftop or floors 2-6 are an ancillary use to the residential development and do not need to have their own set of permitted uses.

5.2 Design Guidelines
Initial review comment:
• Per SB 330 and SB 35, both bills require cities to review residential development based on objective standards rather than subjective standards. Recommend that City require objective design standards for the Specific Plan.

Round 2 comment:
• It is noted that you have contained some objective design standards within the development standards section such as building massing/projections, etc. However, development standards do not define design standards such as materials, color and other elements. Rincon City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 6 ends

recommends that this be expanded upon and further described within the plan. The City can make the final determination to ensure that the Design Guidelines are satisfactory.

4.4.4 Open Space Amenities
Initial review comment:
• Please insert a new section here and expand on the amenities offered as part of this development.

Round 2 comment:
• See same comment above. Final Plan should incorporate this section.

5.2.7 Walls & Screening Concept
Initial review comment:
• Please provide more details as to what kind of walls, height, and design is being proposed.

Round 2 comment:
• Conceptual wall and screening exhibit should include at a minimum type and height of walls proposed.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1 8 0 N o r t h A s h w o o d A v en u e
Ventura, California 93003
805 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 O F F I C E A N D F A X
i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s

M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 01/07/22
To: Julia Gonzales, Deputy Director
City of Pico Rivera, Community and Economic Development Department 6615 Passons Boulevard, Pico Rivera, CA 90660
Via: Email – [email protected]
From: Kimiko Lizardi
Director, Environmental and Long-Range Planning
[email protected]
Michael Rocque, MS
Senior Planner
[email protected]
Subject: The Mercury Project Specific Plan Peer Review comments Project Number: 21-11657
Attachments: SP Peer Review-Track Changes word document Specific Plan Peer Review comments
Please see below, Rincon’s initial comments regarding The Mercury Project Specific Plan Peer Review.

Comments are divided by each section of the draft SP document, dated November 5, 2020.

Contents
• Please clarify if a General Plan Amendment is proposed as part of the adoption of the Specific Plan. If so, this needs to be addressed in the plan to indicate what specific amendments are needed.

Chapter 3.1 Circulation and access
• The Circulation and Access sub chapter should be its own separate chapter as it is an important piece to this plan.

Chapter 4 Development Standards & Design Guidelines
• The Design Guidelines should also be separated and be its own chapter.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 2 ends

Chapter I: Introduction

1.1 The Vision
• The proposed on-site self-storage needs to provide more clarity as to its intended use. There is a new public self-storage facility proposed less than 1,000 feet away from this site and could conflict with some ongoing amendments to the code that are tied to the project. A proposed self-storage facility in a subterranean garage seems like a very undesirable use of the site. Also, the feasibility of its future conversion to TOD parking seems challenging. Please see additional comments to Self-storage throughout the rest of plan via track changes. • If on-site self-storage is proposed, please add language that states the self-storage facilities “to be provided for residents only”.
• Under Destinations on Site, please explain and identify what are the recreational onsite or nextdoor opportunities mentioned in this section? • Under Transportation Choice, please clarify if the statements in this section are referring to the Gold line extension? There should be reference or discussion to the transit station. • Clarify and confirm with the City if the future transit station is planned on the north or south side.
• Under Destinations on site and Growth With Per Capita Trip Reduction, clarify as to what these opportunities are?

1.3 Existing Conditions
• Revise the existing General Plan Land Use designation to read “Mixed-Use Development (MU) (Opportunity Area-Housing Element Site)”.

1.4 Project Objectives
• Revise the existing General Plan Land Use designation to read “Mixed-Use Development (MU) (Opportunity Area-Housing Element Site)”.

Exhibit I-4: Existing site and context photos
• Add a cross reference in the narrative to this exhibit.

1.6 Specific Plan Organization
• Please see edits in track changes as to the organization of the plan. This includes separating Circulation and Access and Design Guidelines as mentioned above.

Chapter 2: Land Use

2.2 General Plan Policy Guidance-Policy 3.6-2 Sustainable Development • This policy needs to include the following additional practices:
o Encourages capture and reuse of stormwater on site for irrigation o Orientation of buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, daylighting, and ventilation
o Use of landscapes that conserve water and reduce green waste City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 3 ends

o Use of permeable paving materials or reduction of paved surfaces o Shading of surface parking, walkways, and plazas and incorporation of solar technology

2.3 Specific Plan Policies
• Are these new policies that are part of the Specific Plan? If so, this needs to be explained here.

2.4 Project Summary
• Please see edits in track changes in Table 2-1
• In Table 2-1 it mentions that the project will be providing 13 affordable units, however there is no commitment to this or mention of this throughout the plan. The plan should specifically address how it is going to offer affordable housing and at what income levels, unit mix, and other concessions.

2.5 Residential
• Please be sure the unit breakdown is consistent with the IS/MND.

2.7 Self-Storage Facilities
• See comments in track changes as to Self-Storage use

2.8 Recreation and Open Space
• Where is the open space in the land use summary? In the plan, you are only showing the rooftop recreation area. This doesn’t match the areas identified in the concept exhibit.

Exhibit 2-3: Site Use Concept-Ground Floor
• In previous discussions with the City there was the idea of relocating the leasing office to the south end of the building. Was this ruled out?
Exhibit 2-6: Open Space Concept
• The Open Space concept as presented does not appear to represent functional open space. The areas defined are merely sidewalk areas and does not provide any amenities within these areas.

Please provide the minimum sizes as well as a complete breakdown (total SF) of each open space area.

Chapter 3: Infrastructure and Services

3.1 Circulation and Access
• The project should show a complete street network and connections for young, elderly and those confined to a wheelchair or other disability.
• “A second point of ingress will be possible from southbound Rosemead north of Washington via a right turn and from northbound Rosemead via an existing signalized left turn”. This movement is not shown in the traffic analysis.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 4 ends

3.1.3 Fire Access
• Have any plans been reviewed by LA County Fire for compliance? Is the 28-foot-wide drive aisle show in Exhibit 3-3, a LA County Fire Department requirement? • Add language as shown in track changes.

Exhibit 3-1: Vehicular Access
• Is garage access happening across the ground floor retail and across the pedestrian plaza as shown in the subsequent exhibit? This does not appear to be a functional use of open space and should not be included in the open space exhibits or counted towards the projects overall open space calculations.

3.2 Infrastructure Plan
• Has the City reviewed this plan against water and wastewater master plans?

3.2.5 Solid Waste
• This needs to be expanded and provide specifics as to location and size of trash area and if commercial/residential will have separate locations, etc.

3.3.1 Schools
• Has there been any coordination with the School District? Chapter 4: Development Standards and Design Guidelines

4.2 Development Standards
• Consider creating table/matrix for all development standards

4.2.1 Site Development
• Please refer to all corrections/edits for this section in the attached track changes document

4.2.2 Residential Standards
• Consider adjusting the minimum dwelling unit sizes for the Studio and 1 bedroom (only 25SF difference between both unit types).
• In Table 4-2 you identify a Jr. 1 bedroom unit, however it is not provided under minimum dwelling units sizes above.
• Table 4-2 has multiple inconsistencies with the common open space areas as it relates to other sections of the plan.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 5 ends

• In Table 4-2, under private open space unit types, there should be an established minimum area/unit as opposed to a range.

4.2.3 Commercial Standards
• Section 4.2.1 indicates that the ground floor retail uses, and lobby area shall not exceed 5,500SF. Please revise this to be consistent.

4.2.5 Waste Collection
• See previous comment above on Solid Waste. The trash area needs to be defined as to location, size, and accessibility. Current code requires the following for commercial and residential uses:

Commercial: 36SF:5000SF gross floor area
Residential: 6SF/per unit
This can be a starting point to determine appropriate size.

4.2.6 Parking
• Please provide a conceptual parking plan.
• Include an electric car sharing program such as zip car, etc. • In Table 4-3, please provide the total number of EV and carpool/carshare spaces

4.2.7 Bicycle Parking
• Project should include a dedicated electric bicycle-sharing program for residents to promote non-vehicular mobility in conjunction with the future rail line. • Include space to accommodate and promote active transportation such as a dedicated and secure bicycle center that integrates bike storage/parking, showers, lockers, and repair services.

The center could also be designed to be partially available to the public. (Community Benefit) • The number of bicycle parking spaces seems low based on number of units being provided.

Number of bicycle spaces should be established by number of bedrooms/units or total residential floor area not number of total vehicle parking spaces. • Please see additional edits in this section in track changes.

4.3 Land Use Matrix
• Use classifications listed in Table 4-4 should be consistent with the use classifications listed in PRMC 18.40.040 for consistency purposes.

City of Pico Rivera
The Mercury Specific Plan-Peer Review

Page 6 ends

• Due to the limited area of approximately 5,000sf of commercial space provided on the ground floor, should consider trimming this down to retail serving uses or personal service and restaurant type uses. Seems to be an array of uses for such a small commercial area.

4.4 Design Guidelines
• Per SB 330 and SB 35, both bills require cities to review residential development based on objective standards rather than subjective standards. Recommend that City require objective design standards for the Specific Plan.
• Please review comments/edits in track changes for additional language to be added throughout all sections of the Design Guidelines chapter.
• Exhibit 4-11 does not match or is not consistent with the area shown as pedestrian plaza in front of the building. Revise these rendering for consistency throughout.

4.4.3 Landscape Guidelines
• Please provide a conceptual landscape plan as part of the plan.

4.4.4 Open Space Amenities
• Please insert a new section here and expand on the amenities offered as part of this development.

4.4.6 Walls & Screening Concept
• Please provide more details as to what kind of walls, height, and design is being proposed.

4.4.7 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
• All language under this section should be consistent with the PRMC Wireless baseline code. See edits/comments in track changes.

Chapter 5: Implementation
• This chapter should include a project schedule or illustration/chart to show implementation of the project.
• Overall, there are no real commitments in the plan. Need to discuss proposed Community Benefits with City Staff.

ENCLOSU
RE 9
1i

500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071  PHONE 213.622.8095 2206019:RIN:kee
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 18865.001.001
ADVISORS IN:

Real Estate
Affordable Housing
Economic Development

BERKELEY
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly
Debbie M. Kern
David Doezema

LOS ANGELES
Kathleen H. Head
James A. Rabe
Gregory D. Soo-Hoo
Kevin E. Engstrom
Julie L. Romey

SAN DIEGO
Paul C. Marra

MEMORANDUM
To: Kimiko Lizardi, Rincon Consultants
Michael Rocque, Rincon Consultants
From: Kevin Engstrom
Date: June 27, 2022
Subject: Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) a conducted a peer of the market study and fiscal impact analysis for a proposed development located on a

2.85-acre parcel at 8825 Washington Boulevard (Site) in the City of Pico Rivera (City).

The May 4, 2020 market analysis (Market Study) prepared by RCLCO Real Estate Advisors (RCLCO) evaluated the market demand for the 255-unit apartment development (Project) on the Site. KMA also reviewed the findings of the December 2021 fiscal impact analysis (FIA) prepared by Kosmont Companies (KC) for the Project.

As KMA understands the situation, the City would like to understand the key issues affecting their findings. To this end, KMA summarized the Market Study and FIA and reviewed their salient findings.

RCLCO MARKET STUDY
The salient findings of the Market Study are summarized below:
• Pico Rivera has not experienced any new development in recent years, and as a result, has a low vacancy rate of 3.3% in 2019.
• Rent growth averaged 5.2% from 2015-19.

ENCLOSURE 10
1j
Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 2 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
• The project will include 255 units, with an average size of 726 square feet.

The units range from 544 square feet for studios to 1,581 square feet for three-bedroom units.1
• A summary of the projected rents is provided below:

Project Summary - Market Study
Units Rent Rent/SF
Studio 24 $1,890 $3.42
1-Bedroom Jnr 32 $1,940 $3.37
1-Bedroom 122 $2,015 $3.27
2-Bedroom 73 $2,695 $2.73
3-Bedroom 4 $3,925 $2.48
Project Total/Average 255 $2,220 $3.06
• The study projected a 5% vacancy factor for the project, which would be achieved in less than 16 months after opening.

KMA reviewed the key assumptions and findings of the Market Study:
• RCLCo indicates an average effective rent of $1,454 for Pico Rivera and $1,706 for the Gateway Cities. Data provided by Costar for the Southeast Los Angeles market area indicates the same average effective rent of $1,454 (2020), with 4- and 5-star properties averaging $2,084. • Data provided by Costar for the Southeast Los Angeles market area indicates an average effective apartment rent of $2.00 per square foot (PSF) (2020).

Rents for 4- and 5-Star properties average $2.14 PSF (2020). • RCLCo indicates an average vacancy rate of 3.2% for Pico Rivera and 3.7% for the Gateway Cities. Data provided by Costar for the Southeast Los Angeles market area indicates an average vacancy rate of 3.4% (2020). For 4-and 5- Star properties the average vacancy rate is 2.0%.
1 The analysis was prepared in May 2020, so changes have occurred to impact the average, mix and sizing of the units. Please note, the different unit mix than the Market Study.

Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 3 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
• RCLCo identified nine projects as the “Competitive Set” for the Project. The projects are in Pico Rivera, Alhambra, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier, West Covina, Cerritos and La Habra. The market area for the 88 at Alhambra Place (Alhambra) and The Colony at the Lakes (West Covina) are different than the subject site, as such their inclusion in the comparable project analysis is likely unwarranted.
• The average rent PSF for the Alhambra project ($3.31 PSF) well exceeds the weighted average of the comparative set, which is $2.80 PSF. The Market Study projected a weighted average rent of $3.06 PSF for the Project, which is 9.2% higher than the competitive set and 43% higher than the average for 4- and 5-star properties in the market area.
• The average asking rent for the Project is $2,220, which is lower than the competitive set average of $2,410, but 6.5% higher than the average for 4- and 5-star properties in the Southeast LA market area and 53% higher than the market area average.
• The average unit size for the Project is 726 square feet, which is 16% smaller than the competitive set average of 862 square feet. To this end, the unit mix for the Project indicates 22% of the units are under 575 square feet while only 13% of the competitive set units are below this threshold. Further, the one-bedroom (617 square feet compared to 740 square feet) and twobedroom (988 square feet compared to 1,066+ square feet) in the Project are much smaller than the comparable projects.
• The Market Study indicates the “renters are likely to view the smaller unit sizes as a viable trade-off for the site’s retail-rich location, attractive lifestyle, high quality units and community amenities.” The developer indicates they own and manage nearly 1,000 units throughout Los Angeles County, and finds studio and one-bedroom units rent more quickly that two- and threebedroom units. • Based on a February 11, 2022 memo from RCLCo, the projected average household income level for the Project ranges from $76,100 to $88,800. The average household income in the City is $78,900; however, the median household income is $65,200.2 Further, approximately 9.0% of City 2 Esri Business Analyst
Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 4 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
households earn over $150,000 annually, while nearly 14% of the Project households are projected to exceed this threshold.
• Based on the February 11, 2022 RCLCO memorandum, the Market Study assumes the following average household sizes:

Average Household Size
Persons
Studio/Junior 1-Bedroom 1.00
1-Bedroom 1.25
2-Bedroom 1.75
3-Bedroom 2.25
Average 1.35
For context, the average household size in the City is 3.79 persons.

Countywide, the average is 3.00 persons. Approximately one-third of the occupied housing units in the City has one to two persons. • The Market Study indicates the Project would capture between 35% and 50% of the income qualified demand potential in the City. In addition, the Market Study assumes an additional 25% of other demand induced by the Project due to its high quality and being first to the market. These assumptions are all relatively aggressive, as new developments both inside and outside of the City could materially impact the projected capture rates.

Market Study Key Issues
Some key issues for the City to consider:
• Due to the lack of development over the past few years, apartment vacancy rates in the City and market area are very low.
• The average rent per square foot for the Project is extremely aggressive. To achieve these projections, the apartments would need to generate rents per square foot that are 43% higher than the 4-and 5-star projects in the market area. Further, these rents are higher than the Competitive Set, even when it includes the Alhambra project, which generates rents of $3.31 per square foot.

Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 5 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
• The average asking rent for the Project is $2,220 per month, which is only 6.5% higher than the 4- and 5-star projects in the market area, but still over 50% higher than the market area average.
• The average unit sizes are relatively small, hence the extremely high per square foot rents. In fact, the units are much smaller than the Competitive Set. The market depth for units at these sizes is very much unproven in the City. • While the developer’s experience may indicate studio and one-bedroom units rent more quickly, the proposed unit sizes are still much smaller in the Project than those in the competitive set.
• The Project will have a larger share of higher income households when compared to the City. These households would be making a choice to rent rather than buy in the City. While a highly amenitized Project may be appealing, the demand for these units is unproven.
• The Project would need to capture a large share of the potential market area demand. As competition increases, this may prove challenging over time. • The proposed density for the Project is 89 units per acre. This is an extremely highdensity level for the City, as most projects in similar markets will be less than 60 units per acre.

Overall, vacancy rates in the market area are very low and rents have increased at a healthy rate over recent years, indicating apartment demand. However, the market depth for the unit sizes and pricing of this Project is unproven, thus indicating there is significant risk that the rent and absorption targets will not be achieved.

KC FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The approach used in a fiscal analysis is to estimate public revenues based on specific parameters of the proposed development where appropriate (i.e. number and value of residential units, commercial square footage, value and sales per square foot for commercial uses), or based on the projected number of residents or employees for revenues that generally vary by population and/or employment. City service costs are estimated based on the number of persons served (a combination of residents and Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 6 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
employees). The public service costs are deducted from the public revenues to derive the net benefit of the Project to the City. To that end, the FIA methodology follows typical industry standards. For the peer review, KMA evaluated the reasonableness of the KC assumptions given our understanding of the Project and experience with similar developments in the region. The salient findings of the FIA are summarized below:
• The Project will include the following:

Project Summary – FIA1
Units
Studio 35
1-Bedroom 159
2-Bedroom 57
3-Bedroom 4
Total 255
• Approximately 5% of the units (13) may be set aside for low/moderate household incomes.
• The net impact calculated by KC to the City General Fund is summarized below3:

Net Impact to the City General Fund
KC
Project City Revenues $346,600
Project City Expenditures ($178,300)
Net Annual City Revenues $168,300
The FIA indicates the Project would have a net positive impact on the City’s General Fund of $168,000 annually.
3 Estimate is based on rounded numbers.

Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 7 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
City Revenues
The City revenues generated by the Project are $346,600 annually at stabilization.

Based on the proposed development and tax allocations, the major source of public revenues are property taxes.
• The analysis assumes an $80.0 million assessed value for the Project, which equates to $314,000 per unit.
• The Site’s assessed value of $4.45 million is consistent with the LA County Assessor. • The tax rates utilized to estimate the General Fund property taxes and Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees are accurate.
• The Pico Rivera LTG Maintenance revenues ($17,000) requires further clarification and substantiation. Typically, an FIA will focus solely on General Fund revenues. In addition, a review of the revenue distribution for the Project’s Tax Rate Area indicates a rate of .87% for the Pico Rivera LTG Maintenance Zone 2 and not the

2.2% of the base levy utilized in the KC analysis.
• The FIA assumes the 5,500 square feet of retail in the Project will generate taxable sales of $300 per square foot ($1.65 million). Meeting this projection will be challenging, as space in similar mixed-use projects is often leased to service providers (e.g. dry cleaners, nail salons, etc.), which do not generate significant taxable sales. Further, a transfer of sales is typically assumed when preparing FIA projections. Assuming, the net new, taxable sales generated by the Project are 20% less than projected herein and only 80% of the sales are taxable, then the actual impact would be $20,000 to $25,000 compared to the $35,000 estimated in the FIA. • Residents are projected to spend $25,000 annually on taxable sales of which 60% would be captured by the City. These assumptions appear to be very aggressive, as $25,000 is approximately 30% of the average household income identified in the Market Study. KMA would expect the taxable retail sales to be closer to 15% to 20% of the average household income, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics – Consumer Expenditure Survey for households earning from $70,000 to $90,000. In addition, the Cit’s capture rate is also likely to be lower at 40% - 50% of these expenditures, particularly as some of these sales are being captured in the on-site Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 8 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
sales projections. Assuming these factors, the off-site sales tax generated by the Project would only be $40,000 to $45,000 compared to $80,000 in the FIA.4 • The average household size utilized in the FIA is significantly different than the information provided by RCLCo:

Average Household Size (Persons)
KC RCLCo
Studio/Junior 1-Bedroom 1.50 1.00
1-Bedroom 2.00 1.25
2-Bedroom 2.50 1.75
3-Bedroom 3.50 2.25
Average 2.10 1.35
• The per capita factors utilized to project the Other Tax Revenue (e.g. Utility Users Tax, Franchise Fees, etc.) appear to be reasonable.5
• A comparison of the KMA and Kosmont assumptions is provided in the table below:

Project Revenue Summary
Property Tax KC KMA
Property Tax - General Fund $51,400 $51,400
Property Tax - Lighting District $17,000 $6,700
Project VLF Replacement $120,500 $114,900
Total City Property Tax Revenue $188,900 $173,000
Sales Tax
On-Site Commercial $34,700 $21,100
Resident Expenditures $80,300 $40,800
Use Tax $0 $6,200
Total City Sales Tax Revenue $115,000 $68,100
Other City Revenues
Utility Users Tax $22,100 $22,100
Franchise Fees $12,500 $12,500
Business Licenses $1,700 $1,700
Fines/Forfeitures $6,400 $6,400
Total Other City Revenue $42,700 $42,700
Annual City Revenue $346,600 $283,800
4 Assuming the City’s base 1.0% share of taxable sales plus the 1.0% sales tax override for Measure P. 5 Franchise fees include Rubbish fee.

Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 9 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
City Expenses
The City expenses generated by the Project are $178,300 annually at stabilization. • The projected general fund expenditures rely on a per equivalent resident methodology. As such, the estimated population and employment base in the City appear to be reasonable. Further, assuming an equivalency factor of .50 for the employees is typical within the industry.
• The General Fund expense allocations appear to be reasonable, except for Public Safety. Typically, Public Safety costs are allocated at 100% of the City’s PER costs, as these costs often increase at a rate faster than inflation and ensuring the provision of fully-funded fire and police services is key to a City’s well-being. The KC analysis assumes 80% of the PER costs. Assuming 100% of these costs, would increase the City’s expenses approximately $18,000 annually.

Project Expense Summary
KC KMA
Administration $6,800 $6,800
Public Safety $71,700 $89,700
Community & Economic Dev. $8,100 $8,100
Administrative Services $9,600 $9,600
Human Resources $3,800 $3,800
Non-Departmental $21,500 $21,500
Parks & Recreation $22,600 $22,700
Public Works $30,400 $30,500
Sales Tax Pledge $3,800 $3,800
City Operating Expenses $178,300 $196,500
Key Issues
Some key issues for the City to consider:
• The Report methodology conforms to industry standards for fiscal impact analyses. • The average household sizes in the Market Study and the FIA are inconsistent.

Overall, the households are much smaller than the City average. If the households Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 10 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
end up being larger, the City’s property tax won’t increase and it’s unclear if the other City revenues (e.g. off-site sales tax, Other City revenues) would be sufficient to offset the increases in City service costs.
• The unit mix in the Market Study is not consistent with the FIA; however, the FIA was prepared after the Market Study, reflecting the evolution of the Project. • The Pico Rivera LTG Maintenance line item in the FIA appears to be overstated and requires clarification.
• The sales tax projections appear to be very aggressive. Successful retail will generate sales of $300 per square foot; however, tenants in mixed use space such as this will often be a mix of service and retail establishments. The service establishments will not generate taxable sales at these levels. Further, a transfer of sales from other establishments in the City is likely.
• The off-site sales appear overstated, due to the high retail sales generated by Project residents. Consequently, the potential taxable expenditures captured by the City are likely to be closer to $40,000, than the $80,000 projected in the FIA. • The public safety cost estimates in the FIA are relatively low, particularly given the rapid cost increases for these services over the past decade for Southern California cities.
• The analysis is static; therefore, it does not capture revenue and cost increases over time. For instance, recent years have seen public safety costs increase at a rate much faster than inflation for many Southern California cities. Over 50% of the Project revenues are generated by property taxes, which are capped at 2.0% annually; therefore, the surplus generated by the Project may disappear over time, particularly given the relatively slim surplus estimated by KMA, as shown below.

Project Net Fiscal Impact
KC KMA
Annual City Revenue $346,600 $283,800
City Operating Expenses ($178,300) ($196,500)
Net Fiscal Impact $168,300 $87,300
500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071  PHONE 213.622.8095 2201003:IRV:kee
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 18865.001.001
ADVISORS IN:

Real Estate
Affordable Housing
Economic Development

BERKELEY
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly
Debbie M. Kern
David Doezema

LOS ANGELES
Kathleen H. Head
James A. Rabe
Gregory D. Soo-Hoo
Kevin E. Engstrom
Julie L. Romey

SAN DIEGO
Paul C. Marra

MEMORANDUM
To: Kimiko Lizardi
Michael Rocque
Rincon Consultants
From: Kevin Engstrom
Date: January 6, 2022
Subject: Preliminary Review – 8825 Washington Boulevard Project Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) a conducted a preliminary review of the May 4, 2020 market analysis (Report) prepared by RCLCO Real Estate Advisors (RCLCO) for a proposed development located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (Site) in the City of Pico Rivera (City). The analysis evaluates market demand for a 255-unit apartment development (Project) on the Site. As KMA understands the situation, the City would like to understand the key issues affecting the Report Findings.

To this end, KMA prepared the following comments and questions for the developer and RCLCO:

1. Based on the date of the Report, what changes in the market could/would impact its findings?

3. The Report indicated numerous new projects coming on-line in the Gateway Cities, what is the status of this inventory?

4. The market for the 88 at Alhambra Place and The Colony at the Lakes appear significantly different than the subject site, please fully detail the rationale to Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque January 6, 2022
Preliminary Review – 8825 Washington Boulevard Project Page 2 2201003:IRV:kee
18865.001.001
include these projects in the competitive set, as they appear well outside the Competitive Market Area.

6. How did RCLCO and the development team identify the mix and size of the units in the Project? Specifically:
a. The unit mix and rents for the comparable projects shown on pages 18 and 19 show 22% of the units are under 575 square feet while only 13% of the market area units are below this threshold. Why is the share of smaller units in this Project so high?
b. Consistent with the previous question both the one-bedroom (617 square feet compared to 740 square feet) and two-bedroom (988 square feet compared to 1,066+ square feet) in the Project are much smaller than the comparable projects, please explain.
c. The study indicates the “renters are likely to view the smaller unit sizes as a viable trade-off for the site’s retail-rich location, attractive lifestyle, high quality units and community amenities.” What experience does the developer have with a project attempting to hit this target? In addition, what experience does the developer have leasing smaller units in this market area?
d. Given the small unit sizes, how will the developer address potential issues regarding overcrowding?

7. Please detail the factors assumed to arrive at the total capture rates shown on

Page 24 ends

a. What is the City’s historical and projected share of renter households in the primary market area?
b. What shift in trends was assumed?
c. What is the basis for the rent as a percent of income estimates shown in Exhibit III-3?
Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque January 6, 2022
Preliminary Review – 8825 Washington Boulevard Project Page 3 2201003:IRV:kee
18865.001.001
d. What is the basis for the share of annual rental demand pool that chooses multi-family rentals shown in Exhibit III-3?

8. The proposed income levels required to afford the projected rents appear relatively high, particularly given the unit sizes. To that end:
a. What is the average household income level assumed for the Project? b. What is the projected average household income for each of the unit types?
c. How do the projected average household income levels for the unit types compare to existing household income levels in Pico Rivera? d. Approximately 8.9% of City households earn over $150,000 per year.

Based on the graph shown on page 24, it appears nearly 14% of the Project households would earn over $150,000, is this correct? If so, please explain the rationale for these higher income households choosing this project over other units in the City and market area. e. What is the developer’s experience with multi-family, rental projects that would require income levels much higher than surrounding environs?

9. What are the projected household sizes for the Project? Specifically:
a. What is the household size for each of the unit types in the Project? b. How do the projected household sizes for the Project compare to existing household sizes by room count in Pico Rivera?

10. Has a fiscal analysis for the project been prepared? Typically, a thorough evaluation of the project would address the following:
a. Projection of Annual Revenues – Provide an estimate of the gross annual recurring tax revenues and subvention revenues to be generated by the build out of the project, which are allocated to the City’s General Fund.

Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque January 6, 2022
Preliminary Review – 8825 Washington Boulevard Project Page 4 2201003:IRV:kee
18865.001.001
b. Projection of Annual Plan Service Costs – This would be an assessment of annual General Fund operating and maintenance costs related to providing services.
c. Preparation of a basic set of general fund revenues and costs generated by the project. Often a comparison analysis is prepared to evaluate the fiscal impact of a “by right” development

MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 2022
TO: City of Pico Rivera
FROM: Derek Wyatt, Managing Director, and Josh Ball, Senior Associate SUBJECT: Responses to Preliminary Review – 8825 Washington Boulevard Project RCLCO prepared a Strategic Market Analysis (“Report”) dated May 4, 2020 for Optimus Properties, LLC (“Developer”) related to the proposed apartment development located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (“Site”) in the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). Keyser Marston Associates (“KMA”), the City’s consultant, has reviewed the report and prepared a series of comments and questions for Developer and RCLCO. RCLCO has prepared responses to the relevant questions below, but has not undertaken a comprehensive effort to update the Report.

1. Based on the date of the Report, what changes in the market could/would impact its findings? Since the Report was published, the apartment market in Pico Rivera and Gateway Cities has performed well, with vacancy in Pico Rivera falling to a historical low of 0.6% as of February 2022 and decreasing to 2.5% in the Gateway Cities submarket. Despite economic headwinds caused by COVID-19, rent growth was also strong, with rents growing by 8.9% in Pico Rivera and 11.0% for the broader Gateway Cities since March 2020 (when data was collected for the Report). These strong metrics suggest potential increases from the original projections, particularly regarding achievable rental rates.

2. The Report indicated two communities in Pico Rivera that were undergoing renovations in 2020, have these been completed? If so, what are the current asking rents and vacancy levels in these properties? California Villages has completed its renovation and is currently 99.5% occupied with average asking rents of $2,026 per month ($3.13/SF), a

10.1% increase from the Report. Corsica Apartments (since rebranded as Lucia Apartments) has also completed its renovation and currently has an occupancy rate of 98.6% with average asking rents of $2,054 per month ($2.49/SF), a 2.4% increase from the Report.

3. The Report indicated numerous new projects coming on-line in the Gateway Cities, what is the status of this inventory? Since the beginning of 2020, nearly 1,400 units have been delivered in the Gateway Cities. However, absorption has outpaced this new supply, with over 1,900 units absorbed over the same period. Vacancy rates for the new projects are higher, which is expected as many of these new communities are still early in their lease-up periods.

4. The market for the 88 at Alhambra Place and The Colony at the Lakes appear significantly different than the subject site, please fully detail the rationale to include these projects in the competitive set, as they appear well outside the Competitive Market Area.

To provide additional context and considering the lack of new contemporary communities in Pico Rivera, RCLCO surveyed competitive communities in Alhambra (88 at Alhambra Place) and West Covina as well (The Colony at the Lakes). While these communities are located outside of the Gateway Cities and are unlikely to represent significant competition to the site, they nonetheless offer additional examples of well executed apartment communities that likely appeal to a similar set of target markets, and offer additional context in terms of successful product programs and amenity offerings.

5. The projected rents for the subject site are much higher than the two existing developments in Pico Rivera. What contingency is there in the current development pro forma if the projected rents are not achieved? Per Developer, “there is enough room in the operating budget if market rents are not achieved.”

6. How did RCLCO and the development team identify the mix and size of the units in the Project? Specifically:
a. The unit mix and rents for the comparable projects shown on pages 18 and 19 show 22% of the units are under 575 square feet while only 13% of the market area units are below this threshold. Why is the share of smaller units in this Project so high? ENCLOSURE 11
1k
Optimus Properties, LLC | U1-15209.00 | 2
The Report indicates an opportunity to capture a market that doesn’t currently live in the area, likely due to the lack of product that meets their needs and preferences. Contemporary communities in other locations such as Pico Rivera are also introducing new products with unit mixes and sizes that may not be consistent with existing supply, but nonetheless are attractive to the evolving target market of renters. The smaller unit sizes also allow the development to attract price-conscious renters who may prefer to live in a smaller unit that offers nicer finishes and amenities.
b. Consistent with the previous question both the one-bedroom (617 square feet compared to 740 square feet) and two-bedroom (988 square feet compared to 1,066+ square feet) in the Project are much smaller than the comparable projects, please explain.

This also relates to the general trend of apartment development moving towards smaller unit sizes mentioned above. Newer projects are able to be more efficiently designed, offering a similar experience in a smaller amount of space, while maintaining attractive rents on a “chunk” rent perspective (the total monthly rent paid by the tenant). c. The study indicates the “renters are likely to view the smaller unit sizes as a viable trade-off for the site’s retail-rich location, attractive lifestyle, high quality units and community amenities.” What experience does the developer have with a project attempting to hit this target? In addition, what experience does the developer have leasing smaller units in this market area? Per Developer, “Optimus has been around since 2007 and owns and manages close to 1,000 units throughout Los Angeles County. Studios and 1BR units have much higher demand and lease quicker compared to 2BR and 3BR units in our portfolio.” d. Given the small unit sizes, how will the developer address potential issues regarding overcrowding? Per Developer, “there are occupancy standards for all of Optimus’ Buildings. Two people per bedroom and one person per living room, meaning studios would have a maximum of two people, 1BR a maximum of three people, and 2BR a maximum of five people.”

7. Please detail the factors assumed to arrive at the total capture rates shown on Page 24. Specifically:
a. What is the City’s historical and projected share of renter households in the primary market area? According to Esri, the City’s historical share of renter households in the Primary Market Area was 1.8% in 2019. This figure is expected to remain somewhat consistent until new rental product is introduced, with Esri projecting a 1.7% share of renter households in 2024. b. What shift in trends was assumed?
The Report assumed that the City’s share of renter households has been limited by the fact that there has not been any apartment development in over a decade. By introducing new product, the City could increase its share of available demand in the Primary Market Area.
c. What is the basis for the rent as a percent of income estimates shown in Exhibit III-3? This is based on Census Data, RCLCO experience, and conversations with leasing professionals at the communities profiled in the market study.
d. What is the basis for the share of annual rental demand pool that chooses multi-family rentals shown in Exhibit III-3? This share is based on detailed data for the Primary Market Area from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

8. The proposed income levels required to afford the projected rents appear relatively high, particularly given the unit sizes. To that end:
a. What is the average household income level assumed for the Project? At the projected average rent of $2,220 from the Report and assuming an average rent to income ratio of 30% to 35%, the implied average household income would be between $76,100 and $88,800.
b. What is the projected average household income for each of the unit types? Following a similar approach as described in 8.a., the average income by unit type is shown in the table below:

UNIT TYPE AVG. RENT AVERAGE INCOME
Studio $1,890 $64,800 - $75,600
Jr. 1BR $1,940 $66,514 - $77,600
1BR $2,015 $69,086 - $80,600
2BR $2,695 $92,400 - $107,800
3BR $3,925 $134,571 - $157,000
Optimus Properties, LLC | U1-15209.00 | 3
c. How do the projected average household income levels for the unit types compare to existing household income levels in Pico Rivera? According to Esri, the average household income for Pico Rivera was $78,886 in 2019, similar to the average household income based on the projected rents (see 8.a. above).
d. Approximately 8.9% of City households earn over $150,000 per year. Based on the graph shown on page 24, it appears nearly 14% of the Project households would earn over $150,000, is this correct? If so, please explain the rationale for these higher income households choosing this project over other units in the City and market area.

Higher income households are typically drawn to newer and higher quality units. Because there has been a lack of both new and high-quality inventory in Pico Rivera for more than a decade, the Subject Site should be able to induce demand from households that currently live outside the City. Additionally, the analysis assumes that this project can attract renter households from beyond just the City of Pico Rivera providing greater market depth among these higher income households, particularly those that might have considered Pico Rivera but did not have comparable product available to them.
e. What is the developer’s experience with multi-family, rental projects that would require income levels much higher than surrounding environs? Per Developer, “Optimus has 15 years of experience bringing luxury apartments to areas lacking them.”

9. What are the projected household sizes for the Project? Specifically:
a. What is the household size for each of the unit types in the Project? The Report assumes an average household size of 1.0 for Studios and Junior 1BRs, 1.25 for 1BRs, 1.75 for 2BRs, and 2.25 for 3BRs. The unit mix provided in the Report implies an average household size of 1.35 for the total project. b. How do the projected household sizes for the Project compare to existing household sizes by room count in Pico Rivera? Using localized data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the average household sizes for renters in Pico Rivera are generally 1.0 across Studio and 1BRs, 1.65 for 2BRs, and 2.10 for 3BRs. As a result, our projected household sizes are slightly larger than the current market conditions in Pico Rivera.

10. Has a fiscal analysis for the project been prepared? Typically, a thorough evaluation of the project would address the following:

Yes, Kosmont Companies prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the project. a. Projection of Annual Revenues – Provide an estimate of the gross annual recurring tax revenues and subvention revenues to be generated by the build out of the project, which are allocated to the City’s General Fund. b. Projection of Annual Plan Service Costs – This would be an assessment of annual General Fund operating and maintenance costs related to providing services.
c. Preparation of a basic set of general fund revenues and costs generated by the project. Often a comparison analysis is prepared to evaluate the fiscal impact of a “by right” development

PICO RIVERA

THE MERCURY PROJECT
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared For:

Optimus Properties, LLC
Prepared By:
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
www.kosmont.com
ENCLOSURE 12
1l
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 2 of 19 ends

The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.

December, 2021

REVISED DRAFT
Mr. Jerome Mickelson
Executive Vice President
Optimus Properties, LLC
1801 Century Park East Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
RE: Fiscal Impact Analysis – Pico Rivera The Mercury Project Dear Mr. Mickelson:

Kosmont & Associates, Inc. doing business as Kosmont Companies (“Consultant” or “Kosmont”) is pleased to submit this Fiscal Impact Analysis (“Analysis”) for Optimus Properties, LLC’s (“Client”) proposed The Mercury Project mixed-use residential and retail complex (“Project”). The Project is located at 8825 Washington Blvd. in Pico Rivera (“City”), California.

Background
As an accommodation to City Planning, Client retained Kosmont to do an independent Analysis to evaluate the fiscal impact of the proposed 255-unit apartment and 5,500 SF retail Project being processed.

Analysis Description
This Analysis evaluates the stabilized annual fiscal revenues and expenditures expected for the City’s General Fund. Fiscal revenues were derived from estimating the various taxes associated with the Project including property taxes (secured and unsecured), business taxes, franchise taxes, direct and indirect sales taxes, and utility taxes. Fiscal expenditures such as public safety, public works and administration were estimated on a per capita basis using the City’s Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Adopted Budget, and the resident and employee population within the City.

The Analysis also examines the construction period jobs and wages, as well as the ongoing jobs from commercial operations and indirect/induced jobs from the future resident spending.

The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this Analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.

The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 3 of 19 ends

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................3

1.0 Project Description............................................................................................................4

2.0 Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................6

3.0 Market Context...................................................................................................................9

4.0 Fiscal Impacts..................................................................................................................11

5.0 Fiscal Expenditure Analysis............................................................................................15

6.0 Economic and Job Benefits ............................................................................................18 The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 4 of 19 ends

1.0 Project Description
As a voluntary accommodation to City Planning, Client wants to demonstrate the fiscal implications of the Project to be developed.

Figure 1.1 Site Map & Aerial Photo
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 5 of 19 ends

1.2 Project Summary
The proposed improvements for the Project consist of 255 apartment units (35 studio units, 159 1-bedroom, 57 2-bedroom units and 4 3-bedroom units) with a weighted average size of approximately 700 square feet, and approximately 5,500 square feet of new retail along Washington Blvd. Five percent of units (13) may be set aside for low/moderate household incomes.

Figure 1.2: Site Plan
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 6 of 19 ends

2.0 Executive Summary
Economic Benefits
The Project will yield economic benefits to the City, Los Angeles County (“County”), and the region, as buildout is estimated to bring approximately $72 million in capital expenditures, excluding land acquisition and financing costs. Per IMPLAN analysis, that is estimated to yield an additional $49 million in indirect and induced regional economic output, totaling approximately $121 million Countywide.

Exhibit 2.1 Economic Benefits from Construction
Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies (2021)
Construction is estimated to provide 684 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs on site, with a total of 957 jobs Countywide ($67 million in wages), including indirect and induced impacts.

Operations
At full buildout, resident spending from the Project is estimated to support 143 Countywide service sector jobs ($8.2 million in wages) as shown in Exhibit 2.2. The City is expected to see a significant percentage of the new employment and economic activity.

Exhibit 2.2: Economic Benefits from Annual Operations
Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies (2021)
Economic Benefits from Construction (One-Time / Short-Term) Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 684 $50,292,000 $72,000,000
Indirect 63 $4,357,000 $11,450,000
Induced 210 $12,664,000 $37,496,000
Total Countywide 957 $67,313,000 $120,946,000
Estimated City Capture 698 $51,143,050 $74,447,300
Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation (Annual)
Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 22 $839,000 $1,603,000
Indirect 3 $219,000 $620,000
Induced 118 $7,156,000 $21,463,000
Total Countywide 143 $8,214,000 $23,686,000
Estimated City Capture 52 $2,683,000 $7,124,000
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 7 of 19 ends

Annual Fiscal Impact
The Project is estimated to generate an annual fiscal revenue of approximately $346,600 at full buildout in 2021 dollars, before inflationary adjustments. Annual incremental municipal service costs before inflation are estimated at $178,300, yielding an annual surplus of approximately $168,300 as shown in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1: Summary of Fiscal Impact
Source: Kosmont Companies, City of Pico Rivera Budget
Based on its blend of uses, the Project will provide significant tax revenues from a variety of sources and is expected to provide a more favorable level of revenue protection from future economic downturns for the City General Fund.

Project Net Annual Fiscal Impact
City General Fund Revenues
Estimated
Annual Total
Property Tax (Secured & Unsecured) $68,400
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $120,500
Sales & Use Tax (Direct On-Site) $34,700
Sales & Use Tax (Indirect Off-Site) $80,300
Utilty Users Tax $22,100
Franchise Fees: Gas, Electric, and Cable $12,500
Business Licenses $1,700
Fines/Forfeitures $6,400
Total Estimated General Fund Revenues: $346,600
City General Fund Expenditures
Public Safety $71,700
Public Works $30,400
General Government
Administration $6,800
Human Resources $3,800
Non-Departmental $22,000
Parks & Recreation $22,100
Community Economic Development $8,100
Other $3,800
Total Estimated General Fund Expenditures: $178,300
Estimated City Net Fiscal Impact (Rounded): $168,300
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 8 of 19 ends

Other Benefits
In addition to General Fund revenues and local job creation, the Project will provide indirect benefits to City and El Rancho Unified School District (“School District”) including:
• Increased State and County Highway funds (Measure M and SB 1) that are partially distributed based on population. The formula is somewhat complex, but Kosmont estimates approximately $5,000 per year based on the estimated 500 new residents. • The City will receive estimated development impact fees of $360,000 based on City fee schedule of 0.5% of residential construction cost.
• The School District will receive 20.4% of the basic 1% property tax levy, yielding $157,200 per year as shown in Exhibit 4.2.1 in a following section. • The School District will also receive $475,000 in developer school fees estimated at $2.63 per square foot of residential area.

The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 9 of 19 ends

3.0 Market Overview
Kosmont prepared a summary evaluation of market data on inventory, absorption rates, lease rates and vacancy rates, as well as other factors that illustrate local market demand conditions for the multifamily and commercial retail product types proposed in the Project.

3.1 Multifamily Residential Market Trends
The residential market in Southern California is particularly robust, due to the high demand for housing and low housing production for decades. The eastern Los Angeles County market is relatively affordable by Southern California standards, with demand supported by migration from more expensive submarkets in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Kosmont examined data provided by CoStar and other data sources for Class A & B multifamily properties within a 3-mile radius of the Project site. Virtually all of the existing apartment inventory in the area is over 30 years old. There is only one other multifamily project proposed / under construction in the area, the 825-unit Modelo project located at 7316 E. Gage Ave. in Commerce, expected to be completed in 2023.
• Average asking rents have steadily increased ~4.4% per year to $1,787 per unit in 2021 • Vacancy rate consistently remained under 4%, dropping to 0.9% in 2021.

A history of asking rents and vacancy rates is provided in the chart below.

Figure 3.1: Multifamily Asking Rents and Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar (2021)
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 10 of 19 ends

3.2 Retail Market Trends
Retail Market Data
To understand the retail market, Kosmont examined data provided by CoStar and other data sources for retail properties within a 3-mile radius of the Project site. There is likely limited demand for significant new retail shopping center in the vicinity, as there are many existing shopping centers nearby, including over 700,000 SF of retail space within half a mile of the Project site. • NNN rents have remained relatively flat reaching $22.71 psf in 2021 • Vacancy rates varied between 3.0 – 5.5%, holding steady at ~4.5% over the past two years
A history of retail asking rents and vacancy rates is provided in the chart below.

Figure 3.2: Retail NNN Rents and Vacancy Rate
Source: CoStar (2021)
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 11 of 19 ends

4.0 Fiscal Impacts
This Analysis is based on information provided by the Client, City, County Property Tax AuditorController’s Office, California Department of Finance (“DOF”), California Board of Equalization (“BOE”), and ESRI.

4.1 General Assumptions
Given the uncertainty of actual development timing and future inflation rates for revenues and expenses, Kosmont has focused this Analysis on the estimated annual revenues and expenses at full buildout in 2021 dollars. Other assumptions include:
• 3.3 employees per 1,000 SF of retail/restaurant, plus 4 apartment employees • Average of 1.5 to 3.5 residents per household (studio through 3 bedroom) • Fiscal impacts are estimated at stabilized occupancy

4.2 Fiscal Revenue Analysis

4.2.1 Property Tax
Property tax revenues are based on the anticipated assessed value of the Project upon full buildout and the applicable City property tax rates. The School District receives 20.4%, the General Fund receives 6.67% and the Lighting Maintenance District receives 2.2% of the annual 1.0% secured property tax general levy placed by the County. Based on the expected construction cost of $80 million, the Project is estimated to generate $157,200 and $68,400 in property taxes to the School District and City, respectively.

Exhibit 4.2.1 Property Taxes
Source: Kosmont Companies
Full Buildout
Baseline: Existing Assessed Value $ 4,450,000
Estimated New Assessed Value $80,000,000
Net Assessed Value $75,550,000
Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $755,500
Estimated Unsecured Property Value $1,511,000
Unsecured Tax Levy 1.00% $15,110
Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $770,610 Distributions to Taxing Entities
Pico Rivera LTG Maintenance 2.20% $17,000
Pico Rivera General Tax Levy 6.67% $51,400
El Rancho Unified School District 20.4% $157,200
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 12 of 19 ends

4.2.2 Taxes in Lieu of VLF
Prior to 2004, a percentage of State of California motor vehicle license fee (“VLF”) was distributed to cities. In 2005, the State instituted a revenue swap, guaranteeing that municipalities within California receive a distribution equal to the VLF collected, plus a percentage equal to the annual increase in assessed value, which is equivalent to approximately 16% share of the basic levy, or estimated VLF revenues of $120,500 in 2021 dollars.

Exhibit 4.2.2 Taxes in Lieu of VLF
Source: Kosmont Companies, City of Pico Rivera 2021-22 Budget

4.2.3 Sales Tax (On-Site / Direct)
The Project plan provides up to 5,500 square feet of designated retail/restaurant space. Annual taxable sales are estimated at $1.65 million.

Based on the basic 1.0% sales tax allocated to cities, plus the 1.0% tax from Measure P that was approved in 2008, and a 10% add-on for State and County Pool use tax distributions, direct sales tax revenues to the City General Fund at stabilization are estimated at $34,700 per year, as shown.

Exhibit 4.2.3: Sales Tax (On-Site/Direct)
Source: BOE, City of Pico Rivera, and Kosmont Companies Full Buildout
Total AV within City (Roll Year 2019) $5,473,000,000
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF (FY2020-21) $8,729,000 Prop. Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1,000 of AV $1.59
Increased Project Assessed Value $75,550,000
Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $120,500 Stabilized
Washington Blvd Retail SF 5,500 SF
Estimated Taxable Sales - Retail $300.00 PSF $1,650,000 Sales Tax to City 1.00% $16,500
Measure P Tax 1.00% $16,500
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 10.00% $1,650
Total Direct Sales & Use Tax to City: $34,700
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 13 of 19 ends

4.2.4 Sales Tax (Off-Site / Indirect)
Off-site / indirect sales tax revenue projections are estimated based on the taxable sales generated by the spending of Project residents and employees, off-site, within the City. Resident spending is based on average household incomes and BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey data, which provides spending habits of consumers based on average household income.

At stabilized occupancy, the total annual resident retail spending is estimated at $6.38 million Based on the Project’s location amid major shopping area, the Analysis assumes 60% Citywide capture rate for annual resident spending, yielding sales and use tax revenue to the General Fund estimated at $80,300 per year.

Exhibit 4.2.4: Sales Tax (Off-Site/Indirect)
Source: BOE, City of Pico Rivera, and Kosmont Companies

4.2.5 Other Tax Revenues
Exhibit 4.2.5: Other tax Revenue Per Capita Estimate
Source: City of Pico Rivera City Budget and Kosmont Companies Full Buildout
Estimated # Households 255
Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / HH $25,000
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by New Residents $6,375,000 Estimated Capture within City 60.0% $3,825,000
Sales Tax to City 1.00% $38,250
Measure P Tax 1.00% $38,250
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 10.00% $3,825
Total Indirect Sales & Use Tax to City: $80,300
City Budget Category
2021/22City
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant
City
Population Discount
Per
Capita
Factor
General Fund Revenues
Utility Users Tax $3,131,000 Service Population 72,525 0% $43.17 Franchise Fee: Gas, Electric, and Cable $1,767,000 Service Population 72,525 0% $24.36 Business Licenses* $1,433,000 Employee Population 18,750 0% $76.43 Parking Citations, & Other Fines/Forfeitures* $903,000 Service Population 72,525 0% $12.45 Total Selected Revenues $7,234,000
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 14 of 19 ends

Utility Users Tax
The City generates $3,131,000 per year in utility tax from local residents and businesses, which equates to $43.17 per resident/employee times 511 resident-equivalents at stabilized occupancy results in incremental increase of $22,100 per year.

Franchise Taxes
The City generates $1,767,000 in franchise fees, which equates to $24.36 per resident-equivalent times 511 resident-equivalents results in incremental increase of $12,500 at stabilized occupancy.

Business License Taxes
The City generates $1,433,000 per year in business license and misc. permits from local businesses and employees, which equates to $76.43 per employee, times estimated 22 employees at stabilized occupancy results in incremental City revenue increase of $1,700 per year.

Fines & Forfeitures
The City generates an estimated $903,000 per year in fines and forfeitures from local residents and visitors, which equates to $12.45 per resident-equivalent times 511 resident-equivalents at stabilized occupancy results in incremental increase of $6,400 per year.

The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 15 of 19 ends

5.0 Fiscal Expenditure Analysis
General Fund expenditures such as Public Safety, Administration, Public Works, Community Development Services are estimated on a per capita basis.

At 95% stabilized occupancy, the Project is estimated to house 500 residents, based on the following per unit occupancy:
• 35 Studio Units @ 1.5 residents per unit
• 159 1-Bdrm Units @ 2.0 residents per unit
• 57 2-Bdrm units @ 2.5 residents per unit
• 4 3-Bdrm units @ 3.5 residents per unit
There are an estimated 22 employees to be working in the apartments and at the retail/restaurant space. At 95% apartment occupancy and 50% resident-equivalent factor for the employees, there is a total of 511 resident-equivalents. Using the City’s Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Adopted Budget, and the 63,150 resident population and 18,750 local employees (per U.S. Census Bureau Economic Studies) within the City, yields a resident-equivalent population of 72,525 as shown in Exhibit 5.1 below.

Exhibit 5.1 Citywide Daytime Population
Source; Kosmont Companies, ESRI
To estimate marginal revenue and costs, Kosmont reviewed select departments to estimate the fixed and variable components of the 2021/22 budget in order to estimate the per capita revenue and cost impact of the new residents and employees.

Total City Population (2021) 63,150
Total City Employee Population (2019) 18,750
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.50
Total Weighted # Employees 9,375
Total City Service Population 72,525
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 16 of 19 ends

Exhibit 5.2 General Fund Cost Factors
Source: City Budget, Kosmont Companies
Public Safety
The Public Safety department is the largest budget expenditure item, at $12.7 million, representing approximately 28% of total expenditures. Assuming 80% variable costs, the per capita cost factor for incremental Public Safety costs are estimated at $140.23 per year as shown in Exhibit 5.2. With 511 resident-equivalents, the annual increase in service costs is $71,700.

Fire & EMS
Fire and Emergency Services are provided by the County and are paid by direct assessments from each property owner, so there is no impact on City budgets.

Public Works
Public Works department is second largest expenditure category at $8.6 million. Assuming 50% variable costs, the per capita cost factor is estimated at $59.56 per year. With 511 residentequivalents, the annual increase in service costs is estimated at $30,400.

General Government
General Government (City Manager, City Clerk, City Manager, Community Economic Development, Finance and Administrative Services) and Non-Departmental (Citywide functions) cost is $24.1 million per year. As shown in Exhibit 5.3, the per capita cost factors total approximately $150 per year. Based on the resident and employee population the incremental increase is estimated at $76,200.

In summary, at stabilized operations the Project will result in total annual allocated municipal service costs estimated at $178,300 in 2021 dollars, as shown in Exhibit 5.3 below.

General Fund Expenditures 2021/22City
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant
City
Population
Discount
for Fixed
Costs
Per
Capita
Factor
Public Safety $12,713,000 Service Population 72,525 20% $140.23 Public Works $8,639,000 Service Population 72,525 50% $59.56 General Government
Administration $1,940,000 Service Population 72,525 50% $13.37 Administrative services $2,426,000 Resident Population 63,150 50% $19.21 Human Resources $1,086,000 Service Population 72,525 50% $7.49 Non-Departmental $6,233,000 Service Population 72,525 50% $42.97 Parks & Recreation $5,593,000 Resident Population 63,150 50% $44.28 Community Economic Development $5,738,000 Service Population 72,525 80% $15.82 Other $1,065,000 Service Population 72,525 50% $7.34
Subtotal General Government $24,081,000 $150.49
Total: Selected Expenditures $45,433,000 $350.28
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 17 of 19 ends

Exhibit 5.3 Annual General Fund Costs
Source: Kosmont Companies
As shown in Exhibit 5.4 below, the Project is expected to generate gross annual revenue of approximately $346,600 at full buildout, before inflation. The major contributors to City revenues are property tax and VLF In-Lieu at $188,000 or 54% of the total, followed by onsite and offsite sales tax with 33% of the total revenues After estimated incremental General Fund expenditures of $178,300 per year before inflation, the net fiscal surplus is projected to be $168,300 per year.

Exhibit 5.4: Summary of Net Fiscal Impact
Source: City of Pico Rivera, Kosmont Companies
Full Buildout
Expenditures
Public Safety Service Population $71,700
Public Works Service Population $30,400
General Government
Administration Service Population $6,800
Administrative services Resident Population $9,600
Human Resources Service Population $3,800
Non-Departmental Service Population $22,000
Parks & Recreation Resident Population $22,100
Community Economic Development Service Population $8,100 Other Service Population $3,800
Subtotal General Government $76,200
Total Multiplier Expenditures - Rounded: $178,300
Project Net Annual Fiscal Impact
City General Fund Revenues
Estimated
Annual Total
Property Tax (Secured & Unsecured) $68,400
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $120,500
Sales & Use Tax (Direct On-Site) $34,700
Sales & Use Tax (Indirect Off-Site) $80,300
Utilty Users Tax $22,100
Franchise Fees: Gas, Electric, and Cable $12,500
Business Licenses $1,700
Fines/Forfeitures $6,400
Total Estimated General Fund Revenues: $346,600
City General Fund Expenditures
Public Safety $71,700
Public Works $30,400
General Government
Administration $6,800
Human Resources $3,800
Non-Departmental $22,000
Parks & Recreation $22,100
Community Economic Development $8,100
Other $3,800
Total Estimated General Fund Expenditures: $178,300
Estimated City Net Fiscal Impact (Rounded): $168,300
The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 18 of 19 ends

6.0 Economic and Job Benefits

6.1 Construction Cost
Construction of the Project is expected to take place in one phase. The estimated hard and soft costs for the Project, excluding land and financing are approximately $72 million. Land acquisition and financing costs are not referenced, as they do not impact the economic benefit calculations.

6.2 IMPLAN Modeling
This Analysis uses the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) econometric input/output model developed by the IMPLAN Group to quantify the economic benefit to the local region from Project construction / renovation and ongoing operations. This proprietary model estimates the economic benefits on the industries in a given geographic area based on known economic inputs, such as construction costs. The model estimates direct, indirect, and induced benefits expressed in terms of increased economic activity (“output”), earnings (“labor income”), and job creation.

Direct Economic Benefits: Direct benefits refer to the short-term business activity of general contractors involved in Project construction / renovation and the ongoing business activities of Project tenants.

Indirect Economic Benefits: Indirect benefits will result when local firms directly impacted by the Project purchase materials, supplies or services from other firms. Examples would include increased sales of building materials as a result of construction activity, and increased sales of inputs related to the business operations of tenants within the Project.

Induced Economic Benefits: Induced benefits relate to the consumption spending of employees of firms that are directly or indirectly affected by the Project. These would include the goods and services normally associated with household consumption (e.g., housing, retail purchases, local services, etc.).

Inputs for the IMPLAN economic benefit analysis include the development budget provided by the Client and permanent on-site employment information estimated by Kosmont. The permanent full-time employment estimates were derived from similar projects and industry standard persquare-foot employment densities for corresponding land use types.

The Mercury Project
Fiscal Impact Analysis
December, 2021

Page 19 of 19 ends

6.3 Construction Related Economic Benefits
During the construction period, the Project is expected to produce approximately 684 direct construction jobs, and combined with indirect and induced impacts, a total of 957 FTE jobs, $67 million in labor income, and approximately $121 million of economic output are expected to be captured within the County (see Exhibit 6.3.1).

Exhibit 6.3.1: Economic Benefits from Construction
Notes: Benefits during construction. 100% of direct benefits are estimated to be captured on-site.

Values in 2021 dollars.

Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies (2021)

6.4 Economic Benefits from On-Going Operations
At Project’s completion, the apartments and onsite retail is projected to provide 22 jobs. In addition, resident spending is expected to support approximately 118 induced jobs, for a total of 143 Countywide jobs, $8.2 million of labor income, and $23.7 million economic output. (see Exhibit 6.4.1). It is estimated that 52 of the jobs and $7.1 million of economic activity will be in City establishments.

Exhibit 6.4.1: Economic Benefits from On-Going Operations Notes: 100% of direct benefits captured within Pico Rivera + 25% of indirect/induced.

Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies (2021)
Economic Benefits from Construction (One-Time / Short-Term) Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 684 $50,292,000 $72,000,000
Indirect 63 $4,357,000 $11,450,000
Induced 210 $12,664,000 $37,496,000
Total Countywide 957 $67,313,000 $120,946,000
Estimated City Capture 698 $51,143,050 $74,447,300
Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation (Annual)
Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 22 $839,000 $1,603,000
Indirect 3 $219,000 $620,000
Induced 118 $7,156,000 $21,463,000
Total Countywide 143 $8,214,000 $23,686,000
Estimated City Capture 52 $2,683,000 $7,124,000
500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071  PHONE 213.622.8095 2206019:RIN:kee
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 18865.001.001
ADVISORS IN:

Real Estate
Affordable Housing
Economic Development

BERKELEY
A. Jerry Keyser
Timothy C. Kelly
Debbie M. Kern
David Doezema

LOS ANGELES
Kathleen H. Head
James A. Rabe
Gregory D. Soo-Hoo
Kevin E. Engstrom
Julie L. Romey

SAN DIEGO
Paul C. Marra

2.85-acre parcel at 8825 Washington Boulevard (Site) in the City of Pico Rivera (City).

As KMA understands the situation, the City would like to understand the key issues affecting their findings. To this end, KMA summarized the Market Study and FIA and reviewed their salient findings.

ENCLOSURE 13
1m
Kimiko Lizardi & Michael Rocque June 27, 2022
Peer Review – 8825 Washington Market Study & FIA Page 2 2206019:RIN:kee
18865.001.001
• The project will include 255 units, with an average size of 726 square feet.

The units range from 544 square feet for studios to 1,581 square feet for three-bedroom units.1
• A summary of the projected rents is provided below:

Average Household Size
Persons
Studio/Junior 1-Bedroom 1.00
1-Bedroom 1.25
2-Bedroom 1.75
3-Bedroom 2.25
Average 1.35
For context, the average household size in the City is 3.79 persons.

Project Net Fiscal Impact
KC KMA
Annual City Revenue $346,600 $283,800
City Operating Expenses ($178,300) ($196,500)
Net Fiscal Impact $168,300 $87,300

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

THE MERCURY PROJECT
City of Pico Rivera, California
July 5, 2022
Prepared for:

Optimus Properties, LLC
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1
Prepared by:

Francesca S. Bravo
Senior Transportation Engineer
Under the Supervision of: Under the Supervision of:

David Roseman, P.E. Clare Look-Jaeger, P.E.

Principal Principal
ENCLOSURE 14
1n
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Transportation Impact Analysis Overview...................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Methodology ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status..................................... 3

2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Existing Project Site......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Proposed Project Description .......................................................................................... 4

2.3 Project Site Access........................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access.......................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access ................................................................................ 7

2.4 Project Parking................................................................................................................. 10

2.4.1 City of Pico Rivera Parking Requirements......................................................... 10

2.4.2 Specific Plan Parking Requirements................................................................... 10

2.4.3 Proposed Parking Supply.................................................................................... 11

2.4.4 Comparison to ITE Parking Standards ............................................................... 12

2.4.5 Empirical Parking Demand Ratios for Multifamily Sites................................... 13

2.5 Project Trip Generation and Distribution........................................................................ 13

2.5.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast ........................................................................ 13

2.5.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.......................................................... 15

3.0 Project Site Context ................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network...................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Pedestrian System ............................................................................................... 21

3.1.2 Bicycle System.................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 23

3.3 Vehicle Network.............................................................................................................. 26

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications..................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Roadway Descriptions ........................................................................................ 28

3.4 Traffic Count Data........................................................................................................... 28

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects.................................................................................. 28

3.5.1 Cumulative Projects............................................................................................ 28

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth ..................................................................................... 35

4.0 CEQA Transportation Analysis............................................................................................ 38

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .................................................................................... 38

4.1.1 Screening Criteria................................................................................................ 38

4.1.2 Impact Criteria and Methodology....................................................................... 39

4.1.3 Project VMT Analysis......................................................................................... 39

4.1.4 CAPCOA Guidance and Project Design Features.............................................. 40

4.1.5 Summary of Cumulative VMT Analysis............................................................ 41

4.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis........................................................ 42

4.2.1 Adopted Plans, Policies, and Programs.............................................................. 42

4.2.2 Qualitative Impact Conclusions.......................................................................... 43 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

5.0 Operational Analysis............................................................................................................... 44

5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis............................................................................ 44

5.1.1 Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................ 44

5.1.2 Analysis Criteria and Thresholds........................................................................ 44

5.1.3 Transportation Analysis Scenarios...................................................................... 45

5.1.4 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. 47

5.1.5 Existing With Project Conditions........................................................................ 47

5.1.6 Future Without Project Conditions..................................................................... 47

5.1.7 Future With Project Conditions.......................................................................... 47

5.2 Access and Circulation Review....................................................................................... 54

6.0 Project Construction Phase Analysis.................................................................................... 56

6.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................ 57

7.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 60 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Scope of Study Form
B. Empirical Parking Demand Data
C. LADOT Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study
D. Count Data
E. CAPCOA TDM Strategies
LLG VMT Reduction Calculator Worksheet
F. ICU Levels of Service Explanation
ICU Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
G. Synchro Analysis Data
Synchro Analysis Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
2–1 Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................................... 16 3–1 Existing Transit Routes.......................................................................................................... 27 3–2 Existing Roadway Descriptions............................................................................................. 30 3–3 Cumulative Projects List and Trip Generation...................................................................... 33 5–1 City of Pico Rivera Intersection Analysis Threshold Criteria............................................... 45 5–2 Summary of Levels of Service............................................................................................... 46 5-3 Summary of Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................................... 55 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
1–1 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 2–1 Aerial Photograph of the Existing Project Site...................................................................... 5 2–2 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................. 6 2–3 Pedestrian Access Within the Site ......................................................................................... 8 2–4 Pedestrian Access to the Site ................................................................................................. 9 2–5 Project Trip Distribution........................................................................................................ 18 2–6 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour............................................................ 19 2–7 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................ 20 3–1 Existing Nearby Pedestrian and Transit Facilities................................................................. 22 3–2 Proposed Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................... 24 3–3 Existing Transit Routes.......................................................................................................... 25 3–4 Existing Lane Configurations................................................................................................ 29 3–5 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 31 3–6 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour.......................................................... 32 3–7 Location of Cumulative Projects........................................................................................... 34 3–8 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour...................................... 36 3–9 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... 37 5–1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................... 48 5–2 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour..................................... 49 5–3 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................. 50 5–4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 51 5–5 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour....................................... 52 5–6 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................ 53 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

THE MERCURY PROJECT
City of Pico Rivera, California
July 5, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Transportation Impact Analysis Overview
This transportation impact analysis report has been prepared to identify and evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the proposed Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use project (“proposed project”). The proposed project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera, California. The project site is generally bounded by adjacent commercial and residential uses to the north and west, commercial uses to the east, and Washington Boulevard to the south. The proposed project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.

The transportation impact analysis follows the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines1 (“Guidelines”). In general, the City uses the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Guidelines2 as a benchmark for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements, with variations. The City Guidelines are focused on transportation metrics that promote: the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal networks and access to diverse land uses, as well as safety, sustainability and smart growth. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Guidelines identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. In addition, the City Guidelines require non-CEQA intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis evaluating potential project-related effects at key intersections in the vicinity of the project site.

This assessment report (i) presents the proposed project’s existing transportation network context, (ii) forecasts project-generated traffic, (iii) presents a CEQA assessment of project-related VMT, (iv) provides a non-CEQA evaluation of project access and circulation, (v) provides a non-CEQA review of project construction activities, and (vi) recommends VMT-reducing measures or other transportation network improvement measures, where necessary.

1.2 Study Methodology
The CEQA and non-CEQA analysis criteria for this transportation impact analysis were identified in consultation with the City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department staff. The analysis criteria were determined based on the City’s Guidelines, the proposed project description and location, and the characteristics of the surrounding transportation system. As defined by the City as Lead Agency 1 City of Pico Rivera Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines”, prepared by Elie Farah, Inc., July 2020.
2 Los Angeles County Public Works “Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines”, prepared by Public Works, July 23, 2020.
-1-
-2-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
under CEQA, City staff confirmed the appropriateness of the analysis methodology and criteria when it approved the transportation impact analysis Scoping Document. The approved Scoping Document is provided in Appendix A.

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was previously a state-mandated program that was enacted by the California State Legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 that primarily utilized a level of service (LOS) performance metric. Pursuant to California Government Code §65088.3, local jurisdictions may opt out of the CMP requirement without penalty if a majority of the local jurisdictions representing a majority of the County’s population formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt out of the program. As stated in a letter from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)3 , by August 28, 2019 fifty-seven
local jurisdictions, which in total represent 8.5 million in population, had adopted resolutions electing to be exempt from the CMP. With the Los Angeles County region having reached the statutorily required threshold, the provisions of the CMP are no longer applicable to any of the 89 local jurisdictions within Los Angeles County, regardless of whether or not a jurisdiction adopted an opt-out resolution. Therefore, CMP Traffic Impact Analysis is no longer required. 3 Kalieh Honish, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to Seleta Reynolds, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, “Re: Dissolution of the Congestion Management Program in Los Angeles County”, August 28, 2019.
-3-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Project Site
The project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (APN: 6370-027-018) situated along the north side of Washington Boulevard, west of Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera. The existing 2.85-acre project site is currently vacant, formerly occupied by a commercial building that operated as a nightclub until March 2015 and was subsequently demolished in 2020. The project site is adjacent to and would become part of the Pico Rivera Marketplace, a larger commercial site with a broad range of retail services including a fitness center, restaurants, and bank. Vehicular access to the existing project site is currently primarily provided via two driveways on Washington Boulevard. An aerial photograph of the existing project site is presented in Figure 2-1.

2.2 Proposed Project Description
The project applicant, Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC, is seeking approval from the City of Pico Rivera for implementation of the Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) that reflects the proposed development of a mixed-use building with subterranean parking, ground-floor retail, and residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan, if approved by the City, would allow for the future development of 255 residential dwelling units including 13 affordable units, 5,730 square feet of commercial/retail space; 1,750 square feet of ground-floor lobby/leasing space; and 13,500 square feet of recreational amenities for future residential tenants.

The proposed residential unit mix consists of 35 studio units, 159 one-bedroom units, 57 twobedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Residential amenities for the proposed mixed-use development include a swimming pool, jacuzzi, poolside cabanas, clubhouse, gym, barbecue area, and garden/green areas. Construction would begin in 2022 and occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur by year 2024. The site plan for the proposed project is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

2.3 Project Site Access

2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access
Vehicular access to the project site will be accommodated by a total of two driveways: one existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and one existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard. The other existing access points along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard for the Pico Rivera Marketplace will remain. In addition, while another existing driveway curb cut will remain along the Washington Boulevard project frontage, it is not planned for vehicular access as further described below. Descriptions of the planned project site access driveways are provided in the following paragraphs.
• Existing Washington Boulevard Main Project Driveway:

This existing driveway is located on the north side of Washington Boulevard along the easterly property boundary directly west of the existing McDonalds restaurant. This driveway currently serves the existing McDonald’s restaurant adjacent to the project site.

The site driveway will provide access to the main internal roadway surrounding the proposed -4-
-5-
-6-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
building and to the subterranean parking entrance for the project. The driveway will continue to accommodate left-turn ingress and right-turn ingress and egress traffic movements (i.e., no left-turns out). No physical modifications are proposed at this driveway. • Existing Rosemead Boulevard Driveway:

This existing driveway is located on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard north of Washington Boulevard. This signalized driveway currently serves the existing Pico Rivera Marketplace and would also serve the proposed project. The driveway will continue to accommodate full access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress traffic movements).

The curb cut for the existing westerly site driveway on Washington Boulevard will remain; however, no vehicle access would be provided from this point. The curb cut will be used solely for emergency/fire access (e.g., for fire personnel to extend hoses via this existing curb cut).

Within the project site, vehicular circulation will be accommodated by a drive aisle which is adjacent to the north and east sides of the proposed building. The drive aisle will be no less than 28 feet wide in order to accommodate Fire Department access to the project site.

While the parking structure entrance design shown in the site plan is conceptual, the project’s final design would provide a gate and storage for a minimum of two vehicles at the access control point of the parking structure.

2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access
Pedestrian access to the project site will be accommodated via the existing public sidewalks and pedestrian facilities provided along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. A handicap accessible ramp is planned to be installed at the west corner of the site driveway at Washington Boulevard. Pedestrian access within the project site will be accommodated by an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant walkway that will connect the building entrance and retail frontages to the public right-of-way. This walkway will provide exclusive pedestrian and bicycle access from the public sidewalks to the proposed project, thus minimizing the extent of pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicles at the site and providing a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the proposed project from the public right-ofway. Pedestrian pathways will also be constructed surrounding the proposed building and will connect to the existing shopping center pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian access to and from the project site is illustrated in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3 also shows the proximity of the nearby existing transit stops located both east and west of the project site. Pedestrian access within the project is shown in Figure 2-4.
-7-
-8-
-9-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

2.4 Project Parking

2.4.1 City of Pico Rivera Parking Requirements
The City of Pico Rivera off-street parking requirements are set forth in Section 18.44 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Municipal Code4
. In accordance with the Municipal Code parking
regulations, the following parking requirements are applicable to the project:
• Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
- Resident Parking: 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit (DU) (within a parking garage or carport)
- Guest Parking: 1.0 space for each 8 DUs
• Commercial Use: 1.0 parking space per 250 square feet (SF) Based on strict application of the City Code parking requirements, a total of 572 spaces would be required for the project as summarized below:
• Resident Parking: 255 units x 2.0 spaces/DU = 510 spaces • Residential Guest Parking: 255 units x 1.0 space/8 DUs = 32 spaces • Commercial (Leasing Space and Retail): 7,480 SF x 1.0 space/250 SF = 30 spaces Total City Code Required Project Parking = 572 spaces
As noted above, the residential parking requirements for the project is 542 spaces (i.e., 510 resident + 32 guest = 542 spaces). The overall Code residential parking ratio equates to 2.13 spaces per DU (i.e., 542 residential parking spaces/255 DU = 2.13 spaces/DU). Based on reviews of other parking standards outlined in nationally recognized publications and parking demand characteristics at other multi-family residential complexes similar to the proposed project, it can be expected that residential parking demand would be much lower for the project than what is currently required by strict application of the City Code.

2.4.2 Specific Plan Parking Requirements
As outlined in the Chapter 4 of the proposed Specific Plan, the development parking standards for the project are outlined below:
• Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
- Studio Unit: 1.0 parking space per DU
- One-Bedroom unit: 1.4 parking spaces per DU
- Two-Bedroom unit: 1.6 parking spaces per DU
- Three-Bedroom unit: 2.0 parking spaces per DU
4 Source: City of Pico Rivera Municipal Code (Section 18.44). -10-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
- Guest Parking: 1.0 space for each 8 DUs
• Commercial Use: 1.0 parking space per 250 square feet (SF) Based on application of the Specific Plan parking requirements, a total of 420 spaces would be required for the project as summarized below:
• Studio Resident Parking: 35 units x 1.0 space/DU = 35 spaces • One-Bedroom Resident Parking: 159 units x 1.4 spaces/DU = 223 spaces • Two-Bedroom Resident Parking: 57 units x 1.6 spaces/DU = 92 spaces • Three-Bedroom Resident Parking: 4 units x 2.0 spaces/DU = 8 spaces • Residential Guest Parking: 255 units x 1.0 space/8 DU = 32 spaces • Commercial (Leasing Space and Retail): 7,480 SF x 1.0 space/250 SF = 30 spaces Total Required Project Parking = 420 spaces

2.4.3 Proposed Parking Supply
The proposed project is planned to provide a total of 464 vehicular parking spaces on-site, including 437 spaces within the new parking garage and 27 on-site surface parking spaces. The new parking structure is planned to provide 390 residential spaces (i.e., 358 resident parking spaces and 32 spaces for residential guest parking) and 47 secured parking spaces. The proposed project also includes 27 on-site surface spaces located outside the structure, which would be designated and signed for the commercial uses (i.e., 26 spaces for retail/leasing use and one (1) dedicated US Postal Service parking space). Based on the residential parking supply of 390 spaces, the overall project residential parking ratio is 1.53 spaces per DU (i.e., 390 residential parking spaces/255 DU = 1.53 spaces/DU).

As part of the parking supply, a total of 19 handicap accessible spaces will be provided on-site, of which 16 spaces are allocated for residential use and three (3) spaces are allocated for the commercial use. In addition, 47 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) installed spaces will be provided on-site (i.e., 44 residential spaces and 3 commercial spaces). Bicycle parking and storage would also be provided for the project, with a minimum of 12 long-term bicycle spaces and a minimum of four (4) short-term bicycle spaces. Short-term bicycle parking typically consists of bicycle racks. Long-term bicycle parking are fully enclosed spaces and typically consist of bicycle lockers, bicycle rooms, or bicycle cages.

Residents will be required to provide the make, model, and year of their vehicle/s during lease execution and subsequently will be issued an access card or key for entry into the parking garage.

All resident and employee parking policies will be outlined in the lease/rental agreement. “No Overnight Parking” signs will be posted within the existing shopping center to prohibit tenants from parking in the center overnight and will be enforced by security staff monitoring the center on a 24- hour basis. The signage will also include verbiage that notes that any violations of the parking restriction are subject to towing.
-11-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The project applicant (or successor owner/s) will 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 will efficiently manage parking and enforce changes that the project management will make to prevent local neighborhood parking intrusion. The parking ombudsman will be responsible for enforcing resident and employee parking rules and will address any complaints from the public regarding neighborhood parking intrusion. The telephone number of the parking ombudsman will be disseminated to the surrounding communities. For example, should a community member notice a resident or employee parking in their neighborhood, they will be able to notify the ombudsman of the intrusion, as well as request enforcement if it was determined that the motorist parking was attributable to the proposed project. All verifiable violations will be documented for monitoring and reporting purposes and warnings and fines/penalties will be issued. A resident or employee that has been determined by the parking ombudsman to have violated the lease agreement policy (i.e., no onstreet parking within the neighborhood) will receive a verbal warning upon their first violation. An employee with a second violation will receive a formal written warning that includes a restatement of the policy along with a notification that the employee’s supervisor/manager has been informed of the multiple violations. A resident with a second violation will receive a formal written warning that includes a restatement of the policy to be included in the resident’s file. Should a subsequent employee violation occur, it will result in the preparation of a formal letter to the Human Resources department to be included in the employee’s file and the employee’s supervisor/manager will again be notified in order to determine the appropriate penalty. Should a subsequent resident violation occur, it will result in the issuance of a lease termination/non-renewal letter for violation of the terms outlined in the lease/rental agreement.

2.4.4 Comparison to ITE Parking Standards
Research was conducted of applicable parking ratios for multi-family residential uses outlined in industry standard publications. The parking demand for multi-family residential uses can be estimated using ratios published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation5 publication. When utilizing the ITE publication, the parking demand for the proposed project can be calculated based upon ratios per DU. More specifically, the ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]) parking demand ratios were reviewed and the average weekday peak period parking demand ratio could be used to forecast the parking demand expected for the proposed project. The ITE parking demand ratios for multi-family residential are summarized below:
• Weekday peak period parking demand ratio – Average Rate (General Urban/Suburban, no nearby rail transit): 1.31 spaces per dwelling unit (73 study sites, inclusive of resident and guest parking demand)
• Weekday peak period parking demand ratio – 85th Percentile Rate (General Urban/Suburban, no nearby rail transit): 1.47 spaces per dwelling unit (73 study sites, inclusive of resident and guest parking demand)
5 Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Washington D.C., 2019. -12-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Application of the higher ITE published parking demand ratio to the proposed project would yield a peak residential parking demand of 375 spaces as summarized below:
• Peak Parking Demand: 1.47 spaces/DU x 255 DU = 375 parking spaces In comparison, the residential parking demand of 375 spaces forecast for the project per ITE is significantly lower than the City’s Code residential parking requirement of 542 spaces. In addition, the overall project residential parking ratio of 1.53 spaces per DU is higher (i.e., more conservative) than the ITE peak parking demand ratio of 1.47 spaces per DU.

2.4.5 Empirical Parking Demand Ratios at Other Multifamily Residential Sites A review was also conducted of site-specific multifamily residential parking surveys that have been previously conducted by LLG. Parking demand data for other existing multi-family residential sites are based on the empirical parking demand studies conducted at the following three (3) multi-family residential sites:
• Paragon at Old Town located at 700 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia (163 units) • Trio Apartments located at 44 N. Madison Avenue, Pasadena (304 units) • Main Street Village located at 2555 Main Street, Irvine (481 units) The peak parking demand ratios for these facilities ranged between 1.22 spaces per unit (i.e., Trio Apartments) to 1.48 spaces per unit (i.e., Paragon at Old Town). The average of the peak parking ratio results for the three (3) surveyed sites was 1.36 spaces per unit. The summary of the existing parking supply ratios, as well as the observed and forecast (i.e., at full occupancy) parking demand ratios based on the number of units at the comparable sites is provided in Appendix B.

Application of the highest residential peak parking demand ratio to the proposed project would yield a forecast peak parking demand of 377 parking spaces (i.e., 1.48 spaces/DU x 255 DUs = 377 spaces), which is significantly lower than the City’s Code residential parking requirement of 542 spaces. The overall project residential parking ratio of 1.53 spaces per DU is higher (i.e., more conservative) than the empirical (observed) parking demand ratio of 1.48 spaces per DU. Therefore, the parking requirements proposed in the Specific Plan are consistent with the empirical parking demand ratios and the ITE published residential parking demand ratio.

2.5 Project Trip Generation and Distribution

2.5.1 Project Trip Generation Forecast
Traffic trip generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project were forecast for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and over a 24-hour period. Trip -13-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
generation rates provided in the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual6 were utilized to forecast project traffic generation for the proposed project, with the exception of the 13 affordable housing dwelling units. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the residential component of the proposed project were based upon rates per number of dwelling units. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the commercial component of the proposed project were based upon rates per 1,000 square feet. For purposes of trip generation, the proposed commercial/retail space was assumed to consist of 2,865 square feet of retail space and 2,865 square feet of restaurant space. Trip generation average rates for the following uses were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project:
• ITE Land Use Code 221: Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) • ITE Land Use Code 820: Shopping Center
• ITE Land Use Code 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant As the ITE publication does not provide trip rates for a land use such as the project’s affordable housing residential land use component, it was deemed appropriate to forecast the trips expected to be generated by the affordable housing land use component using trip rates published by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) in the City’s Transportation Assessment Guidelines7 (TAG) which are directly applicable to the proposed project. The LADOT trip generation rates for affordable housing projects were developed based on vehicle trip count data collected at affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles during year 2016. A copy of the Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study contained in LADOT’s TAG is provided in Appendix C.

The LADOT affordable housing trip rates include three (3) different housing type categories:
affordable family housing; affordable senior housing, and affordable special needs and supportive housing. In this instance, the affordable family housing category is directly applicable to the proposed project. LADOT’s affordable family housing category trip rates are summarized below:

Affordable Family Housing
• Average AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips per dwelling unit; 38% inbound and 62% outbound
• Average PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips per dwelling unit; 55% inbound and 45% outbound
In addition to the above project trip generation forecasts, a forecast was made of likely internal capture/captive market trips projected at the site with respect to the proposed uses. Internal capture and captive markets trips are trips made from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. The internal capture/captive market reduction for the residential uses 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2017. 7 Transportation Assessment Guidelines, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, July 2020. -14-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc
has been estimated based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook8, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 – “Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments”9
and in consultation with City Public Works staff. A conservative 15 percent (15.0%) internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to the AM and PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts, as well as to the daily traffic volume forecast for the residential component of the proposed project to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other site uses, as well as from other uses in the immediate vicinity.

The trip generation forecast for the proposed project is summarized in Table 2-1. The trip generation forecasts for the proposed project were submitted to City staff for review and were subsequently approved for analysis purposes. As presented in Table 2-1, the proposed project is expected to generate 111 vehicle trips (40 inbound trips and 71 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 134 net new vehicle trips (80 inbound trips and 54 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 1,594 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (approximately 797 inbound trips and 797 outbound trips).

2.5.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
• The site's proximity to major traffic corridors (i.e., Washington Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, etc.);
• Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent roadway channelization and presence of traffic signals;
• Existing intersection traffic volumes;
• Ingress/egress scheme planned for the proposed project; • Nearby population and employment centers; and
• Input from City staff.
8 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2017. 9 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 – “Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments,” 2011.
-15-
Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]

DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2]

LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Apartment [3] 242 DU 1,316 23 64 87 65 41 106
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (197) (3) (10) (13) (10) (6) (16) Affordable Housing [5] 13 DU 54 3 4 7 3 2 5
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (8) 0 (1) (1) 0 0 0 Retail [6] 2,865 GLSF 108 2 1 3 5 6 11
Restaurant [7] 2,865 GSF 321 15 13 28 17 11 28
TOTAL 1,594 40 71 111 80 54 134
[1] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017 and Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG), City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 2020.
[2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multi-Family [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 5.44 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.36 trips/dwelling units; 26% inbound/74% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/dwelling units; 61% inbound/39% outbound [4] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Handbook", 3rd Edition, 2017 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 - "Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments", 2011. Internal capture and Captive markets trips are trips made to and from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. A 15% internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other uses in the area. [5] LADOT trip generation average rates for Family Affordable Housing. - Daily Trip Rate: 4.16 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit; 38% inbound/62% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips/dwelling unit; 55% inbound/45% outbound [6] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 37.75 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.94 trips/1,000 SF; 62% inbound/38% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.81 trips/1,000 SF; 48% inbound/52% outbound [7] ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 112.18 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.94 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 55% inbound/45% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.77 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 62% inbound/38% outbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-16-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The general, directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project is presented in Figure 2-

5. The forecast weekday AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes at the study intersections associated with the proposed project are presented in Figures 2-6 and 2-7, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 2-6 and 2-7 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 2-5 and the project trip generation forecasts presented in Table 2-1. -17-
-18-
-19-
-20-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

3.0 PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The following sections provide an overview of the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed project, including infrastructure which supports both motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network
Non-vehicular transportation generally encompasses walking, biking, and other active transportation modes. Distinct facilities are often provided for these non-vehicular modes. Most prominently, paved sidewalks are typically provided to facilitate pedestrian travel outside of the roadway. In some cases, bicycle facilities such as painted bike lanes or separated bike paths are provided within the roadway in order to separate bike traffic from vehicular traffic. Roadways which are designed to prioritize non-vehicular transportation modes utilize complimentary non-vehicular infrastructure in order to promote comfortable, safe travel for both pedestrians and bicyclists. A review of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure provided in the vicinity of the project site is provided below.

3.1.1 Pedestrian System
Public sidewalks and pedestrian facilities are provided on all streets within the project vicinity.

Figure 3-1 shows the existing pedestrian and transit facilities near the project site. The proposed project is designed to encourage pedestrian activity and walking as a transportation mode with a Walkability score for the project site of approximately 81 (Very Walkable) out of 100. 10 As
indicated in Figure 2–2, walkways are planned within the proposed project which will connect to adjacent sidewalks in a manner that promotes walkability. Walkability is a term for the extent to which walking is readily available as a safe, connected, accessible and pleasant mode of transport.

There are several criteria that are widely accepted as key aspects of the walkability of urban areas that should be satisfied. The underlying principle is that pedestrians should not be delayed, diverted, or placed in danger. The widely accepted characteristics of walkability are as follows:
• Connectivity: People can walk from one place to another without encountering major obstacles, obstructions, or loss of connectivity.
• Convivial: Pedestrian routes are friendly and attractive, and are perceived as such by pedestrians. • Conspicuous: Suitable levels of lighting, visibility and surveillance over its entire length, with high quality delineation and signage.
• Comfortable: High quality and well-maintained footpaths of suitable widths, attractive landscaping and architecture, shelter and rest spaces, and a suitable allocation of roadspace to pedestrians.
10 Refer to http://www.walkscore.com/, which generates the walkability score for the project site. Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle.
-21-
-22-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Convenient: Walking is a realistic travel choice, partly because of the impact of the other criteria set forth above, but also because walking routes are of a suitable length as a result of land use planning with minimal delays.

A review of the proposed project pedestrian walkways indicates that these primary characteristics are accommodated within the project. Proposed project features would include landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site, as well as connections with the adjacent public sidewalks on the Washington Boulevard project frontage for access to nearby pedestrian and transit facilities. As part of the Specific Plan, street trees and streetscape plantings will be provided along the public frontages in accordance with the City’s standards. In addition, project signage will include wayfinding pedestrian signage around the perimeter of the project site, building identification signs, and other sign types. Wayfinding signs would be located at access points to the on-site amenities and facilities and parking areas.

3.1.2 Bicycle System
Bicycle infrastructure consists of both facilities within the roadway as well as public bicycle parking spaces. The Federal and State transportation systems recognize three primary bikeway facilities:

Bicycle Paths (Class I), Bicycle Lanes (Class II), and Bicycle Routes (Class III). Bicycle Paths (Class I) are exclusive car-free facilities that are typically not located within a roadway area. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) are part of the street design that is dedicated only for bicycles and identified by a striped lane separating vehicle lanes from bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes (Class III) are preferably located on collector and lower volume arterial streets.

Bicycle access to the project site will be facilitated by the County’s bicycle roadway network. Walk Score calculates a bike score based on the topography, number and proximity of bike lanes, etc., and generates a bike score for the project site of approximately 58 (Bikeable) out of 100.11 Proposed bicycle facilities (e.g., Class I Bicycle Path, Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes, Proposed Bicycle Routes, Bicycle Boulevards, etc.) identified in the City’s Circulation Element12 will be located within an approximate one-mile radius from the project site. The location of the proposed bicycle lane network for the City in close proximity to the project site and in the surrounding area is illustrated in Figure 3-2. As shown in Figure 3-2, a Class II Bicycle Lane is proposed for Rosemead Boulevard between Gallatin Road and I-5 Freeway. In addition, a Class III Bicycle Route is proposed for Washington Boulevard between Telegraph Road and the San Gabriel River.

3.2 Transit Network
Public transit service in the vicinity of the project is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Montebello Transit and Norwalk Transit. The existing public transit routes in the project site vicinity are illustrated in Figure 3–3. A summary of 11 Refer to http://www.walkscore.com/, which generates a bike score for the project site. Walk Score calculates the bike score of an address by locating nearby bicycling facilities as well as connections to bus/rail transit routes and stops. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle. 12 City of Pico Rivera General Plan Circulation Element, October 2014. -23-
-24-
-25-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
the existing transit service, including the transit routes, destinations, and the peak hour headways is presented in Table 3–1. As summarized in Table 3-1, a total of 9 public transit routes provide service near the project site.

Metro is evaluating an extension of the Metro L (Gold) Line further east from its current terminus in East Los Angeles potentially through the cities of Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier. The proposed light rail line would travel south along Atlantic Boulevard underground from the current Metro L (Gold) Line terminus at Pomona Boulevard and Atlantic Boulevard to the Citadel Outlets in the City of Commerce. The route would then proceed east along Washington Boulevard via aerial and/or at-grade (street level) configurations with an above-grade station at Rosemead Boulevard and ending at Lambert Road in the City of Whittier.

3.3 Vehicle Network

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications
The City of Pico Rivera utilizes the roadway categories recognized by regional, state and federal transportation agencies. There are four (4) categories in the roadway hierarchy, ranging from freeways with the highest capacity to two-lane undivided roadways with the lowest capacity. The roadway categories are summarized as follows:
• Freeways are limited-access and high speed travel ways included in the state and federal highway systems. Their purpose is to carry regional through-traffic. Access is provided by interchanges with typical spacing of one mile or greater. No local access is provided to adjacent land uses.
• Arterial roadways are major streets that primarily serve through-traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed with two to six travel lanes and their major intersections are signalized. This roadway type is divided into two categories: principal and minor arterials. Principal arterials are typically four-or-more lane roadways and serve both local and regional through-traffic. Minor arterials are typically two-to-four lane streets that service local and commuter traffic. • Collector roadways are streets that provide access and traffic circulation within residential and non-residential (e.g., commercial and industrial) areas. Collector roadways connect local streets to arterials and are typically designed with two through travel lanes (i.e., one through travel lane in each direction) that may accommodate on-street parking. They may also provide access to abutting properties.
• Local roadways distribute traffic within a neighborhood, or similar adjacent neighborhoods, and are not intended for use as a through-street or a link between higher capacity facilities such as collector or arterial roadways. Local streets are fronted by residential uses and do not typically serve commercial uses.
-26-

ROADWAY(S)

ROUTE DESTINATIONS NEAR SITE DIR AM PM
Metro 62 Downtown Los Angeles to Hawaiian Gardens via Telegraph Road, Slauson Avenue NB-WB 2 3 Boyle Heights, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Norwalk and Cerritos SB-EB 2 2 Metro 108 Marina Del Rey to Pico Rivera via Fox Hills, Hyde Park, Paramount Boulevard, Slauson Avenue EB 4 3 Los Angeles, Huntington Park and City of Commerce WB 3 3 Metro 265 Pico Rivera to Lakewood via Downey, Paramount and Paramount Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 1 1 Long Beach SB 1 1
Metro 266 Pasadena to Lakewood via Temple City, South El Monte, Rosemead Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 Pico Rivera, Downey and Bellflower SB 2 2
Montebello Transit 10 Monterey Park to Whittier via Montebello and Pico Rivera Rosemead Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard EB 4 4 WB 4 5
Montebello Transit 20 Montebello to Pico Rivera Greenwood Avenue, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
Montebello Transit 50 La Mirada to Downtown Los Angeles via Whittier, Rosemead Boulevard, Washington Boulevard EB 2 1 Pico Rivera and East Los Angeles WB 1 2
Montebello Transit 70 Montebello to Pico Rivera Greenwood Avenue, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
Norwalk Transit 1 Bellflower to Pico Rivera via Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs Norwalk Boulevard, Washington Boulevard NB 2 2 SB 2 2
TOTAL 40 41
[1] Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), City of Montebello Bus Lines and City of Norwalk Transit websites, 2021.

Table 3-1
EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES [1]
NO. OF BUSES/TRAINS

DURING PEAK HOUR
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-27-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

3.3.2 Roadway Descriptions
Immediate access to the project site is provided via Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. The existing roadway configurations and intersection controls at the study intersections are displayed in Figure 3-4 and descriptions of the existing roadways (e.g., roadway classifications, number of travel lanes, median type, speed limit, etc.) are provided in Table 3-2.

3.4 Traffic Count Data
Manual counts of vehicular turning movements by vehicle classification were conducted at each of the study intersections during the weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) commute periods to determine the peak hour traffic volumes. The manual counts were conducted by an independent traffic count subconsultant (City Traffic Counters) at the study intersections from 7:00 to 9:00 AM to determine the weekday AM peak commute hour, and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM to determine the weekday PM peak commute hour. In conjunction with the manual turning movement vehicle counts, a count of bicycle and pedestrian volumes were also collected during the peak periods.

Traffic volumes at the study intersections show the typical peak periods between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM generally associated with metropolitan Los Angeles area weekday peak commute hours. It should be noted that while the traffic counts were conducted during various days in March 2021 (i.e., at a time when some Covid-19 business and school restrictions were still in effect), the count data were compared with prior (2019), non-pandemic count data provided by the City. Based on those comparisons, the through traffic volumes along Rosemead Boulevard were increased by 7.5 percent (7.5%) per year, or by a total of 15 percent (15%) to reflect pre-Covid conditions. No annual adjustments were necessary along Washington Boulevard. In addition, minor adjustments were made to some traffic movements to ensure peak hour traffic flow consistency on a corridor-level basis.

The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6, respectively. Summary data worksheets of the manual traffic counts at the study intersections are contained in Appendix D.

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects

3.5.1 Cumulative Projects
A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to (i.e., without) implementation of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (cumulative projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of likely future development that would be in place when the project becomes operational. The cumulative projects research was based on information on file at the City of Pico Rivera Community and Economic Development Department, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, and City of Montebello. In addition, cumulative projects lists from recently approved transportation impact study memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and transportation impact studies in the project vicinity were also reviewed.

The list of cumulative projects in the project site area is presented in Table 3-3. The location of the cumulative projects is shown in Figure 3-7.
-28-
-29-
Table 3-2

EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS

TRAVEL LANES MEDIAN SPEED
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION [1] DIRECTION [2] NO. LANES [3] TYPES [4] LIMIT Paramount Boulevard Major Arterial NB-SB 4 N/A 30
Crossway Drive Local Street NB-SB 2 N/A 25
Rosemead Boulevard Major Arterial NB-SB 4 N/A 35
Coffman & Pico Road Local Street EB-NB 2 2WLT 35
Washington Boulevard Major Arterial EB-WB 6 [11] 2WLT 35 Notes:
[1] Roadway classifications obtained from the City of Pico Rivera General Plan Circulation Element, October 2014. [2] Direction of roadways in the project area: NB-SB = northbound and southbound; and EB-WB = eastbound and westbound. [3] Number of lanes in both directions on the roadway. Variations in number of travel lanes due to time restricted on-street parallel parking are noted below. [4] Median type of the road: RMI = Raised Median Island; 2WLT = 2-Way Left-Turn Lane; and N/A = Not Applicable. [5] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the northbound direction. [6] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM in the southbound direction. [7] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM in the southbound direction. [8] Class III Bike Route
[9] Class II Bike Lane
[10] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the northbound and southbound direction. [11] Tow Away No Stopping 4 PM to 7 PM in the eastbound direction and westbound direction. [12] Tow Away No Stopping 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM in the westbound direction.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-30-
-31-
-32-
Table 3-3
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST AND TRIP GENERATION [1]

PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
MAP PROJECT PROJECT NAME/NUMBER LAND USE DATA DATA TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2] NO. STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL City of Pico Rivera
PR1 Proposed 5201-5211 Paramount Boulevard Medical Office Building 10,000 GSF [3] 348 22 6 28 10 25 35 PR2 Proposed Southwest Corner of Durfee Avenue Bank 12,925 GSF [4] 1,293 71 52 123 132 132 264 and Whittier Boulevard
PR3 Proposed 9102 Slauson Avenue Apartment 6 DU [5] 44 1 2 3 2 1 3 PR4 Proposed Westside of San Gabriel River Single-Family Residential 18 DU [6] 170 3 10 13 11 7 18 at Burke Street
PR5 Entitled 7105 Paramount Boulevard Industrial 28,458 GSF [7] 141 18 2 20 2 16 18 PR6 Entitled 9056 Burma Road Apartment 4 DU [5] 29 0 2 2 1 1 2 PR7 Entitled 9141 Slauson Avenue Fitness Center 675 GSF [8] None 1 0 1 1 1 2 PR8 Proposed Village Walk Shopping Center Fast Food Restaurant 3,432 GSF [9] 1,575 49 46 95 50 46 96 8580 Whittier Boulevard Restaurant 2,000 GSF
Retail 1,800 GLSF
Coffee Shop 1,800 GSF
PR9 Proposed Beverly Boulevard Warehouse Project Warehouse 375,903 GSF [10] 808 50 17 67 27 61 88 Beverly Boulevard & San Gabriel River Copy, Print, Express Ship Store 2,500 GSF PR10 Proposed Baybar Distribution Building Light Industrial 44,620 GSF [11] 221 27 4 31 4 24 28 3900 Baybar Road
PR11 Proposed 301 Jacmar Drive Townhomes 31 DU [12] 227 3 11 14 11 6 17 TOTAL 4,856 245 152 397 251 320 571
[1] Sources: City of Pico Rivera Community & Economic Development Division and County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, except as noted below and by applying trip rates as provided in the ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical-Dentist Office Building) trip generation average rates. [4] ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-in Bank) trip generation average rates. [5] ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise) trip generation average rates. [6] ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detected Housing) trip generation average rates. [7] ITE Land Use Code 110 (Light Industrial) trip generation average rates. [8] ITE Land Use Code 492 (Health/Fitness Club) trip generation average rates. [9] Source: "Village Walk Shopping Center TIS", prepared by LLG Engineers, dated February 2018. [10] Source: "Beverly Boulevard Warehouse VMT Assessment", prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 2020. [11] Source: "Baybar Distribution Building", prepared by E P D Solutions, Inc., dated June 2020. [12] Source: "301 Jacmar Drive Project Trip Generation & Site Access/Circulation Study", prepared by Ganddini Group, dated September 2020.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-33-
-34-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the cumulative projects were calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or they were obtained from other recently approved transportation impact studies. The cumulative projects’ respective traffic generation for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 3-

3. The cumulative projects traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the street system based on their locations in relation to the study intersections, their proximity to major traffic corridors, proposed land uses, nearby population and employment centers, etc. The distribution of the cumulative projects traffic volumes to the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively.

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth
Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown future projects in the study area as well as account for typical growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. Ambient traffic growth in the Downey area (i.e., included in Regional Statistical Area 22 [RSA 22] that includes Pico Rivera), which is presented in the 2010 Congestion Management Program13, indicates existing traffic volumes are expected to increase at an annual rate of approximately 0.24 percent (0.24%) per year between years 2020 and 2025. An annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) until the year 2024 (i.e., the anticipated project build-out year) was selected for this analysis in consultation with City staff. Therefore, application of this one percent (1.0%) ambient growth factor in addition to the forecast traffic generated by the known cumulative projects allows for a conservative forecast of future traffic volumes in the project study area as incorporation of both (i.e., an ambient traffic growth rate and a detailed list of cumulative development projects) is expected to overstate potential future traffic volumes. The cumulative development projects should already be incorporated as part of the growth rate projection per the adopted, local and regional planning documents (i.e., which account for the future population, housing, and employment [socio-economic data] projections). 13 2010 Congestion Management Program, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, October 2010. -35-
-36-
-37-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

4.0 CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in November 2017 and an accompanying technical advisory guidance finalized in December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory) that amends the Appendix G question for transportation impacts to delete reference to vehicle delay and level of service and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the project will result in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines in December of 2018, and as of July 1, 2020 the provisions of the new section are in effect statewide. Concurrently, OPR developed the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), which provides nonbinding recommendations on the implementation of VMT methodology which has significantly informed the way VMT analyses are conducted in the State. Accordingly, for the purpose of environmental review under CEQA, the City of Pico Rivera has established criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT for land use projects and plans which is generally consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR in the Technical Advisory.

4.1.1 Screening Criteria
Traditionally, public agencies have set certain thresholds to determine whether a project requires detailed transportation analysis or if it could be assumed to have less than significant environmental impacts without additional study. Consistent with the OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City of Pico Rivera has determined the following screening criteria for certain land development projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact:
• Projects that result in a net increase of 110 or less daily vehicle trips • Projects located in a High-Quality Transit Area (i.e., within half-mile distance of an existing rail transit station or located within half-mile of two or more existing bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during morning and evening peak hours) • Project is locally serving retail (less than 50,000 square feet), including gas stations, banks, restaurants, shopping center.
• Local-serving community colleges, K-12 schools, local parks, daycare centers, etc. • Residential projects with 100 percent affordable housing • Community institutions project (public library, fire station, local government) • Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)
• Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) -38-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Public parking garages and parking lots
• Assisted living or senior housing projects
• Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing projects Proposed projects are not required to satisfy all of the screening criteria in order to screen out of further VMT analysis; satisfaction of one criterion is sufficient for screening purposes. Although the commercial (retail/restaurant) portion of the project screens out since it is less than 50,000 square feet and therefore locally-serving, a VMT analysis is still required for the proposed residential component of the project.

4.1.2 Impact Criteria and Methodology
A project that does not meet the screening criteria requires preparation of a detailed VMT analysis to determine whether the project would result in a significant transportation impact. The recommended threshold for residential projects presented in the Technical Advisory is as follows: “A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita.” Therefore, a proposed project’s VMT per capita must be 85% or less of the existing VMT per capita.

The most readily available Southern California Association of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM) at the time of study preparation has been utilized to determine the residential VMT per capita for the City of Pico Rivera. The baseline residential VMT per capita utilizing SCAG RTDM for the City of Pico Rivera is provided below:
• City of Pico Rivera residential VMT: 14.39 residential VMT per capita • Residential significance threshold: 12.23 VMT per capita (i.e., 15% below the existing baseline residential VMT per capita)
As the commercial (retail/restaurant) portion of the project screens out, since it is less than 50,000 square feet and therefore locally-serving, the residential VMT per capita associated with the project is then compared to the City of Pico Rivera baseline residential VMT per capita in order to determine whether or not the project would be expected to result in a significant impact.

4.1.3 Project VMT Analysis
Project-specific regional travel demand modeling was conducted using the most readily available SCAG RTDM at the time of study preparation. The Project is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 21804400. The Project development totals were converted into socio-economic data, which describes both demographic and economic characteristics of the region by TAZ, and were then coded into the SCAG RTDM. The VMT analysis results for the project using the SACG RTDM are provided below:
-39-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• The estimated residential VMT per capita for the proposed project is estimated at 14.13 residential VMT per capita.

4.1.4 CAPCOA Guidance and Project Design Features
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity14 (“2021 Handbook”) provides a comprehensive set of guidelines for assessing and quantifying reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions reduction measures are grouped by emission sector into nine categories, including transportation, energy, water, and other related areas. Transportation emissions can be reduced by improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet, or by reducing VMT. Reductions in VMT are achieved when any of the following occurs: 1) vehicle ownership declines, 2) vehicle trips are reduced, 3) vehicle trip lengths are reduced, or 4) any combination of the first three variables. The 2021 Handbook lists 30 quantified measures covering a total of six transportation subsectors, including land use, trip reduction programs, parking or road pricing/management, neighborhood design, transit, and clean vehicles and fuels. The majority of the measures quantified in the 2021 Handbook aim to reduce VMT, although two strategies are aimed at improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet and thus do not result in quantified VMT reductions. The VMT reducing strategies are broadly referred to as transportation demand management (TDM) strategies due to the focus on reducing the amount of automobile travel generated by a project.

The following TDM strategies have been determined to be applicable as project design features (PDF):
• T-1. Increase Residential Density (9.79%)
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (DU) compared to the average residential density in the country. When reductions are being calculated from a baseline derived from a travel demand model, the residential density of the relevant TAZ is used for the comparison instead.

Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in VMT.

The project-generated VMT is derived from the SCAG travel demand model data. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential VMT reduction is determined by comparing the residential density in TAZ 21804400 without and with the residential development. The residential density of the TAZ was determined based on parcel-level data obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, which reports the type of residential development (e.g., single family, duplex, multi-family), the number of units, and the acreage of each parcel. 14 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.
-40-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing (1.43%) This measure requires inclusion of below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. Increasing affordable housing creates the opportunity for a greater diversity of people to be closer to their desired destinations and the resources they may need to access. Close proximity to destinations allows for more opportunities to use active transportation and transit and to be less reliant on private vehicles. • T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply (3.84%)
This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site.

Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This strategy changes the on-site parking supply to provide less than the amount of vehicle parking required by Code. Based on published literature and other site-specific parking surveys of other mixed-use projects’ actual peak parking demands, lower than Code-required parking supplies have been determined to be sufficient. Through the Specific Plan, lower parking requirements and types of supply within the project site are being incorporated to encourage smart growth development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. The proposed residential on-site parking supply (i.e., a total of 390 spaces) is planned to be less than the amount of vehicle parking that would have otherwise been required for the residential portion of the project through strict application of the City’s Code (i.e., a residential Code requirement of 542 spaces). Parking restrictions will be implemented and enforced at the existing Pico Marketplace to prohibit tenants from parking in the center overnight. The signage will also include verbiage that notes that any violations of the parking restriction are subject to towing.

The combination of the TDM measures discussed above results in a 14.49 percent (14.49%) reduction in VMT. The residential VMT per capita for the proposed project would subsequently be reduced to 12.08 residential VMT per capita, which is below the calculated City significance threshold of 12.23 residential VMT per capita. Therefore, the TDM measures which have been incorporated into the project design are expected to reduce the project’s VMT to a less than significant level.

4.1.5 Summary of Cumulative VMT Analysis
As stated in the County’s TIA Guidelines (refer to page 13), analyses should consider both shortterm and long-term project effects on VMT. Short-term effects are evaluated in the detailed projectlevel VMT analysis summarized above. Long-term, or cumulative, effects are determined through a consistency check with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is the regional plan that demonstrates compliance with air quality conformity requirements and greenhouse gas -41-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
(GHG) reduction targets. As such, projects that are consistent with this plan in terms of development, location, density, and intensity, are part of the regional solution for meeting air pollution and GHG reduction goals. Projects that are deemed to be consistent would have a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT. Development in a location where the RTP/SCS does not specify any development may indicate a significant impact on transportation. However, as noted in the County’s TIA Guidelines, for projects that do not demonstrate a project impact by applying an efficiency-based impact threshold (i.e., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population) in the impact analysis, a less than significant project impact conclusion is sufficient in demonstrating there is no cumulative VMT impact. Projects that fall under the County’s efficiencybased impact thresholds are already shown to align with the long-term VMT and GHG reduction goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The County’s TIA Guidelines also note that projects which demonstrate VMT impacts through application of efficiency-based thresholds, and which are deemed inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, could contribute toward a significant cumulative impact on VMT. Since the expected significant residential VMT per capita project-related impact can be reduced to a less than significant level, it is also concluded that the project would also result in a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT.

4.2 Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
Pursuant to current CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact may also occur “if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities”. The following section provides a brief review of the City’s adopted policies, plans, and programs pertaining to active transportation and public transit analysis.

4.2.1 Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs
The City’s current Circulation Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, and bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, safety, among other things. Relevant adopted policies include:
• Policy 5.1-1 Multimodal Options. Make transportation mode shifts possible by designing, operating, and maintaining streets to enable safe and convenient access and travel for all users—pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers—and to foster a sense of place in the public realm. • Policy 5.1-2 Serve All Users. Provide a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation network that meets the needs of all users in the community, including seniors, youth, and the disabled, and contributes to the community’s quality of life.
• Policy 5.1-3 Complete Streets. Accommodate other modes of travel such as bicycling and walking when implementing roadway improvements, where feasible. • Policy 5.4-1 Continuous Network. Provide a safe and continuous bicycle and pedestrian network that links neighborhoods, parks, schools, libraries, commercial development, major -42-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
employers, and other frequently visited destinations as a means of improving health in the city.
• Policy 5.4-3 Bicycle Network. Design and implement a functional bicycle network by expanding bicycle routes, striping bicycle lanes where feasible, providing signage for bicycle routes, and providing adequate bicycle parking at City facilities. • Policy 5.4-4 Bicycle Support Facilities. Require bicycle parking and support facilities at new industrial, commercial, institutional developments, and transit facilities, as appropriate. • Policy 5.4-6 Pedestrian Network. Improve the pedestrian network by incorporating streetscape improvements such as shade trees, plantings, lighting, and street furniture. • Policy 5.4-7 Sidewalk Deficiencies. Improve areas with sidewalk deficiencies to increase walking in Pico Rivera.
• Policy 5.4-8 ADA. Incorporate American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to create an accessible pedestrian system that can serve all users.

4.2.2 Qualitative Impact Conclusions
The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on active transportation or public transit in the vicinity of the project site. As described in Section 3.1.1 herein, the project site is planned to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access via exclusive walkways which connect the proposed project to the public sidewalks. The walkways minimize the extent of pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicles at the site and provide a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment which in turn can encourage use of active transportation modes. The project site is further planned to provide bicycle parking facilities for use by residents, retail employees and the public. The proposed project is therefore found to be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure.

The proposed project is located along Washington Boulevard, which is currently served by public bus transit service provided by Montebello Bus Line 50. As noted in Section 3.1, the project site is within easy walking distance from existing bus stops located along Washington Boulevard. The proposed project is not expected to affect access or safety at the existing bus stops, nor is it expected to hinder public transit service along Washington Boulevard. Further, the proposed project is not expected to preclude the City from constructing bicycle facilities or pursuing bicycle network improvements along local roadways within the study area. Development of the proposed project will not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Since the proposed project is not found to result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs, nor is it expected to negatively affect the performance or safety of existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, it is determined that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on active transportation and public transit in the vicinity of the project site. -43-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.0 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
In order to estimate the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations (non-CEQA), a multistep process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic volumes on a peak hour and daily basis. The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic volumes. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. The proposed project’s forecast trip generation, distribution, and assignment is presented in Section 2.5 herein. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the effect of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational conditions at the selected study intersections and site driveways using existing and expected future traffic volumes without and with forecast project traffic.

5.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis

5.1.1 Analysis Methodology
The study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis which determines Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) ratios on a critical lane basis. The ICU method is intended for signalized intersection analysis and determines the v/c ratios on a critical lane basis (i.e., based on the individual v/c ratios for key conflicting traffic movements). The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. The overall intersection v/c ratio is subsequently assigned a Level of Service (LOS) value to describe intersection operations. Level of Service varies from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition). A description of the ICU method and corresponding Level of Service is provided in Appendix F.

As noted in the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the ICU calculations are based on a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes, and a dual turn-lane capacity of 2,880 vph. A clearance interval of 0.15 is also included in the ICU calculations.

5.1.2 Analysis Criteria and Thresholds
The relative effect of the added project traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of existing and future operating conditions at the study intersections, without and with the proposed project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate the future v/c relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. -44-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
The potential effect of project-generated traffic at the study intersections was identified using the criteria set forth in the City of Pico Rivera’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. According to the City’s guidelines, a detrimental effect is determined based on the threshold criteria presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1

CITY OF PICO RIVERA

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Level of Service Project Related Increase in v/c
C equal to or greater than 0.04
D equal to or greater than 0.02
E / F equal to or greater than 0.01
The City’s guidelines require improvement measures whenever traffic generated by the proposed development exceeds the criteria above.

5.1.3 Transportation Analysis Scenarios
Pursuant to the City’s guidelines, LOS calculations have been prepared for the following scenarios:
[a] Existing conditions.
[b] Existing with project conditions.
[c] Condition [b] with implementation of improvement measures, where necessary. [d] Condition [a] plus 1.0 percent (1.0%) annual ambient traffic growth through year 2024 and with completion and occupancy of the cumulative projects (i.e., future without project conditions).
[e] Condition [d] with completion and occupancy of the proposed project. [f] Condition [e] with implementation of improvement measures, where necessary.

The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the change in capacity utilization at the study intersections.

The transportation analysis prepared for the study intersections using the ICU methodology is summarized in Table 5-2. The ICU data worksheets for the analyzed intersections are contained in Appendix F.
-45-
Table 5-2

SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS

AND LEVELS OF SERVICE

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
[1] [2] [4] [5]
YEAR 2021 YEAR 2024 YEAR 2024
YEAR 2021 EXISTING W/ CHANGE FUTURE FUTURE W/ CHANGE
EXISTING PROJECT V/C or SIGNIF. PRE-PROJECT PROJECT V/C or SIGNIF.

PEAK V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY IMPACT V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY IMPACT NO. INTERSECTION HOUR DELAY [a] Delay [a] [(2)-(1)] [b] DELAY [a] DELAY [a] [(5)-(4)] [b] 1 Paramount Boulevard/ AM 0.736 C 0.743 C 0.007 No 0.762 C 0.769 C 0.007 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.987 E 0.994 E 0.007 No 1.021 F 1.028 F 0.007 No 2 Crossway Drive/ AM 0.471 A 0.477 A 0.006 No 0.483 A 0.489 A 0.006 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.712 C 0.719 C 0.007 No 0.731 C 0.739 C 0.008 No 3 Rosemead Boulevard/ AM 0.495 A 0.497 A 0.002 No 0.507 A 0.509 A 0.002 No Coffman & Pico Road PM 0.607 B 0.609 B 0.002 No 0.627 B 0.630 B 0.003 No 4 Rosemead Boulevard/ AM 0.649 B 0.657 B 0.008 No 0.669 B 0.677 B 0.008 No Washington Boulevard PM 0.786 C 0.801 D 0.015 No 0.812 D 0.826 D 0.014 No [a] Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for signalized intersections and the delay value for unsignalized intersections. [b] According to the City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, July 2020, an impact is considered significant if the project-related increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) equals or exceeds the thresholds shown the following table:

Final v/c LOS Project Related Increase in v/c
> 0.710 - 0.800 C equal to or greater than 0.04
> 0.810 - 0.900 D equal to or greater than 0.02
> 0.910 E,F equal to or greater than 0.01
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-46-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.1.4 Existing Conditions
As indicated in column [1] of Table 5–2, three of the four study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The following study intersection is expected to operate at LOS E during the peak hour shown below:
• Int. No. 1: Paramount Boulevard/Washington Boulevard: Weekday PM Peak Hour The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3–5 and 3–6, respectively.

5.1.5 Existing With Project Conditions
As shown in column [2] of Table 5–2, the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed at the study intersections. The existing with project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 5–1 and 5–2, respectively.

5.1.6 Future Without Project Conditions
The future cumulative baseline conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic generated by the completion and occupancy of the cumulative projects, as well as the growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existing developments and other factors (i.e., ambient growth). The v/c ratios at all of the study intersections are incrementally increased with the addition of ambient traffic and traffic generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3–3. As presented in column [3] of Table 5–2, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and cumulative projects traffic under the future without project conditions. The following study intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the peak hour shown below with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and cumulative projects traffic under the future without project conditions:
• Int. No. 1: Paramount Boulevard/Washington Boulevard: Weekday PM Peak Hour The future without project (existing, ambient growth and cumulative projects) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Figures 5–3 and 5– 4, respectively.

5.1.7 Future With Project Conditions
As shown in column [4] of Table 5–2, the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed.

The future with project (existing, ambient growth, cumulative projects and project) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 5–5 and 5–6, respectively.
-47-
-48-
-49-
-50-
-51-
-52-
-53-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

5.2 Access and Circulation Review
The access and circulation have been evaluated for the project. The analysis of site driveways was prepared based on the Highway Capacity Manual15 (HCM) operational analysis methodology. The driveway analyses were prepared utilizing the Synchro 11 software package, which implements the Highway Capacity Manual operational methods. A Synchro network was created based on existing conditions field reviews at the site driveways. In addition, specifics such as traffic volume data, lane configurations, available vehicle storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed limits, traffic signal timing and phasing for signalized locations, etc., were coded to complete the roadway network. Traffic volume data were obtained from manual counts conducted at the site driveways during the weekday morning and afternoon commute periods and are contained in Appendix D.

The operational analysis of vehicle queuing at the site driveways was prepared for the following conditions:
[a] Existing conditions.
[b] Condition [a] plus 1.0 percent (1.0%) annual ambient traffic growth through year 2024 (i.e., project build-out) and with completion and occupancy of the related projects (i.e., future without project conditions).
[c] Condition [b] with completion and occupancy of the proposed project (i.e., future with project conditions).

The HCM methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections was utilized to calculate vehicle queuing. The operational analysis reports the 95th percentile queues (in feet) for all approaches for the signalized intersections and the minor street approaches for the unsignalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The HCM 6th Edition methodology worksheets report queues in number of vehicles. As such, an average vehicle length of 25 feet, which includes the length of the vehicle and spacing between vehicles, was assumed for analysis purposes. The reported queues therefore represent the calculated maximum back of queue in feet. The summary of the operational analysis of the site driveways is provided in Table 5-3. As presented in Table 5-3, 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. The HCM methodology worksheets for the site driveways are contained in Appendix G.
15 Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of SciencesEngineering-Medicine, 2016. -54-
Table 5-3
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE QUEUING [1]

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
YEAR 2024 YEAR 2024

TRAFFIC PEAK FUTURE W/O FUTURE W/ CHANGE
NO. DRIVEWAY CONTROL MOVEMENT HOUR EXISTING PROJECT PROJECT IN QUEUE [3] 1 Project Driveway/ Unsignalized EB Left AM 25 28 40 15 Washington Boulevard PM 43 48 80 37
WB Right AM 0 0 0 0
PM 0 0 0 0
2 Rosemead Boulevard/ Signalized NB Left AM 3 3 3 0
The Marketplace PM 8 8 8 0
SB Right AM 113 120 145 32
PM 238 255 270 32
[1] Pursuant to LA County Public Works' Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 2020, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for intersections was utilized to calculate vehicle queuing. [2] The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The HCM 6th Edition methodology worksheets report queues in number of vehicles per lane, however an average vehicle length of 25 feet was assumed for analysis purposes. The reported queues therefore represent the calculated maximum back of queue in feet per lane.
[3] Represents the change in calculated maximum back of queue (in feet per lane) due to the addition of project-related traffic. 95th PERCENTILE QUEUES (FEET PER LANE) [2]
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
-55-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc

6.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PHASE ANALYSIS
The project construction evaluation addresses activity associated with project construction and major in-street construction of infrastructure projects. The analysis addresses the effect of a project’s construction activity on existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicular circulation in the vicinity.

Factors which are to be considered include the location of the project site, functional classification of the adjacent streets, availability of alternate routes or additional capacity, temporary loss of bicycle parking, temporary loss of bus stops or rerouting of transit lines, duration of temporary loss of access, affected land uses, and magnitude of the temporary construction activities.

While detailed construction plans have not yet been developed, the project applicant has provided preliminary information regarding the overall construction activities in order to identify the potential construction traffic generation. The following general construction details are provided based on information provided by the project applicant team:

Construction of the project is expected to occur within 24 months, beginning in 2022 with an estimated completion and project occupancy by 2024. Construction activities would be permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction would occur on Saturday or Sunday. Earthwork activities necessary for construction would require an estimated 27,400 cubic yards of export. All earthwork volumes have been adjusted to account for swelling and shrinking. Exported soil materials likely would be disposed of at the Azusa Landfill.

Based on the modeling data provided by the project team, the construction vehicles that are planned to be utilized for import and export activities will have a capacity of 14 cubic yards per truck. A total of 3,196 truck trips would be required for complete export of material associated with the project.

During peak grading activities (20-32 workdays), up to 143 truck trips per day and 30 workers can be expected. Following the completion of the site grading, building construction would occur during the following 20 months, requiring 60 workers per day. Asphalt paving and architectural coating would occur during the final two months of construction, requiring 12-15 workers per day.

It is assumed that the equipment staging area during construction would occur on/within the project site. Construction worker parking also could occur on-site. Based on the above construction hours it is assumed that workers would generally arrive at the site by 7:00 AM and depart the site by 4:30 PM (i.e., after a nine-hour workday including a lunch break), except when overtime is necessary to maintain the schedule. At this time, it is not known if temporary travel lane closures will be necessary during the course of project construction. However, any such travel lane closures would be expected to occur outside the weekday AM and PM commute hours so as to maintain roadway capacity when the street system is typically most heavily constrained. In addition, access to the existing Pico Rivera Marketplace will not be impeded as the other existing access points along Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard for the center will remain open during construction.
-56-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
Based on a review of the construction phasing, it is determined that the overall highest construction peak hour traffic generation is expected to occur during grading activities. Other phases such as demolition, building construction, asphalt paving and architectural coating are expected to be less intensive in terms of overall construction traffic generation during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. In addition, with implementation of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), as discussed further below, it is anticipated that most haul truck activity to and from the project site could occur outside of the morning and afternoon peak hours. Accordingly, construction traffic associated with the other phases are not expected to result in any construction traffic impacts given implementation of the CSTMP.

6.1 Screening Criteria
In order to determine the appropriateness and applicability of construction phase analysis for land use development projects, the County’s Guidelines provide the following questions for consideration, with discussion of the proposed project’s expected construction activities provided below:
• For projects that require construction activities to take place within the right-of-way of a highway or arterial, would it be necessary to close any temporary lanes, alleys, or streets for more than one day (including day and evening hours, and overnight closures if on a residential street)?
o No. The project is not expected to require construction activities for more than one day within the right-of-way of Washington Boulevard, which is designated as a major arterial in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. • For projects that require construction activities to take place within the right-of-way of a Local Street, would it be necessary to temporarily close any lanes, alleys, or streets for more than seven days (including day and evening hours, and including overnight closures if on a residential street)?
o No. The project is not expected to require construction activities within the right-ofway of any Local Street as designated in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. • Would in-street construction activities result in the loss of any vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian access, including loss of existing bicycle parking to an existing land use for more than one day, including day and evening hours and overnight closures if access is lost to residential units?
o No. The project is not expected to result in the loss of vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian access to any adjacent existing land uses. The majority of construction activity is expected to take place internal to the project site.
• Would in-street construction activities result in the loss of any ADA access to an existing transit station, stop, or facility (e.g., layover zone)? o No. The project is not expected to result in the loss of ADA access to an existing transit station, stop, or facility.
-57-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Would in-street construction activities restrict access to any bus stops for more than one day, or necessitate any rerouting of a bus route?
o No. The project is not expected to restrict access to any bus stops for more than one day, or necessitate any rerouting of a bus route.
• Would construction of a project interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility to adjoining areas?
o No. The project is not expected to interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility to adjoining areas.

As the answer is no to all of the screening criteria above, further analysis of project construction is not required. While it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in the closure of travel lanes, alleys, or streets for more than one day, would not relocate existing bus transit stops or routes, and would not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility during construction, it is recommended that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activity. The construction work site traffic control plan is required to identify the location of any temporary roadway lane and/or sidewalk closures needed during project construction, including the construction of the new (replacement) project driveway and handicap accessible ramp, and installation of new curb and gutter near the driveway that is planned for closure. As the new driveway will be designed to meet City standards, no hazards with respect to driveway design and/or safety are expected.

Section 6.0 above notes that the project applicant would be required to prepare a detailed CSTMP, which would include any applicable street/lane/sidewalk closure information, a detour plan, haul route(s), and a staging plan. The plan would be based on the nature and timing of the Project’s specific construction activities and would consider other projects under construction in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, if any. The CSTMP also would include features such as notification to adjacent project owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, advance notification regarding any temporary transit stop relocations, and limitation of any potential roadway lane closure(s) to off-peak travel periods, to the extent feasible.

Specifically, the CSTMP will include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
• Advance notification of adjacent property owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, including durations and daily hours of operation. • Temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to public rights-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person/s). • Scheduling of construction activities to reduce the effect on traffic flow on surrounding arterial streets.
• Potential sequencing of construction activity for the Project to reduce the amount of construction-related traffic on arterial streets.
-58-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• Containment of construction activity within the Project Site boundaries, per the Worksite Traffic Control Plan.
• Prohibition on construction-related vehicles/equipment parking on surrounding public streets. • Coordination with transit service provider/s to address any potential conflicts with existing transit service.
• Safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers shall be implemented as appropriate. • Schedule delivery of construction materials and hauling/transport of oversize loads to nonpeak travel periods, to the extent possible. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, Sundays, or federal holidays unless required by the City and/or Caltrans. • Installation of appropriate traffic signs around the project site to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety, as may be necessary.
• Installation of truck crossing signs within 300 feet of the exit of the Project Site in each direction.
• Securing of loads by trimming and watering or covering to prevent the spilling or blowing of the earth material.
• Cleaning of trucks and loads at the export site to prevent blowing dirt and spilling of loose earth.
• Identification of a construction manager and provision of a telephone number for any inquiries or complaints from residents regarding construction activities. The telephone number shall be posted at the site readily visible to any interested party during site preparation, grading, and construction.
• Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities, if needed.
-59-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt6.doc

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• Project Description – The project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard (APN: 6370- 027-018) situated along the north side of Washington Boulevard, west of Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera. The existing 2.85-acre project site is currently vacant, formerly occupied by a commercial building that operated as a nightclub until March 2015 and was subsequently demolished in 2020. The project applicant, Mercury Bowl, LLC: Green Rivera, LLC, is seeking approval from the City of Pico Rivera for implementation of the Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Specific Plan that reflects the proposed development of a mixed-use building with subterranean parking, ground-floor retail, and residential uses. If the Specific Plan is approved by the City, it would allow for the development of 255 residential dwelling units including 13 affordable units, 5,730 square feet of commercial/retail space; 1,750 square feet of ground-floor lobby/leasing space; and 13,500 square feet of recreational amenities for future residential tenants. The proposed residential unit mix consists of 35 studio units, 159 onebedroom units, 57 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units. Amenities for the proposed mixed-use development include a swimming pool, jacuzzi, poolside cabanas, clubhouse, gym, barbecue area, and garden/green areas. Construction and occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur by the end of year 2024.
• Project Site Access – Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by a total of two (2) driveways: one (1) existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and one (1) existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard. The curb cut for the existing westerly site driveway on Washington Boulevard will remain and will be used solely for emergency/fire access but not for vehicular access. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site is planned to be accommodated via exclusive walkways which would connect to the public right-of-way. • Project Trip Generation – The proposed project is expected to generate 111 vehicle trips (40 inbound trips and 71 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 134 net new vehicle trips (80 inbound trips and 54 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 1,594 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (797 inbound trips and 797 outbound trips).
• Transportation Demand Management Measures – Transportation demand management (TDM) measures are proposed to be incorporated as project design features. • VMT Analysis: It is concluded that development of the project is not expected to result in a significant residential (household) VMT impact based on the City’s significance thresholds contained herein. Further, based on the project-related VMT analysis and the conclusions reported in Section 4.1.5 (i.e., which conclude that the proposed project aligns with the long-term VMT and GHG reduction goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS), no cumulative VMT impacts are anticipated.
-60-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Report\4418-Rpt5.doc
• CEQA Active Transportation and Public Transit Assessment –The proposed project is found to be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure.

Further, development of the proposed project will not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. It is therefore determined that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on active transportation and public transit in the vicinity of the project site.
• Intersection Level of Service Analysis – – A total of four (4) study intersections were selected for analysis in consultation with City staff in order to determine potential effects related to the proposed project. The study locations were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. It is concluded that the project-related effects in the v/c ratios at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria under either the Existing With Project or Future With Project conditions. Therefore, based on the results of the operation evaluation, no project-specific intersection improvements are required or proposed. • Project Access and Circulation Review – A review of the project site driveways was conducted.

It is concluded that the proposed project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes will not cause or substantially extend vehicle queuing at the site driveways. • Project Construction Phase Analysis – While it is concluded the proposed project would not result in the closure of through travel lanes, alleys, or streets, would not relocate existing bus transit stops or routes, and would not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle circulation and accessibility during construction, it is recommended that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activity should any travel lane closure/s be proposed. The project applicant would also prepare a detailed Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan, which includes any applicable street/lane/sidewalk closure information, a detour plan, haul route(s), and a staging plan. No hazards or other safety concerns are expected at the project driveways and the new Washington Boulevard driveway will be designed in accordance with City standards and be in very close proximity to the existing driveway which is planned for closure. -61-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX A

SCOPE OF STUDY FORM
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 18 of 20 July 27, 2020
Scope of Study Form-Part A
To be completed by the preparer of a traffic study and approved by the City’s Public Works Department prior to start of a traffic study
Project Name: Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use
Project Address: 8825 Washington Boulevard
Project Description:
255 Apartments (13 affordable), 5,500 SF retail/restaurant, 27,000 SF Self-Storage
Developer’s Name: Mercury Bowl, LLC, Green Rivera, LLC
Address: 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone No. 586-419-0927 Fax Number:

Email Address: [email protected]
Trip Generation Rates From: ITE Ed. Other: ITE 10th Edition, LADOT TAG Trip Generation For: Refer to attached Table 2-1
Land Use (1) Land Use (2)
ITE Land Use Code ITE Land Use Code
Daily Trips Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
PM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
Pass-by Trips (%), if applicable: %
Trip Credits, if applicable for any existing use: None
Land Use (1) Land Use (2)
ITE Land Use Code ITE Land Use Code
Daily Trips Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips AM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
PM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:

Inbound Inbound
Outbound Outbound
Total Total
Project Opening Year: 2024 Build-out Year: 2024
Study Intersections: 1 Paramount Blvd/Washington Blvd 6 2 Crossway Drive/Washington Blvd 7
3 Rosemead Blvd/Coffman-Pico 8
4 Rosemead Blvd/Washington Blvd 9
5 10
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 19 of 20 July 27, 2020
Part B- VMT Analysis

1. Project Screening
The project does not meet screening criteria.

2. Project Generated VMT Methodology
To Be Determined

3. VMT Methodology Benchmarks
To Be Determined
Ambient Growth Rate: 0.24 % Source: LA County CMP, RSA 22 Trip Distribution: East 25 % West 25 % North 25 % South 25 % Include exhibit showing trip distribution/ assignment and a map showing the project's trips at the study intersections and project driveways
Comments Trip distribution/assignment will be provided after study intersections have been confirmed and intersection manual traffic counts are conducted and reviewed (Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
Preparer’s Name: Francesca Bravo, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Address: 600 South Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone No. (626) 796-2322 ext. 223 Fax Number: (626) 792-0941 Email Address: [email protected]
Signature: Date: March 1, 2021
Scope of Study form(continued)
Study Segments: Washington Bl, btwn Rosemead Bl & Paramount 6 2 Rosemead Bl, btwn Washington Bl & Whittier Bl 7
3 8
4 9
5 10
(Use Additional Sheet(s), if necessary)
The City of Pico Rivera Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Page 20 of 20 July 27, 2020
Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline) (To be filled out by City Staff)
________________________________________________________________________________ Scoping Agreement Submitted on _March 1, 2021______
Revised on ____________, ____________, _____________,___________ Approved Scoping Agreement:

Approved By (Department of Public Works):

Signature: Date:

Name: Title:

Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]

DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2]

LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Apartment [3] 242 DU 1,316 23 64 87 65 41 106
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (197) (3) (10) (13) (10) (6) (16) Affordable Housing [5] 13 DU 54 3 4 7 3 2 5
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (8) 0 (1) (1) 0 0 0 Retail [6] 2,750 GLSF 104 2 1 3 5 5 10
Restaurant [7] 2,750 GSF 308 15 12 27 17 10 27
Self-Storage [8] 27,000 GSF 41 2 1 3 2 3 5
TOTAL 1,618 42 71 113 82 55 137
[1] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 10th Edition, 2017 and Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG), City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), July 2020.
[2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multi-Family [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 5.44 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.36 trips/dwelling units; 26% inbound/74% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/dwelling units; 61% inbound/39% outbound [4] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Handbook", 3rd Edition, 2017 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 - "Enhanced Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments", 2011. Internal capture and Captive markets trips are trips made to and from other components of the project and other uses in the immediate vicinity of the site. A 15% internal capture/captive market reduction factor has been applied to reflect the internal trip making between the project land uses and other uses in the area. [5] LADOT trip generation average rates for Family Affordable Housing. - Daily Trip Rate: 4.16 trips/dwelling unit; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/dwelling unit; 38% inbound/62% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.38 trips/dwelling unit; 55% inbound/45% outbound [6] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 37.75 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.94 trips/1,000 SF; 62% inbound/38% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 3.81 trips/1,000 SF; 48% inbound/52% outbound [7] ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 112.18 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.94 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 55% inbound/45% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 9.77 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 62% inbound/38% outbound [8] ITE Land Use Code 151 (Mini-Warehouse) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 1.51 trips/1,000 SF; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.10 trips/1,000 SF; 60% inbound/40% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.17 trips/1,000 SF; 47% inbound/53% outbound LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 Washington and Rosemead Mixed-Use Project
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX B

EMPIRICAL PARKING DEMAND DATA
Appendix Table B-1
SUMMARY OF PARKING DEMAND RATIOS AT COMPARABLE SITES [1] EXISTING ON-SITE [3] EXISTING OBSERVED [4] AT FULL OCCUPANCY [5]

ON-SITE PARKING PEAK PEAK PARKING PEAK PEAK PARKING

PARKING SUPPLY RATIO PARKING DEMAND RATIO PARKING DEMAND RATIO

SITES SUPPLY (SPACES/UNIT) DEMAND (SPACES/UNIT) DEMAND (SPACES/UNIT)

1. Paragon at Old Town 163 95.7% 404 2.48 231 1.42 241 1.48

2. Trio Apartments 304 94.0% 480 1.58 348 1.14 370 1.22

3. Main Street Village 481 93.8% 1,020 2.12 639 1.33 681 1.42 948 94.5% 1,904 2.01 1,218 1.28 1,292 1.36
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Peak parking demand was forecasted at full (100%) occupancy for each site. The peak parking demand ratios at full occupancy were derived by dividing the peak parking demand by the total number of dwelling units.

UNIT

OCCUPANCY
LEVELS [2]
TOTAL NO.

DWELLING
UNITS [2]
TOTALS (1 + 2 + 3)
The parking demand ratios were developed based on the number of dwelling units and parking spaces provided at each observation site, as well as the results of the parking accumulation surveys conducted for each site (on-site and on-street as applicable) in September 2012 (refer to Appendix A for a summary of the parking surveys for each site).

The site characteristics, including number of residential units and the site occupancy levels at the time of the parking accumulation surveys were provided by Lincoln Property Company representatives.

The parking supply was inventoried by LLG Engineers in September 2012. The parking supply includes all marked parking spaces provided on-site (i.e., regular, handicap, visitor, etc.) for residents, guests, vendors.

The existing supply parking ratios are based on the number of spaces provided on-site divided by the total number of dwelling units.

The existing peak parking demand was observed to occur at 11:00 PM for the Paragon at Old Town and at 12:00 AM midnight for the Trio Apartments and Main Street Village. The existing peak parking demand for the Paragon at Old Town and Trio Apartments included on-site and on-street observed parking demand associated with residents/guests for the sites. The weekday parking demand ratios are based on the parking demand observed for each site divided by the total number of dwelling units.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project

APPENDIX C

LADOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRIP GENERATION STUDY
Transportation
Assessment Guidelines
July 2020
i City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines This document and excerpts of this document may be reprinted or reproduced without permission, provided attribution to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT).

For comments or questions regarding the transportation study review policies and practice of the City of Los Angeles, please contact:

City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Bureau of Planning & Development Services
Eddie Guerrero, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Metro and West Los Angeles Office David Somers, Transportation Planning and Policy
This document may be reprinted and excerpts may be extracted without permission by LADOT. Changes to these policies may be revised or updated periodically and will be posted on the LADOT web site at:
www.ladot.lacity.org
3-8 City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines calibration of the simulation model.

Land Use Development Projects
Project Trip Generation
A land use project’s daily vehicle trips and trip generation may be estimated using the VMT Calculator tool or information from the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. However, if the project is in a Transportation Specific Plan (TSP) area, then the procedures and trip rates identified in the TSP should be applied. If other rates are proposed, then these rates must first be submitted with the appropriate background survey data for approval by LADOT. A table presenting the estimated number of daily trips and AM and PM peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project entering and exiting the site must be included.

The following adjustments may apply to some projects (any trip generation rate adjustments must be approved by LADOT during the scoping process):
• ITE 10th Edition – The 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual, released in September 2017 introduces trip generation rates for select land uses categorized by area type: Rural, General Urban/Suburban, Dense Multi-Use Urban, and City Core. The manual provides descriptions of the area types and guidance on how these rates should be applied. As part of the MOU process, LADOT should be consulted to confirm the appropriate ITE area type for the project location. If Dense Multi-Use Urban or City Core rates are to be used, care should be taken to ensure that the sample size within the ITE database is appropriate, in accordance with guidance in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook.

In addition, locally available trip generation rates developed from counts conducted at market-rate residential properties in the City of Los Angeles are higher than the ITE 10th Edition rates for mid-rise and high-rise multifamily uses in dense multi-use urban areas. The empirical rates presented in Table 3.3-1 should be used for these uses.

Table 3.3-1: Local Trip Generation Rates for Multifamily Mid-Rise and High-Rise Residential Land Uses in Dense Multi-Use Urban Areas

LAND USE AM PEAK HOUR
(trips per DU)

PM PEAK HOUR
(trips per DU)
Multifamily Mid-Rise 0.31 0.30
Multifamily High-Rise 0.23 0.30
• Unique Developments – Unique types of development may require trip generation studies of similar facilities in order to establish a trip rate for use in the analysis. These developments may include land uses for which trip generation rates are not available in the ITE Trip Generation manual, or land uses for which the rates in the ITE Trip Generation manual are based on a small sample of surveyed sites. The procedures and the results of the trip generation studies must be approved by LADOT.
• Existing or Qualified Terminated Use – When estimating the Project’s net new trips either when evaluating a land use project’s deficiencies toward access and circulation, or for screening a project from VMT analysis, any claim for trip credits for an existing or terminated land use generally requires that the use of land must have been active for at least 6 consecutive months during the past 2 years from the time of the base year vehicle trip counts. To fully ensure that trip credit claims are validated by LADOT, appropriate supporting documentation must be submitted, such as copies of any building permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, lease agreement, affidavits, utility bills, or photographs, as well as documentation as to when the previous land use City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines 3-9 was terminated, if applicable. Documentation of any previous environmental review should be included in this submittal. The absence of documentation of previous environmental review may result in denial of the claim for trip credits. Note that some TSP ordinances allow different time frames for the determination of existing use trip credits and of any applicable trip fees.
• Mixed-Use Internalization – Internal trip credits are a reduction to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses within a mixed-use development to account for trips internal to the site. Methods for determining internalization are provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, Transportation Research Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684:

Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Mixed-Use Trip Generation Tool (MXD). • Pass-by Trips39 – Any claim for “pass-by” trip generation adjustments must use the trip rates summarized in Attachment H titled “Pass-By Trip Rates,” which are based on rates published by ITE. However, these rates may be superseded by additional guidelines provided in specific plans. For the purpose of analyzing project driveways, the pass-by trip adjustment does not apply to the project driveway trips. • Transit-friendly Projects – LADOT encourages project applicants to design and construct transit-friendly Projects that create safe and walkable site design and facilities that connect Project patrons to and from transit stations and stops. Consistent with City policy goals to promote the use of transit and walking, LADOT, at its discretion, may allow up to a 25% transit/walk trip generation reduction, subject to the following guidelines, on a case by case basis:
• Developments above or adjacent to a Metro Rail, Metrolink, or Orange Line station, or to a similar dedicated transit line station with convenient pedestrian access to the station may qualify for a maximum 25% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided should be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the specified transit station. • Developments within a 1/4-mile walking distance of a transit station, or of a Rapid Bus stop, may qualify for up to a 15% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided will be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the specified transit station or Rapid Bus stop.
• If the development project is not within ¼-mile walking distance of a transit station or a Rapid Bus stop but is within a ¼-mile walking distance of other public bus stops, the project may still qualify for up to 10% trip generation adjustment. The actual adjustment provided will be determined by an analysis of the transit service frequency and density at the nearby bus stop(s).

Transit trip adjustment will not be automatically granted to development projects located in an area with infrequent transit service. However, all reasonable efforts by the developer to promote the use of public transit or walking will be considered for transit adjustments on a case-by-case basis. Refer to Section 2.2 of these Guidelines for transit-related mitigation measures.

Since the Dense Multi-Use Urban and City Core trip generation rates discussed previously were derived from data collected in dense urban areas with convenient and frequent transit service and the ability to walk to complementary land uses, etc., these effects are inherent in the rates. If Dense Multi-Use Urban or City Core rates are being used for land uses in a project, care should therefore be taken to avoid overestimating these 39 Pass-by trips are defined as patrons already traveling from an origin to a primary trip destination who make an intermediate stop at the project site without a route diversion.
3-10 City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines effects by taking additional transit or walk credits.
• TDM Trip Reduction – Features and amenities that may qualify a project for this adjustment include the TDM measures to achieve the minimum point value in the TDM Program Description and TDM measures in the VMT Calculator (see Attachment G).
• Affordable Housing Projects – Residential or mixed-use developments that include Affordable Housing Units [as defined in LAMC 12.22-A.25(b)] are eligible to use the locally-collected trip generation rates presented in Table 3.3-2, which are based on the total number and type of dwelling units reserved as affordable. These trip generation rates are based on vehicle trip count data collected at affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles in 2016.

Table 3.3-2: Trip Generation Rates for Affordable Housing Projects

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES
DAILY
RATE
(Trips per
DU)

AM PEAK

HOUR RATE
(Trips per
DU)
% AM

TRIPS IN
% AM

TRIPS OUT

PM PEAK

HOUR RATE
(Trips per DU)
% PM

TRIPS IN
% PM

TRIPS OUT
Average
Family 4.16 0.52 38% 62% 0.38 55% 45%
Seniors 1.72 0.12 38% 62% 0.15 52% 48%
Special Needs 1.49 0.17 43% 57% 0.11 54% 46%
Permanent Supportive 1.23 0.08 67% 33% 0.13 53% 47%
Inside
TPA
Area
Family 4.16 0.49 37% 63% 0.35 56% 44%
Seniors 1.31 0.13 38% 62% 0.13 47% 53%
Special Needs 1.00 0.10 30% 70% 0.05 67% 33%
Permanent Supportive 0.87 0.08 62% 38% 0.09 59% 41%
Outside
TPA
Area
Family 4.15 0.55 40% 60% 0.43 55% 45%
Seniors 1.97 0.11 38% 62% 0.17 55% 45%
Special Needs 1.98 0.24 54% 46% 0.16 44% 56%
Permanent Supportive 1.50 0.09 71% 29% 0.16 49% 51%
Family affordable housing offers affordable dwelling units designed for lower income households with children, or lower income households with single or multiple adults without children. Senior affordable housing provides affordable dwelling units designed for mature residents. The category of special needs housing includes facilities serving a variety of populations, including foster youth, disabled, mentally ill, and HIV/AIDs. Permanent supportive housing provides long-term housing with supportive services designed to enable homeless persons and individuals/families at risk of homelessness to ensure that they remain housed and live as independently as possible.

Project Trip Distribution
The estimation of distribution patterns for project trips should consider a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following: the characteristics of the street system serving the project site; the level of accessibility of routes to and from the proposed project site; locations of employment and commercial centers to which residents of a residential project would be drawn; and residential areas from which the commercial patrons, employees, or school students would be drawn. The distribution analysis can be supported by data from the City of Los Angeles TDF model, ATTACHMENT F: VMT Calculator Documentation A-24
VMT CALCULATOR DOCUMENTATION:
https://ladot.lacity.org/sites/default/files/documents/vmt_calculator_documentation-2020.05.18.pdf City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator
Documentation
Version 1.3
Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and
Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP)
May 2020

APPENDIX B

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRIP GENERATION STUDY
600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-3050 www.fehrandpeers.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 20, 2017
To: Claire Bowin & David Somers, Los Angeles Department of City Planning Cc: Tom Carranza, Los Angeles Department of Transportation From: Tom Gaul & Cary Bearn, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Infill and Complete Streets Study
Task 2.1A Local Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study Ref: LA15-2755
This memo serves as a summary of Task 2.1A, Local Affordable Housing Trip Generation Study, as part of the City of Los Angeles’ Infill and Complete Streets: Capturing VMT Impacts & Benefits Pursuant to CEQA study. As part of Task 2.1A, vehicle trip generation and parking utilization surveys were conducted at numerous affordable housing locations throughout the City of Los Angeles in order to provide an improved understanding of vehicle trip generation and parking demand characteristics of affordable housing uses in Los Angeles.

The empirical trip generation data collected through this effort will be used to customize and calibrate the MXD model for Los Angeles to be integrated into the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) VMT Calculator to be developed for the City as part of later tasks in the study.

METHODOLOGY
Twenty-four hour driveway vehicle counts were conducted at the various survey sites using video cameras. Manual overnight parking utilization sweeps were also conducted.

Criteria for selection of the survey sites included:
 Sample Size – The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends that at least three and preferably five independent survey sites be used to establish a local trip generation rate for a particular land use. This recommendation was exceeded for all land use types included in this study, including for each of the subcategories of affordable housing sites.
 100% Affordable – The affordable housing site must be 100% affordable (other than the manager’s unit). This was to ensure that the counts reflect the trip generation behavior solely of affordable units.
 Isolatable Use – The sites must be standalone and not part of a mixed-use development.

Claire Bowin & David Somers
April 20, 2017

Page 2 ends

Pico Rivera City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

Pico Rivera City Council
January 24, 2023