Pico Rivera City Council
January 24, 2023

Table 6 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions with Mitigation Incorporated Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb/day)1, 2,3
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 2022
Asphalt Demolition 2 17 15 <1 1 1
Asphalt Demolition and Debris Haul 2 23 16 <1 5 2
Site Preparation 2 17 10 <1 1 1
Rough Grading 3 30 21 <1 5 3
Rough Grading and Soil Haul 3 44 24 <1 6 3
Utilities Trenching 1 8 7 <1 1 <1
Utilities Trenching, Fine Grading and Soil Haul, and
Building Construction 2022 4 51 32 <1 5 2
Utilities Trenching and Building Construction 2022 3 23 24 <1 2 1 Building Construction 2022 2 15 17 <1 1 1
Year 2023
Building Construction 2023 2 14 16 <1 1 1
Building Construction 2023 and Paving 3 23 29 <1 2 1
Building Construction 2023 and Architectural Coating 40 15 20 <1 2 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions 40 51 32 <1 6 3
South Coast AQMD Regional Construction
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.
1 Based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast AQMD of construction equipment. 2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
3 Includes implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would require use of paints with 0 VOC content for building interior coating activities.

Long-Term Operation-Related Air Quality Impact
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on-road vehicles). The proposed project would result in the development of 255 residential units and 5,730 square feet of retail space on the project site. The proposed buildings would, at minimum, be designed and built to meet the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11, of the CCR). As shown in Table 7, Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions, it is anticipated that operation of the proposed project would result in overall minimal emissions and would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional operationphase significance thresholds. Impacts to the regional air quality associated with operation of the project would be less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 55
Table 7 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions
Source Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Max Daily Emissions
Area1 7 <1 21 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 5 4 54 <1 12 3
Total 13 6 76 <1 12 3
South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.

Notes: lbs: Pounds. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. 1 Operational model does not consider annual interior or exterior painting of the parking structure but does consider annual striping of the parking stalls. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it causes or significantly contributes to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Construction LSTs
Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS that provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise.

The screening-level construction LSTs are based on the size of a project site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area (SRA). The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the residences along Goodbee Street and Birchleaf Avenue to the northwest of the project site which is located within SRA 5 – Southeast LA County.

Air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities would cause temporary increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 8, Localized Construction Emissions, shows that the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction emissions would be less than their respective South Coast AQMD screening-level LSTs. Therefore, air quality impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 8 Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutants(lbs/day)1
NOX CO PM102 PM2.52
South Coast AQMD ≤1.00 Acre LST 80 571 4.00 3.00
Utilities Trenching 8 6 0.32 0.30
Utilities Trenching and Building Construction 2022 22 20 1.02 0.97 Building Construction 2022 15 14 0.70 0.67
Building Construction 2023 14 14 0.61 0.59
Building Construction 2023 and Paving 22 26 1.05 0.99
Building Construction 2024 and Architectural Coating 15 16 0.68 0.66 Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 1.38 Acre LST 93 680 5.12 3.37
Utilities Trenching, Fine Grading and Soil Haul, and
Building Construction 2022 26 23 1.21 1.11
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 1.94-Acre LSTs 112 843 6.81 3.94
Site Preparation 16 10 1.28 0.63
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.00 Acre LST 114 861 7.00 4.00
Asphalt Demolition 17 14 0.84 0.78
Asphalt Demolition and Debris Haul 23 15 4.82 1.49
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.85-Acre LSTs 130 1,036 8.98 4.85
Rough Grading 29 20 4.71 2.64
Rough Grading and Soil Haul 29 20 4.74 2.64
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4. South Coast AQMD 2008 and 2011.

Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment are included in the analysis. Screening level LSTs are based on an 82 ft receptor in SRA 5.
1 Where specific information for project-related construction activities or processes was not available modeling was based on CalEEMod defaults. These defaults are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast AQMD. 2 Includes fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, such as watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.

Construction Health Risk
Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) adopted guidance for preparation of health risk assessments, which included the development of a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM over a 30-year time frame (OEHHA 2015). Currently, South Coast AQMD does not require the evaluation of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term construction project. The proposed project’s construction period is anticipated to be completed in approximately 23 months, which would limit the exposure of adjacent sensitive receptors to construction emissions. Project construction would comply with required health and safety standards and construction best practices. Furthermore,

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 57
construction activities would not generate onsite exhaust emissions that would exceed the screening-level construction LSTs, as shown in Table 8, above. Thus, construction emissions would not pose a health risk to onsite and offsite receptors, and project-related construction health impacts would be less than significant.

Operation LSTs
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial emissions from onsite stationary sources.

Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where truck idling would occur onsite and would require a permit from South Coast AQMD. The proposed project does not fall within these categories of uses.

While operation of the proposed project would use standard onsite mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, air pollutant emissions would be nominal. Localized air quality impacts related to operation-related emissions would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspots
Vehicle congestion has the potential to create pockets of CO, known as hotspots. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles are backed-up and idle for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. These pockets could exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm for CO. Since CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations.

The SoCAB has been designated attainment under both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2017). The project-related 139 PM peak hour vehicle trips would be minimal compared to the AAQS screening levels. The project would not substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections and impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project involves construction of a mixed-use residential and retail development and would not result in objectionable odors land uses. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Odor impacts would be less than significant.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Special-status species include those listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act, species otherwise given certain designations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and plant species listed as rare by the California Native Plant Society. The project site is in a highly urbanized area of the city of Pico Rivera and surrounded by various commercial and residential uses. The project site is currently vacant, fenced off with no public access, largely developed with impervious surfaces, and does not contain any natural habitat that could contain any sensitive species or other sensitive natural community. There are non-native mature palm trees located on-site, which would be removed by the project. However, these trees are unlikely to support candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species (see also Section 3.4(d) regarding migratory species). Considering the prior development on-site, the surrounding urbanized context, and current site conditions, the project site does not have capacity to support any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Therefore, no impacts related to special-status species would occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is a vacant paved lot that was formerly developed with commercial uses. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no watercourse runs through or adjacent to the project site. No riparian habitat exists on-site (USFWS 2021a). Therefore, no impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 59
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4(a) previously, the project site is a vacant lot with no above-grade structures. No watercourse runs through or adjacent to the project site. No wetland habitat exists on site (USFWS 2021a). Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is in an urbanized area of the city of Pico Rivera. The project site is in an area that is completely developed with commercial and residential uses.

No critical habitat exists on the project site nor surrounding the project site (USFWS 2021b).

The project site contains several ornamental non-native palm trees that could be used for nesting by common bird species. The proposed project would remove these ornamental trees which could have a potential impact to nesting birds. However, nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests (US Code, Title 16, Sections 703–712). The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA.

Compliance with the existing California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 below would ensure that impacts remain less than significant to nesting and migratory birds.

Mitigation Measures
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 construction-related 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

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 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). e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no local biological-related policies or ordinances, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance that is applicable to the project. The project site contains ornamental palm trees that would be removed and replaced with City-approved landscaping. The proposed project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances; therefore, no impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan? No Impact. The project site is within an urban and developed area. The project site is not within the area of an adopted Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFW 2022). The proposed project would not affect the Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan and therefore no impact would occur.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 61
The project site is a currently vacant commercial property and not located within a national or historic district in the city of Pico Rivera. The California Register of Historical Resources nor the National Register of Historic Places lists do not include the project site (OHP 2022; NPS 2022). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (see Appendix C) shows that the site was formerly agriculturally developed from as early as 1928; undeveloped between 1953 to 1956; and developed with a commercial building in 1957 until 2019. No buildings currently exist onsite. Therefore, no impact to historic resources would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shows that the site has been previously disturbed by construction of the previous commercial facility in 1957 (Partner 2019, see Appendix C). The Geotechnical Investigation determined that artificial fill material underlies the project site since the project site was previously graded for the existing conditions (Salem 2020, see Appendix B). The Geotechnical Study found that deeper native soils extend to the termination of the maximum boring depth of 51.5 feet below grade, but verification of the extent of fill and native soils would be determined during site grading for the proposed project. Additionally, the project site is within a highly developed area with many past disturbances and grading. However, new ground-disturbing activities could have the potential to uncover previously unknown archaeological resources, and therefore, could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that if resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, that resources would be recovered in accordance with state and federal requirements. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered, a halt-work condition would be implemented, and a qualified archaeologist would be retained to assess such findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
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.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known human remains or cemeteries on the project site or adjoining properties. As described previously, the project site has been developed with a commercial building since 1957. The project site had been previously disturbed with the construction of the commercial building and the surrounding land uses are fully developed; the likelihood that human remains would be discovered during site clearing and grading activities is low. Nonetheless, due to

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

ground-disturbing activities, there could be a potential for discovering unknown human remains which could result in a potentially significant impact.

In the unlikely event that the project applicant discovers human remains during ground-disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall remain halted. The County Coroner shall investigate the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death and recommend the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

The coroner is required to determine within two working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) so that NAHC can contact the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant shall receive access to the discovery and will provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of accessing the discovery site. Disposition of human remains and any associated grave goods, if encountered, shall be treated in accordance with procedures and requirements set forth in Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code; and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. In addition, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures TCR-2 and TCR-3, which are included in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, below.

Compliance with existing law and mitigation measures TCR-2 and TCR-3 regarding the discovery of human remains would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions and would result in short-term transportation-related energy use.

Electrical Energy
Electricity use during construction of the proposed project would vary during different phases of construction.

The majority of construction equipment during grading would be gas- or diesel-powered, and electricity would not be used to power most of the construction equipment. Later construction phases could result in the use of electric-powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings. However, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, projectrelated construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 63
Natural Gas Energy
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the proposed project would be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to natural gas usage.

Transportation Energy
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. It is anticipated that the majority of off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. Energy consumption during construction (2022 through 2023) was calculated using the CalEEMod (Version 2020.4) computer model and data from the EMFAC2017 (v. 1.0.3) and OFFROAD2017 (v. 1.0.1) databases. The results are shown in Table 9, Construction-Related Fuel Usage.

The use of energy resources by vehicles and equipment would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary (approximately 23 months). In addition, all construction equipment would cease operating upon completion of project construction. Thus, impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Furthermore, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, the construction contractors are anticipated to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy since the project site is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., I-605 and I-5) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region. Electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, precluding the use of less efficient generators. Thus, transportation energy use during construction of the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 9 Construction-Related Fuel Usage
Project Component
Gas Diesel Electricity
VMT Gallons VMT Gallons VMT kWh
Construction Worker Commute 2,179,660 76,952 15,382 351 33,766 11,060 Construction Vendor Trips 16,457 3,240 185,993 22,594 0 0 Construction Truck Haul Trips 66 16 76,619 11,622 0 0
Construction Off-Road
Equipment N/A 18,757 N/A 49,537 N/A 0
Total 2,196,183 98,966 277,995 84,105 33,766 11,060
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4; EMFAC2017 v. 1.0.3; Under OFFROAD2017 v. 1.0.1.

Notes: VMT=vehicle miles traveled; kWh=kilowatt hour

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate new demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy on the project site. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, and perimeter lighting.

Electrical Energy
Operation of the proposed residential development and retail uses would consume electricity for various purposes, including but not limited to, heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems, lighting, and use of on-site equipment and appliances. Electrical service to the proposed project would be provided by Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME) through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 10, Electricity Consumption, implementation of the proposed project would result in 2,176,599 kilowatt hours of electricity use per year.

Table 10 Electricity Consumption
Land Use Electricity (kWh/year)
Proposed Project Conditions
Apartments Mid Rise 981,584
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,033,600
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 123,969
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0
Recreational Swimming Pool 0
Regional Shopping Center 37,446
Total 2,176,599
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4
Note: kWh = kilowatt hour(s)
While the proposed project would result in a higher electricity demand than existing conditions, it would be consistent with the requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to comply with CALGreen. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and would not result in a significant impact related to electricity.

Natural Gas Energy
The potential natural gas consumption for the project site is shown in Table 11, Natural Gas Consumption. As shown in the table, implementation of the proposed project would generate an average natural gas demand of 4,052,705 kilo British thermal units per year, primarily due to natural gas use by the mixed-use development.

While the proposed project would result in a higher natural gas demand than existing conditions, it would be consistent with the requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including requirements for natural gas consumption, which would ensure that the proposed project would not result in wasteful or

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 65
unnecessary natural gas demands. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to natural gas usage.

Table 11 Natural Gas Consumption
Land Use Natural Gas (kBTU/year)
Proposed Project Conditions
Apartments Mid Rise 3,388,140
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 659,895
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0
Recreational Swimming Pool 0
Regional Shopping Center 4,670
Total 4,052,705
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4
Note: kBTU = kilo British thermal units
1 Residential natural gas consumption also includes 56,160 kBTU from operation of 3 barbecues grills. See Appendix A for calculations.

Transportation Energy
The proposed project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles from the proposed residential and commercial uses onsite. The efficiency of these motor vehicles is unknown, such as the average miles per gallon. Estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated transportation energy use (see Table 12, Project Annual Operation-Related Fuel Usage). The project-related VMT would primarily come from the residents of the proposed development as well as visitors to the proposed retail establishment. The VMT for the proposed project is estimated to be 5,680,513 miles annually. However, because the proposed project involves development of new residential housing opportunities, it would provide more opportunities for potential new residents to reside in an urbanized area with nearby amenities and public transit options. These features of the proposed project have the potential to contribute to minimizing VMT and transportation-related fuel usage. Thus, it is expected that operationrelated fuel usage associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-related fuel usage.

Table 12 Project Annual Operation-Related Fuel Usage
Gasoline Diesel CNG Electricity
Annual VMT
Annual
Gallons Annual VMT
Annual
Gallons Annual VMT
Annual
Gallons
Annual
VMT
Annual
kWh
Proposed Project 5,451,955 193,685 120,266 7,308 1,085 330 107,211 34,971 Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.; EMFAC2017 v. 1.0.3.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy by 2045 under California’s Renewable Energy Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable portfolios standard (RPS) to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2).

Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS— 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which supersedes the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for publicly owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. The bill also established a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100 the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbonfree electricity target.

The Statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as PRIME, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the proposed project. Compliance of PRIME in meeting the RPS goals would ensure the State meets its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. The proposed project also would comply with the latest 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and no impact would occur.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section is based in part on the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Building, 8825 Washington Boulevard, City of Pico Rivera, California (Geotechnical Investigation), July 31, 2020, prepared by Salem Engineering Group, Inc. (included as Appendix B).

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 67
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. The project site is not in a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard (Salem 2020). The Whittier Fault (southern extension) and the Puente Hills Fault are the nearest faults to the project site, and are located approximately 1.8 and 2 miles, respectively, from the project site (Salem 2020; Partner 2019). No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site (Salem 2020). Since no known active faults exist onsite, surface rupture onsite would not occur. As such, no impact would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the project site is not located within an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, like all areas in southern California, movement associated with the active faults could cause strong ground motion at the project site. The degree of ground shaking and earthquake-induced damage is dependent on multiple factors, such as distances to causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. The closest active fault is Puente Hills Fault that is approximately 2 miles north (Salem 2020). Movement along this fault, or other regional faults, could result in seismic ground shaking on the project site. The proposed project would be required to comply with the seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC), as included in the City of Pico Rivera Municipal Code Section 15.08, which regulates all building and construction projects within the city and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, evacuation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. The CDC would ensure that buildings on-site could withstand ground shaking. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to ground shaking would occur.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load capability when subjected to intense shaking. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean and loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater).

The State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Whittier Quadrangle (March 1999) shows that the project site is within a liquefaction potential zone (Salem 2020). However, groundwater was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation in July 2020 at the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet (Salem 2020). In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation included a liquefaction analysis that indicated that soils on-site have a low potential for liquefication under seismic conditions (Salem 2020). Additionally, as previously described in Section 3.7(a)(ii), the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefication would be less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is in a flat and developed area, and does not contain, nor is adjacent to, any slope or hillside. As such, the proposed project has no potential to result in or be in the path of landslides.

Therefore, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope and instability or seismically induced landslides and no impact would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion increases substantially by earth-moving activities if erosioncontrol measures are not used. The following is a discussion of the potential erosion impacts resulting from the proposed project’s construction and operational phases.

Construction Phase
Construction of the proposed project would result in excavation and exposure of underlying soils that could result in soil erosion. Construction of the proposed project would involve earthwork, such as grading and excavating, and construction equipment and vehicle use that could track soil off-site. Additionally, natural processes, such as wind and rain, could further lead to soil erosion during construction. However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with local and state codes regulating construction activities and soil erosion.

Concerning State regulations, the proposed project would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The CGP is a requirement that minimizes water pollution from construction activities, including erosion. Since the proposed project activities would occur on greater than 1 acre (2.85 acres total) of land, the proposed improvements at the project site would be subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed project’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated best management practices (BMPs) in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction. Adherence with existing state and local laws regulating construction activities would minimize soil erosion from project-related construction activities. Therefore, soil erosion impacts from project construction would be less than significant.

Operation Phase
The proposed project includes a three to six-story mixed-use building with subterranean parking, green spaces, common space, and paved surfaces (such as roadways, driveways, and pedestrian paths). The proposed project would introduce pervious landscaping on the site and would include a storm drain system to collect, treat, and convey stormwater into the existing storm drain system in Washington Boulevard to the south of the project site. With the development of the proposed project, the project site would not contain exposed or bare soil that would have the potential for erosion. The proposed project also includes an on-site stormwater system that would collect all runoff from the site in underground storm drain systems that convey the stormwater runoff to a proposed retention and/or water quality treatment system(s) for infiltration and/or water quality treatment before discharging back to the public system. Any off-site surface flows that enter the site would be

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 69
bypassed through the proposed storm drain system or would sheet flow to existing cross gutters consistent with existing flow patterns. The onsite treatment system would be sized according to County low impact development requirements. With the incorporation of stormwater infrastructure onsite and pervious landscaping, operation of the proposed stormwater plan would reduce the potential for soil erosion. Therefore, potential impacts related to potential for soil erosion would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the project site is flat, and does not contain, nor is adjacent to, any slope or hillside area. The project would not create slope. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquification. The amount of movement is dependent on soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, due to the relatively flat site topography, lateral spreading risks are low at the proposed project site (Salem 2020).

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils.

Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall.

In the Geotechnical Investigation, based on the result of the laboratory testing of on-site soils, the soils were predominantly very dense silty sand, well-graded sand, well-graded sand with silt, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with silt; and soft to stiff silt, sandy silt, and sandy clay (Salem 2020). Since the project site includes soils with clay content, soils on-site may be expansive. As stated in the Geotechnical Investigation, it is common for project areas that contain expansive soils to have soil movement (Salem 2020). The City’s Public Works Department reviews the geotechnical reports prepared for development projects to ensure proper building and safety (Salem 2020). As described in Section 3.7(a), the project would be required to comply with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code to ensure safety and adequate building construction. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed site is in an urbanized area of the city of Pico Rivera, and the proposed project would connect to the City’s wastewater system. No impacts related to septic systems would occur.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is in an area termed the central plain of the Los Angeles Basin, between the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River and within the Peninsular Range of southern California. This plain has been formed by deposition of alluvium within the floodplain of the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River, which flow generally from the hills and mountains to the north southward.

Published reports indicate that the Quaternary Age alluvium is from 600 to 800 feet thick in the area and is underlain by Tertiary Age marine sedimentary rocks several thousand feet in thickness. These deposits are generally fine to coarse grained, consisting primarily of mixtures of gravel, sand, and silt of valleys and floodplains. The Geotechnical Investigation determined that artificial fill material underlies the project site and deeper native soils extend beyond the maximum boring depth of 51.5 feet below grade (Salem 2020). The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consisted predominately of loose to very dense silty sand, well-graded sand, well-graded sand with silt, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with silt; and soft to stiff silt, sandy silt, and sandy clay. The pavement within the test borings consisted of approximately 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) underlain by approximately 0 to 3 inches of aggregate base (AB). A layer of geofabric (Petromat) was encountered within the AC. The proposed project would include excavations for one level of subterranean parking (up to approximately 11 feet below ground surface), and as such would have the potential to encounter paleontological resource. In the unlikely event that the project applicant encounters paleontological resources, the proposed project shall be required to comply with PRC, Chapter 1.7, Sections 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully excavating upon, or removing, destroying, injuring, or defacing any vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other paleontological feature. Therefore, compliance with regulations that are in place to protect paleontological resources would ensure that a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.2 2 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 71
Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the analysis.3 Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does not include this pollutant in the state’s Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.4 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

Project-related construction and operation-phase GHG emissions are shown in Table 13, Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would result in 255 new residential units and 5,730 of retail space. The proposed project would generate 1,577 weekday vehicle trips. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in water demand, wastewater and solid waste generation, area sources (e.g., consumer cleaning products), and energy usage (i.e., natural gas and electricity).

Annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for one-time GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. Overall, development and operation of the proposed project would not generate annual emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year (South Coast AQMD 2010). Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant.
3 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analyses was not warranted for projectspecific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (CNRA 2018). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
4 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Black carbon emissions have sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The state's existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (CARB 2017a.).

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 13 Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions
Source
GHG
(MTCO2e/Year)
Area 7
Energy2 927
Mobile (Vehicle Trips) 1,774
Solid Waste 116
Water 105
Amortized Construction Emissions1 29
Total 2,958
South Coast AQMD Bright-Line Threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/Yr
Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.

Notes: MTons = metric tons; MTCO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Total construction emission are amortized over 30 years per South Coast AQMD methodology. 2 Energy use is adjusted by 4 percent to reflect a slightly larger building square footage to align with the project description. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
On December 24, 2017, CARB adopted the Final 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (Scoping Plan; plan) to address the 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, established by SB 32 (CARB 2017b). The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, which was adopted to achieve the GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Also, new buildings are required to comply with the latest applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Although the measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not individual projects (such as the proposed project), the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by statewide compliance with measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore,

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 73
the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) in September 2020. Connect SoCal identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas rich with destinations and mobility options are consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in Connect SoCal is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in transit priority areas and priority growth areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit; establish abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands and farmlands (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal’s transportation projects help to more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, and forecasted development is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data to promote active transportation and reduce GHG emissions. The projected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in Connect SoCal, would reduce per-capita GHG emissions related to vehicular travel and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.

Connect SoCal does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. Nevertheless, the proposed project would support the goals of Connect SoCal since it is a mixed-use residential and retail development project that would provide new multifamily housing on an infill site that is served by transit, which would contribute to reducing the vehicle miles traveled between residential and service needs. In addition, as seen in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in a reduction in VMT within the city and the VMT per capita of 12.21 residential VMT would be below the City’s calculated significance threshold of 12.23 VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section is based in part on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report, Vacant Commercial Property, 8825 Washington Boulevard, City of Pico Rivera, California (Phase I ESA), October 1, 2019, prepared by Partner, Engineering and Science, Inc. (Appendix C).

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would require small amounts of hazardous materials, including fuels, greases, and other lubricants, and coatings such as paint. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by the construction phase of the proposed project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA),

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).

Construction projects typically maintain supplies on-site for containing and cleaning small spills of hazardous materials. However, construction activities would not involve a significant amount of hazardous materials, and their use would be temporary. Furthermore, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. Pursuant to the Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.1200 of OSHA, the project applicant would ensure training for project construction workers on the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Title 29 states that “[e]mployers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment…Information and training may be designed to cover categories of hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals.” All on-site activities during construction and operation would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials.

Also, construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the SWPPP as part of the NPDES permit.

The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to reduce and eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction site. BMPs for hazardous materials can include, but are not limited to, offsite refueling, placement of generators on impervious surfaces, establishing clean out areas for cement, etc.

While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. With the compliance of applicable regulations, the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be properly managed, and the risk for accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced. Impacts would be less than significant.

Maintenance and operation of the proposed project, which would operate as a mixed-use development, may require the use cleaners, solvents, paints, other household maintenance products, and gasoline/diesel that could be potentially hazardous. These custodial products and paints would be used in relatively small quantities, be clearly labeled, and stored and transported in compliance federal, state, and local requirements. In small quantities, these household and common commercial items are not considered hazardous materials that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. With the exercise of normal safety practices and compliance with regulatory compliance measures, the proposed project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is an undeveloped paved lot and there are no known hazardous materials on the property, as discussed in Section 3.9(d). Since the project site is devoid of structures, no asbestos or lead-based paint could be present on-site. As described previously, construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials, which may include fuels, lubricants, coatings, and grease for the

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 75
operation and maintenance of construction equipment. These hazardous materials would be used in accordance with regulatory standards and manufacturers’ specifications. They would be used in small quantities and stored so that they do not pose significant safety hazards. Further, construction activities would be temporary.

Operation of the proposed project would include the use of small amounts of hazardous materials that would include household and common commercial items, such as cleaning materials, paints, oils, fuels, pesticides, and fertilizers. These materials would be stored on-site in small quantities for cleaning and maintaining the residential, commercial, and landscaped areas. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of these potentially hazardous materials would comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations. For example, residential and commercial tenants can dispose of potentially hazardous materials at certified waste collection sites. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) International’s standard defines a recognized environmental condition (REC) as follows: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project (see Appendix C), no RECs or historical RECs are present at the project site (Partner 2019). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest existing school to the project site is the Rio Vista Elementary School, which is located more than one-quarter mile from the project site (approximately 0.6 miles away).

Construction of the project is not anticipated to encounter subsurface hazardous materials and would handle small quantities of hazardous materials, which would be temporary. Operation of the proposed project would not result in the release of a significant amount of hazardous emissions, as no significant hazardous materials, substances, or wastes would be transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the proposed project operation. Similarly, the use of hazardous materials at the proposed mixed-use development would be limited to typical household cleaning solvents, chemicals, paints, etc. which would be used in small quantities and stored in compliance with the state and federal requirements. Also, should any future business that occupies the proposed retail space handle acutely hazardous materials, it would be required to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and receive a permit from the County Health Hazardous Materials Division to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Less than significant impacts related to hazardous materials in proximity to the Rio Vista Elementary School would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment did not identify the project site or any properties in the nearby area, as included on the list of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Partner 2019). In addition, a search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database did not identify the project site or any area within the project vicinity as

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

a hazardous materials site. Thus, the impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the project. No impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of an airport. The closest air facility is the San Gabriel Valley Airport, which is located approximately 7.5 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact to an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. According to Los Angeles County’s disaster route map for the city of Pico Rivera, Rosemead and Washington Boulevards are used as disaster routes (LA County 2008). The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties during construction and operation of the proposed project. The Transportation Study prepared for the proposed project (contained in Appendix F) determined that proposed project weekday peak hour traffic volumes would not cause or substantially extend vehicle queuing at the project site driveways (LLG 2022). Therefore, vehicle queueing at project site driveways would not hinder emergency vehicle circulation. Further, prior to construction, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which provides fire protection services to the city of Pico Rivera, and the City’s Public Works department, would review project plans to ensure adequate site access.

The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts to adopted emergency response and evacuation plans are less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is in an entirely developed urban area and is not in a fire hazard zone designated by CAL FIRE (2021). No impacts would occur.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 77
Construction
The proposed project site is currently vacant though developed as an impervious site from previous uses on the property. Implementation of the proposed project would include grading and excavation to support the subterranean parking garage, trenching for site utilities and irrigation, building construction, architectural coatings, driveway and walkway construction, landscaping, and street connection improvements. These activities have the potential to expose and loosen sediment and building materials that would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff. Since project activities would occur on greater than 1 acre (2.85 acres total), the proposed project would be required to obtain a NPDES CGP from the SWRCB and prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP will include BMPs to reduce water quality impacts, including various measures to control on-site erosion, reduce sediment flows into stormwater and wind erosion; reduce tracking of soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system.

Inspections, reporting, and stormwater sampling and analysis are also required to ensure that visible and nonvisible pollutants are not discharged off-site. Implementation of the provisions of the NPDES permit and compliance with City grading requirements would minimize construction impacts through BMPs that reduce construction-related pollutants. This would ensure that any impacts to downstream waters resulting from construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
Activities typical of mixed-use developments are anticipated for the proposed project during operation. These include day-to-day activities, such as recreation, lounging, commuting, exercising, dining, landscaping/irrigation, and other residential/commercial-related activities. Also, the proposed project would daily generate typical residential household wastes and retail waste. These include food wastes, paper products, and recyclable materials. These materials would be disposed of in on-site trash enclosures and removed for disposal by the local private waste management company. Considering these typical residential and commercial activities, potential pollutants generated by the proposed project could include suspended-solid/sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris. However, the proposed project would incorporate a water quality system onsite as described in Section 1.3.5, Infrastructure Plan, which would include a retention and/or water quality treatment system for infiltration or water quality treatment before stormwater is discharged to the public stormwater system. The water quality system onsite would be sized according to meet the County’s low impact development requirements. Implementation of the water quality system onsite, in accordance with City and County requirements, would ensure that stormwater pollutants and water quality impacts remain less than significant. Therefore, operational impacts related to water quality standards would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. In the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface investigation to the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet (Salem 2020). The proposed project would connect to the existing 8-inch water line in Washington

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Boulevard. The proposed project would introduce more pervious surfaces through landscaping, which could allow for limited groundwater recharge. As further discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project water supply comes from Pico Water District. According to the Pico Water District’s website, potable water supplies come from groundwater from the Central Basin, which underlies the entire San Gabriel Valley (Pico Water District 2021). The basin is replenished from imported water sourced from snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and general precipitation events. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) also replenishes the basin by spreading tertiary-treated recycled water purchased from the Los Angeles Sanitation District and surface water from Metropolitan Water District (Pico Water District 2021). Aside from minimal landscaped areas and the demolished building footprint, the project site is currently covered with impermeable surfaces. Development of the proposed project would not substantially increase impermeable surfaces on-site in a manner than may substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater recharge. According to the Pico Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the groundwater can supply adequate water for the next 20 years. Since the proposed project is aligned with the SCAG population projections, as described in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater supplies and recharge (Pico Water District 2016). Additionally, as further discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would not result in substantial water demand beyond projected water supplies. As a result, impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located between Rio Hondo Channel, 0.8 miles to the west, and the San Gabriel River, 0.9 miles to the east. Construction of the proposed project would require demolition of pavement that would expose and loosen building material and sediment, which has the potential to mix with stormwater runoff and result in erosion or siltation off-site. However, the project site does not include any substantial slopes, which reduces the erosion potential. During construction, the proposed project would require complying with the NPDES CGP, which would require the preparation of a SWPPP that includes BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation. Compliance with NPDES permit and implementation of the SWPPP would ensure that the construction of the proposed project would not result in adverse water quality impacts while the existing drainage pattern of the site is being altered.

The proposed project would introduce pervious landscaping on-site and would include a storm drain system to collect, treat, and convey stormwater into the existing storm drain system in Washington Boulevard consistent with its specific plan. The proposed water quality system may include infiltration or bio-filtration to treat runoff on-site before it enters the storm drain system. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure that the site-specific design limits the potential for erosion and siltation. Additionally, the treatment systems would be sized accordingly to meet LID requirements. Overall, the proposed drainage system and adherence to the existing regulations would ensure that the project impacts related to

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 79
alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located within a Zone X, an area with reduced flood risk due to levee and an area located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains (FEMA 2008). Soils underlying the project site consist predominately of loose to very dense silty sand, well-graded sand, well-graded sand with silt, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with silt; and soft to stiff silt, sandy silt, and sandy clay, which are typically well-drained and have little to no run-off potential. During construction, the proposed project would require complying with the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would require the preparation of a SWPPP that would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not result in flooding on or offsite. As discussed in Section 1.3, Project Description, operation of the proposed project would include pervious landscaping and a storm drain system that would collect, treat, and convey stormwater into the existing storm drain system in Washington Boulevard to the south of the project site. The on-site stormwater system would collect all runoff from the site in underground storm drain systems that convey the stormwater runoff to a proposed retention and/or water quality treatment system(s) for infiltration and/or water quality treatment before discharging back to the public system. The proposed water quality system may include infiltration and/or bio-filtration. Thus, the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off which would result in flooding on- or offsite. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater would be removed from the project site, primarily by sheet flow action across the paved surface towards the water drains throughout the property and in the public right-of-way, into the municipal sewer system. The proposed project storm drain system, including a retention basin, and implementation of BMPs for low impact development would ensure that proper drainage would be maintained at all times. This would ensure that stormwater leaving the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of public stormwater drainage systems. In addition, the project site was previously developed and largely impervious. As such, the development of the proposed project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces at the project site. The construction and operation of the proposed project would implement and adhere to BMPs, which would collect and/or treat stormwater onsite prior to being discharged to the public storm drain system. Thus, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed existing stormwater drainage capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the FEMA Map 06037C1830F, the project site is not within a flood zone and is located within a highly urbanized portion of the city with no close access to water

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

bodies. The project site is in Flood Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain. As detailed in the previous responses, implementation of the proposed project would introduce pervious landscaping on-site and would include a storm drain system to collect, treat, and convey stormwater into the existing storm drain system in Washington Boulevard. Any off-site surface flows that enter the site would bypass through the proposed storm drain system or would sheet flow to existing cross gutters consistent with existing flow patterns. Therefore, the project would not result in impeding or redirecting flood flows and impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. According to the FEMA Map 06037C1830F, the project site is not within a flood zone. The proposed project site is in Flood Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain. Therefore, flood hazard is low. Additionally, the project site is approximately 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not within a tsunami zone.

A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water.

The nearest dam is the Garvey Reservoir located 5 miles north of the proposed project site; potential inundation area from this reservoir flows to the north (DSOD 2021). There are no large water tanks or dams in the area that could directly impact the proposed project site in the event of failure (DSOD 2021).

No impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation since the proposed project site is outside of flood hazard, tsunamis or seiches zones. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. After completion of the proposed project, ground surfaces would be either hardscape or maintained landscaping. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would not affect groundwater and therefore would not obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project would comply with existing local, regional, and state regulations and would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 81

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project site and surrounding area are fully developed with urban land uses, including residential and commercial uses. There is an established residential neighborhood to the north of the project site. There is no existing access between the proposed project site and the residential community to the north.

Implementation of the proposed project would be limited to the project site that is currently vacant. Therefore, the project would not physically change the surrounding neighborhood street patterns or otherwise impede movement through the neighborhoods and therefore would not divide an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, zoning, or other plans that apply to the project site and were adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. A city’s general plan and zoning guide development and allowable uses within a jurisdiction over a long-term horizon to meet population and demographic shifts and City goals and needs. The City’s General Plan, dated October 2014, is defined by four core values, which guide the General Plan. These core values include social well-being, excellence in place-making, respect for the natural environment, and economic vitality. The City’s General Plan is composed of nine elements, which include the land use, housing, circulation, community facilities, economic prosperity, environmental resource, safety, healthy community, and noise. Each element is made up of goals and policies. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies and zoning are discussed below.

Land Use Designation and Zoning Consistency
The proposed project includes the construction of a three to six-story mixed-use building with subterranean parking, ground-floor retail and residential uses, and residential uses in floors two through six, which includes 255 dwelling units. The proposed project would include 464 parking spaces, including 437 parking spaces within the proposed structure and 27 parking spaces on-site. The proposed project would comply with all applicable provisions of the Pico Rivera Municipal Code and the development standards and design guidelines established by the specific plan, such as setback, landscaping requirements, and buffering between residential neighborhoods.

The project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a general plan land use designation of Mixed-Use/Housing Element Site Opportunity Area 8 (the Rosemead Boulevard and Washington Boulevard Opportunity Area) (Pico Rivera 2014). The purpose of the mixed-use designation is to provide a different style of development than traditional neighborhoods, commercial, and employment areas that are physically separated from one another. The special planning area “Housing Element Site” is designated to help meet the needs of the RHNA. The proposed project would require a change from the current zoning designation of General Commercial (GC) to Specific Plan (SP), as well as a zone code amendment to add SP for this area to

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

the Zoning Map. Additionally, the proposed project would change the current general plan land use designations of Mixed-Use/Housing Element Site Opportunity Area 8 to SP.

The intent of the SP land use designation is to be used in combination with the underlying general plan land use designations to allow for the creation of flexible standards. While the proposed project includes a zone change, zoning code amendment, and a General Plan amendment to redesignate the site as “Specific Plan,” the proposed project supports the intent of the current general plan land use designation on-site. Additionally, the proposed project would support the Housing Element designation by providing housing units on-site. Upon approval of the proposed project’s zone change, zone code amendment, conditional use permit, and General Plan amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable general plan land use designations, policies, and zoning requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations on-site.

Land Use Element
The proposed project supports the City’s Land Use Element. The proposed project is consistent with Goal 3.6, which focuses on improving the community image through high-quality design and ongoing maintenance, and Goal 3.8, which aims to have diverse and attractive commercial, office, and mixed-use developments that serve community needs and contribute to economic vitality. The proposed project is in an urbanized area largely surrounded by commercial uses. The northwest side of the project site is adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood. The project site and the residential neighborhood are separated by a block wall. As described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project includes the implementation of the Specific Plan that would include development standards and design guidelines that would guide site design, building design, parking, landscaping, and services, which is consistent with Policy 3.6-1. Consistent with Policy 3.6-2, Sustainable Development, which promotes land development practices that reduce energy and water consumption, GHG emissions, and disposal of waste, the proposed project’s location and proximity to commercial services would promote walking and bicycling and reduces use of automobiles. As described in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project site is located near existing public transportation routes and would be designed to promote the use of public transportation as an alternative to automobiles. The project site provides pedestrian connectivity throughout the Pico Rivera Marketplace and into public sidewalks. The project site also provides safe and convenient accessibility to public transportation. The site is adjacent to public transit Line 50 along Washington Boulevard, metro Line 266 on Rosemead Boulevard, as well as the proposed Rosemead Boulevard Transition Station and Gold Line Extension Alternative. Additionally, future surface parking would be shaded, which would reduce the urban heat island effect. The proposed project would integrate water conservation and water quality measures consistent with applicable state regulations.

The proposed project is consistent with Goal 3.8, which aims to have diverse and attractive commercial, office, and mixed-use developments that serve community needs and contribute to economic vitality. The proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.8-4, which promotes high-quality mixed-use development that is compatible with surrounding uses and enhances adjacent streetscapes. The proposed project would provide for the development of a mixed-use development, with pedestrian-scale ground-floor commercial uses that would have outdoor seating and contribute to the visual character of Washington Boulevard and the Pico Rivera Marketplace to the east of the project. The proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.8-7, which

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 83
requires screening, setback, or buffering from projects adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would include setbacks from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the northwest and include privacy block wall and hedges along the project site border with the residential neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed project would step down to three stories on the northwest corner near the residential community and rooftop recreation activities would be located toward the southeast side of the proposed project, away from the residential community. Therefore, the proposed project supports the Land Use Element.

Housing Element
The proposed project supports the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The project site is identified as a “Housing Element Site.” The Housing Element identifies 13 areas within the city that have the potential to rezone to accommodate its housing needs under the RHNA. The project site is within the Housing Element’s Area 11, which proposes a mixed-use zone and minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project includes a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and five levels of residential units at a density of approximately 89.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would add diversity to the City’s housing stock by providing studio, junior one-bedroom, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units that would serve a range of income levels. The proposed project would also reserve 13 dwelling units as affordable housing. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable Housing Element goals and policies are further discussed below.

The proposed project is consistent with Goal 2, which encourages access to opportunities for affordable housing, and Goal 4, to provide adequate sites to meet the existing and future housing needs. The proposed project is the development of a mixed-use building, which includes 255 residential units; 13 units are dedicated to affordable housing. The proposed project’s high-density housing would help the City meet its housing needs.

The proposed project is also consistent with Goal 3, which aims to ensure an adequate supply of housing for households with special needs, and Goal 6, which aims to promote equal housing opportunities. The proposed project would be implemented in accordance with ADA and all applicable State laws. The proposed project would be available to all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, or disability. Therefore, the proposed project supports the Housing Element.

Environmental Resource Element
The proposed project support goals and objectives within the Environmental Resource Element of the General Plan. For example, Policy 8.1-4, Efficient Land Use Patterns, which promotes efficient land use patterns by promoting walkability, bicycle use, and non-motorized transportation. As described above and in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project supports and includes walkability and bicycle paths to improve nonmotorized transportation. The proposed project would also be conveniently situated adjacent to commercial uses and the Pico Rivera Marketplace, which allows for employment opportunities and commercial services within close proximity of the project site, reducing the need for travel and promoting walkability. Consistent with Policy 8.2-18, Electric Vehicles, which encourages electric vehicle charging stations, the proposed project also includes 44 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) ready parking spaces for residential use and 3 EVCS parking spaces for retail uses.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

The proposed project would be consistent with Policy 8.3-3, Tree Planting, which promotes planting shade trees, and Policy 8.6-6, Native Plants, which encourages the use of native and drought-tolerant plants and landscaping. The proposed project includes planning of native California palms and other native species to provide shade within the landscape. Therefore, the proposed project supports the Environmental Resource Element.

The proposed project would not therefore conflict with existing plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project provides information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources. The Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resources as mandated by Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.

The California Geological Survey classifies mineral resources area as one of the following four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZ), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs):
▪ MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
▪ MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and development should be controlled. ▪ MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data.
▪ MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. ▪ SZ Areas: Containing unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific significance shall be classified in this zone. ▪ IRA Areas: County or State Division of Mines and Geology Identified Areas where adequate production and information indicates that significant minerals are present.

Areas designated MRZ-2 are areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. The project site is not within a MRZ-2 area (CGS 2010). The project site is within MRZ-3, which is classified as areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be determined from preliminary data (CGS 2015). Further, the Pico Rivera General Plan Environmental Resources Element identifies that there are no commercially viable sand and gravel resources in the area (Pico Rivera 2014). The project site was previously developed with a commercial

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 85
building and has no history of mining. Based on the project site’s location, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed under Section 3.12(a), the project site is not within a MRZ-2 zone (CGS 2010).

Additionally, the Pico Rivera General Plan Environmental Resources Element identifies that there are no commercially viable sand and gravel resources in the area (Pico Rivera 2014). The project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a general plan land use designation of Mixed-use/Housing Element Site Opportunity Area 8 (the Rosemead Boulevard and Washington Boulevard Opportunity Area) (Pico Rivera 2014). The project site is in an urbanized area of Pico Rivera, and no mineral extraction operations currently occur within the vicinity of the project site. No impact would occur.

3.13 NOISE
Noise Fundamentals
Noise is unwanted sound, known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal, state, and city governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as classroom instruction, communication, or sleep. Appendix D provides the fundamentals of noise and vibration, additional local regulatory background information, and the construction and traffic noise modeling data for the proposed project.

Environmental Setting
The noise environment in the project area includes roadway noise from Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard and noise from the surrounding retail uses.

Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences adjacent to the proposed project site, to the north and west.

Per the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, it is generally no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on any given project. As a result, while the noise from existing sources is considered as part of the baseline, the direct effects of exterior noise from nearby noise and vibration sources relative to land use compatibility of a future project is no longer a required topic for impact evaluation under CEQA. Generally, no determination of significance is required with the exception of certain school projects, projects affected by airport noise, and projects that would exacerbate existing conditions (i.e., projects that would have a significant operational noise impact).

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Applicable Standards
State Regulations
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a general plan that includes a noise element prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. According to these guidelines, the purpose of the noise element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.” California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 12
Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the CBC within 180 days of its publication. The California Building Standards Commission establishes the publication date of the CBC. The most recent building standards adopted by the legislature and used throughout the State is the 2019 version. Jurisdictions often adopt local, more restrictive amendments based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. The State of California codifies noise insulation standards in the CBC. These noise standards are for new construction in California for the purposes of interior compatibility with exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when new buildings with habitable rooms that are near major transportation noises, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL)/Ldn or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure design limits interior noise in habitable rooms to 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn.

City of Pico Rivera
General Plan Noise Element
Stationary Noise
The Pico Rivera Noise Element includes exterior noise standards to determine noise and land use compatibility.

Exterior noise standards can be found under Policy 11.1-1, Land Use Compatibility. This policy strives to achieve and maintain land use patterns that are consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines summarized in Table 14, Maximum Allowable Environmental Noise Standards.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 87
Table 14 Maximum Allowable Environmental Noise Standards Land Use
Exterior Noise Level at Property Line
CNEL, dB
Residential (Low-Density, Multifamily, Mixed-Use) 65
Transient Lodging (Motels/Hotels) 65
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals/Medical Facilities, Nursing Homes, Museums 70 Theaters, Auditoriums 70
Playgrounds, Parks 75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation 75
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Professional 70 Industrial, Manufacturing, and Utilities 75
Source: Pico Rivera 2014
Notes:

The noise level standard is the maximum decibel level that may be imposed upon the referenced land use. Where a proposed use is not specifically listed in this table, the use shall comply with the noise exposure standards for the nearest similar use, as determined by the City’s Planning Director.

Vibration
Vibration standards can be found under Policy 11.3-2, Vibration Standards, of the Noise Element. This policy requires construction projects and new developments to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby noise-sensitive uses based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria summarized in Table 15, Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for Vibration Annoyance. “Category 2” would apply to the nearby single-family residences, and “Frequent Events” are assumed for a conservative analysis.

Table 15 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for Vibration Annoyance Land Use Category
Impact Levels, VdB
Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration
would interfere with interior operations 65a 65 a 65 a
Category 2: Residences and buildings
where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime uses 75 78 83
Source: Pico Rivera 2014, Noise Element
Notes: Though the General Plan Noise Element references FTA 2006, a newer version of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual has been published (FTA 2018) and the criteria have not changed. 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 470 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day a This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.

Construction Noise
The City’s General Plan Noise Element Policy 11.3-1, Construction Noise, states that construction-related noise and vibration within 500 feet of noise-sensitive uses be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction. The City does not have an established criterion for construction noise. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable construction noise levels and

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

recommends a daytime noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq(8hr) for residential uses. For the purposes of this analysis, the FTA criterion is applied to nearby sensitive receptors to determine impact significance.

Municipal Code
Noise is also regulated by the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, under Section 8.40.010, Unnecessary Noises Prohibited. This section states that no person shall make, cause, or suffer, or permit to be made, upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by him, any unnecessary noises or sounds that are physically annoying to persons of ordinary sensitiveness, or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time, or place as to occasion physical discomfort to the inhabitants of any neighborhood.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Noise
Construction would occur over approximately 23 months and include the following activities: demolition, grading and excavation, trenching for site utilities and irrigation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving.

Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site could incrementally increase noise levels along access roads. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would generally be infrequent and short-lived.

Construction Equipment
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is dependent on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each phase of construction would involve different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. The basis for noise levels from construction activities are typically the loudest piece or pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the equipment’s engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The noise produced at each construction phase is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the ongoing time variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on the specific construction activity performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 89
distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and shielding effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the project site with different loads and power requirements.

Noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment during each phase at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the approximate acoustical center of the specific phase) to the property line of the nearest receptors. Although construction may occur across the entire construction area, the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors. No pile driving is proposed as part of project construction.

Anticipated construction activity information was provided by the project applicant and input to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by construction phase—are summarized in Table 16, Project-Related Construction Noise, Leq dBA. RCNM modeling input and output worksheets are included in Appendix D.

Table 16 Project-Related Construction Noise, Leq dBA
Construction
Activity Phase Residences to the West Residences to the North 90 feet 90 feet
Demolition 81 81
200 feet 165 feet
Site Preparation 74 76
Rough Grading 75 76
Fine Grading 70 72
Utility Trenching 72 74
65 feet 100 feet
Building Construction 82 78
Architectural Coating 71 68
50 feet 50 feet
Paving 82 82
Notes:

Bold = Exceeds 80 dBA Leq.

Calculations performed with the FHWA RCNM software are included in Appendix D.

Decibels rounded to the nearest whole number.

As shown in Table 16, construction-related noise levels could, at times, exceed the 80 dBA Leq(8hr) threshold at the nearest sensitive receptors, and therefore this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Mitigation Measures
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 noise-control 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 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 noiseproducing 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
▪ 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 91
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.

Operational Stationary Noise
Recreation and Open Space
The proposed project would include common open space of passive, plaza-type green space, and rooftop amenities for residents. Some of the ground common open space would be open to the public while others would be private, only accessible to residents, as shown in Figure 5, Open Space and Rooftop Recreation Concept.

Outdoor rooftop residential amenities would include a swimming pool, jacuzzi, barbecue area, and a garden/green area. Outdoor recreational areas accessible only to residents would generate minimal noise because of private use limitations and maximum capacity requirements. The rooftop amenities would be on the roof of a three to six-story mixed-use building, approximately 100 feet south the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (single-family residences to the northwest). Due to the height of the proposed mixed-use building, rooftop amenities would be substantially shielded by the roof line, reducing noise levels at the receiver property line. In addition, the rooftop amenities would be located towards the east side of the building away from the residential neighborhood, which further reduces noise levels at the receiver property line.

The nearest open space area to noise-sensitive receptors, which are the single-family residences located directly north to the project site and abuts the project site boundary, would be the proposed private open space area on the ground level. Noise would consist mostly of people talking. No amplified music or public address systems are proposed. This use would not generate substantial noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Retail Uses
The proposed project would include approximately 5,730 square feet of retail space, which may include coffee shops, print shops, laundry, or tailoring services to serve the local community and future residents. This proposed commercial space uses would not introduce new types of noise into the project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mechanical Equipment
Typical heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system (HVAC) noise is 72 dBA Leq at a distance of three feet.

The nearest sensitive receptors to potential HVAC equipment would be the single-family residences approximately 100 feet to the north. At this distance, HVAC noise levels would attenuate to approximately 42 dBA Leq. Converted to CNEL, this would be 49 dBA CNEL, which would be below the maximum allowable environmental exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses (Table 14). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
Audible increases generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The second category, “potentially audible” impacts, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

1 dBA, which are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations (i.e., 3 dBA or more) are considered potentially significant. A doubling of traffic flows (i.e., 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day) would be needed to create a 3 dBA CNEL increase in traffic-generated noise levels. A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. Based on this, the following thresholds of significance are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations:
▪ Greater than 1.5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher. ▪ Greater than 3 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 CNEL. ▪ Greater than 5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL.

PM peak-hour traffic volumes provided by LLG along the proposed project roadway segments in the traffic study area were used to analyze traffic noise increases from the proposed project (LLG 2022). The analysis compares Existing with Project PM peak-hour trips to Existing No Project PM peak-hour trips logarithmically to estimate the noise increase along study roadway segments. As shown in Table 17, Project-Related Traffic Noise Increase, project-related trips would result in a permanent noise level increase of up to 0.1 dBA CNEL or less along study roadway segments. The permanent traffic noise increase would less than 1.5 dBA CNEL in all cases.

Therefore, project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.

Cumulative traffic noise increase was determined by comparing Future Plus Project to Existing No Project PM peak-hour trips. The resulting cumulative noise increase would be up to 0.3 dBA or less along study roadway segments. Cumulative increase would be less than 1.5 dBA CNEL in all cases. Therefore, cumulative traffic noise would be less than significant.

Table 17 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increase
Roadway Segment
PM Peak-Hour Trips dBA CNEL
Existing No
Project
Existing Plus
Project
Future No
Project
Future Plus
Project
Project
Noise
Increase
Cumulative
Noise
Increase
Paramount Boulevard north of Washington
Boulevard 1,975 1,988 2,085 2,098 0.0 0.3
Paramount Boulevard south of Washington
Boulevard 2,233 2,246 2,330 2,343 0.0 0.2
Washington Boulevard east of Paramount
Boulevard 3,022 3,081 3,138 3,197 0.1 0.2
Washington Boulevard west of Paramount
Boulevard 3,414 3,447 3,545 3,578 0.0 0.2
Crossway Drive north of Washington
Boulevard 294 294 301 301 0.0 0.1

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 93
Table 17 Project-Related Traffic Noise Increase
Roadway Segment
PM Peak-Hour Trips dBA CNEL
Existing No
Project
Existing Plus
Project
Future No
Project
Future Plus
Project
Project
Noise
Increase
Cumulative
Noise
Increase
Crossway Drive south of Washington
Boulevard 550 550 566 566 0.0 0.1
Washington Boulevard east of Crossway
Drive 2,818 2,877 2,927 2,986 0.1 0.3
Washington Boulevard west of Crossway
Drive 2,730 2,789 2,836 2,895 0.1 0.3
Rosemead Boulevard north of Coffman and
Pico Road 2,464 2,484 2,576 2,596 0.0 0.2
Rosemead Boulevard south of Coffman and
Pico Road 2,418 2,438 2,528 2,548 0.0 0.2
Coffman and Pico Road east of Rosemead
Boulevard 49 49 50 50 0.0 0.1
Coffman and Pico Road west of Rosemead
Boulevard 125 125 130 130 0.0 0.2
Rosemead Boulevard north of Washington
Boulevard 2,226 2,251 2,330 2,355 0.0 0.2
Rosemead Boulevard south of Washington
Boulevard 2,192 2,212 2,299 2,319 0.0 0.2
Washington Boulevard east of Rosemead
Boulevard 2,526 2,559 2,622 2,655 0.1 0.2
Washington Boulevard west of Rosemead
Boulevard 2,556 2,592 2,657 2,693 0.1 0.2
Source: Traffic volumes from LLG Engineers, 2021.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures.

Vibration Annoyance
As mentioned in the above, the City’s General Plan establishes groundborne vibration annoyance thresholds per FTA criteria. A significant impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 72 VdB at sensitive receptors. Vibration from the project would be generated from temporary construction activities. To determine

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

average vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receptor, vibration levels are projected by measuring levels from the center of the project site. Since the project site is an “L” shape, it was divided into two portions to estimate two acoustical centers where construction would generally be located. The nearest acoustical center to singlefamily residences to the west would be approximately 95 feet away from the proposed project. The nearest acoustical center to single-family residences to the north would be approximately 210 feet away. As shown in Table 18, Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, vibration levels could potentially exceed the 72 VdB threshold at residences to the west during paving if a vibratory roller is used. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.

Table 18 Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
FTA Reference Vibration Levels
VdB at 25 feet VdB at Residences to west - 95 feet
VdB at Residences to north - 210
feet
Vibratory Roller 94 77 66
Large Bulldozer 87 70 59
Caisson Drilling 87 70 59
Loaded Trucks 86 69 58
Jackhammer 79 62 51
Small Bulldozer 58 41 30
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018.

Architectural Damage
For reference, a vibration level of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is used as the limit for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, which is applied to the surrounding structures (FTA 2018).

For reference, Table 19, Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, shows typical construction equipment produce vibration levels up to 0.21 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. A significant impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV at the façade of the surrounding structures. Construction activity could occur within 15 feet of sensitive receptors (single-family residences to the north and west). This would include grading and paving. As shown in Table 19, vibration levels could exceed 0.20 in/sec PPV. Specifically, if a vibratory roller is used within 25 feet of a residential structure and if grading equipment such as a large dozer operates within approximately 15 feet of a nearby residential structure. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2, impacts associated to vibrationinduced architectural damage would be reduced to less than significant.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 95
Table 19 Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
FTA Reference Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) at 15 feet to
north and west
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.45
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.19
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.19
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.16
Jackhammer 0.035 0.08
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.01
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018.

Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not include any substantial long-term vibration sources. Thus, no significant vibration effects from operation of the proposed project would occur.

Mitigation Measures
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 offroad equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest public airport is San Gabriel Valley Airport, approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the project site. People residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels. There would be no impact.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction of the project would provide short-term jobs over an approximate 23-month period. Many of the construction jobs would be temporary and would be specific to the project site. It is anticipated that the

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

project-related construction labor force would already be located in the project vicinity and from the greater Los Angeles area, and workers would not be expected to relocate their places of residence as a consequence of working on the project. Therefore, temporary construction of the project would not be expected to induce substantial population growth or demand for housing, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Operation
State law requires SCAG to develop a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) every four years. The most recent RTP/SCS, titled Connect SoCal, was adopted on September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS is an important regional document to guide land use planning and transportation projects in the region. Demographic projections and changes in the region are therefore an essential component for the RTP/SCS. In conjunction with the RTP/SCS, SCAG develops the RHNA every eight years.

Table 20, Population and Housing Growth Projections for the City of Pico Rivera, indicates the growth projections for the city of Pico Rivera. Table 20 shows that the Connect SoCal projects that the city of Pico Rivera will experience a growth of 6.14 percent, 11.44 percent, and 9.24 percent in population, housing, and employment respectively, by 2045 based on 2016 levels. The proposed project would account for approximately 20.1 percent of the projected population growth and 13.4 percent of the projected housing unit growth between 2016 and 2045. The project site is identified in the City’s housing element Area 11 site; these identified areas are targeted for rezoning so that the city can meet its RHNA allocation.

Table 20 Population and Housing Growth Projections for the City of Pico Rivera 2016 2045
Change 2016-
2045
Percent
Increase
Proposed
Project
2016 Plus
Project
Population 63,500 67,400 3,900 6.14 812 64,312
Household 16,600 18,500 1,900 11.44 255 16,855
Employment 24,900 27,200 2,300 9.24 11 24,910
Job-Housing Ratio 1.50 1.47 -0.03 n/a n/a 1.47
Source: SCAG. 2020, Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Adopted, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Based on 550 square feet per employee (USGBC 2021)
The proposed project consists of the development of 255 new dwelling units and generate approximately 812 residents. For a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes that all 812 residents are new residents to the city of Pico Rivera, though a portion of the project residents may be existing city residents who decide to move to the project site. As shown in Table 20, the proposed project’s anticipated population, household, and employment generation is within the anticipated growth for the city.

As shown in Table 20, SCAG projects that the City’s jobs-housing ratio would be 1.47 in 2045. The jobshousing ratio in 2045 would be 1.47 with the proposed project; therefore, there would be no change to the jobhousing ratio with the implementation of the proposed project.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 97
Additionally, the proposed project is located within an urbanized area and is served by existing utilities. The proposed project would not require road extensions nor extensions of other infrastructure beyond utility hook ups. The proposed project would not generate indirect population growth.

Since the proposed project would not generate unplanned population growth and would not generate indirect population growth, the operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is developed, vacant land. As such, no existing persons or housing currently reside at the project site. For this reason, the proposed project would not displace persons or housing and no impact would occur.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section is based in part on informational service letters and questionnaires that were sent out to each service provider covered by the topics in this section. Service provider letters are included as Appendix E.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services. a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency medical services in the city of Pico Rivera are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Services include fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire prevention, and hazardous materials coordination services. There are three existing fire stations within two miles of the project site, which include (see Figure 11, Public Services Near the Project Site, for the location of these three stations in relation to the project site):
▪ Fire Station 103, located at 7300 S. Paramount Boulevard, 0.6 miles from the project site. ▪ Fire Station 25, located at 9209 E. Slauson Avenue, 1 mile from the project site. ▪ Fire Station 40, located at 4864 S. Durfee Avenue, 1.6 miles from the project site.

According to the LACFD, the proposed project would receive fire protection services from Fire Station 103 which has a daily staffing of 7 uniform personnel, including a 3-person engine company, which is an engine company with some limited paramedic capabilities, and 4-person urban search and rescue (USAR) Task Force.

The project site may also receive fire protection services from a 2nd due station, Fire Station 25 which is staffed with a 4-person engine company and includes daily staffing of 4 uniform personnel. The LACFD uses the national guidelines of 5-minute response time for first unit and 8-minute response time for advanced life support in urban areas. As of 2020, Fire Station 103 had an emergency response time of 5:21 minutes (Durbin 2021).

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

The proposed project would include new fire prevention infrastructure pursuant to current code requirements.

Pico Rivera has adopted the California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) in the city of Pico Rivera Municipal Code as Section 15.44.010, which regulates new structures related to safety provisions, emergency planning, fire-resistant construction, fire protection systems, and appropriate emergency access throughout a site. The proposed project’s adherence to the existing fire code requirements would be verified as part of the regular permitting process. Additionally, a fire double detector check valve would be installed for the fire line, and two new fire hydrants would also be installed on-site.

As the project site is less than two miles from three fire stations, and the project would be constructed pursuant to existing California Fire Code regulations, the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered Fire Department facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. LACFD determined that proposed project would not result in a significant impact to fire services and LACFD anticipates that no major difference in service demand would occur due to the proposed project (Durbin 2021).

As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project’s population and housing is consistent with the growth projections for the city of Pico Rivera. Further, the operation of the proposed project would contribute to property taxes and Special Tax that would help fund LACFD and hire more personnel, if needed.

Development of the project would not result in the need for construction associated with an expansion of existing or development of a new fire station. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to fire protection services.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Pico Rivera policing services are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Department (LASD). The closest Sheriff ’s station is the Pico Rivera Sheriff ’s Station located at 6631 Passons Boulevard, 0.8 miles from the project site (see Figure 11). According to the LASD, the Pico Rivera Sheriff ’s Station typically has a daily staffing between 4-7 cars and 1-3 motorcycles. The LASD current response time within the service area is 34.5 minutes for routine calls, 9.3 minutes for priority calls, and 3.6 minutes for emergency calls, which is within policy standards. There are no existing deficiencies in police protection services within the city (Hutak 2021). The proposed project includes construction of 255 multi-family units and 5,730 square feet of commercial retail space within an existing commercial and residential area. As discussed in Section 3.14(a), the proposed project population and housing is within growth projections for the city of Pico Rivera. Typically, residential uses result in a higher demand for police protection services compared to other uses because residential uses add new residents to an area and result in more time spent at onsite (e.g., at home) compared to other uses (i.e., commercial uses). Therefore, while the proposed project may lead to an increase in demand for police protection services, such as increase in service calls and traffic enforcement, by adding new residents to the area, such an increase is within the projected growth for the city, and LASD has indicated that there are no existing deficiencies. The proposed project would also include design elements that would deter criminal activity, such as security gates, and residents-only key cards for the residential areas, as well as security lighting for the residential and commercial areas. LASD indicates that its primary source of funding for this station is through its contract with the city of Pico Rivera. The proposed project would be required to pay all applicable impact fees and would contribute to applicable taxes to continue funding the police station.

These fees are in place to address any incremental development project impact and are to be used for infrastructure improvements and services. Development of the project would not result in the need for

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 99
construction associated with an expansion of existing or development of a new sheriff station. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to police services and no mitigation measures are required. c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The El Rancho Unified School District (District) would serve the proposed project. The District serves grades kindergarten through 12, with one Elementary, one Middle School, and two High Schools. The proposed project site is within the school boundaries of Rio Vista Elementary School (grades K-5), Rivera Middle School (grades 6-8), El Rancho High School (grades 9-12), and Salazar Continuation High School. Table 21, Schools Serving the Project Site, summarizes each of the school’s enrollment.

Figure 11, Public Services Near the Project Site, shows the location of the four schools in relation to the project site.

Table 21 Schools Serving the Project Site
School
Distance from
Project Site
Total Enrollment
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Rio Vista
Elementary
School

0.7 miles 445 475 473 481 456
Rivera Middle
School 1 mile 646 631 596 584 550
El Rancho High
School 1 mile 2,508 2,433 2,364 2,297 2,305
Salazar High
School 1 mile 189 178 147 128 163
Source: California Department of Education, 2021, Data Quest, Annual Enrollment Data, https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) student generation factors were used to determine the number of students that could be generated by the proposed project, by school level. The proposed project would construct 255 new dwelling units. Table 22, New Student Generation Summary, shows that the proposed project would conservatively generate approximately 59 elementary students, 16 middle school students, and 33 high school students.

Table 22 New Student Generation Summary
School Level Dwelling Units Generation Factor Students
Elementary (TK-6) 255 0.2269 59
Middle (7-8) 255 0.0611 16
High (9-12) 255 0.1296 33
Total 108
Sources: LAUSD, 2020 (March), 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study Los Angeles Unified School District.

The proposed project would be required to pay school impact fees, pursuant to SB 50, to reduce impacts to the school system. The school districts collect these fees at the time of issuance of building permits. The California legislature has found that funding program established by SB 50 constitutes “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (Government Code Section 65995(h)). SB 50 sets

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to demand mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees in Education Code 17620.

The addition of students generated by the proposed project to area schools would not substantially increase enrollment. Development of the project would not result in the need for construction associated with an expansion of existing or development of new schools such that environmental impacts would result. Therefore, project-related impacts to school facilities would be less than significant. d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Pico Rivera has approximately 102 acres of developed park and recreation facilities (Pico Rivera 2014), and there are approximately 1.22 acres of developed parkland within a half-mile radius of the project site (California State Parks 2021). In addition to city parks, regional parks in Los Angeles County provide recreational opportunities for City of Pico Rivera residents. The Los Angeles County Regional Parks and Open Space District has identified 3.3 acres per 1,000 people as typical number of park users in the local and regional area. According to the California State Parks Department, there are three county parks located within 2.5 miles of the project site. The closest county parks are Amigo Park, located approximately 1.9 miles from the project site; Sorensen Park, located 2.1 miles from the project site; and McNees Park, located approximately 2.5 miles from the project site (Torres 2021).

Rio Vista and Smith Park are the closest city parks to the project site and are located approximately 0.5 miles north of the proposed project site. The City’s General Plan identifies Smith Park as a community park of 16 acres with a multipurpose auditorium, baseball/softball fields, football/soccer stadium, basketball courts, picnic facilities, drinking fountains, Olympic-size swimming pool, parking lot, walking path, and maintenance yard.

Rio Vista Park contains playground equipment, drinking fountains, picnic benches and barbeques, lit softball fields, outdoor restrooms, and outdoor basketball courts (Pico Rivera 2022). In addition to Smith Park and Rio Vista Park, 3 additional City-owned parks exist within 2 mile of the project site including Rivera Park, located approximately 1.4 miles from the project site; Rio Hondo Park, located approximately 1.8 miles from the project site; and Veterans and Ladies Auxiliary Park, located approximately 1.6 miles from the project site. Additionally, Table 23, City and County Parks Near the Project Site, provides a list of other parks and their facilities within close proximity to the project site, including Whittier Narrows Recreation Area. See Figure 11, Public Services Near the Project Site, for the location of the parks in relation to the project site.

According to the City’s Healthy Communities Element, the City has a goal of providing three acres of parkland per 1,000 people. The City currently has a parkland ratio of approximately 1.3 acres per 1,000 residents, and there is approximately 0.21 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents within a half-mile radius of the project site (Torres 2021). Consistent with Policy 10.7-3 of the Healthy Communities Element of the General Plan, new residential development can either dedicate land onsite or contribute to in-lieu fees for project associated parkland space. Implementation of the proposed project would generate approximately 812 new residents who, conservatively assuming all come from outside of Pico Rivera, would create an additional demand for park resources. This demand for park services would be met in part by providing on-site recreational amenities and open space onsite. The proposed project includes the development of approximately 17,010 square feet of rooftop pool/community recreation for residents. The ground floor includes 28,770 square feet of public and

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 101
private common open space. Each residential unit would also have a balcony. The proposed project’s demands for park space would be partially offset by the provision of open space and recreational uses on-site. In addition to the onsite recreational facilities for residents and open space, the proposed project would be required to applicable pay park and recreation in-lieu fees. Provision of recreational and open space facilities onsite along with the payment of in-lieu fees would ensure that the proposed project would not warrant the need for new or physically altered facilities. Therefore, the impact for the proposed project related to parks would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. In addition to the public facilities discussed in Sections 3.15(a) to (d), this analysis anticipates that a portion of the project residents would use public libraries. The city of Pico Rivera is served by the Los Angeles County Public Library system. As shown in Figure 11, the project site is served by the Pico Rivera Library located at 9001 Mines Avenue located one mile northeast of the project site (Patrick 2021). The Los Angeles County Public Libraries operates four additional libraries within 5 miles of the project site. These include Chet Holifield Library, Sorensen Library, Los Nietos Library, and Rivera Library. According to the Los Angeles County Library, service level guidelines entail a minimum of 0.5 gross square foot of library facility space per capita, 3.0 items (books and other library materials) per capita for regional libraries and 2.75 items per capita for community libraries, and 1.0 public access computer service per 1,000 people served.

Currently, the Pico Rivera Library contains 54,502 collection items, 32 public access computers, and 16,000 square feet of facility space, which does not meet the minimum requirement of for the existing population of the service area by 55,974 collection items, 8 public access computers, and 4,087 square feet of facility space.

The service letter response from Los Angeles County Library (LACL) indicates that Pico Rivera Library is not currently meeting its minimum requirements for the population of the service area based on the service level guidelines (see Appendix E). The proposed project would contribute to this deficiency. The LACL has indicated that the anticipated population growth associated with the proposed project would result in the need for an additional 2,208 collection items, 1 public access computer, and 402 square feet of facility space for the library.

To meet the service demands of the current population and the proposed project (cumulative), the library would require a total of 112,684 collection items, 41 public access computers, and 20,488 square feet of facility space. However, LACL indicates that the proposed project would not result in the need for a physical expansion of library facilities (Patrick 2021). While the closest library to the project site is the Pico Rivera library, the proposed project’s residents can assess any library in the LACL network. In addition to physical collection items, the Los Angeles County Library provides access to a digital library which includes online resources such as eBooks, audiobooks, and digital magazines.

While the addition of project residents would not result in a substantially adverse physical change to library facilities or warrant the need for new or physically altered facilities, additional service needs are requested, which would be coordinated between the Library, the City, and the project applicant directly. The need for materials or funds would not result in a physical change in the environment. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would contribute to funding sources that support the Los Angeles County library system, such as property taxes. As development occurs, property tax revenue should grow proportionally with the property tax collections. Therefore, with access to online resources, and the proposed project’ payment of property taxes,

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

the proposed project would not have a substantial impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities; impacts to libraries would be less than significant.

PlaceWorks
Figure 11 - Public Services near the Project Site
Source: ESRI, 2022
0 Scale (Feet)
4,000
City Boundary

THE MERCURY INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF PICO RIVERA
1 3
2 4
6 5
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 1
3 2
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
Project Site
Fire Station 103
Fire Station 25
Fire Station 40
Pico Rivera
Sheriff’s Station
Pico Rivera Library
Rio Vista
Elementary School
Salazar High School
Rivera Middle School
El Rancho High School
Amigo Park - County Park
Sorensen Park - County Park
McNees Park - County Park
Smith Park
Rio Vista Park
Rivera Park
Rio Hondo Park
Veterans and Ladies
Auxiliary Park
Pico Rivera
Whittier
Santa Fe
Springs
Downey
Montebello
605
605
605
605
5 72
72 72
19 19
19 Pico Rivera
Rio Hondo River
San Gabriel River

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

This page intentionally left blank.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 105

3.16 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The city of Pico Rivera has approximately 102 acres of developed park and recreation facilities (Pico Rivera 2014). Recreation facilities in the city include, but are not limited to, the Sports Arena/Bicentennial Park Campground, Pico Rivera Community Gardens, Pico Rivera Youth Center, Pico Rivera Senior Center, and Centre for the Arts. In addition to city parks, regional parks in Los Angeles County provide recreational opportunities for city of Pico Rivera residents. Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, Whittier Narrows Natural Area/Nature Center, Whittier Narrows Golf Course, Amigo Park, and Pio Pico State Historical Parks are regional parks and recreation facilities which would also be available to project site residents.

Rio Vista and Smith Park are the closest City parks to the project site; both are approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site. The City’s General Plan identifies Smith Park as a community park of 16 acres with multipurpose auditorium, baseball/softball fields, football/soccer stadium, basketball courts, picnic facilities, drinking fountains, Olympic-size swimming pool, parking lot, walking path, and maintenance yard. Rio Vista Park contains playground equipment, drinking fountains, picnic benches and barbeques, lit softball fields, outdoor restrooms, and outdoor basketball courts (Pico Rivera 2022). In addition to Smith Park and Rio Vista Park, six additional parks exist within two mile of the project site (see Table 23, City and County Parks near the Project Site).

The closest regional park to the project site is Amigo Park, approximately 2 miles to the northeast. This regional park is approximately 4 acres, and equipped with softball fields, children’s play area, multipurpose field, picnic area, and walking and biking trails. Whittier Narrows Natural Area and Nature Center is approximately 4 miles to the northeast, and the 133-acre regional park is characterized by a 400-acre sanctuary of riparian woodland that borders the San Gabriel River, four lakes, many plants and animal natives to wetlands, and winter sanctuary for migrating waterfowl. Other park amenities also include civic art, animal exhibits, picnic tables, libraries, museums, and nature centers.

As discussed under Section 3.15(d), the proposed project’s park and recreation demand would be met by a combination of onsite amenities and payment of in-lieu fees. Provision of onsite recreational amenities along with the payment of in-lieu fees would ensure that the proposed project’s residents would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, a less than significant impact on city and regional recreation facilities would occur.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 23 City and County Parks near the Project Site
Park Location Facilities/Resources
Amigo Park – County Park 5700 Juarez Ave, Whittier, CA 90606

1.9 miles from project site
Equipped with softball fields, children play area, multipurpose field, picnic area, and walking and biking trails
Sorensen Park – County
Park
11419 Rose Hedge Dr, Whittier, CA
90606

2.1 miles from project site
Baseball and softball fields, play structures, basketball courts, and green space
McNees Park – County Park 11590 Hadley Blvd. Whittier, CA 90606

2.5 miles from project site
Green space
Smith Park 6016 Rosemead Boulevard
Pico Rivera, CA 90660

0.5 mile from project site
A community park of 16 acres with multipurpose auditorium, baseball/softball fields, football/soccer stadium, basketball courts, picnic facilities, drinking fountains, Olympic-size swimming pool, parking lot, and maintenance yard
Rio Vista Park 8751 Coffman and Pico Rd, Pico Rivera,
CA 90660

0.5 mile from project site
Sports focused public recreation area
Rivera Park 9530 Shade Ln, Pico Rivera, CA 90660

1.4 miles from project site
Baseball and softball fields, handball courts, picnic facilities and play equipment
Rio Hondo Park P, 8421 San Luis Potosi, Pico Rivera, CA 90660

1.8 miles from project site
13 acres of multipurpose auditorium, play structures, fields, and hard courts.

Veterans and Ladies
Auxiliary Park
4904 Durfee Ave, Pico Rivera, CA 90660

1.6 miles from project site
Play structures and benches
Source: Pico Rivera, 2014, Pico Rivera General Plan Healthy Community Element. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Sections 3.15(d) and 3.16(a), the proposed project’s park and recreation demand would be met by a combination of area recreational facilities, onsite amenities and payment of in-lieu fees. The proposed project includes the development of public and private recreational uses and open spaces. The ground floor of the proposed project development would include 28,770 square feet of private and common public open space (passive, plaza-type green spaces). Additionally, the roof would include private space consisting of a pool and recreational facilities, such as a gym and clubhouse, for residents and their guest, totaling to 17,010 square feet. The proposed project does not involve the construction of recreational facilities beyond what is proposed on-site. Therefore, a less than significant impacts would occur under the proposed project.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 107

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
This section is based in part on the Transportation Impact Analysis Report, The Mercury Project, City of Pico Rivera, California (Traffic Report), April 26, 2022, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) (Appendix F).

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The City’s Circulation Element sets forth goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, and safety, among others. The proposed project would support the City’s Circulation Element.

The proposed project supports Goal 5.1 of the Circulation Element, which promotes active living, improves local air quality, and enhances the livability of the community through an integrated multimodal network that serves all users and offers convenient mobility options. The proposed project supports Goal 5.4, which promotes a balanced transportation system where bicycling and walking are alternative methods to the automobile. The proposed project supports Policy 5.1-4, which addresses smart growth development that integrates transportation and land use decisions to promote development that is compact, walkable, and transit oriented. 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. A total of nine public transit routes provide service near the project site, which includes 40 buses or trains during peak AM hours and 41 buses or trains during peak PM hours. The proposed project would also provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities on-site and would support the use of public transportation, as further discussed below.

The proposed project is located along Washington Boulevard, which is currently served by public bus transit service provided by Montebello Bus Line 50. The project site is within proximate walking distance from existing bus stops along Washington Boulevard. The proposed project would not affect access or safety at the existing bus stops, nor is it expected to hinder public transit service along Washington Boulevard. According to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation’s (Metro) website, Metro is currently proceeding with the CEQA EIR process for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 (Metro project) which proposes an extension of the Metro L (Gold) Line and includes a station at Rosemead and Washington Boulevard, near the project site.

Metro’s project funding and schedule includes two cycles for funding and anticipated development, cycle one in 2029 and cycle two in 2053 (Metro 2021). The Metro project would provide more accessibility to the project site and for residents and customers to travel within Pico Rivera and surrounding communities. Development of the proposed project would not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

The proposed project is located adjacent to the Pico Rivera Marketplace and would provide pedestrian accessibility within the Pico Rivera Marketplace and to Rosemead and Washington Boulevards. The proposed

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

project would include short-term and long-term bicycle facilities on-site. The proposed project would be designed to encourage pedestrian activity and walking to transit opportunities and the adjacent commercial areas. The Walkability score for the project site is approximately 81 (Very Walkable) out of 100. Walkability is a term for the extent to which walking is readily available as a safe, connected, accessible, and pleasant mode of transport. Walkways are planned within the proposed project, which will connect to adjacent sidewalks in a manner that promotes walkability. The proposed project’s location near public transit, provisions of on-site bicycle facilities, and connecting pedestrian access to the existing sidewalks promotes active living, healthy air quality, a multimodal network, and smart-growth development principles. Further, the proposed project would not preclude the City from constructing bicycle facilities or pursuing bicycle network improvements along local roadways adjacent to the project site.

Proposed project features would include landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site, as well as connections with the adjacent public sidewalks on Washington Boulevard and connections to the Pico Rivera Marketplace. The proposed project also includes street tees and streetscaping plants along public frontages in accordance with the City’s standards to increase tree canopy and provide safe and inviting new pedestrian network. These design features would further support Policy 5.4-3, Continuous Network, and Policy

5.4-6, Pedestrian Network.

The proposed project would support Goal 5.2, which aims at providing a safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services. As further discussed in Checklist Question, 3.17(c), the proposed project driveways would not impede traffic movement along Washington Boulevard. Additionally, the proposed project’s design would incorporate transportation demand management (TDM), including increase residential density, integrated affordable and below market rate housing, and limited residential parking supply (further discussed below) that would reduce the number of vehicles leaving the project site.

The proposed project would not have a significant impact on active transportation or public transit in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access via exclusive walkways that 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 and accessibility to existing and proposed bicycle lanes near the project site. The proposed project is therefore found to be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure.

The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies, and 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 would have a less than significant impact on transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 109
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. The City has adopted thresholds of significance for determining impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) consistent with the California Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory. The City has adopted the County of Los Angeles Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines which are used to determine whether a project would adequately reduce total VMT, and as such 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) ▪ Public parking garages and parking lots
▪ Assisted living or senior housing projects
▪ Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing projects Projects are not required to satisfy all the screening criteria 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 qualifies for screening out of a VMT analysis because it would be less than 50,000 square feet (5,730 square feet proposed) and therefore locally serving, a VMT analysis is still required for the residential component of the proposed project because it does not meet one of the criteria above to be screened out.

The most readily available Southern California Association of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM) was used 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

▪ 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 proposed project screens out, since it is less than 50,000 square feet and therefore locally-serving, the residential VMT per capita associated with the proposed project was compared to the city of Pico Rivera baseline residential VMT per capita in order to determine whether or not the proposed project would be expected to result in a significant impact.

Project-specific regional travel demand modeling was conducted using the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). The proposed project is located within Traffic Analysis Zone 21804400. The proposed project totals were converted into socio-economic data, which describes both demographic and economic characteristics of the region by Traffic Analysis Zone and were then coded into the SCAG RTDM. The VMT analysis results for the residential component of the proposed project using the SCAG RTDM estimates the residential VMT per capita for the proposed project to be 14.13 residential VMT per capita.

The 2021 California Air Quality Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity provides a comprehensive set of guidelines for assessing and quantifying reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

Strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 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 Handbook lists 30 quantified measures covering a total of six transportation sectors. The following three TDM strategies have been included as project design features. The combination of the following TDM measures results in a 14.49 percent reduction in VMT. More information regarding TDMs can be found in Appendix F, Transportation Impact Analysis.
▪ 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 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 traffic analysis zone (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, the specific TAZ where the project is located within, 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. ▪ Integrated 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 111
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. ▪ Limited 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 city of Pico Rivera Code. Based on published literature and other site-specific parking surveys of other mixed-use projects’ actual peak parking demands, lower than Coderequired 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 464 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 573 spaces). Parking restrictions would be implemented and enforced at the existing Pico Marketplace to prohibit tenants from parking in the center overnight. The signage would also include verbiage that notes that any violations of the parking restriction are subject to towing.

With the application of TDM strategies discussed above, the proposed project would result in a 14.49-percent 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, with the application of TDM strategies, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by a total of three vehicle access points: one existing driveway on Washington Boulevard and two new vehicle access points on the eastern side of the project site that would provide access from Pico Rivera Marketplace. An existing driveway on Rosemead Boulevard would provide access to the project site through the Pico Rivera Marketplace. Descriptions of the proposed project site access driveways are provided below.

Existing Washington Boulevard Main Project Driveway
This existing driveway is on the north side of Washington Boulevard along the easterly property boundary directly west of the existing McDonald’s restaurant and currently serves the existing McDonald’s restaurant adjacent to the project site. This driveway would provide access to the main internal roadway surrounding the proposed project and to the gated subterranean parking entrance for the project. The driveway would 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.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Existing Rosemead Boulevard Driveway
This existing driveway is 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 would continue to accommodate full access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress traffic movements).

The new vehicle access points on the east side of the proposed project site would be designed and constructed to ensure adequate vehicle and emergency access and provide a continuous path of travel within the Pico Rivera Marketplace. The proposed project does not include any major changes to roadways, driveways, or circulation.

The proposed project’s driveways and vehicular access points would not introduce hazardous design features.

Additionally, the proposed project is a mixed-use project within an urban area and does not include incompatible uses such as farm equipment. As such, the proposed project does not represent an incompatible use. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant to geometric design features or incompatible uses. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. Washington Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard are designated as Major Roadways (Pico Rivera 2014) and are designated as disaster routes (LA County 2008) that may be used for emergency access during disaster. The proposed project would use the existing driveways from the major roadways located along the project site. Within the project site, vehicular circulation would be accommodated by a drive aisle which is adjacent to the east and north sides of the proposed building. The drive aisle would be no less than 28 feet wide in order to accommodate Fire Department access to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would be limited to the project site and would not hinder vehicle access along Washington Boulevard nor Rosemead Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to emergency access.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

No Impact. The proposed project site has been previously developed and disturbed. The project site does not meet any of the historic resource criteria and does not meet the definition of a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the project would not result in any substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource defined pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1 or PRC Section 5020.1 (k). No impact would occur.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 113
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been previously developed and disturbed. The project site does not meet any of the historical resources criteria outlined in the PRC Section 5024.1. No known tribal cultural resources exist onsite.

In considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe, the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the listing of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the project site and to search the Sacred Lands File (see Appendix G). The Sacred Lands File search yielded negative results (see Appendix G to this Addendum).

NAHC also provided a list of seven Native American tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within the boundaries of the project site. These California Native American tribes include:
▪ Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
▪ Gabrieleño / Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians ▪ Gabrieleño / Tongva Nation
▪ Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council ▪ Gabrieleño Tongva Tribe
▪ Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
▪ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The City sent out tribal consultation letters to the seven tribes via certified mail and email pursuant to Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. The letter was sent to six tribes on May 14, 2021, and the letter was sent to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians on June 17, 2021. The City received one request to consult from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City received a response from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, which recommended that the city contact the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. The Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians was on the list provided by NAHC and received a tribal consultation letter. No response was received from this tribe.

The City followed up with all tribes on NAHC list and did not receive additional responses.

The City held a consultation call with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission – Kizh Nation on March 15, 2022.

Given input provided by the tribe during consultation, the project site’s location in relation to sacred communities, sacred water courses, and traditional trade routes, and the level of proposed ground disturbance necessary during construction, the proposed project was determined to have a high potential to impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. As requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR3.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

With incorporation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, project impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
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). “Grounddisturbing 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. ▪ 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 ground-disturbing 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 ground-disturbing 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 115
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.

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 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

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

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.
▪ 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 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.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 117

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would connect sewer, storm drain, and water lines to existing infrastructure along Washington Boulevard.

Water Supply Facilities
The Pico Water District (District) provides water to the project site. The Pico Water District currently relies solely on groundwater and has a pumping allocation of 3,624 AFY, and has an average groundwater production of 2,780 AFY. The Pico Water District operates five wells with a combination pumping capacity of 7,500 gallons per minute, one booster pump station, and one reservoir with 1.25 million gallons of storage (Grajeda 2021).

The project site is currently served by an existing water line along the north side of Washington Boulevard, which provides the domestic water and fire water connections to the project site. An existing 8-inch water line that connects to Washington Boulevard and extends throughout the existing retail center parking lot area provides fire water service for the project site. The proposed project would connect to this existing water line.

Based on the CalEEMod model conducted as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix A), the proposed project, including indoor and outdoor water use, is anticipated to be approximately 81,076 gallons per day (29,592,834 gallons per year or approximately 91 acre-feet per year), which is within the District’s groundwater pumping capacity. Pico Water District’s 2015 UWMP concludes there is an adequate and reliable supply of water to provide for existing demand and estimated growth through year 2040 (Pico Water District 2016). The proposed project does not meet the criteria for preparing a water supply assessment.5 Since the proposed project, would not result in unexpected direct or indirect population growth as discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would be within the UWMP’s anticipated water demands.

As discussed in Section 1.3, Project Description, the proposed project would connect to an existing 8-inch water line in Washington Boulevard. As required by the Pico Water District, the proposed project would be reviewed by the Pico Water District in line with its Pico Water District’s New Construction/Development Procedures, which outlines steps and procedures for water connection and service and implements water conservation standards and fire flow requirements (Pico Water District 2017). Since the proposed project is within the anticipated water demand of the UWMP, the proposed project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded water facilities. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to water supply and infrastructure.
5 Water supply assessments are required for projects with more than 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space, a retail center with more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, or 500 dwelling units.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The proposed project is anticipated to generate 32,3986 gpd of wastewater. As discussed in the Community Facilities Element of the city of Pico Rivera General Plan, the city of Pico Rivera’s Sewer Division is responsible for the collection of wastewater within the city’s limits and delivery to the trunk sewer mains of Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) (Pico Rivera 2014). Existing sewer mains in the vicinity of the project site include an 8-inch sewer line within Goodbee Street and extends west into and through the project site in a 15- foot-wide sewer easement. The proposed project would provide sewer connection to the existing 8-inch line in the northwest corner of the project site and/or the sewer line along the northern border of the project site.

The collected wastewater flows south towards the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant of LACSD in the city of Cerritos. The LACSD is responsible for all trunk sewer line and treatment. The Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant has a design capacity of 37.5 mgd (LACSD 2021). The projected sewer demand of 32,398 gpd represents approximately 0.86 percent of the wastewater treatment plant’s design capacity. As such, the proposed project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The project site is largely paved with impervious surfaces. The existing storm drain system in the project site area includes a parkway culvert storm drain system on the north side of Washington Boulevard that collects existing street drainage flows from Washington Boulevard as well as on-site runoff and off-site adjacent properties runoff, and runoff from the tributary located in the existing residential uses to the north. The proposed project would include a storm drain system to collect, treat, and convey stormwater into the existing storm drain system and introduce pervious landscaping on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Electricity Facilities
SCE provides electricity to the project site. As discussed in Section 1.3, Project Description, the proposed project would connect to existing facilities in the public right-of-way. The proposed project would not require new or expanded electric power facilities other than connections to the existing electricity grid. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Natural Gas Facilities
SoCalGas provides natural gas service to the city of Pico Rivera, including the project site. The availability of natural gas service is based on present gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SoCalGas is under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service would be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Development of the proposed project would comply with regulations and standards pertaining to natural gas and would connect to the existing natural gas 6 32,398 gpd is based on the generation rates provided in the 2006 City of Los Angeles CEQA Guidelines. Studio Generation Rate:
80 gpd/DU, 1 Bedroom Generation Rate 120 gpd/DU, 2 Bedroom Generation Rate 160 gdp/DU, 3 Bedroom Generation Rate 200 gpd/DU, Retail Space 80gpd/1,000 sq.ft., and Lobby Space 80gpd/1,000 sq.ft.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 119
infrastructure. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Telecommunication Facilities
A variety of telecommunication facilities, including telephone, cable television, and high-speed internet services, exist in the city of Pico Rivera, and are provided by private service providers. As such, the area is adequately served by telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would include on-site connections to off-site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area of the project site. Facilities and infrastructure for the various telecommunication providers are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The Pico Water District supplies water to the project site. The Pico Water District uses groundwater from the Central Basin Groundwater Basin. The basin is replenished by snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and precipitation. It is also replenished by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, by spreading tertiary-treated recycled water purchased from LACSD and surface water from MWD (Pico Water District 2021).

Pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10610 through 10657 (Urban Water Management Planning Act), urban water suppliers are required to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP. The city of Pico Rivera adopted the Pico Water District 2015 UWMP in May 2016. The UWMP evaluates the Pico Water District’s water supply and demand reliability for 25 years into the future (Pico Water District 2016). Pico Water District’s 2015 UWMP concludes that there is adequate and reliable supply of water to provide for existing demand and estimated growth through the year 2040. The UWMP determined that the Pico Water District is capable of meeting customer water demands during normal-year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions.

The proposed project is expected to generate water demand of 81,076 gallons per day (29,592,834 gallons per year or approximately 91 acre-feet per year), which includes both indoor and outdoor water use. As discussed in Section 3.19(a), Pico Water District has a remaining groundwater pumping capacity of 844 AFY, and the proposed project’s water demand is well within the remaining capacity. The proposed project is consistent with the city’s anticipated growth projection, and therefore is not anticipated to adversely affect the Pico Water District’s water supplies. Additionally, the Pico Water District would review the proposed project consistent with the Pico Water District’s New Construction/Development Procedures, which outlines steps and procedures for water connection and service and implements water conservation standards and fire flow requirements (Pico Water District 2017). The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to water supply.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, existing sewer mains in the vicinity of the project site include an 8-inch sewer line within Goodbee Street and extends west into and through the project site in a 15- foot-wide sewer easement. The proposed project would provide sewer connection to the existing 8-inch line in the northwest corner of the project site and/or the sewer line along the northern border of the project site.

The flows would be conveyed to the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant in the city of Cerritos that is operated by the LACSD. The facility provides both primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for approximately

37.5 mgd. The proposed project would generate approximately 32,398 gpd of additional wastewater, which would be accommodated by the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (LACSD 2021). Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 19 landfills across southern California accept solid waste from incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Of these landfills, 15 landfills currently accept various categories of solid waste from the “other” category, which would include the city of Pico Rivera, and have a total remaining capacity of 573.6 million tons of solid waste. The nearest Los Angeles County Landfill is the Savage Canyon Landfill located 5 miles east of the project site (LA County 2020a). The Savage Canyon Landfill currently receives approximately 291 tons of solid waste per day and is permitted to accept 3,500 tons per day; it has a remaining permitted capacity of approximately 4,447,108 tons and is permitted to operate through 2055 (LA County 2020a; CalRecycle 2021).

Since there are no existing onsite structures, construction/demolition waste would be limited to paved areas.

Regarding project operation, based on a solid waste generation of approximately 10 pounds per dwelling unit per day for multifamily and 0.006 pounds per square foot per day for commercial retail (CalRecycle n.d.), the mixed-use building would generate approximately 2,250 pounds per day from residential and 35 pounds per day from retail for a total of 2,285 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 1.14 tons per day. Therefore, the proposed project would only account for 0.03 percent of the permitted solid waste accepted per day at Savage Canyon Landfill. Thus, the existing landfills that serve Los Angeles County have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal need, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the city of Pico Rivera are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 75 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 121
percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City’s project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project site and the surrounding communities are not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designated by CAL FIRE (2021). The closest VHFHSZ is approximately 2.3 miles west of the project site, on the west side of the city of Whitter (CAL FIRE 2021). Additionally, the project site and the surrounding area are not in a Special Protection Area, as designated by the City’s General Plan Safety Element (Pico Rivera 2014). Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair any emergency response or evacuation plans and no impact would occur. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area and is generally flat. As stated in Section 3.20(a), the project site is not in a VHFHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE or the city of Pico Rivera nor is it in a Special Protection Area identified in the city of Pico Rivera Safety Element (CAL FIRE 2021; Pico Rivera 2014). Since the proposed project site is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ, no impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As stated in Section 3.20(a), the proposed project site is not in a VHFHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE or the City, nor is it in a Special Protection Area identified in the City of Pico Rivera Safety Element (CAL FIRE 2021; Pico Rivera 2014). Additionally, the proposed project is within a highly urbanized area which has existing infrastructure; the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk as the project site is not within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As stated in Section 3.20(a), the project site is not in a VHFHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE or the City, nor is it within a Special Protection Area identified in the City of Pico Rivera Safety Element (CAL FIRE 2021; Pico Rivera 2014). The project site does not include, nor is adjacent to, slopes or hillsides that would become unstable. In addition, the proposed project would include a storm drain system to collect, treat, and

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis

convey the stormwater into the existing storm drain system in Washington Boulevard. Therefore, no impact would occur.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project site though currently vacant, is primarily developed with paved and former parking areas. It therefore does not contain any special-status or sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a sensitive plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site currently vacant, is primarily developed with paved and former parking areas. The proposed project therefore does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history and would not have an adverse impact on California’s prehistoric cultural resources. Further, the proposed project would incorporate mitigation measure CUL-1, which provides procedures in the event of an accidental archaeological find. Adherence with applicable CUL-1 would ensure that impacts related to cultural resources is less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously in this Initial Study, the proposed project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation measures to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. As discussed in Traffic Report (Appendix F) and consistent with the County’s TIA guidelines, since the expected significant residential VMT per capita project-related impact can be reduced to a less than significant level, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to VMT. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in failure to achieve short-term nor long-term environmental goals. Therefore, all impacts are individually limited and would not result in any cumulatively significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2022 Page 123
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the previous analyses, the proposed project would not result in significant direct or indirect adverse impacts or result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

July 2022 Page 124

4. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2020.4. Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts.

California Air Resources Board. 2017a, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018- 12/final_slcp_report%20Final%202017.pdf.
———. 2017b, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. ———. 2021, September 20 (accessed). Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Education. 2021. Data Quest, Annual Enrollment Data. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022, July 5 (accessed). California Department of Fish and Wildlife BIOS: Conservation Plan Boundaries – HCP and NCCP. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?al=ds760
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021, July 5 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2010. San Gabriel Valley P-C Region Showing MRZ-2 Areas and Active Mine Operations.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

4. References
July 2022 Page 125
_____. 2015. CGS Information Warehouse. Generalized Aggregate Resource Classification Map (Plate 2-1). https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018, November. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action.
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20Reasons_111218.pdf.

California State Parks. 2021, August 2. Community FactFinder Report.

California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2022, July 5 (accessed). California Historic Resources: Los Angeles County.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=19 CalRecycle. N.d. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates ———.2021. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2103 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LA County). 2008. City of Pico Rivera Disaster Route Map. https://pw.lacounty.gov/dsg/disasterroutes/map/Pico%20Rivera.pdf ———.2021. Flood Zone Determination Website. https://pw.lacounty.gov/floodzone/ Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). 2021. California Dame Breach Inundation Map. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 Durbin, Ronald M (Chief, Forestry Division Prevention Services Bureau). 2021, August 31. Email to PlaceWorks. County of Los Angele Fire Department.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008, September 9. FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06037C1830F).

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. US Department of Transportation.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08- ceqa.pdf.

Grajeda, Mark J (General Manager). 2021, August 16. Email to PlaceWorks. Pico Water District.

Hutak, Jodi (Acting Captain). 2021, August 26. Email to PlaceWorks. Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Department, Pico Rivera Station.

Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG). 2022, April 26. Transportation Impact Analysis: The Mercury Project.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

4. References

Los Angeles County Public Works (LA County). 2020a. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=14372&hp=yes&type=PDF ———.2020b, July 23. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/traffic/docs/Transportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines-July-2020- v1.1.pdf.

Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). 2021. Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater/wwfacilities/wwtreatmentplant/los_coyotes.asp Metro. 2021, July 30 (accessed). Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2. https://www.metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/.

National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. 2022, July 5 (accessed). https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults?view=list.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

Partner Engineering and Science Inc. (Partner). 2019, October 1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.

Patrick, Skye (Library Director). 2021, September 15. Email to PlaceWorks. LA County Library.

Pico Rivera [City of]. 2022, April 13 (accessed). Rio Vista Park. https://www.picorivera.org/depts/parks/facilities/parks/riovista.asp ———.2021, February 2. Zoning. http://www.picorivera.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=2692. ———. 2014, October. Pico Rivera General Plan.
———. Municipal Code.

Pico Water District. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. ———. 2017, May 23. New Construction/Development Procedures. https://www.picowaterdistrict.net/uploads/files/New%20Construction%20Procedures%20(revised) %205-23-17.pdf
———.2021. Water Supply. https://www.picowaterdistrict.net/Water_Supply.

Salem Engineering Group (Salem). 2020, July 31. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed MixedUse Building, 8825 Washington Boulevard.

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A

4. References
July 2022 Page 127
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2019. What is the 2016 RTP/SCS?. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/2016RTPSCS.aspx
———. 2020. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Adopted. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-andgrowth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. ———. 2020, September 3. Adopted Connect SoCal Plan: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of The Southern California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. ———. 2010, September 28. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. ———. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Torres, Kaili (Senior Manager). 2021, August 2. Email to PlaceWorks. City of Pico Rivera.

U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2020. 2020 Decennial Census: P1 Race. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=population%20pico%20rivera%20ca&tid=DECENNIALP L2020.P1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021, April 1 (accessed)a. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
———. 2021, April 1 (accessed)b. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System: USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2021, July 5 (accessed). Appendix 2. Default Occupancy Counts. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-existing-buildings-commercial-interiors-core-andshell-schools-new-constr-3 July 2022 Page 128

5. List of Preparers

CITY OF PICO RIVERA (LEAD AGENCY)
Julia Gonzalez, Deputy Director

PLACEWORKS
Addie Farrell, Principal, Environmental Services
Mariana Zimmermann, Senior Associate I
Alen Estrada-Rodas, Associate II
Jasmine Osman, Associate I
Emma Haines, Project Planner
John Vang, Senior Associate II, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kristie Nguyen, Associate I, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alejandro Garcia, Senior Associate I, Noise and Vibration Cary Nakama, Graphics Designer
Cathy Nero, Document Specialist

P R O J E C T T I T L E I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C L I E N T

5. List of Preparers
July 2022 Page 129
This page intentionally left blank.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
DATE January 18, 2023
TO City of Pico Rivera
Community and Economic Development Department
ADDRESS 6615 Passons Blvd
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
CONTACT Julia Gonzalez, Deputy Director
FROM Addie Farrell, Principal in Charge
Mariana Zimmermann, Project Manager
SUBJECT Follow up to IS/MND based on Removal of Affordable Housing Component PROJECT NUMBER OPL-01
The Mercury Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for a 30-day public review beginning Friday, July 8, 2022, and additional comments were received during the City of Pico Rivera Planning Commission hearing on November 21, 2022. PlaceWorks understands that the affordable housing component of the proposed project (13 dwelling units) is recommended for removal. The proposed project’s 255 dwelling units would instead all be market rate - there would be no change to the total number of residential units or any other changes to the project as described in the Specific Plan or IS/MND. As a result of the removal of the affordable housing component, the proposed project’s transportation demand management strategies were also updated to include the “Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program” TDM strategy (see “Transportation” below). This supplemental memorandum demonstrates that the removal of affordable housing component does not result in a new significant impact and does not result in a substantial revision as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073.5(b).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requires recirculation of a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability, but prior to adoption. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b) defines “substantial revision” as:
1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or 2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.

Recirculation is not required when “measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant January 18, 2023 | Page 2
environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(3)).

TRANSPORTATION
A transportation memo evaluating the revised project was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (included as Attachment A to this memo).

The IS/MND for the proposed project identified three transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as project features to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), including (1) increase residential density (9.79% reduction); (2) integrated affordable and below market rate housing (1.43% reduction); and (3) limited residential parking supply (3.84%). As the 13 units of affordable housing are not considered “market-rate” units, the “integrated affordable and below market rate housing” TDM strategy was replaced with the TDM strategy listed below. The new TDM strategy has been identified as an applicable project feature and replacement for the previously included CAPCOA TDM strategy (i.e., Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing) for the proposed project.
• Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program: As a project feature, this measure would provide a 35% subsidy for project residents/units (one transit pass subsidized per unit) who demonstrate proof of purchase of a monthly transit pass from Metro. The number of transit passes subsidized each month would be limited to the equivalent of 10% of the total project units constructed so as to encourage utilization of the transit passes by project residents. The subsidized transit pass program would end when the Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 becomes operational, resulting in greater public transit opportunities for all project residents.

The proposed TDM measure would reduce project VMT by 0.32 percent and when combined with the other project TDM strategies (Increase Residential Density and Limit Residential Parking Supply), results in an overall project VMT of 12.22 residential VMT per capita, which is below the City significance threshold of

12.23 residential VMT per capita. Accordingly, the revised project with the updated project feature, results in a less than significant transportation impact related based on the VMT metric.

The substitute TDM strategy (Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program) has been identified as a project feature to replace the previously included TDM strategy. Accordingly, no further analysis or review of potential transportation impacts is required and the overall results and conclusions of the prior transportation impact analysis report remain valid. Therefore, this revision to the project’s TDM Program will continue to ensure less than significant impacts related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) of the CEQA Guidelines related to VMT (see pages 110-112 of the Initial Study/MND), and no measures are required. The shift of 13 dwelling units from affordable housing to market-rate housing does not represent a substantial revision to the IS/MND’s VMT analysis, and the proposed project would continue to result in a less than significant impact to transportation. Recirculation is not required.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As discussed above, the removal of the residential component would result in a VMT efficiency of 12.22 residential VMT per capita, which is 0.14 residential VMT per capita higher than the proposed project with the affordable housing component. However, the revised project’s emissions would continue to be under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) significance thresholds for air quality and GHG emissions, as identified in the IS/MND analysis, and the modifications to the proposed project would not result in a new environmental impact.

Modeling for air quality and GHG emissions in the IS/MND is conservatively based on residential VMT that is 11,746 miles per weekday. Based on the proposed project’s residential population (see Table 3, Residential January 18, 2023 | Page 3
Population, in the IS/MND), the revised proposed project would generate 9,923 total residential miles on a weekday (12.22 VMT/person x 812 people). As shown in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analyses, to the IS/MND, the air quality and GHG emissions analyses conservatively evaluated residential VMT of 11,746 total residential miles on a weekday. Therefore, the shift of 13 dwelling units from affordable housing to market-rate housing does not represent a substantial revision to the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG analyses, and the proposed project would continue to result in a less than significant impact to air quality and GHGs Recirculation is not required.

LAND USE CONSISTENCY
The proposed project would continue to provide 255 dwelling units comprised of studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. The proposed project would add to the City’s housing stock and availability and would continue to help the City meet its housing needs. Therefore, the proposed project continues to be consistent with the City’s Housing Element. The revised proposed project does not represent a substantial revision to the IS/MND’s land use consistency analysis, and the proposed project would continue to result in a less than significant impact to land use and planning. Recirculation is not required.

CONCLUSION
As demonstrated above, the removal of the affordable housing component and incorporation of the “Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program” TDM strategy, would not result in new, avoidable significant effects. The conclusions in the IS/MND continue to hold, and the IS/MND does not require recirculation. Recirculation is not required when “measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(3)).

January 18, 2023 | Page 4
This page intentionally left blank.

MEMORANDUM
O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Supplemental\4418-m1.doc
To: Addie Farrell
Mariana Zimmermann
PlaceWorks
Date: January 16, 2023
From: David S. Shender, P.E.

Francesca S. Bravo
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Ref: 1-21-4418-1
Subject: The Mercury Project – Supplemental Transportation Assessment This memorandum has been prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to summarize the supplemental transportation assessment prepared for the proposed Mercury project located in the City of Pico Rivera. LLG previously prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis Report dated July 5, 2022 for a prior project development program. The findings of the transportation impact analysis report were confirmed by the City of Pico Rivera’s Contract Traffic Engineer on August 19, 2022.

LLG has prepared the updated project trip generation forecast based on the currently proposed modified project. Briefly, it is concluded that based on a review of the trip generation forecast, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a nominal change in traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis. In addition, a substitute Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy (T-9:

Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program) has been identified as a project feature to replace a previously included TDM strategy. Accordingly, no further analysis or review of potential transportation impacts is required and the overall results and conclusions of the prior transportation impact analysis report remain valid.

Modified Project Description
The project site is located at 8825 Washington Boulevard, situated along the north side of Washington Boulevard, west of Rosemead Boulevard. The modified project consists of the development of 255 residential dwelling units (“market rate”), 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. The affordable housing component is no longer proposed to be part of the project. No changes to the site access and circulation scheme are proposed as part of the modified project. A breakdown of the residential and commercial components and their corresponding sizes is shown below:

Land Use Prior Project Modified Project
Multi-Family Housing 242 Dwelling Units 255 Dwelling Units Affordable Housing 13 Dwelling Units -
Retail 2,865 Square Feet 2,865 Square Feet
Restaurant 2,865 Square Feet 2,865 Square Feet
Addie Farrell
Mariana Zimmermann
January 16, 2023

O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Supplemental\4418-m1.doc
Updated Project Trip Generation
The updated trip generation forecast for the modified project is summarized in Table

1. As shown in Table 1, the modified project is forecast to generate 109 vehicle trips (37 inbound trips and 72 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour and 134 vehicle trips (80 inbound trips and 54 outbound trips) during the PM peak hour. Over a 24- hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 1,608 daily trip ends during a typical weekday.

The prior project was forecast to generate 111 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 134 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, and 1,594 vehicle trip ends during a typical weekday. When compared with the trip generation forecast for the project analyzed in the approved July 5, 2022 transportation impact analysis report, it is concluded that the trip generation forecast for the modified project description results in a minor increase in traffic volumes on a daily basis (14 trips). Additionally, the trip generation forecast for the modified project reflects a decrease of 2 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and an equivalent number of vehicle trips in the PM peak hour when compared to the prior project. For comparison purposes, a copy of the trip generation forecast for the previously approved project is attached (Table 1 from the transportation impact analysis report).

The previous transportation impact analysis determined that project-related effects are not expected at the four analyzed intersections during the analyzed AM and PM peak hours. Thus, based on the relatively equivalent number of vehicle trips, the modified project is also not expected to result in any project-related effects at the study intersections during the peak hours.

Updated Project TDM Strategies
A review of the transportation demand management (TDM) strategies was also conducted due to the elimination of the affordable housing component for the proposed project. TDM Strategy T-4, Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing, is no longer an applicable project design feature for the proposed project.

As described in the July 5, 2022 transportation impact analysis report, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity1 (“2021 Handbook”) provides a comprehensive list of TDM strategies.
1 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Final Draft, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021, adopted December 15, 2021.

Addie Farrell
Mariana Zimmermann
January 16, 2023

O:\JOB_FILE\4418\Supplemental\4418-m1.doc
The TDM strategy below has been identified as an applicable project design feature and replacement for the previously included CAPCOA TDM strategy (i.e., T-4:

Integrate Affordable/Below Market Rate Housing) for the project:
• T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program:

As a project feature, this measure would provide a 35% subsidy for project residents/units (one transit pass subsidized per unit) who demonstrate proof of purchase of a monthly transit pass from Metro. The number of transit passes subsidized each month would be limited to the equivalent of 10% of the total project units constructed so as to encourage utilization of the transit passes by project residents. The subsidized transit pass program would end when the Metro Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 becomes operational, resulting in greater public transit opportunities for all project residents.

The proposed TDM measure would reduce project VMT by 0.32% and when combined with T-1 (Increase Residential Density) and T-15 (Limit Residential Parking Supply), results in an overall project VMT of 12.22 residential VMT per capita, which is below the City significance threshold of 12.23 residential VMT per capita. Accordingly, the modified project with the updated project feature, results in a less than significant transportation impact related based on the VMT metric.

Summary
It is concluded that based on a review of the trip generation forecast, the modified Mercury project is anticipated to result in a nominal change in traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis. In addition, a substitute TDM strategy (T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program) has been identified as a project feature to replace the previously included TDM strategy.

Accordingly, no further analysis or review of potential transportation impacts is required and the overall results and conclusions of the prior transportation impact analysis report remain valid.

Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or comments regarding this supplemental transportation assessment.

Attachments
Table 1
MODIFIED 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] 255 DU 1,387 24 68 92 68 44 112
- Less 15% Internal Capture/Captive Market [4] (208) (4) (10) (14) (10) (7) (17) Retail [5] 2,865 GLSF 108 2 1 3 5 6 11
Restaurant [6] 2,865 GSF 321 15 13 28 17 11 28
TOTAL 1,608 37 72 109 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] 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 [6] 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

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
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-
VMT Reduction Summary
Measure No. Name % VMT Reduction
Land Use
T‐1 Increase Residential Density 9.79%

9.79%
Trip Reduction Programs
T‐9 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 0.32% *

0.32%
*  Measure T‐9 applies to residential VMT only.

Parking or Road Pricing/Management
T‐15 Limit Residential Parking Supply 3.84% *

3.84%
*  Measure T‐15 applies to residential VMT only.

Neighborhood Design

0.00%
Transit

0.00%
Clean Vehicles and Fuels
No VMT Reduction
Total VMT Reduction 13.53%
Transit Subtotal
Clean Vehicles and Fuels Subtotal
Land Use Subtotal
Trip Reduction Programs Subtotal
Parking or Road Pricing/Management Subtotal
Neighborhood Design Subtotal
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1 The Mercury Project
CAPCOA 2021 Handbook
VMT Reduction Calculation Worksheets
Measure T‐1. Increase Residential Density
Subsector Land Use
Measure Scale Project/Site
Maximum Reduction 30.0%
Project VMT Reduction Due to Increased Residential Density B Residential density of project development (du/acre) 8.9 C Residential density of typical development (du/acre) 6.16 D Elasticity of VMT with respect to residential density ‐0.22 A VMT Reduction = [(B ‐ C) / C] * D 9.79%
VMT Reduction 9.79%
LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1
The Mercury Project
CAPCOA 2021 Handbook
VMT Reduction Calculation Worksheets
Measure T‐9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program Subsector Trip Reduction Programs
Measure Scale Project/Site
Maximum Reduction 5.5%
Project VMT Reduction Due to Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program B Average transit fare without subsidy ($) $50.00
C Subsidy amount ($) $17.50
D Percent of employees/residents eligible for subsidy 100.0% E Percent of project‐generated VMT from employees/residents 100.0% F Transit mode share of all trips or work trips [1] 4.23% G Elasticity of transit boardings with respect to transit fare price ‐0.43 H Percent of transit trips that would otherwise be made in a vehicle 50.0% I Conversion factor of vehicle trips to VMT 1
A 0.32%
VMT Reduction 0.32%
[1]
Transit Vehicle

4.23% 94.19%

1.37% 96.88%

2.90% 95.04%

2.40% 94.85%

11.38% 86.96%

6.69% 91.32%
Core‐Based Statistical Area Transit Mode Share of Work Trips VMT Reduction = (C/B) * G * D * E * F * H * I
Table T‐3.1. Average Transit and Vehicle Mode Share of All Trips by California Core‐Based Statistical Area
Core‐Based Statistical Area
Mode Share
Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Anaheim
Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario
Sacramento‐Roseville‐Arden‐Arcade
San Diego‐Carlsbad
San Francisco‐Oakland‐Hayward
San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara
Table T‐9.1. Average Transit Mode Share of Work Trips by California Core‐Based Statistical Area Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Anaheim 5.39%
Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario 1.12%
Sacramento‐Roseville‐Arden‐Arcade 5.44%
San Diego‐Carlsbad 4.74%
San Francisco‐Oakland‐Hayward 25.60%
San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara 6.11%
LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1
The Mercury Project
CAPCOA 2021 Handbook
VMT Reduction Calculation Worksheets
Measure T‐15. Limit Residential Parking Supply
Subsector Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Measure Scale Project/Site
Maximum Reduction 13.7%
Project VMT Reduction Due to Limiting Residential Parking Supply B Residential parking demand (parking spaces) 542
C Project residential parking supply (parking spaces) [1] 390 D Percentage of project VMT generated by residents 100.0% E Percent of household VMT that is commute based 37.0%
F Percent reduction in commute mode [2] 37.0%
A VMT Reduction = ‐([B ‐ C]/B) * D * E * F 3.84%
Residential VMT Reduction 3.84%
[1]
[2]
Parking supply is considered limited when demand exceeds supply. If demand is equal to or less than supply, then implementation of this measure would not result in VMT reductions.

Percent reduction in commute mode share by driving among households in areas with scarce parking.

LLG Ref. 1-21-4418-1
The Mercury Project

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T - I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A
Appendix
PlaceWorks
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Analyses

T H E M E R C U R Y P R O J E C T - I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C I T Y O F P I C O R I V E R A
Appendix
July 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Appendix

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and
Modeling Data

AIR QUALITY
Climate/Meteorology

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The project site lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent highpressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site with temperature data is the Montebello, California Monitoring Station (ID No. 045790). The lowest average temperature is reported at 47.2°F in December, and the highest average temperature is 89.7°F in August (WRCC 2021).

In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from October through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall historically averages 14.78 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2021).

Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the (South Coast AQMD 2005).

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Air Quality Regulations
The proposed project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). However, South Coast AQMD reports to California Air Resources board (CARB), and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California and national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)
3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind24 hours 50 µg/m raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
4 Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind24 hours * 35 µg/m raised dust and ocean sprays). 3

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m gasoline. 3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)
5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.

Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
10≥ miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of many different
materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. Also, it can be
present in sewer gas and some natural gas and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation.

Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Source: CARB 2016.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
 AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
 Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

 Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources and include CO, VOC, NO2, SOX, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (South Coast AQMD 2005, USEPA 2021). The SoCAB is designated as being in attainment under the California AAQS and attainment (serious maintenance) under the National AAQS (CARB 2021a).

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon.

Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of ozone (O3), South Coast AQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant (South Coast AQMD 2005).

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a byproduct of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm).

NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure (South Coast AQMD 2005, USEPA 2021). The SoCAB is designated as an attainment (maintenance) area under the National AAQS and attainment area under the California AAQS (CARB 2021a).

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels.

It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2 (South Coast AQMD 2005, USEPA 2021). When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2021a).

Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading (i.e., fugitive dust). Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (South Coast AQMD 2005).

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms (South Coast AQMD 2005). There has been emerging evidence that even smaller particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of <0.1 microns or less (i.e., ≤0.1 millionths of a meter or <0.000004 inch), known as ultrafine particulates (UFPs), have human health implications, because UFPs toxic components may initiate or facilitate biological processes that may lead to adverse effects to the heart, lungs, and other organs (South Coast AQMD 2013).

However, the EPA or CARB have yet to adopt AAQS to regulate these particulates. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified by the CARB as a carcinogen (CARB 1998). Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment,1 environmental damage,2 and aesthetic damage3 (South Coast AQMD 2005; USEPA 2021). The SoCAB is in nonattainment and serious nonattainment for PM2.5 under the California 1 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 2 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water, making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. 3 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments.

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

and National AAQS, respectively. For PM10, the SoCAB is nonattainment under the California AAQS and in attainment (serious maintenance) under the National AAQS (CARB 2021a).4 Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight.

O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation during the growing season (South Coast AQMD 2005; USEPA 2021).

The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment under the National AAQS (8-hour) and as nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour). (CARB 2021a).

Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and accumulates in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The effects of lead most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (South Coast AQMD 2005; USEPA 2021). The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. However, in 2008 the EPA and CARB adopted stricter lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards.5 As a result of these violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is designated nonattainment under the National AAQS for lead (South Coast AQMD 2012; CARB 2021a). Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by South Coast AQMD, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the project. 4 CARB approved the South Coast AQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB did not violate federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. The EPA approved the State of California’s request to redesignate the South Coast PM10 nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 National AAQS, effective on July 26, 2013. 5 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 showed that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (South Coast AQMD 2012).

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold.

Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

 13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate Community Risk
In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:

A Community Health Perspective (2005) to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasolinedispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.

Multiple Airborne Toxics Exposure Study (MATES)
The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) is a monitoring and evaluation study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics in the SoCAB. In 2008, South Coast AQMD conducted its third update to the MATES study (MATES III). The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 84 percent of the cancer risk (South Coast AQMD 2008b).

South Coast AQMD recently released the fourth update (MATES IV). The results showed that the overall monitored risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics decreased to approximately 418 in one million. Compared to the 2008 MATES III, monitored excess cancer risks decreased by approximately 65 percent. Approximately 90 percent of the risk is attributed to mobile sources while 10 percent is attributed to TACs from stationary sources, such as refineries, metal processing facilities, gas stations, and chrome plating facilities. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 68 percent of the air toxics risk. Compared to MATES III, MATES IV found substantial improvement in air quality and associated decrease in air toxics exposure. As a result, the estimated basin-wide population-weighted risk decreased by approximately 57 percent compared to the analysis done for the MATES III time period (South Coast AQMD 2015a).

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) updated the guidelines for estimating cancer risks on March 6, 2015. The new method utilizes higher estimates of cancer potency during early life exposures, which result in a higher calculation of risk. There are also differences in the assumptions on

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

breathing rates and length of residential exposures. When combined together, South Coast AQMD estimates that risks for a given inhalation exposure level will be about 2.7 times higher using the proposed updated methods identified in MATES IV (e.g., 2.7 times higher than 418 in one million overall excess cancer risk) (South Coast AQMD 2015a).

Air Quality Management Planning
The South Coast AQMD is the agency responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared.
2016 AQMP
On March 3, 2017, the South Coast AQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP as an update to the 2012 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP addresses strategies and measures to attain the following National AAQS:
 2008 National 8-hour ozone standard by 2031,
 2012 National annual PM2.5 standard by 20256,
 2006 National 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2019,
 1997 National 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the
 1979 National 1-hour ozone standard by year 2022.

It is projected that total NOX emissions in the SoCAB would need to be reduced to 150 tons per day (tpd) by year 2023 and to 100 tpd in year 2031 to meet the 1997 and 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standards. The strategy to meet the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard would also lead to attaining the 1979 federal 1-hour ozone standard by year 2022 (South Coast AQMD 2017), which requires reducing NOX emissions in the SoCAB to 250 tpd. This is approximately 45 percent additional reductions above existing regulations for the 2023 ozone standard and 55 percent additional reductions above existing regulations to meet the 2031 ozone standard.

Reducing NOX emissions would also reduce PM2.5 concentrations in the SoCAB. However, as the goal is to meet the 2012 federal annual PM2.5 standard no later than year 2025, South Coast AQMD is seeking to reclassify the SoCAB from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment under this federal standard. A “moderate” nonattainment would require meeting the 2012 federal standard by no later than 2021.

Overall, the 2016 AQMP is composed of stationary and mobile-source emission reductions from regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefits from climate programs, mobile-source strategies, and reductions from federal sources such as aircrafts, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels. Strategies outlined in the 2016 AQMP would be implemented in collaboration between CARB and the EPA (South Coast AQMD 2017).
6 The 2016 AQMP requests a reclassification from moderate to serious non-attainment for the 2012 National PM2.5 standard.

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA

LEAD STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In 2008, EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB nonattainment under the federal lead (Pb) classification due to the addition of source-specific monitoring under the new federal regulation. This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in Vernon and the City of Industry exceeding the new standard. The rest of the SoCAB, outside the Los Angeles County nonattainment area remains in attainment of the new standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the SIP revision for the federal lead standard, which the EPA revised in 2008. Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval.

AREA DESIGNATIONS
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards.

Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.
 Unclassified: a pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
 Attainment: a pollutant is in attainment if the CAAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.
 Nonattainment: a pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area.
 Nonattainment/Transitional: a subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.

The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 2. The SoCAB is designated in attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS.

Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment No Federal Standard
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Serious Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment1
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)2

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKG ROUND AND MODELING DATA

Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2021a. 1 The South Coast AQMD is seeking to reclassify the SoCAB from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment under federal PM2.5 standard. 2 In 2010, the Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas in the SoCAB are unclassified.

Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site are best documented by measurements taken by the South Coast AQMD. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 5 – Southeast LA County. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project site is the Pico Rivera - 4144 San Gabriel Monitoring Station, which monitors O3, NOx, and PM2.5. Information regarding PM10 is supplemented by data from the Azusa Monitoring Station. The most current five years of data from these monitoring stations are included in Table 3, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data show regular violations of the state and federal O3, state PM10, and federal PM2.5 standards in the last five years.

Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and
Maximum Levels during Such Violations
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3)
1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm (days exceed threshold)
State & Federal 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm (days exceed threshold) Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
9 6

0.111

0.081
7 9

0.118

0.086
3 5

0.115

0.082
5 7

0.108

0.091
20 23

0.169

0.114
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Federal 1-Hour ≥ 0.100 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0 0

0.0632
0 0

0.0750
0 0

0.0768
0 0

0.0618
0 0

0.0692
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
2 State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
12 0

74.0 7
0 83.9
10 0

78.3 4
0 82.0
9 0
152.3
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
1 Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
2 46.5
1 49.5
2 56.3
1 50.2
5 82.9
Source: CARB 2021b.
ppm: parts per million; parts per billion, µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter Notes: * Data not available.
1 Data obtained from the Pico Rivera-4144 San Gabriel Monitoring Station 2 Data obtained from the Azusa Monitoring Station

THE MERCURY PROJECT - INITIAL STUDY

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA