Agenda packet — Pico Rivera City Council, November 12, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

CIVIL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PROJECT COST TOTAL

STRUCTURAL

STRUCTURAL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PICO RIVERA WHITTIER BRIDGE FEASBILITY STUDY
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 1
Updated Date:10/30/2024
By: NW
Review By: BL
4675 MACARTHUR COURT SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com
40 scale 1" = 40' 0 40feet PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BRIDGE CONCEPT EXHIBIT ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3 - NEW PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION DATE APP. Y CALL FORE BE U IG D O BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS REVISIONS PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CITY OF PICO RIVERA BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE 1: PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE VISUALIZATIONS

PEDESTRIAN VIEW FROM BRIDGE DECK

AERIAL VIEW

EXISTING WHITTIER BLVD BRIDGE TO THE NORTH PEDESTRIAN VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST, TYPICAL SECTION

SPAN CONFIGURATION
RECOMMENDED: STANDARD "OFF-THE-SHELF" END SPANS,
CUSTOM, ARCHED CENTER SPAN. ·· OTHER CONFIGURATIONS AND TRUSS TYPES ARE POSSIBLE. MATERIAL FINISH RECOMMENDED: WEATHERING STEEL

WEATHERING STEEL OXIDIZES TO FORM A STABLE
PROTECTIVE PATINA. DOES NOT CORRODE LIKE RUST. ·· OTHER FINISHES ARE POSSIBLE (PAINT, GALVANIC COATING)

PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ·ECONOMICAL

LOW IMPACT CONSTRUCTION
MINIMAL FALSEWORK IN CHANNEL ·

ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
SPANS CONSTRUCTED OFFSITE IN 40'-50' LENGTHS,
DELIVERED, BOLTED TOGETHER ONSITE AND ERECTED ·

AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND HIGHLY
CUSTOMIZEABLE · 1 2 3123

LOW EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE DEPTH RESULTS IN
MINIMAL MODIFICATIONS TO CHANNEL BANKS ·
EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE DEPTH: THE DISTANCE FROM
THE WALKING SURFACE TO THE BOTTOM OF TRUSS.

A HIGHER DEPTH REQUIRES ELEVATED, RETAINED
APPROACHES REV 10/31/2023 ALTERNATIVE 1: PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 2 BKF Project No: 20221698
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 Unclassified Excavation CY 125 150.00$ 18,750.00$
2 Construct AC Bike Trail SF 2,275 40.00$ 91,000.00$
3 Construct Hydroseed Native Grass Vegetation SF 1,350 1.50$ 2,025.00$ 4 Centrifugal Stormwater Pre-treatment Device LS 1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 5 Construct Catch Basin LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 $
6 Construct Bioretention Gravel Base CF 115 100.00$ 11,500.00$ 7 Construct Storm Drain Lines (Assumed 18-in RCP) LF 550 400.00$ 220,000.00$ 398,275.00$
8 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 156 600.00$ 93,600.00$ 9 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 82 450.00$ 36,900.00$
10 60" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 170 2,100.00$ 357,000.00$ 11 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 195 500.00$ 97,500.00$ 12 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (SPAN 2) EA 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 13 FURNISH PREFABRICATED STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (SPAN 1 & 3) EA 2 250,000.00$ 500,000.00$ 14 ERECT PREFABRICATED STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LS 1 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 15 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 53 1,600.00$ 84,800.00$ 16 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE (POLYMER FIBER) CY 84 1,650.00$ 138,600.00$ 17 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 65,000 2.50$ 162,500.00$ 18 CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 40 80.00$ 3,200.00$
19 MISCELLANEOUS METAL LB 2,260 20.00$ 45,200.00$
20 ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING SF 1,030 10.00$ 10,300.00$
21 BRIDGE LIGHTING SYSTEM LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
2,079,600.00$
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL $ 2,079,600.00
MOBILIZATION (10%) 207,960.00$
CONTINGENCY (25%) 519,900.00$
2,807,460.00$

CIVIL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PICO RIVERA WHITTIER BRIDGE FEASBILITY STUDY
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 2 - PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS Updated Date:10/30/2024
By: NW
Review By: BL
CIVIL

STRUCTURAL

STRUCTURAL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PROJECT COST TOTAL

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION DATE APP. Y CALL FORE

BE U IG D O BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS REVISIONS PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CITY OF PICO RIVERA BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE : CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
· AESTHETICALLY APPEALING
· EXPENSIVE FOR PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE
· WILL REQUIRE A RAISED APPROACH
·
· WILL REQUIRE A RAISED APPROACH

PRECAST CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

TYPICAL SECTION
-1%± 4'-1"±
SHOWN:

1. TOP AND RIGHT: CAST-IN-PLACE BOX GIRDER

BRIDGE SPORTS PARK DRIVE POC IN
WOODLAND, CA.

2. LEFT: CAST-IN-PLACE ARCHED DOUBLE T-BEAM

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, LOCATION
SHOWN:

PRECAST DOUBLE I-BEAM BRIDGE, SURFSIDE INN , POC IN DANA POINT CA. UNKNOWN.

MORE ECONOMICAL THAN CAST-IN-PLACE

LESS AESTHETICALLY CUSTOMIZEABLE
THAN CAST-IN-PLACE ·

2. REV 10/31/2023 3
BKF Project No: 20221698
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 Unclassified Excavation CY 125 150.00$ 18,750.00$
2 Construct AC Bike Trail SF 2,275 40.00$ 91,000.00$
3 Construct Hydroseed Native Grass Vegetation SF 1,350 1.50$ 2,025.00$ 4 Centrifugal Stormwater Pre-treatment Device LS 1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 5 Construct Catch Basin LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00 $
6 Construct Bioretention Gravel Base CF 115 100.00$ 11,500.00$ 7 Construct Storm Drain Lines (Assumed 18-in RCP) LF 550 400.00$ 220,000.00$ 398,275.00$
8 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) CY 149 600.00$ 89,400.00$ 9 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (RETAINING WALL) CY 412 450.00$ 185,400.00$ 10 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, RETAINING WALL CY 151 1,600.00$ 241,600.00$ 11 BAR REINFORCING STEEL, RETAINING WALL LB 15,117 2.00 $ 30,234.00$ 12 CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 288 80.00$ 23,040.00$
13 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 290 2,000.00$ 580,000.00$ 14 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 120,000 2.50$ 300,000.00$ 15 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE (POLYMER FIBER) CY 160 2,000.00$ 320,000.00$ 16 60" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 230 2,100.00$ 483,000.00$ 17 24" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILING LF 261 500.00$ 130,500.00$ 18 BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN RAILING LF 800 270.00$ 216,000.00$ 19 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 156 600.00$ 93,600.00$ 20 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 82 450.00$ 36,900.00$ 21 BRIDGE LIGHTING SYSTEM LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
22 ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING SF 602 10.00$ 6,020.00$
23 PRESTRESSING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LS 1 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 2,905,694.00$
PROJECT COST SUBTOTAL $ 2,905,694.00
MOBILIZATION (10%) 290,569.40$
CONTINGENCY (25%) 726,423.50$
3,922,686.90$

CIVIL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PICO RIVERA WHITTIER BRIDGE FEASBILITY STUDY
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 3 - CIP/PS CONC BOX GIRDER Updated Date:10/30/2024
By: NW
Review By: BL
CIVIL

STRUCTURAL

STRUCTURAL ITEMS SUBTOTAL

PROJECT COST TOTAL

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
Structural Calculations
Weight Summary
Exist Bridge Deck 4002 kip
Superstructure 2633 kip
New Additions 320 kip
Substructure 2829 kip
Existing Bridge Weight, DC only
Superstructure 2633 kip
Deck 4002 kip
Substructure 2829 kip
TOTAL WEIGHT 9463 kip
New Bridge Weight, DC only
Superstructure 2633 kip
Deck 4002 kip
Additions 320 kip
Substructure 2829 kip
TOTAL WEIGHT 9783 kip

0.05 Weight Increase Super Structure DC weight only

0.03 DC Weight Increase load to foundation
Force effects on Superstructure due to new configuration Existing bridge design lane load
Existing bridge design vehicle - HS20-44 Truck

NEGATIVE MOMENT
DUE TO ADDED SIDEWALK:

Added DC weight, per LF 0.848 kip wDC
Added ped LL weight 0.200 kip wLL
DC load factor 1.25
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate load, per LF 1.410 kip w
Typical span length 75.17 ft L
Negative moment over pier 996 kip-ft w*L^2/8

OFFSET BY REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC LANE LIVE LOAD
Concentrated Load
Weight concentrated lane load 18 kip
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate Load 31.5 P
Number of trucks 1
Negative moment over pier 228 kip-ft Pab/4*L^2(L+a)
Negative moment due to uniform lane load
Lane load per LF 0.640 kip wLL
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate load, per LF 1.120 kip w
Typical span length 75.17 ft L
Negative moment over pier 791 kip-ft w*L^2/8
Total negative moment over pier 1019 kip-ft

POSITIVE MOMENT
The existing bridge is designed to the worst-case of either the lane load or truck shown below. The proposed sidewalk widening essentialyl offsets one lane. Compare force effects from proposed sidewalk to those from the vehicular live load being eliminated, to confirm that the existing bridge can handle the added weight DUE TO ADDED SIDEWALK:

Added DC weight, per LF 0.848 kip wDC
Added ped LL weight 0.200 kip wLL
DC load factor 1.25
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate load, per LF 1.410 kip w
Typical span length 75.17 ft L
Positive moment in span 762 kip-ft 49*w*L^2/512

OFFSET BY REMOVAL OF DESING TRUCK
Positive moment due to design truck at midspan
Weight HS20-44 truck 72 kip
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate Load 126 P
Number of trucks 1
Positive moment in span 1924 kip-ft 13*P*L/64
SHEAR
DUE TO ADDED SIDEWALK:

Added DC weight, per LF 0.848 kip wDC
Added ped LL weight 0.200 kip wLL
DC load factor 1.25
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate load, per LF 1.410 kip w
Typical span length 75.17 ft L
Shear load at support 105.978 kip w*L

OFFSET BY REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC LANE LIVE LOAD
Shear due to concentrated lane load
Weight HS20-44 truck 26 kip
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate Load 45.5 P
Shear at support 46 kip (3*P*L/32)
Shear due to uniform lane load
Lane load per LF 0.640 kip wLL
LL load factor 1.75
Ultimate load, per LF 1.120 kip w
Typical span length 75.17 ft L
Shear at support 84 kip-ft w*L
Total negative moment over pier 129.7 kip
Checks (+) moment Check Shear Check
Existing 1924 kip-ft 129.7 kip
Proposed 762 kip-ft 106.0 kip
Conclusion: The proposed configuration is acceptable
OK OK
(-) moment Check
1019 kip-ft
996 kip-ft OK

WEIGHT CALCULATIONS
Added weight due to sidewalk addition
New Additions
Additional Sidewalk, Normal Weight Conc
Width 132.0 in = 17 ft- 6 ft
Depth 5.0 in average
Cross Section Area 4.58 ft^2 = 132.0 in* 5.0 in/ 144
Length, bridge 377.38 ft
Quantity 64.06 CY = 377 ft* 4.58 ft^2/ 27
# Sidewalks 1
Weight, Concrete 155.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 268097 LB = 64 CY* 155.0 PCF* 27* 1
Additional Sidewalk, Lightweight Cellular Conc
Width 132.0 in = 17 ft- 6 ft
Depth 5.0 in average
Cross Section Area 4.58 ft^2 = 132.0 in* 5.0 in/ 144
Length, bridge 377.38 ft
Quantity 64.06 CY = 377 ft* 4.58 ft^2/ 27
# Sidewalks 1
Weight, Concrete 30.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 51890 LB = 64 CY* 30.0 PCF* 27* 1
Total Quantity 319987 LB
Total Weight 319987 LB = 319987
848 PLF
EXISTING BRIDGE -Deck Conc Weight
Exist Bridge Deck
Deck and Haunch
Width, deck 96.00 ft
Thickness, deck (gross) 6.50 in
Begin Bridge (BB) Station 380+93.49
End Bridge (EB) Station 384+70.87
Length, bridge 377.38 = 384+70.87- 380+93.49
Area, deck (gross) 52.0 ft^2 = 96.0 ft* 6.50 in
Volume, deck (gross) 19624 ft^3 = 52.0 ft^2* 377.38 ft
Quantity 727 CY = 19624 ft^3/ 27
Weight, Concrete 155.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 3041683 LB = 727 CY* 155.0 PCF* 27
Reinforcement Weight 8.37 PCF *134 kg/m^3
Quantity 164251 LB = 726.81 CY* 8.4 PCF* 27
Total Quantity 3205934 LB
Barrier W/ Sidewalk
Volume, barrier, Type 11 6.67 ft^3 per ft
Length, bridge 377.38 ft
Quantity 93.28 CY = 377 ft* 6.67 ft^3/ 27
# Barriers 2
Weight, Concrete 155.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 780731 LB = 93 CY* 155.0 PCF* 27* 2
Railing weight 20.00 PLF
Quantity 15095 LB = 377 ft* 20.0 PLF* 2
Total Quantity 795826 LB
Total Weight 4001760 LB = 3205934+ 795826
10604 PLF
EXISTING BRIDGE -Girder weight
Superstructure
I Girder
# of Girders 60 = 5* 12
Width, Top Flange 19.0 in
Width, Bottom Flange 19.0 in
Width, Web 7.0 in
Depth, Top Flange 3.000 in
Depth, Top Transition 6.000 in
Depth, Bottom Flange 6.000 in
Depth, Bottom Transition 6.000 in
Depth, Web 21.0 in
Area, Top Flange 0.40 ft^2 = 19.0 in* 3.0 in/ 144
Area, Top Transition 0.54 ft^2 = 0.5* (7.0 in+ 19.0 in)* 6.0 in/ 144 Area, Bottom Flange 0.79 ft^2 = 19.0 in* 6.0 in/ 144
Area, Bottom transition 0.54 ft^2 = 0.5* (7.0 in+ 19.0 in)* 6.0 in/ 144 Area, Web 1.02 ft^2 = 7.0 in* 21.0 in/ 144
Cross Section Area 3.29 ft^2
Length Girder 66.89 ft = 74.89 ft- 8.00 ft
Volume, Girder 220 ft^3 = 3.3 ft^2* 66.89 ft
Weight, Steel 155.0 PCF
Quantity 2047670 LB = 60* 155 PCF* 220.18 ft^3
End Block
# of Girders 60 = 5* 12
Width, Top Flange 19.0 in
Depth, Top Flange 41.000 in
Area, Top Flange 5.41 ft^2 = 19.0 in* 41.0 in/ 144
Length Girder 8.00 ft
Volume, Girder 43 ft^3 = 5.4 ft^2* 8.00 ft
Weight, Steel 155.0 PCF
Quantity 402483 LB = 60* 155 PCF* 43.28 ft^3
Haunch
# of Girders 60 = 5* 12
Width, Top Flange 19.0 in
Depth, Haunch 1.000 in
Area, Haunch 0.13 ft^2 = 19.0 in* 1.0 in/ 144
Length Girder 74.89 ft
Volume, Girder 10 ft^3 = 0.1 ft^2* 74.89 ft
Weight, Steel 155.0 PCF
Quantity 91896 LB = 60* 155 PCF* 9.88 ft^3
Diaphragms
# of Diaph 55 = 5* 11
Thickness 8.0 in
Depth 27.0 in = 3.000 in+ 6.000 in+ 21.0 in- 3 in
Area, Top Flange 1.50 ft^2 = 8.0 in* 27.0 in/ 144
Estimated Length 7.08 ft = 8.66 ft- 19.0 in
Volume, Girder 11 ft^3 = 1.5 ft^2* 7.08 ft
Weight, Steel 155.0 PCF
Quantity 90493 LB = 55* 155 PCF* 10.62 ft^3
Quantity 2632543 LB = (2047670.13+ 402483.33+ 91896.27+ 90492.88) 6976 PLF
EXISTING BRIDGE - Substructure weight
Substructure
Abutment 1 & 6
Stem
Height, Stem 11.00 ft
Thickness, Stem 2.50 ft
Length, Stem 105.38 ft
Volume, Stem 2898 ft^3 = 11.00 ft* 2.50 ft* 105.38 ft
Remove Girders
Height, Backwall 5.41 ft^2 = 12.11 ft- 8.11 ft
Length Girder 1.75 ft
# Girders 12
Volume, Backwall -114 ft^3 = -12* 1.75 ft* 5.41 ft^2
Wingwall
Height 1 3.00 ft
Height 2 11.00 ft
Thickness, Wingwall 1.00 ft
Length, Wingwall 14.00 ft
#, Wingwall 2
Volume, Wingwall 196 ft^3 = 0.5* (11.0 ft+ 3.0 ft)* 14.0 ft* 1.00 ft* 2 Quantity 2980 ft^3 = 2898 ft^3+ -114 ft^3+ 196 ft^3
# Abut 2
Weight, Concrete 150.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 894063 LB = 2980 ft^3* 150 PCF* 2
Bent 2-5
Footing
Length, Footing 103.33 ft
Thickness, Footing 2.00 ft
Width, Footing 6.00 ft
Volume, Footing 1240 ft^3 = 103.33 ft* 2.00 ft* 6.00 ft Stem
Height, Stem 11.00 ft
Thickness, Stem 1.25 ft
Length, Stem 99.33 ft
Volume, Stem 1366 ft^3 = 11.00 ft* 1.25 ft* 99.33 ft
Bent Cap Transition
Height, Transition 2.00 ft
Width 1 1.23 ft
Width 2 2.50 ft
Length, Transition 99.33 ft
Volume, Transition 371 ft^3 = 0.5* (1.2 ft+ 2.5 ft)* 2.0 ft 99.33 ft Bent Cap Transition
Height, Cap 1.00 ft
Thickness, Cap 2.50 ft
Length, Cap 99.33 ft
Volume, Cap 248 ft^3 = 1.00 ft* 2.50 ft* 99.33 ft
Quantity 3225 ft^3 = 1240 ft^3+ 1366 ft^3+ 371 ft^3+ 248 ft^3+ # Bents 4
Weight, Concrete 150.0 PCF *Incl 5 PCF for Bar reinforcing Steel Quantity 1934744 LB = 3225 ft^3* 150 PCF* 4
TOTAL WEIGHT 2828807 kip

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX C – LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS
DATE:

CATALOG NUMBER LOGIC:

PROJECT: TYPE:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. AND ITS RECEIPT OR POSSESSION DOES NOT CONVEY ANY RIGHTS TO REPRODUCE, DISCLOSE ITS CONTENTS, OR TO MANUFACTURE, USE OR SELL ANYTHING IT MAY DESCRIBE. REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE OR USE WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

MADE IN THE USA 559.438.5800 | [email protected] | BKLIGHTING.COM

MINI DRIVESTAR SURFACE (REMOTE TRANSFORMER)

CATALOG NUMBER LOGIC
Example: MD - LED - e71 - S - SAP - 1 - A

MATERIAL
(Blank) - Aluminum B - Brass S - Stainless Steel
SERIES
MD - Mini-Micro DriveStar
SOURCE
LED - Solid State System with Integral Non-Dimming Driver*

LED TYPE
e70 - 3W LED/2700K e85 – 3W LED/2700K 90 CRI
e71 - 3W LED/3000K e86 – 3W LED/3000K 90 CRI
e72 - 3W LED/4000K e87 – 3W LED/3500K 80 CRI
e73 - 3W LED/Amber

INSTALLATION
S - Surface
FINISH (See page 2 for full-color swatches)
Standard Finishes (BZP, BZW, BLP, BLW, WHP, WHW, SAP, VER) Premium Finish (ABP, AMG, AQW, BCM, BGE, BPP, CAP, CMG, CRM, HUG, NBP, OCP, RMG, SDS, SMG,

TXF, WCP, WIR)
Also available in RAL Finishes
Brass Finishes (MAC, POL, MIT)
Stainless Steel Finishes (MAC, POL)

OPTICAL OPENINGS
1 - Single
2 - 2 @ 180°
4 - 4 @ 90°

FACEPLATE STYLE
A - Solid
B - Round Accent

MOD OPTION
25 - 25 Ft Leads
IP66 RATED
12/06/2022 SKU-729
*Use with remote 12VAC Magnetic Transformer.

SUB001068
DATE: PROJECT: TYPE:

MADE IN THE USA 559.438.5800 | [email protected] | BKLIGHTING.COM Satin Black
(BLP)
Satin Bronze
(BZP)
Satin White
(WHP)
Black Wrinkle
(BLW)
Bronze Wrinkle
(BZW)
White Wrinkle
(WHW)
Verde
(VER)
Satin Aluminum
(SAP)
Cascade Mtn.

Granite (CMG)
Black Chrome
(BCM)
Weathered Iron
(WIR)
Rocky Mtn.

Granite (RMG)
Beige (BGE)
Clear Anodized
Powder (CAP)
Sierra Mtn
Granite (SMG)
Weathered
Copper (WCP)
Antique Brass
Powder (ABP)
Cream
(CRM)
Aleutian Mtn
Granite (AMG)
Old Copper
(OCP)
Brown Patina
Powder (BPP)
Antique White
(AQW)
Textured Forest
(TXF)
Hunter Green
(HUG)
Sonoran Desert
Sandstone (SDS)
Natural Brass
Powder (NBP)

STANDARD FINISHES PREMIUM FINISHES
Click Here to view larger, full-color swatches of all
available finishes on our website.
7/8"
(22mm)
5/8"
(16mm)
8 1/2"
(216mm)
2" Dia
(51mm)
1 5/8" Dia
(41mm)
6" Dia
Stability
Flange
(152mm)
STYLE ‘A’
STYLE ‘B’
1 OPENING 2 OPENINGS 4 OPENINGS
1 OPENING 2 OPENINGS 4 OPENINGS
2" Dia
1 1/2" O.C.
(51mm)
(38mm)

SURFACE MOUNT
MINI DRIVESTAR SURFACE (REMOTE TRANSFORMER) IP66 RATED
12/06/2022 SKU-729
SUB001068
DATE: PROJECT: TYPE:

Accessories (Configure separately)

SPECIFICATIONS
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. AND ITS RECEIPT OR POSSESSION DOES NOT CONVEY ANY RIGHTS TO REPRODUCE, DISCLOSE ITS CONTENTS, OR TO MANUFACTURE, USE OR SELL ANYTHING IT MAY DESCRIBE. REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE OR USE WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

MADE IN THE USA 559.438.5800 | [email protected] | BKLIGHTING.COM

ELECTRICAL

PHYSICAL
WATTAGE 3W LED
WIRING Teflon® coated, 18AWG, 600V, 250° C rated and certified to UL 1659 standard. Anti-Siphon Valve (ASV™) prevents wicking” through conductor insulation. Provided with 5’ fixture leads.

TRANSFORMER For use with 12VAC remote magnetic transformers only. B-K Lighting cannot guarantee performance with third party manufacturers’ transformers.

MATERIALS Furnished in copper-free aluminum (6061-T6), brass (360) or stainless steel (304).

BODY Unibody design with enclosed, water-proof wireway and integral heat sink is fully machined from solid billet.

HOUSING Fixture provided with 1-5/8” dia., 80 PVC housing for direct burial into soil or concrete. 6” dia., molded stability flange projects into substrate to simplify installation and reinforce housing stability.

FACEPLATE Machined from solid, copper-free aluminum, brass or stainless steel. Available with one, two, or four optical openings. Countersunk holes provide for flush hardware mounting.

LENS Shock-resistant, tempered, frosted acrylic lens is factory adhered to faceplate and provides hermetically sealed optical compartment.

LED Integrated solid state system and modular design with electrical quick disconnects permit field upgrade and maintenance. High power, forward throw source complies with ANSI C78.377 binning requirements and exceeds ENERGY STAR® lumen maintenance requirements. LM-80 certified components. Integral, non-dim. constant current driver. 12VAC/VDC input. 50/60Hz. Proprietary input control scheme achieves power factor correction and eliminates inrush current. Output, over-voltage, open-circuit, and short circuit protected.

Inrush current limited to 250mA.

INSTALLATION Features integral concrete pour collar (CPC). Top edge of collar to be installed flush with finished grade.

Collar material and finish to match faceplate. Two (2) threaded holes for faceplate installation. Faceplate style A is suitable for walk-over and drive-over applications up to 35,000 lbs. GVW. Fully machined copperfree aluminum installation collar. Provided with hard-coat (Type III) black anodize finish for maximum corrosion resistance.

HARDWARE Tamper-resistant, stainless steel hardware. Faceplate screws are black oxide treated for additional corrosion resistance.

FINISH StarGuard, our 15-stage chromate-free process cleans and conversion coats aluminum components prior to application of Class ‘A’ TGIC polyester powder coating and is RoHS compliant.

WARRANTY 5-year limited warranty.

CERTIFICATION & LISTING UL Listed. Certified to CAN/CSA/ANSI Standards. ADA compliant. IP68 Rated. Made in the USA with sustainable processes.

MINI DRIVESTAR SURFACE (REMOTE TRANSFORMER) IP66 RATED
12/06/2022 SKU-729
SUB001068
DATE: PROJECT: TYPE:

MADE IN THE USA 559.438.5800 | [email protected] | BKLIGHTING.COM LM79 DATA L70 DATA OPTICAL DATA
BK No. CCT
(Typ.)
CRI
(Typ.)
Input Watts
(Typ.)
Minimum Rated Life (hrs.)
70% of initial lumens (L70)
No. of
Windows
Beam
Type Angle Delivered Lumens
e70 2700K 80 3 50,000
1 Radial 360°h x 270°v 14
2 Radial 360°h x 270°v 23
4 Radial 360°h x 270°v 40
e71 3000K 80 3 50,000
1 Radial 360°h x 270°v 15
2 Radial 360°h x 270°v 24
4 Radial 360°h x 270°v 42
e72 4000K 80 3 50,000
1 Radial 360°h x 270°v 17
2 Radial 360°h x 270°v 27
4 Radial 360°h x 270°v 48
e73 Amber (590nm) ~ 3 50,000 ~ Radial 360°h x 270°v ~
DRIVER
DATA
Input Volts InRush Current Operating Current Operation Ambient Temperature 12VAC/DC 50/60Hz <250mA (non-dimmed) 500mA -22°F-194°F (-30°C - 90°C) LAMP & DRIVER DATA (e70, e71, e72, e73)
MINI-MICRO™ DRIVESTAR™
Surface Mount Installation

RELEASED
11-21-16

REFERENCE NUMBER
INS001068.1
40429 Brickyard Drive • Madera, CA 93636 • USA
559.438.5800 • FAX 559.438.5900 B-K LIGHTING www.bklighting.com • [email protected] THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. AND ITS RECEIPT OR POSSESSION DOES NOT CONVEY ANY RIGHTS TO REPRODUCE, DISCLOSE ITS CONTENTS, OR TO MANUFACTURE, USE OR SELL ANYTHING IT MAY DESCRIBE. REPRODUCTION, DISCLOSURE OR USE WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF B-K LIGHTING, INC. IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

NEEDED
FOR
INSTALLATION:
5/64” Allen Wrench
Waterproof Wire Connectors
Warning Flammable Hot Surface
er Pipe™
Power Pipe™
Surface mount collar
Stability Flange
Faceplate
Body
Temporary cover
18 gauge wire
By Others
· Suitable for wet locations · Not suitable for through wiring

IMPORTANT LISTINGS AND CERTIFICATIONS
Proper soil preparation is recommended before installation. See the DIG-IT guide at www.bklighting.com/dig-it for more information.

Please refer to the low voltage
design guide at www.bklighting.
com/lvguide before installation for
proper wire selection.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION - READ, FOLLOW, AND SAVE THESE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS • Product must be installed by a qualified person in a manner consistent with its intended use and in compliance with the National Electrical Code, Canadian Electrical Code, and all Local and Provincial Codes.
• Follow product label information and instructions.
• Qualified Personnel with appropriate personal protective equipment must perform all servicing of this product.
• Before wiring to power supply and during servicing, turn off and lock out power at fuse or circuit breaker before service. • The use of accessory equipment not recommended by the manufacturer or installed contrary to instructions may cause an unsafe condition. The use of damaged components may cause an unsafe condition and void product warranty.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION - READ, FOLLOW, AND SAVE ALL SAFETY

AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
• Do not block light emanating from product in whole or part, as this may cause an unsafe condition.
• Never operate the fixture with missing or damaged lens.

Lens must be cleaned on regular basis.
• Entire fixture may become extremely hot. Do not touch hot lens or fixture body.
• Replace LED assembly only with correct wattage and type of power supply appropriate for LED assembly.
• All gaskets, o-rings and sealing surfaces must be kept clean during installation and service; failure to do this may cause an unsafe condition and void product warranty.

INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING TO

A RISK OF FIRE, OR INJURY TO

PERSONS IMPORTANT SAFETY

INSTRUCTIONS
Lighted fixture is HOT!
WARNING - To reduce the risk of
FIRE OR INJURY TO PERSONS:

Turn off/unplug and allow to cool before replacing LED.

Fixture gets HOT quickly! Contact only switch/plug when turning on. Do not touch hot lens, guard, or enclosure.

Keep fixture away from materials that may burn.

Do not operate the luminaire fitting with a missing or
damaged shield. Do not touch the source at any time. Use a soft cloth or gloves. Oil from skin may cause damage.

SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS

RELEASED
11-21-16

REFERENCE NUMBER
INS001068.1
40429 Brickyard Drive • Madera, CA 93636 • USA
559.438.5800 • FAX 559.438.5900 B-K LIGHTING www.bklighting.com • [email protected] PROJECT:

TYPE:

MINI-MICRO ™ DRIVESTAR™
Surface Mount Installation

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION LISTED ON REVERSE

READ, FOLLOW, AND SAVE ALL SAFETY AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS Finished grade
8 3/4”
2 window
faceplate
shown
Finished grade
LINE 12V

FIXTURE
COM
Remote
Transformer
COM
2 window
flt
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete

1. Excavate trench according to designed lighting
plan 10” deep and 10” wide suitable for the 8-3/4”
fixture housing.

2. Supply low voltage wiring necessary for
installation (By Others).

3. Slide stability flange onto Power Pipe™.

NOTE: Product is supplied with a stability
flange to anchor fixture and aid in installation.

Do not cut Power Pipe™. Doing so will
prevent sufficient wire makeup for fixture
service and will void warranty.

Finished grade
8 3/4”
2 window
faceplate
shown
Finished grade
LINE 12V

FIXTURE
COM
Remote
Transformer
COM
2 win
facep
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete

4. Loop minimum of 6” of low voltage wire inside
Power Pipe™ to allow for fixture service.

NOTE: Do not remove temporary cover!

5. Place Power Pipe™ in hole.

NOTE: Leave sufficient wire length in the
Power Pipe™ for future service.
nd
Finished grade
8 3/4”
2 window
faceplate
shown
LINE 12V

FIXTURE
COM
Remote
Transformer
COM
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete

6. Align holes to final installation orientation. Point arrows on temporary cover toward surface to be
illuminated.

NOTE: Do not remove temporary cover until
installation of faceplate.

Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete

7. Back fill with pea gravel or sand prior to pour.

NOTE: The Power Pipe™ must be flush to
finished grade. Use stability flange to aid in
installation of Power Pipe™ as shown.

Soil Prep
Conduit
trench
B. Dig hole 10” wide and 10” deep.

Conduit
Trench
Excavated
for Housing
A. Determine Soil Type by referencing DIG-IT Guide. C. Prep soil according to DIG-IT Guide.

Prep soil according to DIG-IT Guide.

Fixture Installation

RELEASED
11-21-16

REFERENCE NUMBER
INS001068.1
40429 Brickyard Drive • Madera, CA 93636 • USA
559.438.5800 • FAX 559.438.5900 B-K LIGHTING www.bklighting.com • [email protected]

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION LISTED ON REVERSE

READ, FOLLOW, AND SAVE ALL SAFETY AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS PROJECT:

TYPE:

MINI-MICRO ™ DRIVESTAR™
Surface Mount Installation

2. Pull the heat sink from the body to expose
the LED board and Driver components. Utilize
quick disconnects to change modular LED
and driver components. Re-install the heat
sink into body.

1. Loosen #8-32 set screw on faceplate assembly
using a 5/64” Allen wrench and remove.

Loosen set screw on collar and remove.

COMPONENT REPLACEMENT - IF REQUIRED
THIS PRODUCT IS AVAILABLE WITH A FACTORY INSTALLED LED.

3. Replace faceplate assembly and tighten set
screw. Re-Install fixture.

Finished grade
8 3/4”
2 window
faceplate
shown
Finished grade
8 3/4”
LINE 12V

FIXTURE
COM
Remote
Transformer
COM
2 window
faceplate
shown
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Faceplate
BKSSL
Power Pipe™
Collar
Stability Flange
Body
Pow
Surface
2 window
faceplate
shown
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand
Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand
Power Pipe™
r
Power Pipe™
Surface mount collar
Stability Flange
Temporary cover

FIXTURE
2 window
faceplate
shown
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete

10. Mount faceplate to collar using (2) #6-32x5/8”
flat head screws (provided) with a 5/64” Allen
wrench.
2 window
faceplate
shown
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
e
r sand
e
r sand

8. Remove temporary cover and pull out low
voltage wire.

Finished grade
8 3/4”
LINE 12V

WIRING DIAGRAM
2 window
faceplate
shown
Finished grade
8 3/4”
LINE 12V

FIXTURE
COM
Remote
Transformer
COM
2 w
fa
sh
Optical opening on
faceplate will align with
alignment arrows on
temporary cover
face
a
Rebar or stake (by others) Stability flange
Pea gravel or sand Finished grade
Concrete
Finished grade
Concrete
orary cover and pull out low
Wire nuts must
clear opening 6”
min.

Finished grade
Wire nuts must
clear opening
6”
min.

9. Access low voltage wire inside Power Pipe™. Make
two watertight connections using waterproof
wire connectors (By Others). Wire nuts must clear
opening. Insert fixture and low voltage wire into
Power Pipe™.

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX D – DECK DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
Design Parameters (AASHTO 6th Edition / Caltrans Reference) Design Parameters
Flow from high point toward Abutment 1
Flow Parameters
Coefficient of runoff C 1.0 For bridge decks (BDA 17-1) Rainfall Intensity i 3.38 in/hr 10 yr interval, 5 minute intensity Manning's coefficient n 0.016 For PCC with broom finish or rough textured asphalt (BDA 17-10) Geometry (AASHTO 6th Edition / Caltrans Reference)
Geometry | Deck Width
The deck width tributary to the drains is:

Tributary Deck Width W 48.00 ft
Geometry | Longitudinal Slope
The longitudinal slope at the point under analysis is determined:

Station, P.O.I. 381+15.00
Curve Parameters | B.V.C. & E.V.C.

Begin Vertical Curve B.V.C. 380+25.00 Station at Begin Vertical Curve Elevation El.B.V.C. 181.00 ft Elevation at Begin Vertical Curve Grade (In) G 2.51% Slope at Begin Vertical Curve
End Vertical Curve E.V.C. 385+25.00 Station at End Vertical Curve Elevation El.E.V.C. 180.02 ft Elevation at End Vertical Curve Grade (Out) G' -2.90% Slope at End Vertical Curve
The slope of the tangent to the curve at any point, S, is given by:
(HDM Fig. 204.4)
where:

Length, curve L 500.00 ft = ######## 380+25.00
Distance from B.V.C. D 90.00 ft = ######## 380+25.00
G - G' = 5.41% = 2.51%- -2.90%
Longitudinal Slope S 1.54% = 2.51%- 90.00 ft* 5.41%/ 500.00 ft = −
−

, = grade rates
= length of curve
= distance from B.V.C. to the point of interest
Geometry | High Point Station
The distance from the B.V.C. to the high point is given by:
(HDM Fig. 204.4)
where:

Length, curve L 500.00 ft
Grade (in) G 2.51%
Grade (out) G' -2.90%
Dist. to High Point D o 231.98 ft = 500.00 ft* 2.51%/ (2.51%- -2.90%) High point station 382+56.98 = ######## 231.98 ft
If the profile is not a vertical curve (the segment is tangent instead), then the high point station is specified:

High point station
High Point Station 382+56.98
Geometry | Cross Slope
Cross slope (1) Sx1 0.00% Zero slope for S x1 indicates that the gutter is not a V-shape Cross slope (2) Sx2 1.50%
If Sx1 is 0, then Sx = Sx2 . Otherwise, the equivalent cross slope, Sx , is given by:

Cross Slope Sx 1.50%
Manning's equation for triangular flow in gutter sections includes a term for the cross slope. The cross slope is defined and computed:
=

=

−

, = grade rates
= length of curve
Flow Computations (AASHTO 6th Edition / Caltrans Reference) Flow from high point toward Abutment 1
The tributary flow rate between the points of interest (P.O.I.), Q t, is given by:
(BDA 17-1)
where:

Coefficient of runoff C 1.0 See Design Parameters
Rainfall intensity i 3.38 in/hr
Tributary deck width W 48.00 ft See Geometry
Tributary length D 20.00 ft
Flow rate (tributary) Q t 0.08 cfs = 1.0* 3.38 in/hr* 48.00 ft* 20.00 ft/ ### Flow rate, upstream Q b,up 0.25 cfs
Flow Rate Q 0.32 cfs = 0.08 cfs+ 0.25 cfs
Flow Width
(BDA 17-3)
where:

Manning's coefficient n 0.016 See Design Parameters
Qn = 0.005 = 0.32 cfs* 0.016
Coefficient K 0.56
Cross slope S x 1.50% See Geometry
S x
5/3 = 0.001 = 0.02^ (5/ 3)
Longitudinal slope S 1.54% See Geometry
S
1/2 = 0.124 = 0.015^ (1/ 2)
Width, Flow T 5.20 ft = [0.005/ (0.56* 0.001* 0.124)]^ 0.4 The upstream flow (flow bypassing previous P.O.I.) is added to the flow rate computed above to determine the total flow rate at the point under consideration:

A modified version of Manning's equation can be re-arranged to determine the flow width, T, at the point under consideration:
= =
=

// ∴ =

/
/

= coefficient of runoff
= average rainfall intensity
= width tributary to the point under design
= length tributary to the point under design
= flow rate

= Manning's coefficient
= 0.56

= cross slope
width of flow
FLOW CHARTS (AASHTO 6th Edition / Caltrans Reference)
CONCLUSION:

Flow from high point toward Abutment 1
Per CT Highway Design Manual table 831.3, Design water spread for the 10-year event may encroach into 1/2 of the outerlane. The flow widths shown here conform to that requirement, so addition of deck drains is not required.
0 ft
1 ft
2 ft
3 ft
4 ft
5 ft
6 ft
7 ft
0 ft 20 ft 40 ft 60 ft 80 ft 100 ft 120 ft 140 ft 160 ft 180 ft Flow Width
Distance from High Point
Flow Width Flow Width (Gross)
0 ft
1 ft
2 ft
3 ft
4 ft
5 ft
6 ft
7 ft
380+80 381+00 381+20 381+40 381+60 381+80 382+00 382+20 382+40 382+60 382+80 Flow Width
Baseline Station
Flow Width Flow Width (Gross)
Flow from high point toward Abutment 6
0 ft
1 ft
2 ft
3 ft
4 ft
5 ft
6 ft
7 ft
8 ft
0 ft 50 ft 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 250 ft
Flow Width
Distance from High Point
Flow Width Flow Width (Gross)
0 ft
1 ft
2 ft
3 ft
4 ft
5 ft
6 ft
7 ft
8 ft
382+00 382+50 383+00 383+50 384+00 384+50 385+00
Flow Width
Baseline Station
Flow Width Flow Width (Gross)
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Pico Rivera, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.9995°, Longitude: -118.0794°
Elevation: 180 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 1.72
(1.43‑2.06)

2.21 (1.85‑2.66)

2.86 (2.38‑3.47)

3.38 (2.80‑4.14)

4.12 (3.28‑5.21)

4.67 (3.64‑6.05)

5.24 (3.98‑6.97)

5.82 (4.30‑7.98)

6.62 (4.67‑9.48)

7.24 (4.92‑10.8)
10-min 1.23
(1.03‑1.48)

1.58 (1.32‑1.91)

2.05 (1.70‑2.48)

2.43 (2.00‑2.97)

2.95 (2.35‑3.73)

3.35 (2.61‑4.34)

3.76 (2.85‑4.99)

4.18 (3.08‑5.72)

4.75 (3.35‑6.79)

5.19 (3.53‑7.70)
15-min 0.988
(0.828‑1.20)

1.28 (1.06‑1.54)

1.65 (1.38‑2.00)

1.96 (1.62‑2.40)

2.38 (1.89‑3.01)

2.70 (2.10‑3.50)

3.03 (2.30‑4.02)

3.37 (2.48‑4.61)

3.83 (2.70‑5.48)

4.18 (2.84‑6.21)
30-min 0.674
(0.564‑0.812)

0.868
(0.724‑1.05)

1.12 (0.936‑1.36)

1.33 (1.10‑1.63)

1.62 (1.29‑2.05)

1.84 (1.43‑2.38)

2.06 (1.56‑2.74)

2.29 (1.69‑3.14)

2.60 (1.84‑3.73)

2.85 (1.94‑4.22)
60-min 0.481
(0.403‑0.581)

0.620
(0.518‑0.749)

0.803
(0.669‑0.973)

0.952
(0.786‑1.16)

1.16 (0.921‑1.46)

1.31 (1.02‑1.70)

1.47 (1.12‑1.96)

1.64 (1.21‑2.24)

1.86 (1.31‑2.66)

2.03 (1.38‑3.02)
2-hr 0.347
(0.290‑0.419)

0.447
(0.373‑0.540)

0.577
(0.481‑0.700)

0.684
(0.565‑0.837)

0.830
(0.661‑1.05)

0.942
(0.734‑1.22)

1.06 (0.802‑1.40)

1.17 (0.865‑1.61)

1.33 (0.940‑1.91)

1.46 (0.991‑2.16)
3-hr 0.288
(0.241‑0.347)

0.370
(0.309‑0.448)

0.479
(0.399‑0.580)

0.567
(0.468‑0.693)

0.687
(0.548‑0.871)

0.780
(0.608‑1.01)

0.874
(0.664‑1.16)

0.971
(0.716‑1.33)

1.10 (0.778‑1.58)

1.20 (0.820‑1.79)
6-hr 0.202
(0.169‑0.244)

0.260
(0.217‑0.314)

0.336
(0.280‑0.408)

0.399
(0.329‑0.487)

0.483
(0.385‑0.613)

0.549
(0.428‑0.711)

0.615
(0.467‑0.818)

0.683
(0.504‑0.936)

0.776
(0.548‑1.11)

0.848
(0.577‑1.26)
12-hr 0.131
(0.110‑0.159)

0.170
(0.142‑0.206)

0.221
(0.184‑0.268)

0.263
(0.217‑0.322)

0.320
(0.255‑0.406)

0.364
(0.284‑0.472)

0.408
(0.310‑0.543)

0.455
(0.335‑0.623)

0.517
(0.365‑0.741)

0.566
(0.385‑0.840)
24-hr 0.088
(0.078‑0.102)

0.115
(0.102‑0.133)

0.151
(0.133‑0.175)

0.181
(0.158‑0.211)

0.221
(0.187‑0.267)

0.253
(0.209‑0.311)

0.285
(0.230‑0.359)

0.318
(0.250‑0.412)

0.364
(0.275‑0.491)

0.399
(0.292‑0.558)
2-day 0.053
(0.046‑0.061)

0.070
(0.062‑0.081)

0.093
(0.082‑0.108)

0.112
(0.098‑0.131)

0.139
(0.117‑0.168)

0.160
(0.132‑0.196)

0.181
(0.146‑0.228)

0.203
(0.160‑0.263)

0.234
(0.177‑0.316)

0.258
(0.188‑0.360)
3-day 0.039
(0.034‑0.045)

0.053
(0.047‑0.061)

0.071
(0.063‑0.083)

0.087
(0.076‑0.101)

0.108
(0.091‑0.131)

0.125
(0.103‑0.154)

0.142
(0.115‑0.179)

0.160
(0.126‑0.208)

0.185
(0.140‑0.250)

0.205
(0.149‑0.286)
4-day 0.031
(0.028‑0.036)

0.043
(0.038‑0.050)

0.059
(0.052‑0.068)

0.072
(0.063‑0.084)

0.090
(0.076‑0.109)

0.104
(0.087‑0.129)

0.119
(0.096‑0.150)

0.135
(0.106‑0.175)

0.156
(0.118‑0.211)

0.173
(0.127‑0.242)
7-day 0.020
(0.018‑0.024)

0.028
(0.025‑0.033)

0.039
(0.034‑0.045)

0.048
(0.042‑0.056)

0.061
(0.051‑0.073)

0.071
(0.059‑0.087)

0.082
(0.066‑0.103)

0.093
(0.073‑0.121)

0.109
(0.082‑0.147)

0.122
(0.089‑0.171)
10-day 0.015
(0.014‑0.018)

0.021
(0.019‑0.025)

0.029
(0.026‑0.034)

0.036
(0.032‑0.043)

0.047
(0.039‑0.056)

0.055
(0.045‑0.067)

0.063
(0.051‑0.080)

0.073
(0.057‑0.094)

0.086
(0.065‑0.116)

0.097
(0.070‑0.135)
20-day 0.009
(0.008‑0.010)

0.012
(0.011‑0.014)

0.017
(0.015‑0.020)

0.022
(0.019‑0.025)

0.028
(0.024‑0.034)

0.033
(0.027‑0.041)

0.039
(0.031‑0.049)

0.045
(0.035‑0.058)

0.054
(0.040‑0.073)

0.061
(0.045‑0.086)
30-day 0.007
(0.006‑0.008)

0.010
(0.008‑0.011)

0.014
(0.012‑0.016)

0.017
(0.015‑0.020)

0.022
(0.019‑0.027)

0.026
(0.022‑0.032)

0.031
(0.025‑0.039)

0.036
(0.028‑0.047)

0.043
(0.033‑0.058)

0.049
(0.036‑0.069)
45-day 0.005
(0.005‑0.006)

0.007
(0.006‑0.009)

0.010
(0.009‑0.012)

0.013
(0.011‑0.015)

0.017
(0.014‑0.021)

0.020
(0.017‑0.025)

0.024
(0.019‑0.030)

0.028
(0.022‑0.036)

0.034
(0.025‑0.046)

0.039
(0.028‑0.054)
60-day 0.004
(0.004‑0.005)

0.006
(0.006‑0.007)

0.009
(0.008‑0.010)

0.011
(0.010‑0.013)

0.015
(0.012‑0.018)

0.017
(0.014‑0.022)

0.020
(0.016‑0.026)

0.024
(0.019‑0.031)

0.029
(0.022‑0.039)

0.033
(0.024‑0.046)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
10/25/24, 2:24 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.9995&lon=-118.0794&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4 Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
10/25/24, 2:24 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.9995&lon=-118.0794&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 2/4 Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
10/25/24, 2:24 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.9995&lon=-118.0794&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 3/4 Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
10/25/24, 2:24 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.9995&lon=-118.0794&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 4/4

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX E – WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

PROPOSED CATCH WHITTIER BOULEVARD
BASIN

SAN GABRIEL RIVER EXISTING TRAIL

EXTEND CLASS I BIKE

TRAIL TO CONFORM

TO EXISTING TRAIL

EXISTING TRAIL

ENTRY POINT

RECONSTRUCT BIKE
TRAIL. CONFORM TO

EXISTING PATH

EXISTING PATH TO
REMAIN

PROPOSED
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREA (14,865 SF)
DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME = 3,500 CF

PROPOSED

INFILTRATION BASIN
2' THICK GRAVEL BOTTOM

1.5' PONDING DEPTH

0.5' FREEBOARD

PROPOSED STORM

DRAIN OUTLET LINE

PROPOSED STORM

DRAIN INLET LINE

CENTRIFUGAL STORMWATER

PRE-TREATMENT DEVICE PROPOSED BRIDGE LOCATION

OVERFLOW BASIN OUTLET
APN: 6375-025-800

SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF
E PAR 5 MAP 148 2
APN: 6375-025-902

LA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT APN: 6375-025-801 SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP 148 2 APN: 6376-025-900

LA COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL DISTRICT
APN: 6376-027-030
OWNER: TSAI,

GEORGE C

PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BRIDGE

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT CONCEPT EXHIBIT
AUGUST 2024
4675 MACARTHUR COURT SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 8710 SF (PROPOSED BRIDGE AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS)
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREA = 14,865 SF
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM AREA = 1,529 SF

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX F – CONCEPTUAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS EXHIBIT
APN: 8130-025-806
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 10 MAP 872-19-133A APN: 8130-025-019 OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 8130-025-011
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 6375-027-807
SO CALIF EDISON CO SBE PAR 1 MAP 148-19-534A
APN: 6375-027-804

SO CALIF EDISON CO
SBE PAR 7 MAP 148 APN: 6375-027-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6 MAP 148 2 APN: 6375-027-031

GARCIA & GALLARZO
PROPERTY APN: 6375-027-801 SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6 MAP 148 2 APN: 6375-025-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP 148 2 APN: 6375-025-902LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT APN: 8174-001-910

LA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT APN: 6375-025-801 SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP 148 2 APN: 6376-025-900

LA COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL DISTRICT
APN: 8174-001-800
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 8 MAP 872-19-133A APN: 6376-027-030 OWNER: TSAI, GEORGE C
4675 MACARTHUR COURT
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX G – LIMITS OF IMPACT DUE TO STRUCTURAL WORK
WHITTIER BLVD.

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ALTERNATE 3: RESTRIPE BRIDGE
EXHIBIT: LIMITS OF IMPACT FOR STRUCTURAL WORK ALTERNATIVE 1: BIKEWAY ON EXISTING BRIDGE ALTERNATE 1: SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
WHITTIER BLVD.

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
EXHIBIT: LIMITS OF IMPACT FOR STRUCTURAL WORK ALTERNATIVES 2 and 3: SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX H – PRELIMINARY GEOTECHINCAL DESIGN REPORT

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE HISTORIC WHITTIER

BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

PICO RIVERA REGIONAL BIKEWAY
Prepared for:

BKF Engineers
&
City of Pico Rivera
Prepared by:

October 23, 2024

DIAZ Y OURMAN
& ASSOCIATES
1616 EAST 17th STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705-8509 TEL. (714) 245-2920 FAX (714) 245-2950 1616 EAST 17th STREET, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705-8509 (714) 245-2920 Fax: (714) 245-2950 DRAFT
DYA Project Number: 2023-009
Prepared by:
_________________________
Britton Howay, EIT
Project I Engineer
_________________________
Chaitanya Kukutla, PE
Senior Engineer 92648

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER
Ambi Thurai PE, GE
Principal Engineer
DRAFT
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2 BRIDGE LOCATION .................................................................................................................. 2 DATA REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 4 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ........................................ 4 GEOLOGY, SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONDITION, AND GROUNDWATER ......................... 6 SITE GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 6 SURFACE CONDITION ............................................................................................................. 6 SUBSURFACE CONDITION ..................................................................................................... 6 GROUNDWATER ....................................................................................................................... 8 SCOUR POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................................ 9 CORROSION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................... 9 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 10 GROUND RUPTURE ................................................................................................................ 10 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION ................................................................................................. 10 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ........................................... 11 SLOPE STABILITY .................................................................................................................. 11 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 12 PROPOSED BRIDGE ................................................................................................................ 12 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 14 EMBANKMENT FILLS AND SETTLEMENT .............................................................................. 15 ADDITIONAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................. 16 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – PRELIMINARY IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILE AND ENGINEERING PARAMETERS ......... 7 Table 2 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATION ..................................................... 10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – VICINITY MAP .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 – SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 5 DRAFT
ii

LIST OF APPENDICES
- CONCEPT PLANS
- AS-BUILTS AND EXISTING DATA
- CIDH PILE RESISTANCE
- L-PILE SOIL PARAMETERS
DRAFT
1 INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR) provides preliminary geotechnical information and recommendations required for a feasibility study for a bikeway and pedestrian bridge in the City of Pico Rivera (Project). This geotechnical study focuses on the various alternatives for the Historic Whittier Boulevard bridge. Diaz Yourman & Associates (DYA) performed a geotechnical investigation in 2018 and provided a draft foundation report (DYA, 2019) for the pedestrian bridge that was originally planned to be located approximately 1,000 feet south of Whittier Boulevard. However, the initially proposed bridge location was rejected due to conflicts with Southern California Edison facilities. As a result, the City of Pico Rivera has requested a feasibility study for a bridge at an alternate location, approximately 150 feet south of Whittier Boulevard. The preliminary geotechnical information provided in this report is based on a review of existing geotechnical data. No site-specific geotechnical explorations and/or geotechnical laboratory testing were performed for this feasibility study. BKF Engineers authorized this work through a written contract dated June 19, 2023.

DRAFT
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is currently considering three alternatives. A summary of these three alternatives is as follows:
• Alternative 1 – Modifications to the existing Whittier bridge. • Alternative 2 – New prefabricated steel truss pedestrian bridge. • Alternative 3 – New concrete pedestrian bridge.

This PGDR will mainly address preliminary foundation recommendations for Alternatives 2 and 3. For the preliminary design, it is assumed the new bridge in Alternatives 2 and 3 will be supported by a deep foundation. At this time, bridge foundation loads are unknown.

The proposed bridge is located in the City of Pico Rivera that spans across the San Gabriel River; see Figure 1.

Unless otherwise specified, elevations referenced in this PGDR are presumed to be based on North American Vertical Datum 88.

BRIDGE LOCATION
The proposed bridge location is shown in the Project Concept Plans in Attachment A. The latitude and longitude for the proposed bridge site are 33.995203° North and 118.07251° West, respectively.

DRAFT
3 Figure 1 – VICINITY MAP
DRAFT
4 DATA REVIEW
Log-of-Test-Borings (LOTBs) prepared by Taber Consultants (1996) for the existing bridge were reviewed and primarily used to develop the preliminary geotechnical recommendations provided in this PGDR. A complete list of documents reviewed is presented in the Bibliography, Section 14.

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
At this time, no geotechnical explorations and geotechnical laboratory testing were performed for this Project.

Based on review of the LOTBs prepared in 1996, two borings (were drilled to approximately 80 feet below ground surface (bgs). It is understood that these two borings were initiated as hollow stem auger borings and eventually converted to rotary wash borings once groundwater was encountered. Each boring was drilled on Whittier Boulevard near the existing bridge abutments. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed every 5 feet in each of the borings. Only dry density, moisture content, and unconfined compressive strength laboratory test results were available from the LOTBs; no other laboratory test results were available. The approximate locations of the boring locations are shown on Figure 2.

DRAFT
Figure 2 - Site Plan Legend • Log of Test Boring (Boring Depth)
Proposed Whittier Pedestrian Bridge
6 GEOLOGY, SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONDITION, AND GROUNDWATER

SITE GEOLOGY
The Project site lies within the Los Angeles basin portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is bounded to the north by the Transverse Ranges and to the east by the Colorado Desert. It extends south into lower California and across the California/Mexico border; to the west, it includes the Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente island group as well as the surrounding continental shelf (CGS, 2002). The Los Angeles basin is a depositional basin described as an alluviated lowland that is bounded to the north by the Santa Monica Mountains and the Repetto, Elysian, and Puente Hills; to the east and southeast by the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills; and on the west by a series of low hills and mesas (Yerkes, 1965). The basin has seen discontinuous periods of deposition since the late Cretaceous and continuous subsidence since the middle Miocene resulting in depositional strata up to a maximum thickness of approximately 32,000 feet. The Project site within the San Gabriel River is mapped as Quaternary active wash (Qwa) deposits. These deposits are described as clayey sand, silty sand, silt, and clay. Beyond the limits of the wash, the Project site is described as Quaternary younger alluvium (Qyfa). The alluvium deposits are described as alternating beds of clay, silt, and very fine to very coarse sand and gravel that were deposited during periods of inundation from the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers (CGS, 1998).

SURFACE CONDITION
The surface at the proposed bridge support locations appears to be relatively flat. The San Gabriel River Mid Trail is present on top of the levees where the proposed bridge abutment would connect. The existing trail appears to be paved with asphalt concrete and the pavement thickness is not known at this time.

Approximately 120 feet to the east of the proposed bridge are railroad tracks. The surface conditions within the San Gabriel River consist of various shrubbery and vegetation that accumulate throughout the year due to fluctuating water levels. The slopes of the levees are covered by a rip rap rock protection system and appears to be sloped 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V). There is an existing stormwater outlet on the east side of the San Gabriel River and north of the proposed bridge.

SUBSURFACE CONDITION
Based on the review of LOTBs, loose to medium dense coarse- to fine-grained sands with varying amounts of silts and gravels were encountered down to an approximate depth of 20 feet bgs (elevation 162 feet). Some of these soils within the upper 10 feet were indicated as fill in the LOTBs. Between DRAFT
7 approximately 20 and 80 feet bgs (elevation 100 feet), the soils transitioned to very dense coarse- to finegrained sands with silts and gravels, as well as hard silts and clays with various amounts sands and gravels.

Table 1 – PRELIMINARY IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILE AND ENGINEERING PARAMETERS SOIL
TYPE

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH (feet)
TOTAL
UNIT
WEIGHT1
(pcf)
SHEAR STRENGTH2
Effective Total
Top Bottom
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(psf)
Loose to
medium
dense sands
with silts
and gravels
182 162 0 - 20 105 28 50 --
Very dense
sands with
silts and
gravels &
hard silts
and clays
with sands
and gravels
162 100 20 - 82 120 to 130 38 50 2,0003
Notes:

1. Based on LOTB dry density and moisture content results.

2. Based on SPT N correlations and available unconfined compressive strength test results.

3. Undrained shear strength was used for analysis of hard clay soil layers. • For seismic analysis, the layer that is expected to liquefy at 17 feet bgs will have a residual shear strength of 350 psf.
• Soil profile based on LOTBs B-1 and B-2.
• Design groundwater level assumed to be at elevation 165 feet DRAFT
(17 feet bgs)
8 GROUNDWATER
The historically high groundwater level at the proposed bridge site is 10 feet bgs (CGS, 1998).

Based on review of the LOTBs, groundwater was encountered in 1996 at an approximate depth of 20 feet, corresponding to an elevation of 160 feet.

The Department of Water Resources Water Data Library was reviewed for groundwater monitoring well data. Approximately 500 feet west of the existing bridge, there is a groundwater monitoring well with groundwater data between 1997 and 1998. The groundwater elevation measured from the monitoring well ranged from 152 to 167 feet, corresponding to between approximately 13 to 30 feet bgs (California Department of Water Resources, 2024).

Based on available groundwater information, we judged the preliminary design groundwater elevation is at the bottom channel elevation or approximately 165 feet, corresponding to approximately 17 feet bgs.

DRAFT
9 SCOUR POTENTIAL
Scour is a design concern because the proposed bridge piers are located within an active streambed. For preliminary design we assumed a scour depth of 10 feet from the channel bottom elevation of approximately 165 feet. In the future phases of design, the potential scour depth should be evaluated and incorporated into the foundation design.

CORROSION POTENTIAL
Corrosion data is not available from the data reviewed. For preliminary design purposes, the site should be considered non-corrosive due to the predominant presence of cohesionless soils. Corrosion testing will be performed during the future phases of design to evaluate the corrosion potential at the Project site.

DRAFT
10 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

GROUND RUPTURE
The Project site is in a seismically active area but is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 1999), and no part of the proposed bridge will fall within 1,000 feet of any Holocene or young age faults. As a result, fault rupture studies are not required per Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-10 (Caltrans, 2013), and we therefore consider the possibility of surface rupture at the proposed bridge site to be low.

SEISMIC GROUND MOTION
The shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet (30 meters) of soils (VS30) was based on SPT correlations.

For preliminary design, the average VS30 was estimated to be 912 feet/second (approximately 278 meters per second (m/s)). The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the mean magnitude (M) earthquake were estimated based on the results of the Caltrans Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) V3.1.0 online tool (Caltrans, 2024) for 5% damping in 50 years. The PGA and the mean moment magnitude (M) are 0.65g and 6.8, respectively. A summary of the preliminary design spectral accelerations is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATION
Period(s) Sa2014 (g)
PGA 0.65

0.10 1.1

0.20 1.49

0.30 1.64

0.50 1.53

0.75 1.34

1.0 1.18

2.0 0.59

3.0 0.37

4.0 0.25

5.0 0.19
Note:
• Based on Caltrans ARS Online Tool V3.1.0 (2024).

DRAFT
11 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT
The Project site is located within a California liquefaction zone (CGS, 1998). Therefore, a preliminary liquefaction analysis was performed using the following site-specific parameters:
• A PGA of 0.65g and corresponding Earthquake Magnitude of 6.8. • Design groundwater level at river bottom at an approximate elevation of 165 feet. • Procedures outlined in Youd et al. (2001).

Based on the preliminary analysis, a loose silty sand layer at approximately 15 feet bgs (elevation of 165 feet), in LOTB B-2, is estimated to liquefy approximately 2 inches. Since the liquefiable layer is at the bottom of the channel, we judge that lateral spreading is not significant at the proposed bridge site.

However, during the future phases of design, the liquefaction potential should be reevaluated based on site-specific geotechnical explorations.

SLOPE STABILITY
The proposed bridge is not located within a landslide potential zone designated on a CGS seismic hazard map (CGS, 1998). Based on the level topography of the site, the landslide potential is very low.

However, the stability of the levee slopes during static and seismic conditions needs to be addressed during the future phases of design.

DRAFT
12 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed bridge’s loads were not available at the time of preparing this report. However, based on anticipated bridge foundation loads, and scour and liquefaction potentials, shallow foundations are not anticipated to be feasible to support the proposed bridge. We judge that the proposed bridge structure can be supported on deep pile foundations similar to those used for the existing bridge.

Typically, both driven and/or CIDH piles are used to support bridges. However, driven piles were not considered for preliminary design because of the presence of very dense sandy soils with gravels at shallow depths (less than 30 feet), which could pose difficulty in driving piles to specified tip elevations.

In addition, since the Project site is near a residential area and by active railroad tracks, noises and vibrations produced by driven piles may be restricted during construction. Alternately, to minimize driving and noise/vibration concerns, CIDH concrete piles can be considered for foundation support.

However, since deep CIDH concrete piles are typically designed by considering only side friction, per typical Caltrans practice, increased pile length will be required to offset impacts of liquefaction-induced downdrag.

For the preliminary design, we evaluated preliminary axial pile resistance for drilled 24-inch diameter and 60-inch diameter CIDH piles. The 24-inch and 60-inch diameter CIDH piles were considered for the abutment and pier supports, respectively.

PROPOSED BRIDGE
Preliminary pile axial resistances for drilled 24- and 60-inch diameter CIDH concrete piles were evaluated using SHAFT (Ensoft, 2017) software. The CIDH concrete pile axial resistances can be derived from skin friction and end bearing; however, the following three primary issues hamper the use of end bearing resistance in the CIDH concrete pile: soil relaxation beneath the CIDH shaft tip due to excavation, uncertainty of debris remaining after clean out, and magnitude of displacement required to mobilize full end bearing. Typical Caltrans practice is to ignore the end bearing resistance when the wet drilling method is used in CIDH pile construction. Because wet drilling is likely required for the CIDH installation and considering the above-noted CIDH pile issues, the end bearing capacity of the CIDH pile was ignored in the preliminary pile axial capacity analysis.

The results for a single isolated pile analysis are summarized in graphical format in Appendix C. A geotechnical axial compressions resistance factor for skin friction of 0.7 and 1.0 was applied for the static (strength limit state) and seismic (extreme limit state) analysis, respectively (Caltrans, 2019b). For piles in DRAFT
13 a group, a group reduction factor based on California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 10.8.3.6.3-1 should be applied by the structural engineer evaluating the preliminary pile lengths. For seismic analysis, a downdrag load due to liquefaction was incorporated.

Pile lateral resistance was not performed at this time; however, soil parameters for lateral pile analysis are provided in Appendix D. A p-multiplier for pile group effects should be applied in accordance with California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 10.7.2.4-1. Based on experience on similar projects, we judge that the lateral loading on the proposed bridge is not the controlling loading for the pile foundations.

DRAFT
14 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Location of existing underground utilities and stormwater drainage facilities should be considered prior to construction of the proposed bridge.

During construction of the proposed bridge foundations, groundwater is likely to be encountered, and therefore, temporary casing and/or wet drilling methods will be required when CIDH concrete piles are constructed. The drill cuttings from the CIDH piles should be appropriately handled and disposed of.

Hard drilling conditions may be encountered when drilling through dense to very dense sandy and gravelly layers. Drilling and casing techniques such as the oscillator casing method can also be considered to help reduce construction-induced CIDH structural anomalies, though the lack of adequate available space may pose a problem. Construction methods will have significant effects on load-carrying capacity of the installed CIDH piles. Significant quality control and care must be exercised during construction including removal of temporary casing to ensure that the construction methods do not compromise the pile integrity. Prior to the placement of concrete for the CIDH pile, bottom clean out should be performed in the presence of the design geotechnical professional. When wet construction methods are used, the integrity of concrete should be checked using downhole gamma-gamma and/or cross-hole sonic testing; PVC inspection pipes should be installed within the CIDH piles to facilitate the testing. In general, a minimum of 24 hours should be allowed between placing concrete in one pile shaft and drilling any nearby shafts or performing any other excavations within three pile diameters. A sitespecific geotechnical exploration will help refine our recommendations. Selection of the CIDH pile construction contractor should be based on a proven performance record (installation of CIDH piles up to 5 feet in diameter) on similar projects.

DRAFT
15 EMBANKMENT FILLS AND SETTLEMENT
The fill heights of approach embankments are unknown. However, we judge minor sliver fills will need to be placed to construct the proposed bridge. Settlement from the new fills is not expected to be significant.

A settlement delay period will not likely be required prior to installation of the new foundations.

In addition, any sliver fills placed against existing slopes should be benched and keyed in as needed.

Minor retaining walls may be required to retain the new fills. These walls could likely be supported on non-standard Caltrans retaining walls, because the PGA being greater than 0.6g.

DRAFT
16 ADDITIONAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
Additional field exploration will be required to provide subsurface data at proposed bridge support locations for final design. It is typical practice to perform a boring and/or seismic cone penetration test (sCPT) at each support location. The borings and sCPTs should be sufficiently deep to provide information about subsurface conditions that will be influenced by the proposed improvements. We estimate that explorations to a depth of at least 120 feet should be considered for estimation purposes. In addition, a seismic survey should be performed to determine the VS30. Infiltration testing should also be performed for any proposed infiltration basins. To perform the field explorations an encroachment permit will have to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers. The field exploration and laboratory testing should incorporate SPT and collect soils samples for index properties, shear strength, and corrosion.

DRAFT
17 LIMITATIONS
This PGDR is intended for the use of BKF Engineers for the feasibility study for the Whittier Boulevard bikeway and pedestrian bridge in the City of Pico Rivera. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on data review and preliminary engineering analyses. In addition, soils and subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings referenced in this report are presumed to be representative of the Project site. However, subsurface conditions and characteristics of soils between exploratory borings can vary. The findings reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. The recommendations presented in this report should be confirmed or modified based on appropriate sitespecific investigation during the final design phase. DYA should be notified of any pertinent changes in the Project plans or if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes or variations may require a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report.

The data, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are applicable to the specific design elements and location that is the subject of this report. They have no applicability to any other design elements or to any other locations, and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of DYA.

Services performed by DYA have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended.

DRAFT
18 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO, 2017, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, November 2017.

California Department of Water Resources, 2024, Groundwater Level Data, CDWR website, http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw.

California Geological Survey, 1998, Seismic Hazard Report for the Whittier 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California.

California Geological Survey, 1999, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Whittier Quadrangle, March 25, 1999.

California Geological Survey, 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36, 2002.

Caltrans, 2013, Memo to Designers 20-10: Fault Rupture, January 2013.

Caltrans, 2019a, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2.0, April 2019.

Caltrans, 2019b, California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications – 8th Edition, August 19, 2019.

Caltrans, 2024, ARS Online Tool, Version 3.1.0, https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/, Accessed in September 2024.

Diaz Yourman & Associates, 2019, Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Gilman Springs Road Improvements, Riverside County, California, July 18, 2019.

Ensoft, 2017, Computer Program SHAFT, Version 2017.

Taber Consultants, 1996, Log of Test Borings Sheet 2, Bridge Across San Gabriel River, Earthquake Retrofit Project No. 227, October 7, 1996.

Yerkes, et al., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California – an Introduction, Geology of the Eastern Los Angeles Basin of Southern California, Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.

Youd et al. (2001), Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, April 1, 2001.

DRAFT
-

CONCEPT PLANS
DRAFT

WHITTIER BOULEVARD GREGG ROAD
4'
9'
12'
14'
10'
6'
APN: 8130-025-011
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 6375-027-807
SO CALIF EDISON CO SBE PAR 1 MAP
148-19-534A
APN: 6375-027-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6
MAP 148 2
APN: 6375-027-031
GARCIA & GALLARZO PROPERTY APN: 6375-027-801
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6 MAP 148 2
APN: 6375-025-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP
148 2
APN: 6375-025-902
LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT APN: 6375-025-801
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP 148 2
APN: 6376-025-900 LA

COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

DISTRICT
APN: 6375-027-001 OWNER: TRAMMELL, MARC
APN: 6376-027-030
OWNER: TSAI, GEORGE C
(96')
18'
12'
11'

JOIN EXISTING MEDIAN

JOIN EXISTING MEDIAN MODIFY EXISTING MEDIAN

LIMITS OF BRIDGE

PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POSTS

EX C&G

EXISTING TRAIL

CONFORM TO EXIST

C&G, SIDEWALK

EXISTING DRIVEWAY

EXISTING PARK

PROPOSED CATCH BASIN

EXISTING PATH TO REMAIN

PROPOSED

INFILTRATION BASIN

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN

OUTLET LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN

INLET LINE

CENTRIFUGAL STORMWATER

PRE-TREATMENT DEVICE

OVERFLOW BASIN OUTLET

PROPOSED C&G

CONFORM TO

EXISTING TRAIL

RECONSTRUCT AND

WIDEN SIDEWALK

EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN
LANE
14'
LANE
12'
MEDIAN

VARIES LANE
12'
LANE
14'
SW
5'
EDGE
OF

BARRIER
EDGE
OF

BARRIER
SW
5'
(96')
SHLDR
14'
SHLDR
10'
LANE
14'
LANE
12'
MEDIAN

VARIES LANE
12'
LANE
12'
EDGE
OF

BARRIER
EDGE
OF

BARRIER
4' 6'

FLEXIBLE
POST
SW
5'
(96') SHLDR
4'
SHLDR
10' 6'
14'
4'
2'

WIDEN RAISED SIDWALK

ON EXISTING BRIDGE

ESPERANZA

AVENUE WHITTIER BOULEVARD
4'
9'
12'
14'
10'
6'
APN: 8130-025-018
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 8130-025-806
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 10 MAP
872-19-133A APN: 8130-025-019
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 8174-001-910

LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
APN: 8174-001-800
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 8 MAP
872-19-133A
APN: 8174-001-908

WHITTIER CITY
(96')
18'
12'
11'

EX R/W

LIMITS OF BRIDGE

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY

CONFORM TO EXISTING TRAIL

EX C&G

EXISTING TRAIL

CONFORM TO EXIST C&G,

SIDEWALK

PIO PICO HISTORIC STATE PARK

PROPOSED C&G

PIO PICO

STATE PARK

PIO PICO BIKEWAY

EXTENSION

RECONSTRUCT AND

WIDEN SIDEWALK

EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCH LINE SEE BELOW LEFT

EXISTING CROSS SECTION

PROPOSED CROSS SECTION

PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BRIDGE CONCEPT EXHIBIT
ALTERNATIVE 3 - MODIFICATION TO EXISTING WHITTIER BRIDGE 4675 MACARTHUR COURT
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460
www.bkf.com
20 scale 1" = 40'
0 20
feet
1 PROPOSED CATCH WHITTIER BOULEVARD
BASIN

SAN GABRIEL RIVER

ESPERANZA
AVENUE

EXISTING SAN GABRIEL

RIVER MID TRAIL

PROPOSED BRIDGE LOCATION
(ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3)

EXISTING TRAIL

CONFORM TO

EXISTING TRAIL

EXTEND CLASS I BIKE

TRAIL TO CONFORM

TO EXISTING TRAIL

EXISTING TRAIL

ENTRY POINT

RECONSTRUCT BIKE
TRAIL. CONFORM TO

EXISTING PATH

EXISTING PATH TO
REMAIN

PROPOSED

INFILTRATION BASIN

PROPOSED STORM

DRAIN OUTLET LINE

PROPOSED STORM

DRAIN INLET LINE

CENTRIFUGAL STORMWATER

PRE-TREATMENT DEVICE PROPOSED BRIDGE LOCATION

OVERFLOW BASIN OUTLET
APN: 8130-025-018
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 8130-025-806
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 10 MAP
APN: 8130-025-019 872-19-133A
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 8130-025-011
OWNER: ALAKOZAE
APN: 6375-027-807
SO CALIF EDISON CO SBE PAR 1 MAP
148-19-534A
APN: 6375-027-804
SO CALIF EDISON CO SBE PAR 7
MAP 148
APN: 6375-027-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6
MAP 148 2
APN: 6375-027-031
GARCIA & GALLARZO PROPERTY APN: 6375-027-801 SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 6 MAP 148 2 APN: 6375-025-800
SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP
148 2
APN: 6375-025-902

LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
APN: 8174-001-910

LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
APN: 6375-025-801 SO CALIF EDISON CO B OF E PAR 5 MAP 148 2 APN: 6376-025-900 LA

COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

DISTRICT
APN: 8174-001-800
SOU PAC CO B OF E PAR 8 MAP
872-19-133A
APN: 6376-027-030
OWNER: TSAI, GEORGE C
APN: 8174-001-908

WHITTIER CITY PIO PICO

STATE PARK

PIO PICO BIKEWAY

EXTENSION
4675 MACARTHUR COURT
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460
www.bkf.com
40 scale 1" = 40'
0 40
feet

PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BRIDGE CONCEPT EXHIBIT
ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3 - NEW PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION DATE APP. Y CALL FORE BE U IG D O BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS REVISIONS PICO RIVERA - WHITTIER BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CITY OF PICO RIVERA BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE 1: PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE VISUALIZATIONS

PEDESTRIAN VIEW FROM BRIDGE DECK

AERIAL VIEW

EXISTING WHITTIER BLVD BRIDGE TO THE NORTH PEDESTRIAN VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST, TYPICAL SECTION

SPAN CONFIGURATION
RECOMMENDED: STANDARD "OFF-THE-SHELF" END SPANS,
CUSTOM, ARCHED CENTER SPAN. ·· OTHER CONFIGURATIONS AND TRUSS TYPES ARE POSSIBLE. MATERIAL FINISH RECOMMENDED: WEATHERING STEEL

WEATHERING STEEL OXIDIZES TO FORM A STABLE
PROTECTIVE PATINA. DOES NOT CORRODE LIKE RUST. ·· OTHER FINISHES ARE POSSIBLE (PAINT, GALVANIC COATING)

PREFABRICATED STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ·ECONOMICAL

LOW IMPACT CONSTRUCTION
MINIMAL FALSEWORK IN CHANNEL ·

ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
SPANS CONSTRUCTED OFFSITE IN 40'-50' LENGTHS,
DELIVERED, BOLTED TOGETHER ONSITE AND ERECTED ·

AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND HIGHLY
CUSTOMIZEABLE · 1 2 3123

LOW EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE DEPTH RESULTS IN
MINIMAL MODIFICATIONS TO CHANNEL BANKS ·
EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE DEPTH: THE DISTANCE FROM
THE WALKING SURFACE TO THE BOTTOM OF TRUSS.

A HIGHER DEPTH REQUIRES ELEVATED, RETAINED
APPROACHES REV 10/31/2023 2

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION DATE APP. Y CALL FORE

PRECAST CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

TYPICAL SECTION
-1%± 4'-1"±
SHOWN:

1. TOP AND RIGHT: CAST-IN-PLACE BOX GIRDER

BRIDGE SPORTS PARK DRIVE POC IN
WOODLAND, CA.

2. LEFT: CAST-IN-PLACE ARCHED DOUBLE T-BEAM

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, LOCATION
SHOWN:

PRECAST DOUBLE I-BEAM BRIDGE, SURFSIDE INN , POC IN DANA POINT CA. UNKNOWN.

MORE ECONOMICAL THAN CAST-IN-PLACE

LESS AESTHETICALLY CUSTOMIZEABLE
THAN CAST-IN-PLACE ·

2. REV 10/31/2023 3
-

EXISTING DATA
DRAFT

Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones
Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.

Firestone Blvd
Mar Vista St
State Rte 72
Esperanza Ave
State Rte 72
Noroco Rd
Silverbow Ave
Desman Rd
Cresson St
San Diego
Frwy Ave
E Washington
Blvd
Shoemaker Ave
Davenrich St
Marlette
Dr
Vanessa
Cir
Gem St
Hayford
St
San
Ardo Cir
Nova St
Terrazas Way
Firestone Blvd
Lorca Rd
Jersey Ave
Winodee
Dr
Liggett St
Vista del
Rosa St
Capiz Ct
Belfair St
Summer
Ave
Lilac Ct
Sierra Vista Cir
Cypress
Ct
Loretta
Dr
Bellman Ave
Roma St
Ola Ave
Sabine
Dr
Willake
St
Vicki Dr
Tropico
Ave
E Fairton St
Severy St
Valencia Ave
Shoemaker Ave
Adoree
St
Pioche Dr
Battle St
Stillwater Ln
Ashgrove Dr
Lindell Ave
Greenvale Ave
Galicia
Dr
Cheddar
St
Goodbee St
Elmhurst Dr
Choisser St
Duffield Ave
Lindell Ave
Saranac
Pl
Carfax
Ave
Maple St
Montana Calva
Cir
Hasty Ave
Stapleton Ct
Allard St
Townley
Dr
Whiterock Dr
Van
Ruiten St
Gladhill
Rd
Spangler Pl
Araby Ave
Fairvilla
Dr
Spry St
Benfield Ave
Orange Dr
Islandia Ave
Alburtis
Ave
Allegan
St
Hoback
St
Crestbrook St
Cobos St
Disney
Ave
Pinegrove St
Elkhurst
St
Suva St
170th St
Pinegrove St W
GerdaCt
Badlona
Dr
Maurice
Cir
Sideview Dr
Menton Way
Call St
Havenwood Pl
Bell
Ranch Dr
Menton Way
Nita Ct
Davenrich St
Goodbee
St
E Freeway Dr
Amsdell
Ave
Dinsdale St
Farmland Ave
Danby Ave
Ramona Dr
Reis St
Marbel Ave
Wampler
St
Citronell Ave
Swift Dr
Pluton St
Bright Ave
Spry St
McLaren St
Wheelock Cir
Branscomb St
Clarinda Ave
Calpella St
Clarinda Ave
High St
Cheddar St
Parise Dr
Glenbrier Ave
Felt Dr
Houghton
Ave
Sal Ave
Ben Alder
Ave
Santa Fe Springs Rd
Eric Ave
Viewcrest Dr
Hoover Ave
Ladana Ct
Lisburn Pl
Woodruff Pl
Charloma Dr
Anson Ave
Milna Ave
Quinn St
Edmaru Ave
Raintree Dr
Crewe St
Nava St
Graff Dr
Belshire Ave
Cabell Ave
Holston
Ave
Marbring Ct
Short St
Crestoak Dr
Carne St
Acheson Dr
Hercules St
Citicourt Ln
Cheshire St
Aranza Dr
Belfair St
Russell St
Maynard Rd
Vicki Dr
Belmart Ave
Arroyo Dr
Petula Pl
Hurchel Ct
Barbata
Rd
Christine Dr
Parise Dr
Eagle Dr
Double
S Alclad
Ave
Valna Dr
Stewart and Gray Rd
Acacia Ln
Hayden Ave
AdventAve
FinngalPl
Nanry St
Gridley Rd
Gary Ave
Victor Ct
CerecitaDr
Alburtis Ave
Bartley Ave
Nawa Ln
Michelle
Cir
RomeroDr
la Condesa Dr
Bluefield
Ave
Knott Ave
Mapledale St
Tarryton Ave
Cherry
Crest Cir
Loch Avon
Dr
Dolly Ave
Firebird Ave
Libra Dr
Baker Pl
Garcia Ct
Surrey Ln
S
Balfour St
Cerecita Dr
Muir Ct
Hargitt Way
Gaylin St
2nd St
Dicky St
Hasty Ave
Pico Vista
Rd
Norino Dr
Excello St
Songfest Dr
Washington Blvd
Sideview Dr
Adenmoor
Ave
Waddell St
Ocana Ave
Cord Ave
Lakeland
Rd
Quail Ln
Longworth
Ave
Shire Pl
Eglise Ave
Carla Pl
Bennington
Ave
OcasoAve
Tolly St
Hacienda Dr
Delmont Pl
Dante St
Granada Dr
Cullen St
Ramsey Dr
PennantPl
Maxine St
Paul Dr
Crestoak Dr
Cedardale Dr
Midfield Ln
Bradwell Ave
Joslin St
Light St
Loch Avon
Dr
Tacuba
Dr
E Busby Dr
Mystic St
Janine Dr
Hickock Ln
Walburg St
Van Ruiten St
Mary St
Jackson Pl
Townley Dr
Popular Pl
Cottage Ln
Shade Ln
Izetta Ave
Birch Way
la Serna Dr
Gregory Ave
Gateway Dr
Rolaine St
Grove Ter
Armelina Dr
Rideout Pl
Beethoven Pl
Quinn St
Caffel Way
Dartmouth Dr
Abingdon
St
ZeusAve
Allingham
Ave
Angell St
SprySt
Wellsford Pl
Eddystone
St
Monica Cir
Clearbrook Ln
Solo St
Haney St
Guilford Way
Brink Ave
Walnut St
Call St
Stamy Rd
la Serna Dr
Worsham
Canyon Dr
Los Nietos Rd
Eagan Dr
Snell St
Patterson Pl
Edderton
Ave
Madris Ave
Elmore Ave
Apple St
Pinetree Ln
Gallatin Rd
Ivy Ct
Lorene St
Los Nietos Rd
la Serna Dr
Stanford Way
BuellSt
Angell St
Cobos St
Betty Pl
Pacific Ave
Alexander Pl
Holmes Pl
Evaro Dr
Western Ave
IndustryPl
Sandycreek
Ln
Ruoff Ave
Lemoran Ave
Cate Dr
Primrose Ln
Marbel Ave
Bluecrest Ln
Lindale St
ArmleyAve
Radius Pl
PlutonSt
Corral Pl
Buhman
Ave
Hart St
Sunnymead Dr
Fairacres Dr
Ocaso Ave
Haviland Ave
Seaaca St
Ratliffe St
Firwood Ct
Branscomb St
Ranchill Dr
Brimley St
Angell St
Indian Ln
Terrace Pl
Anola St
S Bramblebush
Ave
Resin Pl
la Vela Ave
Greyford St
Monaco Way
S 5th St
Littchen St
Hartford Ln
Kalnor Ave
Ocaso Ave
Oberon St
TerradellSt
McGee Dr
Midcrest Dr
Belcher St
Park St
Sunnyslope St
Outrigger Cir
Tabor Pl
Lomand Dr
Loch
Lucas Pl
Horst Ave
Hasty Ave
Maza St
Hayford St
Albee St
Tremont Ln
Mayport Ave
Palm Dr
Otto St
Jalisco Rd
Secura Way
BonaVista Ln
Peppercreek
Ln
Paiz Pl
S Homage
Ave
Palm Pl
Lukay St
Park Dr
Hart Pl
Lindley Ave
Senwood St
Clanton Cir
Savage Ave
Ridgeview Ln
Obert Ave
Quail Ln
HydroDr
Shellyfield Rd
Park St
Carron Dr
Lockport Pl
Birchbark
Ave
Stardel Sl
t
CyclopsSt
Sibley St
CapriDr
TolmanDr
Ramsey Dr
Quinn St
Call St
Jessica Cir
University Dr
Prather Ave
San Feliciano Dr
Reeve Rd
Hornell St
Hamden St
Suva St
Eastridge Dr
Briar St
Ann St
Popular Pl
Val el y View Ave
Corby Ave
Juarez Ave
Evergreen
Ln
Klinedale Ave
Quinn St
Joshua Ln
Gerber Ave
Bacon Rd
Corley Dr
Sandoval St
Garnish Dr
Arroyo Dr
Palm Pl
Sargent Ave
Anthony Dr
University Dr
FloresSt
Lariat Ln
Firestone
Blvd
Lindell Ave
Terradell St
Blandwood Rd
TurlockRd
Songfest
Dr
Elgrace St
Stanleaf Dr
Zeus Ave
Anola St
Hamden St
Marbel Ave
Crider Ave
Arroyo Dr
Sunnyside Pl
Bryn Mawr Way
Bigby St
Parkmead St
Derwin Dr
Excelsior Dr
Dalmatian
Ave
Marsha Ln
Mystic St
Mersin Pl
Raviller Dr
Calmosa Ave
Rivera Rd
SycamoreDr
Brookpark Rd
Delavan Ave
Jackson St
Vista Verde Dr
CanobieAve
Dumont Ave
Magnolia Ter
Brisbane Ter
Corby Ave
Canelo Rd
Tana Ave
Woodruff Ave
Abisko Dr
Montevideo
Dr
Sargent Ave
Frampton Ct
Millou Ln
Paramount Ln
Terrace Pl
Mansa Dr
Buell St
Calmada Ave
Dicky St
Regent
View St
Cord Ave
Spinnaker St
Bright Ave
Stowers Ave
Corr ni g ot nAve
Chevron Way
Otto St
Anola St
Forest Pl
CottonwoodPl
Muller St
Arlee Ave
Ocaso Ave
Dicky St
Quinn St
Virginia Ave
Morrill Ave
Bainbrook
Ave
Ben Avon St
AdenmoorAve
Thornlake Ave
Tola St
Corby Ave
Anola St
Borson St
Cresson St
Palm St
Arrington Ave
Fairacres Dr
Mesquite Ln
Univerity Dr
Leeds St
Hoback St
Dorland St
E Fallcreek Ln
Bella
Courte
Hayford St
Allard St
Aldrich St
Spring Park
Ln
Silver Berry
Cir
Foxbury
Way
Emmens Way
Bechard
Ave
HenshawAve
Hawes St
Florpark St
Decliff Dr
Stanford Way
LasPasadas
Dr
Villa Dr
Reichling Ln
14th St
See Dr
Allis Dr
Manzanar Ave
Coolhurst Dr
DuchessDr
Baldwin Pl
BernardinoAve
Michaels Ave
Oval Dr
Pacific Pl
Ramsey Dr
Anola St
CitrusGrove
Pl
Glendola Dr
Mellissa St
TemplarDr
Corby Ave
Iowa St
Bluford Ave
Valley View Ave
Suva St
Hart Dr
Park St
Westbrook Ln
E Pine Creek Rd
Everest St
Clarinda Ave
Alderpoint Dr
Borate St
Bombardier
Ave
Hegel St
Pantheon St
Carpintero Ave
Hart Pl
Ripon Ave
Cheddar St
Palm Pl
Potter St
Kenney St
BalfourSt
Gagely Dr
Raviller Dr
Esmond Ave
Ramhurst Dr
BaysideDr
Bentley Pl
Elkhurst St
ChereDr
Cresson St
Dicky St
Garetal St
Court Ave
Randsburg St
Park St
Arlee Ave
Fernview St
Tedford Dr
Arrey Ave
Toerge Dr
Olive St
Otto St
Alondra Blvd
Camellia Ln
Bascom St
Palm St
N Cir
Priscilla St
Saragosa St
Bascom St
RamonaDr
S 10th St
Mystic St
CrossdaleAve
Koontz Ave
Bellder Dr
MidvaleDr
Mohall Ln
Priscilla St
Newlin Ave
Close St
Rusty Fig Cir
Birchdale Ave
RanchoLn
Shubin Ln
Vanport Ave
Lanning Dr
Wheatland Ave
Alclad Ave
Gulford
AldrichSt
Mystic St
Civic Center Plz
Holbrook St
Via Linda Ave
Belcourt Dr
Sideview Dr
Carmel Ct
Cobb el stone Ct
Bennington Ct
Yvette Way
la Mirada Blvd
Lubec St
Nava St
Lubec St
Caulfield Ave
Myra Ln
Lowemont St
Holly Oak Cir
Dawn Ln
Cheshire St
Elden Ave
la Mirada Blvd
Lemoran Ave
Berwyn Rd
Shenandoah Ave
E Pacific Pl St
Ave Socorro
Avalon Rd
FonsecaAve
Ceylon Ave
Kilgarry Ave
Vale Dr
Coolhurst Dr
Saragosa St
9th St
Nan St
Danby Ave
S 5th St
Barranca Ln
Orange Dr
Fostoria St CordAve
Danby Ave
Merit Ln
Tanfield Dr
Bonnie Vale Pl
Gettysburg Dr
Arrambide Dr
Raviller Dr
Regatta Ave
BaylaSt
Coldbrook Ave
Idalene St
Crestaloma Ln
Demanda Rd
Equitable Rd
Getty Dr
Songfest Dr
Duchess Dr
OntiverosPl
Newville Ave
Victoria Ave
AlburtisAve
Beasor Dr
Wakeman St
Altamar Pl
Rufus Ave
ChristineDr
Close St
AdelWay
Homepark Dr
Cornishcrest Rd
BuschPl
Reis St
Woodridge Ave
Crestbrook St
Flallon Ave
Firestone Blvd
Otto St
Kalnor Ave
Busiris Ave
Fernview St
Dinsdale St
Juno Ave
Ratliffe St
Thornlake Ave
Fostoria St
Tulare St
Eastridge Dr
Woodridge Ave
Banfield Dr
Harvest Ave
Dulin Ave
Franklin St
Erin Ln
Bartley Ave
Maulsby Dr
BeverlyBlvd
Ben Nevis Ave
la Villa St
2nd St
Tedford Dr
Verbeck St
Ringwood Ave
Hebe Ave
Kellam Ln
Carnell St
Dune St
Stage Rd
Parque St
Pantheon St
Aldrich St
Dacosta St
Oak St
Cornuta Ave
Potter St
Brookmead Dr
W
B
ashington
lvd
Placid Dr BroadfieldDr
Roma St
Sideview Dr
Armley Ave
W ci kerDr
Terracedale Dr
RussellSt
DittmarDr
Rimgate Dr
Leibacher
Ave
Friends Ave
Bonavista Ave
Harvest
Ave
Greenbush Ave
Birchbark Ave
Alondra Blvd
DescendingDr
Terradell St
Bartley Ave
Hayford St
Mapes Ave
Valdina Dr
Putnam St
Paddison Ave
Cresson
St
Osmond Ave
Hasty Ave
Windsor Ct
Adoree St
Woodcrest Dr
San Bruno Dr
Bexley Dr
Fulton Wel sl Ave
Valley View Ave
Mystic St
Mohall Ln
170th St
Kristin Dr
Brink Ave
Carmenita Rd
Helmer Dr
Lemoran Ave
Winchell St
Hunter Ave
HawkstoneAve
Mystic St
Chadsey Dr
Racimo Dr
Tom White Way
Townley Dr
Dorland St
Dace St
Greenvale Ave
Industry Ave
la Serna Dr
Court Ave
Klinedale
Ave
View
Park Ave
Caulfield Ave
Midway Ave
SibleySt
Talc St
Ferina St
Gagely Dr
Orange St
Homage Ave
Ateway Dr
Cantrell
Ave
Danbridge St
Corley Dr
Nova St
Redwood Dr
Mills Ave
3rd St
Stealth Pkwy
Carron Dr
Zeus Ave
Dalwood Ave
Fleming Ave
Hoover Ave
Jalon Rd
ShadeLn
Gandesa Rd
York Ave
Lindell Ave
Hoover Ave
Caldwell Ave
Warvale St
Davista Dr
Walthall Ave
Dalewood Ave
BroadedSt
Somerset St
Milliken Ave
BlufordAve
Cullen St
Rhea Vista Dr
9th St
Arroyo Ln
Alfred Ave
Toerge Dr
Domart Ave
Freestone Ave
Pires Ave
Jenkins St
Perkins St
Haviland Ave
Rose Hedge Dr
Cameo Ave
Cornishcrest Rd
Trumball St
Elmcroft Ave
MaryknollAve
Wimbley Ct
Trojan St
Mills Ave
Park St
Rimgate Dr
Boer Ave
Arkansas St
Trumball St
Lochinvar St
Borda Rd
Park St
Summer Ave
Damian St
Greenvale Ave
Pilgrim Way
Sycamore Dr
Bach Way
Milton Ave
Harvest Ave
Putnam St
Union Ave
Hillview Ct
Harvest Ave
Corby Ave
Oak Creek Ln
Lindhall Way
Rush St
Esther St
Walnut St
Elmer Ave
Blackford Ave
Lochinvar St
Orr and Day Rd
Haviland Ave
Crider Ave
Theis Ave
Bluford Ave
Wellsford Ave
Ohm Ave
Orange Dr
Nance St
Lucas Ln
Gerritt Ave
Coventry Cir
OverestAve
Pilgrim Way
Pierce Ave
Foxley Dr
Gem St
Birch St
Pantheon St
Dalwood Ave
Heritage Park Dr
Maris Ave
Reis St
Barbata
Rd
Lubec St
Reis St
Comstock Ave
Camden Ln
Trumball St
Woodruff Ave
la Docena Ln
Bentongrove Dr
Godoy St
Pierce Ave
Via Amorita
Milroy Pl
Ibbetson Ave
Homebrook St
Lubec St
Raviller Dr
Hart St
Gagely Dr
Abbotsford Rd
Harvest Ave
Barnwall St
Cerritos Corporate Dr
Brink Ave
Franklin St
Hasty Ave
JoyglenDr
Marjorie St
la Sabana Dr
S 4th St
Bigby St
Hermes St
Poulter Dr
Farm St
Midway St
Hamden Pl
Cresson St
Stowers Ave
Zastrow Ave
Carron Dr
Gotham St
Terryknoll Dr
Townley Dr
Beach St
CrosswayDr
California Ave
Dinsdale St
Mystic St
Rose Dr
Boer Ave
Palomino Ln
Mooreland Dr
Moorbrook Ave
Lanning Dr
Ridge Rd
Firebird Ave
Carnell St
Clancey Ave
Regatta Ave
Rosalita Dr
Birchbark Ave
BradhurstSt
Chaney Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Carob Way
Vine Pl
Hill Ave
Homage Ave
Tedemory Dr
Putnam St
Valna Dr
Skyl ni eDr
Cedarcrest Dr
de Alcala Dr
Rex Rd
la Cima Dr
Foxley Dr
Crossdale Ave
Catherine St
Rosemead Blvd
Milna Ave
E Tedford Dr
la Serna Dr
Stamps Ave
Rieshel St
Flallon Ave
Tropico Ave
Bluefield Ave
Norwalk Blvd
7th St
Hayward St
Baylor Dr
Stonebank St
Floral Dr
Adger Dr
Lowman Ave
Adele Ave
S Cedar St
Western Ave
Brigantine St
Balfour St
Holbrook St
Janine Dr
Orr and Day Rd
Dacosta St
Valley
View Ave
Willake St
Dittmar Dr
Marjorie St
Irwingrove Dr
Plume
Dr
3rd St
Crete Dr
Chesterton St
Oak St
Danby Ave
Gem St
MasoncrestDr
Overest Ave
Loch Alene Ave
Lucas St
Buhman Ave
Rives Ave
NonaLn
Leffingwell Rd
Beach St
Lanett Ave
Benfield Ave
Birchdale Ave
Dunton Dr
Oak St
Waddell St
Jacmar Ave
ViaEscondida Ave
Danbrook Dr
Allerton St
Loch Alene Ave
Reichling Ln
S Thorn al ke Ave
Tricia Ln
Solo St
la Forge St
Chestnut St
Lyndora St
Emory Dr
Alondra Blvd
Lindale St
Bayla St
SunsetDr
Oval Dr
Hardaway Dr
Belfair St
Lucinda Dr
Hermosura St
Bora Dr
Foster Rd
Keith Dr
Rincon Dr
LakeView Dr
Alburtis Ave
Calico Ave
Keese Dr
Waddell St
Cord Ave
Stowers Ave
San Bruno Dr
Dartmouth Dr
Ruchel St
Hermes St
Kalnor Ave
Acacia Ave
Vanport Ave
Windjammer Rd
Lancelot Ave
Fendale St
Trumball St
L si burn Pl
Lefloss Ave
Allerton St
Maryknoll Ave
Campina Ln
Priscilla St
Dunton Dr
Danvers St
la Forge St
Armley Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Rosecrans Ave
Sideview Dr
Havenwood Dr
Allerton St
Flallon Ave
Hayford St
Steprock Dr
Putnam St
RomaDr
Gettysburg Dr
Bora Dr
E Haley Ave
Chaney Ave
Parkside Ave
Coachman Ave
Muroc St
Hayward St
Rosecrans
Ave
Tarryton Ave
Songfest Dr
Springford
Dr
Samoline Ave
Norino Dr
ElizabethSt
Gandara Ave
Dune St
Hoover Ave
Midcrest Dr
Gridley Rd
Dolan Ave
Roper Ave
Belcourt Dr
Jeanette Ave
Orange St
Triton Dr
Metro St
Florpark St
la Cima Dr
Maidstone Ave
Parkvalle Ave
Garnish
Dr
Wilder Ave
Mina Ave
Danbrook Dr
Lyndora St
Morrill Ave
Telegraph Rd
Maple
St
Raritan Dr
la Capelle Rd
Light St
Steprock Dr
Chesterton St
163rd St
Greyford St
Calpella St
Allegan St
Flallon Ave
Birchdale Ave
Amsdell Ave
Blandwood Rd
San Bruno Dr
Sargent Ave
Achilles St
Bayla St
Gotham St
Summer Ave
Michigan Ave
Gridley Rd
Placid Dr
S 3rd St
Suva St
S 4th St
Townley Dr
Howard St
Erwood Ave
Reis St
Ramhurst Dr
Lindale St
160th St
Newmire
Ave
Charloma Dr
Bright Ave
Darcy St
Havenwood Dr
Halcourt Ave
Rivera Rd
Saranac Dr
Cedarvale St
Lochinvar Dr
Rimrock Dr
Faculty Dr
S Taylor Ave
Washington Blvd
Whittier Blvd State Rte 72
Indiana St
Sibert St
S 4th St
Adoree St
Rimbank Ave
Chaney Ave
Sandy Rock St
Caulfield Ave
Jefferson St
Arbor Pl
Shy St
Jeanette Ave
Stamps Ave
Maurice Ave
Newmire Ave
Rushmore St
Maxine St
Bonavista Ln
la Reina Ave
Brookgreen Rd
Rut al nd Ave
Park Pl
Canford St
Laurel Ave
Whitley St
Mozart Way
Kilgarry Ave
Hermes St
Cornuta Ave
Dinsdale St
Cord Ave
S 4th St
Beaty Ave
Ardine St
Juarez Ave
Eglise Ave
Dalwood Ave
Fredson St
Hutchins Dr
Anaconda St
Halcourt Ave
Eglise Ave
11th St
Dalmatian Ave
Allingham Ave
Sunnybrook Ln
Flatbush Ave
Lowemont St
Elmore Ave
Ahmann Ave
Nichols St
Byron Rd
Barnwall St
Eastridge Dr
Vicki Dr
Darcy St
Fairton St
Lubec St
10th St
Molette St
Benfield Ave
Lancelot Ave
Hercules St
Ives St
Via del Palma Ave
Hopland St
Ferina St
Anola St
Foix Ave
Gainford St
Otto St
Highdale St
Hopland St
Madison Ave
Devillo Dr
Via Amorita
Allengrove St
Greenhurst St
Persing Dr
Nance St
Bangle Rd
Mica St
Woodruff Ave
Hoover Ave
Elmont Ave
Molette St
Clarkman St
Mount Holly Dr
Terryknoll Dr
Sandoval St
Dittmar Dr
Hasty Ave
Paddison Ave
Muller St
Willins St
Cecilia St
Coachman Ave
SaranacDr
Beaty Ave
Kl ni eda el Ave
Belmont St
E Busby Dr
Unser St
Colima Rd
Belcher St
Reichling Ln
Eagan Dr
Chaney Ave
Molette St
la Serna Dr
Perkins Ave
Friends Ave
E Keese Dr
Pluton St
Shoemaker Ave
Hamden St
Willake St
Tropico Ave
Jacana Dr
Allingham Ave
Telechron Ave
Putnam St
Coolhurst Dr
Western Ave
Harvest Ave
Cravell Ave
Church St
Santa Gertrudes Dr
Rosehedge Dr
Winchell St
Claymore St
169th St
Palm St
GarnishDr
Crossdale Ave
Calico Ave
Lorca Rd
Bridgewood Dr
Palm Pl
Mystic St
la Docena Ln
Roma Dr
Meldar Ave
Stanhill Dr
Gridley Rd
Calmosa Ave
Rutland Ave
Loch Lomond Dr
Flomar Dr
Kingman Ave
Angell St
Gage Rd
Weeks Dr
Bradhurst St
ShoemakerAve
laDocena Ln
Glenn Dr
Highland Ave
Spry St
Pangborn Ave
Dunton Dr
Sheridan St
Via Santa CruzAve
Lucas St
Farm St
Dumont Ave
Bonavista Ln
Park St
Spry St
Freiburg St
Fernview St
Starpath Dr
Olive Dr
Cornuta Ave
Fairacres Dr
160th St
Belfair St
Lindenvale Rd
HerculesSt
Altamar Pl
Birchleaf Ave
Calmosa Ave
Bigby St
Lefloss Ave
Underwood St
Farm St
Aegean St
Tricia Ln
Pierce Ave
167th St Graystone Ave
Stamps Ave
Longworth Ave
Haviland Ave
Muller St
Winodee Dr
Sunset Dr
Ben Hur Ave
Hester Ave
Gracebee Ave
Belshire Ave
la Forge St
Syracuse St
Oracle St
la Salos Dr
Algardi St
Bermuda St
la TremolinaLn
161st St
Hughes Ave
Leyva St
Foster Rd
See Dr
Baysinger St
Sycamore Dr
Boer Ave
Chestnut St
Winchell St
Linden St
Eglise Ave
Chadsey Dr
Margaret St
Hester Ave
Cheverton Dr
Woodhue St
Cullen St
Corley Dr
Normandy Ln
Fairvilla Dr
Eastbrook Ave
Pasadena St
New Falcon Way
Waddell St
Buell St
Pico Vista Rd
Leona Joan Ave
Sheridell Ave
Idalene St
Flomar Dr
Struikman Rd
Charloma Dr
Bluefield Ave
Bettencourt St
Foster Rd
Alderton Ln
Domart Ave
Glen Creek Rd
Morrill Ave
Roper Ave
Casanes Ave
Judy Way
Gridley Rd
Kessock Ave
Eagan Dr
Priscilla St
Branscomb St
Belcher St
Nichols St
Bechard Ave
Eglise Ave
Pacific St
Leibacher Ave
Corley Dr
Ferina St
Kayreid Dr
Bayla St
Corley Dr
Bechard Ave
Cambridge St
Farmland Ave
Carnell St
Izetta Ave
Bona Vista Ln
Foster Rd
Foster Rd
Harvest Ave
Bonavista Ln
Roper Ave
Longworth Ave
Caulfield Ave
McRae Ave
Longworth Ave Graystone Ave
Alora Ave
Illinois St
Woods Ave
Ash Creek Rd
Cordova Rd
Nashville Ave
Rousseau Ln
Almo St
Altmark Ave
San Feliciano Dr
Charlesworth Rd Buhman Ave
Terryknoll Dr
del Rio Ct
Aldrich St
Otto St
Arrington Ave
Ben Alder Ave
Orizaba Ave
Corby Ave
Bexley Dr
Park St
Warvale St
Blossom Ct
Kalnor Ave
Birchcrest Rd
Theis Ave
Alburtis Ave
Charlesworth Rd
Ramona Dr
Clark St
Cord Ave
Elmont Ave
High St
Parrot Ave
Dolan Ave
Borson St
Ocana Ave
Eastbrook Ave
Sideview Dr
Clarkdale Ave
la Forge St
Fairacres Dr
Allegan St
Dupage Ave
Gard Ave
Edgewater Dr
Anola St
Placid Dr
Stonewood St
Songfest Dr
Dalmation Ave
Ahmann Ave
Dalewood Ave
Oval Dr
GuatemalaAve
Everest St
Bequette St
Ramhurst Dr
la Forge St
Norwalk Blvd
Benedict Ave
Edderton Ave
Maple St
Muroc St
Parkinson Ave
Otto St
Roma St
Nova St
Norwalk Blvd
Terradell St
Belcher St
Sunglow St
Tina St
Everest St
Chaparral Ave
Dunning St
Crewe St
Spry St
Alclad Ave
Dune St
Halcourt Ave
Mystic St
Lindell Ave
Vicki Dr
Lesl ei Ave
Loch Lomond Dr
Rufus Ave
Seaforth Ave
Gettysburg Dr
Val el y V ei w Ave
Havenwood Dr
Havenwood St
Suva St
Coldbrook Ave
Roseton Ave
Belcher St
Rosecrans Ave
Cerecita Dr
Eastridge Dr
Cullen St
Cyclops St
Los Reyes Ave
Adenmoor Ave
Allard St
Gayview Dr
Caravaca Rd
Carnell St
Lanning Dr
Putnam St
Firebird Ave
Hoback St
Mina Ave
Candace Ave
Corley Dr
Christine Dr
Lodosa Dr
CamillaSt
Beaty Ave
Newmire Ave
Dunton Dr
E Bu
Imperial Hwy sby Dr
Cameo Ave
Buell St
Ahmann Ave
Mina Ave
Claretta Ave
Whiteland St
Poner St
Stoakes Ave
Radburn Ave
Elmcroft Ave
Clarkman St
Splendora Ave
Leibacher Ave
Casanes Ave
Botany St
Roma St
Hasty Ave
Terradell St
Jersey Ave
Faywood St
Metro Center Dr
Loch Avon Dr
San Bruno Dr
Goodhue St
Sylvanwood Ave
Floral Dr
Janine Dr
Alburtis Ave
Mondon Ave
Trumball St
Lindsey Ave Gard Ave
Muroc St
Close St
Jersey Ave
Saranac Dr
Manzanar Ave
Orchard Ave
Boyar Ave
Valley View Ave
7th St
Valeda Dr
Lexington Rd
Flatbush Ave
See Dr
Bonnie Vale Ave
Cravell Ave
Eastbrook Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Rainier Ave
Bequette Ave Longworth Ave
Loch Nevis Ave
Lanning Dr
Larwin Rd
Beverly Dr
Dilworth St
Beach St
Langfield Ave
Westmont Rd
Dorland St
Elm Vista Dr
Ruoff Ave
Maxine St
Townley Dr
Edwards Rd
Dilworth St
Wilder Ave
la Reina Ave
Tweedy Ln
Bailey St
Estero Rd
160th St
Placid Dr
Manzanar Ave
Senwood St
Loch Avon Dr
Tarryton Ave
Cameo Ave
Wheelock St
Putnam St
S 3rd St
Yvette Ave
Sanger Ave
Leeds St
Poinciana St
Havenwood Dr
Sycamore St
Houghton Ave
Holbrook St
Cravell Ave
Ironback Dr
Danbrook Dr
Bonavista Ln
Avonlea Ave
Starbuck St
Crewe St
Dunrobin Ave
Algardi St
Univerity Dr
Secura Way
Kilgarry Ave
Coolbank Dr
Maxine St
Lemoran Ave
161st St
Cedargrove Ave
Mondon Ave
Ramona Dr
Dune St
Wakeman St
Avion Dr
Tristan Dr
Cravell Ave
Saranac Dr
Bluford Ave
Hardaway Dr
Redman Ave
Meldar Ave
Downey Sanford Bridge Rd
Pantheon St
Fairton St
Tina St
Glenworth St
Bequette Ave
High St
Artesia Fwy
Norino Dr
Adoree St Civic Center Dr
Larwin Rd
Devillo Dr
Behrens Ave
la Capelle Rd
Wexford Ave
Dalwood Ave
S Circle Dr
Loch Alene Ave
Helen St
Crider Ave
Balfour St
Civic Center Dr
Cullen St
Village Dr
Decosta Ave
Fairford Ave
Lindsey Ave
Boer Ave
Flory St
Mulberry Dr
CanaryAve
Commerce Way
Pleasant Way
Clarkman St
Cullen St
Falco Ave
Calmada Ave
Monte Vista Dr
Parise Dr
Gage Rd
Kalnor Ave
Molette St
Cullen St
Sabine Dr
Clare St
Chestnut St
2nd St
Loch Lomond Dr
8th St
SafariDr
Glencannon Dr
Maidstone Ave
Jersey Ave
Roseton Ave
Lindsey Ave
Bailey St
Trumball St
Manzanar Ave
Davenrich St
Citronell Ave
Franklin St
Oakbury Dr
Ful ot n Wel sl Ave
Norwalk Blvd
McGee Dr
Oak St
Imperial Hwy
Bright Ave
Elmbrook Dr
Dune St
Reichling Ln
Carnell St
Rosehedge Dr
Cullen St
Claressa Ave
Boer Ave
Crestbrook St
Arlee Ave
Cabrillo Ave
Washington Blvd
Arlee Ave
Whiteland St
Cornuta Ave
S Cir
Brink Ave
Hayford St
Gridley Rd
Eastbrook Ave
Gregory Ave
Hawkins St
Liggett St
Dunning St
Milliken Ave
Calmada Ave
Corley Dr
Acacia Ave
Elaine Ave
Mavis Ave
Calmosa Ave
Belfair St
Strub Ave
Adoree St
Stamps Rd
la Puebla Ave
Friends Ave
Gregory Ave
Firestone Blvd
Rincon Dr
Cabel Ave
Edmaru Ave
Cortina Dr
Oregon Ave
Edmaru Ave
Longworth Ave
Lakeland Rd
Elmcroft Ave
Kenney St
Graystone Ave
Dumont Ave
Strub Ave
Crewe St
Flallon Ave
Jalisco Rd
164th St
Badminton Ave
Cedarvale St
Beach St
Trumball St
Beach St
6th St
Chesterton St
163rd St
Sibley St
Maryton Ave
Alta Ave
Buell St
Forest St
Flallon Ave
el Rancho Dr
Cornishcrest Rd
Close St
University Dr
Springdale Ave
Mystic St
Telegraph Rd
Virginia Ave
Roseton Ave
Calpella St
Blanding St
Maryknoll Ave
Stanstead Ave
Burma Rd
SanEsteban Dr
Raceland Rd
Breckenridge Dr
Coolhurst Dr
Balfour St
Adenmoor Ave
Coldbrook Ave
College Dr
Dittmar Dr
Izetta Ave
la BarcaDr
Canyon Creek Rd
Tristan Dr
Matern Pl
Rockne Ave
Valna Dr
Guilford Ave
Loch Avon Dr
Hasty Ave
Lowman Ave
la Cima Dr
Coral Ln
Carfax Ave
Cornishcrest Rd
Abbotsford Rd
Coachman Ave
Richvale Dr
Townley Dr
Hasty Ave
Wellsford Ave
Schooling Rd
Bexley Dr
Alburtis Ave
Beaty Ave
Loch Lomond Dr
Canelo Rd
Los Lotes Ave
Adele Ave
5th St
Chadsey Dr
Ben Hur Ave
Holbrook St
Estero Rd
Starbuck St
Reis St
John St
Valley View Ave
Washington St
True Ave
Dicky St
Heritage Springs Dr E
Bequette Ave
Lubec St
Falcon Way
Aldrich St
Barkerville Ave
Monte Vista Dr
Keese Dr
Coolhurst Dr
Floral Dr
Kensington Dr
Bentongrove Dr
Sunglow St
la Docena Ln
Gandesa Rd
Ratliffe St
WeeksDr
Chadsey Dr
Orange St
Adler Dr
Archway Dr
Cedar
Hornby Ave
Appledale Ave
Via Amorita
Gardenhill Dr
Tarryton Ave
Regentview Ave
Regent View Ave
Lindhall Way
Clancey Ave
Meyer Rd
Lanning Dr
Flomar Dr
Broadway
S Spruce St
Keltonview Dr
Potter St
Salada Rd
McLaren St
Haney St
Spry St
Dicky St
Lindale St
Liggett St
Bexley Dr
Shellyfield Rd
Park St
Angell St
Clancey Ave
Elmquist Ave
Firestone Blvd
Jupiter St
Freeway Dr
Angell St
Bradhurst St
Hawes St
Belcher St
Bollenbacher Dr
Arkansas St
C al ncey Ave
Maza St
Littchen St
4th St
Aldrich St
Homebrook St
Hermosura St
Aeolian St
Danbrook Dr
Oval Dr
Dacosta St
Jupiter St
Phaeton Ave
Loretta Dr
Joslin St
Liggett St
Burke St
Reis St
Muroc St
Earlham Dr
Barton Rd
Jacmar Ave
la Calma Dr
Garden Pkwy
Franklin St
Bell Ranch Dr
Oak St
Carron Dr
Putnam St
Van Ruiten St
Walnut St Rivera Rd
Eglise Ave
Foster Rd
Cheshire St
Sunset Dr
Russell St
Longworth Ave
Olive St
Tonibar St
Lindsey Ave
Sunglow St
Tedemory Dr
Slusher Dr
Nance Ave
Nance St
164th St
Dunrobin Ave
Cedarvale St
Maxine St
Goodbee St
Enterprise Ave
Dalwood Ave
Wampler St
168th St
Arrington Ave
Via Amorita
Cecilia St
Graystone Ave
5th St
Fairford Ave
Arrington Ave
Gotham St
Allegan St
7th St
NCir
Lorene St
Rostrata Ave
Jenkins Dr
nI d ai n Creek Rd
See Dr
Glenn Dr
Brookpark Rd
Gwynne Ave
Maplewood St
Mattock Ave
Maryton Ave
Tedemory Dr
Estella Ave
Parrot Ave
Foxbury Way
la Bajada Ave
Hayford St
S 6th St
Firestone Blvd
Choisser St
S 5th St
S 5th St
Palm St
Stamy Rd
Terradell St
Carne St
Artesia Fwy
Euclid Ave
Placid Dr
la Forge St
Manzanar Ave
169th St
Sunglow St
Park St
Newville Ave
Gaybrook Ave
Marquardt Ave
Elden Ave
Hollyview Dr
Volunteer Ave
Dunlap Crossing Rd
Clarkdale Ave
Lockheed Ave
6th St
Lyndora St
Bexley Dr
Planter St
Domart Ave
Best Ave
Pontlavoy Ave
Canford St
Faywood St
Rufus Ave
Eastridge Dr
Paramount Blvd
Oakwood Ln
Pico Vista Rd
Flomar Dr
Chestnut St
San Ardo Dr
Brimley St
Fidel Ave
Bennington Ave
Paramount Pl
Rosecrans Ave
Greenworth Dr
Gainford St
True Ave
Pioneer Blvd
Lukay St
Shoemaker Ave
Glengarry Ave
McComber Rd
Cedarsprings Dr
Howard St
Fairvilla Dr
Flallon Ave
Jordan Cir
Whitley St
Gridley Rd
Linda Vista Dr
Lexington Gallatin Rd
Danby Ave
Cedarcliff Ave
Mora Dr
Rose Dr
Pioneer Blvd
Vultee Ave
Arroyo Dr
Bechard Ave
Dunton Dr
Midway Pl
E Tedford Dr
Elmcroft Ave
Carretera Dr
Lubec St
Arthurdale St
Blackburn Ave
Eric Ave
Flossmoor Rd
Downey Norwalk Rd
Mattock Ave Howard St
Orange Ave
Nogal Ave
Everston St
Union St
Appleby St
Ibbetson Ave
Flora Vista St
Armley Ave
Bascom St
Midcrest Dr
Halray Ave
Broaded St
Keltonview Dr
Pioneer Blvd
Mapledale St
Broadway
Adonis Ave
Los Toros Ave
Whittier Blvd
Armsdale Ave
Redman Ave
Bridgeview Ave
State Rte 72
Whittier Blvd
Cuesta St
Dalman St
Elmbrook Dr
Skyline Dr
Clarkdale Ave
Washington Blvd
Gainford St
Rivera Rd
Manning Way
Ragan Dr
Greenworth Dr
Hadley St
Cuesta Dr
Barnwall St
de Alcala Dr
Gridley Rd
Bradhurst St
Carnell St
Beach St
Flower St
Carinthia Dr
Goller Ave
Dicky St
Lundahl Dr
Edwards Rd
Pumice St
Miller Rd
Longworth Ave
Crossway Dr
Angell St
Light St
Utica St
Orr and Day Rd
Campillos Rd
Kengard Ave
Jacmar Dr
Crossway Dr
Allport Ave
Mapledale St
Adoree St
Pastrana Dr
Danbrook Dr
Davista Dr
Valley View Ave
Vicki Dr
Nan St
Vanport Ave
Bert St
Loma Dr
Elmcroft Ave
Dunton Dr
Alclad Ave
Bradwell Ave
Western Ave
Valeda Dr
Excelsior Dr
Stoakes Ave
168th St
Pine St
Civic Center Dr
Nan St
Valley View Ave
Crossdale Ave
Parise Dr
S 4th St
McNab Ave
Gladhill Rd
Orden Dr
Taddy St
Lochinvar Dr
Parise Dr
Elmhurst Dr
Aeolian St
Borate St
el Rey Dr
Los Fuentes Rd
Gard Ave
Carmenita Rd
Aero Dr
Palm St
Mercery Ln
Ridgeview Ln
E Slauson Ave
Industry Ave
Benfield Ave
Dittmar Dr
167th St
Abingdon St
Bellman Ave
Allingham Ave
Dalwood Ave
Catalina Ave
Rexton St
Reis St
Ben Hur Ave
Cord Ave
Cherokee Dr
Bollenbacher Dr
Gard Ave
Summer Ave
Rideout
Way
Trabuco St
Foxley Dr
Rockne Ave
Devlin Ave
Highdale St
Foster Rd
Midway St
Rose Dr
Wheatstone Ave
Saragosa St
Liggett St
Norwalk Blvd
McGee Dr
Harvest Ave
Muller St
Gridley Rd
Shreve Rd
Alondra Blvd
Lemoran Ave
Benfield Ave
San Cristobal Dr
Oakwood St
Summit Dr
Kenney St
Eglise Ave
Kenney St
Strub Ave
Leffingwell Rd
VanportAve
Orange Grove Ave
Harvest Ave
Starbuck St
Graystone Ave
Tina St
Danbridge St
Aero Dr
Granada Ave
Bradwell Ave
Dorland Dr
Beach St
Loch Alene Ave
Haledon Ave
Vista del Rosa St
Painter Ave
Balfour St
Ocaso Ave
Crossdale Ave
Florence Ave
Disney Ave
Madris Ave
Union St
Sundance Ave
Helwig Ave
Calmada Ave
Maple St
Hayward St
Beach St
Park St
Southwind Dr
Cornuta Ave
Halcourt Ave
Bermudez St
Grand Ave
Chicago Ave
Crossdale Ave
Elaine Ave
Gard Ave
Markdale Ave
Pioneer Blvd
Citronell Ave
Mollette St
Cyclops St
Summerfield Ave
Bora Dr
Funston Ave
Graystone Ave
Reichling Ln
Neartree Rd
Dunlap Crossing Rd
Bartley Ave
Badlona Dr
Elm St
Hercules St
Arctic Cir
Tacuba Dr
Vista del Rio Dr
S Maple Ave
Terradell St
Cullen St
Excelsior Dr
Excelsior Dr
Crewe St
Arrington Ave
E Imperial Hwy
Casanes Ave
Curtis and King Rd
Walnut St
Dartmoor Ave
Charlesworth Rd
Harvard Dr
Flallon Ave
Pico Vista Rd
Nava St
Hayford St
Hopland St
Barnwall St
Lowemont St
Molette St
Duffield Ave
Smith Ave
Downey Ave
Roseton Ave
Norwalk Blvd
Maidstone Ave
Cord Ave
Lanett Ave
el Soneto Dr
Whittier Blvd
State Rte 72
165th St
Burke St
Domart Ave
Alburtis Ave
162nd St
Rincon Dr
Gannet St
Hall Rd
McCann Dr
Sycamore St
Stamy Rd
Excelsior Dr
Heron Ave
Painter Ave
Beaty Ave
Pioneer Blvd
Santa Fe Springs Rd
Clark St
Dollison Dr
Canyon Crest Rd
Crosswood Rd
Beverly St
Frankel Ave
Clarinda Ave
Flomar Dr
Brookshire Ave
Pike St
Bailey St
Shade Ln
Dittmar Dr
Telechron Ave
Lesterford Ave
Beverly Dr
E Washington Blvd
Alicante Rd
Ann St
S Spruce St
Brock Ave
Walnut St
Desman Rd
la Cuarta St
Heflin Dr
Cheshire St
Hermes St
Chaney Ave
Cecilia St
Pioneer Blvd
Paramount Blvd
Hadley St
Millergrove Dr
Brookshire Ave
Allard St
Ibex Ave
Norwalk Blvd
Bora Dr
Pioneer Blvd
Lakeland Rd Lakeland Rd
Carfax Ave
Victoria Ave
Ceres Ave
Telegraph Rd
el Rancho Dr
Barnwall St
Date St
Dice Rd
Anaconda St
Greens ot ne Ave
Mulberry Dr
Claymore St
Lynalan Ave
Foster Rd
Millux Ave
Pico Vista Rd
Arlee Ave
Lakeland Rd
E Imperial Hwy
Floral Dr
Barnwall St
Clarkdale Ave
Washburn Rd
Sorensen Ave
Rex Rd
Catalina Ave
Cheshire St
E Imperial Hwy
Whittier Ave
Moore St
Carnell St
Hawes St
Mapledale St
Wardman St
Trojan Way
Orange Dr
Foster Rd
Lindale St
Flora Vista St
Carob Way
Michigan Ave
Painter Ave
Leffingwell Rd
Cecilia St
Burgess Ave
Northam St
Inez St
Orange Dr
Rosecrans Ave
Los Nietos Rd
Glengarry Ave
Studebaker Rd
Leffingwell Rd
Fidel Ave
Alondra Blvd
Pangborn Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Artesia Fwy
Lambert Rd
Freeway Dr
Washington Blvd
Colima Rd
Carmenita Rd
Mansa Dr
Marquardt Ave
Foster Rd
San Antonio Dr
Rose Hedge Dr
Broadway
Laurel Ave
Firestone Blvd
San Antonio Dr
Burke St
Cole Rd
Woodruff Ave
2nd St
Artesia Fwy
Alburtis Ave
Sunshine Ave
Fairford Ave
Calmada Ave
Somerset Blvd
Ferina St
Broadway
Artesia Fwy
Woodruff Ave
Whittier Blvd
Leffingwell Rd
Myron St
Telegraph Rd
Gretna Ave
Rivera Rd
Mines Ave
Passons Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Front St
Camilla St
E 166th St 166th St
Duchess Dr
E Washington Blvd
State Rte 91
Paramount Blvd
S Greenwood Ave
Penn St
Painter Ave
Painter Ave
S Montebello Blvd
Adelfa
Dr
Meyer Rd
Florence Ave
Foster Rd
Telegraph Rd
Serapis Ave
Orr and Day Rd
Paramount Blvd
Orr and Day Rd
Rosemead Blvd
Hadley St
Lakewood Blvd
Washington Blvd
Broadway
Mapledale St
Ocean View Ave
Century Fwy
Glenn M Anderson Freeway and Transit
II- 105 105
Century Fwy
Meyer Rd
Comstock Ave
Firestone Blvd
Valley View Ave
Philadelphia St
Firestone Blvd
Gallatin Rd
la Cuarta St
Norwalk Blvd
Bluff Rd
Gunn Ave
Lakewood Blvd
Greenleaf Ave
Turnbull Canyon Rd
State Rte 91
Colima Rd
Passons Blvd
Slauson Ave
Imperial Hwy Imperial Hwy
Mulberry Dr
166th St E 166th St
State Rte 19
Rosemead Blvd
State Rte 72
Whittier Blvd
Telegraph Rd
Whittier Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Florence Ave Florence Ave
Studebaker Rd
State Rte 91
la Mirada Blvd
Rosecrans Ave
Slauson Ave
Alondra Blvd
Telegraph Rd
State Rte 19
Alondra Blvd
I- 5 Santa Ana Fwy
I- 5
Santa Ana Fwy
Norwalk Blvd
Orr and Day Rd
Los Alisos Cir
el Moro Ave
Ocaso Ave
Marlette Dr
San Ardo Dr
Rose Hedge Dr
Santa Fe
Springs Rd
Cedardale Dr
el Rey Dr
Coyote Ln
Pico Vista
Rd
Woodruff Ave
Goldendale Dr
Goldendale Dr
Farm St
Carfax Ave
Pine Bluff Dr
Cir
Piuma Ave
Birchleaf Ave
Piuma Ave
HornellSt
Corby Ave
PlutonSt
Avion Dr
Founders Hill Rd
ValedaDr
Whiterock Dr
Corley Dr
Vanport Ave
Balsam
Alburtis Ave
Liggett St
Grady Ave
Hester Ave
Crewe St
NorocoDr
Stratford Ct
Dorland Pl
Fonseca Ave
Jacana Dr Lowe Dr
la Vina Ln
Tristan Dr
VickiDr
Suva St
Ash
la Vela Ave
Rio Blanco Rd
Cultura St
Cord Ave
Gladeside Dr
Bergen Ave
Central Ave
The Plaza
Mina St
Arlee Ave
Belcher St
Newville Ave
Norwalk Blvd
Norwalk Blvd
Rose Hedge Dr
Foxcroft Dr
Lesterford Ave
Flomar Dr
Jersey Ave
Ruoff Ave
Norbeck Dr
Pacific Ave
Starbuck St
la Forge St
Dicky St
Date St
Dalman St
Manzanares Rd
Richard MNixonDr
Rockne Ave
Crowndale Ave
Cielo Vista Dr
Crystal
Creek Ln
Lynmark St
Betty Ave
Pioneer Blvd Pioneer Blvd
Boxwood Ter
ViaPointe del Sol
Pico Vista Rd
Iseli Rd
Brazo Rd
Corby Ave
Parrot Ave
FloritaRd
Behrens Ave
Lake Park
Way
Suva St
Walnut
St
S Parise Dr
Watson Ave
Balsam
Glengyle St
Cord Ave
Badminton Ave
Forest Ave
Mulberry Dr
Ibbetson Ave
Tanfield Dr
Nava St
Loch Avon Dr
Davista Dr
Anola St
Westman Ave
Rimbank Ave
WalnutSt
Westman Ave
Vistadel Rio Ave
Newgate Ave
E Busby Dr
Graystone Ave
Lashburn St
Sierra Vista Way
Carmenita Rd
Funston Ave
Wicker Dr
Milna Ave
Lefloss Ave
Ramsey Dr
Maris Ave
Leahy Ave
Arroyo Dr
Kinghorn St
N Circle Dr
Alburtis Ave
Thornlake Ave
Maxine St
AltaAve
Glencannon Dr
College Pl
Canary Ave
Miller Ave
Juniper Ter
Belfair St
Anola St
Roundhill Dr
Lesterford Ave
Benfield Ave
Decosta Ave
Maxine St
DalewoodAve
Thrace Dr
Emory Dr
Redbird Dr
Garetal St
Domart Ave
Hermosura St
Cadbury Rd
Bellder Dr
Dumont Ave
Grayville Dr
Adoree St
Greenworth Dr
Gracebee Ave
San Lucas Dr
Bloomfield Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Oland St
Barkerville Ave
Millergrove Dr
Ben Avon St
el Moro Ave
Memphis Ave
Spring Ave
Cheshire St
Crossdale Ave
Wilder Ave
Sunrise Dr
Silverette Dr
Ramo Dr
Chadsey Dr
Behrens Ave
Helmer Dr
Woodridge Ave
Grayville Dr
Keith Dr
Highdale St
Dumont Ave
Thornlake Ave
Distribution Way
Lanett Ave
Harvest Ave
Barton
Cir
Gretna Ave
Danvers St
Lemoran Ave
Marilla Ave
Citrus Ave
Canobie Ave
Funston Ave
Placita Pl
Painter Ave
Hillside Ln
Jersey Ave
Roseton Ave
Archway Dr
Leibacher Ave
Amsdell Ave
Cornet St
Gregg Rd
Flallon Ave
Brookpark Rd
Natalie Dr
Aegean St
Paddison Ave
Adoree St
Panorama Dr
Hastings Dr
Fir St
Grande
V si ta Dr
Alburtis Ave
Castro Ave
Burke St
Shade Ln
Secura Way
Madris Ave
Piuma Ave
Hasty Ave
Lanning Dr
Pellet St
Lesser St
Edderton Ave
Valeda Dr
Calobar Ave
Arthur St
Keith Dr
Chatfield Ave
la Docena Ln
Acapulco Dr
Clearwood Ave
Graystone Ave
Beverly Hills Dr
Ringwood Ave
la Barca Dr
Barbata Rd
CedarspringsDr
Aspen Cir
Zeus Ave
Goodhue St
Larwin
Cir
Bacon Rd
Piuma Ave
Macaw St
Anson Ave
Spring Ave
Mitony Ave
Sunnybrook Ln
Gabbett Dr
Marquardt Ave
Leland Ave
Morrill Ave
Danby Ave
Canyon Dr
Nashville Ave
Firebird Ave
Inez St
Westman Ave
Honeysuckle Ln
Lancelot Ave
Gardenland Ave
Orizaba Ave
Citronell Ave
Horst Ave
Elmbrook Dr
Raviller Dr Leffingwell Rd
Potter St
Close St
Penn St
Penn St
Alicante Rd
Millergrove Dr
de AlcalaDr
Starlight Ave
Omelia Rd
Chetle Ave
Elmcroft Ave
Memphis Ave
Kane Ave
Bradwell Ave
Bowen Dr Bowen Dr
Flallon Ave
San Esteban Dr
Lefloss Ave
Brookpark Rd
San Feliciano Dr
Hathaway Dr
Benfie dl Ave
Romandel Ave
Dalmatian Ave
Brookpark Rd
Hoover Ave
Nordesta Dr
Mina Ave
Van Ruiten St
Lindsey Ave
Bluefield Ave
Halcourt Ave
Riviera Ln
Riviera Ln
Hill Ave
Honolulu Ter
Dalwood Ave
Coteau Dr
Geary Ave
Knott Ave
Cully Ave
Elaine Ave
Gridley Rd
Curtis and King Rd
Newgate Ave
Ramsey Dr
State Rte 72
Fonseca Ave
Bronte Dr
Gardenhill Dr
Elaine Ave
Hornell St
Horst Ave
Clarkdale Ave
Tweedy Ln
Vale Dr
Sylvanwood Ave
Las Flores Ave
Regentview Ave
College Ave
Thistle Ave
California Ave
Freeman Ave
al Sierra Ave
Chapin Rd
Pico Vista Rd
Greening Ave
Worsham Dr
Los Coyotes Ave
Arlee Ave
Carpintero Ave
Singleton Dr
Mansa Dr
el Espejo Rd
Bixby Ave
Birchdale Ave
Seaforth Ave
Elmcroft Ave
Jersey Ave
Springview Dr
Ocaso Ave
Flatbush Ave
Biola Ave
Biola Ave
Marquardt Ave
Piuma Ave
College Ave
Jersey Ave
San Ardo Dr
Allison Dr
Shadyside Ave
Pico Vista Rd
Milano Ave
Milano Ave
Cedartree Rd
Rivera Rd
Ringwood Ave
Pico Vista Rd
Citrus Ave
Flatbush Ave
Haledon Ave
S Lou si Ave
Little Lake Rd
Longworth Ave
Dinard Ave
Santa Fe Springs Rd
la Entrada Ave
Santa Fe Springs Rd
Gridley Rd
Figueras Rd
Cabell Ave
Coffman Pico Rd
Grayland Ave
Industry Cir
Industry Cir
Danby Ave
Faust Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Phoebe Ave
Balsam St
Volunteer Ave
Leahy Ave
Bellflower Blvd
Hox ei Ave
Escalona Rd
Eucalyptus Ave
Longworth Ave
Lefloss Ave
Greenstone Ave
Painter Ave
Cornuta Ave
Enramada Ave
Bloomfield Ave
McNab Ave
Palm Ave
Magnolia Ave
Leland Ave
Friends Ave
Marquardt Ave
Dunrobin Ave
Maidstone Ave
Maidstone Ave
Leibacher Ave
Mines Blvd
Fairford Ave
Bloomfield Ave Bloomfield Ave
Sproul St
California Ave
Bombardier Ave
Jersey Ave
Painter Ave
NorwalkBlvd
Norwalk Blvd
Laurel Ave
Sorensen Ave Sorensen Ave
Milton Ave
Biola Ave
Newlin Ave
Shoemaker Ave
Leffingwell Rd
Pickering Ave
Val el y V ei w Ave Valley View Ave
Bright Ave
Beverly Blvd
Skyline Dr Washington Ave
GreenleafAve
Greenleaf Ave
Studebaker Rd
Carmenita Rd
la Mirada B vl d
State Rte 42
Firestone Blvd
Pioneer Blvd
Pioneer Blvd
San Gabriel River Fwy
San Gabriel River Fwy
I- 605
I- 605
San Gabriel River Fwy
San Gabriel River Fwy
I- 605
I- 605
Carmenita Rd
Carmenita Rd
Bequette Ave
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs
California Geological Survey
Geologic Information and Publications
801 K Street, MS 14-34
Sacramento, CA 95814-3532
Baldwin
Park
El
Monte
Los
Angeles
La
Habra Whittier SouthGate
Anaheim Los
Alamitos
Long Beach
Extension
Contour Interval 20 Feet
Scale 1: 24000

CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
JOHN G. PARRISH, PHD., STATE GEOLOGIST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY- JOHN LAIRD, SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DAVID BUNN, DIRECTOR

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
WHITTIER 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE
N

MAP EXPLANATION
Study area defined by USGS quadrangle boundaries using NAD 27, represented by the visible map extent. Data are maintained and distributed in California Albers (meters), NAD 83 [EPSG:3310], as shown by tics and coordinates.

Shaded topographic relief derived from USGS 10 meter NED (2013).

Topographic base map from USGS 1965, photorevised 1981.

Street data from US Census Bureau TIGER/Line, 2016.

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
California Geological Survey
1 0.5 0 1 2 Miles
1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Feet 1000 500 0 1000 2000 Meters
1 0.5 0 1 2 Kilometers
Liquefaction Zones
Areas where historical occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and ground water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. 33°52'30" 33°52'30"
118°00'
(LOS ALAMITOS) (ANAHEIM)
118°07'30" (LONG BEACH) (SOUTH GATE)
34°00'
118°07'30" (LOS ANGELES)
(EL MONTE)
118°00'
34°00'
(BALDWIN PARK)
(LA HABRA)
Approximate
Declination, 2016

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For additional information on the zones of required investigation presented on this map, the data and methodology used to prepare them, and additional references consulted, please refer to the following:

Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Whittier 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Orange counties, California.

California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 037. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_037_Whittier.pdf For more information on the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act please refer to:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/SHMPpgminfo.aspx Click the link below to learn how to take greater advantage of the GeoPDF format of this map after downloading.
http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Docs/TerragoUserGuide.pdf Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
Whittier Quadrangle
This Map Shows Seismic Hazard Zones
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Have Not Been Prepared For The Whittier Quadrangle

WHITTIER QUADRANGLE

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Delineated in compliance with
Chapter 7.8 Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code (Seismic Hazards Mapping Act)
Released: March 25, 1999

OFFICIAL MAP

STATE GEOLOGIST
For information regarding the scope and recommended methods to be used in conducting required site investigations refer to CGS Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and CGS Special Publication 42. For a general description of the Seismic Hazards Mapping and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning acts, the zonation programs, and related information, please refer to the website at www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/.

Publication 118, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California, and Special Publication 42, Earthquake Fault Zones, a Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Appendix C.

This map shows the location of Seismic Hazard Zones, referred to here as Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. The Geographic Information System (GIS) digital files of these regulatory zones released by the California Geological Survey (CGS) are the "Official Maps." GIS files are available at the GGS website http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. These zones will assist cities and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public from the effects of earthquake-triggered ground failure as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6) and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2621-2630). For information regarding the general approach and recommended methods for preparing these zones, see CGS Special

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING FOR ZONES SHOWN ON THIS MAP
1) This map may not show all faults that have the potential for surface fault rupture, either within the Earthquake Fault Zones or outside their boundaries. Additionally, this map may not show all areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landsliding, strong earthquake ground shaking or other earthquake and geologic hazards. Also, a single earthquake capable of causing liquefaction or triggering landside failure will not uniformly affect the entire area zoned.
2) Boundaries of Earthquake Fault Zones, if included on this map, are based on interpreted Holocene-active fault traces.
3) The identification and location of these faults are based on the best available data. However, the quality of data used is varied. Traces have been depicted as accurately as possible at a map scale of 1:24,000. 4) Liquefaction zones may also contain areas susceptible to the effects of earthquake-induced landslides.

This situation typically exists at or near the toes of existing landslides, downslope from rockfall or debris flow source areas, or adjacent to steep stream banks.
5) Landslide zones on this map were determined, in part, by adapting methods first developed by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide hazard maps prepared by the USGS typically use experimental approaches to assess earthquake-induced and other types of landslide hazards. Although aspects of these new methodologies may be incorporated in future CGS seismic hazard zone maps, USGS maps should not be used as substitutes for these Official SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES maps.
6) USGS base map standards provide that 90 percent of cultural features be located within 40 feet (horizontal accuracy) at the scale of this map. The identification and location of liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide zones are based on available data. However, the quality of data used is varied. The zone boundaries depicted have been drawn as accurately as possible at this scale. 7) Information on this map is not sufficient to serve as a substitute for the geologic and geotechnical site investigations required under Chapters 7.5 and 7.8 of Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code. 8) Seismic Hazard Zones identified on this map may include developed land where delineated hazards have already been mitigated to city or county standards. Check with your local building/planning department for information regarding the location of such mitigated areas. 9) DISCLAIMER: The State of California and the Department of Conservation make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of the data from which these maps were derived. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or any third party on account of or arising from the use of this map.

IMPORTANT Map Preparation by: Kate Thomas and Jim Thompson, CGS -

CIDH PILE RESISTANCE
DRAFT
0 100
DRAFT
200 300 400 500
Factored Nominal Resistance (Kips)
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 Pile Embedment (feet)
Pedestrian Bridge-Abutment Support
(24-inch diameter CIDH pile)
0 DRAFT
200 400 600 800
Factored Nominal Resistance (Kips)
50 40
30 20
10 0 Pile Embedment (feet)
Pedestrian Bridge-Pier Support
(60-inch diameter CIDH pile)
-

L-PILE SOIL PARAMETERS
DRAFT
DRAFT
2023-009
Created by: AG 09/11/2024
Checked by: BH 9/13/2024
Whittier Pedestrian Bridge
LPILE Soil Parameters – Abutments (24-inch diameter CIDH) Service and Strength Limit State

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS – LPILE – SERVICE AND STRENGTH LIMIT STATE SOIL
MODEL

EFFECTIVE
UNIT
WEIGHT
(pcf)

FRICTION
ANGLE
'
(degrees)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(psf)
P-Y

MODULUS
K
(pci)

STRAIN FACTOR

Loose to medium
dense Silty Sand (SM) 0 – 7 Sand (Reese) 105 28 -- 25 -- Loose to medium
dense Silty Sand (SM) 7 – 14 Sand (Reese) 42.6 28 -- 20 -- Very Dense Silty Sand
with gravel (SM) 14 – 52 Sand (Reese) 67.6 38 -- 125 -- Hard Sandy Silty Clay
with Sand (CL-ML) 52 – 61
Stiff Clay
With
Free
Water

57.6 -- 2,000 -- 0.007
Very dense Poorly
graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM),
61 - 72 Sand
(Reese) 67.6 38 -- 125 --
Note(s):
 Pile cut-off elevation assumed at elevation 172 feet.  Design groundwater level assumed to be at elevation of the channel invert which is approximately 165 feet and 7 feet below the pile cut-off elevation.
 A p-multiplier for pile group effects should be applied in accordance with California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 10.7.2.4-1.
 Sloping ground conditions may need to be considered depending on the pile locations with respect to the slope.  psf = pounds per square foot.
 pcf = pounds per cubic foot.

DRAFT
2023-009
Created by: AG 09/11/2024
Checked by: BH 9/13/2024
Whittier Pedestrian Bridge
LPILE Soil Parameters – Abutments (24-inch diameter CIDH) Extreme Limit State

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS – LPILE – EXTREME LIMIT STATE
SOIL
MODEL

EFFECTIVE
UNIT
WEIGHT
(pcf)

FRICTION
ANGLE
'
(degrees)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(psf)
P-Y

MODULUS
K
(pci)

STRAIN FACTOR

Loose to medium
dense Silty Sand (SM) 0 – 7 Sand (Reese) 105 28 -- 25 -- Loose to medium
dense Silty Sand (SM) 7 – 10 Soft Clay
(Matlock) 42.6 -- 350 -- 0.02
Loose to medium
dense Silty Sand (SM) 10 – 14 Sand (Reese) 42.6 28 -- 20 -- Very Dense Silty Sand
with gravel (SM) 14 – 52 Sand (Reese) 67.6 38 -- 125 -- Hard Sandy Silty Clay
with Sand (CL-ML) 52 – 61
Stiff Clay
With
Free
Water

DRAFT
2023-009
Created by: AG 09/11/2024
Checked by: BH 9/13/2024
Whittier Pedestrian Bridge
LPILE Soil Parameters – Piers (60-inch diameter CIDH)
Service, Strength and Extreme Limit State

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS – LPILE – SERVICE, STRENGTH AND EXTREME LIMIT STATE SOIL
MODEL

EFFECTIVE
UNIT
WEIGHT
(pcf)

FRICTION
ANGLE
'
(degrees)
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(psf)
P-Y

MODULUS
K
(pci)

STRAIN FACTOR

Very Dense Silty Sand
with gravel (SM) 0 – 16 Sand (Reese) 67.6 38 -- 125 --
Hard Sandy Silty Clay
with Sand (CL-ML) 16 – 23
Stiff Clay
With
Free
Water

62.6 -- 2,000 -- 0.007
Very dense Poorly
graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM),
23 – 33
Sand
(Reese) 67.6 38 -- 125 --
Hard Lean Sandy Silty
Clay (CL-ML) 33 - 54
Stiff Clay
With
Free
Water

62.6 -- 2,000 -- 0.007
Note(s):
 Pile cut-off elevation assumed at elevation 153 feet.  Design groundwater level assumed to be at elevation of the channel invert which is approximately 165 feet, therefore the entire pile is under groundwater.
 A p-multiplier for pile group effects should be applied in accordance with California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 10.7.2.4-1.
 psf = pounds per square foot.
 pcf = pounds per cubic foot.

DISTRIBUTION
Email Copy: Mr. Bobby Lin, PE
BKF Engineers
4675 MacArthur Court Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Document Control
VERSION NO. DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION
V1 10/23/2024 Draft Submittal for Internal Review

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER
Ambi Thurai PE, GE
Principal Engineer
BH/KC: AT/kc
DRAFT

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX I – ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING MEMO
420 Exchange
Suite 260
Irvine, CA 92602
949.753.7001 phone
949.753.7002 fax
esassoc.com
memorandum
date November 7, 2024
to Bobby Lin, P.E., Project Manager, BKF Engineers
cc Sheila Amparo, P.E., Q.S.D., Associate Principal, BKF Engineers from Brian Allee, Senior Managing Associate, ESA
subject Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Executive Summary
The purpose of this Environmental Screening Memorandum (Memo) is to provide the City of Pico Rivera (City), the lead agency under CEQA, with a preliminary understanding of the environmental setting, anticipated environmental compliance requirements including the anticipated level of documentation required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and anticipated technical studies and technical evaluations needed to satisfy CEQA.

In summary, the following environmental issue areas would have no anticipated environmental effects and no additional technical analysis would be needed for the three preliminary alternatives: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire.

The following environmental issue areas would have similar anticipated environmental effects for all three preliminary alternatives due to having similar project footprints: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems.

The following environmental issues areas would have different environmental effects for one, two, or all three preliminary alternatives: Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils/Paleontological Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality.

The potential NEPA and Caltrans section outlines the documentation required to complete the NEPA process through Caltrans’ Local Assistance Program. Table 1 identifies and summarizes the potential NEPA documentation that could be required for the Project based on the alternative selected.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 2 Introduction
As discussed above, the purpose of this Memo is to provide the City with a preliminary understanding of the environmental setting, anticipated environmental compliance requirements including the anticipated level of documentation required for compliance with CEQA, and anticipated technical studies and technical evaluations needed to satisfy CEQA.

The Project is state and locally funded. Due to the Project location over the San Gabriel River potentially involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, and the previous involvement with Caltrans through the use of Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds as part of the original alignment, this Memo also considers the potential for federal nexus with these agencies and provides an accurate analysis of potential environmental requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). The Memo also provides a list of environmental requirements if the Project receives future federal funding through Caltrans.

Preliminary Alternative 1 proposed modifications to the existing Whittier Boulevard Bridge with onsite improvements for water quality and trail connectivity. Preliminary Alternative 2 and Preliminary Alternative 3 share the same design concept but with different bridge design. All three preliminary alternatives propose onsite improvements for water quality and trail connectivity.

Potential Environmental Considerations
Aesthetics
The Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project MND published in May 2019 (2019 MND) (VCS Environmental, 2019) for a similar project located about 2/3-mile south and downstream of the Project location provides information relevant to the Project. According to the City of Pico Rivera’s General Plan, there are no designated scenic vistas within the Project area. According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways within the vicinity of the Project area. The Project area is situated within an urbanized area.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends review of the immediate viewsheds and if the Preliminary Alternative 1 would interfere with any public views of the San Gabriel River or San Gabriel Mountains. ESA recommends a consistency review of the Project to confirm there is no conflict with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or other applicable regulations governing scenic quality. ESA also recommends an analysis of potential light and glare impacts resulting from Preliminary Alternative 1.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an aesthetics perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 3 Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an aesthetics perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance that exists within the Project area. In addition, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element does not identify any agricultural lands within the City boundaries. The Project area is not under a Williams Act contract.

Further, the City’s Zoning Ordinance states that the Project area is not zoned for agricultural land uses. Lastly, the Project area does not contain forest land resources.

Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of the 2019 MND, review of the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, review of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, no additional technical analysis would be needed.

Air Quality
The Alternatives are located in the City of Pico Rivera, which is within the South Coast Air Basin and under the jurisdiction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for federal air quality planning and regulation and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for local air quality planning and regulation. The South Coast Air Basin does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and PM2.5 and is designated as nonattainment for these pollutants.1 Air Quality impacts include several components as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines: (a) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (b) cumulatively considerable increase of nonattainment criteria pollutants; (c) exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and (d) other emissions (such as odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, as per the USEPA project-level analysis guidance, the Transportation Conformity Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 Subpart A, and Section 176(c) of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7506(c)), a project-level air quality conformity determination is required. The conformity analysis addresses pollutants for which the Project area is designated nonattainment, or attainment with an approved Maintenance State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the USEPA.
1 The southern Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for the lead NAAQS based on source-specific monitoring at two locations as determined by the USEPA using 2007-2009 data. However, all stations in the Air Basin, including the near-source monitoring in Los Angeles County, have remained below the lead NAAQS for the 2012 through 2020 period.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 4 The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project identified sensitive receptors as including, but not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities as well as residential uses. The 2019 MND identified the nearest receptors to the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project as the single‐ and multifamily residences located adjacent to Mines Avenue.

Emissions attributed to the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project construction and operations were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2016.3.2, which was the model version available at the time the 2019 MND was prepared. The 2019 MND determined that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would not generate emissions that would exceed the regional or localized thresholds of significance and would not conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. A mitigation measure (AQ-1) was included to require regular watering applied to all disturbed areas to reach a water content of 12 percent, which would control construction-related fugitive dust emissions.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends an emissions modeling assessment for construction and operation of the Project using CalEEMod, based on the software version available at the time of the modeling assessment (version 2022.1 as of October 2024). Construction-related fugitive dust emissions will account for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires implementation of methods such as watering to control fugitive dust emissions. Emissions from construction and operation of the Project should be compared to the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance. Similar to the 2019 MND, due to the temporary nature of construction activities and that long-term operational activities would not generate substantial toxic air contaminant emissions, impacts related to toxic air contaminants should be discussed and a quantitative health risk assessment is not proposed.

The Project is state and locally funded. Due to the Project location over the San Gabriel River potentially involving the USACE jurisdiction, and the previous involvement with Caltrans through the use of Caltrans ATP funds as part of the original alignment as well as the potential for future federal funding through Caltrans, the air quality analysis should also consider NEPA requirements. The Project appears to be included in the regional emissions analysis conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the Connect SoCal 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which was found to conform by SCAG’s Regional Council on April 4, 2024. The Project appears to be listed in Connect SoCal 2024 under FTIP ID LAF7502 and RTP ID 1O1007 as listed below. The Project’s inclusion in Connect SoCal 2024 should be confirmed.

Regional Bikeway Project. The project will install a bicycle/pedestrian bridge, Class II bicycle lanes, a Class I shared- use path, traffic calming medians, sidewalks, curb ramps, signal modifications, and wayfinding signage, connecting to two regional Class I routes.

As discussed above, the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated as nonattainment for the federal NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and in unclassifiable or attainment status for the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and PM10. Therefore, a project-level hot-spot analysis is required for PM2.5 but not for CO or PM10 under 40 CFR 93.109. The purpose of the Alternatives is to identify, analyze, and develop alternative conceptual designs for the Class I bicycle and pedestrian bridge at adjacent to Whittier Boulevard in the City of Pico Rivera, over the San Gabriel River. The Alternatives are not considered a project of air quality concern for PM10 and/or PM2.5 (POAQC) because it does not meet the definition of a POAQC as Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 5 defined in USEPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance. A discussion of the Project compared to a POAQC as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) should be provided.

The air quality analysis for the Alternatives should be documented in an Air Quality Report (AQR) and Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) using the Caltrans annotated outline templates. The AQR should include emissions calculations and general air quality analyses to satisfy CEQA and NEPA requirements. The AQCA should contain the information that is required to make a project-level air quality conformity determination and should only address the conformity requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an air quality perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for the Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an air quality perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Biological Resources
ESA conducted a query of the following resource inventory databases to analyze the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within the Project Site. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) database was queried for special status species records in the Whittier USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles including Anaheim, Baldwin Park, El Monte, La Habra, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, and South Gate (CDFW 2024). Additionally, the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) planning tool was queried for any federally listed species, critical habitat, migratory birds, and other natural resources within the Project Site (USFWS 2024a). The National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2024b) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2024) were reviewed for presence of aquatic resources within the Project Site. Additionally, the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project MND published in May 2019 (2019 MND) (VCS Environmental, 2019) was reviewed for application information.

The natural communities and land cover types occurring on either side of the San Gabriel River adjacent to Whittier Boulevard within the Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 Project Sites include California native landscaping, ornamental landscaping, and disturbed/developed land cover (VCS Environmental 2019). The San Gabriel River was not mapped by VCS Environmental along Whittier Boulevard within the Preliminary Alternative 1 Project Site. However, based on aerial imagery, this Project Site would likely be mapped as disturbed/developed as it consists of the Whittier Boulevard bridge.

As provided in Attachment A, CNDDB and IPaC Query Results, there are a number of special-status plants and animals that have been reported as being present in the regional or local vicinity according to the results of the CNDDB and IPaC database queries. The following special status wildlife species have potential to occur within the Project Site based on the review of resource inventory database, described above, and presence of suitable habitat viewed by aerial imagery and described in the 2019 MND. This list should be considered a preliminary list. An updated general biological survey would be necessary to confirm the presence of suitable habitat and conditions.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 6 • Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) – State Candidate Endangered (SCE) • American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus) – State Special Animals List (SAL) • San Gabriel chestnut (snail) (Glyptostoma gabrielense) – SAL • coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) – SSC • southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida) – Federal Proposed Threatened Species, State Species of Special Concern (SSC)
• Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) – State Watch List (WL) • burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – SSC
• western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) – SSC • hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) - SAL
The following special status plant species have potential to occur within the Project Site:
• intermediate mariposa-lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) - California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.22 • lucky morning-glory (Calystegia felix) – CRPR 1B.1
• Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) – CRPR 33 • southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) – CRPR 1B.1 • Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa) – CRPR 2B.24 • San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana) – CRPR 2B.2
• San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) – CRPR 1B.2 As shown in Figure 1, Critical Habitat, the nearest federally-designated critical habitat is for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Project Site within Sycamore Canyon (USFWS 2024). No other federally-designated critical habitat is located within the immediate vicinity of the Project.

The Project Site does not fall under a USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or CDFW Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program (CDFW 2023).

The NHD and NWI identify the San Gabriel River as running northeast to southwest through the Project Site as shown in Figure 2, NHD and NWI. Additionally, NWI maps wetland features occurring along the west side of the San Gabriel River just south of the Project Site.
2 California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 3 California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 3 = plants about which we need more information. 4 California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 2B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere.

Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202201288_Pico_Riviera_Whittier_Bridge\03_Project\FeasibilityStudy.aprx Fig1_CriticalHabitat, dkaneshiro 10/4/2024 SOURCE: ESA, 2022 Pico Rivera Whittier Bridge
Figure 1
Critical Habitat
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Location
Critical Habitat
Coastal California gnatcatcher
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202201288_Pico_Riviera_Whittier_Bridge\03_Project\FeasibilityStudy.aprx Fig2_NWI_NHD, dkaneshiro 10/4/2024 SOURCE: NHD, 2024; NWI, 2024 Pico Rivera Whittier Bridge Figure 2
NHD and NWI
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Location
Proposed Project Features
Proposed Bike Trail
Alternative 1
Proposed Driveway
Proposed Flexible Posts
Proposed Median
Proposed Widened Sidewalk
Alternative 2 & 3
Proposed Bike Trail
Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Location
Proposed Catch Basin
Proposed Infiltration Basin
Proposed Overflow Basin Outlet
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
! ! ! !
Connector
CanalDitch
StreamRiver
ArtificialPath
National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 9 Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
ESA recommends a current general biological survey to characterize habitat within and surrounding the Project Site to determine the presence or absence of habitat suitable for special status species on the Project Site and within the direct vicinity. The survey would determine whether focused wildlife surveys may be required or recommended for species such as bats, burrowing owl, Crotch’s and American bumble bee, and southwestern pond turtle. In addition, the survey would determine if suitable habitat is present for special-status plant species.

Due to the presence of the various recorded species in the area, a biological technical report with mitigation measures is anticipated to be required for permitting of the Project. If habitat areas suitable for southwestern pond turtle are present and would be affected by the Project on-site, a federal Incidental Take authorization may be required from USFWS, via permitting under Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit may also be required from the CDFW if occupied habitat for burrowing owl, bumble bee species, and southwestern pond turtle are present and would be affected by the Project on-site.

Strategic planning and considerations of impact avoidance and mitigation opportunities should be prioritized during site design. Moreover, early consultation is recommended with CDFW to clarify options and confirm the most appropriate permitting pathways to address potential impacts and manage mitigation costs.

The San Gabriel River is considered subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) and Santa Ana RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The San Gabriel River has also been determined to be a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) from the 7th Street bridge located in Long Beach south to the Pacific Ocean (USACE 2024). Therefore, the portion of the San Gabriel River that runs through the Project Site is also subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A formal aquatic resources delineation is recommended to determine the extent of potential jurisdictional aquatic features within and adjacent to the Preliminary Alternative 1 Project Site. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies would be required if there are planned impacts to any jurisdictional aquatic resources. Compensatory mitigation may be required for any aquatic resource impacts at ratios from 1:1 up to 2:1 or more depending on the ecological quality, functions, and values of the aquatic resource impacted and as determined by the agencies.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
As mentioned above for Preliminary Alternative 1, ESA recommends a general biological survey within and surrounding the Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 Project Sites. Due to the presence of the various recorded species in the area, a biological technical report with mitigation measures is anticipated to be required for permitting of the Project.

In addition to the San Gabriel River recommendation described above for Preliminary Alternative 1, the adjacent wetlands identified within and just southwest of the Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 Project Sites are similarly considered subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), Santa Ana RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act and subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the adjacent wetlands have continuous surface connection to the San Gabriel River, they would also be subject to USACE jurisdiction. A formal aquatic resources delineation is recommended to determine the extent of potential jurisdictional features within and adjacent to the Preliminary Alternative 2 and 3 Project Sites. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies would be required if there are planned impacts to any jurisdictional aquatic resources. Compensatory mitigation may be required for any aquatic resource impacts Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 10 at ratios from 1:1 up to 2:1 or more depending on the ecological quality, functions, and values of the aquatic resource impacted and as determined by the agencies.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having identical project footprints, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 2 recommendations above.

Cultural Resources
To conduct an analysis of the feasibility of the Project alternatives, ESA reviewed publicly available archival information, confidential reports and records, and internal documents. While no records search was done at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), ESA cultural resources specialists reviewed the results of past CHRIS records searches that overlap the Project Site and a ¼-mile buffer around the Project Alternative elements. This includes the information within the 2019 Archaeological Survey Report for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project (Harper 2019) and information resulting from a records search done by ESA in 2017 for the San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds Levee Retrofit Project in Pico Rivera. The area of potential effects from the latter project was immediately adjacent to the current Project Ste.

While CHRIS records searches are often considered to have an approximately five-year shelf life, these older searches are still valid for assessing the feasibility of the Project Alternatives as they contain information on any known cultural resources predating 1969 and it is unlikely that any cultural resources from then to 1974 are significant. Additionally, based on the nature of the Project Site and its history of development as housing, flood control, and recreational areas, it is unlikely that there have been many, if any, cultural resources investigations subsequent to the 2019 Archaeological Survey Report.

Five cultural resources have been previously recorded within the ¼-mile radius of the Project Site. • P-19-000182 – Precontact archaeological site overlapping the Pio Pico Historic Park, with ill-defined boundaries. This site may represent the contact-period and ethnohistorically attested village of Sejat or Corunga (see below). The boundaries of this site may extend into the Project Site on the eastern bank. This site is likely eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). • P-19-001179 – Historic-era archaeological site with multiple loci representing the occupation of the Pio Pico Adobe and surrounding associated features and deposits. The boundaries of this site extend into the Project Site on the eastern bank. This site is eligible for listing on the National Register. • P-19-178611 – Historic-era built environment resource consisting of the National Register listed property of the Pio Pico Casa and surrounding grounds. The boundaries of this resource extend into the Project Site on the eastern bank.
• P-19-186932 – Historic-era built environment resource consisting of the 1940s Pio Pico State Historic Park administrative facilities. These have been previously recommended as not eligible for listing on the National Register or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), both individually and as elements of a historic district.
• P-19-190511 – Historic-era built environment resource consisting of the San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds, a 1930s water conservation and flood control system that is part of the broader San Gabriel River Conservation System, itself part of the part of the overall Los Angeles County Flood Control System. US Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 11 Bureau of Reclamation has previously found that the Los Angeles County Flood Control System is significant and likely eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. While P-19-190511 may be eligible as part of that system, it has been recommended not individually eligible.

The site designated as P-19-000182, also called the “Pico Site”, was excavated in the 1940s and associated with the ethnographic village of Sejat in 1950 based on ethnographic and ethnohistoric work by Harrington. Since then, P-19-000182 has been excavated around 1982 and again around 1984 (Briggs 1984; Somani et al. 2020).

Together, these excavations resulted in significant archaeological data, including producing indigenous brownware ceramics that were later used in studies of indigenous ceramic production in the Los Angeles Basin, indicating that this site is eligible for listing on the National and California Registers (Hurd and Miller 2013).

Unfortunately, reports regarding this site either lack maps or are not available, so the exact locations of archaeological data recovery units could not be assessed for this study.

In 1984, Woodward and Swinton conducted a study of P-19-001179. They reported that previous to that time archaeologists had recorded a historic-era refuse deposit within the river channel on the former river bank, associated with the very early American Period occupation of the area. They also identified an another historicera refuse deposit likely dating to the 1850s that included an 1854 US “seated Liberty” ¼-dollar, Mexican ceramic bowls and ollas, spice and liquor bottles, and glassware. Woodward and Swinton also describe findings of excavations within the adobe, finding both Mexican historic-era artifacts and indigenous precontact or Contact Period artifacts. These refuse deposits were both between the adobe and the railroad tracks, down the slope in what was likely an alluvial terrace within the highwater flow of the river. This suggests that there could be other historic-era refuse deposits buried within the broader river channel.

There are multiple Gabrieleño villages attested to have been located near to the Project Site. Notably, multiple authors (Briggs 1984; Harrington 1933:209; Johnston 1962:84-85; McCawley 1996:58-59) associate an area overlapping the southeastern side of the Project Site as potentially the location of the village of Sejat, described by Boscana as the ancestral rancheria of the Juaneño people. There are other possible locations for Sejat, but it is clear that a Native American village was present here. Another possible Gabrieleño name for this place is Corunga (this name has similarities with Coronne, a daughter of the chief of Sejat in Boscana’s account), recounted in the 1850s as at “Pico Crossing,” perhaps the name for the village reported to be on a knoll not far from the Pio Pico Adobe (Johnston 1962:84; McCawley 1996:58; Warner et al. 1876:22). This village that lasted into the Spanish period and was later referred to locally as La Rancheria, a Spanish term for California Native American villages (Johnston 1962:84). Historical maps of the Mexican Period ranchos and of early American Period Los Angeles region show multiple trails and roads passing through this area, and archaeological deposits are more common along such travel routes. Additionally, these maps show more buildings or structures associated with the Pio Pico Adobe, as well as on the opposite side of the San Gabriel River, and foundations or refuse deposits associated with these buildings may be present subsurface within the Project Site.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Preliminary Alternative 1appears to have the least potential to cause significant impacts to known or unknown cultural resources based on a) no new construction of bridges spanning the San Gabriel River and b) therefore a lower amount of ground disturbance required.

The anticipated involvement of Caltrans (as funding or permitting) would trigger a delegated Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) federal nexus under Section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 12 (NHPA). Such compliance is handled by Caltrans through their Extended First Amended Programmatic Agreement with FHWA and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other federal agencies as it pertains to administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Caltrans Section 106 PA). If this is the case, Preliminary Alternative 1 would require preparation of cultural resources documents specific to Caltrans, as specified in the Standard Environmental Reference Volume 2: Cultural Resources. These documents include:
• Area of Potential Effects (APE) map, delineating the horizontal and vertical area wherein cultural resources might experience physical, visual, or similar effects from the project, • Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), summarizing the Section 106 identification and evaluation efforts, • Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), summarizing the above-ground archaeological identification and evaluation efforts,
• Extended Phase I Report (XPI), documenting identification efforts focused on potential subsurface features and deposits.

If resources are identified as a) within the APE and b) have the potential to be adversely affected by the Project, additional evaluation, resolution of adverse effects, and finding of effects (FOE) efforts and reports may be required. In some cases, these documents and efforts will require concurrence from the SHPO.

The documents prepared for compliance with NHPA Section 106 are sufficient to provide cultural resources compliance with NEPA and can either have CEQA language incorporated within them or be converted to reports that include CEQA language.

The presence of the precontact archaeological site (P-14-000182), the early historic-era archaeological site (P-14-001179), and the National Register listed Pio Pico Adobe (P-14-178611) adjacent or overlapping the footprint of Preliminary Alternative 1 would likely preclude a categorical exemption due to the potential to cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” (CCR 14 Section 15300.2.[f]).

Similarly, these resources, considered historic properties under NHPA Section 106, may preclude a categorical exemption under NEPA as potential impacts on historic properties are among the potential "extraordinary circumstances" that an agency must consider when screening a project as a NEPA categorical exemption (40 CFR 1508.27). It is also important to note that NHPA Section 106 is a separate authority from NEPA and an exclusion from NEPA review does not mean that the Project is excluded from NHPA Section 106 review (36 CFR 800.8[b]).

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Compared to Preliminary Alternative 1, this alternative appears to have a higher potential to cause significant impacts to known or unknown cultural resources based on a) the new construction of a bridge spanning the San Gabriel River and b) therefore a higher amount of ground disturbance required. Compared to Preliminary Alternative 3, this alternative appears to have a lower potential to cause significant impacts as the span would be lower in elevation and therefore have a lower viewshed and less construction necessary for the bridge approach.

The work required within the channel of the San Gabriel River (considered to be a Water of the US) would trigger NHPA Section 106 due to the need for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE. This would require NHPA Section 106 compliant documents and a broader area of analysis (APE) due to the more expansive concerns within Section 106 regarding visual and other non-physical adverse effects to historic Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 13 properties (i.e. cultural resources determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register). This may also require a higher standard of identification and evaluation prior to construction than in CEQA, as well as requiring SHPO review and concurrence.

If Caltrans is involved as a funder of the Project, this would also trigger NHPA Section 106 through FHWA delegation to Caltrans under the Caltrans Section 106 PA, as described under Preliminary Alternative 1 above.

Caltrans involvement would likely result in USACE considering Caltrans (through FHWA delegation) as the federal lead agency, but there is a low probability that the Project is considered separate undertakings based on different APEs and agency approvals. If resources are identified as a) within the APE and b) have the potential to be adversely affected by the Project, additional evaluation, resolution of adverse effects, and FOE efforts and reports may be required. In some cases, these documents and efforts will require concurrence from the SHPO.

The presence of the precontact archaeological site (P-14-000182), the early historic-era archaeological site (P-14-001179), and the National Register listed Pio Pico Adobe (P-14-178611) adjacent or overlapping the footprint of Preliminary Alternative 2 would likely preclude a categorical exemption due to the potential to cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” (CCR 14 Section 15300.2.[f]).

Similarly, these resources, considered historic properties under NHPA Section 106, may preclude a categorical exemption under NEPA as potential impacts on historic properties are among the potential "extraordinary circumstances" that an agency must consider when screening a project as a NEPA categorical exemption (40 CFR 1508.27). It is also important to note that NHPA Section 106 is a separate authority from NEPA and an exclusion from NEPA review does not mean that the project is excluded from NHPA Section 106 review (36 CFR 800.8[b]).

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Compared to Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2, Preliminary Alternative 3 appears to have a higher potential to cause significant impacts to known or unknown cultural resources based on a) the new construction of a bridge spanning the San Gabriel River, b) a resulting higher amount of ground disturbance, and c) a higher profile of construction and resulting viewshed and bridge approach construction.

As described above in Preliminary Alternative 2, the work within the channel of the San Gabriel River would trigger NHPA Section 106 due to the federal nexus from a USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. This would require NHPA Section 106 compliant documents and a broader area of analysis (APE) due to the more expansive concerns within Section 106 regarding visual and other non-physical adverse effects to historic properties (i.e. cultural resources determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register). This may also require a higher standard of identification and evaluation prior to construction than in CEQA, as well as requiring SHPO review and concurrence.

Caltrans involvement would likely result in USACE considering Caltrans (through FHWA delegation) as the federal lead agency, but there is a low probability that the Project is considered separate undertakings based on Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 14 different APEs and agency approvals. If resources are identified as a) within the APE and b) have the potential to be adversely affected by the Project, additional evaluation, resolution of adverse effects, and FOE efforts and reports may be required. In some cases, these documents and efforts will require concurrence from the SHPO.

The presence of the precontact archaeological site (P-14-000182), the early historic-era archaeological site (P-14-001179), and the National Register listed Pio Pico Adobe (P-14-178611) adjacent or overlapping the footprint of Preliminary Alternative 3 would likely preclude a categorical exemption due to the potential to cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource”, with “historical resource” defined in CEQA as a cultural resource eligible for listing on the California Register (CCR 14 Section 15300.2.[f]).

Similarly, these resources, considered historic properties under NHPA Section 106, may preclude a categorical exemption under NEPA as potential impacts on historic properties are among the potential "extraordinary circumstances" that an agency must consider when screening a project as a NEPA categorical exemption (40 CFR 1508.27). It is also important to note that NHPA Section 106 is a separate authority from NEPA and an exclusion from NEPA review does not mean that the project is excluded from NHPA Section 106 review (36 CFR 800.8[b]).

Energy
The Alternatives are located in the City of Pico Rivera, which is within the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for natural gas. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME) is a locally controlled electricity provider in the City. PRIME does not replace SCE but rather provides electric generation (the source of the power) services with a choice of 50 percent to 100 percent renewable energy; however, SCE provides electric delivery. Customers can choose to opt out of PRIME and retain SCE as the electricity provider.

The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project quantified short-term construction-related transportation fuel (gasoline and diesel) demand. Operation would result in an increase in bicycle usage, which would decrease vehicle miles traveled and decrease the consumption of long-term demand for fossil fuels. The 2019 MND also determined that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would be consistent with the overall goal of the City to reduce energy consumption, by reducing vehicle traffic and increasing the use of pedestrian facilities, reducing exterior heat gain, reducing water consumption with drought tolerant landscape, encouraging the use of energy efficient construction equipment and recycling of construction materials. A mitigation measure (E-1) was included that requests the contractor, to the extent feasible, incorporate energy efficient equipment into the mix of construction equipment.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends an energy modeling assessment for construction and a qualitative assessment for operations of the Project. Energy modeling data will utilize result outputs from the CalEEMod software used in the air quality analysis. Similar to the 2019 MND, construction would result in a short-term energy demand due to the temporary nature of construction activities whereas long-term operational activities may result in an increase in electricity demand from additional lighting energy but would result in reduced Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 15 vehicle miles traveled and reduced transportation fuel demand resulting in an overall decrease in energy demand.

The use of energy efficient construction equipment should be considered and assessed as part of the energy analysis.

The Project is state and locally funded. Due to the Project location over the San Gabriel River potentially involving the USACE jurisdiction, and the previous involvement with Caltrans through the use of Caltrans ATP funds as part of the original alignment as well as the potential for future federal funding through Caltrans, the energy analysis should be documented in an Energy Technical Memorandum as per the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 13 Energy Analysis Report Decision Tree. The Energy Technical Memorandum should contain sufficient analysis and information to satisfy CEQA and NEPA requirements.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an energy perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from an energy perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Geology/Soils/Paleontological Resources
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The 2019 MND noted that the Project area has no active faults, will be subject to seismic shaking, may be susceptible to liquefaction, has no susceptibility to landslides, and has a low potential for expansive soils. The 2019 MND stated that compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), Caltrans standards, and local building codes would require the preparation of a final geotechnical investigation report that provides recommendations to address geotechnical conditions, as applicable.

An associated geotechnical report was conducted for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project (2019 Geotechnical Report) (Diaz-Yourman, 2019). The field investigation for the 2019 Geotechnical Report indicated silt and silty sand on the proposed pathway. Laboratory tests of soil samples indicated a low potential for expansive soils. The highest historical groundwater was documented at 10 to 18 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Percolation tests were conducted to quantify infiltration rates for a proposed infiltration basin that is not at the same location as the Project.

The 2019 Geotechnical Report stated that a separate geotechnical investigation was conducted for the pedestrian bridge structure over the San Gabriel River that was proposed at that time. [Note to BKF: Was that bridge geotechnical investigation conducted and if yes, is that report available for review?] A preliminary hydraulic impact analyses was conducted for the construction of a proposed bicycle bridge about 800 feet downstream of the current proposed bridge location for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project (2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses) (BKF, 2019). Similar to the Project, the 2019 proposed bridge structure would consist of a steel truss of three spans supported by two support piers founded in the riverbed. The purpose Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 16 of the 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses was to estimate the impact of the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project on the hydraulic characteristics of the San Gabriel River. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses evaluated the pre-project and post-project water surface elevation conditions. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses calculated the differences at almost all locations in the riverbed to be 0.00 feet. Just upstream and at the bridge piers, the differences ranged from 0.00 to 0.03 feet. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses notes that FEMA considers a change within six inches to be less than significant. As such, the effects of the proposed bridge crossing are well within this criterion and its impacts to the San Gabriel River can be characterized as being less than significant. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses also concluded that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would have a positive effect on the capacity and water quality of storm water conveyed in the affected storm drain lines and the impacts on storm water would be less than significant.

The 2019 Geotechnical Report stated that as the design progresses, the effects of general and localized scour associated with the placement of the piers in the earthen riverbed would need to be determined. The design of the pier foundations would be required to accommodate the computed scour depths. [Note to BKF: Was an analysis of scour for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project conducted? If yes, can we review that report. Has a scour report been conducted for this Project? If yes, can we review that report?] There are three separate sediment map-units depicted overlapping with the Project Site on the “Geologic map of the El Monte 7.5-minute quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California” (Tan 2000). Each of these is a form of Quaternary alluvium, but differ in their age, grain size, and consolidation (amount of compaction and conversion to solid rock). The riverbed is classified as Qw, active channel and wash deposits made up of unconsolidated sand and gravels accumulating in rivers and streams, generally dating from the mid to late Holocene. Each bank of the river is classified as Qyfa, younger Holocene undivided alluvial fan and valley deposits primarily made up of unconsolidated sand. The northeastern corner of the Project may extend into Qofs map-unit, Pleistocene undivided alluvial fan and valley deposits primarily made up of moderately to well-consolidated silts.

The Los Angeles Basin represents a trough that subsided and was filled with Miocene marine and nonmarine sediments brought by the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers (Hall 2007:170, 177; Schoenherr 2017:268). By the late Pleistocene epoch, this formed a broad alluvial floodplain, surrounded by high mountains with smaller ranges of hills within it. The alluvium filling the basin can be up to 14,000 ft thick (Schoenherr 2017:268). This deep alluvial nature means that as depth increases, so does the chances of encountering significant paleontological resources.

In California, valley areas such as this generally contain few Pleistocene fossils at less than 8 ft below the historic ground surface. Below 8 ft, areas similar to the Project Site are assigned a moderate potential for producing fossils. Fossils are also more common in sediments where the grain size are smaller and thus experience lithification at a faster rate. Alluvial deposits consisting of sands, silts, and clays in floodplains, rivers, and waterbodies are more likely to contain fossils (Somani 2020:41).

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, ESA recommends the preparation of a final geotechnical investigation for the proposed infiltration basin and storm drain lines to inform the project design and prevent erosion.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 17 Preliminary Alternative 1 does not appear to have the potential to encounter or impact significant paleontological resources as there will be only shallow ground disturbance because it consists of adding on to an existing span rather than constructing a new bridge spanning the San Gabriel River. A basic desktop analysis of the potential to encounter and impact paleontological resources should be included in any CEQA or NEPA document, but no other paleontological analysis is anticipated.

Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, ESA recommends the preparation of a final geotechnical investigation for the proposed bridge over the San Gabriel River, infiltration basin, and storm drain lines to inform the project design and prevent erosion. In addition, ESA recommends the preparation of a hydraulic study of the effects of bridge support piers placed in the riverbed that include the potential effects of erosion and scour.

Due to the potentially deep ground disturbance for constructing bridge supports, Preliminary Alternative 2 has the potential to encounter and impact significant paleontological resources. At minimum, Preliminary Alternative 2 would require a basic desktop paleontological identification effort by or under the supervision of a qualified paleontologist. This would include a review of geotechnical and soils conditions for the site, a search of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) Database, the potential presence of paleontological resources at a depth that could intersect with project-related subsurface disturbance, and the development of basic mitigation measures for encountering unanticipated potentially significant fossils.

Documents that may be required to be prepared by qualified paleontologists as a condition of project approval or to support any CEQA or NEPA document include:
• Paleontological Identification Report (PIR), documenting the efforts to identify the potential for or presence of significant paleontological resources within the Project Site, how the Project may impact known or unknown significant fossils, and presenting recommendations for any further paleontological identification efforts, evaluation efforts, monitoring, or other mitigation measures. • Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER), presenting the assessment of the significance of any paleontological resources and recommendations for treatment or mitigation. • Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP), establishing the mitigation efforts for paleontological resources and their implementation, including minimum requirements, monitoring protocols, collection thresholds, general fieldwork and laboratory methods, and curation considerations. • Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR), documenting implementation of the approved PMP and the results of any paleontological resource recovery.

Due to the potentially deep ground disturbance for constructing bridge supports and approaches, Preliminary Alternative 3 has the potential to encounter and impact significant paleontological resources. This alternative would require the same assessments and documents identified above in Preliminary Alternative 2.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alternatives are located in the City of Pico Rivera. The City is in the process of developing its first Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which is scheduled to be finalized and presented to the City Council in January 2025. The draft CAAP identifies key strategies and actions for mitigating climate change (i.e., reducing Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 18 greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and boosting carbon “sinks” to store these gases) and adapting to climate change (i.e., protect and build resilience in vulnerable systems and communities.). A key strategy relevant to the Project includes Transportation and Land Use (TL) Strategy TL 1 – Promote multimodal transportation systems.

The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. Emissions of GHGs attributed to the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project’s construction and operations were calculated using CalEEMod software version 2016.3.2, which was the model version available at the time the 2019 was prepared. Operational GHG emissions were calculated for water treatment, supply, distribution, and conveyance for cleaning and maintenance purposes.

GHG emissions from construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of significance of 3,000 metric tons per year. The 2019 MND also determined that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan Environmental Resource Element, which addresses GHG emissions and provides recommendations reducing emissions city-wide in Policy 8.2-2.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends an emissions modeling assessment for construction and operation of the Project using CalEEMod, based on the software version available at the time of the modeling assessment (version 2022.1 as of October 2024). GHG emissions should be assessed in the same modeling analysis as for air quality as described above. For operational emissions, similar to the 2019 MND, GHG emissions associated with water for cleaning and maintenance purposes should be included. In addition, long-term operational activities may result in an increase in electricity demand from additional lighting energy, which should also be accounted for in the operational GHG emissions, as applicable.

At the time of the 2019 MND, the City did not have a draft or adopted CAAP. It is possible that the City will adopt its draft CAAP prior to approval of the Project. Therefore, ESA recommends evaluating the Project’s GHG emission impacts based on the Project’s conformance with applicable GHG strategies and actions in the CAAP.

As discussed in Air Quality above, the Project is state and locally funded. Due to the Project location over the San Gabriel River potentially involving the USACE jurisdiction, and the previous involvement with Caltrans through the use of Caltrans ATP funds as part of the original alignment as well as the potential for future federal funding through Caltrans, the GHG emissions analysis should also consider NEPA requirements, which includes consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gases. The GHG emissions analysis for the Project Alternatives should be documented in the Air Quality Report (AQR) using the Caltrans annotated outline templates. The AQR will include GHG emissions calculations and general GHG emissions analyses to satisfy CEQA and NEPA requirements.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a GHG emissions perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a GHG emissions perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 19 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The 2019 MND provides a brief discussion on each of the CEQA Appendix G significance criteria for hazards and hazardous materials. The 2019 MND analyses noted that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would use hazardous materials but that compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for impacts to less than significant. The 2019 MND stated that there are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project area, the project site is not located on or adjacent to the listed hazardous materials release site, is not located within two miles of an airport, would not affect emergency responses or evacuations, and is not located within a designated wildfire area. The 2019 MND stated that compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations would reduce potential impacts relative to hazardous materials to less than significant.

As noted above, the search of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Envirostor websites was conducted to identify hazardous materials release sites that may extend to within the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project footprint. However, the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project footprint has been changed and the hazardous materials databases are routinely updated. Therefore, this search will need to be re-done. The presence of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the Project Site should be verified with a Phase I site assessment.

Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, ESA recommends the preparation of a Phase I environmental site assessment to verify there are no hazardous materials release sites within or adjacent to the current proposed Project Site.

Hydrology/Water Quality
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The 2019 MND provided a brief description of watersheds, surface water bodies, and the groundwater basin in the area. The 2019 MND concluded that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project has a low to no potential for impacts to water quality, groundwater recharge, changes to drainage patterns, flooding, and effects to the Basin Plan. The 2019 MND stated that compliance with requirements of the Construction General Permit, the MS4 permit (Regional Stormwater Permit), and local building codes, including the preparation of a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) based on the County of Los Angeles Model, would result in the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project having impacts that would be less than significant.

A preliminary hydraulic impact analyses (2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses) (BKF, 2019) was conducted for the construction of a proposed bicycle bridge about 800 feet downstream of the current proposed bridge location. The proposed bridge structure would consist of a steel truss of three spans supported by two support piers founded in the riverbed. The purpose of the 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses was to estimate the impact of the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project on the hydraulic characteristics of the San Gabriel River. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses evaluated the pre-project and post-project water surface elevation conditions. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses calculated the differences at almost all locations in the riverbed to be 0.00 feet. Just upstream and at the bridge piers, the differences ranged from 0.00 to 0.03 feet. The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses report notes that FEMA considers a change within six inches to be less than significant. As such, the effects of the proposed bridge crossing are well Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 20 within this criterion and its impacts to the San Gabriel River can be characterized as being less than significant.

The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses also concluded that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would have a positive effect on the capacity and water quality of storm water conveyed in the affected storm drain lines and the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project’s impacts on storm water would be less than significant.

The 2019 Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses stated that as the design progresses, the effects of general and localized scour associated with the placement of the piers in the earthen riverbed would need to be determined.

The design of the pier foundations would be required to accommodate the computed scour depths. [Note to BKF:

Has an analysis of scour been conducted yet? The MND states: Projects that are determined to be a Priority Project are required to prepare a Priority Project WQMP based on the County of Los Angeles Model WQMP.” Is this still a Priority Project?]
Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, ESA recommends the preparation of a final geotechnical investigation for the proposed infiltration basin and storm drain lines to inform the project design and prevent erosion and impacts to water quality and drainages.

Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, ESA recommends the preparation of a final geotechnical investigation for the proposed bridge over the San Gabriel River, infiltration basin, and storm drain lines to inform the project design and prevent erosion and impacts to water quality and drainages. In addition, ESA recommends the preparation of a hydraulic study of the effects of bridge support piers placed in the riverbed; the study would need to include the potential effects of erosion and scour.

Land Use/Planning
Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
The long-term operations of the Project would not restrict vehicle or pedestrian access within the Project Site of Preliminary Alternative 1. During construction, the proposed improvements would impede vehicle and pedestrian access temporarily. There would be potential for temporary displacement of on-street parking. During construction, ESA recommends the preparation of a Traffic Control Management Plan and Temporary Parking Plan to provide vehicle and pedestrian circulation and to identify temporary parking for temporary displaced parking areas. ESA recommends a consistency analysis of Preliminary Alternative 1 to confirm no conflicts with any land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a land use/planning perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 21 Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a land use/planning perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Mineral Resources
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The 2019 MND stated that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project area has no commercially viable sand and gravel resources and no locally-important mineral resource recovery sites, resulting in no impact.

Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of available environmental site records, databases, and other documentation, no additional technical analysis would be needed.

Noise
The Alternatives are located in the City of Pico Rivera. The City regulates noise through the Noise Element of the General Plan with exterior noise level standards established in Policy 11.1-1 and construction noise addressed in Policy 11.3-1 of the General Plan Noise Element. Noise impacts include several components as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines: (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; (b) generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and (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.

In addition, as per the requirements of Title 23 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Par 772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise,” noise impacts and abatement, if necessary, related to construction and operation of the Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Project may be required.

The 2019 MND identified the nearest receptors to Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project as the single‐ and multifamily residences located adjacent to Mines Avenue and Dunlap Crossing Road. Noise attributed to construction equipment were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The 2019 MND determined that the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would not result in significant construction noise impacts; however, construction noise mitigation measures (N-1, N2, and N-3) were recommended to reduce construction noise. The 2019 MND determined that long-term operation of the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project would not generate traffic or otherwise include activities or equipment that will increase noise levels beyond baseline conditions and that street improvements may provide traffic calming benefits which will slow overall speeds and may have a beneficial effect in reducing traffic noise.

The 2019 MND also determined that groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant and that no impacts would occur from airports/airstrips.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 22 Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends a noise modeling assessment for construction of the Project using the FHWA RCNM. Construction-related noise will account for compliance with the City’s General Plan Noise Element Policy 11.1-1 and Policy 11.3-1, as applicable. Similar to the 2019 MND, due to the temporary nature of construction activities and that long-term operational activities would not generate increases in traffic or other noise sources, impacts related to operational noise would be discussed qualitatively, supported by transportation and traffic data, as available for the Project. Similar to the 2019 MND, ESA recommends a groundborne vibration modeling assessment for construction of the Project using vibration data and guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The Project is likely to be considered a Type III project under 23 CFR 772. Type III projects do not require a detailed noise analysis; however, anticipated changes in noise levels due to the future distribution of traffic are considered based on projections of existing and future traffic volumes for documentation purposes. Type III projects include projects that typically do not add capacity and are not expected to cause noise impacts including roadway safety, bridge repair, intersection improvement, and bicycle and pedestrian projects.5 The noise analysis for the Project Alternatives should be documented in a Noise Study Report (NSR) using the Caltrans annotated outline template. The NSR will include noise and vibration calculations and general noise analyses to satisfy CEQA and NEPA requirements.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a noise perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Project Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a noise perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Project Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Population/Housing
Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Implementation of the Project would not extend any new roadways or infrastructure that would facilitate new growth in the City. The construction would generate short-term construction employment opportunities that would most likely come from the local region and would not generate new housing, expanded infrastructure and public services. There are no existing housing units that would be impacted by the construction and operation of 5 United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2018. Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/reviewing_noise_analysis/#toc494123500. Accessed April 2024.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 23 the Project. Therefore, no replacement housing would be needed. Based on the above, no additional technical analysis would be needed.

Public Services
Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
The Project would not increase the demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities over the current level of demand and would not require the construction of any new governmental facilities. No additional technical analysis would be needed.

Recreation
Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
The Project does not propose any new residential uses that would increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Instead, all three (3) Preliminary Alternatives would provide improvements to trail connectivity. No additional technical analysis would be needed.

Transportation
Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
ESA recommends a consistency analysis of Preliminary Alternative 1 to confirm no conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities. Preliminary Alternative 1 includes reconstructing and widening the sidewalk and onsite improvements to trail connectivity. Preliminary Alternative 2 and Preliminary Alternative 3 share the same design concept but with different bridge design. All three preliminary alternatives propose onsite improvements for water quality and trail connectivity. Project implementation does not anticipate increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. To ensure adequate emergency access, ESA recommends the preparation of a Traffic Control Management Plan before construction begins.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a transportation perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a transportation perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The identification of tribal cultural resources generally relies on the knowledge of tribal members as the recognized experts in their heritage and related resources. Under the Assembly Bill 52 revisions to CEQA, Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 24 agencies must consider tribal cultural resources in their assessment of project impacts and must consult with interested tribes to identify any tribal cultural resources and for assistance in determining if any identified resources are significant.

Although tribes are the experts regarding tribal cultural resources, review of ethnographies and histories and ethnohistorical analysis may provide indications of potential tribal cultural resources. Additionally, tribes often attach significance to archaeological sites, even if there are not intact deposits. Two archaeological sites, CA-LAN-182 and CA-LAN-1179, are present overlapping the eastern portion of the Project Site and may be considered significant tribal cultural resources. There are multiple Gabrieleño villages attested to have been located near to the Project Site. Notably, multiple authors (Briggs 1984; Harrington 1933:209; Johnston 1962:84- 85; McCawley 1996:58-59) associate an area overlapping the southeastern side of the Project Site as potentially the location of the village of Sejat, described by Boscana as the ancestral rancheria of the Juaneño people. There are other possible locations for Sejat, but it is clear that a Native American village was present here. Another possible Gabrieleño name for this place is Corunga (this name has similarities with Coronne, a daughter of the chief of Sejat in Boscana’s account), recounted in the 1850s as at “Pico Crossing,” perhaps the name for the village reported to be on a knoll not far from the Pio Pico Adobe (Johnston 1962:84; McCawley 1996:58; Warner et al. 1876:22). This village that lasted into the Spanish period and was later referred to locally as La Rancheria, a Spanish term for California Native American villages (Johnston 1962:84). The Sejat rancheria and the Juaneño leader Corronne, both with links to this area, seem to be associated with the Chinigchinich religion, although it is unclear how (Harrington 1933).

Historical maps of the Mexican Period ranchos and of early American Period Los Angeles region show multiple trails and roads passing through this area. It is likely that these followed routes established by the precontact indigenous communities. Such routes can also be considered tribal cultural resources.

Preliminary Alternative 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Although it appears likely that there are tribal cultural resources near to or overlapping with the Project Site, government-to-government consultation by the City will be required to make that determination and to establish if the Project would impact such resources. While not specifically required by CEQA, some agencies request a tribal cultural resources identification report in order to document research and consultation efforts and to provide support to a Tribal Cultural Resources section of the CEQA document.

Without information from tribes, it is not possible to judge if any preliminary alternatives are either more impactful or less impactful than others.

Utilities/Service Systems
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. The City is served by two water purveyors, City of Pico Rivera Water Authority and the Pico Water District. Each purveyor maintains its own distribution system and operates water supply wells to extract local groundwater from the Central Basin aquifer. The City’s Sewer Division is responsible for the collection of wastewater within the City limits and delivery to the trunk sewer mains of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). After sewage is collected locally and delivered to the regional trunk lines, wastewater flows south toward the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant of LACSD in the City of Cerritos. The Sanitation Waste District of Los Angeles County disposes the County’s waste including the City’s waste in the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Imperial County using a Waste-by-Rail system from the Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 25 Puente Hills Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The nearest landfill for solid waste disposal would be Whittier Landfill, Azusa Landfill, and Los Angeles Landfill.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Recommendations
Preliminary Alternative 1 proposed modifications to the existing Whittier Boulevard Bridge with onsite improvements for water quality and trail connectivity. Preliminary Alternative 2 and Preliminary Alternative 3 share the same design concept but with different bridge design. All three preliminary alternatives propose onsite improvements for water quality and trail connectivity. The Project would use negligible amounts of water during construction but not during operation. ESA recommends calculating the water demand and comparing this demand to the applicable Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to ensure there would be available water supplies under normal, dry and multiple dry years. The Project would generate negligible amounts of wastewater during construction but not operation. ESA recommends calculating the wastewater generation to ensure there is capacity for treatment within the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. Operation of the Project would not increase the demand for solid waste disposal. Construction of the Project would generate debris as well as some worker trash that would require solid waste disposal. ESA recommends calculating the total of solid waste generating to ensure there is capacity in the Mesquite Regional Landfill.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a utilities and service systems perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 2 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Recommendations
Due to having similar project footprints from a utilities and service systems perspective, and similar anticipated environmental effects, recommendations for Preliminary Alternative 3 are the same as for Preliminary Alternative 1 recommendations above.

Wildfire
The 2019 MND provides information relevant to the Project. According to the California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the City is not identified as a high fire hazard area or near a state responsibility area.

Preliminary Alternative 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations
Based on the desktop survey, review of the 2019 MND, review of the California Department of Forest and Fire Protection maps, no additional technical analysis would be needed.

Potential NEPA and Caltrans
The use of Federal funds will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In California, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has delegated much of their NEPA work to Caltrans and for the Project Caltrans would be the Federal Lead Agency.

This section outlines the documentation required to complete the NEPA process through Caltrans’ Local Assistance Program. Early in the project, a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form must be prepared as Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 26 part of the NEPA documentation coordination with Caltrans. This form is mandatory for all Local Public Agency federal-aid projects.

Completing the PES requires a detailed project description and some additional desktop studies. Caltrans Local Assistance staff use the PES to identify the necessary technical studies and analyses for the project and determine the NEPA Class of Action (Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or Environmental Impact Statement).

The determination of the NEPA Class of Action is based on if the project results in significant impacts or not, the number of alternatives to be carried forward, in the environmental analysis, and the potential for public controversy. If only one alternative is carried forward given the project location it is anticipated that the project would be a Categorical Exclusion that would require additional technical studies. One of the main items with regards to the NEPA Class of Action is the time required to complete the NEPA process. A Categorical Exclusion with required technical studies typically takes 1 to 2 years, an Environmental Assessment can add another year (3 years total), and an Environmental Impact Statement could take up to 4 years because of the alternatives being analyzed and the additional reviews required.

Table 1 identifies and summarizes the potential NEPA documentation that could be required for the Project based on the alternative selected. The anticipated documentation required for the NEPA analysis is based on a highlevel review of the Project Site and potential alternatives. For the technical studies noted below, it is assumed these would be prepared to address both NEPA and CEQA requirements. In addition, Caltrans has templates that would be used for the required technical studies on the Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmentalanalysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/forms-templates.

TABLE 1

POTENTIAL NEPA SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Resource Anticipated Supporting Documentation
Visual Resources VIA Memorandum (Alternative 1)
Standard VIA Report (Alternative 2 and 3)
• Preliminary Alternative 1 would likely result in only minor visual changes given the location of the improvements.
• A new structure in a new location may trigger the need for a Standard VIA Report with Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Depending on alternative selected visual simulations may be needed at part of the documentation. • If there is public concern with any of the alternatives a Standard VIA Report would likely be required.

Biological Resources
(Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act)
Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impacts (NES-MI) (Alternative 1) or Natural Environment Study (NES) (Alternatives 2 and 3)
Biological Assessment – Alternative has the potential for a “May Affect” finding under Section 7 • NES-MI likely for Preliminary Alternative 1 given the location of the Project. • NES likely for Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the new crossing of the San Gabriel River and the greater disturbance area.

Water Quality Resources
(Clean Water Act)
Floodplain Encroachment – No Significant Encroachment (Alternative 1) Water Quality Technical Memorandum (Alternative 2 and 3)
• Given the location of Preliminary Alternative 1 there is likely low risk or no impact to the regulatory floodway or base floodplain. There is the potential for Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3. • Addresses water quality for surface water and groundwater, describes any water quality impairments and beneficial uses, identifies potential water quality impacts/benefits, and provides recommended Project features to address any potential impacts.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 27 Resource Anticipated Supporting Documentation
• Assessment also provides information for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Floodplain
(Executive Order 11988)
Summary Floodplain Evaluation Report (Alternative 2 and 3) • Preliminary Alternatives 2 and 3 could include Project elements located within a regulatory floodway which could also require the preparation of a Location Hydraulic Study. • Report would also address the potential for sea-level rise impacts.

Section 106
(Protection of Cultural
Resources and Historic
Properties)
Historic Property Survey Report/Archaeological Survey Report (HPSR/ASR) (All Alternatives) • Archaeological/Historical Resources record search will be required to determine if there are any known cultural resources and if they are in close proximity to the Project that could be impacted. • All alternatives would be adjacent to and likely require construction within the Pio Pico State Historic Park is on the California Historical Landmark and as part of the Section 106 process an evaluation will be required to determine if eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Depending on the extent of the Project area, the potential for structures in the Project area to be reviewed to determine if eligible for listing and additional subsurface testing may be required.

Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous
Waste
Initial Site Assessment – Phase 1 (All Alternatives)
• Potential for hazardous materials sites or waste in the Project area. There are sites in the Project area including a gas station adjacent to the alternative.

Community Impacts
Assessment
(EO12898 –
Environmental Justice)
Community Impacts Technical Memorandum or Community Impacts Assessment (All Alternatives) • Impacts associated with the Project would likely occur largely during construction and the Project would have beneficial effects therefore a Community Impacts Technical Memorandum is anticipated over the larger Community Impacts Assessment.
• Potential for the Community Impacts Assessment due to Project activities outside of the existing publicright-of-way. • Elements typically addressed include Land Use, Growth, Population and Housing, Community Facilities and Services, Relocations, Environmental Justice, and Traffic/Active Transportation. • Assumes a stand-alone Environmental Justice analysis is not required given the Project location and because the Project would likely result in beneficial effects after construction is complete.

Section 4(f)
(Protection of Publicly
Owned Park, Recreation
Area, Wildlife or Waterfowl
Refuge, or Land from
Historic Sites)
Section 4(f) De Minimis (All Alternatives)
• Temporary and permanent use of Pio Pico State Park and San Gabriel River Mid Trail trigger that need to address Section 4(f).
• Assumes there are no adverse impacts under Section 106 which would trigger the need for a larger Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation
• Expected to be de minimis because the Project would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park and the Project would provide enhanced recreational value. • The public will be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the effects.

Section 6(f)
(Land and Water
Conservation Act)
No analysis required. No Land and Water Conservation Funds used in the development of Pio Pico Park or San Gabriel River Mid Trail.

Noise Construction Noise Technical Memorandum (All Alternatives) • Adverse construction-related noise (e.g., if pile driving is required or nighttime construction) • No changes in traffic anticipated that would trigger a Noise Study Report Air Quality
(Clean Air Act)
Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Technical Report (All Alternatives) • Construction related emissions primary concern.
• Operation not expected to result in vehicle trips aside from maintenance vehicles.

Environmental Screening Memorandum for the Historic Whittier Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 28 References
BKF, 2019. Preliminary Hydraulic Impact Analyses, Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project (CIP No. 21280).

April 12.

Briggs, Steven. 1984. Archaeological Site Record for CA-LAN-182. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline. Accessed September 2024.

CDFW. 2024. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Accessed September 2024.

Diaz-Yourman, 2019. Geotechnical Report, Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project, Pico Rivera, California.

April 8.

Hurd, Gary S., and George E. Miller. 2013. Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological Pottery from Long Beach. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 47:89-103.

Johnston, Bernice Eastman. 1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Maxon, Patrick. 2019. Archaeological Survey Report for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project, City of Pico Rivera, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared by VCS Environmental for Caltrans District 7.

McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press.

Somani, Kanak, MA, Kim Scott, John Gust. 2020. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the Pico Rivera Industrial Project, City of Pico Rivera, Los Angeles County, California. On file, City of Pico Rivera.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2024. TNWs & Navigable Waters in Los Angeles District. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional-Determination/Navigable-Waterways/.

Access September 2024.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024a. Critical Habitat Portal. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.

Accessed September 2024.

USFWS. 2024b. National Wetland Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. Accessed September 2024.

USGS. 2024. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available: https://www.usgs.gov/nationalhydrography/national-hydrography-dataset. Accessed September 2024.

VCS Environmental, 2019. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pico Rivera Regional Bikeway Project. May.

Warner, J. J., Benjamin Hayes, J. P. Widney. 1876. An Historical Sketch of Los Angeles County, California :

From the Spanish Occupancy, by the Founding of the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, September 8, 1771, to July 4, 1876. Louis Lewin & Co., 1876, http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/textidx?c=darltext;view=toc;idno=31735054853480.

Attachment A
CNDDB and IPaC Query Results
Query Summary:

Quad IS (Whittier (3311881) OR Anaheim (3311778) OR Baldwin Park (3411718) OR El Monte (3411811) OR La Habra (3311788) OR Long Beach (3311872) OR Los Alamitos (3311871) OR Los Angeles (3411812) OR South Gate (3311882)) Print Close
CNDDB Element Query Results
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxonomic
Group
Element
Code
Total
Occs
Returned
Occs
Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
CA
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other
Status Habitats
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
chaparral
sand-verbena Dicots PDNYC010P1 98 1 None None G5T2? S2 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, USFS_SSensitive
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
dunes
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's
hawk Birds ABNKC12040 121 1 None None G5 S4 null
CDFW_WL-Watch
List, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Cismontane
woodland,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
woodland,
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest
Actinemys pallida southwestern
pond turtle Reptiles ARAAD02032 477 9
Proposed
Threatened None G2G3 SNR null
BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
IUCN_VUVulnerable,
USFS_S-Sensitive
null
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird Birds ABPBXB0020 960 1 None Threatened G1G2 S2 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
IUCN_ENEndangered,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Freshwater
marsh,
Marsh &
swamp,
Swamp,
Wetland
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufouscrowned
sparrow
Birds ABPBX91091 235 1 None None G5T3 S4 null CDFW_WL-Watch List
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
Birds ABPBXA0020 27 1 None None G5 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
Reptiles ARACC01060 427 9 None None G3 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, USFS_SSensitive
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Chaparral,
Coastal
dunes,
Coastal
scrub
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Mammals AMACC10010 424 3 None None G4 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
wash, Great
Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub,
Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Sonoran
desert
scrub,
Upper
montane
coniferous
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 1/8 forest,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake Reptiles ARADB01017 260 1 None None G5T2 S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
null
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal
whiptail Reptiles ARACJ02143 148 8 None None G5T5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
null
Astragalus hornii
var. hornii
Horn's milkvetch Dicots PDFAB0F421 28 1 None None GUT1 S1 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive Alkali playa,
Meadow &
seep,
Wetland
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Birds ABNSB10010 2057 4 None None G4 S2 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Coastal
prairie,
Coastal
scrub, Great
Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub,
Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Sonoran
desert
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's
saltbush Dicots PDCHE040E0 121 1 None None G3 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
dunes,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Atriplex parishii Parish's
brittlescale Dicots PDCHE041D0 15 2 None None G1G2 S1 1B.1 SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo CRES
Native Gene Seed
Bank, USFS_SSensitive
Alkali playa,
Chenopod
scrub,
Meadow &
seep, Vernal
pool,
Wetland
Atriplex serenana
var. davidsonii
Davidson's
saltscale Dicots PDCHE041T1 26 1 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
scrub
Bombus crotchii Crotch's
bumble bee Insects IIHYM24480 443 11 None CandidateEndangered G2 S2 null IUCN_ENEndangered null Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee Insects IIHYM24260 680 93 None None G3G4 S2 null IUCN_VUVulnerable Coastal
prairie,
Great Basin
grassland,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Buteo regalis ferruginous
hawk Birds ABNKC19120 107 1 None None G4 S3S4 null
CDFW_WL-Watch
List, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Great Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub, Pinon
& juniper
woodlands,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's
hawk Birds ABNKC19070 2577 3 None Threatened G5 S4 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Great Basin
grassland,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
California Walnut
Woodland
California
Walnut
Woodland
Woodland CTT71210CA 76 6 None None G2 S2.1 null null Cismontane woodland
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily
Monocots PMLIL0D150 230 7 None None G4 S4 4.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 2/8 Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily Monocots PMLIL0D1J1 197 5 None None G3G4T3 S3 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, USFS_SSensitive
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Calystegia felix lucky
morning-glory Dicots PDCON040P0 10 2 None None G1Q S1 1B.1 null Meadow &
seep,
Riparian
scrub
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal
cactus wren Birds ABPBG02095 157 2 None None G5T3Q S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, USFS_SSensitive,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Coastal
scrub
Centromadia parryi
ssp. australis
southern
tarplant Dicots PDAST4R0P4 94 13 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank,
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Valley &
foothill
grassland,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Chelonia mydas green turtle Reptiles ARAAA02010 2 1 Threatened None G3 S1 null IUCN_ENEndangered Marine bay Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak Dicots PDSCR0J0C2 26 4 Endangered Endangered G4?T1 S1 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank,
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
Coastal
dunes,
Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Wetland
Cicindela hirticollis
gravida
sandy beach
tiger beetle Insects IICOL02101 34 3 None None G5T2 S2 null null Coastaldunes Cicindela
latesignata
western
beach tiger
beetle
Insects IICOL02110 27 3 None None G2G3 S1 null null
Estuary,
Mud
shore/flats,
Salt marsh,
Sand shore
Cicindela senilis
frosti
senile tiger
beetle Insects IICOL02121 9 1 None None G2G3T1T3 S1 null null Mud
shore/flats,
Wetland
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
Birds ABNRB02022 165 8 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 null BLM_S-Sensitive, USFS_S-Sensitive
Riparian
forest
Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder Dicots PDCUS01111 6 1 None None G5T4? SH 2B.2 null Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Danaus plexippus
plexippus pop. 1
monarch -
California
overwintering
population
Insects IILEPP2012 400 4 Candidate None G4T1T2Q S2 null IUCN_ENEndangered,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slenderhorned
spineflower
Dicots PDPGN0V010 42 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub
Dudleya
multicaulis
manystemmed
dudleya
Dicots PDCRA040H0 154 1 None None G2 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, USFS_SSensitive
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Birds ABPAE33043 75 3 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 null null Riparian woodland
Eumops perotis
californicus
western
mastiff bat
Mammals AMACD02011 296 7 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 null BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSCChaparral,Cismontane
woodland,
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 3/8 Species of Special
Concern
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Euphydryas editha
quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
Insects IILEPK405L 186 1 Endangered None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 null null Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
Glyptostoma
gabrielense
San Gabriel
chestnut Mollusks IMGASB1010 24 6 None None G2 S3 null null null Gonidea angulata western
ridged mussel Mollusks IMBIV19010 158 1 None None G3 S2 null IUCN_VUVulnerable Aquatic Habroscelimorpha
gabbii
western tidalflat tiger
beetle
Insects IICOL02080 9 3 None None G2G4 S1 null null
Estuary,
Mud
shore/flats
Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower Dicots PDAST4N102 7 2 None None G5TX SX 1A null Freshwater
marsh,
Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Wetland
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia Dicots PDROS0W045 103 4 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, USFS_SSensitive
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub
Icteria virens yellowbreasted chat Birds ABPBX24010 101 3 None None G5 S4 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Isocoma menziesii
var. decumbens
decumbent
goldenbush Dicots PDAST57091 126 1 None None G3G5T2T3 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo CRES
Native Gene Seed
Bank
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
silver-haired
bat Mammals AMACC02010 139 2 None None G3G4 S3S4 null IUCN_LC-LeastConcern Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Oldgrowth,
Riparian
forest
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Mammals AMACC05032 238 3 None None G3G4 S4 null IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest, North
coast
coniferous
forest
Lasiurus xanthinus western
yellow bat Mammals AMACC05070 58 2 None None G4G5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Desert wash
Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields Dicots PDAST5L0A1 111 8 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Alkali playa,
Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California
black rail Birds ABNME03041 304 1 None Threatened G3T1 S2 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected,
IUCN_ENEndangered
Brackish
marsh,
Freshwater
marsh,
Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Wetland
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
Dicots PDBRA1M114 142 1 None None G5T3 S3 4.3 null
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
Mammals AMAEB03051 103 1 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 null null Coastal scrub
Microtus
californicus
stephensi
south coast
marsh vole Mammals AMAFF11035 7 1 None None G5T2T3 S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
null
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 4/8 Nama stenocarpa mud nama Dicots PDHYD0A0H0 22 1 None None G4G5 S1S2 2B.2 null Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress Dicots PDBRA270V0 13 1 Endangered Threatened G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Brackish
marsh,
Freshwater
marsh,
Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Dicots PDPLM0C0Q0 61 4 None None G2 S2 1B.2 null
Coastal
scrub,
Meadow &
seep, Valley
& foothill
grassland,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Nemacaulis
denudata var.
denudata
coast woollyheads Dicots PDPGN0G011 42 1 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank
Coastal
dunes
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed
free-tailed bat Mammals AMACD04010 90 2 None None G5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Joshua tree
woodland,
Pinon &
juniper
woodlands,
Riparian
scrub,
Sonoran
desert scrub
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat Mammals AMACD04020 32 3 None None G5 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
null
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
10 steelhead -
southern
California
DPS
Fish AFCHA0209J 19 1 Endangered Candidate
Endangered G5T1Q S1 null AFS_ENEndangered
Aquatic,
South coast
flowing
waters
Orcuttia californica California
Orcutt grass Monocots PMPOA4G010 39 2 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding's
savannah
sparrow
Birds ABPBX99015 39 1 None Endangered G5T3 S3 null
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Pelecanus
occidentalis
californicus
California
brown pelican Birds ABNFC01021 27 1 Delisted Delisted G4T3T4 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,USFS_S-Sensitive null Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's
pentachaeta Dicots PDAST6X060 45 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Perognathus
longimembris
pacificus
Pacific pocket
mouse Mammals AMAFD01042 14 1 Endangered None G5T2 S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Coastal
scrub
Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia Dicots PDHYD0C510 15 3 None None G1 S1 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Coastal
dunes,
Coastal
scrub
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard Reptiles ARACF12100 841 15 None None G4 S4 null
BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
wash, Pinon
& juniper
woodlands,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley &
foothill
grassland
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 5/8 Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Birds ABPBJ08081 1087 40 Threatened None G4G5T3Q S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
scrub
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobacco Dicots PDAST440C0 62 1 None None G4 S2 2B.2 null Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish's
gooseberry Dicots PDGRO020F3 5 4 None None G5TX SX 1A null Riparianwoodland Riparia riparia bank swallow Birds ABPAU08010 299 3 None Threatened G5 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Scrub CTT32720CA 30 1 None None G1 S1.1 null null Coastal scrub
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's
arrowhead Monocots PMALI040Q0 143 1 None None G3 S3 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Scutellaria
bolanderi ssp.
austromontana
southern
mountains
skullcap
Dicots PDLAM1U0A1 43 1 None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, USFS_SSensitive
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom Dicots PDMAL110J0 30 4 None None G4 S2 2B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive Alkali playa,
Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Wetland
Sorex ornatus
salicornicus
southern
California
saltmarsh
shrew
Mammals AMABA01104 4 1 None None G5T1? S1 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Salt marsh
Southern Coastal
Salt Marsh
Southern
Coastal Salt
Marsh
Marsh CTT52120CA 24 1 None None G2 S2.1 null null
Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Spea hammondii western
spadefoot Amphibians AAABF02020 1443 8
Proposed
Threatened None G2G3 S3S4 null
BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_NTNear Threatened
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Valley &
foothill
grassland,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Sternula antillarum
browni
California
least tern Birds ABNNM08103 76 5 Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2 null CDFW_FP-FullyProtected Alkali playa,
Wetland
Suaeda esteroa estuary
seablite Dicots PDCHE0P0D0 39 2 None None G3 S2 1B.2 null Marsh &
swamp, Salt
marsh,
Wetland
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
Dicots PDASTE80C0 102 5 None None G2 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal
scrub,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Marsh &
swamp,
Meadow &
seep, Valley
& foothill
grassland
Symphyotrichum
greatae
Greata's
aster
Dicots PDASTE80U0 56 2 None None G2 S2 1B.3 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lower
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 6/8 montane
coniferous
forest,
Riparian
woodland
Taxidea taxus American
badger Mammals AMAJF04010 647
3 None None G5 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Alkali
marsh,
Alkali playa,
Alpine,
Alpine dwarf
scrub, Bog
& fen,
Brackish
marsh,
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Chaparral,
Chenopod
scrub,
Cismontane
woodland,
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest,
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
dunes,
Coastal
prairie,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
dunes,
Desert
wash,
Freshwater
marsh,
Great Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub,
Interior
dunes, Ione
formation,
Joshua tree
woodland,
Limestone,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Marsh &
swamp,
Meadow &
seep,
Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Montane
dwarf scrub,
North coast
coniferous
forest,
Oldgrowth,
Pavement
plain,
Redwood,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Salt marsh,
Sonoran
desert
scrub,
Sonoran
thorn
woodland,
Ultramafic,
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest,
Upper
Sonoran
scrub, Valley &
foothill
grassland
10/7/24, 10:11AMPrintView
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 7/8 Thamnophis
sirtalis pop. 1
south coast
gartersnake Reptiles ARADB3613F 47 3 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Artificial
standing
waters,
Marsh &
swamp,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
South coast
flowing
waters,
South coast
standing
waters,
Wetland
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's
vireo Birds ABPBW01114 505 16 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 null null Riparian
forest,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Walnut Forest Walnut Forest Forest CTT81600CA 6 2 None None G1 S1.1 null null Broadleaved
upland
forest
10/7/24, 10:11 AM Print View
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 8/8 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Los Angeles County, California
Local office
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
 (760) 431-9440
 (760) 431-5901
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 1/19 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 2/19 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 3/19

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica
californica
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178
Threatened
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Southwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys pallida
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4768
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 4/19 Insects
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Nevin's Barberry Berberis nevinii
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8025
Endangered
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

Additional information can be found using the following links:
1 2
3 9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 5/19 There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 6/19 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 7/19

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
1 2
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 8/19 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 3 NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 9/19 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 10/19 Lawrence's Goldfinch Spinus lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8350
Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 11/19 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Western Gull Larus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 25
Western Screech-owl Megascops kennicottii cardonensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 1 to Jun 30
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 12/19 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 13/19 Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Marbled
Godwit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Northern
Harrier

BCC - BCR

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 14/19 Santa Barbara
Song Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Screech-owl

BCC - BCR
Willet
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid 9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 15/19 cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to 9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 16/19 you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.

On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 17/19 Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

FRESHWATER POND
PUSCx
LAKE
L2USCx

RIVERINE
R4SBCx
R4SBAx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 18/19 The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 9/18/24, 12:46 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/BU4MZW32VVFBZF5X526EBXE7CY/resources 19/19

HISTORIC WHITTIER BOULEVARD BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX J – EXISTING UTILITY EXHIBIT
4675 MACARTHUR COURT
SUITE 400
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Subject: GRANTING AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA EDISON FOR UTILITY POLE ANCHOR AT

RIVERA PARK
Recommendation:

1. Granting an electrical easement to Southern California Edison for a utility pole anchor at Rivera Park and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant of easement.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this recommendation.

Background:

On March 22, 2024, the City of Pico Rivera (City) received a request from Southern California Edison (SCE) to grant an easement at Rivera Park to install utility pole support.

Discussion:

Existing utility pole number W2081Y on Maxine Street is deteriorated and in need of replacement. Once replaced, SCE has determined the new pole will require stabilization in the form of a support wire, which would anchor approximately 6 feet north of the pole location. The anchor location is within the perimeter of Rivera Park.

The proposed easement will be situated within Rivera Park, just north of Maxine Street, measuring approximately six (6) feet long by four (4) feet wide. The easement is required solely to permit the installation and maintenance of the support wire anchor; it is not required for any other reason. The Grant of Easement will be returned to Southern California Edison for recording at their discretion, prior to installation. 15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT – MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 2024

GRANTING OF AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

FOR UTILITY POLE ANCHOR AT RIVERA PARK

Page 2 of 2 ends

Pico Rivera City CouncilNovember 12, 2024

Pico Rivera City Council
November 12, 2024