leftbank art warehouse facility 14860 alondra boulevard la

CITY OF LA MIRADA ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY LEFTBANK ART WAREHOUSE FACILITY ● 14860 ALONDRA BOULEVARD

PAGE 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

INITIAL STUDY

LEFTBANK ART WAREHOUSE FACILITY 14860 ALONDRA BOULEVARD

LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638

LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF LA MIRADA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

13700 LA MIRADA BOULEVARD LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638

REPORT PREPARED BY:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 16388 E. COLIMA ROAD, SUITE 206J

HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745

JULY 28, 2016

LAMR 014


PAGE 2

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.


PAGE 3

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PROJECT NAME: Leftbank Art Warehouse Facility.

APPLICANT: Leftbank Art, 14821 Artesia Boulevard, La Mirada, California 90638.

PROJECT ADDRESS: 14860 Alondra Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 7001-010-059.

CITY AND COUNTY: La Mirada, Los Angeles County.

PROJECT: The City of La Mirada Community Development Department, in its capacity as the Lead Agency, is reviewing an application that would allow for the construction of a new 78,752 square-foot warehouse building within a 2.62-acre site. Of the total floor area, a 22,287 square-foot second floor storage area will also be provided. Two small potential office areas are identified on the site plan and the floor area of these offices will be 320 square feet. The project site is located at 14860 Alondra Boulevard within the Industrial (M-2) Zoning District. The project site is currently developed as a parking lot that provides surface parking for the abutting parcel located to the east. The proposed building will have a total floor area of 78,752 square feet and will contain seven dock doors. Access to the project site will continue to be provided by two driveway connections with the south side of Alondra Boulevard. The first driveway connection is a 28-foot wide driveway located in the westernmost portion of the Alondra Boulevard frontage. This driveway will provide truck access to the loading and receiving areas. The second 32-foot wide driveway is located near the easternmost portion of the site and will be shared with the neighboring property via a reciprocal access agreement. The loading and receiving areas, including the seven truck high doors, will be located at the mid-point of the west-facing elevation. A total of 64 parking spaces (including three ADA) will be located along the north, east, and a portion of the west building elevations. Landscaping will be provided along the Alondra Boulevard frontage and the west perimeter. The proposed development is considered to be a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FINDINGS: The City of La Mirada has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project. The following findings may be made based on the analysis contained in the attached Initial Study:

● The construction and subsequent operation of the proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.

● The construction and subsequent operation of the proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

● The construction and subsequent operation of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development.

● The construction and subsequent operation of the proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly.

The environmental analysis is provided in the attached Initial Study prepared for the proposed project.

Contact: Mr. Eric Garcia, Associated Planner Date: July 28, 2016


PAGE 4



PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................7 1.1 Purpose of Initial Study .........................................................................................................7 1.2 Initial Study’s Organization...................................................................................................8 1.3 Initial Study Checklist............................................................................................................8

2.0 Project Description .......................................................................... 17 2.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 17 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Environmental Setting......................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Project Description .............................................................................................................26 2.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................32 2.6 Discretionary Actions...........................................................................................................32

3.0 Environmental Analysis ...................................................................33 3.1 Aesthetic Impacts.................................................................................................................34 3.2 Agricultural & Forestry Resources Impacts ........................................................................37 3.3 Air Quality Impacts............................................................................................................. 40 3.4 Biological Resources Impacts ............................................................................................. 48 3.5 Cultural Resources Impacts.................................................................................................53 3.6 Geology & Soils Impacts ......................................................................................................57 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ...................................................................................63 3.8 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................66 3.9 Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts ................................................................................... 71 3.10 Land Use & Planning Impacts ............................................................................................. 77 3.11 Mineral Resources Impacts ................................................................................................ 82 3.12 Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 84 3.13 Population & Housing Impacts .......................................................................................... 90 3.14 Public Services Impacts .......................................................................................................93 3.15 Recreation Impacts ..............................................................................................................96 3.16 Transportation & Circulation Impacts ...............................................................................97 3.17 Utilities Impacts..................................................................................................................115

4.0 Conclusions.................................................................................... 119 4.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................. 119

5.0 References ......................................................................................121 5.1 Preparers .............................................................................................................................121 5.2 References ...........................................................................................................................121

Appendices.............................................................................................. 123 Appendix A – Air Quality Worksheets............................................................................................ 125 Appendix B – Noise Measurement Worksheets ............................................................................. 149


PAGE 6



SECTION 1 ● INTRODUCTION PAGE 7

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY

The City of La Mirada Community Development Department, in its capacity as the Lead Agency, is

reviewing an application that would permit the construction of a new 78,752 square-foot warehouse

building within a 2.62-acre site. Of the total floor area, a 22,287 square-foot second floor storage area will

also be provided. Two small potential office areas with a possible floor area of 320 square feet are

identified on the site plan. The project site is located at 14860 Alondra Boulevard within the Industrial

(M-2) Zoning District.1 The project site is currently developed as a parking lot that provides surface

parking for the abutting parcel located to the east. The proposed warehouse building will have a total floor

area of 78,752 square feet and will contain seven dock doors. Access to the project site will continue to be

provided by two driveway connections with the south side of Alondra Boulevard. The first driveway

connection will be a 28-foot wide driveway located in the westernmost portion of the Alondra Boulevard

frontage. This driveway will provide truck access to the loading and receiving areas. The second 32-foot

wide driveway is located near the easternmost portion of the project site. This access is located within the

adjacent property located to the east and will be shared via a reciprocal access agreement. The loading and

receiving areas, including seven truck high doors, will be located at the mid-point of the west-facing

elevation. A total of 64 parking spaces (including three ADA parking spaces) will be located along the

north, east, and a portion of the west building elevations. Landscaping will be provided along the Alondra

Boulevard frontage and along the site’s west perimeter.2

The project is considered to be a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As

part of the proposed project’s environmental review, the City of La Mirada has authorized the preparation

of this Initial Study. The primary purpose of the CEQA is to ensure that decision-makers and the public

understand the environmental implications of an action or project and to ascertain whether the proposed

project will have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment once it is occupied.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following:

● To provide the City of La Mirada with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to

prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative

Declaration for the project;

● To facilitate the proposed project’s environmental assessment early in the planning phases;

● To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,

● To determine the nature and extent of any new impacts associated with the proposed project.3

1 The site plan prepared by the project architect has the property’s address listed as 14680 Alondra Boulevard. The Los Angeles

County Tax Assessor’s office has the property listed as 14860 Alondra Boulevard. 2 HPA Architecture. Overall Site Plan. Plan dated February 8, 2016. 3 California, State of, Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California

Environmental Quality Act as Amended 2000. (CEQA Guidelines) § 15050.



Although this Initial Study was prepared with consultant support, the analysis, conclusions, and findings

made as part of its preparation fully represent the independent judgment and position of the City of La

Mirada, in its capacity as the Lead Agency. The City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is

the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project’s CEQA review. A 20-day public review

period will be provided to allow these entities and other interested parties to comment on the proposed

project and the findings of this Initial Study. Questions and/or comments should be submitted to the

following contact person:

Mr. Eric Garcia, Associate Planner

City of La Mirada, Community Development Department

13700 La Mirada Boulevard

La Mirada, California 90638

1.2 INITIAL STUDY’S ORGANIZATION

The following annotated outline summarizes the format and content of this Initial Study:

● Section 1 Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study's

preparation and insight into its composition. The CEQA Checklist is also included in this Section.

● Section 2 Project Description, provides an overview of the affected area along with a description of

the proposed project’s physical and operational characteristics. This section also identifies the

related projects used in the analysis of cumulative impacts.

● Section 3 Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with the

implementation of the proposed project.

● Section 4 Conclusions, identifies the Mandatory Findings of Significance related to the proposed

project’s approval and subsequent implementation.

● Section 5 References, identifies the sources used in the preparation of this Initial Study.

The Appendix includes the modeling results of the traffic study, air quality analysis, and the noise

measurements.

1.3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

The City of La Mirada has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate

CEQA document for the proposed project’s environmental review. The following findings may be made

based on the analysis completed as part of this Initial Study’s preparation:

● The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.

● The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of

long-term environmental goals.



● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable.

● The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either

directly or indirectly.

The findings of this Initial Study are summarized in Table 1-1 provided below and on the following pages.

Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist)

Environmental Issue Area Examined Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

Section 3.1 Aesthetic Impacts. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

X

Section 3.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources Impacts. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

X

c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code §51104[g])?

X

d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?

X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, may result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use?

X

Section 3.3 Air Quality Impacts. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

X

Section 3.4 Biological Resources Impacts. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect:

a) Either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) On any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) On Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

X

d) In interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X

e) In conflicting with any local policies or ordinances, protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X

f) By conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

X

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources Impacts. Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature?

X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

X

Section 3.6 Geology & Soils Impacts. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:

a) The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground–shaking, liquefaction, or landslides?

X

b) Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Location on a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Location on expansive soil, as defined in California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property?

X

e) Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

X

Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts. Would the project:

a) Result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

b) Increase the potential for conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases?

X

Section 3.8 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts. Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment or result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

X

e) Be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

f) Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?

X

Section 3.9 Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts. Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in such a way that would cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Substantially degrade water quality? X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding because of dam or levee failure?

X

j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

Section 3.10 Land Use & Planning Impacts. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community, or otherwise result in an incompatible land use?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan?

X

Section 3.11 Mineral Resources Impacts. Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan?

X

Section 3.12 Noise Impacts. Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels?

X

c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels existing without the project?

X

d) Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

e) For a project located with 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?

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

Section 3.13 Population & Housing Impacts. Would the project:

a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

Section 3.14 Public Services Impacts. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives in any of the following areas:

a) Fire protection services? X

b) Police protection services? X

c) School services? X

d) Other governmental services? X

Section 3.15 Recreation Impacts. Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

b) Affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X

Section 3.16 Transportation & Circulation Impacts. Would the project:

a) Cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) A change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks?

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

X

Section 3.17 Utilities Impacts. Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

X

g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

X

Section 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project:

a) Will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures included herein.

X

b) Will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures referenced herein.

X





Impact


Impact With

Mitigation


Impact

No Impact

c) Will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.

X

d) Will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.

X


SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 17

SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The City of La Mirada Community Development Department, in its capacity as the Lead Agency, is

reviewing an application that would permit the construction of a new 78,752 square-foot warehouse

building within a 2.62-acre site. Two small potential office areas with a potential floor area of 320 square

feet are identified on the site plan. The project site is located at 14860 Alondra Boulevard within the

Industrial (M-2) Zoning District.4 The project site is currently developed as a parking lot that provided

surface parking for the abutting parcel located to the east. The proposed warehouse building will have a

total floor area of 78,752 square feet and will contain seven dock doors. Of the total floor area, a 22,287

square-foot second floor storage area will also be provided. Access to the project site will continue to be

provided by two driveway connections with the south side of Alondra Boulevard. The first driveway

connection will be a 28-foot wide driveway located in the westernmost portion of the Alondra Boulevard

frontage. This driveway will serve as truck access to the loading and receiving areas. The second 32-foot

wide driveway is located in the easternmost portion. The loading and receiving areas, including seven

truck high doors, will be located at the mid-point of the west-facing elevation. A total of 64 parking spaces

(including three ADA spaces) will be located along the north, east, and a portion of the west building

elevations. Landscaping will be provided along the Alondra Boulevard frontage and the west perimeter.5

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project site is located within the City of La Mirada. The City of La Mirada is located in the

easternmost portion of Los Angeles County and is centrally located within the larger Los Angeles urban

region. La Mirada is located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 14 miles

northwest of Santa Ana. La Mirada is bounded by the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County on the

north; La Habra, Fullerton, and Buena Park on the east; Buena Park on the south; and Santa Fe Springs

and Cerritos on the west.6 Major physiographic features located within and in the vicinity of the City

include the San Gabriel Mountains (located approximately 20.5 miles to the north of the site), La Mirada

Creek (located approximately 2,380 feet to the north of the project site), and the Puente Hills (located

approximately 5.8 miles to the north of the project site).7

Regional access to the City of La Mirada is possible from the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), which traverses the

southern portion of the City in a north-south orientation.8 Access to the I-5 freeway from the project site is

provided by Valley View Avenue, which connects with the I-5 freeway approximately 0.47 miles to the

southwest. Alondra Boulevard also connects with the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605) approximately

4.66 miles to the west of the project site.


County Tax Assessor’s office has the property listed as 14860 Alondra Boulevard. 5 HPA Architecture. Overall Site Plan. Plan dated February 8, 2016. 6 Quantum GIS and the Southern California Association of Governments. 7 Google Earth. Website accessed April 25, 2016. 8 Ibid.



The City’s location in a regional context is shown in Exhibit 2-1. In addition, a citywide map is provided in

Exhibit 2-2 and a local map is provided in Exhibit 2-3. The project site’s legal address is 14860 Alondra

Boulevard, La Mirada, California 90638. The project site is located on the south side of Alondra

Boulevard, 4,400 feet east of Valley View Avenue and 4,500 feet west of La Mirada Boulevard.9 The Los

Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) that is applicable to the site is 7001-010-059.

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The 2.62-acre site is located in the midst of an industrial area and is surrounded on all sides by

development. Alondra Boulevard extends along the northern portion of the project site. Exhibit 2-4

includes an aerial photograph of the project site and the adjacent development. Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6

includes photographs of the surrounding land uses. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project

site are described below:

● North of the project site. Alondra Boulevard extends along the north side of the project site. This

segment of Alondra Boulevard consists of six travel lanes (three lanes in each direction) with a

raised median. A small fast food restaurant, Classic Burgers Café, is located to the north of the

project site, on the opposite side of Alondra Boulevard. A Southern California Edison (SCE)

substation is located to the northwest.10 Views of this area are provided in Exhibit 2-5.

● South of the project site. A distribution and warehouse use, Pentius Auto Parts, abuts the project

site on the south side. Views of this area are provided in Exhibit 2-5.

● East of the project site. A large warehouse that was formerly occupied by Microsemi Power

Management Group (MPMG) abuts the project site on the east side. The project site formerly

provided surface parking for MPMG when the latter was operational.11 Views of this area are

provided in Exhibit 2-6.

● West of the project site. A large industrial building is located to the west of the project site. This

building is located on the southeast corner of Alondra Boulevard and Trojan Way.12 Views of this

area are provided in Exhibit 2-6.

The project site is a surface parking lot that provided parking for the adjacent business on the east when it

was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is provided

along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage, along the west and east sides, and in the parking area. A

landscaped area is also located in the southwest corner. The project site appears to be well maintained.13

Views of the project site are provided in Exhibit 2-7.


County Tax Assessor’s office has the property listed as 14860 Alondra Boulevard. 10 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.



EXHIBIT 2-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Source: Quantum GIS



EXHIBIT 2-2 CITYWIDE MAP

Source: Quantum GIS

Project Site



EXHIBIT 2-3 LOCAL AREA Source: Quantum GIS

Project Site



EXHIBIT 2-4

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Source: Google Maps

Tro

jan

Wa

y

Project Site



EXHIBIT 2-5 LAND USES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE

Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning

View of Alondra Boulevard and the uses to the north facing northwest

View of the uses to the south

Views to the north

Views to the south



EXHIBIT 2-6 LAND USES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE


View of the adjacent use to the east

View of the uses to the west facing west

Views to the west

Views to the east



View of the project site facing northwest

View of the shared drive aisle facing north

EXHIBIT 2-7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE




Other notable uses within the vicinity of the project site include Escalona Elementary School, located

approximately 0.39 miles to the northeast of the project site; Neff Park, located approximately 0.93 miles

to the northwest of the project site; Arlie F. Hutchinson Middle School, located approximately 1.25 miles to

the northwest of the project site; and Biola University, located approximately 1.16 miles to the north of the

project site.14 Major roadways in the area include Valley View Avenue, located approximately 0.84 miles to

the west of the project site; Rosecrans Avenue, located approximately 0.75 miles to the north of the project

site; La Mirada Boulevard, located approximately 0.87 miles to the east of the project site; and Beach

Boulevard (SR-39), located approximately 1.11 miles to the southeast of the project site. Regional access to

the project site is provided by the I-5, located approximately 0.67 miles to the south of the project site.15

2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

As indicated previously, the proposed project will involve the construction of a new 78,752 square-foot

building within the project site.16 Of the total floor area, a 22,287 square-foot second floor storage area will

also be provided. The project site is located at 14860 Alondra Boulevard within the Industrial (M-2)

Zoning District. The project site is currently developed as a parking lot that serves as a surface parking lot

for the abutting parcel located to the east. The proposed project will consist of the following elements:

● A single, new 78,752 square-foot building will be erected within the 2.62-acre project site. The

new warehouse building will also include up to two small office areas that will consist of

approximately 320 square feet. Of the total floor area, a 22,287 square-foot second floor storage

area will also be provided.17

● The new warehouse building will consist of concrete tilt-up construction. The new building will

consist of a single level. The new building’s main entrance will be located in the northeast corner

of the building.18

● The new building’s footprint will be 56,465 square feet. The new building will have a floor area

ratio (FAR) of 0.56 and a lot coverage of 49 percent. The building’s maximum height will be 41

feet and ten inches.19

● The proposed will contain seven dock doors located midpoint along the along the new building’s

west elevation. The truck maneuvering area will be located immediate to the west of the loading

docks.20

14 Google Earth. Website accessed April 27, 2016. 15 HPA Architecture. Overall Site Plan. Plan dated February 8, 2016. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.



● A total of 64 parking spaces (including three ADA) will be located along the north, east, and a

portion of the west building elevations.21

● Access to the project site will continue to be provided by two driveway connections with the south

side of Alondra Boulevard. The first driveway connection will be a 28-foot wide driveway located

in the westernmost portion of the Alondra Boulevard frontage. This driveway will serve as truck

access to the loading and receiving areas. The second 32-foot wide driveway is located in the

easternmost portion.22

● A total of 12,539 square feet of landscaping will be provided. Landscaping will be provided along

the Alondra Boulevard frontage and the west perimeter.23

The proposed project is summarized in Table 2-1 below. The proposed site plan is provided in Exhibit 2-8

and the building elevations are provided in Exhibit 2-9.

Table 2-1 Project Summary Table

Project Element Description

Site Area 114,127 sq. ft. (2.62 acres)

Landscaping 12,539 sq. ft.

Total Building Area 78,752 sq. ft.

Warehouse Area Approximately 78,352 sq. ft.

Office Area Approximately 320 sq. ft.

Lot Coverage and FAR 49% and 0.56 FAR

Truck Loading Docks 7 doors

Vehicle Parking Spaces Provided 64 spaces (including 3 ADA spaces)

Source: HPA Architecture. Overall Site Plan.

20 HPA Architecture. Overall Site Plan. Plan dated February 8, 2016. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.



EX

HIB

IT 2

-8

CO

NC

EP

TU

AL

SIT

E P

LA

N

So

urc

e:

HP

A A

rch

ite

ctu

re

No

rth

Alondra Boulevard



EX

HIB

IT 2

-9

CO

NC

EP

TU

AL

CO

LO

R E

LE

VA

TIO

NS

S

ou

rce

: H

PA

Arc

hit

ect

ure



2.4.2 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS

The project will take approximately eight months to complete and will consist of the following phases:

● Demolition (one month). The existing parking lots and other on-site improvements from the

former use will be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed project.

● Grading and Site Preparation (one month). During this phase, the entire project site will be

graded and leveled and prepared for development.

● Construction and Installation (four months). The new 78,752 square-foot building will be

constructed during this phase.

● Paving, Landscaping, and Finishing (two months). This phase will involve paving, the

installation of the landscaping, and the completion of the on-site improvements.

2.4.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The cumulative project list is provided below in Table 2-2 and

their locations are shown in Exhibit 2-10.

Table 2-2 Summary of Related (Cumulative) Projects

Reference No./Project Project Address Description and Status

#1. 33-Unit Condominiums 12000 La Mirada Blvd. Site Demolished. Grading

#2. Single-Family Residence 15612 Lemon Dr. 3,039 Sq. Ft. residence. In Building and Safety Plan Check review.

#3. Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 14871 Imperial Hwy.

Existing structure and site will be cleared for a new 4,335 sq. ft. drive-through restaurant. In Building and Safety Plan Check review.

#4. Single-Family Residence with Two Units 12934 Ocaso Ave.

Vacant site will be graded for a new 4,082 sq. ft. single-family residence and a 635 sq. ft. second dwelling unit. In Building and Safety Plan Check review.

#5. Six Single-Family Residential Units

13400 Biola Ave. Vacant site will be graded and subdivided for the construction of 6 new single-family residences. In Final Map review by the LA County Land Development Division.

#6. Biola University, Science Building 13800 Biola Ave. New 91,000 sq. ft. 3-story science building plus basement. Permits obtained. Grading under way and construction to begin.

#7. Alondra Business Center 14445 Alondra Blvd. New 199,588 sq. ft. warehouse building. Under construction.

#8. Suburban Water System Project 12824 Newcomb Ave. Replacement of three reservoir tanks with a total capacity of 6.65 mg. Under construction.

#9. Dunkel Brothers 14555 Alondra Blvd. Site, interior, and façade improvements under way.



1

4

3

2

5

6

7

8

EXHIBIT 2-10 LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS

Source: Quantum GIS and the City of La Mirada

The numbers in this exhibit refer to the listing of related projects identified in Table 2-2.

9

Project Site



2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The City of La Mirada seeks to accomplish the following objectives with this review of the proposed project:

● To minimize the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project;

● To promote increased property valuation as a means to finance public services and improvements

in the City; and,

● To ensure that the development is in conformance with the policies of the City of La Mirada

General Plan.

The project Applicant is seeking to accomplish the following objectives with the proposed project:

● To more efficiently utilize the site; and,

● To realize a fair return on their investment.

2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

A Discretionary Decision is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government

agency is the City of La Mirada) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a

project. The proposed project will require the following approvals:

● The approval of a Certificate of Compatibility (COC) for the new building;

● The approval of a reciprocal access agreement between the project site and the adjacent property

to the east;

● The adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,

● The adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

The proposed project’s implementation will also require a reciprocal access agreement with the

neighboring property for use of a shared driveway along the project site’s east property line.


SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 33

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This section of the Initial Study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the

proposed project’s implementation. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:

● Aesthetics (Section 3.1);

● Agricultural & Forestry Resources (Section

3.2);

● Air Quality (Section 3.3);

● Biological Resources (Section 3.4);

● Cultural Resources (Section 3.5);

● Geology & Soils (Section 3.6);

● Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (Section 3.7);

● Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Section

3.8);

● Hydrology & Water Quality (Section 3.9);

● Land Use & Planning (Section 3.10);

● Mineral Resources (Section 3.11);

● Noise (Section 3.12);

● Population & Housing (Section 3.13);

● Public Services (Section 3.14);

● Recreation (Section 3.15);

● Transportation & Circulation (Section

3.16);

● Utilities (Section 3.17); and,

● Mandatory Findings of Significance

(Section 3.18).

The environmental analysis contained in this section reflects the Initial Study Checklist format used by the

City of La Mirada Community Development Department in its environmental review process pursuant to

the CEQA Guidelines. Under each issue area, an assessment of impacts is provided in the form of

questions and answers. The analysis contained herein serves as a response to the individual questions.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, questions are stated and an answer is provided according to the

analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation. To each question, there are four possible

responses:

● No Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have

any measurable environmental impact on the environment.

● Less Than Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed

project may have the potential for affecting the environment, although these impacts will be below

levels or thresholds that the City of La Mirada or other responsible agencies consider to be

significant.

● Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The approval and subsequent implementation of

the proposed project may have the potential to generate impacts that will have a significant impact

on the environment. However, the level of impact may be reduced to levels that are less than

significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.

● Potentially Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed

project may result in environmental impacts that are significant.


SECTION 3.1 ● AESTHETICS IMPACTS PAGE 34

3.1 AESTHETICS IMPACTS

3.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse aesthetic impact

if it results in any of the following:

● An adverse effect on a scenic vista;

● Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a State scenic highway;

● A substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its

surroundings; or,

● A new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day-time or night-time

views in the area.

3.1.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A. Would the project affect a scenic vista? ● No Impact.

The project site is located in the midst of an industrial area that is located east of Valley View Avenue,

south of Stage Road, and north of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. The 2.62-acre site is located in the midst of

an industrial area and the site is surrounded on all sides by development. Alondra Boulevard extends

along the northern portion of the project site. The project site is a surface parking lot that provided

parking for the adjacent business on the east when it was in operation. The project site is largely covered

over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is provided along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage, along the

west and east sides, and in the parking area. A landscaped area is also located in the southwest corner.

The new building will be approximately 40 feet in height at its highest point. Conceptual cross-section

illustrations of the proposed new building are provided in Exhibit 3-1. Once complete, the proposed

project will not negatively impact views of the Puente Hills and San Gabriel Mountains since the existing

industrial development restricts views of the aforementioned scenic vistas. In addition, the new

development will continue to enhance the appearance of the Alondra Boulevard corridor. As a result, the

proposed project’s implementation will not result in any impacts with respect to scenic vistas.

B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ● No Impact.

The project site is currently vacant though the site remains well maintained. The vegetation and trees that

are present on-site consist of species that are most commonly found in an urban environment as

ornamental landscaping.



EX

HIB

IT 3

-1

CO

NC

EP

TU

AL

BU

ILD

ING

CR

OS

S-S

EC

TIO

N V

IEW

S

So

urc

e:

HP

A A

rch

ite

ctu

re



The site’s topography was modified as part of the previous development that occurred within the property

and there are no natural rock outcroppings that remain on-site.24 In addition, there are no historic

buildings present on-site (refer to Section 3.5). According to the California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans), Alondra Boulevard is not a designated scenic highway. No other State or County designated

scenic highways are found in the immediate vicinity of the project site.25 As a result, no impacts on scenic

resources will result from the proposed project’s implementation.

C. Would the project result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the

site and its surroundings? ● No Impact.

As indicated previously, the project site is generally well maintained. The proposed project will be a new

78,752 square-foot building. The new building will have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.56 and a lot coverage

of 49 percent. The building’s maximum height will be 41 feet and ten inches.26 Once complete, the project

will further contribute to the visual improvement along the Alondra Boulevard corridor. As a result, no

impacts will occur.

D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or

night-time views in the area? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Sources of lighting in the vicinity of the project site include headlights from vehicles using Alondra

Boulevard, street lighting signage, parking area lighting, and lighting within the building interiors on

adjacent sites. There is no light sensitive land uses located in the immediate area. The nearest light

sensitive land uses in the area include the single-family residential neighborhood located along the north

side of Stage Road approximately 500 feet to the northeast of the project site. The aforementioned

residential uses are not within the line-of-site of the proposed project due to the existing landscaping along

Stage Road. As a result, the potential light and glare impacts will be less than significant.

3.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site specific.

Furthermore, the analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse

aesthetic impacts. As mentioned in Section 2.4.3, no cumulative projects are located within close proximity

to the project site. For this reason, no cumulative aesthetic impacts are anticipated.

3.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant visual or aesthetic

impacts. As a result, no mitigation is required.

24 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016. 25 California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. www.dot.ca.gov 26 Ibid.


SECTION 3.2 ● AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 37

3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on agricultural

resources if it results in any of the following:

● The conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance;

● A conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract;

● A conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources

Code §4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code §51104[g]);

● The loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use; or,

● Changes to the existing environment that due to their location or nature may result in the

conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.


A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance,

as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Conservation, the City of La Mirada does not contain any areas

of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.27 The project site was

formerly used as surface parking for the adjacent business which is now closed. No agricultural uses

and/or activities were located on-site. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? ●

No Impact.

Title 21, Article IV, Chapter 21.22, Section 21.22.020(b) of the La Mirada Municipal Code specifically

prohibits “livestock and poultry keeping, slaughtering, and rendering” within the M-2 zone.28 Therefore,

the proposed project’s implementation will not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses since they are not

permitted within the M-2 zone. In addition, according to the California Department of Conservation

Division of Land Resource Protection, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.29 As a

result, no impacts on existing or future Williamson Act Contracts or land zoned for agricultural uses will

result from the proposed project’s implementation.

27 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Important Farmland in California 2010. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2010/fmmp2010_08_11.pdf. 28 City of La Mirada Municipal Code. Title 21 Zoning, Article IV: Base Zoning Districts and Related Use and Development

Provisions, Chapter 21.22 Industrial Zoning District, Code 21.22.020 Permitted and prohibited uses. Site accessed May 6, 2015. 29 California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/WA/2012%20Statewide%20Map/WA_2012_8x11.pdf



EXHIBIT 3-2 LAND COVERAGE AND LAND USE MAP

Source: United States Geological Survey and Google Maps

Project Site



C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in

Public Resources Code Section 4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government

Code § 5110[g])? ● No Impact.

The City of La Mirada is located in the midst of a larger urban area and no forest lands are located within

the project site or in the surrounding area (refer to Exhibit 3-2). Moreover, the City of La Mirada General

Plan does not provide for any forest land protection since it is not required.30 As a result, no impacts on

forest land or timber resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project.

D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?

● No Impact.

The project site is located in the midst of an urban area. No forest land is located within the City nor does

the City of La Mirada General Plan provide for any forest land protection.31 As a result, no loss or

conversion of forest lands will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no impacts are

anticipated to occur.

E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or

nature, may result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? ● No Impact.

No agricultural activities or farmland uses are located within the project site.32 Therefore, the

implementation of the proposed project will not result in the conversion of any existing farm lands or

forest lands to urban uses and no impacts will occur.


The analysis determined that there is no remaining agricultural or forestry resources in the City.

Furthermore, the analysis determined that future use would not result in any significant adverse impacts.

As a result, no cumulative impacts on agricultural or farmland resources will occur.


The analysis of agriculture and forestry resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would

result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

30 City of La Mirada General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element. OSC-1. 31 Ibid. 32 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016.


SECTION 3.3 ● AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 40

3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally be deemed to have a significant adverse

environmental impact on air quality, if it results in any of the following:

● A conflict with the obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

● A violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air

quality violation;

● A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in

non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard;

● The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or,

● The creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for

short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for criteria pollutants. These

criteria pollutants include the following:

● Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, damages materials, and vegetation. O3

is formed by a photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight).

● Carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to

the brain, is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels emitted as vehicle

exhaust.

● Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a yellowish-brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing

difficulties. NO2 is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with

oxygen.

● Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-

containing fossil fuels.

● PM10 and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in

diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized

particles since fine particles can more easily be inhaled.

A project would be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it violated any ambient air quality

standard (AAQS), contributed substantially to an existing air quality violation, or exposed sensitive

receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition to the Federal and State AAQS, there are

daily emissions thresholds for construction and operational activities.



Projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) generating construction-related emissions that exceed any of

the following daily emissions thresholds are considered to be significant under CEQA:

● 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds;

● 100 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide;

● 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide;

● 150 pounds per day of PM10; or,

● 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides.

A project would have a significant effect on air quality if any of the following operational daily emissions

thresholds for criteria pollutants are exceeded:

● 55 pounds of reactive organic compounds;

● 55 pounds of nitrogen dioxide;

● 550 pounds of carbon monoxide;

● 150 pounds of PM10; or,

● 150 pounds of sulfur oxides.

In addition to the above criteria pollutants, the SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for

both toxic air contaminants (TACs) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For TACs, the threshold is the

maximum incremental cancer risk that is equal to or greater than ten occurrences of cancer in one million.

For the emissions thresholds for GHG is 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2 equivalent (MT/yr CO2eq).


A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ● No

Impact.

The City of La Mirada is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes a 6,600 square-

mile area within Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and

San Bernardino County. Air quality in the SCAB is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations located throughout the area.33 Measures to improve

regional air quality are outlined in the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).34 The most

recent AQMP was adopted in 2012 and was jointly prepared with the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).35

The AQMP will help the SCAQMD maintain focus on the air quality impacts of major projects associated

with goods movement, land use, energy efficiency, and other key areas of growth. Key elements of the

2012 AQMP include enhancements to existing programs to meet the 24-hour PM2.5 Federal health

standard and a proposed plan of action to reduce ground-level ozone. The primary criteria pollutants that

remain non-attainment in the local area include PM2.5 and Ozone. Specific criteria for determining a

33 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Plan, Adopted June 2007.

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.



project’s conformity with the AQMP is defined in Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality

Handbook. The Air Quality Handbook refers to the following criteria as a means to determine a project’s

conformity with the AQMP:36

● Consistency Criteria 1 refers to a proposed project’s potential for resulting in an increase in the

frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or its potential for contributing to the

continuation of an existing air quality violation.

● Consistency Criteria 2 refers to a proposed project’s potential for exceeding the assumptions

included in the AQMP or other regional growth projections relevant to the AQMP’s

implementation.37

In terms of Criteria 1, the proposed project’s long-term (operational) airborne emissions will be below

levels that the SCAQMD considers to be a significant adverse impact (refer to the analysis included in the

next section where the long-term stationary and mobile emissions for the proposed project are

summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2). The proposed project will also conform to Consistency Criteria 2 since

it will not significantly affect any regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared for

the City of La Mirada. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population

forecasts identified in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) prepared by the Southern California

Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since

the RCP forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. According to the

Growth Forecast Appendix prepared by SCAG for the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the

City of La Mirada is projected to lose a total of 100 jobs through the year 2035.38 A total of 78 new jobs will

be created upon the implementation of the proposed project. The number of new jobs assumes one new

job for every 1,000 square feet of floor area. The City’s current unemployment rate is 3.5 percent as of

March 2016. This unemployment rate means that approximately 800 City residents are currently

unemployed.39 The implementation of the proposed project will aid the City in reducing its unemployment

rate. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The proposed project’s construction period is expected to last for approximately eight months (refer to

Section 2.4.2) and would include demolition, grading, site preparation, erection of the new warehouse, and

the finishing of the project (paving, painting, and installation of landscaping). The analysis of daily

construction and operational emissions was prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model

(CalEEMod V.2013.2.2). The assumptions regarding the construction phases and the length of

construction followed those identified herein in Section 2.4.2. As shown in Table 3-1, daily construction

emissions are not anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

36 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993. 37 Ibid. 38 Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Forecast. Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035. April 2012. 39 State of California Employment Development Department. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census

Designated Places. Labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov



Table 3-1 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions

Construction Phase ROG NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Site Preparation (on-site) 2.69 30.82 18.06 0.02 1.63 1.40

Site Preparation (off-site) 0.03 0.04 0.52 -- 0.09 0.02

Total Site Preparation 2.72 30.86 18.58 0.02 1.72 1.42

Grading (on-site) 2.85 29.94 19.63 0.02 7.82 4.85

Grading (off-site) 0.04 0.05 0.65 -- 0.11 0.03

Total Grading 2.89 29.99 20.28 0.02 7.93 4.88

Building Construction 2016 (on-site) 3.69 24.63 16.71 0.02 1.62 1.55

Building Construction 2016 (off-site) 0.32 1.69 4.55 -- 0.62 0.18

Total Building Construction 4.01 26.32 21.26 0.02 2.24 1.73

Building Construction 2017 (on-site) 3.32 22.85 16.24 0.02 1.46 1.39

Building Construction 2017 (off-site) 0.29 1.54 4.17 -- 0.62 0.18

Total Building Construction 3.61 24.39 20.41 0.02 2.08 1.57

Paving 2016 (on-site) 1.71 16.46 12.05 0.01 1.02 0.94

Paving (off-site) 0.05 0.07 0.88 -- 0.16 0.04

Total Paving 1.76 16.53 12.93 0.01 1.18 0.98

Architectural Coatings (on-site) 24.90 2.18 1.86 -- 0.17 0.17

Architectural Coatings (off-site) 0.03 0.04 0.52 -- 0.10 0.02

Total Architectural Coatings 24.93 2.22 2.38 -- 0.27 0.19

Maximum Daily Emissions 24.93 30.86 21.26 0.02 7.93 4.88

Daily Thresholds 75 100 55o 150 150 55

Source: CalEEMod V.2013.2.2.

Because the project area is located in a non-attainment area for ozone and particulates, the following

mitigation measures have been provided as a means to further reduce potential construction-related

emissions:

● All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be watered during excavation, grading and

construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD

Rule 403. Watering could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 55 percent. Recycled water must be

used.

● The Applicant shall ensure that the contractors adhere to all pertinent SCAQMD protocols

regarding reduction of emissions from construction equipment.

The long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include mobile emissions from

vehicular traffic; on-site stationary emissions related to the operation of machinery; and off-site stationary

emissions associated with the off-site generation of energy (natural gas and electrical). The analysis of



long-term operational impacts summarized in Table 3-2, also used the CalEEMod computer model

developed for the SCAQMD. The analysis summarized in Table 3-2 indicates the operational (long-term)

emissions will be below the SCAQMD's daily emissions thresholds.

Table 3-2 Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs/day

Emission Source ROG NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Area-wide (lbs/day) 2.57 -- 0.01 -- -- --

Energy (lbs/day) -- 0.01 0.01 -- -- --

Mobile (lbs/day) 0.78 2.57 10.28 0.02 1.89 0.53

Total (lbs/day) 3.36 2.59 10.31 0.02 1.89 0.53

Daily Thresholds 55 55 55o 15o 15o 55

Source: CalEEMod V.2013.2.2.

As indicated in Table 3-2, the projected long-term emissions are below thresholds considered to be a

significant impact. As a result, with the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation, the long-term

air quality impacts will be less than significant.

C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for

which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air

quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone

precursors)? ● Less than Significant Impact.

As indicated in the previous section, the proposed project’s implementation will result in long-term

stationary and mobile emissions (refer to Table 3-2) however, these emissions will be below the SCAQMD’s

daily levels of significance. As a result, the cumulative air quality impacts are less than significant.

D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ● Less than

Significant Impact.

Sensitive receptors refer to land uses and/or activities that are especially sensitive to poor air quality and

typically include homes, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, convalescent homes, and other facilities where

children or the elderly may congregate.40 The project site is surrounded by industrial uses which are not

considered to be sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive land uses in the area include the homes located

along the north side of Stage Road approximately 500 feet from the site at its nearest point. However, the

residential units are not located within the line-of-sight of the proposed project. The location and extent of

the aforementioned sensitive receptors is shown in Exhibit 3-3.

40 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Appendix 9. 2004 (as amended).



EXHIBIT 3-3 NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS MAP

Source: Quantum GIS

Sensitive Receptors

Non-Sensitive Receptors

Non-Residential Sensitive Receptors

Project Site



The SCAQMD is requesting that local governments indicate whether a proposed project will impact a

sensitive receptor resulting in an exceedance of localized emissions thresholds or LSTs. LSTs only apply to

short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions at a fixed location and do not include off-

site or area-wide emissions. The use of the “look-up tables” is permitted since each of the construction

phases will involve the disturbance of less than five acres of land area. As indicated in Table 3-3, the

proposed project will not exceed any LSTs based on the information included in the Mass Rate LST Look-

up Tables provided by the SCAQMD. For purposes of the LST analysis, the receptor distance used was 100

meters.

Table 3-3

Local Significance Thresholds Exceedance SRA 5

Allowable Emissions Threshold (lbs/day) and a Specified Distance from Receptor (in meters) Emissions

Project Emissions* (lbs/day)

Type

25 5o 100 200 500

NO2 30.86 Construction 114 111 121 145 205

NO2 2.59 Operations 114 111 121 145 205

CO 21.26 Construction 861 1,082 1,496 2,625 7,500

CO 10.31 Operations 861 1,082 1,496 2,625 7,500

PM10 1.89 Operations 2 5 10 18 44

PM10 7.93 Construction 7 21 39 74 182

PM2.5 0.53 Operations 1 2 3 6 22

PM2.5 4.88 Construction 4 6 10 22 92

As indicated in Table 3-3, the proposed project’s operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed

thresholds of significance outlined by the SCAQMD. As a result, the proposed project’s LST impacts are

less than significant.

E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ● No Impact.

The SCAQMD has identified land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. These uses

include activities involving livestock, rendering facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants,

composting activities, refineries, landfills, and businesses involved in fiberglass molding.41 The proposed

project will be involved in general warehousing and distribution uses. Given the nature of the intended

use, no impacts related to odors are anticipated with the proposed project.

41 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Appendix 9. 2004 (as amended).




The proposed project’s implementation would not result in any new exceedance of air pollution standards

nor contribute significantly to an existing air quality violation. Furthermore, the analysis determined that

the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts.

As a result, no significant adverse cumulative impacts will occur.


As indicated previously, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse operational air

quality impacts. However, the following mitigation measures will be effective in further reducing potential

air emissions related to grading activities:

Mitigation Measure 1 (Air Quality Impacts). All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be

watered during excavation, grading and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to

reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Watering could reduce fugitive dust by as much

as 55 percent. Recycled water must be used.

Mitigation Measure 2 (Air Quality Impacts). The Applicant shall ensure that the contractors adhere

to all pertinent SCAQMD protocols regarding reduction of emissions from construction equipment.


SECTION 3.4 ● BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 48

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on

biological resources if it results in any of the following:

● A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service;

● A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural plant community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish

and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

● A substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

● A substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native

wildlife nursery sites;

● A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance; or,

● A conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.


A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,

on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,

policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service? ● No Impact.

The project site is a surface parking lot that provided parking for the adjacent business located to the east

when it was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is

provided along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage, along the west and east sides, and in the parking

area. A landscaped area is also located in the southwest corner.42 A review of the California Department of

Fish and Wildlife California Natural Biodiversity Database (CNDDB) Bios Viewer for the Whittier

42 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016.



Quadrangle indicated that there are seven threatened or endangered species located within the Whittier

Quadrangle (the City of La Mirada is located within the Whittier Quadrangle).43 These species include:

● The Coastal California gnatcatcher is not likely to be found on-site due to the existing

development and the lack of habitat suitable for the California gnatcatcher. The absence of coastal

sage scrub, the California gnatcatcher’s primary habitat, further diminishes the likelihood of

encountering such birds.

● The least Bell’s vireo lives in a riparian habitat, with a majority of the species living in San Diego

County. As a result, it is not likely that any least Bell’s vireos will be encountered during on-site

construction activities.

● The Santa Ana Sucker will not be found on-site because the Santa Ana sucker is a fish and there

are no bodies of water present on-site.

● The bank swallow populations located in Southern California are extinct.

● The willow flycatcher’s habitat consists of marsh, brushy fields, and willow thickets. These birds

are often found near streams and rivers and are not likely to be found on-site due to the lack of

marsh and natural hydrologic features.

● The western yellow-billed cuckoo is an insect eating bird found in riparian woodland habitats.

The lack of riparian habitat and presence of urban development diminishes the likelihood of

encountering populations of western yellow-billed cuckoos.

● California Orcutt grass is found near vernal pools throughout Los Angeles, Riverside, and San

Diego counties. There are no bodies of water located on-site that would be capable of supporting

populations of California Orcutt grass.

The proposed project will not impact the aforementioned species because the project site is located in the

midst of an urban area and there is no suitable riparian or natural habitat located within, or in the vicinity

of, the project site. As a result, no impacts on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species will result

from proposed project’s implementation.

B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ● No Impact.

A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper indicated

that there are no wetlands or riparian habitat present on-site or in the adjacent properties. In addition,

there are no designated “blue line streams” located within the project site (refer to Exhibit 3-2). The

nearest blue-line stream is Coyote Creek located approximately 0.71 miles to the southeast. As a result, no

impacts on natural or riparian habitats will result from the proposed project’s implementation.

43 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bios Viewer. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/?tool=cnddbQuick



C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)

through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ● No Impact.

As indicated in the previous subsection, the project area and adjacent developed properties do not contain

any natural wetland and/or riparian habitat.44 The project site is a surface parking lot that previously

provided parking for the adjacent business on the east when it was in operation. The project site is largely

covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is provided along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage,

along the west and east sides, and in the parking area.45 Trees are also located throughout the parking area

and in the landscaped parkway that has frontage along Alondra Boulevard. The parkway trees will be

retained though approximately 20 trees within the interior of the project site will require removal to

accommodate the proposed development. None of these aforementioned trees are native species or

Heritage Trees. The project site is also located in the midst of an urbanized setting. As a result, the

proposed project will not impact any protected wetland area or designated blue-line stream.

D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish

or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of

native wildlife nursery sites? ● No Impact.


was in operation. Landscaped turf is provided along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage, along the west

and east sides, and in the parking area (refer to Exhibit 3-4). A landscaped area is also located in the

southwest corner.46 The project site and surrounding areas have been previously disturbed to

accommodate the current level of development and the area retains little to none of the characteristics of

the native environment. The aforementioned conditions restrict the site’s utility as a migration corridor

because the site lacks adequate suitable habitat. In addition, there are no natural open space areas present

within the project site and adjacent properties. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances, protecting biological resources, such

as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project is not anticipated to require the removal of any parkway trees located near the site’s

northern property line along Alondra Boulevard. An additional 20 non-parkway trees and shrubs located

within the interior of the project site will need to be removed. Title 12 (Streets and Sidewalks) Chapter

12.08 – Preservation, Protection, and Removal of Parkway Trees of the City of La Mirada municipal code

serves as the City’s “Tree Ordinance.” The removal of any parkway trees is permitted under the City’s tree

ordinance subject to the approval and adherence of the standard conditions described in a permit. As

indicated previously, the project’s implementation will not require the removal of any parkway trees.

Adherence to the standard conditions described in the permit will reduce impacts to levels that are less

than significant.

44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/Wetlands/data/Mapper.html 45 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016. 46 Ibid.



EXHIBIT 3-4

LANDSCAPING PLAN Source: Hunter Landscape



F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural

Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation

plan? ● No Impact.

The proposed project will not impact an adopted or approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation

plan because the proposed project is located in the midst of an urban area. In addition, the Sycamore and

Turnbull Canyons Significant Ecological Area (SEA #44) is the closest protected SEA and is located

approximately 6.76 miles north of the project site.47 The construction and operation of the proposed

project will not affect the Sycamore and Turnbull Canyons SEA because the proposed development will be

restricted to the project site. Therefore, no impacts will occur.


The impacts on biological resources are typically site specific. The proposed project would not involve any

loss of protected habitat. As a result, no cumulative impacts on biological resources will be associated with

the proposed project’s implementation.


The analysis indicated that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant

adverse impacts on biological resources. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

47 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. GIS-NET3 Public. Note: SEA layer was selected and the measurement tool

was utilized to calculate the distance between the site and the specific SEA. Website accessed April 28, 2016.


SECTION 3.5 ● CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 53

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on cultural

resources if it results in any of the following:

● A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of

the State CEQA Guidelines;

● A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;

● The destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature; or,

● The disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.


A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as

defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? ● No Impact.

Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be

historically significant if it is locally protected through a local general plan or historic preservation

ordinance. A site or structure may be historically significant according to State or Federal criteria even if

the locality does not recognize such significance. The State, through the State Historic Preservation Office

(SHPO), maintains an inventory of those sites and structures that are considered to be historically

significant. Finally, the U.S. Department of Interior has established specific Federal guidelines and criteria

that indicate the manner in which a site, structure, or district is to be defined as having historic

significance and in the determination of its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places.48 To be considered eligible for the National Register, a property’s significance may be determined if

the property is associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past, with the

lives of people who were important in the past, or represents significant architectural, landscape, or

engineering elements.49

The project site is a surface parking lot that provided parking for the adjacent business on the east when

the latter was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is


area.50 None of the on-site improvements meet the criteria for historic preservation and no impacts will

occur.

48 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov. 2010. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.



B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? ● Less than Significant Impact with

Mitigation.

The greater Los Angeles Basin was previously inhabited by the Gabrieleño -Kizh people, named after the

San Gabriel Mission.51 The Gabrieleño tribe has lived in this region for around 7,000 years.52 Prior to

Spanish contact, approximately 5,000 Gabrieleño people lived in villages throughout the Los Angeles

Basin.53 Villages were typically located near major rivers such as the San Gabriel, Rio Hondo, or Los

Angeles Rivers. The early anthropologist and ethnographer, J. P. Harrington, noted the presence of two

Indian settlements located in what is now Buena Park along Coyote Creek. His records indicated that the

first settlement, referred to as Indian Camp, was located three miles due west of the Coyote Ranch House.

The second site, referred to as Old Indian Camp, was located a little south of the Indian Camp site.

Modern references place both village sites along Coyote Creek in what is now Buena Park.

The project site is a surface parking lot that provided parking for the adjacent business located to the east

when it was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is


area. Although the site has been subject to disturbance to accommodate the existing improvements, the

project site is situated in an area of high archaeological significance. In addition, the project will require

minor grading. As a result, the following mitigation is required:

● The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American

Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is

defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation

as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring,

grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by

the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve

any ground-disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) will complete monitoring logs

on a daily basis. The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction

activities, locations, soil and any cultural materials identified. The monitor(s) will photo-

document the ground-disturbing activities. The monitor(s) must also have Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the monitor(s) will

be required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological

resource(s) encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions

outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Division

13, Section 21083.2 (a) through (k). The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site

grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site

has a low potential for archeological resources.

51 Tongva People of Sunland-Tujunga. Introduction. http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/Verdugo_HS/classes/multimedia/intro.html 52 Ibid. 53 Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden. Tongva Village Site. http://www.rsabg.org/tongva-village-site-1



In the unlikely event that remains are uncovered by construction crews and/or the Native American

Monitors, all excavation and grading activities shall be halted and the Los Angeles County Sheriff will be

contacted (the Department will then contact the County Coroner). Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section

15064.5 of CEQA will apply in terms of the identification of significant archaeological resources and their

salvage. Adherence to the abovementioned mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less

than significant.

C. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique

geologic feature? ● No Impact.


was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving.54 The potential for

paleontological resources in the area is considered low due to the character of subsurface soils (recent

alluvium) and the amount of disturbance associated with the past development. As a result, no impacts are

anticipated.

D. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

● No Impact.

There are no cemeteries located in the immediate area of the project site. The nearest cemetery to the

project site is the Olive Lawn Memorial Park. This cemetery is located at 13926 La Mirada Boulevard

approximately 1.14 miles northeast of the project site.55 The proposed project will be restricted to the

designated project site and will not affect the aforementioned cemetery. In addition, the proposed project

is not likely to disturb any on-site burials due to the level of disturbance that has occurred in order to

accommodate the former development. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.


The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources are site specific. Furthermore, the

analysis herein also determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any

impacts on cultural resources. As a result, no cumulative impacts will occur as part of the implementation

of the proposed project.


The following mitigation is required due to the potential for disturbance of archaeological resources:

Mitigation Measure 3 (Cultural Resources Impacts). The project Applicant will be required to obtain

the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground disturbance

activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of

Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-

holing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s)

54 Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden. Tongva Village Site. http://www.rsabg.org/tongva-village-site-1 55 Google Earth. Website accessed April 26, 2016.



must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction

phases that involve any ground-disturbing activities. The Native American Monitor(s) will complete

monitoring logs on a daily basis. The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including

construction activities, locations, soil and any cultural materials identified. The monitor(s) will photo-

document the ground-disturbing activities. The monitor(s) must also have Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the monitor(s) will be

required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological

resource(s) encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions outlined

in the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Division 13, Section

21083.2 (a) through (k). The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and

excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential

for archeological resources.


SECTION 3.6 ● GEOLOGY & SOILS IMPACTS PAGE 57

3.6 GEOLOGY & SOILS IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the

environment if it results in the following:

● The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of

loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most

recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or

based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground-shaking, liquefaction, or landslides;

● Substantial soil erosion resulting in the loss of topsoil;

● The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including location on

a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,

and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or

collapse;

● Locating a project on an expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code (2010), creating

substantial risks to life or property; or,

● Locating a project in, or exposing people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of

adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where

sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.


A. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the

risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most

recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or

based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground–shaking, liquefaction, or landslides? ●

Less than Significant Impact.

The City of La Mirada is located in a seismically active region (refer to Exhibit 3-5). Many major and

minor local faults traverse the entire Southern California region, posing a threat to millions of residents

including those who reside in the City. Earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the

Southern California region could affect the proposed project site. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake.56

56 California Department of Conservation. What is the Alquist-Priolo Act http://www.conservation.ca.gov /cgs/rghm/ap/

Pages/main.aspx



EXHIBIT 3-5 REGIONAL FAULT MAP Source: United States Geological Survey

La Mirada



The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings

used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults.57 The City of La Mirada is not located

within an area containing an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.58 There are a number of known faults

within close proximity to the City. These nearby faults include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, the

Whittier-Elsinore Fault, the Norwalk Fault, and the Elysian Park Fault.59 The major faults in the region

are illustrated in Exhibit 3-5. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone consists of a series of northwesterly

trending folded hills and echelon faults extending over 40 miles from the Santa Monica Mountains to the

offshore area near Newport Beach.60 The potential impacts in regards to ground shaking are less than

significant since the risk is no greater in and around the project site than for the rest of the area.

The project site is not located in an area that is subject to liquefaction (refer to Exhibit 3-6). According to

the United States Geological Survey, liquefaction is the process by which water-saturated sediment

temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid. Essentially, liquefaction is the process by which the ground

soil loses strength due to an increase in water pressure following seismic activity. Since the project site is

not located in an area that is subject to liquefaction, no impacts will occur. Lastly, the project site is not

subject to the risk of landslides (refer to Exhibit 3-6) because there are no hills or mountains located in the

vicinity of the project site. As a result, the potential impacts in regards to landslides are less than

significant since the risk is no greater in and around the project site than for the rest of the area.

B. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ● No Impact.

According to the soil maps prepared for Los Angeles County by the United States Department of

Agriculture, the project site is underlain with soils of the Perkins-Rincon association. In addition, the

United States Department of Agriculture classifies soils based on their limitations or hazard risk. The

Perkins-Rincon soils association is generally well drained and has low soil permeability.61 The project site

was formerly developed and the underlying soils were disturbed in order to facilitate previous construction

activities. In addition, Perkins-Rincon soils are described as being used almost exclusively for urban

development. The site is, and will continue to be, level and no slope failure or landslide impacts are

anticipated to occur.

57 California Department of Conservation. What is the Alquist-Priolo Act http://www.conservation.ca.gov /cgs/rghm/ap/

Pages/main.aspx. 58 California Department of Conservation. Table 4, Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of

January 2010. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx 59 United States Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective (USGS

Professional Paper 1360), 1981. 60 Ibid. 61 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Report and General Soil Map, Los Angeles County, California.

Revised 1969.



EXHIBIT 3-6 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

Source: California Geological Survey

Potential Liquefaction Risk

Project Site



C. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

location on a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the

project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,

or collapse? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Soils of the Perkins-Rincon association underlie the project site and immediate area. According to the

United States Department of Agriculture, Perkins-Rincon soils are used almost exclusively for residential

and industrial development.62 The surrounding area is relatively level and is at no risk for landslides (refer

to Exhibit 3-6). Lateral spreading is not anticipated to occur due to the site preparation activities

associated with the site’s development. In addition, the project site is not prone to subsidence because

subsidence occurs via soil shrinkage and is triggered by a significant reduction in an underlying

groundwater table.63 The soils that underlie the project site are not prone to shrinking and swelling (refer

to section 3.6.D), thus no impacts related to unstable soils and subsidence are expected. Furthermore, the

construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to uncover or drain any underlying groundwater

table. As indicated previously, the site is located in an area that is subject to liquefaction; however, since

the surrounding areas and cities are located in a liquefaction zone, the effects are expected to be less than

significant.

D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including location on an expansive

soil, as defined in Uniform Building Code (2010) creating substantial risks to life or property? ● No

Impact.

The soils that underlie the proposed project site belong to the Perkins-Rincon soils association. Shrinking

and swelling is influenced by the amount of clay present in the underlying soils.64 Clay is not present in the

composition of Perkins-Rincon soils.65 Perkins-Rincon soils are at a slight risk for erosion. In addition,

Perkins-Rincon soils are described as being used almost exclusively for residential and industrial

development, as evident by the current level of urbanization present within the surrounding areas.66 As a

result, no impacts related to expansive soils are anticipated.

E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ● No Impact.

No septic tanks will be used as part of the proposed development. The new building will be connected to

the sanitary sewer system. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks will occur as part

of the proposed project’s implementation.

62 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Report and General Soil Map, Los Angeles County, California.

Revised 1969. 63 Subsidence Support. What Causes House Subsidence? http://www.subsidencesupport.co.uk/what-causes-subsidence.html 64 Natural Resources Conservation Service Arizona. Soil Properties Shrink/Swell Potential.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/az/soils/?cid=nrcs144p2_065083 65 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Report and General Soil Map Los Angeles County, California.

Revised 1969. 66 Ibid.




The potential cumulative impacts related to earth and geology is site specific. Furthermore, the analysis

herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse

impacts related to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform

or feature. As a result, no cumulative earth and geology impacts will occur as part of the proposed project’s

implementation.


The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts

related to earth and geology. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.


SECTION 3.7 ● GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS PAGE 63

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS



greenhouse gas emissions if it results in any of the following:

● The generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment; and,

● The potential for conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The State of California requires CEQA documents to include an evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).67 Table 3-4 summarizes annual greenhouse gas

(CO2E) emissions from build-out of the proposed project.

Table 3-4

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

GHG Emissions (Lbs/Day) Source

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E

Construction Phase - Site Preparation 2,480.100 0.7481 -- 2,495.8099

Construction Phase - Grading 2,139.2742 0.6453 -- 2,152.8251

Construction Phase – Construction (2016) 2,352.223 0.5420 -- 2,363.6057

Construction Phase – Construction (2017) 2,334.850 0.5189 -- 2,345.7479

Construction Phase - Paving 1,777.4745 0.5344 -- 1,788.6966

Construction Phase - Coatings 281.4481 0.0297 -- 282.0721

Long-Term – Area Emissions 0.03 -- -- 0.03

Long-Term - Energy Emissions 23.09 -- -- 23.23

Long-Term - Mobile Emissions 2,348.88 0.08 -- 2,350.71

Long-Term - Total Emissions 2,372.01 0.08 -004 2,373.99

Source: CalEEMod.

The SCAQMD has recommended several GHG thresholds of significance. These thresholds include 1,400

metric tons of CO2E (MTCO2E) per year for commercial projects; 3,500 MTCO2E per year for residential

67 California, State of. OPR Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Carbon Dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouses gases in a common and collective unit.



projects; 3,000 MTCO2E per year for mixed-use projects; and 10,000 MTCO2E per year for industrial

projects. Table 3-4 summarizes annual greenhouse gas emissions from build-out of the proposed project.

As indicated in Table 3-4, the CO2E total for the project is 2,373.99 pounds per day or 1.07 MTCO2E. This

translates into a generation of approximately 390 MTCO2E per year, which is well under the threshold of

10,000 MTCO2E for industrial projects. Therefore, the project’s GHG impacts are less than significant.

B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing emissions of greenhouse gases? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project will not involve or require any variance from an adopted plan, policy, or regulation

governing GHG emissions. As a result, no significant adverse impacts related to a potential conflict with

an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases

are anticipated. The proposed project would incorporate several design features that are consistent with

the California Office of the Attorney General's recommended policies and measures to reduce GHG

emissions. A list of the Attorney General's recommended measures and the project's conformance with

each are listed in Table 3-5. The new on-site improvements will incorporate sustainable practices that

include water, energy, and solid waste efficiency measures.

Table 3-5 Project Consistency With the Attorney General's Recommendations

Attorney General’s Recommended Measures Project Compliance

Percent

Reduction

Smart growth, jobs/housing balance, transit-oriented development, and infill development through land use designations, incentives and fees, zoning, and public-private partnerships.

Compliant. The proposed project will facilitate new infill development in an urban area. 10%-20%

Create transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections through planning, funding, development requirements, incentives, and regional cooperation; create disincentives for auto use; and implement TDM measures.

Compliant. The proposed project provides parking for clean air and van pool vehicles. 5%

Energy- and water-efficient buildings and landscaping through ordinances, development fees, incentives, project timing, prioritization, and other implementing tools.

Compliant. The new buildings will be required to comply with the City’s low impact development (LID) guidelines where applicable. The project will be consistent with the requirements of AB-1881.

10%

Waste diversion, recycling, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and energy recovery in cooperation with public services, districts and private entities.

Compliant. The project’s contractors will be required to adhere to the use of sustainability practices involving solid waste disposal.

0.5%

Urban and rural forestry through tree planting requirements and programs; preservation of agricultural land and resources that sequester carbon; heat island reduction programs.

Compliant. The project will involve the installation of additional landscaping beyond that which presently exists.

0.5%

Regional cooperation to find cross-regional efficiencies in GHG reduction investments and to plan for regional transit, energy generation, and waste recovery facilities.

Compliant. Refer to responses above. NA

Total Reduction Percentage: 36.0%

Source: California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010.



Table 3-6 identifies which CARB Recommended Actions applies to the proposed project. Of the 39 measures identified, those that would be considered to be applicable to the proposed project would primarily be those actions related to electricity, natural gas use, water conservation, and waste management. A discussion of each applicable measure and the project’s conformity with the measure is provided in Table 3-6. As indicated in the table, the proposed project would not impede the implementation of CARB’s recommended actions.

Table 3-6 Recommended Actions for Climate Change

ID # Sector Strategy Name Applicable to Project?

Will Project Conflict With

Implementation?

E-1 Electricity and Natural Gas Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs More Stringent Building and Appliance Standards Yes No

CR-1 Electricity and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Yes No

W-1 Water Water Use Efficiency Yes No

W-3 Water Water System Energy Efficiency Yes No

RW-3 Recycling and Waste Management

High Recycling/Zero Waste Yes No

Source: California Air Resources Board, Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan, 2008.

The proposed project would not introduce any conflicts with adopted initiatives that are designed to

control GHG emissions in the coming years. The project will involve the reuse of an existing urban

property and “infill development” and is seen as an important strategy in reducing regional GHG

emissions. As a result, the impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are considered to be less than

significant.


The analysis herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any

significant adverse impacts related to the emissions of GHG. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative

impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.


The analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions indicated that no significant adverse

impacts would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are

required.


SECTION 3.8 ● HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 66

3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on risk of

upset and human health if it results in any of the following:

● The creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials;

● The creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably

foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the

environment;

● The generation of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

● Locating the project on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the

environment;

● Locating the project within an area governed by an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has

not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport;

● Locating the project in the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in a safety hazard for

people residing or working in the project area;

● The impairment of the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or,

● The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild

land fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are

intermixed with wild lands.


A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed building will be used by Leftbank Art for the storage of decorative household art. In the

event the proposed project’s tenant or any future tenant is involved in the transport, use, storage, and

disposal of hazardous materials, the tenant will be required to comply with Federal and State regulations

regarding hazardous materials. The tenant would need to comply with the EPA’s Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act, Title 42, Section 11022 of the United States Code and Chapter 6.95 of the California

Health and Safety Code which requires the reporting of hazardous materials when used or stored in certain



quantities. Furthermore, the future tenant will need to file a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Plan and a

Business Emergency Plan to ensure the safety of the employees and citizens of La Mirada. Finally, if the

future tenant utilizes or stores hazardous materials, the tenant will be required to obtain the approval of a

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of La Mirada. The CUP process will allow the City to evaluate

any potential impact that may result from the use of such materials. As a result, the impacts will be less

than significant.

B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, or result in

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials

into the environment? ● Less than Significant Impact.

According to site assessment prepared for the former Microsemi Facility plant used and stored hazardous

and regulated substances including solvents, paints and thinners, acids, caustics, alcohols, metals

including lead dust and plating solutions, oils, and compressed and liquefied gases. The hazardous

materials were used and stored primarily in the plating areas, in the wastewater treatment area, and

hazardous material storage areas. Key elements of the previous use that has resulted in this contamination

are summarized below:

● Above-ground storage tanks ranging in size from five gallons to 2,000 gallons contained organic

and inorganic solutions including, cyanide solution, acids, rinse solutions, and caustics. A 3,000-

gallon filtered water tank was located in the wastewater treatment area.

● Cyanide solution, sulfuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acids, and other solutions were commonly used

in the plating room. These baths were rarely, if ever, drained; new chemicals were occasionally

added to replenish the baths. Some materials, such as acids, were filtered and recycled in nearby

tanks.

● All of the storage and plating areas were concrete-slabbed and bermed with the floor drains in the

plating room having been sealed. The wastewater treatment plant, consisting of numerous above-

ground tanks and filtering systems was also located within a concrete-bermed containment area.

● Most of the work areas housed small quantities of wipe cleaning chemicals such as isopropyl

alcohol, xylenes, and acetone. These materials were dispensed into very small plastic dropper

containers for use at work stations. Rags used to wipe oil and other materials were collected in

metal safety canisters. The soldering, welding, and metal working areas were equipped with

ventilation equipment.

● The former Microsemi Facility used small quantities of lead-containing solder as well as solder

containing gold and other metals. Materials observed in these areas included compressed gases,

degreasers, metal cleaners, flux, alcohol, zinc chloride, stripper, epoxy, dichloroethane, and

solders.



● The clean room was used to clean parts and contained numerous workstations and self-contained

parts cleaner units.

Based on the results of the TSA, Stantec (the consultant responsible for the Phase I Report) identified a

number of present environmental conditions (PEC) in connection with the project site including the

following:

● Staining and evidence of corrosion on the concrete floor and former excavations in the southern

and southeastern area of the building indicate a PEC associated with the former plating activities

conducted at the property.

● Staining observed at the lube coolant room/machine shop in the south central portion of the

building and staining observed at the former transformer room in the northeastern area of the

building indicate a PEC associated with previous use of hydrocarbons and oils as part of the former

presence of the transformer and coolant use at the facility.

● Staining observed in the former hazardous waste storage area also indicated a PEC associated with

the former storage of the hazardous waste at the property.

● A former spray paint booth was located in the southern area of the site. At the time of the site

reconnaissance visit, the spray paint booth had been dismantled and removed. The field survey

did not identify any staining or evidence of impact associated with the presence of the booth; as

such, it is considered a De Minimis condition and not a PEC.

Stantec recommended that a Phase II investigation be conducted at the areas where evidence of staining

was observed adjacent to the former plating area, former coolant area, former transformer area and the

former hazardous materials storage area, and in the area of the waste water treatment system and

hazardous material storage areas. A Work Plan submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department

(LACFD-CUPA) presented a scope of work to assess the identified PECs. Future on-site demolition

activities must comply with all pertinent requirements of the Fire Department, SCAQMD, Regional Water

Quality Control Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and other pertinent regulatory

agencies. Compliance with the regulations of these agencies will reduce the potential risk to levels that are


C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ● Less than

Significant Impact.

The nearest schools to the site include Escalona Elementary School, located approximately 0.32 miles to

the northeast of the project site; Biola University, located approximately 0.96 miles to the northeast; and

Arlie F. Hutchinson Middle School, located approximately 1.24 miles to the north of the project site.68 In

addition, adherence to all Federal, State, and local laws regulating the handling and transport of hazardous

materials will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

68 Google Earth. Website accessed April 26, 2016.



D. Would the project be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous material sites

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a

significant hazard to the public or the environment? ● No Impact.

A search was conducted through the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor website

to determine whether the project site is listed in the database as a Cortese site. The project site is not

identified on the list.69 Since the proposed project will not be located on a Cortese site compiled pursuant

to Government Code Section 65962.5, no impacts will occur.

E. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ● No Impact.

The project site is located approximately 2.24 miles to the northwest of the Fullerton Municipal Airport.70

The project site is not located within the Fullerton Airport’s Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), nor is the site

located within the airport’s 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) boundary. However, according

to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Fullerton Municipal Airport, the project site is

located in the FAR Part 77 height restriction zones for the Fullerton Municipal Airport.71 According to

Section 77.17 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an existing object will be an obstruction to air

navigation if it exceeds heights between 200 to 499 feet above ground level.72 The building’s maximum

height will be just over 40 feet; therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with the approach and

take off of airplanes utilizing the Fullerton Municipal Airport. As a result, no impacts will occur.

F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for

people residing or working in the project area? ● No Impact.

The project site is not located within two miles of an operational private airport or airstrip.73 As a result,

the proposed use will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft and/or airport operations at a private

use airstrip and no impacts are anticipated to occur.

G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ● No Impact.

At no time will Alondra Boulevard or any other designated emergency evacuation routes be closed to

vehicular traffic as a result of the project’s implementation. Thus, no impacts on emergency response or

evacuation plans will result from the project’s construction.

69 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. 70 Google Earth. Website accessed April 26, 2016. 71 Airport Land Use Commission/ Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport. AELUP Height Restriction Zone

for FMA map. Document amended November 18, 2004. 72 U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchapter E Part 77 Subpart C. 73 Tollfreeairline. Los Angeles County Public and Private Airports, California:

http://www.tollfreeairline.com/california/losangeles.htm



H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving

wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are

intermixed with wild lands? ● No Impact.

The entire City is urbanized and the parcels found within the affected area are developed.74 There are no

areas of native vegetation found within or adjacent to the project site. As a result, there is no wildfire risk

from off-site locations.


The potential impacts related to hazardous materials are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein

also determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant

immitigable impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials. As a result, no significant adverse

cumulative impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.


The analysis of potential impacts determined that no potentially significant impacts related to hazardous

materials handling and/or exposure. As a result, no mitigation would be required.



SECTION 3.9 ● HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 71

3.9 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse environmental

impact on water resources or water quality if it results in any of the following:

● A violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

● A substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge such

that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table

level;

● A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of

the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-

or off-site;

● A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration

of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;

● The creation or contribution of water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

storm water drainage systems or the generation of substantial additional sources of polluted

runoff;

● The substantial degradation of water quality;

● The placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood

Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map;

● The placement of structures within 100-year flood hazard areas that would impede or redirect

flood flows;

● The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or levee

failure; or,

● The exposure of a project to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.


A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ● Less than

Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The proposed project involves the removal of the remaining on-site improvements (curbs, landscaping,

and asphalt) in order to accommodate the construction of the new warehouse. In the absence of

mitigation, the impervious surfaces (the building, internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) that will be



constructed as part of the site’s development could lead to the presence of debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease,

and other pollutants within the parking areas.75 The project Applicant will be required to implement storm

water pollution control measures pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) requirements. The Applicant will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan

(WQMP) utilizing Best Management Practices to control or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the

maximum extent practicable. The WQMP will also identify post-construction best management practices

(BMPs) that will be implemented over the life of the project. In addition, the following mitigation is

required as part of this project to ensure that potential water quality impacts are mitigated:

● Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the project that will result in soil disturbance of one or

more acres of land, the Applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under

California's General Permit for Storm water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by

providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control

Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification

(WDID) Number or other proof of filing shall be provided to the Chief Building Official and the

City Engineer.

● The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The SWPPP shall be submitted to the Chief Building Official and City Engineer prior to the

issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant shall register their SWPPP with the State of

California. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for

review on request.

With the aforementioned mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge in such a way that would cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering

of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of a pre-existing nearby well would

drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have

been granted)? ● No Impact.

Grading related activities are not anticipated to encounter and deplete groundwater supplies from any

underlying aquifer. In addition, the proposed project will be connected to the City’s utility lines and is not

anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies through the consumption of the water (water consumption

impacts are analyzed in Section 3.17.2.D). A search was conducted through the Regional Water Quality

Control Board’s on-line database Geotracker to identify the presence of any water wells. The search

yielded no results.76 As a result, no impacts are anticipated to occur.

75 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. April 9, 2015. 76 Geotracker GAMA. Search for wells.

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/default.asp?CMD=runreport&myaddress=4143+rowland+avenue



C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion

or siltation on- or off-site? ● No Impact.

The project site is located approximately 0.71 miles northwest of Coyote Creek, which is a concrete-lined

flood control channel.77 The proposed project will be restricted to the designated site and will not alter the

course of the channelized La Mirada Creek. No other bodies of water are located in and around the project

site. In addition, the project will not substantially alter the site’s natural drainage patterns because

previous construction activities may have altered this site’s original drainage patterns. As a result, no

impacts are anticipated to occur.

D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-

site? ● No Impact.

As indicated previously, the proposed project will be restricted to the designated site and will not alter the

course of the channelized Coyote Creek located approximately 0.71 miles to the southeast. In addition, the

proposed project will be properly drained and is not expected to result in on-or off-site flooding. As a

result, no impacts are anticipated.

E. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or

planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The proposed project will require the demolition of the current on-site improvements (surface parking lot,

etc.) in order to accommodate the construction of the new warehouse. In the absence of mitigation, the

impervious surfaces (internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) that will be constructed as part of the site’s

development could lead to the presence of debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease, and other pollutants within the

parking areas.78 The following measures are required as a means to address potential storm water

impacts:

● All catch basins and public access points that cross or abut an open channel shall be marked by the

applicant with a water quality label in accordance with City standards. This measure must be

completed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

● The Applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all on-site drainage facilities as required

by the City Engineer.

● Drainage facilities out-letting onto adjacent properties shall be designed by the Applicant in such a

manner so as to imitate the manner in which the storm water is presently crossing the property

line. This measure must be reviewed and approved by the Building Division and the City Engineer.

77 Google Earth. Website accessed April 26, 2016. 78 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. April 26, 2016.



No surface water bodies are found within the project site, or in the immediate vicinity, that would be

affected by the project.79 In addition, the proposed project will connect to the existing storm drain located

in Alondra Boulevard. The aforementioned mitigation will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are


F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ● No Impact.

Adherence to the mitigation provided in Sections 3.9.2.A and 3.9.2.E will reduce potential water quality

impacts to levels that are less than significant. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ● No

Impact.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance map obtained from the

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the proposed project site is located in Zone X (refer to

Exhibit 3-7). This flood zone has an annual probability of flooding of less than 0.2 percent and represents

areas outside the 500-year flood plain.80 As a result, no impacts related to flood flows are associated with

the proposed project’s implementation.

H. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or

redirect flood flows? ● No Impact.

As indicated previously, the project site is not located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area as

defined by FEMA.81 As a result, the proposed project will not involve the placement of any structures that

would impede or redirect potential floodwater flows since the site is not located within a flood hazard area.

Therefore, no flood-related impacts are anticipated with the proposed project’s implementation.

I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or

levee failure? ● No Impact.

According to the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, the City is not subject to dam failure.82 As result,

no impacts will occur.

J. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ● No Impact.

The project site is located approximately 11.87 miles to the north of the Pacific Ocean and the project area

would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. A seiche in the Coyote Creek is not likely to happen due

to the channelization of the Creek and volume of water present.

79 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. April 26, 2016. 80 FEMA. Flood Zones, Definition/Description. http://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/flood-zones 81 Ibid. 82 City of La Mirada. City of La Mirada Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Final Draft. Dated October 26, 2004.



EXHIBIT 3-7 FEMA FLOOD MAP

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and ESRI

Project Site



Lastly, the project site will not be subject to mudslides because the project site and surrounding areas are

generally level. As a result, no impacts are likely to occur.


The potential impacts related to hydrology and storm water runoff are typically site specific. The

implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to

hydrology. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.


The following mitigation is required as part of this project to ensure that potential water quality impacts

are mitigated:

Mitigation Measure 4 (Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts). Prior to issuance of any grading permit

for the project that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall

demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Storm water

Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI)

submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the

issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing shall be provided

to the Building Division and the City Engineer.

Mitigation Measure 5 (Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts). The applicant shall prepare and

implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be submitted to the

Building Division and City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant shall

register their SWPPP with the State of California. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the

project site and be available for review on request.

Mitigation Measure 6 (Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts). All catch basins and public access

points that cross or abut an open channel shall be marked by the applicant with a water quality label in

accordance with City standards. This measure must be completed and approved by the City Engineer

prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Mitigation Measure 7 (Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts). The applicant shall be responsible for

the construction of all on-site drainage facilities as required by the City Engineer.

Mitigation Measure 8 (Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts). Drainage facilities out-letting onto

adjacent properties shall be designed by the applicant in such a manner so as to imitate the manner in

which the storm water is presently crossing the property line. This measure must be reviewed and

approved by the Building Division and the City Engineer.


SECTION 3.10 ● LAND USE & PLANNING IMPACTS PAGE 77

3.10 LAND USE & PLANNING IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on land use and

development if it results in any of the following:

● The disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an established community;

● A conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the agency with jurisdiction

over the project; or,

● A conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.


A. Would the project physically divide or disrupt an established community or otherwise result in an

incompatible land use? ● No Impact.

The 2.62-acre site is located in the midst of an industrial area and is surrounded on all sides by

development. Alondra Boulevard extends along the northern portion of the project site. Surrounding land

uses in the vicinity of the project site are described below:

● North of the project site. Alondra Boulevard extends along the north side of the project site. This

segment of Alondra Boulevard consists of six travel lanes (three lanes in each direction) with a

raised median. A small fast food restaurant, Classic Burgers Café, is located to the north of the

project site, on the opposite side of Alondra Boulevard. A Southern California Edison (SCE)

substation is located to the northwest.83

● South of the project site. A distribution and warehouse use, Pentius Auto Parts, abuts the project

site on the south side.

● East of the project site. A large warehouse that was formerly occupied by Microsemi Power

Management Group (MPMG), abuts the project site on the east side. The project site formerly

provided surface parking for MPMG when the latter was operational.84

● West of the project site. A large industrial building is located to the west of the project site. This

building is located on the southeast corner of Alondra Boulevard and Trojan Way.85

83 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 26, 2016. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid.




was in operation. The project site is largely covered over in asphalt paving. Landscaped turf is provided

along the site’s Alondra Boulevard frontage, along the west and east sides, and in the parking area. A

landscaped area is also located in the southwest corner. The proposed project will be restricted to the

project site and will not divide or disrupt any residential neighborhood. The nearest residential

neighborhood is located along the north side of Stage Road approximately 470 feet to the northeast of the

project site.86 In addition, the proposed project will not result in an incompatible land use since the project

site is currently zoned as Industrial (M-2) (refer to Exhibit 3-8 for the zoning map). The project site’s

General Plan land use designation is Industrial (refer to Exhibit 3-9 for the General Plan land use map).

The proposed project will not require the approval of a Zone Change or a General Plan Amendment to

permit the development of the industrial building within the project site. As a result, no impacts will

occur.

B. Would the project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local

coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an

environmental effect? ● No Impact.

The industrial use that is contemplated will not conflict with any existing General Plan land use

designation, zoning designation, or zoning standards. The lot coverage of the proposed building will be 49

percent, thus corresponding to the maximum permitted lot coverage of 49 percent. The project’s floor area

ratio (FAR) will be 0.56 which is less than the maximum FAR of 1.0 permitted in the M-2 zone. Finally,

the proposed building’s height will not exceed the maximum permitted height of 60 feet. The proposed use

will not require a general plan amendment or a zone change. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

C. Will the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan? ● No Impact.

The proposed project will not impact an adopted or approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation

plan because the proposed project is located in the midst of an urban area. In addition, the Sycamore and

Turnbull Canyons Significant Ecological Area (SEA #44) is the closest protected SEA and is located

approximately 6.76 miles north of the project site.87 The construction and operation of the proposed

project will not affect the Sycamore and Turnbull Canyons SEA because the proposed development will be

restricted to the project site. Therefore, no impacts will occur.


The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse land use

impacts. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative land use impacts will occur.

86 Google Earth. Website accessed April 27, 2016. 87 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. GIS-NET3 Public. Note: SEA layer was selected and the measurement tool

was utilized to calculate the distance between the site and the specific SEA. Site accessed April 27, 2016.



EXHIBIT 3-8 ZONING MAP

Source: City of La Mirada and Quantum GIS

Project Site

R-1, Single-Family Residential

C-4, General Commercial

Open Space

PUD Planned Unit Development

M-2, Industrial

Mixed-Use Overlay



EXHIBIT 3-9 GENERAL PLAN MAP

Source: City of La Mirada and Quantum GIS

Project Site

Low Density Residential

Commercial

Public/Institutional

Industrial




The analysis of land use and development impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts on land

use and development would result from the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no

mitigation measures are required.


SECTION 3.11 ● MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 82

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS



energy and mineral resources if it results in any of the following:

● The loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the

residents of the State; or,

● The loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local

general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan.


A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value

to the region and the residents or the State? ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

Well Finder, there are no existing or former oil wells and/or oil extraction activities located within the

project site.88 The nearest recorded well to the project site is located approximately 1,155 feet to the north

east of the site near the intersection of Cheshire Street and Jacana Drive. This former well is not active and

is buried.89 Furthermore, the project area is not located within a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource

Area (SMARA), nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. As a result, no impacts

on existing mineral resources will result from the proposed project’s implementation.

B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery

site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan? ● Impact.

The resources and materials that will be utilized for the construction of the new building will not include

any materials that are considered rare or unique. Thus, no impacts will result with the implementation of

the proposed project.


The potential impacts on mineral resources are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that

the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts on mineral resources and no

cumulative impacts will occur.

88 California Department of Conservation. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html#close. Website accessed April 27,

2016. 89 Google Earth. Website accessed April 27, 2016.


SECTION 3.11 ● MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 83


The analysis of potential impacts related to mineral resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts

would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are

required.


SECTION 3.12 ● NOISE IMPACTS PAGE 84

3.12 NOISE IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on the

environment if it results in any of the following:

● The exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;

● The exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels;

● A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project above levels

existing without the project;

● A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project;

● Locating within an area governed by an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private use airport, where the project would expose

people to excessive noise levels; or,

● Locating within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in the exposure of people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.


A. Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other

agencies? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Noise levels may be described using a number of methods designed to evaluate the “loudness” of a

particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero

on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. The eardrum may

rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of between 3.0 dB and 5.0 dB is the ambient noise level that is

considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. In other words, increases in ambient noise

levels of 3.0 dB or less are not generally perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities. Noise levels

that are associated with common, everyday activities are illustrated in Exhibit 3-10.

The current noise environment within the area surrounding the project site is dominated by traffic noise

from Alondra Boulevard, located along the project site’s north side. The primary source of ambient noise

in the area includes vehicular traffic along Alondra Boulevard, railroad noise, and stationary noise sources

from nearby industry. A Sper Scientific Digital Sound Meter was used to conduct the noise measurements.



165 160 155

150 145 140 sonic boom

135

130

125 jet take off at 200 ft.

120

115 music in night club interior

110 motorcycle at 20 ft.

105 power mower

100

95 freight train at 50 ft.

90 food blender

85 electric mixer, light rail train horn

80

75

70 portable fan, roadway traffic at 50 ft.

65

60 dishwasher, air conditioner

55

50 normal conversation

45 refrigerator, light traffic at 100 ft.

40

35 library interior (quiet study area)

30

25

20

15

10 rustling leaves

5

0

Serious Injury

Pain

Discomfort

Range of Typical

Noise Levels

Threshold of Hearing

EXHIBIT 3-10 TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES AND LOUDNESS SCALE


Noise Levels – in dBA



A series of 100 discrete noise measurements were recorded and the results of the survey are summarized in

Table 3-7. The measurement location was within the project site next to Alondra Boulevard. The

measurement was taken on a weekday (Thursday) at 4:00 PM. Table 3-7 indicates the results of the noise

measurement survey.90 As indicated previously, the L50 noise level represents the median noise level that

is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the

noise level is less than this level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the

noise spectrum, noise measurements are typically weighted more heavily within the frequencies of

maximum human sensitivity using an A-weighting which is expressed as dBA. The average noise level

during the measurement period was 78.2 dBA. The relatively high noise levels shown in Table 3-7 are

largely due to the traffic using Alondra Boulevard.

Table 3-7 Noise Measurement Results

Noise Metric Noise Level (dBA)

L50 (Noise levels <50% of time) 74.5 dBA




Lmin (Minimum Noise Level) 71.7 dBA

Lmax (Maximum Noise Level) 79.4 dBA

Average Noise Level 75.0 dBA

Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning.

The implementation of the project will not expose future employees to excessive noise because the use that

is contemplated for development is not a noise sensitive receptor. In addition, the future tenant will be

required to adhere to all pertinent noise control regulations outlined by the City of La Mirada. As a result,

the potential impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project result in exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise

levels? ● Less than Significant Impact.

There are no noise sensitive receptors located within the vicinity of the p0roject site.91 The future tenant

will be required to adhere to the City’s noise control requirements. According to the City’s noise control

requirements, the maximum permitted noise level within the M-2 zone is 90 dBA. The proposed use will

adhere to the above-mentioned standards. The proposed project’s traffic generation will be much less than

a doubling in traffic on Alondra Boulevard that would be required to generate a perceptible increase in

traffic noise. As a result, the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

90 Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975.




C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project’s traffic will not be great enough to result in a measurable or perceptible increase in

traffic noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0

dBA or greater).92 The proposed project’s traffics are far less than the doubling of traffic that would be

required to generate a perceptible increase in traffic noise. Furthermore, the project site is not located

within the line-of-sight for the single-family residential located to the northeast and is not expected to

impact the aforementioned receptors. As a result, the traffic noise impacts resulting from the proposed

project’s occupancy will be less than significant.

D. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment are illustrated in Exhibit 3-11. The

noise levels that are indicated in the exhibit illustrate the typical noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from

the noise source. Composite construction noise is best characterized by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.93 In

this study, the noisiest phases of construction for non-residential development is presented as 89 dBA as

measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. In later phases during building erection,

noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures further break up line-of-

sight noise. However, as a worst-case scenario the 89 dBA value was used as an average noise level for the

construction effort. The construction noise levels will decline as one moves away from the noise source.

This effect is known as spreading loss. In general, the noise level adjustment that takes the spreading loss

into account calls for a 6.0 dBA reduction for every doubling of the distance beginning with the initial 50-

foot distance. The nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 500 feet to the northeast of the

project site. As a result, the estimate noise levels from construction will be under 60 dBA. Because of the

limited duration of the construction activities, the absence of any noise sensitive land uses on adjacent

properties, and the requirement that the construction activities adhere to the City’s noise control

requirements, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or

working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ● No Impact.

As indicated previously, the project site is not located within the Fullerton Airport’s Runway Protection

Zone (RPZ), nor is the site located within the airport’s 60 CNEL boundary.94 As a result, no impacts

related to the exposure of persons to aircraft noise from a public use airport are anticipated.

92 Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975. 93 USEPA, Protective Noise Levels. 1971. 94 Airport Land Use Commission/ Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport. AELUP Height Restriction Zone

for FMA map. Document amended November 18, 2004.



Compactors (Rollers)

Front Loaders

Backhoes

Tractors

Scrapers, Graders

Pavers

Trucks

Concrete Mixers

Concrete Pumps

Cranes (Movable)

Cranes (Derrick)

Pumps

Generators

Compressors

Pneumatic Wrenches

Jack Hammers

Pile Drivers

Vibrators

Saws

Impact Equipment

Ea

rth

Mo

vin

g

Eq

uip

men

t

70 80 90 100

Ma

teri

als

H

an

dli

ng

E

qu

ipm

ent

Other Equipment

Sta

tio

na

ry

Eq

uip

men

t

Eq

uip

men

t P

ow

ered

by

In

tern

al

Co

mb

ust

ion

En

gin

es

EXHIBIT 3-11 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS


Typical noise levels in dBA 50-ft. from source



F. Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels? ● No Impact.

The project site is not located within two miles of an operational private airport. As a result, no impacts

related to the exposure of persons to aircraft noise from a private airstrip will result from the proposed

project.


The analysis indicated the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant

immitigable adverse cumulative noise impacts. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative noise

impacts will occur.


The analysis of potential noise impacts determined that the proposed project’s construction and

subsequent operation would not result in any significant adverse impacts. As a result, no mitigation is

required.


SECTION 3.13 ● POPULATION & HOUSING IMPACTS PAGE 90

3.13 POPULATION & HOUSING IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on housing and population if it results in any of the following:

● A substantial growth in the population within an area, either directly or indirectly related to a project;

● The displacement of a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing; or,

● The displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing.


A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g.,

through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ● No Impact.

Growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped

or rural area. The variables that typically contribute to growth-inducing impacts, and the project’s

potential growth-inducing impacts, are identified in Table 3-8 provided below and on the following page.

As indicated in Table 3-8, the proposed project would not result in any growth inducing impacts. As a

result, no impacts are anticipated.

Table 3-8 Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts

Factor Contributing to Growth Inducement

Project’s Potential Contribution Basis for Determination

New development in an area presently undeveloped and economic factors which may influence development.

The proposed project would promote development of an underutilized parcel.

The new development would promote development consistent with the General Plan Policies for infill development.

Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities.

The proposed project would not involve the extension or modification of any off-site existing roadways.

The only off-site improvements include new driveway connections along Alondra Boulevard and Macaw Street.

Extension of infrastructure and other improvements.

No other off-site water, sewer, and other critical infrastructure improvements are anticipated.

The only infrastructure improvements would be designed to serve the proposed project only.

Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc).

No major facilities are proposed at this time.

No off-site facilities would be required to accommodate the projected demand for wastewater treatment or water.



Table 3-8 Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts

Factor Contributing to Growth Inducement Project’s Potential Contribution Basis for Determination

The housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere.

The project does not involve the removal or the replacement of existing affordable or subsidized housing units.

N0 subsidized affordable housing would be affected by the proposed project.

Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services.

The proposed project would not result in long-term growth in employment.

The proposed project will result in 78 potential new jobs.

Short-term growth inducing impacts related to the project’s construction.

The proposed project may result in the creation of new construction employment.

Short-term increases in construction employment are considered a beneficial impact.

Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. 2016.

A total of 78 new jobs will be created upon the implementation of the proposed project. The number of

new jobs assumes one new job for every 1,000 square feet of floor area. The City’s current unemployment

rate is 3.5 percent as of March 2016. This unemployment rate means that approximately 800 City

residents are currently unemployed.95 The additional 78 new jobs will not likely lead to a substantial

growth in the City’s population. As a result, no impacts are anticipated to occur.

B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere? ● No Impact.

No residential units will be displaced as part of the proposed project’s implementation. The project site is

currently vacant. As a result, no impacts related to displaced persons will result since no existing housing

will be displaced.

C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere? ● No Impact.

No housing units will be removed as part of the project’s implementation. The project site was formerly

occupied by a chemical plant that ceased operations in 2009. Therefore, no population displacement

impacts will occur with the proposed project’s implementation.


The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse housing or

population impacts would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no significant

adverse cumulative housing and population impacts will occur.

95 State of California Employment Development Department. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census

Designated Places. Labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov




The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts

would result from the proposed project’s implementation.


SECTION 3.14 ● PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS PAGE 93

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on public

services if it results in any of the following:

● A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered

governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts

in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives

relative to fire protection services;




relative to police protection services;




relative to school services; or,




relative to other government services.


A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new

or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant

environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other

performance objectives relative to fire protection services? ● Less than Significant Impact with

Mitigation.

The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection services for the City of La

Mirada. The headquarters and first response station for the proposed project is Station No. 49 located at

13890 La Mirada Boulevard.96 The proposed project will undergo review by the LACFD to ensure that the

site and building design meet all applicable requirements of the Department. The proposed project would

not place additional demands on fire services since the project will involve the construction of a modern

structure that will be subject to all pertinent fire and building codes. Compliance with the following

mitigation as well as the pertinent codes and ordinances, would reduce the impacts to levels that are less

than significant:

96 County of Los Angeles. http://fire.lacounty.gov/HometownFireStations/HometownFireStations.asp.



● The proposed project will undergo review by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure

that sprinklers, hydrants, fire flow, etc. are adequate in meeting the Department’s requirements.

Adherence to the above mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

B. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new



performance objectives relative to police protection? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD), under contract with the City of La Mirada,

provides law enforcement services throughout the City. The City is served by the La Mirada Community

Sheriff’s Station, located at 13716 La Mirada Boulevard within the La Mirada Civic Center.97 Once

operational, the proposed project is not anticipated to be an attractor for crime and vandalism. Access to

the receiving and truck parking areas will also be controlled by security gates. To ensure the proposed

project adheres to the City’s security requirements, the following mitigation will be required:

● The City of La Mirada Public Safety Department shall review the site plan for the proposed project

to ensure that the development adheres to the Department requirements.

Adherence to the above mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

C. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new


environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance

objectives relative to school services? ● No Impact.

The proposed project will not involve any development and/or uses that could potentially directly affect

school enrollments. In addition, the proposed project will be required to pay pertinent school

development fees to the Norwalk-La Mirada School District. As a result, no impacts on schools will result

from the proposed project’s implementation.

D. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new



performance objectives relative to other governmental services? ● No Impact.

The proposed project’s implementation is not expected to have any impact on existing governmental

services. As a result, no impacts associated with the proposed project’s implementation are anticipated.

97 City of La Mirada. Public Safety, Sherriff’s Department. http://www.cityoflamirada.org/index.aspx?page=80




The proposed project’s implementation will result in an incremental increase in the demand for police and

fire service calls thought no new facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed use. As a result,

no cumulative impacts are anticipated.


To ensure the proposed project meets LACFD and LACSD department standards, the following mitigation

is required:

Mitigation Measure 9 (Public Services Impacts). The proposed project will undergo review by the Los

Angeles County Fire Department to ensure that sprinklers, hydrants, fire flow, etc. are adequate in

meeting the Department’s requirements.

Mitigation Measure 10 (Public Services Impacts). The City of La Mirada Public Safety Department

shall review the site plan for the proposed project to ensure that the development adheres to the

Department requirements.


SECTION 3.15 ● RECREATION IMPACTS PAGE 96

3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the

environment if it results in any of the following:

● The use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that

substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or,

● The construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment.


A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational

facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ●

No Impact.

The City of La Mirada Community Services Department operates 12 parks and recreation facilities

throughout the City.98 The nearest park is Neff Park, located approximately 0.50 miles to the northwest of

the project site. The County of Los Angeles also owns and maintains a 100-acre regional park within the

City. Due to the nature of the proposed project (industrial and warehousing), no significant increase in the

usage of parks and recreational facilities is anticipated to occur. The proposed project would not result in

any development that would potentially physically alter any public park facilities and services. In addition,

no parks are located adjacent to the site. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

B. Would the project affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ● No Impact.

The proposed project would not result in any development that would potentially increase the demand for

recreational facilities and services. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.


The analysis determined the proposed project would not result in any potential impact on recreational

facilities and services. As a result, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would result from the

proposed project’s implementation.


The analysis of potential impacts related to parks and recreation indicated that no significant adverse

impacts would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are

required.

98 City of La Mirada. Parks. http://www.cityoflamirada.org/index.aspx?page=58


SECTION 3.16 ● TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 97

3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS


According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on traffic and

circulation if it results in any of the following:

● A conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for

the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation

including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation

system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and

bicycle paths, and mass transit;

● A conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level

of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County

Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways;

● Results in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change

in the location that results in substantial safety risks;

● Substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

● Results in Inadequate emergency access; or,

● A conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in

terms of levels of service (LOS). Levels of service are defined as LOS A through F. These levels recognize

that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the

absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience deteriorate rapidly as traffic approaches the

absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There is generally instability in the

traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause

considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near-capacity situation is labeled LOS E. Beyond LOS

E, capacity is exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An

upstream queue will form and continue to expand in length until the demand volume reduces.99

A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Highway Research Board’s

Special Report 209 titled Highway Capacity Manual. The manual establishes the definitions for levels of

service A through F. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service, as extracted from the manual, are listed

in Table 3-9.

99 Crown City Engineers, Inc. Traffic Impact Study La Mirada Industrial Warehouse. 14860 Alondra Boulevard, La Mirada,

California. May 23, 2016.



Table 3-9 Level of Service Definitions

LOS Description

A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.

C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally, drivers have to wait through more than one red signal indication and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.

E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand.

F

This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.

The thresholds of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 Level of Service Criteria

Level of Service Signalized Intersection

Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Unsignalized Intersection Control

Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A ≤ 0.60 ≤ 10

B > 0.60 – 0.70 > 10 – 15

C > 0.70 – 0.80 > 15 – 25

D > 0.80 – 0.90 > 25 – 35

E > 0.90 – 1.00 > 35 – 50

F > 1.00 > 50

LOS D is the minimum threshold at all key intersections in the urbanized areas. The traffic study

guidelines require that traffic mitigation measures be identified to provide for operations at the

minimum threshold levels. For the study area intersections, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)

procedure has been utilized to determine intersection levels of service. Levels of service are presented for



the entire intersection, consistent with the local and regional agency policies. While the level of service

concept and analysis methodology provides an indication of the performance of the entire intersection,

the single letter grade A through F cannot describe specific operational deficiencies at intersections.

Progression, queue formation, and left turn storage are examples of the operational issues that affect the

performance of an intersection, but do not factor into the strict calculation of level of service. However, it

provides a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio that is more meaningful when identifying a project’s impact

and developing mitigation measures. Therefore, this V/C ratio information is included in describing an

intersection’s operational performance under various scenarios. 100


A. Would the project cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project would provide two full-access driveways on Alondra Boulevard. The following paragraphs

provide a brief description of the existing roadways which comprise the circulation network of the study

area, providing the majority of both regional and local access to the project.

● Alondra Boulevard is an east-west major arterial street in the vicinity of the project, with three

travel lanes in each direction. Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the

center. The street is approximately 84 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per

hour. Most of the key intersections along Alondra Boulevard, including the intersection at Alondra

Boulevard and Stage Road, Alondra Boulevard and Valley View Avenue, and Alondra Boulevard

and La Mirada Boulevard, are signalized. Exclusive left-turn lanes are provided at major

intersections. On-street parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. Estimated average

daily volume on Alondra Boulevard in the vicinity is approximately 25,560 vehicles per day

(assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Alondra Boulevard represents approximately ten

percent of its average daily traffic volume).

● Valley View Avenue is a major north-south arterial street with two travel lanes in each direction.

Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the center. The street is

approximately 80 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. Most of the key

intersections along Valley View Avenue are signalized. Parking is not permitted along the sides of

the street. The average daily volume on Valley View Avenue is approximately 29,510 vehicles per

day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Valley View Avenue represents approximately

ten percent of its average daily traffic volume). Valley View Avenue provides full access ramps to I-

5 Freeway from the north-westerly and south-easterly directions.





● La Mirada Boulevard is a major north-south arterial street with two travel lanes in each direction.

Directional travel is separated by a yellow center line south of Alondra Boulevard. A raised median

separates the lanes north of Alondra Boulevard. The street is approximately 64 feet wide and

posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Most intersections of La Mirada Boulevard are

signalized. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on La

Mirada Boulevard is approximately 29,850 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume

counted on La Mirada Boulevard represents approximately ten percent of its average daily traffic

volume).

● Stage Road is a north-westerly to south-easterly collector street in the project area, with two travel

lanes in each direction. Directional travel is separated by a yellow center line. The street is

approximately 60 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Most intersections

of Stage Road are signalized. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average

daily volume on Stage Road in the vicinity of the project is approximately 9,520 vehicles per day

(assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Stage Road represents approximately ten percent of

its average daily traffic volume).101

For the purpose of evaluating existing operating conditions as well as future operating conditions with and

without the proposed project, the study area was carefully selected in accordance with local traffic study

guidelines. Manual turning movement counts for the selected intersections were collected in the field for

the morning and evening peak periods during the month of April, 2016. The intersections were counted

during the peak hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. It was determined that the following key

intersections would be analyzed in the study:

• Alondra Boulevard and Stage Road;

• Alondra Boulevard and La Mirada Boulevard;

• Alondra Boulevard and Valley View Avenue;

• Valley View Avenue and Firestone Boulevard (North);

• Valley View Avenue and Firestone Boulevard (South); and,

• Stage Road and Beach Boulevard.

Existing lane configurations at the key intersections are shown in Exhibit 3-12. Existing turning movement

counts for AM and PM peak hour conditions are shown in Exhibit 3-13. Detailed turning movement

counts are included in the Traffic Study.





EXHIBIT 3-12 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AT KEY INTERSECTIONS

Source: Crown City Engineers, Inc.

Note: The intersection geometrics of the Alondra Blvd and Stage Rd. intersection are only shown. Escalona Road is a fifth leg of this intersection though it is not anticipated to handle any project traffic. The horizontal line shown in this intersection represents Alondra Blvd while the vertical line illustrates Stage Rd.

Please see note below



EXHIBIT 3-13 EXISTING 2016 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT KEY INTERSECTIONS






Year 2016 existing traffic conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)

method of level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3-11 presents

existing condition intersection level of service (LOS) analysis summary. Detailed calculations relating to

the study intersections are included in the Traffic Study.102

Based on the results of this analysis, all of the study intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS D or

better during the AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of Firestone Boulevard (North) and

Valley View Avenue, which is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11 Existing Condition (2016) Level of Service Summary

Existing 2016 Conditions

Intersection Intersection Control Type

Peak Hour LOS

V/C Ratio or [Delay]

1. Alondra Blvd & Stage Rd. Signal AM PM

B B

0.680 0.606

2. Alondra Blvd & La Mirada Blvd. Signal AM PM

D C

0.863 0.763

3. Alondra Blvd & Valley View Ave. Signal AM PM

D D

0.904 0.866

4. Valley View Ave & Firestone Blvd (North) Unsignalized AM PM

D C

0.830 0.730

5. Valley View Ave & Firestone Blvd (South) Unsignalized AM PM

D E

0.835 0.978

6. Stage Rd & Beach Blvd. Signal AM PM

D D

0.904 0.833

Source: Crown City Engineers, Inc. Traffic Impact Study La Mirada Industrial Warehouse. 14860 Alondra Boulevard, La Mirada, California. May 23, 2016.

A one percent per year annual traffic growth rate was applied to existing traffic volumes to create a 2018

base condition (i.e., a factor of 1.02 was applied to 2016 volumes to obtain 2018 base traffic volumes due).

This annual traffic growth rate accounts for the population growth within the study area and traffic from

any other minor projects to be developed in the study area.

These 2018 projected volumes with ambient growth at the study intersections represented a pre-project

traffic condition for the AM and PM peak hours. Exhibit 3-14 shows future 2018 pre-project traffic

volumes at the study intersections.

This pre-project traffic condition was evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of

level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The LOS and V/C ratios for the

study intersections under 2018 pre-project conditions (without project) are shown in Table 3-12. Detailed

calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Traffic Study of this report.103


California. May 23, 2016. 103 Ibid.



EXHIBIT 3-14 FUTURE 2018 PRE-PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT THE STUDY

INTERSECTIONS Source: Crown City Engineers, Inc.





As the results indicate, three of the study intersections will continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS)

D or better (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM

peak hours. However, the intersections of Alondra Boulevard and Valley View Avenue, and Firestone

Boulevard South and Valley View Avenue are expected to operate at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak

hour, and the intersection of Stage Road and Beach Boulevard is expected to operate at a deficient LOS E

during the PM peak hour.104

Table 3-12 2018 Pre-Project Conditions Level of Service Summary

Future 2018 Conditions

Intersection Intersection Control Type

Peak Hour LOS

V/C Ratio or [Delay]

1. Alondra Blvd & Stage Rd Signal AM PM

B B

0.692 0.616

2. Alondra Blvd & La Mirada Blvd Signal AM PM

D C

0.879 0.776

3. Alondra Blvd & Valley View Ave Signal AM PM

E D

0.920 0.881


D C

0.844 0.742


D E

0.849 0.995

6. Stage Rd & Beach Blvd Signal AM PM

E D

0.920 0.848


In order to accurately assess future traffic conditions with the proposed project, trip generation estimates

were developed for the project. Trip generation rates for the project are based on the nationally recognized

recommendations contained in “Trip Generation” manual, 9th edition, published by the Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE also provides information on percentage of truck traffic associated

with this type of land use. Approximately 20 percent of all vehicular trips generated by a warehouse are

assumed to be truck trips. A truck trip is generally equivalent to two passenger car trips on an average.

Therefore, a 2.0 factor was applied to the number of truck trips to estimate passenger car equivalent (PCE)

trips generated by the trucks.105

Table 3-13 shows a summary of trip generation estimates for the project. It is estimated that the project

will generate approximately 336 net PCE trips per average day (118 inbound and 118 outbound). The

average weekday net new peak hour PCE trips will be approximately 29 trips during the AM peak hour (23

inbound and six outbound), and 30 trips during the PM peak hour (7 inbound and 23 outbound).106 Arrival

and departure distribution patterns for project-generated traffic were estimated based upon a review of

circulation patterns within the study area network and regional traffic generation and attraction


California. May 23, 2016. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid.



characteristics. Exhibit 3-15 depicts the regional trip distribution percentages to and from the site. Exhibit

3-16 depicts project traffic volumes at key circulation locations during the AM and PM peak hours.107

Table 3-13 Projected Traffic Generation

Trip Generation Rate Average Traffic Volume

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE

Code Size Daily

Total %in %out total %in %out total

Daily Total

%in %out total %in %out total

150 78,752 sq.ft. 3.56 79% 21% 0.30 36% 64% 0.32 280 19 5 24 6 19 25

Truck Trip Generation (20% of Vehicular Trips) 56 4 1 5 1 4 5

Trucks in PCE (1 Truck = 2 Passenger Cars) 112 8 2 10 2 8 10

Non-truck (Passenger Car Equivalent) Trips 224 15 4 19 5 15 20

New Net Trips in PCE 336 23 6 29 7 23 30

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s “Trip Generation” Handbook, 9th Edition, 2012]

The 2018 cumulative post-project traffic volumes were estimated by adding project related traffic volumes

to the 2018 pre-project traffic volumes with one percent per year ambient growth and related project

traffic. Exhibit 3-17 shows Year 2018 post-project cumulative volumes for AM and PM peak hours. Year

2018 post-project cumulative (i.e., existing plus ambient traffic plus related project plus project traffic)

conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service

(LOS) analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The LOS and V/C ratios for the study

intersections under 2018 post-project cumulative conditions (with project) are summarized in Table 3-14.

Detailed calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Technical Appendix of this

report.108

The results indicate that, three of the study intersections will continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS)

D or better (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM

peak hours under future cumulative traffic conditions with the project. However, the intersections of

Alondra Boulevard and Valley View Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard South and Valley View Avenue are

expected to operate at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Stage Road and

Beach Boulevard is expected to operate at a deficient LOS E during the PM peak hour.109


California. May 23, 2016. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid.



EXHIBIT 3-15 PERCENTAGES OF PROJECT RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION




EXHIBIT 3-16 DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TRAFFIC






EXHIBIT 3-17 FUTURE 2018 POST-PROJECT CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES






Table 3-14 Future 2018 Level of Service Summary with Project


Intersection Intersection Control Type Peak Hour

LOS V/C Ratio or

[Delay]

1. Alondra Blvd & Stage Rd Signal AM PM

B B

0.694 0.617

2. Alondra Blvd & La Mirada Blvd Signal AM PM

D C

0.880 0.776

3. Alondra Blvd & Valley View Ave Signal AM PM

E D

0.924 0.883


D C

0.846 0.748


D E

0.855 1.000

6. Stage Rd & Beach Blvd Signal AM PM

E D

0.921 0.849


As indicated in the previous section, three of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of

service (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through LOS D) during the AM or the PM

peak hours with 2018 post-project cumulative traffic volumes with project. The intersections of Alondra

Boulevard and Valley View Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard (South) and Valley View Avenue are expected

to operate at a deficient LOS E during the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Stage Road and Beach

Boulevard is expected to operate at a deficient LOS E during the PM peak hour.110

However, the project’s off-site traffic impact would not be considered significant at any of these

intersections based on volume to capacity ratio and level of service expected after the project. A project’s

impact on the circulation system is determined by comparing the level of service (LOS) and V/C ratios at

key intersections under the future pre-project conditions and future post-project conditions. A LOS level D

or better is acceptable for urban area intersections. A level of service worse than D (i.e., LOS E or F) is

unacceptable. A project’s traffic impact is determined to be significant if the increase in V/C ratio is 0.04 or

more at LOS C, or 0.02 or more at LOS D, or 0.01 or more at LOS E and F.

The LOS, V/C ratio (or ICU) for the study intersections under 2018 cumulative conditions (with project as

well as without project) are summarized in Table 3-15 to compare Project’s traffic impact at key

intersections. As the results indicate, the increase in V/C ratio by project traffic would not exceed the

significance thresholds of project-related impacts. Therefore, the project is not expected to significantly

impact traffic conditions at any of the key intersections in the vicinity. Since the project’s traffic impacts

would not be significant at any of the off-site intersections, no off-site mitigation measures would be

necessary for the development of this project.111


California. May 23, 2016. 111 Ibid.



Table 3-15 Existing (2016) and Future (2018) Level of Service Summary


Without Project With Project Intersection Peak Hour

LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay

Increase in V/C Ratio by

Project

1. Alondra Blvd & Stage Rd AM PM

B B

0.692 0.616

B B

0.694 0.617

0.002 0.001

2. Alondra Blvd & La Mirada Blvd AM PM

D C

0.879 0.776

D C

0.880 0.776

0.001 0.000

3. Alondra Blvd & Valley View Ave AM PM

E D

0.920 0.881

E D

0.924 0.883

0.004 0.002

4. Valley View Ave & Firestone Blvd (North) AM PM

D C

0.844 0.742

D C

0.846 0.748

0.002 0.006

5. Valley View Ave & Firestone Blvd (South) AM PM

D E

0.849 0.995

D E

0.855 1.000

0.006 0.005

6. Stage Rd & Beach Blvd AM PM

E D

0.920 0.848

E D

0.921 0.849

0.001 0.001

Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed La Mirada Industrial Warehouse project

would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system.

Three of the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., at LOS A

through D) during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections of Alondra Boulevard and Valley View

Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard South and Valley View Avenue are expected to operate at a deficient LOS

E during the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Stage Road and Beach Boulevard is expected to operate

at a deficient LOS E during the PM peak hour. However, the addition of project traffic will not increase the

volume to capacity (V/C) ratios at these intersections beyond the significance thresholds of project related

impacts as defined in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. Therefore, no off-site mitigation measures would

be necessary for the development of this project.112 As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project result in a conflict with an applicable congestions management program,

including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other

standards established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or

highways? ● No Impact.

The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111 and has

been implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).

The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of

potential regional significance be analyzed. A review has been made of designated monitoring locations on

the CMP highway system for potential impact analysis. Pursuant to the Congestion Management

Program for Los Angeles County, there are no monitoring locations within the project study area.





Nevertheless, based on the proposed project’s trip generation potential, trip distribution and trip

assignment, the proposed project would not add 50 or more trips to those CMP intersections outside the

study area during either the weekday AM peak hour or PM peak hour. Therefore a CMP intersection traffic

impact analysis is not required.113

Alondra Boulevard and the I-5 freeway is the nearest CMP freeway intersection. The proposed project will

not introduce more than 150 peak hour trips; therefore, the project will not impact this CMP intersection.

As per the “Guidelines for Biennial Highway Monitoring” in Appendix A of the Congestion Management

Program for Los Angeles County, there are no CMP freeway monitoring locations within the project

vicinity. Nevertheless, based on the proposed project’s trip generation potential, trip distribution and trip

assignment, the proposed project would not add 150 or more trips to those CMP freeway monitoring

locations outside the study area during either the weekday AM peak hour or PM peak hour.114 Therefore a

CMP freeway traffic impact analysis is not required and no impacts are anticipated to occur.

C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks? ● No Impact.

As indicated in Section 3.9, the project site is not located in the FAR Part 77 height restriction zones for the

Fullerton Municipal Airport.115 The AELUP for the Fullerton Municipal Airport places height restrictions

for an area located within a 10,000-foot radius of the airport at a 50:1 slope. In addition, according to

Section 77.17 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an existing object will be an obstruction to air

navigation if it exceeds heights between 200 to 499 feet above ground level.116 The building’s maximum

height will be approximately 41 feet and ten inches; therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with

the approach and take off of airplanes utilizing the aforementioned airport. As a result, no impacts will

occur.

D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project will provide two 28-foot wide driveways (one full access and one right turn in and right-turn

out only) along the south side of Alondra Boulevard. A maximum of 17 vehicles (passenger car equivalent)

will enter the site during the peak hour from the west by making a right turn movement. A maximum of 17

vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will exit the site during the peak hour to travel west by making a left

turn movement. Similarly, a maximum of six vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will enter the site during

the peak hour from the east by making a left-turn movement. A maximum of six vehicles (passenger car

equivalent) will exit the site during the peak hour to travel east by making a right-turn movement.

Although there will be two driveways on Alondra Boulevard, the western driveway will provide access to a


California. May 23, 2016. 114 Ibid. 115 Airport Land Use Commission/ Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport. AELUP Height Restriction Zone

for FMA map. Document amended November 18, 2004. 116 U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchapter E Part 77 Subpart C.



majority (70 percent) of these vehicles, 20 percent of these vehicles will be trucks or heavy vehicles.

Therefore, project design should include a westbound two-way left-turn lane of approximately 150 feet in

the median of Alondra Boulevard in front of the western driveway. For a travel speed of 45 miles per hour

on Alondra Boulevard, a minimum of 590 feet clear sight distance should be available for the entering

vehicles.

The project’s western driveway should be designed to provide full access for entering (by left-turn or right-

turn movements) and exiting vehicles (by left-turn or right-turn movements). However, project design

should include a minimum of 590 feet clear sight distance for vehicles at this driveway. Since Alondra

Boulevard has a raised center median at the project frontage, the eastern driveway should be restricted for

right-turn in and right-turn out movements only. There will be a maximum of 17 vehicles (passenger car

equivalent) entering the site during the peak from Alondra Boulevard by making a right-turn movement.

This low volume will not warrant a right-turn only lane at the driveways. Similarly, there will be a

maximum of six vehicles (passenger car equivalent) entering the site during the peak hour from Alondra

Boulevard and a maximum of 17 vehicles (passenger car equivalent) exiting from the site during the peak

hour to Alondra Boulevard by making a left-turn movement. Therefore, the existing raised median on

Alondra Boulevard in front of western driveway should be redesigned to provide a 150 feet two-way turn

lane to facilitate these movements.117 Adherence to the recommendations made by the traffic engineer will

reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? ● No Impact.

At no time will Alondra Boulevard or any designated emergency evacuation route be closed to traffic due to

the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, the project will not result in any impacts.

F. Would the project result in a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such

facilities? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Metro (MTA) Line No’s. 460 currently serve the surrounding vicinity. To estimate potential transit use,

the project’s trip generation was adjusted by values set forth in the CMP (i.e., person trips equal 1.4 times

vehicle trips, and transit trips equal 3.5 percent of the total person trips) to estimate transit trip generation.

Pursuant to the CMP guidelines, the proposed project is forecast to generate demand for one transit trip

during the weekday AM peak hour and two transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Over a 24-

hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate demand for 16 weekday daily transit trips. The

calculations are as follows:

● Weekday AM Peak Hour = 29 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 1 Transit Trip;

● Weekday PM Peak Hour = 181 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 2 Transit Trips; and,

● Weekday Daily Trips = 336 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 16 Transit Trips.





Therefore, given the number of transit trips generated by the project and the existing transit routes in the

project vicinity, it is concluded that the existing public transit system would not be significantly impacted

by the proposed project and any potential impacts are expected to be less than significant.


The 2018 cumulative post-project traffic volumes were estimated by adding project related traffic volumes

to the 2018 pre-project traffic volumes with 1.0% per year ambient growth and related project traffic. Year

2018 post-project cumulative (i.e., existing plus ambient traffic plus related project plus project traffic)

conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service

(LOS) analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The results indicate that, three of the study

intersections will continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) D or better (i.e., within the range of

acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM peak hours under future cumulative

traffic conditions with the project. However, the intersections of Alondra Boulevard and Valley View

Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard South and Valley View Avenue are expected to operate at a deficient LOS

E during the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Stage Road and Beach Boulevard is expected to operate

at a deficient LOS E during the PM peak hour. These cumulative traffic impacts must be addressed at a

City-wide level.


The proposed use will not result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required.


SECTION 4 ● CONCLUSIONS PAGE 115

3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS



utilities if it results in any of the following:

● An exceedance of the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality

Control Board;

● The construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,

the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts;

● The construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

● An overcapacity of the storm drain system causing area flooding;

● A determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it

has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand;

● The project will be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs;

● Non-compliance with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations relative to solid waste;

● A need for new systems, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas facilities; or,

● A need for new systems, or substantial alterations in communications systems.


A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water

Quality Control Board? ● No Impact.

Wastewater generated within the City is treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (WRP)

located in Cerritos. The Los Coyotes WRP has a design capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and

currently processes an average flow of 35.4 million gallons per day (mgd). Table 3-16, shown on the

following page, indicates the future wastewater generation in gallons per day. According to Table 3-16, the

proposed project is anticipated to produce approximately 8,663 gallons of effluent per day.



The proposed project will connect with an existing 18-inch sewer line in Alondra Boulevard. The existing

sewer line has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected flows. Adequate sewage collection and

treatment are currently available. Therefore, project implementation will not exceed wastewater treatment

requirements and no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment

facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts? ● No Impact.

As indicated previously, the proposed project will generate approximately 8,663 gallons of wastewater a

day. The proposed project will connect to an existing 18-inch sewer line located in Alondra Boulevard.

The future wastewater generation will be within the treatment capacity of the Los Coyotes WRP.

Therefore, no new water and wastewater treatment facilities will be needed to accommodate the excess

effluent generated by the proposed project and no impacts will occur.

C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental

effects? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Local storm drains are under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The

proposed project will connect to the existing storm drain located along Alondra Boulevard. The site

proposes new impervious surfaces that will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will also be required

to comply with the City's storm water management guidelines. The mitigation identified in Section 3.9.4

will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

D. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ● Less than Significant

Impact with Mitigation.

Suburban Water Systems (SWS) is responsible for providing domestic water service for the City. SWS

water mains are located within the right-of-way of the roadways. The proposed project will connect to an

existing 12-inch water line located in Alondra Boulevard. Table 3-17 shows the amount of water that will

be consumed by the proposed project.

Table 3-16 Wastewater (Effluent) Generation (gals/day)

Use Unit Factor Generation

Proposed Project 78,752 square feet 0.11 gals/unit 8,663 gals/day

Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning, 2016.



The proposed project is projected to consume 11,025 gallons of water on a daily basis. California has

experienced a prolonged drought over the past four years. In response to this drought, Governor Brown

announced emergency legislation aimed at reducing water consumption. Governor Brown signed an

Executive Order in April in which cities, including La Mirada, are required to reduce their citywide water

consumption by 25 percent. Governor Brown also outlined other initiatives that would include fines for

those consumers that fail to conserve water. Even though the demand for water generated by the proposed

project will not exceed City water supplies, the proposed project should incorporate features that aim to

reduce water consumption on a larger scale. As a result, the following mitigation has been recommended:

● The project Applicant will be required to install Xeriscape, or landscaping with plants that require

less water, as an alternative to traditional landscaping and turf. According to the Los Angeles

County Department of Public Works, the addition of Xeriscape can reduce outdoor water

consumption by as much as 50 percent.

● The Applicant shall install high-efficiency, WaterSense labeled toilets in order to reduce water

consumption. Installing high efficiency toilets will reduce long term operating costs by consuming

less water. The Applicant shall also install WaterSense faucets in all restrooms, which can reduce a

sink’s water flow by 30 percent.

Adherence to the mitigation provided above will mitigate potential impacts to levels that are less than

significant.

E. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or

may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in

addition to the provider's existing commitments? ● Less than Significant Impact.

As indicated previously, the project will result in a net increase of 8,663 gallons of effluent per day. There

is sufficient capacity available at the Los Coyotes and Long Beach Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs). In

addition, this projected effluent generation does not take into account the water conserving plumbing

fixtures that will be installed. Sewer connections to the proposed project site will be obtained from the

existing sewer mains in Alondra Boulevard. No new treatment facilities or expanded entitlements will be

required. In addition, no upgrades to the existing off-site sewer lines would be required to accommodate

the proposed use. As a result, the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

F. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Trash collection is provided by EDCO for disposal into the nearby landfills, primarily the Brea Olinda

landfill (the Puente Landfill is now closed). Waste is also transferred to the EDCO recycling and transfer

Table 3-17 Water Consumption (gals/day)


Proposed Project 78,752 square feet 0.14 gals/unit 11,025 gals/day




center in the City of Signal Hill. Construction demolition debris will also be taken to the EDCO Recycling

and Transfer Station in Signal Hill. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 473 pounds of solid

waste per day as shown in Table 3-18. This amount is not significant and the impacts are considered to be


G. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid

waste? ● No Impact.

The proposed use, like all other development in the City, will be required to adhere to all pertinent

ordinances related to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts on the existing regulations

pertaining to solid waste generation will result from the proposed project’s implementation.


The potential impacts related to water line and sewer line capacities are site specific. Furthermore, the

analysis herein also determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse

impacts on utility infrastructure and/or services. As a result, no cumulative impacts on utilities will occur.


The analysis determined that the following mitigation would be required to address potential impacts to

water consumption. These mitigation measures are identified below:

Mitigation Measure 11 (Utilities Impacts). The project Applicant will be required to install Xeriscape,

or landscaping with plants that require less water, as an alternative to traditional landscaping and turf.

According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the addition of Xeriscape can

reduce outdoor water consumption by as much as 50 percent.

Mitigation Measure 12 (Utilities Impacts). The Applicant shall install high-efficiency, WaterSense

labeled toilets in order to reduce water consumption. Installing high efficiency toilets will reduce long

term operating costs by consuming less water. The Applicant shall also install WaterSense faucets in

all restrooms, which can reduce a sink’s water flow by 30 percent.

Table 3-18 Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day)


Proposed Project 78,752 square feet 6 lbs/unit 473 lbs/day




SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section

15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment:

● The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential

to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of the recommended standard

conditions and mitigation measures included herein.

● The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential

to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the

implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures referenced

herein.

● The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have impacts that

are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed

development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation of the recommended standard

conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.

● The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have environmental

effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of

the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.

● The Initial Study indicated there is no evidence that the proposed project will have an adverse

effect on wildlife resources or the habitant upon which any wildlife depends.


SECTION 5 ● REFERENCES PAGE 121

SECTION 5 REFERENCES

5.1 PREPARERS

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

16388 E. Colima Road, Suite 206J

Hacienda Heights, California 91745

(626) 336-0033

Marc Blodgett, Project Manager

Bryan Hamilton, Project Planner

Liesl Sullano, Project Planner

5.2 REFERENCES

Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975.

California Administrative Code, Title 24, Energy Conservation, 1990.

California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of the Orange County Area, 1987.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Regional Wildcat Map 101, 1990.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database, 2012.

California Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, 12012.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Historical Landmarks, 2004.

California Department of Water Resources, Progress Report on Groundwater Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County, 1967.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Material Users/Generators in Los Angeles County, 2004.

California Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended 2005.

California, State of California Public Resources Code Division 13, The California Environmental Quality Act. Chapter 2.5, Section 21067 and Section 21069.2012.

La Mirada, City of. La Mirada General Plan. 2004

La Mirada, City of. Zoning Ordinance. 2008.


SECTION 5 ● REFERENCES PAGE 122

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2000.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2007.

Thomas Brothers Maps, The Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2000.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 U.S. Census, 2010.

U.S. Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth Science Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360, 1985.

U.S. Geological Survey, La Mirada 7-1/2 Minute Quadrangle, 1986.


APPENDICES● PAGE 123

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C – NOISE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS


APPENDICES● PAGE 124



APPENDIX A● AIR QUALITY WORKSHEETS PAGE 125


APPENDIX B● NOISE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS PAGE 149


APPENDIX B● NOISE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS PAGE 150


leftbank art warehouse facility 14860 alondra boulevard la

Documents