SR 710 No. Study Draft EIR - EIS Vol I RPT - Part2 PDF

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
TABLE 3.7.3:
Effects of the LRT Alternative on Historical Properties in the Area of Potential Effects
Resource
Description of Effect
would fall well below the threshold for minor, cosmetic damage and, therefore, does not
warrant special concern for effects to its character defining, architectural features or its
Garret Eckbo-designed landscape. It is, therefore, credible that this historic property
would not experience an adverse direct effect from tunneling activity. Moreover, because
this building is located next to a busy road, there has historically been a constant level of
traffic-generated vibration and related ground noise present to some degree.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
According to a groundborne noise and vibration impacts technical report prepared in

2014, the LRT trains would operate at a speed of 45 miles per hour at this location. It is
anticipated that operational groundborne noise levels would range between 39 dBA to
42dBA near this location. This exceeds the FTA criteria of 40 dBA for operational
groundborne noise and vibration for properties classified as a quiet office. Therefore,
under the LRT Alternative, operational impacts from groundborne noise and vibration are
anticipated in the area of the Community Facilities Planners Building.
Because the LRT Alternative improvements would be approximately 60 feet below the
surface of Fair Oaks Avenue, it would not alter or introduce a discordant type of visual
obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous visual obstructions present
historically. Those improvements would not alter the visual setting or affect the integrity
of feeling and setting of the Community Facilities Planners Building associated with a
prominent location along a busy road in an urban area. The LRT Alternative
improvements would not result in a direct adverse effect to the Community Facilities
Planners Building. The significance of the property is conveyed through its Modern
architectural qualities which can include the overall shape of the building, its materials,
craftsmanship, decorative details, as well as its Garret Eckbo-designed landscape which
are represented in the various environmental design and aspects of its site to convey its
significance.
South Pasadena Middle School

1500 Fair Oaks Avenue
CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual
property determined eligible for the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
In summary, the LRT Alternative improvements, as currently proposed, would result in No

Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions on the Community Facilities Planners
Building based on implementation of Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2.
As described in detail in the preliminary Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route
710 North Study, there would be improvements in the LRT Alternative in the vicinity of
the South Pasadena Middle School. Those improvements would not occur within the
historic property boundary of the South Pasadena Middle School (APN 5320-006-901).
3.7-71
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
National Register by a consensus

Therefore, the LRT Alternative improvements will not have any direct effects on this
through the Section 106 process);
historic property. The tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face TBMs that would
listed under Criterion C (Architecture). inherently lessen ground movement and if necessary additional conditions can be
employed to lessen or eliminate ground movement effects. It is conceivable that TBMgenerated vibration measured at the South Pasadena Middle Schools 1928-built Main
Building would fall well below the threshold for minor, cosmetic damage and, therefore,
does not warrant special concern for effects to its character defining, architectural
features. It is, therefore, credible that this historic property would not experience an
adverse direct effect from tunneling activity. Moreover, because this building is located
next to a busy road, there has historically been a constant level of traffic-generated
vibration and related ground noise present to some degree.
Raymond Hill Waiting Station

Southeast corner of Fair Oaks Avenue
and Raymond Hill Road
CHR Status Codes: 2S2 (Individual
through the Section 106 process),
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
The LRT trains would operate at a speed of 45 miles per hour at this location. It is
anticipated that operational ground borne noise levels would range between 32 dBA to
35 dBA at the South Pasadena Middle School. This is below the FTA criteria of 40 dBA for
operational groundborne noise and vibration for institutional property types. Therefore,
under the LRT Alternative, adverse effects due to operational groundborne noise and
vibration are not anticipated in the area of this historic property. Because the proposed
improvements would be approximately 60 feet below the surface of Fair Oaks Avenue, it
would not alter or introduce a discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and
proportion of previous visual obstructions present historically. The proposed
improvements undertaking would not alter the setting in any way that would affect the
significance of this historic property. The LRT Alternative improvements would not affect
the integrity of feeling and setting of the South Pasadena Middle School associated with
its prominent location along a busy road in an urban area. In summary, the LRT
Alternative improvements would result in No Adverse Effect on the South Pasadena
Middle School.
the Raymond Hill Waiting Station. Those improvements would not be within the historic
property boundary of the Raymond Hill Waiting Station and would not have any direct
effects on the historic property. The tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face
TBMs that would inherently lessen ground movement and if necessary additional
conditions can be employed to lessen or eliminate ground movement effects. The nearest
3.7-72
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
listed under Criteria A (Association
with Events) and C (Architecture)
2020 Fremont Avenue

CHR Status Code: considered to be
eligible for the National Register for
this project under Criterion C
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
excavation activity to the Raymond Hill Waiting Station would be due west and
approximately 85 feet below the surface. It is conceivable that TBM-generated vibration
measured at the Raymond Hill Waiting Station, which was rebuilt in 1978, would fall well
below the threshold for minor, cosmetic damage and, therefore, does not warrant special
concern for effects to its character defining Arts & Crafts architectural qualities trolley
waiting station. It is, therefore, credible that this historic property would not experience
an adverse direct effect from tunneling activity. Operational impacts from groundborne
noise and vibration are not anticipated in the area of the Raymond Hill Waiting Station.
Because the proposed improvements would be approximately 85 feet below the surface
of Fair Oaks Avenue, it would not alter or introduce a discordant type of visual
obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous visual obstructions present
historically. The proposed LRT Alternative improvements would not alter the visual
setting in any way that would affect the significance of this historic property and would
not affect the integrity of feeling and setting of the Raymond Hill Waiting Station
associated with its prominent location along a busy road in an urban area. In summary,
the LRT Alternative improvements would result in No Adverse Effect on the Raymond Hill
Waiting Station.
710 North Study, the improvements in the LRT Alternative in the vicinity of 2020 Fremont
Avenue. Those improvements would pass under the northwest corner within the historic
property boundary of 2020 Fremont Avenue (APN 5319-013-006).
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face TBMs that would inherently lessen
ground movement and if necessary additional conditions can be employed to lessen or
eliminate ground movement effects. The use of pressurized-face TBMs typically
generates less than 0.12 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the TBMs. The nearest excavation
activity to the 1925-built Spanish-styled residential building would be at an approximate
depth of 65 feet below the ground surface and approximately 155 feet from the building
at 2020 Fremont Avenue. It is conceivable that TBM-generated vibration measured at the
1925-built residence would fall well below the threshold for minor cosmetic damage and,
therefore, does not warrant special concern for effects to the character defining
architectural features of this building. It is, therefore, credible that this historic property
would not experience an adverse direct effect from tunneling activity.
3.7-73
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
According to a groundborne noise and vibration impacts technical report prepared in
2014, the LRT trains would operate at a speed of 45 miles per hour at this location. It is
anticipated that associated operational ground borne noise levels would range from 32
dBA to 35 dBA at the residential building at 2020 Fremont Avenue. The maximum 35 dBA
is the FTA criteria for operational groundborne noise and vibration for residential
properties. Therefore, under the LRT Alternative, adverse effects from operational
groundborne noise and vibration are not anticipated in the area of 2020 Fremont
Avenue. Because the LRT Alternative improvements would be approximately 60 feet
below the ground surface of Fremont Avenue and approximately 155 feet
west/northwest of the building at 2020 Fremont Avenue, it would not alter or introduce a
discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous visual
obstructions present historically. The LRT Alternative improvements would not alter the
setting in any way that would affect the significance of this historic property.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
According to a 2014 traffic analysis, the LRT Alternative improvements at this location
would increase road noise in the vicinity of this historic property. The report concluded
that visual and associated audible effects from increased traffic delay times would result
under this Alternative. However, the National Register significance of 2020 Fremont
Avenue does not derive from it being located in a quiet, rural setting. It is a property that
is associated with some level of noise related to its setting in busy, urban environment.
The increase in traffic volume and associated noise would not introduce a new or
discordant type of auditory influence that was not otherwise present historically.
The residence at 2020 Fremont Avenue was intentionally sited along Fremont Avenue to
showcase a custom home with decorative architecture in proximity the center of the city
and public transportation, and to facilitate travel to and from other parts of the
community. Because the activity associated with the LRT Alternative improvements
would be approximately 60 feet below the ground surface with no associated surface
activity, they would not affect the integrity of feeling and setting associated with the
decorative Spanish-styled residential architecture of the residence at 2020 Fremont
Avenue along a busy road in an urban area.
The LRT Alternative improvements would not result in an indirect adverse effect to the
residential property at 2020 Fremont Avenue. The significance of this property is
conveyed through its Spanish-styled architectural qualities which can include the overall
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-74
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
shape of the building; its materials, craftsmanship, and decorative details; and various
aspects of its site and environment.
Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District

(includes the route of the Arroyo Seco
Freeway from the four-level
interchange in the City of Los Angeles,
through South Pasadena to East
Glenarm Street in Pasadena, and the
bridges along that route). The Arroyo
Seco Parkway is also a segment of
Historic Route 66. The State-owned
bridge at the Fair Oaks Avenue
Overcrossing (Bridge No. 53 0440) is
listed in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory
and is a contributing element of this
Historic District.
CHR Status Code: 1S (Individual
property listed in the National Register
by the Keeper); listed under Criteria A
(Association with events) and C
(Architecture).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
The LRT Alternative improvements would result in No Adverse Effects on the residential
property at 2020 Fremont Avenue. This historic property will retain the aspects of
integrity that allow it to convey its historic significance.
Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena
The Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District extends south from East Glenarm Street in the
City of South Pasadena to US-101 in the City of Los Angeles. The Historic District and the
Fair Oaks Avenue Overcrossing would not be altered by the LRT Alternative. The LRT
Alternative improvements may result in minor physical damage to the Historic District,
and may introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that may diminish the
integrity of the significant historic features of the Historic District. Ground-borne
vibration from the excavation of the LRT tunnels may result in minor cosmetic damage to
the overcrossing or the road surface. Although these improvements in the LRT Alternative
would not alter the integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and association for the
Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District, they may result in minor cosmetic damage to the
overcrossing and/or road surface that may diminish the integrity of materials and
workmanship of the features in the Historic District. Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2
for the LRT Alternative would address the potential effects of construction-related
vibration effects on the Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District. As a result, the effect
finding of the LRT Alternative improvements on this property would be No Adverse
Effect.
3.7-75
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
4777 East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue

Northwest corner of the East Cesar E.
Chavez Avenue/Mednik Avenue
Unincorporated Los Angeles County
the building at 4777 East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue. Those improvements would not be
within the boundary of the Art Deco building at 4777 East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue,
defined as parcel boundary (APN 5235-020-050). Therefore, the LRT Alternative
improvements will not have any direct effects on the historic property.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect

Excavation of the aerial support columns 90 feet southeast of and 70 feet northeast of
listed under Criterion C (Architecture). this building at a depth of 100-125 feet might conceivably result in cosmetic damage to
part of that structure, such as the decorative Art Deco faade motif that contributes to its
historic significance. The closest location for excavation activity would be approximately
70 feet northeast of this historic property and, therefore, it is anticipated that this
vibration would be even less and fall below levels to warrant special concern for the
buildings Art Deco-styled faade. It can be reasonably anticipated that operational
ground borne noise levels may meet or exceed FTA criteria for operational groundborne
noise and vibration at this location. Therefore, under the LRT Alternative, operational
impacts from groundborne noise and vibration are anticipated in the area of this historic
property. The LRT Alternative improvements may result in a direct adverse effect to this
historic property.
The LRT Alternative improvements would not result in an indirect adverse effect to this
building. The significance of the property is conveyed through its association with its Art
Deco architectural qualities which can include the overall shape of the building, its
materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, as well as the various aspects of its site and
environment to convey its significance. The aerial LRT aerial tramway would be
approximately 30 feet above the Mednik Avenue median and approximately 40 feet east
of the building. Those improvements would not cross over into the historic property
boundary and would be separated from that property by a 20 foot wide segment of
Mednik Avenue and the existing sidewalk leading to the main entrance of that building.
The scale and proportion of the proposed improvements would be a considerable change
from historical patterns in the area of this historic property. Several visual elements have
been added since the building was constructed in 1935. These include modern traffic
signals, signage, and light standards. Therefore, the installation of the proposed
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-76
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.3:
Resource
improvements in the vicinity of this historic property would not introduce a discordant
type of visual obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous visual obstructions
present historically. The lane reconfiguration, widening, and restriping of Mednik Avenue
to accommodate the aerial LRT facility does not have a potential to adversely affect the
critical elements of the propertys materials, design, and workmanship, as expressed
through its architectural character-defining features.
Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site

CHR Status Code: considered to be
this project
In summary, the LRT Alternative improvements, as currently proposed, may have an

adverse direct effect on the free standing Art Deco-styled commercial building at 4777
East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue. If Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 are implemented, the
LRT Alternative would result in a No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions on this
historic property.
Improvements proposed under the LRT Alternative may occur within the
ethnographically attested area of the Otsungna Prehistoric Village site. Those
improvements may result in a direct adverse effect to the character-defining features of
the site if any such features are extant. At this time no information on extant, characterdefining features is available. The LRT Alternative improvements may have an adverse
effect on the Otsungna Prehistoric Village site if the site or any part of the site remains
extant. Although it is not likely that the proposed improvements would result in physical
destruction or damage to the resource (because, as a result, of disturbances to the area
over the last approximately 240 years, it is highly unlikely that the resource or any part of
it is extant), the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining features that
qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. In the unlikely event the site is
encountered during project-related, ground-disturbing activities, a Post-Review Discovery
and Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological monitoring and data recovery for any work
conducted in the area. In summary, the LRT Alternative improvements would result in No
Adverse Effect on the Ostungna Prehistoric Village Site.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
Sources: Historic Property Survey Report (2014); Preliminary Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route 710 North Study (2015); and technical analyses in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-77
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Effects of the Non-Tunnel Segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on Historical Properties in the Area of Potential Effects
Resource
City of Pasadena
The Markham Place Historic District includes 69 mostly residential parcels, 26 of which
are contributing elements, and also includes Singer Park. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative
may result in minor physical damage to the Historic District, and may introduce visual
and audible elements that may diminish the integrity of the significant historic features
of this Historic District. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would introduce audible and
visual elements at the northern boundary of the Historic District along West California
Boulevard associated with construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel segment north of the
Historic District boundary and the traffic traveling into/out of the tunnels. According to
property listed in the National Register the Noise Study Report, the current noise level in the north part of the Historic District in
by the Keeper); listed under Criterion the area that would be closest to the North Portal and, therefore, closest to traffic
C (Architecture)
entering and leaving the tunnel(s), would experience a reduction of 1 dB from the
existing noise level of 59 dB (i.e., down to 58 dB) during operation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative.
Markham Place Historic District
(Generally bounded by West California
Boulevard on the north, South
Pasadena Avenue on the east, Barclay
Alley on the south, and South Orange
Grove Boulevard on the west.)
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The tunnel excavation below this Historic District may result in minor physical damage to
the Historic District as a result of ground-borne vibration that may diminish the integrity
of the significant historic features of the Historic District. The tunnel excavation would
not alter the Historic Districts integrity of location, setting, design, feeling, and
association. However, ground-borne vibration associated with the tunnel excavation and
related construction may result in minor cosmetic damage to the contributing elements
in this Historic District and may diminish the integrity of materials and workmanship.
Because the Historic District is listed on the National Register for its architectural
qualities, alterations to the integrity of materials and workmanship could affect its
overall eligibility.
In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would have No Adverse
Effect on the District. The District will retain the aspects of integrity that allow it to
convey its historic significance.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-78
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
Ambassador West Cultural Landscape
Historic District
(Generally bounded by West Green
Street to the north, South Orange
Grove Boulevard to the west, South St.
John Avenue to the east, and the
southern parcel lines of APNs 5713013-056 and 5713-013-058.)
The Ambassador West Cultural Landscape Historic District contains 12 contributing
elements. There are three contributing elements to this Historic District in the APE for
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative:
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
Ambassador Auditorium Building, 131 South St. John Avenue

Ambassador Student Center Building, 169 South St. John Avenue
Hall of Administration Building, 300 West Green Street
These three buildings would not be altered by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. They
partially form the east boundary of the Historic District and front South St. John Street
near the West Green Street/South St. John Avenue intersection. East of and beyond
South St. John Street is the southbound SR 710 right of way. The Freeway Tunnel
Alternative proposes restriping South St. John Avenue to accommodate modified
sidewalk, curb, and drainage improvements in the vicinity of these three contributing
listed under Criterion C (Architecture).
elements. The existing overall configuration and use of South St. John Avenue in this area
would be unchanged under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The Freeway Tunnel
Alternative may introduce visual or audible elements that may diminish the integrity of
the significant historic features of this Historic District. In the long term, the visual and
audible elements would be associated with traffic traveling into/out of the tunnels.
Based on the Noise Study Report, the noise level in the east part of this Historic District
along South St. John Avenue, which is the area that would be nearest the North Portal
and the closest to noise related to traffic entering and leaving the tunnel(s), would
increase 11 dB from both the Existing and Future No Build noise level of 61 dB (i.e., up to
72 dB). Visual effects would consist of increased vehicular traffic on St. John Avenue
adjacent to the east boundary of the Historic District because the proposed
improvements would connect South St. John Avenue with the West California Boulevard
intersection, and from traffic entering and exiting the freeway tunnel(s). These impacts
would not be adverse because this area is characterized by existing high levels of local
traffic on West Colorado Boulevard, East Green Street, and East Del May Boulevard, and
freeway traffic on SR 134/Ventura Freeway. The increased traffic and noise levels along
St. John Avenue would not affect the historic uses of the contributing elements of the
Historic District as a learning institution.
The indirect changes to noise levels and visual effects as a result of increased traffic
along the eastern boundary of this Historic District would not detract from the essential
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-79
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
Norton Simon Museum

411 West Colorado Boulevard
property determined for the National
Register by a consensus through the
Section 106 process); listed under
Criteria A (Association with events), B
(Association with persons), and C
(Architecture).
physical features or characteristics of the District that qualify it for inclusion in the
National Register because they would occur in areas along busy roads in an urban area
and, once completed, would not prevent the continued occupation and intended use of
the contributing elements of this Historic District as part of a school campus. None of the
proposed improvements occurring outside the District would cross the resources
boundary. Therefore, under the both the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the proposed alterations at the District described above
would result in No Adverse Effect. In summary, the effect finding of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements on this Historic District would be No Adverse Effect.
710 North Study, there would be improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the
vicinity but not within the boundary of the Norton Simon Museum. Therefore, the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not have any direct effects on this
historic property.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not result in an indirect adverse
effect to the Norton Simon Museum. The significance of this property is conveyed
through its associations with civic development, a prominent individual art collector, and
as a distinctive example of the Late Modern architectural style which can include the
overall shape of the building; its location, materials, design, craftsmanship,
workmanship, setting, feeling and decorative details; and various aspects of its site and
environment. The proposed sign replacement under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would be at a location where there is an existing sign. The existing sign is obscured from
the Museum by a dense stand of trees in the road shoulder. Therefore, the
improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative do not have the potential to adversely
affect indirectly the critical elements of the propertys materials, design, location,
setting, feeling, association, and workmanship, as expressed through its association with
Pasadenas civic development, a prominent individual art collector, or its architectural
qualities.
The scale and proportion of the proposed improvements would not result in a
measurable change to the similar to historical patterns in the area of the Norton Simon
Museum. Several visual elements were added in this area during the 1969 period of
significance for the Museum. These include the construction of modern Pasadena, SR
134, modern traffic signals, street and directional signage, and light standards.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-80
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
Therefore, the proposed improvements to the area in the vicinity of the Norton Simon
Museum would not introduce a discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and
proportion of previous visual obstructions present historically both before and during its
period of significance. The proposed improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would not alter the setting in a way that affects the historic significance of the Norton
Simon Museum.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
Evaluation of the groundborne noise and vibration from motor vehicles traveling in the
freeway tunnel(s) indicate that no sensitive receivers would be impacted by operational
vibration. Moreover, the Norton Simon Museum is in a busy urban area near Pasadenas
central business district and in the immediate vicinity of the I-210/SR 134 interchange, a
major regional and national transportation corridor. Therefore, a varying, yet constant
level of traffic-generated vibration and related ground noise has been historically present
within and adjacent to this historic property.
When completed, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not introduce a
visual intrusion so jarring and discordant that an adverse effect would result such that
the Norton Simon Museum would no longer be able to convey its significance thorough
its associations under Criteria A, B, and C established during the period of significance in
a manner that it would no longer be understood. The proposed improvements would not
significantly alter the character-defining features of the historic property.
Effect on the Norton Simon Museum. This historic property would retain the aspects of
Raymond-Summit Historic District
396 North Summit Avenue
710 North Study, there would be improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative within
approximately 0.4 mile of the boundary of the Raymond-Summit Historic District. Those
The District is approximately bounded
improvements would not have any direct effects on this historic property and would not
by North Raymond Avenue, East Villa
result in an indirect adverse effect to the District. Because the excavation and
Street, North Summit Avenue, and
construction of tunnel(s) and related street improvements would occur approximately
East Maple Street in the City of
0.4 mile south of this District, they do not have the potential to indirectly adversely affect
Pasadena.
the critical elements of the propertys materials, design, and workmanship, as expressed
through its association with early Pasadenas development or its architectural characterCHR Status Code: 1S (Individual
property listed in the National register defining features.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-81
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
by the Keeper); listed under Criteria A The scale and proportion of the proposed improvements would be similar to historical
(Association with events) and C
patterns in the area of the District. This area has been transformed since the period of
(Architecture).
significance (1879-1906) for this Historic District. These include the construction of
modern Pasadena, SR 134 to the south, modern traffic signals, street and directional
signage, and light standards on the surface streets. These changes occurred following the
period of significance for the District. Therefore, the improvements in the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative approximately 0.4 mile south of this District would not introduce a
discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous visual
obstructions present historically both before and during its period of significance. The
Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not alter the setting in a way that
would affect the historic significance of the District in a manner that has not already
occurred over the last 100 years.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The groundborne noise and vibration impacts analysis prepared in 2014 concluded that
all of the predicted vibration levels under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are
considerably lower that the appropriate FTA criterion for each receiver. The District is in
a busy urban area separated from Pasadenas central business district by SR 134 and is in
the vicinity of the I-210/SR 134 interchange, a major regional and national transportation
corridor. Therefore, a varying, yet constant level of traffic-generated vibration and
related ground noise has been historically present within and adjacent to this District. It
is anticipated that the buildings in the District would remain in use and occupied by its
residents and connecting roads would remain open to regular vehicular traffic.
the District would no longer be able to convey its significance thorough its association
with the early development of Pasadena and or its architectural qualities established
during the period of significance in a manner that it would no longer be understood. The
Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not significantly alter the characterdefining features of the historic property.
The District was intentionally sited west of and near to downtown to showcase a
prestigious campus of modern buildings and modern landscape design near Pasadenas
central business district and readily accessible via major regional transportation arterials.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements approximately 0.4 mile south of the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-82
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
boundary of the District would not result in a change to a physical feature in the setting
of the District. The improvements would not affect the Districts integrity of feeling and
setting associated with its historical development pattern and associated architectural
qualities.
Herkimer Arms Apartment House

411-412 North Raymond Avenue
listed under Criteria A (Association
with events) and C (Architecture).

Effects on the Raymond-Summit Historic District. The District will retain the aspects of
710 North Study, there would be improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
approximately 0.4 mile south of this historic property. Therefore, those improvements
would not have any direct or indirect adverse effects on this historic property. The
significance of this property is conveyed through its association as a representative
example of Greene and Green multi-unit domestic architectural qualities which can
include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details,
and various aspects of its site and environment. Because the tunnel excavation and
related street improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be approximately
0.4 mi to the south of this historic property, those improvements does not have the
potential to adversely affect indirectly the critical elements of the propertys materials,
design, and workmanship, as expressed through its association with early Pasadenas
development or its architectural character-defining features.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The scale and proportion of the proposed improvements would be similar to historical
patterns in the area of the Herkimer Arms Apartment House. Several visual elements
were added during the period of significance (1879-1906) for this property, including the
construction of modern Pasadena, SR 134, modern traffic signals, street and directional
signage, and light standards. In 2009, the Herkimer Arms Apartment House was moved
approximately 0.6 mi northwest from 527 Union Street in Pasadena to 411-412 North
Raymond Avenue. Although it has lost integrity of location, it was moved to a location
similar to its original site on Union Street. As a historic property eligible under Criterion
C, integrity of location is not as critical to conveying its significance for its architectural,
engineering, and design character defining features. Therefore, the improvements in the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not introduce a discordant type of visual obstruction
out of scale and proportion of previous visual obstructions present historically both
before and during its period of significance. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-83
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
improvements would not alter the setting in a way that would further affect the historic
significance of the Herkimer Arms Apartment House in a manner that has not already
occurred over the last 100 years in this area before the building moved to its current
location at 411-412 North Raymond Avenue.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
freeway tunnel(s) indicated that no sensitive receivers would be impacted by operational
noise from the tunnel(s). The Herkimer Arms Apartment House is in a busy urban area
near Pasadenas central business district and in the vicinity of the I-210 and SR 134
interchange, a major regional and national transportation corridor. Therefore, a varying,
yet constant level of traffic-generated vibration and related ground noise has been
historically present at and adjacent to this historic property. It is anticipated that the
buildings above and adjacent to the tunnel alignments would remain in use and occupied
by its residents and the roads connecting the Herkimer Arms Apartment House to the
community would remain open to regular vehicular traffic.
the Herkimer Arms Apartment House would no longer be able to convey its significance
thorough its association as a Greene and Greene architectural property and associated
architectural qualities established during the period of significance in a manner that it
would no longer be understood. The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would not significantly alter the character-defining features of this historic property.
The Herkimer Arms Apartment House residential buildings were intentionally sited west
of and near to downtown to showcase a prestigious campus of modern buildings and
modern landscape design near Pasadenas central business district. The Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements approximately 0.4 mile to the south would not result in a
change to a physical feature within the setting of the Herkimer Arms Apartment House.
The improvements would not affect the integrity of feeling and setting of the Herkimer
Arms Apartment House associated with its historical development pattern and
associated architectural qualities.
Effect on the contributing elements of the Herkimer Arms Apartment House. This historic
property would retain the aspects of integrity that allow it to convey its historic
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-84
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
Old Pasadena Historic District

The District is generally bounded by
Fair Oaks and Raymond Avenues,
Colorado Boulevard, and Green Street
significance.
710 North Study, there would be improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the
vicinity of and outside the historic boundary of this District. Therefore, the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative improvements would not have any direct effects on this historic
property.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect

property listed in the National register The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be along an approximately
by the Keeper); listed under Criteria A 500 feet long segment on the western boundary of this District. Those improvements
would consist of widening South Pasadena Avenue to accommodate a new off ramp onto
(Association with events).
South Pasadena Avenue and an outer travel lane on South Pasadena Avenue. This road
widening and reconfiguration may result in direct and indirect effects to its characterdefining features of this District that support its National Register eligibility. However, as
described below, those effects would not be adverse.
effect to the District. The significance of this property is conveyed through its association
with the early commercial development in Pasadena which can include its setting,
location, or feelings and association, which are the most important aspects of integrity
under Criterion A, and various aspects of its site and environment. The area to
accommodate the proposed widening of South Pasadena Avenue would be outside the
District boundary. None of the improvements (such as the reconfigured SB SR 710 onramp, and any related sidewalk, curb, and gutter work) would extend into the historic
property. The new on-ramp, lane reconfiguration, widening, and restriping of South
Pasadena Avenue under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative do not have the potential to
adversely affect the critical elements of the setting, location, or feeling and association of
the property, as expressed through its association with the early development of
Pasadena.
The scale and proportion of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would be
similar to historical patterns in and around the District. Several visual elements were
added during the period of significance for this District (886-936). These include
variations of traffic signals, street and directional signage, and light standards. Analysis of
historical development of the District and the area from the 1960s onward demonstrates
that the area near South Pasadena Avenue was once more readily connected to the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-85
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
residential areas west of downtown. These areas included a mix of residential and light
commercial uses marking the fringe of the downtown area and connected together by a
network of secondary surface streets. The area began to be transformed in the early
1960s and 1970s as buildings and surface streets were demolished and cleared to
accommodate a planned extension of SR 710. These changes were occurring during the
Districts period of significance. By 1980, the existing configuration of South Pasadena
Avenue and the northern stub of SR 710 were in place. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements to South Pasadena Avenue east of and outside the District
would not introduce a discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and proportion
of previous visual obstructions present historically both before and during its period of
significance. Those improvements would not alter the setting in a way that affects the
historic significance of the District.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
freeway tunnel(s) indicate that no sensitive receivers would be impacted by operational
vibration. The District is in a busy urban area near Pasadenas central business district
and in the vicinity of the I-210/SR 134 interchange, a major regional and national
transportation corridor. Therefore, a varying, yet constant level of traffic-generated
vibration and related ground noise has been historically present within and adjacent to
the District. It is anticipated that the buildings within the District would remain in use and
occupied by its residents and connecting roads would remain open to regular vehicular
traffic.
This District contains a grouping of commercial buildings, public transportation
infrastructure, and civic facilities such as parks and other public buildings in an urban
downtown core. The contributing elements that comprise the District were intentionally
sited in the downtown area to maximize exposure and generate income in an area where
consumer activity would be high. Therefore, although the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
improvements along South Pasadena Avenue would be along and outside the boundary
of the District and would result in a change to a physical features along that boundary of
the District, those improvements would not affect the integrity of feeling and setting of
the District associated with a prominent location along a busy road in a central business
district. The contributing elements of the District would remain connected to Pasadena
and other local communities by the roads that became modern South Pasadena Avenue
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-86
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
and Del Mar Boulevard.
Horatio Rust Prehistoric Village Site

This prehistoric site recorded by
Horatio Rust was exposed during road
grading activities in 1897. A large
number of artifacts was recorded and
collected including 50 hammer stones,
30 metates, over 100 manos, a bone
awl, and a number of cogged and
discoidal stones. Rust noted that the
finds were located 2 to 3 feet beneath
the ground surface and that the
metates were all discovered facedown. The location of this site is not
provided in this report to avoid
vandalism or other potential damage
to the site.
CHR Status Code: considered eligible
for the National Register for this
project
270 S. Orange Grove Boulevard
CHR Status Code: considered eligible
for the National Register for this
project
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
In summary, as a group, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements do not have the
potential to adversely affect the critical elements of the materials and workmanship of
this District, as expressed through its architectural character-defining features. Those
improvements would have No Adverse Effect on the Old Pasadena Historic District. The
District will retain the aspects of integrity that allow it to convey its historic significance.
South Pasadena
Improvements proposed under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative may occur within the
known boundaries of the Horatio Rust Site if the site or any part of the site remains
extant. Although it is not likely that the proposed improvements would result in physical
destruction or damage to the resource (because, as a result of disturbances to the site
area over the last 115 years, it is highly unlikely that the resource or any part of it is
extant), the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining features that qualify
this Site for inclusion in the National Register. In the unlikely event the site is
encountered during ground-disturbing activities under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative,
as a project condition, a Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide
archaeological monitoring and data recovery for any work conducted in the area. In
summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would result in No Adverse
Effect on the Horatio Rust Prehistoric Village Site.
There would be improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the vicinity of 270
South Orange Grove Boulevard but there would be no improvements within the historic
property boundary of 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard (APN 5713-027-031).
Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not have any direct
effects on the historic property.
3.7-87
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would be along and outside of an
approximately 325 foot long segment of the eastern property boundary along South St.
John Avenue. The improvements along this segment would consist of reconfiguring
South St. John Avenue to accommodate additional southbound SB travel lanes
associated with the reconfigured and realigned South St. John Avenue to accommodate a
southbound SR 710 off-ramp that would connect to southbound 710 south of the West
Del Mar boulevard intersection. The proposed road widening and reconfiguration at a
location southeast of this historic property may result in direct and indirect effects to its
character-defining features at this location that support its National Register eligibility.
However, for the reasons described below, effects would not be adverse.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
effect to the Physical Education Building, Aquatic Center, Gymnasium, and an outdoor
semi-circular amphitheater at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard. The significance of
this property significance is conveyed through its association with its Modern
architectural qualities which can include the overall shape of the buildings, its materials,
craftsmanship, decorative details, and various aspects of the site and its environment.
The area to accommodate the proposed widening of South St. John Avenue east of and
outside this historic property boundary would be on the opposite side of South St. John
Avenue from the buildings at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard. Other Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements such as the reconfigured southbound SR 710 on-ramp and
related sidewalk, curb, and gutter modifications would be south of, and would not cross
into, the historic property boundary. The lane reconfiguration, widening, and restriping
of South St. John Avenue does not have the potential to adversely affect the critical
elements of this historic propertys materials, design, and workmanship, as expressed
through its architectural character-defining features.
According to a 2014 traffic analysis, the travel lane reconfiguration on South St. John
Avenue would increase road noise in the vicinity of the Physical Education Building,
Aquatic Center, Gymnasium, and an outdoor semi-circular amphitheater at 270 South
Orange Grove Boulevard. The closest intersections to those buildings that were analyzed
for anticipated comparative changes in traffic delay times and LOS between the Dual
Bore and Single Bore variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative and the No Build
Alternative were South Orange Grove Boulevard/West Colorado Boulevard and South St.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-88
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
John Avenue/West Del Mar Boulevard. The report concluded that visual and associated
audible effects from a marked increase in traffic delay times would result under the Dual
Bore and Single Bore design variations. However, the National Register significance of
the Physical Education Building, Aquatic Center, Gymnasium, and an outdoor semicircular amphitheater at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard does not derive from them
being in a quiet, rural setting. The increase in traffic volume would not introduce a new
or discordant type of auditory influence that was not otherwise present historically.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
According to a noise analysis prepared in 2014, the future noise level in areas east of this
historic property would increase due to increased traffic volumes along South St. John
Avenue as a result of the South St. John Extension. The report stated that exterior noise
levels at these buildings will approach 67 dB, which matches the NAC of 67 dBA for
school properties. For interior spaces, a reduction of 25 dB was assumed for standard
building construction, these buildings use windows that are thicker than standard
windows, which would further reduce projected operational noise levels for interior
spaces. However, because the Physical Education Building, Aquatic Center, Gymnasium,
and an outdoor semi-circular amphitheater are used for recreation, physical education,
and other outdoor-related purposes, they are not considered as sensitive to higher levels
of interior noise compared to an auditorium or library. In addition, the buildings at 270
South Orange Grove Boulevard are in a busy urban area near Pasadena's central business
district and in the vicinity of the I-210/ SR 134 interchange, a major regional and national
transportation corridor. Therefore, a varying, yet constant level of traffic-generated
vibration and related ground noise has been historically present within and adjacent to
this historic property. It is anticipated that the buildings at 270 South Orange Grove
Boulevard would remain used by students and any connecting roads would remain open
to regular vehicular traffic. Furthermore, the increased traffic volume and associated
noise would not interfere with the use of these buildings as educational institutional
properties. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not interrupt the
continued use and enjoyment of any of these buildings in their historical locations. Their
integrity of feeling and association will be not diminished by changes to the setting
because those improvements would be east and south east of, and outside, the historic
property boundary of 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-89
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
visual intrusion so jarring and discordant that an adverse effect would result that the
buildings at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard would no longer be able to convey their
significant architectural qualities and the spatial relationship of the built environment
established during the period of significance in a manner that it would no longer be
understood. Views into and out of the historic property would not be drastically altered
because many of the improvements would be a ground level and, with respect to the
Freeway Tunnel(s), they would be at a sub-grade elevation. The Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements would not significantly alter the character-defining features of
the historic property.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
The buildings at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard are a collection of institutional
education buildings that were intentionally sited west of and near to downtown to
showcase a prestigious campus of modern buildings near Pasadena's central business
district and readily accessible via major regional transportation arterials. This preexisting
condition at this location spans over 51 years both during and after the period of
significance of 1964. Therefore, although the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements
along and outside the east property boundary and the reconfiguration of South St. John
Avenue would not result in a change to a physical feature within the setting of this
historic property, and would not affect integrity of feeling and setting associated with its
architectural qualities. The Physical Education Building, Aquatic Center, Gymnasium, and
an outdoor semi-circular amphitheater at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard would
remain connected to Pasadena and other local communities by the roads that became
modern South St. John Avenue and West Del Mar Boulevard.
Summary of Effects: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would have No
Adverse Effects to the Physical Education Building, Aquatic Center, Gymnasium, and an
outdoor semi-circular amphitheater at 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard. This historic
property would retain the aspects of integrity that allow it to convey its historic
significance.
Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site
This Tongva village was observed in
1769 by the Portol Expedition on the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

Improvements proposed under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative may occur within the
ethnographically attested area of the Otsungna Prehistoric Village site. Those
improvements may result in a direct adverse effect to the character-defining features of
3.7-90
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.4:
Resource
banks of a stream (Arroyo Rosa de

Castilla, which no longer exists)
running north to south in the east part
of present-day El Sereno. Although
there are no archeological records for
this site, records left by the San
Gabriel Mission Franciscans confirm
the existence of this village. The
Tongva people of Otsungna are said to
have served as a primary source of
labor for the building of the San
Gabriel Mission and other
construction projects. Scant evidence
of the village remains because the
area was never studied and no
artifacts were preserved.
the site if any such features are extant. At this time no information on extant, characterdefining features is available. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements may have
an adverse effect on the Otsungna Prehistoric Village site if the site or any part of the site
remains extant. Although it is not likely that the proposed improvements would result in
physical destruction or damage to the resource (because, as a result, of disturbances to
the area over the last approximately 240 years, it is highly unlikely that the resource or
any part of it is extant), the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining
features that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. In the unlikely
event the site is encountered during project-related, ground-disturbing activities, a PostReview Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological monitoring and data
recovery for any work conducted in the area. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative improvements would result in No Adverse Effect on the Ostungna Prehistoric
Village Site.
No Adverse
Effect with
Standard
Conditions
No Adverse
Effect without
Standard
Conditions
No
Adverse
Effect
CHR Status Code: determined to be

this project
Sources: Historic Property Survey Report (2014); Preliminary Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route 710 North Study (2015); and technical analyses in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-91
DRAFT

This page intentionally left blank
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-92
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.5:
Effects of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (Tunnel Segments) on Historical Properties in the Area of
Potential Effects
Potential Effects
The historic properties listed in this table along the alignment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are above the tunnel segment of that
alternative. As a result, the potential effects of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on those resources would be the same for each
resource. Because the alignment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative will be in tunnel segment in the vicinity of these properties, there
would be no surface construction in the vicinity of these properties. As a result, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in
permanent use of land from or permanent easements, or temporary occupancies (TCEs) at any of these properties.
Under the either single-bore and dual-bore variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the tunnel alignment(s) would be at depths
ranging from of 120 to 250 feet below the National Register listed or eligible, or contributing properties in the cities of Los Angeles,
Monterey Park, Alhambra, and South Pasadena, and unincorporated Los Angeles County listed in this table. The improvements in the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the characteristics of these historic properties that qualify them for inclusion in the
National Register because:
The duration of activity underneath any given resource would be approximately 1 or 2 days and would occur at a depth of 120 to
250 ft. At that depth, the tunnel boring-related activity under these properties would be undetectable at the surface.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not include any construction-related activity at the ground surface in the vicinity of these
historic properties.
The tunnel excavation will be conducted using pressurized-face tunnel boring machines designed for boring in densely urbanized
areas to lessen ground movements and, if necessary, additional conditions can be employed to lessen or eliminate ground
movement effects.
As a result, a finding of no detectable risk of adverse effect (i.e. damage) to any of the historic properties listed in this table would
occur as a result of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
Resource
National Register Status1
Los Angeles
3927-3947 Lowell Avenue
CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual property determined eligible for the
National Register); Listed under Criteria C (Architecture)
Short Line Villa Tract Historic District
CHR Status Code: 2S (Individual property determined eligible for the
In the El Sereno community, generally bounded by
National Register)
Kendall Avenue on the north, Newtonia Drive and
Sierra Vista School on the south, Huntington Drive on
the east and the rear property line of the west side of
Maycrest Avenue on the west.
Historic Route 66
CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual Property determined eligible for the
Segment of Route 66 in APE corresponds to segment
National Register)
of Huntington Drive between Maycrest Avenue and
Lowell Avenue
Pasadena and South Pasadena
Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District
CHR Status Code: 1S ( Listed as an individual property); Listed under Criteria
Includes the route of the Arroyo Seco Freeway from
A (Association with Events), B (Association with Persons), and C
the four-level interchange in Los Angeles, through
(Architecture)
South Pasadena to East Glenarm Street in Pasadena
and bridges along that route
Historic Route 66
National Register)
Pasadena Avenue Historic District (includes
CHR Status Code: IS (Listed as an individual property); Listed under Criteria A
properties in Pasadena and South Pasadena)
(Association with Events) and C (Design/Construction)
Generally, the district boundaries are Barclay Alley on
the north, Avoca Avenue and West State Street on the
east, Columbia Street (properties on both sides) on
the south, and South Orange Grove Boulevard on the
west)
Pasadena
Sequoyah School/Neighborhood Church
(3 buildings: Childrens Chapel Nursery School, and
National register by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the
Religious Education Building)
California Register.
535 S. Pasadena Ave., Pasadena.
Caroline Walkley House and small apartment 595 S.
CHR Status Code: 2B/1D (Contributor to a district or a multiple resource
Pasadena Ave. and 190 W. California Blvd., Pasadena
property listed in the National Register and determined eligible for the
National Register as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible
district)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-93
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.5:
Potential Effects
Caroline Walkley-Alice and Robert Wood House
696 S. St. John Avenue
Driscoll House
679 South Pasadena Avenue
Miss Markham House
Page House
Tomkins House
Reverend Hiram Hill/Alonzo Beal House

Hurlburt Street Fire Station No. 5
J. Durand Kennett House
F.J. Kennet House
Mrs. D. Hagan House
James and Fanny Hale House
W.W. Phelps House
A.G. Simons/John McWilliams Jr. House
Mary Werner House
Ralph B. Hubbard Residence
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

district)
district)
district)
district)
district)
district)
CHR Status Code: 2S2/1D (Contributor to a district or a multiple resource
property listed in the National Register and individually eligible for the
National Register); Eligible for listing under Criterion C (Architecture)
National Register); Eligible for listing under Criteria A (Association with
Events) and C (Architecture)
district); Eligible for listing under Criterion C (Architecture)
district)
National Register); Eligible for listing under Criteria A (Association with
Events) and C (Architecture)
3.7-94
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.5:
Potential Effects
206 to 216 West California Boulevard
Apartment Building
R. Sturgis Cook House
180 West State Street (aka 1170 S. Pasadena Ave.)
1928 French Eclectic-style residence in the Pasadena
Avenue Historic District
Hartshorn House No. 1
224 West State Street
232 West State Street
Otake-Nambu House
857 Bank Street
1890 Victorian-influenced residence
East Wynyate
909 Lyndon Street
1896 residence
J.G. Pierce House
911 Monterey Road
Kenneth M. Joy House
921 Monterey Road
1912 Craftsman-style residence
920 Lyndon Street
Blanche Home
1030 Buena Vista Street
318 Fairview Avenue
Augusta Raab Home
1109 Buena Vista Street
El Cerrito Circle Historic District
Eight Properties on both sides of El Cerrito Circle and
two properties on the west side of Diamond Avenue
North of Mission Historic District
Includes the 600 to 700 block of Meridian Avenue,
north of Mission Street and south of the Pasadena
Freeway
South of Mission Historic District
Located along the 1100 block of Glendon Way and the
1000 to 1100 block of Meridian Avenue between
Monterey Road to the south and El Centro Street to
the north
South Pasadena Historic Business District Generally
located south of Hope Street, west of Fairview
Avenue, north of Oxley Street and east of Santa Fe
Lane
Library Neighborhood Historic District
Generally bounded by Diamond Avenue, Oxley Street,
Fremont Avenue, and Monterey Road
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

CHR Status Code: 2B/1D (Contributor to a district or multiple resource
district)
CHR Status Code: 2B/1D (Contributor to a district or multiple resource
district)
South Pasadena
CHR Status Code: 2S2/5S1 (Individual property determined eligible for
listing)
CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual property determined eligible for listing)
CHR Status Code: 3S (Appears eligible for listing as an individual property
through survey evaluation)
CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual property determined eligible for listing);
Eligible for listing under Criterion A (Association with Events)
CHR Status Code: Considered eligible for the National Register for purposes
of this project under Criterion C
Eligible for listing under Criterion C (Architecture)
Eligible for listing under Criterion A (Association with Events)
CHR Status Code: IS (Listed as an individual property)
of this project.
3.7-95
DRAFT

TABLE 3.7.5:
Potential Effects
of this project
Sources: Historic Property Survey Report (2014); Preliminary Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route 710 North Study (2015);
and technical analyses in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization and/or
Mitigation Measures.
1
Only properties within the Area of Potential Effects for the tunnel segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are evaluated in this
table. Refer to Figure 4.6-4 for the locations of the resources discussed in this table.
National Register = National Register of Historic Places
904 Monterey Road
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.7-96
DRAFT

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAIN
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.8 Hydrology and Floodplain

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting
Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from
conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 Subpart A.
To comply, the following must be analyzed:
The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments.
Risks of the action.
Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
Support of incompatible floodplain development.
Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain

values affected by the project.
The base floodplain is defined as the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one
percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. An encroachment is defined as an action
within the limits of the base floodplain.
3.8.2 Affected Environment
The information in this section is based on the Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report (2014)
and the Location Hydraulic Study (2014) prepared for the project.
3.8.2.1
Watershed Description
The project study area is located in Los Angeles County within the Los Angeles River Watershed. The
Los Angeles River Watershed covers a land area of approximately 834 square miles (sq mi) and is
one of the largest watersheds in the region. The Los Angeles River Watershed is part of the larger
Los Angeles-San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit (HU). The Los Angeles-San Gabriel HU is divided into
Hydrologic Areas (HAs) and Hydrologic Subareas (HSAs). The project study area lies within the Los
Angeles-San Gabriel HU; the Raymond, Coastal Plain, and San Fernando HAs; and the Pasadena,
Central Split, and Eagle Rock HSAs. The Los Angeles-San Gabriel HU covers approximately
1,608 sq mi within Los Angeles County and small areas in Ventura County.
The major drainages within the study area include Arroyo Seco, San Gabriel River, and Dorchester
Channel (the Laguna Channel). The Arroyo Seco and Dorchester Channel both drain to the Los
Angeles River. The Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River both drain to the Pacific Ocean. The
major drainages adjacent to the study area are the Los Angeles River in the west and Rio Hondo in
the east. In addition to these major drainages, there are smaller intermittent drainages adjacent to
the study area that include, from west to east, the Alhambra/San Pasqual Wash, Rubio Wash, Eaton
Wash, Arcadia Wash, and Santa Anita Wash.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-1
DRAFT

Within the study area, all surface waters eventually drain to the Los Angeles River, which flows to
the west and south of the study area to the Pacific Ocean.
3.8.2.2
Floodplain Description
Two floodplains were identified within the study area: Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester
Channel. There are no published Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) in the study area that include the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester
Channel. Information about the floodplains is based on available engineering documents (e.g., AsBuilt plans) and design reports gathered from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LADPW) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In lieu of a federally
established floodplain, the floodplains for the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel are
defined below for the purpose of evaluating floodplain impacts. Figure 3.8-1 presents an overview
of the existing floodplains.
Laguna Regulating Basin
The Laguna Regulating Basin is an engineered detention basin with an earthen bottom in an urban
area. The Laguna Regulating Basin is an LADPW facility that collects runoff from the watersheds
north of Interstate 10 (I-10), including the communities of Alhambra, Monterey Hills, and South
Pasadena. The Dorchester Channel drains into the Laguna Regulating Basin. The Laguna Regulating
Basin drains through several channel systems and eventually discharges into the Los Angeles River in
the City of Vernon.
Available information to establish the flood of record for the combined Dorchester Channel and
Laguna Regulating Basin is limited. The LADPW indicated there has never been an overtopping flood
in the Basin since it was constructed in 1967, even during wet years. Therefore, the highest possible
inundated area prior to spillway activity is assumed to be the basis for analyzing impacts to the
existing floodplain. The spillway crest elevation is at 318.0 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl), and
an overtopping flood would rise above this elevation. Given there is no record of an overtopping
flood (i.e., spillway activity), this condition is an extreme event with a return frequency likely to be
greater than 100 years.
Dorchester Channel
The Dorchester Channel is a concrete-lined storm drain system in a developed urban area. The
Dorchester Channel is an LADPW facility that collects runoff from the watersheds north of I-10,
including the communities of Alhambra, Monterey Hills, and South Pasadena. Dorchester Channel
drains into the Laguna Regulating Basin. As noted above, the Laguna Regulating Basin drains through
several channel systems and eventually discharges into the Los Angeles River in the City of Vernon.
The data available for Dorchester Channel indicate that design flows for this system were based on a
50-year frequency in accordance with Los Angeles County methodology, also known as the Capital
Flood. In Los Angeles County, the Capital Flood is used for the purpose of floodplain evaluations.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-2
DRAFT
lvd
an
ch
o
Dorcheste
Pa
se
o
Westmont Dr
yB
r Channel
Val
le
as
til
la
Hellman Ave
Lag
una
Reg
ula
ting
Bas
in
Circ
le D
710
10
Campus Rd
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.8-1
Existing Floodplain
SR 710 North Study
300
600
FEET
SOURCE: LARIAC (2010); CH2M Hill (2013)
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Hydrology\Floodplain_Overview.mxd (10/29/2014)
Floodplain Overview
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-4
DRAFT

Beneficial Uses
Natural and beneficial floodplain values include, but are not limited to, fish, wildlife, plants, open
space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, forestry, natural moderation
of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge. Beneficial uses for surface waters
are defined in the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan (1995)
as various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife. Examples of
beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural water supply, industrial
service supplies, industrial process supply, groundwater recharge, water contact recreation, noncontact water recreation, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat,
spawning habitat, and rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat. Neither Dorchester Channel
nor the Laguna Regulating Basin are listed in the LARWQCB Basin Plan as having any beneficial uses.
The Dorchester Channel is a constructed storm drain system in a developed urban area. Because it is
an engineered waterway with a concrete bottom and little or no vegetation, the open space, natural
beauty and outdoor recreational values of Dorchester Channel are limited. In addition, because the
channel is concrete with little or no vegetation, it has limited value to support fish, wildlife, and
plant habitat. The Laguna Regulating Basin is an engineered detention basin with an earthen
bottom. Some opportunistic vegetation was recorded within the detention basin but no wetland or
riparian vegetation was observed. Therefore, the Laguna Regulating Basin has limited value to
support fish, wildlife, and plant habitat. Furthermore, because of the Laguna Regulating Basin is an
engineered basin located in a developed urban area not used for recreation, the open space, natural
beauty and outdoor recreational values of the Laguna Regulating Basin are limited.
3.8.3 Environmental Consequences
The Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM), Bus

Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives would not result in impacts to
floodplains because they would not encroach into any floodplains. Therefore, these alternatives are
not discussed further below.
3.8.3.1
Temporary Impacts
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements in the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives
would be constructed and no encroachment into the Laguna Regulating Basin or Dorchester Channel
would occur. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in the impacts related to
hydrology and floodplains associated with improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes two design variations that relate to the number of tunnels
constructed. The dual-bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variation alignment crosses the
Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain and Dorchester Channel floodplain. Construction of the singlebore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variation alignment crosses only the Laguna Regulating
Basin floodplain.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (Dual-Bore)
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation requires widening State Route 710
(SR 710) along its east side, which is along the western boundary of the Laguna Regulating Basin.
The dual-bore tunnel design variation also requires widening SR 710 along its west side, which is
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-5
DRAFT

along Dorchester Channels eastern boundary, and replacing portions of that existing reinforced
concrete channel with a reinforced concrete box. Construction equipment would be operated
along the Laguna Regulating Basin western boundary and along the Dorchester Channel eastern
boundary. Potential temporary impacts could occur during the widening of the road,
construction of the bridge structure, excavation under the new bridge structure, and
reconstruction of the existing maintenance road. Land and vegetation would be cleared,
exposing soil to the potential for erosion and downstream transport of sediments to occur.
Under the Construction General Permit, the dual-bore tunnel design variation would be required
to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing pollutants of concern in storm water runoff.
The construction BMPs would include Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Good
Housekeeping BMPs designed to minimize erosion, retain sediment on site, and prevent spills.
Therefore, the dual-bore tunnel design variation would not result in temporary water qualityrelated impacts related to the floodplains of the Laguna Regulating Basin or Dorchester Channel.
As stated previously, the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel have limited value to
support fish, wildlife, and plant habitat because they are, respectively, an engineered detention
basin and an engineered concrete-lined storm drain. Furthermore, the open space, natural
beauty, and outdoor recreational values of the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel
are limited. Therefore, construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design
variation would not impact the natural and beneficial floodplain values of the Laguna Regulating
Basin and Dorchester Channel.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (Single-Bore)
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation would result in the same temporary
impacts to the Laguna Regulating Basin as those discussed above for the dual-bore tunnel design
variation. The single-bore tunnel design variation would not result in impacts to Dorchester
Channel.
3.8.3.2
Permanent Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the operation of any of the improvements in the SR 710
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in the impacts
related to hydrology and floodplains associated with improvements in the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (Dual-Bore)

Laguna Regulating Basin
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation would require widening SR 710
along its east side to provide access to the south portal. Widening SR 710 to provide access
to the south portal would involve a longitudinal encroachment within the floodplain of the
Laguna Regulating Basin. The longitudinal encroachment would be up to 20 ft wide and
700 ft long along the Laguna Regulating Basin western boundary, on the east side of the
new freeway. Widening SR 710 in this location would be accomplished by placing it on a
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-6
DRAFT

bridge structure. The bridge structure would be supported by piers that would be placed in
the floodplain. The area under the bridge would be excavated. By using a bridge structure to
widen SR 710 in this location, the storage volume of the Laguna Regulating Basin would not
be reduced. The additional excavation that would be required under the bridge structure
would result in slight modifications to the floodplain boundary, but the base floodplain
elevation would not change.
There is an existing maintenance road along the west side of the Laguna Regulating Basin.
Because SR 710 would be widened in this location, it would be necessary to replace the
existing maintenance road with a new entrance and maintenance vehicle pull-out area. The
new entrance road and maintenance vehicle pull-out area would be constructed on top of a
berm that is outside the current floodplain boundary and therefore would not affect the
existing floodplain boundary and would not constitute a longitudinal encroachment.
The longitudinal encroachment along the western boundary of the Laguna Regulating Basin
is necessary to reduce impacts to existing right of way (ROW), slope easements, channel
structures, land uses, hydrology, and potential geotechnical and seismic issues. As noted
above, the longitudinal encroachment involves the construction of an elevated bridge
structure to accommodate the widening of SR 710. The bridge structure would be supported
by piers that would be placed in the floodplain. The area under the bridge would be
excavated. By using a bridge structure to widen SR 710 at this location, the proposed
encroachment to the floodplain would not reduce the storage volume of the Laguna
Regulating Basin; therefore, in the proposed project condition, the base floodplain elevation
would not change. Therefore, no alternatives to the longitudinal encroachment are
required.
The encroachment into the Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain would result in slight
modifications to the floodplain boundary, but the base floodplain elevation would not
change. Furthermore, it is possible that the excavation for the bridge structure would
increase and not decrease the basin storage volume. Therefore, there would be no
increased flood risk and no risk to life or property associated with implementation of the
single-bore and dual-bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variations.
The dual-bore tunnel design variation would not support incompatible floodplain
development. The areas surrounding the Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain are already
developed. Additionally, by reducing cut-through traffic, the dual-bore tunnel design
variation would lessen the impacts to the existing roadway network as the area continues to
be developed or redeveloped.
The Laguna Regulating Basin is an engineered detention basin with limited value to support
fish, wildlife, and plant habitat, open space, natural beauty, and outdoor recreational values.
Therefore, implementation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation
would not result in impacts to the natural and beneficial floodplain values of the Laguna
Regulating Basin.
Dorchester Channel
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation would require widening the west
side of the existing freeway. Widening the west side of SR 710 would involve a longitudinal
encroachment within the floodplain of the Dorchester Channel on the west side of the new
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-7
DRAFT

freeway. The new freeway would affect approximately 728 linear feet of the southern end
of the reinforced concrete channel and approximately 267 linear feet of the northern end of
the reinforced concrete channel. The dual-bore tunnel design variation would raise the
SR 710 roadway profile along the west side of the roadway and place fill into the sunken
channel, which would result in a narrowing of the floodplain boundary for approximately
650 ft in a section of the Dorchester Channel north of Hellman Avenue. Where Dorchester
Channel would be impacted, the existing 20 ft by 14 ft reinforced concrete channel would be
replaced with a double 9.67 ft x 14 ft reinforced concrete box along the original channel
alignment. The reinforced concrete channel would be replaced with a reinforced concrete
box in the following two locations:
59 ft north of Hellman Avenue (for approximately 728 linear feet)
246 ft north of the first box (for approximately 267 linear feet)
Fill would be placed above the new reinforced concrete box. The floodplain boundary would
only be affected for about 650 ft at the southern end of the channel from 59 ft north of
Hellman Avenue.
The dual-bore tunnel design variation minimizes the longitudinal encroachment within the
floodplain of the Dorchester Channel. Other design variations considered for this Alternative
would have required geometric modifications to the horizontal or vertical alignment, or
realignment of the freeway mainline. Those design variations would induce more severe
impacts to existing ROW, land uses, and hydrology east of the Freeway. Therefore,
alternatives to the longitudinal encroachment are not feasible.
The construction of the new reinforced concrete box would increase the water surface
elevation in Dorchester Channel. The increase in water surface elevation would range from a
minimum of 0.25 ft to a maximum increase of 2.11 ft. The maximum increase in the water
surface elevation would occur approximately 235 ft upstream of the Hellman Avenue
crossing. The water surface elevation in the upstream channel would not be altered. While
the water surface elevation within the reinforced concrete box would change, it would still
be contained within the reinforced concrete box, and the minimum capacity of Dorchester
Channel would be maintained. Therefore, there would be no increased flood risk to the
upstream community, and no risk to life or property would occur.
The dual-bore tunnel design variation would not support incompatible floodplain
development. The areas surrounding the Dorchester Channel floodplain are already
developed. Additionally, the dual-bore tunnel design variation would lessen the impacts to
the existing roadway network as the area continues to be developed or redeveloped.
Dorchester Channel is a constructed storm drain system with limited value to support fish,
wildlife, and plant habitat, open space, natural beauty, and outdoor recreational values.
Therefore, implementation of the dual-bore tunnel design variation would not result in
impacts to the natural and beneficial floodplain values of Dorchester Channel.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (Single-Bore)
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation would result in the same
permanent impacts to the Laguna Regulating Basin as those discussed above for the dual-bore
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-8
DRAFT

tunnel design variation. The single-bore tunnel design variation would not result in impacts to
Dorchester Channel because it would not encroach into the Dorchester Channel floodplain.
Significant Encroachment
Significant encroachment as defined at 23 CFR 650.105 is a highway encroachment and any direct
support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following
construction or flood-related impacts:
A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed

for emergency vehicles or provides a communitys only evacuation route
A significant risk (to life or property)
A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values
The proposed action does not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment as defined in 23 CFR
Section 650.105(q). The implementation of the proposed project would not change the capacity of
the Dorchester Channel to carry water or the Laguna Regulating Basin to store water. The proposed
Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations would result in a nominal
reduction of the floodplain boundaries associated with the Dorchester Channel and Laguna
Regulating Basin. This nominal reduction in the floodplain area would not result in an increase in the
water surface elevation in the Laguna Regulating Basin and would result in only a minor increase in
water surface elevation in Dorchester Channel. The minor change in water surface elevation in
Dorchester Channel would not result in any significant change in flood risks or damage, and does not
have significant potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency routes.
Therefore, the proposed encroachment into the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel is
not significant.
The proposed project would not involve a significant encroachment on a regulatory floodway or
substantially increase the base flood elevation. There are no existing published FEMA FIRMs in the
study area, so a floodplain map revision would not be required. Because the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would encroach on the LADPWs facilities, coordination with LADPW would occur during
final design, and an encroachment permit from the LADPW would be required prior to construction.
3.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse temporary or permanent impacts on floodplain
values. The Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel possess limited natural and beneficial
floodplain values; therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts on floodplain values.
Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required to minimize
impacts to these waterways.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-9
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.8-10
DRAFT

3.9 WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF
3.9
3.9.1
3.9.1.1
Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff

Regulatory Setting
Federal Requirements: Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of
pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source 1 unlawful unless the
discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended
the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from
municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The
following are important CWA sections:
Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may
result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the
discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in
tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below).
Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or
fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCB) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for
discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s).
Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters
of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The goal of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nations waters.
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Standard permits. There are two types of
General permits: Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a
general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental
effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more
than minimal effects.
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Regional or Nationwide Permit may be
permitted under one of the USACEs Standard permits. There are two types of Standard permits:
Individual permits and Letters of Permission. For Standard permits, the USACE decision to approve
is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (U.S. EPA) Section 404 (b)(1)
Guidelines (U.S. EPA Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 40 Part 230), and whether the permit
approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by
the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into
the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have
less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would
1
A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-1
DRAFT

have lesser effects on waters of the U.S. and not have any other significant adverse environmental
consequences. According to the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of
avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The
Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent 1 standards,
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause
significant degradation to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not
subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A
discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and
Other Waters section.
3.9.1.2
State Requirements: Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Californias Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation
within California. This Act requires a Report of Waste Discharge for any discharge of waste (liquid,
solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or
groundwater of the State. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the State.
Waters of the State include more than just waters of the U.S., like groundwater and surface waters
not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of waste as defined and this
definition is broader than the CWA definition of pollutant. Discharges under the Porter-Cologne
Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the
discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the
water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA, and regulating
discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details regarding water quality
standards in a project area are contained in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California,
Regional Boards designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions, and then
set criteria necessary to protect these uses. As a result, the water quality standards developed for
particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on such use. In
addition, the SWRCB identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants, which are
then state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a state determines that waters are
impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or
non-source point controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point,
non-point, and natural) for a given watershed.
3.9.1.3
State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality

Control Boards
The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board
orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the
state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWQCBs are responsible for protecting
beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and
enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.
The U.S. EPA defines effluent as wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-2
DRAFT

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm
water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An MS4 is defined
as any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets,
catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and storm drains) owned or
operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm
water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water. The SWRCB has
identified Caltrans as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. Caltrans MS4
permit covers all Caltrans rights-of-way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The
SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain
active until a new permit has been adopted.
Caltrans MS4 Permit (Order No, 2012-0011-DWQ) was adopted on September 19, 2012 and
became effective on July 1, 2013. The permit has three basic requirements:
1. Caltrans must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see
below);
2. Caltrans must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control
storm water and non-storm water discharges; and
3. Caltrans storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through
implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to the Maximum Extent Practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB determines
to be necessary to meet the water quality standards.
To comply with the permit, Caltrans developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design,
construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns
responsibilities within Caltrans for implementing storm water management procedures and
practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research,
program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures
and practices Caltrans uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non-storm water
discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the
selection and implementation of BMPs. The proposed project will be programmed to follow the
guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff.
Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ), adopted on September 2, 2009,
became effective on July 1, 2010. The permit regulates storm water discharges from
construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are
smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water
discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in
soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the General
Construction Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre
is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality
impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-3
DRAFT

construction sites are required to develop storm water pollution prevention plans; to implement
sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under
the Construction General Permit.
The 2009 Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels
are determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion and
transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For
example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH
and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological
assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all projects subject to the permit,
applicants are required to develop and implement an effective Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications, a Water
Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre.
Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result
in a discharge to a water of the United States must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies
that the project will be in compliance with State water quality standards. The most common
federal permit triggering 401 Certification is a CWA Section 404 permit, issued by USACE. The
401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project
location, and are required before USACE issues a 404 permit.
In some cases the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project.
As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) that define activities,
such as the inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals
that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to
address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project.
3.9.1.4
Regional and Local Requirements
General WDR Permit for Groundwater Discharges
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) requires a permit for discharging
wastes to surface waters from activities involving groundwater extraction. Order No. R4-2013-0095
(NPDES No. CAG994004) covers treated or untreated groundwater generated from permanent or
temporary dewatering operations or other appropriate wastewater discharge not specifically
covered in other general NPDES permits in the Los Angeles region. To be covered under this order, a
discharger must:
1. Demonstrate that pollutant concentrations in the discharge shall not cause violation of any
applicable water quality objective for the receiving waters, including discharge prohibitions;
2. Demonstrate that discharge shall not exceed the applicable water quality objectives/criteria for
the receiving waters; and
3. Conduct water quality screening of a representative sample of the discharge to prove that a
reasonable potential for discharge of toxics does not exist.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-4
DRAFT

In addition, the permit covers discharge from dewatering operations in the vicinity of creeks where
the groundwater is hydrologically connected and has similar water chemistry to the surface water
body to which the groundwater would be discharged.
However, if groundwater discharge in the project area is found to exceed the water quality
screening levels for general permits, the project would be subject to this General Permit and
treatment of the wastewater would be required to treat the groundwater to meet effluent
limitations contained in the permit prior to discharge.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board WDRs for Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System
A municipal NPDES storm water permit was issued to the County of Los Angeles and 84
unincorporated cities (with the exception of the City of Long Beach) under Order No. R4-2012-0175,
NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 by the LARWQCB on November 8, 2012. Prior to the issuance of Order
No. R4-2012-0175, Order No. 01-182 served as the NPDES Permit for MS4 storm water and nonstorm water discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of the County of Los Angeles. Until guidance
documents for Order No. R4-2012-0175 are adopted, the guidance documents for Order No. 01-182
will remain in effect. All of the cities and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County directly
impacted by the project are covered under the LARWQCB MS4 permit. Portions of the Build
Alternatives outside Caltrans right-of-way would be subject to the requirements of this permit.
Order No. 01-182 specifies that all new development and redevelopment projects that fall under
specific priority project categories must comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP, March 2000). The SUSMP for Los Angeles County and the cities in
Los Angeles County was adopted by the LARWQCB on March 8, 2000, under Resolution No. R-00-02
and was amended by the SWRCB on October 5, 2000, by Order WQ 2000-11. The SUSMP was
developed as part of the municipal storm water program to address storm water pollution from new
development and redevelopment projects.
The following projects are subject to SUSMP requirements:
Single-family hillside residential developments of 1 acre (ac) or more of surface area
Housing developments of 10 units or more
100,000 square feet (sf) or more of impervious surface area industrial /commercial development
Automotive service facilities
Retail gasoline outlets
Restaurants
Parking lots with 5,000 sf or more of surface area or with 25 or more parking spaces
Redevelopment projects in subject categories that meet redevelopment thresholds
New development or redevelopment projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging

directly into, an environmentally sensitive area where the development will: discharge storm
water and urban runoff that are likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and
create 2,500 sf or more of impervious surface area
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-5
DRAFT

These categories of development are considered priority because it has been determined by the
RWQCB that they have the greatest potential to degrade water quality.
The SUSMP includes requirements for Site Design BMPs, Source Control BMPs, and Treatment
Control BMPs. As labeled, Site Design BMPs are BMPs that are incorporated into the design of the
project (e.g., conserving natural areas and properly designing trash storage areas). Source Control
BMPs are pollution prevention BMPs that can be structural or nonstructural practices (e.g., good
housekeeping, stenciling of catch basins, protecting slopes from erosion, maintenance of BMPs).
Treatment Control BMPs are physical devices that remove pollutants from storm water (e.g.,
biofilters, water quality inlet devices, detention basins).
The specific SUSMP requirements are as follows:
Post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates shall not exceed the estimated
predevelopment rate for developments where the increased peak storm water discharge rate
will result in increased potential for downstream erosion.
Conserve natural areas.
Minimize storm water pollutants of concern. This requires the incorporation of a BMP or
combination of BMPs best suited to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in that runoff
to the maximum extent practicable.
Properly design outdoor material storage areas.
Properly design trash storage areas.
Provide proof of ongoing BMP maintenance.
Protect slopes and channels from erosion.
Provide storm drain stenciling and signage.
Design post-construction structural or Treatment Control BMPs (unless specifically exempted) to

mitigate (infiltrate or treat) a set volume of runoff using any of four methods. In general, the
85th percentile storm in a 24-hour period method is used.
Collectively, the proposed projects Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs are
required to address the pollutants of concern identified for the proposed project.
Municipal Codes for Impacted Jurisdictions 1
Portions of the Build Alternatives outside Caltrans right-of-way would be subject to the
requirements of the following municipal codes.
Alhambra Code of Ordinances: Chapters 16.34 (Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution
Control) and 16.36 (Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Implementation) set forth
standards to protect and improve the water quality of the Citys receiving waters. These
standards include: prohibiting illicit discharges and connections, including spills, dumping, and
disposal; controlling pollutants from sites of industrial activities; requiring BMPs; implementing
construction activity storm water measures; and implementing an SUSMP.
Section includes only the cities and unincorporated areas that would be directly impacted by the Build Alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-6
DRAFT

Los Angeles County Code and Flood Control District Code: The Los Angeles County Code applies
to the unincorporated areas that are directly impacted by the Build Alternatives, including the
unincorporated communities of East Pasadena, East San Gabriel, and East Los Angeles. Chapter
21 (Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control) sets forth standards to regulate the storm water
and non-storm water discharges to the facilities of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
in order to protect those facilities, the water quality of the waters in and downstream of those
facilities, and the quality of the water that is being stored in water-bearing zones underground.
Monterey Park Municipal Code: Chapter 6.30 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Controls) sets forth standards to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Monterey Park. These standards include: regulating non-storm water
discharge; controlling spillage, dumping or disposal of materials into the storm water system;
and reducing pollutants in storm water and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
Pasadena Code of Ordinances: Chapter 8.70 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control)
sets forth standards to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of
Pasadena who recreate in and consume from the waters of the United States, and to protect
marine habitats and ecosystems. These standards include: regulating non-storm water
discharges to the municipal storm water system; providing for the control of spillage, dumping
or disposal of materials into the municipal storm water system; and reducing pollutants in storm
water and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
City of Rosemead Code of Ordinances: Chapter 13.16 (Storm Water Management) sets forth
standards to protect and improve the water quality of the Citys receiving waters. These
standards include prohibiting illicit connections and discharges, controlling urban runoff, and
inspecting sources of discharge into any public drainage system.
San Gabriel Municipal Code: Chapter 53 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention)
sets forth standards to protect and improve the water quality of the Citys receiving waters.
These standards include: reducing illicit discharges to the municipal storm water system to the
maximum extent practicable; eliminating illicit connections to the municipal storm water
system; eliminating spillage, dumping, and disposal of pollutant materials into the municipal
storm water system; and reducing pollutant loads in storm water and urban runoff from land
uses and activities identified in the municipal NPDES permit.
San Marino City Code: Chapter 10.03.06 (Pollution of Water Supply) sets forth standards to
protect and improve the water quality of the Citys receiving waters. These standards include
prohibiting discharges of oils, gasoline, chemicals, or waste materials that may pollute the water
supply and prohibit or render unwholesome or contaminate the water of any drinking fountain,
hydrant, water line or place within the City.
South Pasadena Municipal Code: Chapter 23 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control)
sets forth standards to protect and improve the water quality of the Citys receiving waters.
These standards include: reducing illicit discharges to the municipal storm water system to the
maximum extent practicable; eliminating illicit connections to the municipal storm water
system; eliminating spillage, dumping, and disposal of pollutant materials into the municipal
storm water system; and reducing pollutant loads in storm water and urban runoff from land
uses and activities identified in the municipal NPDES permit.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-7
DRAFT

3.9.2
Affected Environment
This section is based on the Water Quality Assessment Report (2014).
3.9.2.1
Regional Hydrology
The study area is within the Los Angeles River Watershed, which covers a land area of approximately
834 square miles (sq mi) and is one of the largest watersheds in the region. The eastern portion
spans from the Santa Monica Mountains to the Simi Hills and in the west from the Santa Susana
Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains. The watershed encompasses and is shaped by the path of
the Los Angeles River, which flows from its headwaters in the mountains eastward to the northern
corner of Griffith Park. Here the channel turns southward through the Glendale Narrows before it
flows across the coastal plain and into San Pedro Bay near Long Beach. The Los Angeles River has
evolved from an uncontrolled, meandering river that provided an important source of water for
early inhabitants to a major flood protection waterway.
For regulatory purposes, the LARWQCB designates watershed areas in Hydrologic Units (HUs) that
are further divided into Hydrologic Areas (HAs) and Hydrologic Subareas (HSAs). As designated by
LARWQCB Region 4, the study area is located within the Los Angeles-San Gabriel HU, Raymond HA,
Pasadena HSA, Coastal Plain HA, Central HSA Split, San Fernando HA, and Eagle Rock HSA. The Los
Angeles-San Gabriel HU covers approximately 1,608 sq mi within Los Angeles County and small areas
in Ventura County.
3.9.2.2
Local Hydrology
3.9.2.3
Surface Waters
The major drainages within the study area include the Arroyo Seco, San Gabriel River, and
Dorchester Channel (also referred to as the Laguna Channel). The Arroyo Seco and Dorchester
Channel both drain to the Los Angeles River. The major receiving waters adjacent to the study area
include the Los Angeles River in the west and the Rio Hondo in the east. In the study area, most
surface waters eventually drain to the Los Angeles River, which flows to the west and south of the
study area.
The Arroyo Seco is an 80-foot (ft) wide, usually shallow stream with an earthen bottom. The
Dorchester Channel is mostly channelized in a concrete-lined box channel. In addition, as discussed
in Section 3.17, Wetlands and Other Waters, there are a total of 29 potentially jurisdictional
drainages within the study area, including 19 aboveground nonjurisdictional drainage features,
8 jurisdictional drainage features, and 2 wetlands.
Beneficial Uses for Surface Streams
Beneficial uses of inland surface waters form the cornerstone of water quality protection under the
LARWQCB Basin Plan. They are defined in the Basin Plan as those necessary for the survival of wellbeing of humans, plants, and wildlife. Examples of beneficial uses include swimming, fishing,
drinking water supplies, industrial water supply, and the support of freshwater and marine habitats
and their organisms.
The existing, potential, and intermittent beneficial uses, as identified in the LARWQCB Basin Plan, for
the project area receiving waters are identified in Table 3.9.1.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-8
DRAFT

TABLE 3.9.1:
Receiving Waters Beneficial Uses
Beneficial Use
Los Angeles
River
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN)

Industrial Service Supply (IND)
Groundwater Recharge (GWR)
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1)
Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2)
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)
Wildlife Habitat (WILD)
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Habitat (RARE)
P
P
E
4
E
E
E
P
Rio Hondo to
Spreading
Grounds
3
P
I
5
I
E
P
I
Arroyo Seco
South of Devils
1
Gate Lower (L)
3
P
I
I
P
P
Arroyo Seco
South of Devils
2
Gate Upper (U)
3
P
5
I
I
P
P
E
Source: Water Quality Assessment Report (2014).

1
The Arroyo Seco South of Devils Gate Lower (L) is located in Central HSA Split of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain.
2
The Arroyo Seco South of Devils Gate Upper (U) is located in the Pasadena HSA of the Raymond HA.
3
MUN designations are designated under SB-88-63 and RB89-03. Some designations may be considered for exemptions at a later date.
4
Access prohibited by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
5
Access prohibited by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in concrete-channelized areas.
HSA = Hydrologic Subarea
E = existing beneficial uses
HA = Hydrologic Area
I = intermittent beneficial uses
P = potential beneficial uses
Surface Water Quality Objectives
Surface water quality objectives for all inland waters in the Los Angeles region as documented in the
LARWQCB Basin Plan are listed in Table 3.9.2.
3.9.2.4
Groundwater
The State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study is located across four alluvial groundwater basins of the
South Coast Hydrologic Region as defined by the Department of Water Resources. The subject
groundwater basins include the Central Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin, San Fernando Valley
Basin, San Gabriel Valley Basin, and the Raymond Basin. The groundwater basins are separated by
bedrock upland areas and/or faults. The bedrock upland areas in the study area generally do not
contain substantial amounts of groundwater. However, groundwater seepages might be present
within local sandstone beds and fault and/or fracture zones.
The Central Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin is bounded on the north by a surface divide called
the La Brea high, and on the northeast and east by emergent, less permeable Tertiary rocks of the
Elysian, Repetto, Merced, and Puente Hills. The southeast boundary between the Central Basin and
the Orange County Groundwater Basin roughly follows Coyote Creek, which is a regional drainage
province boundary. The southwest boundary is formed by the Newport-Inglewood Fault system and
the associated folded rocks of the Newport-Inglewood uplift. The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers
drain inland basins and pass across the surface of the Central Basin on their way to the Pacific
Ocean.
The San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin includes water-bearing sediments beneath the San
Fernando Valley, Tujunga Valley, Browns Canyon, and the alluvial areas surrounding the Verdugo
Hills near La Crescenta and Eagle Rock. The basin is bounded on the north and northwest by the
Santa Susana Mountains, on the north and northeast by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the east by
the San Rafael Hills, on the south by the Santa Monica Mountains and Chalk Hills, and on the west
by the Simi Hills. The valley is drained by the Los Angeles River and its tributaries.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-9
DRAFT

TABLE 3.9.2:
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface
Waters
Constituent
Ammonia
Bacterial, Coliform
Bioaccumulation
Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Biostimulatory Substances
Chemical Constituents
Chlorine, Total Residual

Color
Exotic Vegetation
Floating Material
Methylene Blue Activated
Substances (MBAS)
Mineral Quality
Nitrogen (Nitrate, Nitrite)
Oil and Grease
Oxygen, Dissolved
Pesticides
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Basin Plan Objectives

Shall not be present at levels that when oxidized to nitrate, pose a threat to
groundwater. Numerical ammonia concentrations for inland surface waters are
contained in Table 3-1 through 3-4 of the LARWQCB Basin Plan.
REC-1: Fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed a log mean of 200/100 ml (based
on a minimum of not less than four samples for any 30-day period), nor shall more than
10 percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml.
REC-2 (and not designated REC-1): Fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed a log
mean of 2,000/100 ml (based on a minimum of not less than four samples for any 30day period), nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-day
period exceed 4,000/100 ml.
Toxic pollutants shall not be present at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic life to
levels that are harmful to aquatic life or human health.
Waters shall be free of substances that result in increases in the BOD, which adversely
affect beneficial uses.
Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote
aquatic growth to the extent that such growth causes nuisance or adversely affects
beneficial uses.
Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts
that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. Waters designated for domestic or
municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in
excess of the limits specified in Title 22 CCR and incorporated by reference into
Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 of the LARWQCB Basin Plan.
Chlorine residual shall not be present in surface water discharges at concentrations that
exceed 0.1 mg/L and shall not persist in receiving waters at any concentration that
causes impairment of beneficial uses.
Waters shall be free of coloration that causes nuisance or adversely affect beneficial
uses.
Exotic vegetation shall not be introduced around stream courses to the extent that such
growth causes nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Waters shall not contain floating materials, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in
concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Waters shall not have MBAS concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/L in waters designated
MUN.
Numerical mineral quality objectives for individual inland surface waters are contained
in Table 3-8 of the LARWQCB Basin Plan.
Waters shall not exceed 10 mg/L nitrogen as nitrate-nitrogen plus nitrite-nitrogen, 45
mg/L as nitrate, 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen, or 1 mg/L as nitrite-nitrogen.
Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations that
result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water
that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
The mean annual dissolved oxygen concentration of all waters shall be greater than
7 mg/L, and no single determination shall be less than 5 mg/L, except when natural
conditions cause lesser concentrations. The dissolved oxygen content of all surface
waters designated as WARM shall not be depressed below 5 mg/L.
No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations
that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide
concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Waters designated for use as
domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentration of pesticides in
excess of the limiting concentrations specified in Table 64444-A of Section 64444 of
Title 22 CCR, which is incorporated by reference into the LARWQCB Basin Plan.
3.9-10
DRAFT

TABLE 3.9.2:
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface
Waters
Constituent
pH
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)
Radioactive Substances
Solid, Suspended, or
Settleable Materials
Tastes and Odors
Temperature
Toxicity
Turbidity

Inland water shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste
discharges. Ambient percentage of hydrogen (pH) levels shall not be changed more
than 0.5 unit from natural conditions as a result of waste discharge.
Pass-through or uncontrollable discharges to waters, or at locations where the waste
can subsequently reach waters, are limited to 70 pg/L (30-day average) for protection
of human health and 14 ng/L (daily average) to protect aquatic life in inland fresh
waters.
Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human,
plant, animal, or aquatic life or that result in the accumulation of radionuclides in the
food web to an extent that presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain
concentration of radionuclides in excess of the limits specified in Table 4 of Section
64443 of Title 22 CCR, which is incorporated by reference into Table 3-9 of the
LARWQCB Basin Plan.
Waters shall not contain suspended or settleable material in concentrations that cause
nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Waters shall not contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that
impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible aquatic resources, cause
nuisance, or adversely affect beneficial uses.
The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can
be demonstrated that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect
beneficial uses.
All waters shall be free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that
produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect
beneficial uses. Increases in natural turbidity attributable to controllable water quality
factors shall not exceed the following limits:
Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 50 NTU, increases shall not exceed 20%.
Where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU, increases shall not exceed 10%.

CCR = California Code of Regulations
LARWQCB = Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
mg/L = milligrams per liter
ml = milliliter
MUN = municipal and domestic supply
ng/L = nanograms per liter

NTU = National Turbidity Units
pg/L = picograms per liter
WARM = warm freshwater habitat
The San Gabriel Valley Basin includes water-bearing sediments underlying most of the San Gabriel
Valley and a portion of the upper Santa Ana Valley that lies in Los Angeles County. This basin is
bounded on the north by the Raymond Fault and the contact between Quaternary sediments and
consolidated basement rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains. Exposed consolidated rocks of the
Repetto, Merced, and Puente Hills bound the basin on the south and west, and the Chino Fault and
San Jose Fault form the eastern boundary. The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel drainages have their
headwaters in the San Gabriel Mountains, then surface water flows southwest across the San
Gabriel Valley and exits through the Whittier Narrows, which is a gap between the Merced and
Puente Hills.
The Raymond Groundwater Basin includes the water-bearing sediments bounded by the contact
with consolidated basement rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and the San Rafael
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-11
DRAFT

Hills on the southwest. The west boundary is delineated by a drainage divide at Pickens Canyon
Wash, and the southeast boundary is the Raymond Fault.
For regulatory purposes, the LARWQCB in its Basin Plan further divided the groundwater basins into
the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Central Basin, Main San Gabriel Basin Western Area, Raymond Basin
Pasadena Area, San Fernando Basin East of Interstate 405 (I-405) (overall), and Eagle Rock Basin.
Groundwater levels for the overall study area range from 10 to 450 ft below ground surface (bgs).
Historically, highest groundwater levels range from 5 to 200 ft bgs. Groundwater levels in the study
area are not anticipated to change substantially in the future from natural causes.
Beneficial Uses for Groundwater
The existing beneficial uses for the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Central Basin, Main San Gabriel Basin
Western Area, Raymond Basin Pasadena Area, San Fernando Basin East of I-405, and Eagle Rock
Basin are listed below:
MUN: Waters are used for community, military, or individual water supply systems.
AGR: Waters are used for farming, horticulture or ranching.
IND: Industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality (mining).
PROC: Industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality.
Groundwater Quality Objectives
The groundwater quality objectives for the Los Angeles Region as designated in the LARWQCB Basin
Plan are provided in Table 3.9.3. The Build Alternatives are located across three Regional
Groundwater Basins: Los Angeles Coastal Plain, San Fernando Valley, and San Gabriel Valley. Each
regional groundwater basin is comprised of smaller sub-basins. The Los Angeles Coastal Plain
includes the Central Basin, the San Fernando Valley includes the San Fernando Basin East of I-405
(overall) and Eagle Rock Basin, and the San Gabriel Valley includes the Raymond Basin Pasadena
Area and the Main San Gabriel Basin Western Area.
TABLE 3.9.3:
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Groundwater Quality Objectives
Constituent
Bacteria
Chemical
Constituents and
Radioactivity
Nitrogen (Nitrate,
Nitrite)
Taste and Odor

In groundwaters used for domestic or municipal supply (MUN) the concentration of coliform
organisms over any 7-day period shall be less than 1.1/100 mL.
Groundwaters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain
concentrations of chemical constituents and radionuclides in excess of the limits specified in Title 22
CCR and incorporated by reference into Tables 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, and 3-9 of the LARWQCB Basin Plan.
Groundwaters shall not exceed 10 mg/L nitrogen as nitrate-nitrogen plus nitrite-nitrogen, 10 mg/L as
nitrate-nitrogen, or 1 mg/L as nitrite-nitrogen.
Groundwaters shall not contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that cause
nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

CCR = California Code of Regulations
LARWQCB = Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
mg/L = milligrams per liter
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
mL = milliliters
MUN = municipal and domestic water supply
3.9-12
DRAFT

3.9.2.5
Regional Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
Pollutants from dense clusters of residential, industrial, and other urban activities have impaired
water quality in the middle and lower Los Angeles River watersheds. Added to this complex mixture
of pollutant sources (in particular, pollutants associated with urban and storm water runoff), is the
high number of point source discharges. Water quality issues in the Los Angeles River Watershed
include protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, removal of exotic vegetation,
enhancement of recreational areas, attaining a balance between water reclamation and minimum
flows to support habitat, management of storm water quality, assessment of other nonpoint
sources (e.g., horse stables, golf courses, and septic systems), pollution from contaminated
groundwater, groundwater recharge with reclaimed water, contamination of groundwater by
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), leakage of methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) from underground
storage tanks, groundwater contamination with heavy metals, particularly hexavalent chromium,
and contaminated sediments within the Los Angeles River estuary.
Groundwater Quality
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Central Basin range from 200 to 2,500
milligrams per liter (mg/L) and average 453 mg/L according to data from 293 public supply wells.
Groundwater is impaired by VOCs from industry and nitrates from subsurface sewage disposal and
past agricultural activities, which are the primary pollutants in much of the groundwater throughout
the Central Basin.
In the western part of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin, calcium sulfate-bicarbonate
character is dominant, and calcium bicarbonate character dominates the eastern part of the Basin.
VOCs from industry and nitrates from subsurface sewage disposal and past agricultural activities are
the primary pollutants in much of the groundwater through the Basin. A number of investigations
have determined contamination of VOCs such as trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE),
petroleum compounds, chloroform, nitrate, sulfate, and heavy metals. TCE, PCE, and nitrate
contamination occurs in the eastern part of the Basin and elevated sulfate concentration occurs in
the western part of the Basin. TDS range from 326 mg/L to 615 mg/L and average 499 mg/L
according to data from 125 public supply wells.
Water within the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin is primarily calcium bicarbonate in
character. Four areas of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin are Superfund Sites. TCE, PCE,
and carbon tetrachloride contaminate the Whittier Narrows, Puente Basin, Baldwin Park, and El
Monte areas. VOCs from industry and nitrates from subsurface sewage disposal and past agricultural
activities are the primary pollutants in much of the groundwater through the Basin. In the north,
west, and central regions of the Basin, TDS range from 90 mg/L to 4,288 mg/L and average around
367 mg/L. In the southern portion of the Basin, TDS average around 1,222 mg/L. TDS content ranges
from 500 mg/L to 1,500 mg/L in the eastern part of the Basin, and from 200 mg/L to 500 mg/L in the
northeastern part. Data from 259 public supply wells show an average TDS content of 318 mg/L.
Water in the Raymond Groundwater Basin is typically calcium bicarbonate in character. Fluoride
content occasionally exceeds recommended levels of 1.6 mg/L near the San Gabriel Mountain front.
High nitrate concentrations are found in water from some wells near Pasadena. VOCs are detected
in wells near Arroyo Seco. The average TDS content in the Pasadena portion of the Basin is about
400 mg/L with a high of 600 mg/L.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-13
DRAFT

3.9.2.6
List of Impaired Waters
The SWRCB approved the 2010 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) on
August 4, 2010. On November 12, 2010, the EPA approved the 2010 California 303(d) List of Water
Quality Limited Segments. On October 11, 2011, the EPA issued its final decision regarding water
bodies and pollutants added to Californias 2010 303(d) List. Table 3.9.4 shows the 303(d) listed
receiving waters within the area of the Build Alternatives. As shown in Table 3.9.4, Los Angeles River
Reach 2 (Carson Street to Figueroa Street) is listed on the 2010 California 303(d) List as impaired for
ammonia, coliform bacteria, copper, lead, nutrients (algae), oil, and trash. Arroyo Seco Reach 1 (Los
Angeles River to West Holly Avenue) is listed as impaired for benthic-macroinvertebrate
bioassessments, coliform bacteria, and trash. Rio Hondo Reach 2 (at Spreading Grounds) is listed as
impaired for coliform bacteria and cyanide.
TABLE 3.9.4:
2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing for Project Receiving Water Bodies
Water Body
Los Angeles River Reach 2
(Carson Street to Figueroa
Street)
Pollutant
Ammonia
Coliform bacteria
Copper
Lead
Nutrients (algae)
Oil
Trash
TMDL Completion Date

EPA Approved in 2007
Expected TMDL Completion Date 20091
Arroyo Seco Reach 1

(Los Angeles River to West
Holly Avenue)
Benthic-macroinvertebrate
bioassessments
Coliform bacteria
Trash
Rio Hondo Reach 2

Coliform bacteria
(at Spreading Grounds)
Cyanide
1
A TMDL has not yet been adopted.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
3.9.3
3.9.3.1
Potential Source
Point and nonpoint sources
Source unknown
Nonpoint source
Urban runoff/storm sewers,
nonpoint source, and surface
runoff
Source unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date 20091 Nonpoint source

Nonpoint source, surface
runoff, and urban runoff/storm
sewers
Expected TMDL Completion Date 20091 Point and nonpoint sources
Expected TMDL Completion Date 2021 Other
Environmental Consequences
Temporary Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, the temporary impacts discussed below for the SR 710 North Study
Build Alternatives would not occur because the No Build Alternative does not include construction
of any of the improvements in the Build Alternatives.
TSM/TDM Alternative
The majority of the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management

(TSM/TDM) Alternative would be located outside California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
right of way (ROW) with a few on-/off-ramp locations within Caltrans ROW. Pollutants of concern
during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet),
sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-14
DRAFT

there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally,
during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, chemicals, liquid
products, and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may
be spilled or leaked during construction and thereby have the potential to be transported via storm
runoff into receiving waters.
Construction activities associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative include grading, excavation,
paving, installation of drainage systems, and pavement delineation. During construction of the
TSM/TDM Alternative, a total of approximately 21 ac would be disturbed, exposing soils and
increasing the potential for soil erosion, which could be a source of downstream sediment. When
sediment enters a receiving water body, it can increase turbidity, smother bottom dwelling
organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth. When new structures are installed or modified
(e.g., street and on-/off-ramp improvements), concrete and/or asphalt applications could be a
source of fine sediment, metals, and chemicals that could change the pH levels in downstream
water bodies. Grading and other earth-moving activities during construction could be a source of
petroleum products and heavy metals if the equipment engines leak. Furthermore, temporary or
portable sanitary facilities provided for construction workers could be a source of sanitary waste.
Groundwater dewatering during construction would not be required. In compliance with the
Construction General Permit, the TSM/TDM Alternative would be required to implement
construction BMPs aimed at reducing pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. The construction
BMPs would include Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and
retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs designed to prevent and/or contain spills.
Runoff from the TSM/TDM Alternative drains into the Arroyo Seco, Rio Hondo, and Los Angeles
River, which are all characterized as highly disturbed drainages and result in limited biological
resources that would be able to support a healthy and functioning on-site aquatic environment.
However, the runoff from the TSM/TDM Alternative eventually drains into receiving waters such as
the Pacific Ocean, which depends on the biological characteristics of the aquatic environment in
order to sustain a functioning aquatic ecosystem, an ecosystem that supports the biological (e.g.,
fish) and human environment (e.g., recreation).
Furthermore, the disturbed and predominantly concrete-lined nature of the Arroyo Seco, Rio
Hondo, and Los Angeles River in the study area preclude beneficial uses associated with human
activities such as contact and noncontact recreation. The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works (LADPW) prohibits contact recreation in the Los Angeles River and in the channelized
portions of Rio Hondo and Arroyo Seco. However, the TSM/TDM Alternative drains into receiving
waters such as the Pacific Ocean, which has beneficial uses associated with human activities that
include contact and noncontact recreation. In addition, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result
in substantial changes in the quality of runoff reaching downstream receiving waters during
construction.
BRT Alternative
The majority of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative would be located outside of Caltrans ROW.
During construction of the BRT improvements, a total of approximately 35 ac would be disturbed,
exposing soils and increasing the potential for soil erosion, which could be a source of downstream
sediment. Pollutants of concern during construction and potential construction impacts would be
similar to those described above for the TSM/TDM Alternative. In addition, the improvements
included as part of the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of the BRT
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-15
DRAFT

Alternative, with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia
Street to Monterey Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3
(Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). The construction activities of the BRT Alternative
would also include construction impacts similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above.
Construction of the TSM/TDM component of the BRT Alternative would disturb a total of
approximately 21 ac of soil. Therefore, the total disturbed soil area during construction of the BRT
Alternative would be approximately 56 ac.
LRT Alternative
The Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative is located within and outside of Caltrans ROW. During
construction of the LRT improvements, a total of approximately 33 ac of surface soil would be
disturbed, exposing soils and increasing the potential for soil erosion, which could be a source of
downstream sediment. Pollutants of concern during construction and potential construction impacts
would be similar to those described above for the TSM/TDM Alternative. In addition, the
improvements included as part of the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of
the LRT Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road). Therefore, the construction activities of the LRT Alternative would
also include construction impacts similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above.
Construction of the TSM/TDM component of the LRT Alternative would disturb a total of
approximately 11 ac of soil. Therefore, the total disturbed soil area during construction of the LRT
Alternative would be approximately 44 ac.
Tunnel boring activities are not expected to affect groundwater levels or quality because: (a) the
bored tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face tunnel boring machines that would control
the groundwater inflows into the tunnel, and (b) the concrete lining would be designed and
constructed to be watertight. After excavation, the space between the outside of the tunnel lining
and the soil is typically grouted to prevent groundwater flow along the tunnel bores. In addition, the
soil conditioners that may be injected into the ground at the face of the excavation would be
nontoxic and biodegradable, and therefore would not adversely impact groundwater quality.
Groundwater dewatering during construction at the tunnel portals may be required for the LRT
Alternative. Discharge of the dewatered groundwater has the potential to introduce pollutants to
receiving surface waters. Dewatering activities would comply with a groundwater dewatering permit
that requires monitoring discharges from groundwater extraction waste from construction to ensure
groundwater effluent that is pumped and ultimately discharged to surface water does not exceed
surface water effluent limitations for particular pollutant constituents; therefore, it is not
anticipated that surface water would be impacted during construction activities as a result of site
dewatering so long as the groundwater discharge meets the RWQCB dewatering permit
requirements.
The majority of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore tunnel design variations
would be located within Caltrans ROW. During construction of the improvements for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore tunnel design variations, a total of approximately 81 ac
and approximately 93 ac of surface soil, respectively, would be disturbed, thereby exposing soils and
increasing the potential for soil erosion that could be a source of downstream sediment. Pollutants
of concern during construction and potential construction impacts would be similar to those
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-16
DRAFT

described above for the TSM/TDM Alternative. In addition, the improvements included as part of
the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, with
the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road)
and T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard).
Therefore, the construction activities of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also include
construction impacts similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above. Construction of the
TSM/TDM component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would disturb a total of approximately 9 ac
of soil. Therefore, the total disturbed soil area during construction of the single-bore and dual-bore
design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be approximately 90 ac and 102 ac,
respectively.
Tunnel boring activities are not expected to affect groundwater levels or quality because: (a) the
bored tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face tunnel boring machines that would control
the groundwater inflows into the tunnel, and (b) the concrete lining would be designed and
constructed to be watertight. After excavation, the space between the outside of the tunnel lining
and the soil is typically grouted to prevent groundwater flow along the tunnel bores. In addition, the
soil conditioners that may be injected into the ground at the face of the excavation would be
nontoxic and biodegradable, and therefore would not adversely impact groundwater quality.
Similar to the LRT Alternative, groundwater dewatering during construction at the tunnel portals
may be required for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Dewatering activities would comply with a
groundwater dewatering permit that requires monitoring discharges from groundwater extraction
waste from construction to ensure groundwater effluent that is pumped and ultimately discharged
to surface water does not exceed surface water effluent limitations for particular pollutant
constituents. Therefore, it is not anticipated that surface water would be impacted during
construction activities as a result of site dewatering so long as the groundwater discharge meets the
RWQCB dewatering permit requirements.
3.9.3.2
Permanent Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, the permanent impacts of the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives
would not occur because the No Build Alternative does not include operation of any of the
improvements in the Build Alternatives.
TSM/TDM Alternative
Primary pollutants of concern are pollutants that are expected to be or have the potential to be in
project runoff based on proposed land uses, and which also have been identified as causing
impairments to receiving waters on the most recent 303(d) list or have an established TMDL. Other
pollutants of concern are those that are expected to be or have the potential to be in project runoff
but do not have an established TMDL for receiving waters and have not been identified as causing
impairments to receiving waters. Pollutants of concern during operation of the TSM/TDM
Alternative include the following: trash and debris, heavy metals, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease,
copper, benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments, and cyanide.
These pollutants of concern are typically generated during the operation of a transportation facility.
Through road widening, grading, excavation, paving, pavement delineations, installation of traffic
control devices, and permanent water quality treatment BMPs, the TSM/TDM Alternative would
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-17
DRAFT

result in a total net increase of impervious surface area of approximately 3.8 ac (i.e., the result of a
decrease of approximately 0.2 ac within Caltrans ROW and an increase of approximately 4 ac
outside Caltrans ROW). The approximately 3.8 ac increase of impervious surface area associated
with the TSM/TDM Alternative would result in an increase in the volume of storm water runoff
during a storm, thereby more effectively transporting pollutants to receiving waters, which in turn
causes turbidity and downstream erosion or accretion over existing conditions. Increases in chemical
pollutants and changes in temperature and pH may lead to detrimental effects to downstream
receiving waters.
During operation, the TSM/TDM Alternative would treat storm water runoff within Caltrans ROW
with Caltrans-approved treatment BMPs such as biofiltration swales. The portion of the TSM/TDM
Alternative outside of Caltrans ROW would follow the Los Angeles County MS4 permit specifications
and would treat runoff with BMPs that meet or exceed the County MS4 permit requirements (e.g.,
tree box filters, catch basin screens, new inlets with filter inserts, and rock mulch), where feasible, to
reduce pollutants of concern. The proposed BMPs would treat approximately 76 percent of the
newly created or replaced impervious surface area.
There are no biological resources present on site that are dependent on aquatic resources.
However, there are biological resources dependent on aquatic resources downstream of the study
area (e.g., the Pacific Ocean). As noted above, the TSM/TDM Alternative would increase the amount
of impervious surface area, resulting in an increase in volume of runoff, thereby increasing the
energy of the flows and increasing the downstream transport of pollutants to downstream receiving
waters.
The disturbed and predominantly concrete-lined nature of the drainages within the study area
precludes beneficial uses associated with human activities (e.g., contact and noncontact recreation).
However, the TSM/TDM Alternative drains into receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean that have
beneficial uses associated with human activities, including contact and noncontact recreation. As
noted above, the TSM/TDM Alternative would implement approved BMPs; therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative would not result in substantial changes in the quality of runoff that reaches downstream
receiving waters during operation.
BRT Alternative
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, pollutants of concern during operation of the BRT Alternative
include the following: trash and debris, heavy metals, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease, copper,
benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments, and cyanide. Through road widening, grading,
excavation, paving, pavement delineations, and permanent water quality treatment BMPs, the BRT
improvements would result in a total net increase of impervious surface area of approximately
1.2 ac (i.e., the sum of increases of approximately 0.1 ac within Caltrans ROW and approximately
1.1 ac outside Caltrans ROW). As discussed above under the TSM/TDM Alternative, the increase in
impervious surface area would result in an increase in the volume of storm water runoff during a
storm, thereby more effectively transporting pollutants to receiving waters. The BRT Alternative
would also include operation of all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the
exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey
Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from
Glendon Way to I-10). Therefore, the operational impact of the BRT Alternative would also include
operational impacts similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above. The total net increase in
impervious surface area would be approximately 3.8 ac for the TSM/TDM component of the BRT
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-18
DRAFT

Alternative. Therefore, the total net increase in impervious surface area for the BRT Alternative
would be approximately 5 ac.
During operation, the small section of the BRT Alternative within Caltrans ROW would treat storm
water runoff with Caltrans-approved treatment BMPs such as a biofiltration swale, and outside of
Caltrans ROW with BMPs that meet or exceed the County MS4 permit requirements (e.g., tree box
filters and a catch basin screen and curb inlet filter assembly). A biofiltration swale, tree box filters,
catch basin screen and curb inlet filter assemblies, and rock mulch would treat runoff from the
project site and reduce pollutants of concern. For the BRT Alternative, the proposed approved BMPs
would respectively treat approximately 575 percent and approximately 114 percent of the new
impervious surface area within and outside Caltrans ROW (i.e., the BMPs would treat runoff from
approximately 0.5 ac and 36 ac of impervious surface area within and outside Caltrans ROW,
respectively).
LRT Alternative
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, pollutants of concern during operation of the LRT Alternative
include the following: trash and debris, heavy metals, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease, copper,
benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments, and cyanide. Through road widening, grading,
excavation, paving, construction of retaining walls and tunnels, and permanent water quality
treatment BMPs, the LRT improvements would result in a total net increase of impervious surface
area of approximately 16.5 ac (i.e., the sum of increases of approximately 5.5 ac within Caltrans
ROW and approximately 11 ac outside Caltrans ROW). As discussed above under the TSM/TDM
Alternative, the increase of impervious surface area associated with the LRT Alternative would result
in an increase in the volume of storm water runoff during a storm. The LRT Alternative would also
include operation of all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of Other
Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road). Therefore, the
operational impact of the LRT Alternative would also include operational impacts similar to the
TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above. The total net increase in impervious surface area would be
approximately 2.2 ac for the TSM/TDM component of the LRT Alternative. Therefore, the total net
increase in impervious surface area for the LRT Alternative would be approximately 18.7 ac.
The LRT Alternative would only treat impervious areas outside the tunnel. The tunnel section would
not be treated because it would not have the potential to create storm water impacts and water in
the tunnel would be pumped out. During operation, the LRT Alternative would treat storm water
runoff within Caltrans ROW with Caltrans-approved treatment BMPs such as biofiltration swales.
Outside of Caltrans ROW, much of the elevated track is proposed above steep terrain and treatment
is not technically feasible; however, the LRT Alternative would treat storm water runoff with BMPs
that meet or exceed the County MS4 permit requirements (e.g., tree box filters, rock mulch, catch
basin screens and filter inserts at new inlet locations [where feasible], bioretention facilities for the
proposed parking lot areas, and media filters in the ballast areas). The LRT Alternative would treat
approximately 31 percent of the new impervious surface area within Caltrans ROW and
approximately 47 percent of the newly created or replaced impervious surface area outside Caltrans
ROW. The tunnel would include a watertight liner; therefore, any water inside the tunnel would not
impact groundwater quality. Water in the tunnel (e.g., during a fire or to clean a spill) would drain to
a low point in the tunnel, where a sump would be located. The water would then be pumped to a
storage tank and hauled away and disposed of as hazardous waste, if necessary. Therefore, water in
the tunnel would not impact surface water quality.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-19
DRAFT

Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, pollutants of concern during operation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative include the following: trash and debris, heavy metals, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease,
copper, benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments, and cyanide. Through road widening, grading,
excavation, paving, construction of retaining walls and tunnels, and permanent water quality
treatment BMPs, the improvements for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore
tunnel design variations would result in net increases in impervious surface area of approximately
1.7 ac and 13.5 ac, respectively. As discussed above under the TSM/TDM Alternative, the increase in
impervious surface area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which would more
effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. In addition, the improvements included as part
of the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative,
with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector
Road) and T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard).
Therefore, the operational impact of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also include operational
impacts similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, discussed above. The total net increase in impervious
surface area would be approximately 1.1 ac for the TSM/TDM component of the single-bore and
dual-bore design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Therefore, the total net increase in
impervious surface area would be approximately 2.8 ac and 14.6 ac, respectively.
During operation, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would treat storm water runoff using Caltransapproved treatment BMPs such as biofiltration swales, gross solid removal devices (GSRDs), and
rock mulch. BMPs are only proposed in areas outside the tunnel. The tunnel section would not be
treated because it does not have the potential to create any storm water impacts. The single-bore
tunnel design variation would treat approximately 5,350 percent of the net new impervious surface
area (i.e., the BMPs would treat runoff from approximately 90 ac of impervious surface area). The
dual-bore tunnel design variation would treat approximately 705 percent of the net new impervious
surface area (i.e., the BMPs would treat runoff from approximately 95 ac of impervious surface
area). As a result, the single-bore and dual-bore tunnel design variations would not only treat the
net new impervious surface area but also the existing impervious surface area.
The tunnel would include a watertight liner; therefore, any water inside the tunnel would not have
the potential to impact groundwater quality. Water in the tunnel (e.g., during a fire or to clean a
spill) would drain to a low point in the tunnel, where a sump pump would be located. The water
would then be pumped to a storage tank and hauled away and disposed of as hazardous waste, if
necessary. Therefore, water in the tunnel would not impact surface water quality.
3.9.4
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The regulatory requirements listed below would be implemented with the Build Alternatives and
would avoid impacts related to water quality with implementation of BMPs to target pollutants of
concern during construction and operation. Impacts related to water quality would not be adverse.
Measure WQ-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit

(applies to all four Build Alternatives): The Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) (Transportation
System Management/Transportation Demand Management
[TSM/TDM], Bus Rapid Transit [BRT], and Light Rail Transit [LRT]
Alternatives) or the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will require the
3.9-20
DRAFT

Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the NPDES

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General
Permit) Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-2014DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, or any
subsequent permit. The project will comply with the Construction
General Permit by preparing and implementing a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address all constructionrelated activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential
to impact water quality for the appropriate Risk Level. The SWPPP
will identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of
storm water and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g.,
Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs)
to control the pollutants, such as sediment control, catch basin inlet
protection, temporary soil stabilization, construction materials
management, and non-storm water BMPs.
Measure WQ-2
Dewatering (applies to all four Build Alternatives): If dewatering is

required, Metro (TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives) or Caltrans
(Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will require the Construction
Contractor to comply with the requirements of Order No. R4-20130095 (NPDES No. CAG994004) for construction site dewatering.
Order No. R4-2013-0095 covers general waste discharge permits for
discharges to surface waters from activities involving groundwater
extraction. It covers treated or untreated groundwater generated
from permanent or temporary dewatering operations or other
appropriate wastewater discharge not specifically covered in other
general NPDES permits in the Los Angeles region. Under this order,
permittees are required to monitor their discharges from
groundwater extraction waste from construction to ensure that
effluent limitations for constituents are not exceeded.
Measure WQ-3
Groundwater Monitoring (applies to the LRT and Freeway Tunnel

Alternatives): Prior to tunneling and construction activities, Caltrans
(for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative) or Metro (for the LRT
Alternative) will require the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or
the Project Geologist to perform a comprehensive investigation to
establish a baseline for groundwater levels and quality (chemistry)
in the areas in which tunneling or excavations would occur. In
addition, groundwater monitoring will be performed routinely
during tunnel excavation to ensure that the activities are not
affecting the local groundwater levels and quality.
Measure WQ-4
Improvements in State-Owned Right of Way (applies to the

Freeway Tunnel Alternative): During construction of the
improvements within State-owned right of way (ROW), the Resident
Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with
the provisions of the NPDES Permit, Statewide Storm Water Permit,
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-21
DRAFT

Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the State of California,

Department of Transportation Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000003 (Caltrans Permit) or any subsequent permit.
Measure WQ-5
Improvements Outside State-Owned Right of Way (applies to the

TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives): During construction of the
improvements outside State-owned ROW, in compliance with the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared for
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board WDRs for
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Order No. R4-2012-0175,
NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, as amended, the Resident Engineer
will require the Construction Contractor to prepare and implement
a final project-specific SUSMP. The final project-specific SUSMP will
include implementation of Site Design, Source Control, and
Treatment Control BMPs to the maximum extent practicable. Site
Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs include BMPs
such as tree box filters, catch basins, curb inlet filters, media filters,
and bioretention facilities.
Measure WQ-6

Freeway Tunnel Alternative): For improvements within Stateowned ROW, the Resident Engineer will require the Construction
Contractor to prepare and implement Caltrans-approved Design
Pollution Prevention BMPs to the maximum extent practicable
consistent with the requirements of the Caltrans Permit and Project
Planning and Design Guide. Design Pollution Prevention BMPs
include preservation of existing vegetation, slope/surface protection
systems (permanent soil stabilization and replanting of vegetation),
asphalt concrete dikes, toe-of-fill ditches, and downdrains/overside
drains.
Measure WQ-7

Freeway Tunnel Alternative): For improvements within Stateowned ROW, the Resident Engineer will require the Construction
Contractor to prepare and implement to implement Caltransapproved Treatment BMPs to the maximum extent practicable
consistent with the requirements of the Caltrans Permit and Project
Planning and Design Guide. Treatment BMPs include biofiltration
swales and gross solid removal devices.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.9-22
DRAFT

3.10 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMIC/TOPOGRAPHY
3.10 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
3.10.1
Regulatory Setting
For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which
establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects outstanding examples of major
geological features. Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and
project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of structures.
The Caltrans Office of Earthquake Engineering is responsible for assessing the seismic hazard for
Caltrans projects. Structures are designed using the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). The
Caltrans SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in
California. A bridges category and classification would determine its seismic performance level and
which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more
information, please see the Caltrans Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake
Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria.
For the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative, all design work will be based on the latest version of the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rail Design Criteria. The seismic
design for the LRT Alternative will follow Metros Supplemental SDC. The Metro Supplemental SDC
also provides the performance requirements for LRT structures.
For project features outside the State highway and Metros rights of way (ROWs), local jurisdictions
design standards related to geology, soils, and seismic concerns would apply.
3.10.2
This section describes the local geology, slope stability, ground settlement, soils, grading, and
regional seismic conditions in the study area based on the following reports:
Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation (2014)
Preliminary Geotechnical Report (2014)
Figures 3.10-1, 3.10-4, and 3.10-5 (all figures are provided following the text in this section) show
the surface locations of geologic features and hazards in the study area as well as the locations of
the improvements in the Build Alternatives. Figures 3.10-2 and 3.10-3 show the geologic features in
the subsurface along the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
There are 11 geomorphic provinces in California as defined by the California Geological Survey.
Geomorphic provinces are geologic regions with distinct land forms and geology. The study area
primarily covers areas in western San Gabriel Valley, the southernmost San Rafael Hills, and the
Repetto Hills. These areas are in the transition zone between the northwest-southeast-trending
Peninsular Ranges physiographic/geological province on the south and the east-west-trending
Transverse Ranges province on the north. The following sections describe the existing geologic
setting in the study area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-1
DRAFT

3.10.2.1
Topography
The western part of the study area includes the Repetto Hills, a group of small hills and valleys
between the Santa Monica Mountains (Transverse Ranges) on the west and the Puente Hills
(Peninsular Ranges) on the southeast. The Repetto Hills include Mount Washington, Monterey Park
Hills, Montebello Hills, and several unnamed hills along the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley.
In the study area, elevations in the Repetto Hills range from approximately 870 feet (ft) above mean
sea level (amsl) between Monterey Road and State Route 110 (SR 110) to 200 ft amsl at the western
toe of the hills near Rosemead Boulevard. The San Rafael Hills are located between the Repetto Hills
and Verdugo Hills, and border the study area on the northwest. Elevations in the San Rafael Hills
range from approximately 1,000 ft amsl near State Route 134 (SR 134) and the Arroyo Seco to 600 ft
amsl in the vicinity of SR 110 and the Arroyo Seco.
The eastern half of the study area is in the San Gabriel Valley, which is bordered by the Puente Hills
and San Jose Hills on the south and east and the San Gabriel Mountains on the north. The San
Gabriel Valley is a relatively flat-floored valley between the San Gabriel Mountains on the north, the
San Jose Hills on the east, the Puente Hills on the south, and the Repetto/Verdugo/San Rafael Hills
on the west. The northern margin of the San Gabriel Valley is characterized by a series of ancient
alluvial fans emanating from the San Gabriel Mountains. The San Gabriel Valley floor gently
descends south from elevations of approximately 700 to 1,000 ft amsl along the northern margin of
the valley to 300 to 400 ft amsl in the south. The gradual descent is interrupted locally by an arcuate
escarpment (ranging from approximately 10 to 150 ft high), extending from the Monrovia area to
the South Pasadena area and west into the hills of Glendale and Los Angeles. This escarpment
includes closed depressions, springs, reverse-tilted fan surfaces, and small ridges, all of which are
the result of fault displacement by the Raymond fault.
3.10.2.2
Stratigraphy/Soils
Regional geologic maps indicate the study area is underlain by non-marine, Quaternary-age (i.e.,
approximately less than 2 million years old) alluvium, marine Tertiary-age (i.e., approximately 2 to
16 million years old) sedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous and pre-Cretaceous (i.e., 120 to 160+
million years old) crystalline basement complex of igneous and metamorphic rocks.
Table 3.10.1 summarizes the generalized stratigraphic column for the study area and lists the
geologic formations in that area from youngest to oldest. The alluvial deposits are underlain by
Tertiary-age sedimentary rocks or basement complex rocks. The Tertiary-age rocks outcrop in the
Repetto Hills and San Rafael Hills and underlie the Quaternary deposits in the valleys. In the
northern part of the study area, the Tertiary-age formations and/or alluvium are underlain by
basement complex rocks that are composed of Cretaceous and pre-Cretaceous igneous intrusive
rocks (diorite, quartz diorite, and quartz monzonite). The surface distribution of these geologic
formations in the study area is shown on Figure 3.10-1. Geologic cross sections along the LRT and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are shown on Figures 3.10-2 and 3.10-3, respectively.
3.10.2.3
Surface Water
The major drainages within the study area include the Arroyo Seco and Dorchester Channel (also
referred to as the Laguna Channel). The Arroyo Seco and Dorchester Channel both drain to the
Los Angeles River, which in turn drains to the Pacific Ocean. The major drainages adjacent to the
study area include the Los Angeles River in the west, the Rio Hondo in the east, and the San Gabriel
River in the east. The Rio Hondo drains to the Los Angeles River, which drains to the Pacific Ocean.
The San Gabriel River drains directly to the Pacific Ocean.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-2
DRAFT

TABLE 3.10.1:
Geologic Formations in the Study Area
Formation
1
(Symbol)
Young Alluvium
(Qw, Qf, Qyf, Qya/Qal)
Geologic Epoch
(Period)
Holocene
(Quaternary)
Old Alluvium
(Qof, Qoa, Qvoa/Qal)
Pleistocene
(Quaternary)
Fernando
(Tss, Tsh/Tf)
Pliocene
(Tertiary)
Puente
(Tss, Tsh/Tp)
Late Miocene
(Tertiary)
Topanga
(Tss, Tsh/Tt)
Middle Miocene
(Tertiary)
Basement Complex Rocks,

Wilson Quartz Diorite
(gr/Wqd)
Cretaceous and
Pre-Cretaceous
Approximate
Age (years)
0 to 11,000
Brief Description
Sand and gravel with scattered cobbles and

boulders and layers/lenses of silt and clay, stream
and fan deposits. Poorly defined, lenticular,
discontinuous bedding.
11,000 to 2 million Sand and gravel with scattered cobbles and
boulders and layers/lenses of silt and clay, stream
and fan deposits. Poorly defined, lenticular,
discontinuous bedding.
2 to 5 million
Predominantly claystone, siltstone, and
mudstone, with some sandstone and
conglomerate marine deposits.
5 to 11 million
Claystone, siltstone, diatomaceous siltstone,
mudstone, shale, and sandstone. Laminated to
thinly bedded, locally thickly bedded. Marine
deposits.
11 to 16 million
Siltstone, mudstone, sandstone, and
conglomerate, with local volcanic intrusions.
Thinly to thickly bedded, marine deposits.
120 to 160+ million Crystalline igneous rocks (diorite, quartz diorite,
monzonite, foliated igneous rocks) and layered
metamorphic rocks (gneiss).
Source: Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation (2014).

1
Refer to Figures 3.10-1, 3.10-2, and 3.10-3 for the locations of these geologic formations in the study area.
2
Includes Monterey, Modelo, and unnamed shale.
3.10.2.4
Groundwater
The study area is located within the following four alluvial groundwater basins of the South Coast
Hydrologic Region: the San Fernando, (Los Angeles) Central, Raymond, and Main San Gabriel Basins.
These groundwater basins are separated from each other by bedrock upland areas and/or faults and
contain permeable alluvial materials that can transmit large quantities of groundwater. In these
basins, groundwater occurs as deep aquifers and shallow perched zones.
The bedrock units within the study area generally do not contain substantial amounts of
groundwater; however, groundwater seepages may be present within local sandstone beds and
fault and/or fracture zones. The Raymond fault is a known groundwater barrier. Groundwater levels
on the northern side of this fault are more than 100 ft higher than the levels on the southern side of
the fault. In addition, the potentially active (Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults) and inactive faults may
also act as groundwater barriers.
In the overall study area, groundwater levels vary considerably, ranging from 5 to 450 ft below
ground surface (bgs). Groundwater levels for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative range from
approximately 20 ft bgs near the Raymond fault (near Arroyo Seco Parkway) in South Pasadena to
330 ft bgs in the vicinity of West Main Street in Alhambra. Groundwater levels for the LRT
Alternative range from approximately 10 ft bgs in the area between Interstate 10 (I-10) and Valley
Boulevard to roughly 150 ft bgs south of the Raymond fault. Groundwater levels for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative range from approximately 10 ft bgs in the area between I-10 and Valley
Boulevard to more than 250 ft bgs in the vicinity of the north portal.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-3
DRAFT

3.10.2.5
Naturally Occurring Oil and Gas
Based on information from the California Division of Oil and Geothermal Resources, the southern
part of the study area contains several oil fields south of State Route 60 (SR 60) in the Cities of
Commerce and Monterey Park as well as a number of active and abandoned oil wells.
Naturally occurring gas could be encountered in any of the formations in the study area. However,
based on experience with the construction of other tunnels in Los Angeles, naturally occurring gas is
most likely to be encountered within the Puente Formation. Localized deposits of oil and gas may be
present at any depth in the Puente Formation and could also be found within any of the geologic
formations within the study area.
3.10.2.6
Faulting
The Southern California region is seismically active because of the influence of several earthquake
fault systems resulting from interaction between the Pacific and North American crustal plates. An
active fault is defined by the State of California as a sufficiently active and well-defined fault that has
exhibited surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A potentially active fault is defined by
the State as a fault with a history of movement between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago. There are
two primary hazards associated with active faults: fault-induced ground rupture and ground shaking.
One active fault (the Raymond fault) and two potentially active faults (the Eagle Rock and San Rafael
faults) cross the Freeway Tunnel Alternative at tunnel depth, and one active fault (the Raymond
fault) and one potentially active fault (the San Rafael fault) cross the LRT Alternative at tunnel depth.
The Raymond and San Rafael faults cross the BRT Alternative at the surface. The locations of these
faults and the State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study Build Alternatives are shown on Figure 3.10-1.
The locations of these faults along the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are also shown on the
LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives geologic cross sections on Figures 3.10-2 and 3.10-3,
respectively. An earthquake on the Raymond fault may result in ground rupture. Future studies
would be performed to evaluate the activity of the Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults; however, for
project planning purposes, these faults are treated as active faults that are also capable of ground
rupture in the event of an earthquake.
The Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust fault-generated Coyote Pass escarpment transects SR 710 just
north of Floral Drive in the City of Monterey Park. The Coyote Pass escarpment is considered the
primary concern with regard to potential co-seismic deformation during an earthquake on the
Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust fault.
Strong ground shaking may occur in the study area as a result of regional faults, active faults, and
potentially active faults within the study area. The potential to experience substantial seismic
ground shaking is a common hazard for every project in Southern California, and the hazard cannot
be avoided. The following paragraphs present a general description of the active and potentially
active faults present within the SR 710 North Study Area.
The Raymond fault extends southwest from the Sierra Madre fault zone at the base of the San
Gabriel Mountains through Monrovia, Arcadia, San Marino, and Pasadena to the Raymond Hill area
of South Pasadena, where it trends more westerly through South Pasadena, Highland Park, and
possibly into the City of Los Angeles. This fault is estimated to be approximately 11 to 16 miles (mi)
long. Currently, there is little consensus on the rate of slip for the Raymond fault. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) currently assumes a slip rate of 2.0 millimeters per year
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-4
DRAFT

(mm/yr) (0.08 inch per year [in/yr]) and a maximum moment magnitude (Mmax) of 6.7 for the
Raymond fault.
Existing geologic maps show different locations for the Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults. Some maps
identify the San Rafael and Eagle Rock faults as separate features, while others map them as a single
feature. The San Rafael fault extends southeast from within the San Rafael Hills to the northern edge
of Grace Hill, Raymond Hill, and the smaller associated knolls, essentially along the same trace as the
Eagle Rock fault. At the eastern end, the San Rafael fault splits into two branches. One branch
extends through the top of Raymond Hill, and the other trends east past the Arroyo Seco Parkway
and into the hills north of the main trace of the Raymond fault. The Eagle Rock fault has been
mapped south of the San Rafael fault, within the knolls, and projecting south of Raymond Hill. The
Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults do not extend across the Raymond fault but appear to join with it in
a relationship that is not well understood. The activity of the San Rafael and Eagle Rock faults is
unknown at this time.
The Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults are generally considered to be the southern continuation of the
Verdugo fault. No paleoseismic studies have been published for the Verdugo fault. The Eagle Rock
and San Rafael fault zone also has no quantitative investigations, although all three faults
(Eagle Rock, San Rafael, and Verdugo) are considered to be potentially active. Caltrans classifies the
Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults as one fault and as a continuation of the Verdugo fault. According
to the Caltrans fault database, the Verdugo/Eagle Rock fault is estimated to have a slip rate of
0.6 mm/yr (0.024 in/yr) and an Mmax of 6.8.
3.10.2.7
Geologic Hazards
In addition to the active and potentially active faults in the study area, the following faults in the
region, among others, could affect ground shaking within the study area:
Transverse Ranges southern boundary faults (Hollywood, Santa Monica, and Malibu faults)
Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault system
Alhambra Wash fault (Elsinore fault zone-Whittier segment)
Newport-Inglewood fault zone
Sierra Madre fault zone
During an earthquake, seismic waves are produced that extend in all directions from the fault
rupture. Seismic waves can produce strong ground shaking that is typically strongest near the fault
and attenuates as waves move away from the source. The severity of ground shaking is a function of
the magnitude of the fault rupture; the distance from the fault to the affected area; and the type,
thickness, and condition of the underlying geologic materials in an area. Areas underlain by
unconsolidated recent alluvium or fill may amplify the strength and duration of strong ground
motion.
The geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking are discussed in the following sections.
There are several other types of non-seismic geologic hazards that could occur in the study area that
are also described in the following sections.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-5
DRAFT

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction occurs when saturated, loose soils lose their strength because of excess pore water
pressure caused by earthquake ground shaking. The space between the soil particles is completely
filled with water, which exerts pressure on the soil particles, thereby influencing how tightly the soil
particles are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is static depending on the
depth below the groundwater table; however, the shaking caused by an earthquake can increase
the pore water pressure to a point where the soil loses strength and ground deformation can occur.
The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in a soil deposit are the intensity and
duration of the earthquake shaking, the soil type, the relative density of the soil, the pressures of
material above the soil, and the depth to groundwater. The types of soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands; non-plastic silts that are
saturated; and silty sands. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, and the
ability of the soil to support structures is reduced. The potential impacts of liquefaction may include
settlement of the ground surface, additional forces pushing down on foundation piles as a result of
soil settlement above the liquefied layers, and reduction of the shear strength of the liquefied soil,
resulting in reduced load-carrying capacity. Liquefied soils can also exert additional dynamic
pressures on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt or slide.
According to the Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation
(2014) and as shown on Figure 3.10-4, areas in the valley floors in the San Rafael and Repetto Hills,
along the Arroyo Seco, and in a large section of the San Gabriel Valley generally east of the I-10/Del
Mar Avenue interchange have been identified as Liquefaction Hazard Zones. Liquefaction Hazard
Zones have either experienced liquefaction during historical times or are in areas where local
geologic conditions indicate a potential for liquefaction.
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced landslides are rock, earth, or debris flows on slopes that can occur as a result of
earthquake-related seismic shaking or specific soil, moisture, and angle or slope conditions.
Landslides constitute a major geologic hazard because they can be widespread and can cause
substantial damage to life and property. The expansion of urban and recreation uses into hillside
areas leads to more people and structures being potentially threatened by landslides. Although
landslides commonly occur in connection with other major natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes,
volcanoes, wildfires, and floods), they can occur on any terrain given the right conditions of soil,
moisture, and angle or slope. Steep bare slopes, clay-rich rock, deposits of stream or river sediment,
and heavy rains can also contribute to landslides.
According to the Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation
(2014) and as shown on Figure 3.10-4, areas along the steep slopes in the San Rafael and
Repetto Hills and the San Gabriel Mountains have been identified as seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zones. Landslide Hazard Zones have undergone landslides in the past or are located in an
area where local geologic conditions indicate a potential for landslides.
Seismic Settlement
Seismic settlement is a phenomenon in which loose, unsaturated sands tend to settle or become
denser during strong seismic shaking. Sediments that are sufficiently loose can experience seismic
settlement, which can cause ground settlement and damage to structures. Areas most susceptible
to seismically induced settlement would generally be the same as those described earlier as
Liquefaction Hazard Zones.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-6
DRAFT

Seismically Induced Inundation
Seismically induced inundation occurs when an earthquake causes catastrophic failure of a

water-retaining structure such as a reservoir, dam, or levee, and subsequent flooding occurs
because of the release of water from the structures. The County of Los Angeles has prepared a Dam
and Reservoir Inundation Routes Map that includes the study area. As shown on Figure 3.10-5, parts
of the study area are within a potential dam inundation area.
Tsunami and Seiches
The study area is not adjacent to or in the vicinity of large water bodies that could experience
seiches. The study area is above elevations that could experience flooding associated with tsunamis.
As a result, tsunamis and seiches are not considered potential geologic hazards for the Build
Alternatives and are, therefore, not discussed further in this analysis.
Slope Stability
The stability of a slope depends on the inclination, geology and geologic structure, soil and rock
strength, and groundwater and surface water conditions of the slope. Hillside areas in the study
area are shown on Figure 3.10-1. Areas with slopes or below slopes can be at risk in the event of
slope failure. In addition, slope failure can occur in areas where excavating, grading, and/or fill work
is being conducted.
Ground Settlement and Collapsible Soils
Near the surface, ground settlement can occur when new loads are added to soil, or when a change
in water levels results in a decrease in pore water pressures within compressible soils. Collapsible
soils consist predominantly of sand- and silt-size particles arranged in a loose honeycomb
structure. This loose structure is held together by small amounts of water-softening cementing
agents, such as clay or calcium carbonate. When the soil becomes wet, these cementing agents
soften, and the honeycomb structure collapses and generates ground settlement. Ground
settlement and soil collapse could both potentially occur in the study area.
Expansive Materials
Expansive soils are clay-rich soils that have the ability to shrink and swell with wetting and drying.
The mineralogy and percentage of clay-sized particles present in soil determine the potential for
expansive behavior. The shrink-swell capacity of expansive soils can result in differential movement
beneath foundations. Clay-rich soils are locally present in the study area. Bedrock units also can
exhibit expansive properties as a result of the clay content in the bedrock. Potentially expansive
bedrock materials include the claystone and siltstone units in the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga
Formations in the study area.
Erosion
Erosion occurs when rock and/or soil surfaces are exposed to weathering caused by wind and/or
water. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has delineated Soil Erodibility Factors (K Factors),
which indicate how susceptible surface soils are to erosion. Based on USGS mapping, the study area
is in an area of moderate erosion potential.
Subsidence
Regional subsidence results from the withdrawal of groundwater and/or hydrocarbons from
subsurface areas. As groundwater or hydrocarbons are pumped out of the ground, the resultant
voids or pores are compressed under the pressures of the materials above. Accumulation of the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-7
DRAFT

compression results in subsidence of the ground surface. The potential for this hazard to adversely
affect the study area is low because groundwater withdrawal in the study area is restricted and
managed. Where oil extraction is occurring, the reservoir pressures are compensated for by
reinjection of water in volumes similar to or greater than those volumes withdrawn. As a result,
regional subsidence is not considered a potential geologic hazard for the Build Alternatives and is,
therefore, not discussed further in this analysis.
3.10.2.8
National Natural Landmarks
The nearest National Natural Landmark (NNL) to the study area is Rancho La Brea at the Page
Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits in the City of Los Angeles. This NNL is approximately 10 mi
southwest of the study area. Because there are no NNLs in or near the study area, NNLs are not
discussed further in this analysis.
3.10.3
Figures 3.10-1 through 3.10-5 show the locations of major geologic features and conditions in the
study area and the alignments and features in the Build Alternatives.
3.10.3.1
Temporary Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction of the improvements in the SR 710 North
Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects
related to geology and seismicity associated with the Build Alternatives improvements.
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
Most of the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management

(TSM/TDM) Alternative improvements would be located at or close to the ground surface. Only
the new and widened bridges would involve geology that extends to some depth below the
ground surface.
In association with TSM/TDM Alternative Other Road Improvement T-2 (SR 110/Fair Oaks
Avenue Hook Ramps), modifications are proposed to the existing cut slope located between
Grevelia Street and SR 110, west of Fair Oaks Avenue. The existing cut slope is proposed to be
replaced by a retaining wall. Although grading activities associated with the construction of the
TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would modify the existing topography, such grading would
be minor and limited to the areas described above. Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would
not substantively alter the overall topography of the study area.
Based on the types of improvements included in the TSM/TDM Alternative and the underlying
geologic framework, the potential to encounter naturally occurring oil and/or gas during
construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements is low. However, two of the TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements (i.e., the Garfield Avenue bridge widening associated with
Intersection Improvement I-16 and the new bridge associated with Other Road Improvement
T-1) would require earthwork that would extend below the ground surface; therefore, there is a
potential for naturally occurring oil and gas to be encountered during construction of the deep
foundations for the bridge structure supports.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-8
DRAFT

Strong ground shaking may occur at the TSM/TDM improvement sites as a result of regional
faults, active faults, and potentially active faults within the study area. As a result, construction
activities associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative could be affected by ground motion from
seismic activities, liquefaction, and landslides if an earthquake were to occur during
construction.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the following three improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative are
within an identified Liquefaction Hazard Zone: (1) Intersection Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock
Boulevard/York Boulevard); (2) Local Street Improvement L-1 (Figueroa Street from SR 134 to
Colorado Boulevard); and (3) Local Street Improvement L-5 (Rosemead Boulevard, north of I-10,
from Lower Azusa Road to Marshall Street). As a result, construction activities associated with
these TSM/TDM Alternative improvements could be affected by liquefaction if an earthquake
were to occur during construction, although the probability is low.
There are no landslides mapped on or adjacent to the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements.
However, there is a potential for unmapped landslides to occur on or adjacent to the TSM/TDM
improvements, although the probability is low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, one of the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, Intersection
Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard), would be located within a potential
dam inundation area. The Eagle Rock Reservoir, which is located on the northern side of SR 134,
approximately 1,500 ft west of the SR 134/Figueroa Street interchange, would be the source of
the inundation in this area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during the
construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements, it would be a very rare occurrence,
and the resultant inundation would be short lived.
Construction activities may temporarily disturb soil outside the footprint of the improvements
but within the public ROW, primarily in the staging areas around work areas, heavy equipment
traffic areas, and material laydown areas. Construction activities in temporary construction
easements (TCEs) outside the public ROW would also temporarily disturb soils in those areas.
Soil would be disturbed during construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements. As a
result, during construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements, excavated soil would be
exposed, and there would be increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing
conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate.
Refer to Section 3.9 for additional information regarding construction-related water quality
issues.
BRT Alternative
The BRT Alternative generally involves at-grade improvements, with very little work extending
more than 10 ft bgs. The BRT Alternative would also include the improvements presented in the
TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue
from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street
Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10).
Considering the type of improvements in the BRT Alternative and the underlying geologic
framework, the potential for naturally occurring oil or gas to be encountered during
construction of the BRT Alternative is low. However, two of the TSM/TDM Alternative
improvements (Intersection Improvement I-16 [Garfield Avenue/Mission Road] and Other Road
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-9
DRAFT

Improvement T-1 [Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road]), would require earthwork
that would extend below the ground surface, resulting in a potential for naturally occurring oil
and gas to be encountered during construction of the deep foundations for the bridge structure
supports.
Strong ground shaking may occur along the BRT Alternative because of regional faults, active
faults, and potentially active faults within the study area. As a result, construction activities
associated with the BRT Alternative could be affected by ground motion from seismic activities,
liquefaction, and landslides if an earthquake were to occur during construction.
Construction activities associated with the BRT Alternative could be affected by liquefaction if an
earthquake were to occur during construction, although the probability is low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the BRT Alternative is located within a seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zone in Monterey Park that generally lies between Harding Avenue and Garvey Avenue.
None of the improvements in the BRT Alternative would require modification of slopes in this
area. There are no landslides mapped along or adjacent to the BRT Alternative; however, there
is a potential for unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the BRT Alternative,
although the probability is low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, none of the BRT Alternative improvements would be located within
a potential dam inundation area. Therefore, none of the BRT Alternative improvements would
be subject to seismically induced inundation during construction. Intersection Improvement I-2
(Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would be located within a potential dam inundation
area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during construction of the improvement, it
would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant inundation would be short lived.
Soil would be disturbed during construction of the BRT Alternative improvements. As a result,
excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion
compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at
an accelerated rate.
LRT Alternative
The LRT Alternative includes a passenger rail line operated along a dedicated guideway, similar
to other Metro light rail lines, as well as a bored tunnel segment. The LRT Alternative would be
approximately 7.5 mi long, with approximately 3 mi of aerial segments and approximately 4.5 mi
of bored tunnel segments. Bi-directional tunnels are proposed with tunnel diameters of
approximately 20 ft each, with the crown (top) of the tunnels located from approximately 20 to
90 ft bgs. The LRT Alternative would also include the improvements presented in the TSM/TDM
Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road).
Unconsolidated or water-saturated alluvial soil deposits would likely be encountered in
excavations for the portal, the Alhambra Station, and along segments of the LRT tunnel. Open
excavation and tunneling in unconsolidated and/or saturated alluvium have the potential for
groundwater inflows and flowing ground conditions at the heading of the excavation, which
could potentially result in settlement of the ground surface if not properly controlled.
Groundwater inflows are also anticipated in the fractured or sheared rock adjacent to faults,
which may act as groundwater barriers.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-10
DRAFT

Groundwater inflows could also occur during construction of the LRT portal and at the Alhambra
Station, where construction may occur below the groundwater table. Based on the available
information, the groundwater table at the site of the other three LRT stations (Huntington,
South Pasadena, and Fillmore) is deeper than the stations base slab levels, and therefore
inflows are not expected to be encountered at these locations.
The proposed excavation would result in the potential for ground settlement and differential
settlement immediately above and adjacent to the bored tunnel portion, and the portal and
station excavations of the LRT Alternative; however, tunneling equipment and procedures as
well as portal and station support methods are capable of controlling ground movements to
limit surface settlements and in turn minimize damage to existing structures.
Tunnel excavation for the LRT Alternative would be through several different geologic units,
including alluvium (soil) and weak sedimentary rocks. Some inherent variability exists within and
between the sedimentary formations present along the LRT Alternative, including occasional
hard to very hard cemented layers and concretions, and the presence of cobbles. The structure
within the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga Formations would be variable, ranging from
massively bedded to laminated.
A portion of the bored tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative is anticipated to be constructed
within Puente Formation bedrock. There is a low to moderate potential of encountering
naturally occurring oil or gas, most likely within the Puente Formation, along the tunnel segment
of the LRT Alternative. However, naturally occurring oil and/or gas could also be found within
any of the geologic formations within the study area. If oil and/or gas were encountered, the
tunnel could be classified by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal/OSHA) as a Gassy or Potentially Gassy Operation. The presence of naturally occurring oil
and/or gas is not unusual, especially in the Los Angeles region, and tunnels have been excavated
through these conditions previously.
In addition, two of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements (Intersection Improvement I-16
[Garfield Avenue/Mission Road] and Other Road Improvement T-1 [Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road]) would require earthwork that would extend below the ground surface,
resulting in a potential for naturally occurring oil and gas to be encountered during construction
of the deep foundations for the bridge structure supports.
Strong ground shaking may occur along the LRT Alternative because of regional faults, active
faults, and potentially active faults within the study area. As a result, construction activities
associated with the LRT Alternative could be affected by ground motion during an earthquake,
liquefaction, and landslides if an earthquake were to occur during construction, although the
probability of an earthquake occurring during construction is low. Therefore, the potential for
liquefaction occurring during construction is also low for this alternative. With the exception of
ground motion and liquefaction, the other potential hazards are considered outside the bored
tunnel portion of the LRT Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the LRT Alternative is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone,
primarily in the vicinity of I-10 and west of Corporate Place. As a result, construction activities
associated with the LRT Alternative (outside the bored tunnel limits) could be affected by
liquefaction if an earthquake were to occur during construction, although the probability is low.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-11
DRAFT

As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the LRT Alternative is located within a seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zone, primarily in the vicinity of I-10 and west of Corporate Place. As a result,
construction activities associated with the LRT Alternative (outside the bored tunnel limits)
could be affected by landslides if an earthquake were to occur during construction. There are no
landslides mapped along or adjacent to the LRT Alternative; however, there is a potential for
unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the LRT Alternative, although the probability
is low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, only the portion of the LRT Alternative in the immediate vicinity of
I-10 is located within a potential dam inundation area. The inundation zone identified is related
to seismically induced failure of the Laguna Regulating Basin. The Laguna Regulating Basin is an
ungated basin intended to collect sediment from runoff. The Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works (LADPW) has no record of the Laguna Regulating Basin ever being filled to capacity
since its construction in 1967. During the rare occurrences where inflow exceeds outflow within
the Laguna Regulating Basin, the amount of time the runoff would be pooled within the Basin
would be limited because the Basin is allowed to run off freely. Therefore, the potential for
impacts from dam inundation during construction of the LRT Alternative is low. Intersection
Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would be located within a potential
dam inundation area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during construction of the
improvement, it would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant inundation would be short
lived.
Soil would be disturbed during construction of the LRT Alternative improvements. As a result,
excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion
compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at
an accelerated rate. Refer to Section 3.9 for additional information regarding constructionrelated water quality.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes single-bore and dual-bore design variations, each of
which is approximately 4.2 mi in length. Short segments of cut-and-cover tunnels would be
located at the southern and northern termini to provide access via portals to the bored tunnels.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also include the improvements presented in the
TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension between Del Mar Boulevard
and California Boulevard).
Like the LRT Alternative, unconsolidated and/or water-saturated alluvial soil deposits would
likely be encountered in excavations for the portals and along segments of the tunnel for the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Open excavation and tunneling in unconsolidated and/or saturated
alluvium have the potential for groundwater inflows and flowing ground conditions at the
heading of the excavation, which could potentially result in settlement of the ground surface if
not properly controlled. Groundwater inflows are also anticipated in the fractured or sheared
rock and in proximity to fault zones, which may act as groundwater barriers.
Groundwater inflows could also occur during construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
south portal, where construction would occur below the groundwater table. Because of the
relatively deep groundwater elevations compared to the tunnel bottom depth, groundwater
control does not appear to be an issue for tunnel construction at the north portal.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-12
DRAFT

The proposed excavations would result in the potential for ground settlement and differential
settlement immediately above and adjacent to the bored tunnel portion, and the portal
excavations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative; however, tunneling equipment and procedures
as well as portal support methods are capable of controlling ground movements to limit surface
settlements and in turn minimize damage to existing structures.
Some inherent variability exists within and between the sedimentary formations present along
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, including occasional hard to very hard cemented layers and
concretions, and the presence of cobbles. The structure within the Fernando, Puente, and
Topanga Formations would be variable, ranging from massively bedded to laminated. In
addition, the Wilson Quartz Diorite is expected to be locally weak and fractured.
Tunnel excavation for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be through several different
geologic units, including alluvium (soil), weak sedimentary rocks, and stronger granitic-type
rocks. A portion of the bored tunnel of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is anticipated to be
constructed within Puente Formation bedrock. There is a low to moderate potential for
encountering naturally occurring oil and/or gas within the Puente Formation; however, naturally
occurring oil and/or gas could also be found within any of the geologic formations in the study
area. If naturally occurring oil and/or gas is encountered, the tunnel could be classified by
Cal/OSHA as a Gassy or Potentially Gassy Operation. The presence of naturally occurring oil
and/or gas is not unusual, especially in the Los Angeles region, and tunnels have been excavated
through these conditions previously.
In addition, two of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements (Intersection Improvement I-16
[Garfield Avenue/Mission Road] and Other Road Improvement T-1 [Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road]) would require earthwork that would extend below the ground surface,
resulting in a potential for naturally occurring oil and gas to be encountered during construction
of the deep foundations for the bridge structure supports.
Strong ground shaking may occur along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative because of regional
faults, active faults, and potentially active faults within the study area. As a result, construction
activities associated with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative could be affected by ground motion
during an earthquake, liquefaction, and landslides if an earthquake were to occur during
construction, although the probability of an earthquake occurring during construction is low.
Therefore, the potential for liquefaction occurring during construction is also low for this
alternative. With the exception of ground motion, the other potential hazards are considered
outside the bored tunnel portion of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is located within a Liquefaction
Hazard Zone that generally lies south of I-10. As a result, construction activities associated with
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (outside the bored tunnel limits) could be affected by
liquefaction if an earthquake were to occur during construction, although the probability is low.
Figure 3.10-4 shows the locations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements and the
identified seismically induced Landslide Hazard Zones in the study area. Construction activities
associated with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (outside the bored tunnel limits) could be
affected by landslides if an earthquake were to occur during construction. There are no
landslides mapped along or adjacent to the Freeway Tunnel Alternative; however, there is a
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-13
DRAFT

potential for unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the Freeway Tunnel Alternative,
although the probability is low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, only the portion of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the immediate
vicinity of I-10 is located within a potential dam inundation area. The inundation zone identified
is related to seismically induced failure of the Laguna Regulating Basin. During the rare
occurrences where inflow exceeds outflow within the Laguna Regulating Basin, the amount of
time the runoff would be pooled within the Basin would be limited because the Basin is allowed
to run off freely. If the Laguna Regulating Basin were to be filled during a seismic event that
caused failure of the Basin, the resulting inundation would be short lived. Therefore, the
potential for impacts from dam inundation during construction of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative is low. Intersection Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would
be located within a potential dam inundation area. If seismically induced inundation were to
occur during construction of the improvement, it would be a very rare occurrence, and the
resultant inundation would be short lived.
During construction, soil would be disturbed for the single-bore and dual-bore design variations
of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. As a result, excavated soil would be exposed, and there
would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally,
during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. Refer to Section 3.9 for
additional information regarding construction-related water quality issues.
3.10.3.2
Permanent Impacts
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any effects
related to geology and seismicity associated with Build Alternative improvements.
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
Most of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would be located at or close to the ground
surface. Only the new and widened bridges would involve geology that extends to some depth
below the ground surface.
The operation of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not require construction that
would reach naturally occurring subsurface oil and gas.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, one of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements, Other Road
Improvement T-2 (SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps), crosses the Raymond and San Rafael
faults. Local street improvements such as those proposed with Other Road Improvement T-2 are
not protected against fault-induced surface rupture. However, road damage resulting from fault
rupture is expected to be minor. Moderate to severe seismic shaking may occur in the study
area during the life of the improvements under the TSM/TDM Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the following improvements under the TSM/TDM Alternative are
located within designated Liquefaction Hazard Zones: Intersection Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock
Boulevard/York Boulevard) and Local Street Improvements L-1 (Figueroa Street from SR 134 to
Colorado Boulevard) and L-5 (Rosemead Boulevard from Lower Azusa Road to Marshall Street).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-14
DRAFT

In addition, localized deposits of liquefiable soils could be identified during future investigations.
Typically, at-grade road improvements are not protected against liquefaction.
Loose, unsaturated granular soils are susceptible to seismically induced settlement. This could
include the alluvial soils located above the groundwater table at TSM/TDM Alternative
improvement sites.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, no TSM/TDM Alternative improvements are located within a
seismically induced Landslide Hazard Zone, and there are no landslides mapped within or
adjacent to the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements. However, there is a potential for
unmapped landslides to occur within or adjacent to the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, one of the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative (Intersection
Improvement I-2 [Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard]) would be located within a potential
dam inundation area. The Eagle Rock Reservoir, which is located on the northern side of SR 134,
approximately 1,500 ft west of the SR 134/Figueroa Street interchange, would be the source of
the inundation in this area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during the operation
of the improvements, it would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant inundation would be
short lived.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, few of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements are located within
or adjacent to hillside areas. Other Road Improvement T-2 (SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook
Ramps) includes modifications to the existing cut slope located between Grevelia Street and
SR 110, west of Fair Oaks Avenue. No other slopes would be adversely affected by the TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements.
Some of the TSM/TSM Alternative improvements are underlain by alluvial soils (refer to
Figure 3.10-1), which may be prone to ground settlement or collapsible soils.
There are clay-rich expansive soils and bedrock present beneath many of the TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements (e.g., artificial fill soils, alluvial soils, and the siltstone and/or
claystone units of the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga Formations).
The surficial soils present beneath the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements have a moderate
susceptibility to erosion. However, because those improvements would include pavement
and/or landscaping over those soils, the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not result
in erosion in those areas over the long term.
BRT Alternative
The operation of the BRT Alternative improvements would not require construction that would
reach naturally occurring subsurface oil and/or gas.
Although grading activities associated with the construction of the BRT Alternative
improvements would modify the existing topography, such grading would be minor and limited
to relatively few areas in the study area. Therefore, the BRT Alternative would not substantively
alter the overall topography of the study area.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the BRT Alternative crosses the Raymond and San Rafael faults. The
BRT Alternative would involve at-grade road improvements. Typically, at-grade road
improvements are not protected against fault-induced surface rupture. If the road is damaged
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-15
DRAFT

due to fault rupture, the damage is expected to be minor. Moderate to severe seismic shaking
may occur in the study area during the life of the improvements under the BRT Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the BRT Alternative is not located within an area delineated as a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone, although localized deposits of liquefiable soils could be identified
during future investigations. Typically, at-grade road improvements are not protected against
liquefaction.
Loose, saturated, or unsaturated granular soils are susceptible to seismically induced
settlement. This could include the alluvial soils located above the groundwater table along the
alignment of the BRT Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the BRT Alternative is located within a seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zone in Monterey Park that generally lies between Harding Avenue and Garvey Avenue.
None of the improvements in the BRT Alternative would require modification of slopes in this
area. There are no landslides mapped along or adjacent to the BRT Alternative. However, there
is a potential for unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the BRT Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, none of the BRT Alternative improvements would be located within
a potential dam inundation area. Therefore, none of the BRT Alternative improvements would
be subject to seismically induced inundation over the long term. Intersection Improvement I-2
(Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would be located within a potential dam inundation
area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during the operation of the improvement,
it would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant inundation would be short lived.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the BRT Alternative traverses part of the Repetto Hills, generally
between Brightwood Street and Garvey Avenue in Monterey Park. The proposed improvements
do not require modification of the slopes in this area.
Some areas along the alignment of the BRT Alternative improvements are underlain by alluvial
soils that may be prone to ground settlement or collapsible soils.
There are clay-rich expansive soils and bedrock present beneath the alignment of the
BRT Alternative (e.g., artificial fill soils, alluvial soils, and the siltstone and/or claystone units of
the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga Formations).
The surficial soils present beneath the BRT Alternative improvements have a moderate
susceptibility to erosion. However, because those improvements would include pavement
and/or landscaping over those soils, the BRT Alternative improvements would not result in
erosion in those areas over the long term.
LRT Alternative
A portion of the LRT tunnels and underground stations are expected to be constructed below
the groundwater table; however, groundwater inflows into the tunnel and stations are not
anticipated as the linings can be designed to limit the groundwater inflows.
A portion of the bored tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative is anticipated to be constructed
within Puente Formation bedrock. There is a low-to-moderate potential of encountering
naturally occurring oil and/or gas within the Puente Formation along the subterranean portion
of the LRT Alternative. Naturally occurring oil and/or gas could also be found within any of the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-16
DRAFT

geologic formations within the study area. The presence of naturally occurring oil and/or gas is
not unusual, especially in the Los Angeles region, and linings can be designed to control gas
intrusions.
Although grading activities associated with the construction of the LRT Alternative
to relatively few areas in the study area. Therefore, the LRT Alternative would not substantively
alter the overall topography of the study area.
As shown on Figures 3.10-1 and 3.10-2, the LRT Alternative crosses the active Raymond fault
and the potentially active San Rafael fault and does not cross the Eagle Rock fault. Therefore,
there is a potential for fault rupture to occur during an earthquake. Future studies may reveal
that the San Rafael fault is inactive; however, for planning purposes, this fault is treated as an
active fault. The bottom of the LRT Alternative tunnel in the vicinity of these faults would be
located approximately 70 to 100 ft bgs. Preliminary fault rupture displacement estimates have
been prepared for the LRT Alternative at the fault crossings based on Metro Supplemental SDC.
The Coyote Pass escarpment (generated by the Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust fault) transects
the elevated portion of the LRT Alternative in the vicinity of Corporate Center Drive and
Corporate Center Place, just east of I-710 in Monterey Park. The Coyote Pass escarpment is
considered the primary concern with regard to potential co-seismic deformation during an
earthquake on the Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust fault.
Moderate to severe seismic shaking may occur in the study area during the life of the
improvements under the LRT Alternative. The potential to experience substantial seismic ground
shaking is a common hazard for every project in Southern California, and the hazard cannot be
avoided. Experience in California and worldwide shows that bored tunnels generally perform
well during earthquake ground shaking, typically suffering less damage than surface structures.
Because they are embedded in the ground, they move with the ground, and thus, their motion is
not magnified by the pendulum effect that occurs when an aboveground structure is shaken by
an earthquake (Hashash et al. 2001). As an example, during the Northridge Earthquake in 1994,
Metros Segment 1 Red Line tunnels received ground motions at the level of the operating
Design Earthquake without damage. Inspection was performed, and the system was reopened
for service the following day, with greatly increased ridership because highways were closed
because of earthquake damage to bridges. Another example is the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
that shook San Francisco, collapsing key elevated highways but leaving the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) tunnel system unaffected. Following an inspection of the tunnels and trackwork,
the system was quickly opened.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the LRT Alternative (above grade segment, in the vicinity of I-10 and
west of Corporate Place) is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The liquefaction potential
beneath the LRT bored tunnel segment is considered low. The occurrence of liquefaction could
lead to loss in foundation support, reduction in lateral support of deep foundations, flow and
lateral spreading, and liquefaction-induced settlement.
Loose, unsaturated granular soils are also susceptible to seismically induced settlement. This
may include the alluvial soils located above the groundwater table in areas outside the bored
tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative. Settlement issues could also be of concern at the tunnel
portal.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-17
DRAFT

As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the LRT Alternative is located within a seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zone that generally extends from Corporate Place north to I-10. There are no known
landslides mapped along the LRT Alternative alignment. However, there is a potential for
unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the LRT Alternative alignment.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, only the portion of the LRT Alternative in the immediate vicinity of
I-10 is located within a potential dam inundation area. The inundation zone identified is related
to seismically induced failure of the Laguna Regulating Basin. During the rare occurrences where
inflow exceeds outflow within the Laguna Regulating Basin, the amount of time the runoff
would be pooled within the Basin would be limited because the Basin is allowed to run off
freely. Intersection Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would be located
within a potential dam inundation area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during
the operation of the improvement, it would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant
inundation would be short lived.
If the Laguna Regulating Basin were to be filled during a seismic event that caused failure of the
Basin, the resulting inundation would be short lived. The affected portion of the LRT Alternative
would be elevated approximately 80 ft above existing grade. The LRT portal is situated more
than 50 ft higher than the top of the Laguna Regulating Basin embankment. As such, the
potential for seismically induced inundation from the Laguna Regulating Basin to adversely
affect the LRT Alternative is very low.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the LRT Alternative traverses hillside areas. In some areas, the
improvements have the potential to adversely affect the stability of existing slopes and/or
developments atop existing slopes.
Areas along the LRT Alternative are underlain by alluvial soils (refer to Figures 3.10-1 and
3.10-2), which may be prone to ground settlement or collapsible soils (outside the bored
tunnel limits), although the probability is low.
Clay-rich expansive soils and bedrock are present along portions of the LRT Alternative elevated
structure and bored tunnel, and the portal area. Potentially expansive materials present along
the LRT Alternative include artificial fill soils, alluvial soils, and the siltstone and/or claystone
units of the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga Formations.
The surficial soils present along the LRT Alternative have a moderate susceptibility to erosion.
During operation, the LRT Alternative would treat storm water runoff within the Caltrans ROW
with Caltrans-approved treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., biofiltration
swales). Outside of Caltrans ROW, much of the elevated track is proposed above steep terrain,
and treatment is not technically feasible; however, the LRT Alternative would treat storm water
runoff with devices such as tree box filters, catch basin screens and filter inserts at new inlet
locations (where feasible), bioretention facilities for the proposed parking lot areas, and media
filters in the ballast areas. Refer to Section 3.9 for additional information regarding operationrelated water quality issues.
Because of the shallow groundwater conditions present relative to tunnel depth, groundwater
control would be an important consideration for long-term operations at the south portal;
however, no adverse effects would be anticipated, and no permanent dewatering would be
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-18
DRAFT

required. A portion of the Freeway tunnels are expected to be constructed below the
groundwater table; however, groundwater inflows into the tunnel are not anticipated as the
linings can be designed to limit the groundwater inflows. Because of the relatively deep
groundwater elevations compared to the depth of the bottom of the tunnel, groundwater
control does not appear to be a substantial issue for permanent effects at the north portal.
A portion of the bored tunnel segment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is anticipated to be
constructed within Puente Formation bedrock. There is a low to moderate potential of
encountering naturally occurring oil and/or gas within the Puente Formation along the
subterranean portion of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Naturally occurring oil and/or gas
could also be found within any of the geologic formations within the study area. The presence of
naturally occurring oil and gas is not unusual, especially in the Los Angeles region and linings can
be designed to control gas intrusions.
Although grading activities associated with the construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
to relatively few areas in the study area. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not
substantively alter the overall topography of the study area.
As shown on Figures 3.10-1 and 3.10-3, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative crosses the active
Raymond fault and the potentially active San Rafael and Eagle Rock faults. Therefore, there is a
potential for fault rupture to occur during an earthquake. Future studies may reveal that the San
Rafael and Eagle Rock faults are inactive; however, for planning purposes, these faults are
treated as active faults. The bottom of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the vicinity of these
faults would be located from roughly 160 ft to more than 300 ft bgs. Preliminary fault rupture
displacement estimates have been prepared for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative at the fault
crossings based on the Caltrans SDC.
Moderate to severe seismic shaking may occur in the study area during the life of the
improvements under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The potential to experience substantial
seismic ground shaking is a common hazard for every project in Southern California, and the
hazard cannot be avoided. Experience in California and worldwide shows that bored tunnels
generally perform well during earthquake ground shaking, typically suffering less damage than
surface structures. Because they are embedded in the ground, they move with the ground, and
thus, their motion is not magnified by the pendulum effect that occurs when an aboveground
structure is shaken by an earthquake (Hashash et al. 2001).
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (generally south of I-10) is located
within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The bottom of the bored freeway tunnel varies from
approximately 160 to 300 feet below the ground surface. The majority of the material under the
bored tunnel is bedrock and only a few isolated areas are underlain by very dense soils. As a
result, the liquefaction potential beneath the Freeway Tunnel Alternative bored tunnel segment
is considered low. The occurrence of liquefaction could lead to loss in foundation support,
reduction in lateral support of deep foundations, flow and lateral spreading, and liquefactioninduced settlement.
Loose, unsaturated granular soils are also susceptible to seismically induced settlement. This
may include the alluvial soils located above the groundwater table in areas outside the bored
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-19
DRAFT

tunnel segment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Settlement issues could also be critical at
both tunnel portals.
As shown on Figure 3.10-4, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the vicinity of I-10 and near
Summit Drive in South Pasadena is located within or adjacent to a seismically induced Landslide
Hazard Zone. There are no known landslides mapped along the Freeway Tunnel alignment.
However, there is a potential for unmapped landslides to occur along or adjacent to the
Freeway Tunnel alignment. There are no potential impacts from landslides for the bored tunnel
segment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
As shown on Figure 3.10-5, only the portion of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the immediate
vicinity of I-10 is located within a potential dam inundation area. The inundation zone identified
is related to seismically induced failure of the Laguna Regulating Basin. During the rare
occurrences where inflow exceeds outflow within the Laguna Regulating Basin, the amount of
time the runoff would be pooled within the Basin would be limited because the Basin is allowed
to run off freely. If the Laguna Regulating Basin were to be filled during a seismic event that
caused failure of the Basin, the resulting inundation would be short lived. The Freeway Tunnel
south portal is situated more than 50 ft higher than the top of the Laguna Regulating Basin
embankment. As such, the potential for seismically induced inundation from the Laguna
Regulating Basin to adversely affect the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is very low. Intersection
Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard) would be located within a potential
dam inundation area. If seismically induced inundation were to occur during the operation of
the improvement, it would be a very rare occurrence, and the resultant inundation would be
short lived.
As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative traverses hillside areas. In some
areas, the improvements have the potential to adversely affect the stability of existing slopes
and/or developments atop existing slopes. Areas along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are
underlain by alluvial soils (refer to Figures 3.10-1 and 3.10-4), which may be prone to ground
settlement or collapsible soils (outside the bored tunnel limits).
Clay-rich expansive soils and bedrock are present along some of the surficial improvement
areas, and portions of the bored tunnel of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Potentially expansive
materials present along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative include artificial fill soils, alluvial soils,
and the siltstone and/or claystone units of the Fernando, Puente, and Topanga Formations.
The surficial soils present along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative have a moderate susceptibility
to erosion. During operation, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would treat storm water runoff
using Caltrans-approved methods such as biofiltration swales and gross solid removal devices
(GSRDs). Refer to Section 3.9 for additional information regarding operation-related water
quality issues.
3.10.4
All improvements in all four Build Alternatives will be designed, constructed, and operated in
accordance with all applicable standards, including the following design and safety standards:
Caltrans design standards (for highway and roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities outside
the tunnel limits in the Build Alternatives) in the Highway Design Manual (2012 or more
current).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-20
DRAFT

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specifications for bridge structure design (2012 [6th Edition] or
more current, per Caltrans requirements).
Caltrans amendments to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification (2014 or more current).
Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-1, Seismic Design Methodology for the seismic design of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (2010 or more current).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) tunnel design standards (for tunnel-related highway
improvements included in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative) in the FHWA Technical Manual for
Design and Construction of Road Tunnels Civil Elements (2009 or more current).
Metros Rail Design Criteria (for light rail improvements included in the LRT Alternative) in the
Rail Transit Design Criteria and Standards (2013 or more current). Includes Metro
Supplementary SDC appended to Section 5 in 2013.
Metro design criteria for BRT systems (2008 or more current) for roadway and other
improvements for the BRT Alternative.
Local jurisdiction design and safety standards (for local roadway improvements included in the
Build Alternatives)
Cal/OSHA related to worker safety during construction and operation in Title 8, Chapter 3.2,
California Safety and Health Regulations, California Code of Regulations.
National Fire Protection Association Safety Codes and Standards.
A pressurized-face tunnel boring machine (TBM) is expected to be used for construction of the
tunnels for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives as it is ideally suited to excavate through the
expected conditions on this project including potential for high groundwater pressures and
variability of the types and the strength of the soil and rock units expected. Pressurized face TBMs
have been successfully used to limit ground loss at the tunnel face during construction, resulting in
limiting ground settlements. Excavation of a tunnel using a pressurized-face TBM would actively
control groundwater inflows and gas intrusion at the tunnel heading; special care would have to be
exercised when tunneling through a fault zone that has a substantial difference in groundwater
levels on opposite sides of the fault. The tunnels would have a precast concrete segmental lining
system typically with double rubber gaskets, with appropriate cross gaskets to control water and/or
gas inflows into the tunnel in the temporary and permanent condition. After excavation, the space
between the outside of the tunnel lining and the soil would be grouted to prevent groundwater flow
along the tunnel bores.
Compliance with the applicable agency or jurisdiction seismic design standards will reduce the risk
associated with geologic hazards related to seismicity, soil erosion, and slope instability during
construction and operation of the Build Alternatives to acceptable levels. Measure GEO-1 will
further reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, seismic shaking, surface fault rupture, slope
instability, and erosion. Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 will be applied to any of the Build Alternatives.
Measures GEO-3 and GEO-4 will address potential geologic hazards associated with construction and
operation of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
Measure GEO-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Final Geotechnical/Baseline Report (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): During preliminary and final design, a comprehensive
3.10-21
DRAFT

geologic and geotechnical investigation will be conducted and

design-level geotechnical/baseline reports will be prepared. This report
will document and provide design recommendations for seismic hazards
such as fault-induced ground rupture, ground shaking, co-seismic
deformation, slope instability, seismic settlement, liquefaction, or
related secondary seismic impacts that may be present along the
alignment of the selected Build Alternative project. The report will also
provide design recommendations for geology-related constraints such
as settlement, collapse potential, expansion, landslides, erosion, and
naturally occurring gas. The performance standard for this report will be
the geotechnical design standards of the State of California and the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), and/or the local jurisdiction, as
applicable.
The Project Engineer will incorporate the measures recommended in
the design-level geotechnical report in the final design and project
specifications.
The Construction Contractor, Design/Build Contractor, or the Private
Public Partnership developer, as applicable, will implement the
measures recommended in the design-level geotechnical reports as
included in the project design and specifications.
Measure GEO-2
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): The Resident Engineer will maintain a quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan during construction (i.e., a
Metro QA/QC plan for the Transportation System Management/
Transportation Demand Management [TSM/TDM], Bus Rapid Transit
[BRT], and Light Rail Transit [LRT] Alternatives, and a Caltrans QA/QC
plan for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative). The QA/QC plan will include
observing, monitoring, and testing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer
and/or the Project Geologist prior to and during construction to confirm
that the geotechnical/geologic recommendations from the design-level
geotechnical report and standard design and construction practices are
fulfilled by the Contractor, or if different site conditions are
encountered, appropriate changes are made to accommodate such
issues. Comprehensive real-time monitoring with geotechnical tunnel
data management software and implementation of an observational
approach to construction management will be implemented during
construction of the LRT or Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or the Project Geologist will submit weekly
reports to Caltrans or Metro during all project-related grading,
excavation, and construction activities.
Measure GEO-3
Tunnel Design (applies to the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives):

During preliminary and final design, the Metro (LRT Alternative) or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-22
DRAFT

Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) Project Engineer will make sure

that the following measures are included in the comprehensive geologic
and geotechnical investigation and the design-level geotechnical/
baseline report and the project design and specifications:
Measure GEO-4
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
A comprehensive geotechnical investigation program will be

developed and performed, including a site-specific seismic hazards
assessment and a site-specific fault characterization evaluation.
A robust construction instrumentation and monitoring program will

be developed to monitor ground movements on and below the
ground surface along the bored tunnel alignments, cut-and-cover
tunnels, and at portal and underground station excavations in real
time. Additionally, structures and groundwater levels will also be
monitored. Warning and action levels for ground movements will be
set so that during construction, the contractor will be required to
act if action levels are exceeded.
Pre-construction condition surveys of structures along the tunnel

alignment will be performed prior to excavation to determine
baseline conditions and the potential for damage of the structures
along the alignment.
A detailed construction methods assessment will be performed to

identify construction methods required to overcome the geologic
challenges along the alignment (e.g., variable ground conditions,
mixed-face conditions, high groundwater heads, and potentially
gassy ground conditions).
There is extensive experience with the capability of underground

structures to remain stable during earthquake shaking. The tunnels,
portals, and underground stations will be designed using
established procedures to accommodate earthquake shaking.
A fault crossing design will be evaluated to be able to accommodate

the expected fault offset, maintaining the structural integrity of the
tunnel lining and preventing the intrusion of surrounding
groundwater into the tunnel. The design will meet the performance
criteria of the operating agency.
To control gas and groundwater infiltration into the tunnel, a

precast concrete segmental tunnel lining with double rubbergasketed joints will be used to provide a watertight and gastight
tunnel. Gas-proof and waterproof membranes will be required
where applicable for underground stations, cross passages and vault
excavations for the fault crossing.
Tunnel Construction (applies to the LRT and Freeway Tunnel

Alternatives): It is expected that bored tunnels for either the LRT or
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be constructed using a tunnel boring
machine (TBM). During construction, the Project Engineer will select a
3.10-23
DRAFT

pre-qualified contractor with experience with large, pressurized-face

TBMs. The Project Engineer will ensure that the Construction Contractor
implements the following measures during tunnel boring operations:
The contractor is expected to use pressurized-face TBMs for the

bored tunnels, which are routinely used to successfully control
ground losses and the contractor will be required to use a
sufficiently-stiff support system for the portal and underground
station excavation support to meet specific ground loss guidelines
developed in the design phase to minimize surface ground
settlement, which would minimize damage to existing structures.
Conservative values and techniques will be specified so that ground
movements are below the levels that could cause structural
damage, and the TBM will be operated to comply with the
requirements. The contractor will have a contingency plan of action
if the instruments read that ground movements are above
established action levels.
During tunneling, a positive face pressure will be applied to the

tunnel heading as required to limit surface settlement and loss of
ground. The ground will be properly conditioned by injecting
additives in front of the TBM to allow an adequate face pressure to
be maintained.
Ground treatment will be performed in areas identified during the

design phase to improve ground conditions and to protect critical
structures.
The ground movements at the surface and above and around the
tunnel will be monitored in real time. Ground movements will be
controlled throughout the construction duration to confirm that
ground control is being achieved and ground movements are below
the acceptable levels set during design. If ground movements
exceed acceptable levels set during design, then additional
measures will be required to reduce excavation-induced settlement
and lessen or eliminate the ground movement effects on the
adjacent structures. Several methods could be employed including:
Permeation grouting
Compaction grouting
Underpinning
The TBM expected to be used for the running tunnels will have a
comprehensive and integrated backfill grouting system to limit
tail- and shieldrelated ground losses.
Refer also to Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, for additional measures related to
soil erosion, including BMPs.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-24
DRAFT
SAN
RAFAEL HILLS
REPETTO HILLS
MERCED HILLS
F
F
I
M
M
Legend
SR 710 North Study Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative, Potential Disturbance Limit (PDL)
BRT Alternative PDL, with Centerline
anticline, identity and existence certain, location approximate

anticline, identity and existence certain, location concealed
af
overturned anticline, identity and existence certain, location accurate

syncline, identity and existence certain, location approximate
Qw
Alluvial Wash Deposits - unconsolidated sandy and gravelly sediment deposited in

recently active channels of streams and rivers; may contain loose to moderately
loose sand and silty sand
Qf
Alluvial Fan Deposits - uncosolidated boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt recently
deposited where a river or stream issues from a confined valley or canyon; sediment
typically deposited in a fan-shaped cone; gravel sediment generally more dominant than
sandy sediment
Qyf
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits - unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, undissected to

slightly dissected boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt deposits issued from a
confined valley or canyon
syncline, identity and existence certain, location concealed

contact, identity and existence certain, location accurate
LRT Alternative PDL
contact, identity and existence certain, location approximate
LRT Tunnel Zone of Potential Influence
contact, identity or existence questionable, location approximate
Freeway Tunnel Alternative PDL
reference contact, identity and existence certain, location concealed
Freeway Tunnel Zone of Potential Influence
reference contact, identity or existence questionable, location approximate

Qya
Young Alluvial Valley Deposits - unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, undissected to

slightly dissected clay, silt, sand, and gravel along stream valleys and
alluvial flats of larger rivers
Qof
Old Alluvial Fan Deposits - slightly to moderately consolidated, moderately dissected

boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt deposits issued from a confined valley or canyon
Qoa
Old Alluvial Valley Deposits - slightly to moderately consolidated, moderately dissected

clay, silt, sand, and gravel along stream valleys and alluvial flats of larger rivers
Qvoa
Very Old Alluvial Fan Deposits - moderately to well-consolidated, highly dissected clay,
silt, sand, and gravel along stream valleys and alluvial flats of larger rivers;
generally uplifted and deformed
reference contact, identity and existence certain, location approximate
Symbols
reference contact, identity and existence certain, location accurate
Eagle Rock, Raymond and San Rafael faults,

location based on this study
!!
!
!
!
!!
!! !! !
! ! !!! !!
!!
!! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!!
!!
!!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !! ! ! ! !
fault, identity and existence certain, location accurate

fault, identity and existence certain, location approximate
Base Map:
fault, identity and existence certain, location concealed
Elevation Contour
fault, identity or existence questionable, location approximate
Roads
fault, identity or existence questionable, location concealed
Stream
reverse fault, identity and existence certain, location approximate
Water Bodies
reverse fault, identity and existence certain, location concealed
Tss
Coarse-grained Tertiary age formations - primarily sandstone and conglomerate.

Includes Fernando (Tf), Puente (Tp) and Topanga (Tt) Formations
Tsh
Fine-grained Tertiary age formations - includes fine-grained sandstone, siltstone,mudstone, shale,

siliceous and calcareous sediments. Includes Fernando (Tf), Puente (Tp) and Topanga (Tt) Formations
Tv
Tertiary age formations of volcanic origin
thrust fault, identity and existence certain, location accurate

thrust fault, identity and existence certain, location approximate
thrust fault, identity and existence certain, location concealed
+
thrust fault, identity and existence certain, location concealed

water boundary
pKm
gr
Base map: Modified from CGS, 2012
Artificial Fill - deposits of fill resulting from human construction, mining, or other quarrying
activities; includes engineered fill for buildings, roads, dams, airport runways,
harbor facilities, and waste landfills
Cretaceous and pre-Cretaceous metamorphic formations of sedimentary

and volcanic origin
Granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages. Includes Wilson Quartz Diorite (Wqd)
Water
FIGURE 3.10-1
SR 710 North Study
N
0
Geologic Map
2300
4600
FEET
SOURCE: CH2M HILL (2014)

I:\CHM1105\G\Geology\Geologic Map.cdr (11/7/14)
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-26
DRAFT
Mednick Station
FIGURE 3.10-2
SR 710 North Study
Geologic Cross Section - LRT Alternative

I:\CHM1105\G\Geology\Geology X-Sec-LRT.cdr (1/5/15)
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-28
DRAFT
FIGURE 3.10-3
SR 710 North Study
Geologic Cross Section - Freeway Tunnel Alternative

I:\CHM1105\G\Geology\Geology X-Sec-Freeway Tunnel.cdr (10/28/14)
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-30
DRAFT
SAN
GABRIEL
MOUNTAINS
210
e
adre Villa Av
159
159
210
134
Foothil
l Blvd
Pasadena
710
State Hwy 110 S
Eagle
Rock
s
Pa
qu
e
Av
al
South
Pasadena
Foothill Blvd
East
Pasadena
San
Marino
Freemont Ave
Atlantic Blvd
110
REPETTO HILLS
San
Gabriel
Alhambra
Main St
Rosemead Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
4
v5
NA
52
Av
Ave
les
Rob
n
Sa
E California Blvd
Los
Highland
Park
N Sierra M
wy
Mountain St
Sierra Madre Blvd
te H
RAFAEL HILLS
Fair Oaks Ave
Sta
SAN
ion R
Valley Blvd
101
Rosemead
S New Ave
Miss
10
Lincoln
Heights
Monterey
Park
South San
Gabriel
Valley
B
lvd
710
N Findlay Ave
60
East Los
Angeles
MERCED HILLS
72
SR 710 North Study Alternative

TSM/TDM Alternative, Potential
Disturbance Limit (PDL)
LEGEND

LRT Alternative PDL
Alquist-Priolo Act Fault Zone

These are delineated as straight-line segments
that connect encircled turning points so as to
define special studies zone segments.
Liquefaction Zone
Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction,
or local geological, geotechnical and
groundwater conditions indicate a potential for
permanent ground displacements such that
mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 2693(c) would be required.
Landslide Zone
Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or
local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface
water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground
displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
Fault
! ! ! !
Fault - Certain
Fault - Inferred
Fault - Concealed
Elevation Contour
FIGURE 3.10-4
SR 710 North Study
N
0
Geologic Hazard Zones

2800
5600
FEET

I:\CHM1105\G\Geology\Geologic Hazard Zones.cdr (10/28/14)
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-32
DRAFT
134
10
I-2
110
101
605
60
110
* SOURCE: Potential Dam Inundation

Areas data was taken from the California
Emergency
Management
Agency.
Dams and Reservoirs from SCAG's
2005 Existing Land Use dataset.
710
N
0
MILES

I:\CHM1105\G\Geology\Dam Inundation.cdr (11/7/14)
Potential Dam
Inundation Areas*
National Forest
TSM/TDM Alternative,
Potential Disturbance Limit (PDL)
Military Land
BRT Alternative PDL with Centerline
Dam*
Freeways
LRT Alternative PDL
Reservoirs*
Metrolink

Unincorporated Area
Cities
Existing Metro Rail
FIGURE 3.10-5
SR 710 North Study
Dam Inundation Areas

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.10-34
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
3.11 Paleontology
3.11.1
Regulatory Setting
Paleontology is a natural science focused on the study of ancient animal and plant life as it is
preserved in the geologic record as fossils.
A number of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources, their treatment, and
funding for mitigation as a part of federally authorized projects.
23 United States Code (USC) 1.9(a) requires that the use of federal-aid funds must be in conformity
with federal and state law.
23 United States Code (USC) 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal highway funds for
paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16
USC 431-433 above and state law.
Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
3.11.2
The information in this section is based on the Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report
(PIR/PER) (2014) prepared for the project.
Paleontological resources (fossils) are defined as any trace of a past life form. While wood, bones,
and shells are the most common fossils, under certain conditions soft tissues, tracks, and trails may
be preserved as fossils. Fossils are most commonly found in sedimentary rock layers.
The area studied for each Build Alternative is referred to as the project area. The project area for
each Build Alternative includes all areas where project activities will occur, such as new right of way
(ROW) alignments, existing ROW, temporary construction easements, and signage.
3.11.2.1
Literature Review and Locality Search
The literature review included an examination of geologic maps of the project areas for the Build
Alternatives and a review of relevant geological and paleontological literature to determine which
geologic units are present within the project areas and whether fossils have been recovered from
those or similar geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic units may extend over large
geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well
beyond the project areas.
The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded
paleontological resources within and adjacent to the study area for a given project. In June 2013, a
locality search was completed through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM).
This search identified any vertebrate localities in the LACM records that exist within several miles of
the project areas in the same or similar deposits.
The LACM has no records of vertebrate fossil localities within the boundaries of the project areas for
the Build Alternatives. However, there are localities within 5 miles (mi) or less of these project areas
from the same geologic units. The LACM states that all the geologic units that the project areas cross
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-1
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
have the potential to contain scientifically significant paleontological remains, either at or below the
surface. The LACM has four vertebrate localities in older Quaternary Alluvium near the project areas
for the four alternatives. Within the marine Pliocene Fernando Formation, the LACM records four
fossil vertebrate localities in downtown Los Angeles, about 5 mi west of the project areas for the
Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM), Light Rail
Transit (LRT), and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives and 6 mi west of the project area for the Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Alternative. The LACM has numerous fossil localities throughout the Los Angeles Basin
in the marine Miocene Puente Formation, which may also be referred to as the Modelo or Monterey
Formation. The LACM has one vertebrate locality from the marine deposits of the Miocene Topanga
Group less than 2 mi west of the project areas for the Build Alternative improvements at Figueroa
Street and Colorado Boulevard.
Shallow (less than several feet) excavations in the Quaternary Alluvial Deposits found at the surface
throughout most of the project areas are unlikely to uncover any scientifically significant vertebrate
fossils. However, deeper excavations in the Quaternary Alluvial Deposits, as well as any excavations
into exposures of the Fernando Formation, Puente Formation, or Topanga Group, have the potential
to uncover scientifically significant vertebrate fossils. Therefore, the LACM believes that any
substantial excavation within these deposits should be monitored by a paleontologist to quickly and
professionally recover any fossils that may be present while not impeding development during
grading within the project area. Any recovered fossils should be placed into an accredited scientific
institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
3.11.2.2
Field Survey
3.11.2.3
Geology
Within all the project areas, exposures of native deposits are extremely limited because they lie
within commercial or residential areas, most of which are either paved or disturbed from previous
construction of buildings, streets, or freeways. This is particularly true for the TSM/TDM and BRT
Alternatives project areas, which involve modifications to the existing ROW. For the LRT and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, large portions of the project areas are underground and not possible
to inspect. Other portions at the surface follow active freeway ROW, which is also paved and
disturbed from previous construction and is unsafe to inspect. For the abovementioned reasons, a
field inspection of the Build Alternatives project areas was not conducted as part of this report.
The project is located in the transition zone between the northern Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province and the south-central portion of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern
California. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is an approximately 900 mi long northwestsoutheast-trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges in the north to the tip
of Baja California in the south and includes the Los Angeles Basin. This province is characterized by
mountains and valleys that trend in a northwest-southeast direction, roughly parallel to the San
Andreas Fault. The total width of the province is approximately 225 mi, extending from the Colorado
Desert in the east, across the continental shelf, to the Southern Channel Islands (i.e., Santa Barbara,
San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente). It contains extensive pre-Cretaceous (more than 145
million years ago [mya]) and Cretaceous (145 to 66 mya) igneous and metamorphic rock covered by
limited exposures of post-Cretaceous (less than 66 mya) sedimentary deposits. The Transverse
Ranges Geomorphic Province is characterized by steep mountains and valleys that trend in an eastwest direction at an oblique angle to the northwest-southeast trend of the California coast, hence
the name Transverse. This type of trend is extremely rare elsewhere in the United States.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-2
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Compression along the San Andreas Fault is squeezing and rotating the Transverse Ranges, making
this area one of the most rapidly rising regions on earth. Tectonic activity in this province has also
folded and faulted thick sequences of Cenozoic, organic-rich sedimentary rocks, making the area an
important source for oil.
Within this larger region, the project borders the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley, running
from north to south along the San Rafael Hills and through the Repetto Hills. These low-lying hills
rise out of the Los Angeles Basin, separating the San Gabriel Valley from the rest of the Basin. They
contain exposures of marine sedimentary rocks deposited in the ancient Los Angeles Basin
approximately 16 to 2.6 mya. Combined, these deposits have a maximum thickness of 20,000 feet
(ft); however, because they have been uplifted, folded, faulted, and partially eroded, the thickness
and amount of exposure of each unit varies throughout the region. It is from these sedimentary
rocks that most of the petroleum in the Los Angeles Basin has been produced, and for this reason,
oil wells have been drilled throughout the San Rafael and Repetto Hills. Also present within the
project area are sediments that eroded from the San Rafael Hills, Repetto Hills, and San Gabriel
Mountains. These deposits accumulated in the valleys and range from approximately 800,000 to
10,000 years ago.
Geologic mapping indicates there may be eight geologic units present in the project areas of the
TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives: Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits, Young
Alluvial Fan Deposits, Young Alluvium, Old Alluvial Fan Deposits, Old Alluvium, Fernando Formation,
Puente Formation, and Topanga Group. In addition, Artificial Fill likely occurs within the project
areas along existing interstates, highways, and streets, where it was used during construction to
adjust for changes in topography and for overpasses and interchanges. Each of these units is
described briefly below and in Table 3.11.1.
Artificial Fill (Af)
Artificial Fill consists of sediments that have been removed from one location and transported to
another by humans. The transportation distance can range from a few feet to dozens of miles.
Composition is dependent on the source. When it is compacted and dense, it is known as
engineered fill, but it can be unconsolidated and loosely compacted. Artificial Fill will sometimes
contain modern debris such as asphalt, wood, bricks, concrete, metal, glass, plastic, and even plant
material.
Depending on the area, the thickness of these deposits can range from less than 1 ft to several
hundred feet. Only large areas of Artificial Fill have been mapped. Artificial Fill is not mapped within
the project areas for the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. However, Artificial
Fill is likely present in portions of the project areas along existing interstates, highways, and streets,
where it was used during their construction to adjust for changes in topography and for overpasses
and interchanges.
Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf)
The Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits formed less than 11,700 years ago and consist of unconsolidated
bouldery, cobbly, gravelly, sandy, or silty alluvial deposits on active and recently active alluvial fans
and in some channel segments. These sediments were deposited by flooding streams and debris
flows coming down from higher elevations and generally form a fan or lobe shape at the base of hills
and mountains or in stream channels. These deposits are mapped in the northern portion of the
project area for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative along the Arroyo Seco channel.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-3
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
TABLE 3.11.1:
Geologic Units within the Project Areas for the Alternatives of the SR 710 North Study
Geologic Formation/Unit
Artificial Fill
Holocene Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Young Alluvium
Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
Old Alluvium
Fernando Formation
Puente Formation
Topanga Group
Map Symbol
Af (not mapped)
Age (years ago)

Less than 100
Geologic Epoch
Holocene
Qf
Less than 11,700
Holocene
Qyf (undivided)
Qyaa (undivided, sandy)
Qof (undivided)
Qoa (undivided) and Qoa3g (gravelly)
Qoaa (undivided,
Qoa2g (gravelly)
sandy)
Qoa1a (sandy)
Tf3 (member 3)
Tf1 (member 1)
Tpnz (siltstone)
Tpns (siliceous shale)
Tpna (sandstone)
Ttcg (conglomerate)
Tta (sandstone)
Ttz (siltstone)
Less than 126,000

Less than 126,000
781,000 to 11,700
126,000 to 11,700
126,000 to 11,700
781,000 to 126,000
Late Pleistocene to Holocene

Late Pleistocene to Holocene
Middle to Late Pleistocene
Late Pleistocene
Late Pleistocene
Middle Pleistocene
5.333 to 2.588 million
Pliocene

Early Pliocene
Early Pliocene
Late Miocene
Middle Miocene
Source: Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (2014).
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
The Young Alluvial Fan Deposits are Late Pleistocene to Holocene in age (less than 126,000 years
ago) and consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, and silt with occasional cobbles and boulders near
mountain fronts. These sediments were deposited by flooding streams and debris flows coming
down from higher elevations and generally form a fan or lobe shape at the base of hills and
mountains. In some areas, the surfaces can show slight to moderate soil development.
These deposits are mapped in all the project areas, predominantly in the southern portions. In the
TSM/TDM Alternative, these deposits are mapped around the improvements along Figueroa Street
from Colorado Boulevard to State Route 134 (SR 134), at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and
South Del Mar Avenue, and along San Gabriel Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard just north of
Interstate 10 (I-10). In the project area for the BRT Alternative, they are mapped along Atlantic
Boulevard between Brightwood Drive and Floral Drive, as well as between Pomona Boulevard and
East Beverly Boulevard. In the project areas for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, these
deposits are found along Interstate 710 (I-710) from the interchange at I-10 south to Floral Drive.
Young Alluvium (Qyaa)
The deposits of Young Alluvium are Late Pleistocene to Holocene in age (less than 126,000 years
ago) and consist of unconsolidated and generally friable silt, sand, and gravel that were deposited by
streams. In some areas, the surfaces of these deposits can show slight to moderate soil
development. Young Alluvium is mapped in the project area for the TSM/TDM Alternative around
the improvement at the intersection of West Broadway and Colorado Boulevard.
Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
Similar to the Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, the Old Alluvial Fan Deposits consist of gravel, sand, and
silt deposited by flooding streams and debris flows coming down from higher elevations. However,
these deposits are slightly to moderately consolidated and older, ranging in age from the Middle to
Late Pleistocene (781,000 to 11,700 years ago). Some surfaces show increased soil development and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-4
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
are dissected by erosional gullies. These sediments were deposited contemporaneously with the Old
Alluvial Fan Deposits but are distinguished by their visible fan or lobe shape near the base of hills
and mountains.
These deposits are mapped within the project areas for all the alternatives. Most of the
improvements within the project area for the TSM/TDM Alternative are within areas mapped as Old
Alluvial Fan Deposits, including improvements in the Cities of South Pasadena, Alhambra, Monterey
Park, San Marino, San Gabriel, and Rosemead. Similarly, these deposits are mapped within most of
the project area for the BRT Alternative, from Pasadena to Monterey Park, including portions of the
route along East Colorado Boulevard, Del Mar Boulevard, Fair Oaks Avenue, Huntington Drive, and
Atlantic Boulevard. Within the project areas for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, these
deposits are mapped at the surface roughly from the Arroyo Seco Parkway (State Route 110
[SR 110]) in the north to Hellman Avenue in the south, and they may be encountered at or below
the surface along different segments of the alignments. For the LRT Alternative, the deposits may be
encountered during excavation of the maintenance yard; the Mednik, Floral, Alhambra, Huntington,
and South Pasadena Stations; the aerial segment from East 3rd Street to Floral Drive and Hellman
Avenue to Valley Boulevard; the tunnel section from Valley Boulevard to Alhambra Road and
Huntington Drive to SR 110 (Arroyo Seco Parkway); and during widening of Mednik Avenue between
1st Street and Floral Drive. For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the deposits may be encountered
below the surface in the cut-andcover tunnel segment at the south portal near Valley Boulevard
and in the bored tunnel segment from Monterey Road to the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110).
Old Alluvium (Qoa, Qoaa, Qoa1a, Qoa2g, Qoa3g)
The Old Alluvium deposits are comprised of unconsolidated to moderately indurated brown to
reddish-brown gravel, sand, and silt deposited by streams during the Middle to Late Pleistocene
(781,000 to 11,700 years ago). Surfaces are dissected by erosional gullies and show some soil
development, including a distinctive reddish B soil horizon that can be recognized in some areas.
Three informal geologic units (Units 1, 2, and 3) have been mapped to divide these deposits where
they could be distinguished based on relative terrace levels. Deposits that could not be easily
distinguished are mapped as Qoa for undivided Old Alluvium. Qoa3g belongs to Unit 3, the youngest
of the three subunits where they can be distinguished. It is Late Pleistocene (126,000 to 11,700
years ago) in age and predominantly composed of gravel. Qoa2g is also a gravelly unit and dates to
the Late Pleistocene (126,000 to 11,700 years ago), but it is older than Unit 3. Unit 1, the oldest of
the three subunits, contains the Qoa1a deposits, which are mainly sand and were deposited in the
Middle Pleistocene (781,000 to 126,000 years ago).
Old Alluvium is mapped within the project areas for all the alternatives. Within the project area for
the TSM/TDM Alternative, these deposits are mapped at the intersection of Eagle Rock Boulevard
and Colorado Boulevard, along St. John Avenue, and along the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110). In the
BRT Alternative, they are mapped in the north along Fair Oaks Avenue from Del Mar Boulevard to
the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110). For the LRT Alternative, Old Alluvium is mapped at the surface at
the northern end of the project area, from California Boulevard to the Arroyo Seco Parkway
(SR 110). The deposit would also be encountered below the surface from approximately Fillmore
Street to Glenarm Street and during excavation for the Fillmore Street Station. For the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative, these deposits are mapped at the northern end of the project area from the
State Route 710 (SR 710)/SR 134/Interstate 210 (I-210) interchange to the Arroyo Seco Parkway
(SR 110), and they would be encountered in the cut-and-cover and bored segments of the tunnel
from approximately Del Mar Boulevard to Bellefontaine Street.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-5
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Fernando Formation (Tf1, Tf3)
The Fernando Formation is mapped in the Monterey Park area of the Repetto Hills and in the hills of
the Highland Park area. Its massive siltstone, sandstone, and pebbly conglomerate were deposited
in deep to shallow marine environments during the Pliocene (5.333 to 2.588 mya). This formation is
distributed widely in the subsurface of the Los Angeles Basin, and has produced oil in the Puente
and Coyote Hills to the southeast. It is exposed in the Santa Ana Mountains and correlates with the
Capistrano and Niguel Formations of coastal Orange County. In the vicinity of the project areas,
three informal members of the Fernando Formation, labeled 1, 2, and 3, have been mapped.
The oldest member (Tf1) is a massive, light gray siltstone. The middle member (Tf2) is a massive,
fine- to medium-grained, brown sandstone. The youngest member (Tf3) is a light to reddish-brown,
coarse pebble conglomerate. Deposition of these sediments began in a deep marine environment,
with water depths greater than 4,000 ft. Over time, this area became progressively shallower, and
the coarser-grained sandstones and conglomerates of the upper members were deposited in waters
less than 600 ft deep. The formation increases in thickness from west to east, reaching a maximum
of 6,000 ft in the Monterey Park area of the Repetto Hills. Only the oldest (Tf1-siltstone) and
youngest (Tf3-conglomerate) members are mapped in the project areas for the BRT, LRT, and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
The Fernando Formation is mapped at the surface in a small portion of the southern end of project
area for the BRT Alternative along Atlantic Boulevard from West El Repetto Drive to Cadiz Street. For
the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, this formation is mapped at the surface from the SR 710/I10 interchange north to Mission Road. For the LRT Alterative, the Fernando Formation may also be
encountered below the surface during excavation for the aerial segment from Corporate Center
Drive to the SR 710/I10 interchange, in the bored tunnel segment from approximately Meridian
Avenue to Commonwealth Avenue, and for the Alhambra Station. This formation may also be
reached at the surface during grading for construction of a mechanically stabilized earth
embankment that will support the aerial segment in the area south of the SR 710/I10 interchange.
For the Freeway Alternative, these deposits may be encountered below the surface during
excavation of the bored tunnel segment from approximately Norwich Avenue to Huntington Drive.
Puente Formation (Tpnz, Tpns, Tpna)
Originally named for exposures in the Puente Hills, the Puente Formation in the Repetto Hills is
comprised of over 2,000 ft of marine siltstone, sandstone, and shale deposited during the Late
Miocene to Early Pliocene (11.62 to 3.6 mya). In the Repetto Hills area, rock type was used to map
four non-sequential, interbedded units, which have not been specifically correlated with formal
members identified elsewhere in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Subsequently, these four units
were consolidated into the three (Tpnz, Tpns, and Tpna) that are mapped in the project areas for the
TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
Rocks mapped as Tpnz consist of Early Pliocene (5.333 to 3.6 mya) well-bedded, light gray siltstone.
These beds are thickest in the youngest part of the formation, while older sediments are
interbedded with those of the underlying rock type. Also deposited in the Early Pliocene (5.333 to
3.6 mya) is the light gray, siliceous shales and siltstones labeled Tpns, which contain thin,
discontinuous beds of fine- to coarse-grained sandstone. Lastly, the brown to light gray, very fine- to
very coarse-grained sandstones mapped as Tpna contain discoidal concretions in some places and
are slightly older, having been deposited in the Late Miocene (11.62 to 5.333 mya).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-6
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Rocks of the Puente Formation in this area show deformation structures typical of slumping and
sliding that occurred as they were being deposited, evidence that these sediments formed as part of
the southeast lobe of the Tarzana submarine fan recognized in the Santa Monica Mountains. This
submarine fan developed as sediments eroded off the coast to the northwest and accumulated at
the mouth of a submarine canyon in water several thousand feet deep. After these rocks were
deposited, they were uplifted, folded, and faulted, factors that along with their compositional
properties have allowed them to trap oil. Oil wells have been drilled into this formation around the
Los Angeles Basin and in the Repetto Hills near the project area, but most of the production has
come from the Puente Hills.
Within the project area for the TSM/TDM Alternative, the Puente Formation is mapped at the
surface only in a very small portion of the improvement at the SR 710/Valley Boulevard intersection.
Similarly, within the project area for the BRT Alternative, this formation is mapped at the surface in
a small area near the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and West Garvey Avenue. These deposits
are mapped at the surface in the project areas for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives around
California State University, Los Angeles (Cal State LA) near the SR 710/I-10 interchange, and the
deposits may also be encountered below the surface during excavation of the aerial segment from
the SR 710/I10 interchange north to Valley Boulevard, the excavation of the Cal State LA Station,
and in the tunnel segment from Valley Boulevard to Mission Road and from Commonwealth Avenue
to Main Street. For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the formation may be encountered in the cut
andcover tunnel segment around Valley Boulevard and in the bored tunnel segment from
approximately Valley Boulevard to Norwich Avenue and from Huntington Drive to Newtonia Drive.
Topanga Group (Ttcg, Tta, Ttz)
The Topanga Group in the project area includes conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale
deposited in a marine environment in the Middle Miocene (15.97 to 11.62 mya). The Topanga
Formation was first mapped in the Santa Monica Mountains, and it has since been correlated with
deposits throughout the Los Angeles Basin, as well as in the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin
Hills in Orange County.
In the Repetto Hills area, these rocks were designated as the Topanga Group and then mapped as
three informal subunits based on rock type. The Ttcg subunit is a light brown conglomerate that
forms distinct beds in the southeast, but is massive and without visible beds in the northwest. Rocks
labeled Tta consist of light brown and gray, medium- to coarse-grained sandstone that forms visible
layers. And Ttz designates medium to dark brown siltstone with interbedded sandstone, shale, and
chert. All three subunits are composed of sediment carried from land to the northwest and
deposited in shallow to deep water on the slopes of the ancient Los Angeles Basin.
Within the project area for the TSM/TDM Alternative, the Topanga Group is mapped along Arroyo
Seco Parkway (SR 110) and along Figueroa Street just south of SR 134. Within the project area for
the BRT Alternative, these deposits are mapped in small areas off Fair Oaks Avenue, including
Mound Avenue, State Street, Raymond Hill Drive, and Grave Walk. In the project area for the LRT
Alternative, deposits of the Topanga Group are mapped around Huntington Drive and just north of
the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110), and may also be encountered below the surface during
excavation for the Huntington Street Station, as well as in the tunnel segment from approximately
Main Street north to Huntington Drive and from Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110) to Glenarm Street.
For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, these deposits are mapped at the surface from Alhambra Road
to Monterey Road and may be encountered below the surface during excavation for the bored
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-7
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
tunnel segments from approximately Newtonia Drive to Monterey Road and from Arroyo Seco
Parkway (SR 110) to Bellefontaine Street.
3.11.2.4
Paleontological Sensitivity
A formation or rock unit has paleontological sensitivity or the potential for scientifically significant
paleontological resources if it previously has produced, or is capable of preserving, vertebrate fossils
and associated or regionally uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils. All sedimentary rocks, certain
volcanic rocks, and mildly metamorphosed rocks are considered to have potential for
paleontological resources.
As discussed above, formations with potential paleontological resources are located within the
project areas for the Build Alternatives. The scientific significance of a resource is often referred to
as the sensitivity or potential. In most cases, decisions about how to manage paleontological
resources must be based on the potential because the actual situation cannot be known until
construction excavation for the project is underway. Paleontological scientific significance may also
be stated for a particular rock unit, predicated on the research potential of fossils suspected to
occur in that unit. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) each have a ranking system to describe paleontological sensitivity,
both of which are included here.
Caltrans Ranking System for Paleontological Sensitivity
The sensitivity of rock units and formations that may contain paleontological resources is assessed
on the basis of high, low, or no potential for paleontological resources:
High Potential: Rock units which, based on previous studies, contain or are likely to contain
scientifically significant vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils. These units include, but are not
limited to, sedimentary formations that contain scientifically significant nonrenewable
paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock
units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. These units may also
include some volcanic and low-grade metamorphic rock units. Fossiliferous deposits with very
limited geographic extent or an uncommon origin (e.g., tar pits and caves) are given special
consideration and ranked as highly sensitive. High sensitivity includes the potential for
containing: (1) abundant vertebrate fossils; (2) a few scientifically significant fossils (large or
small vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils) that may provide new and scientifically
significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, and/or stratigraphic data; (3) areas that may
contain datable organic remains older than Recent, including Neotoma (sp.) middens; and/or
(4) areas that may contain unique new vertebrate deposits, traces, and/or trackways. Areas with
a high potential for containing scientifically significant paleontological resources require
monitoring and mitigation.
Low Potential: This category includes sedimentary rock units that: (1) are potentially
fossiliferous, but have not yielded scientifically significant fossils in the past; (2) have not yet
yielded fossils, but possess a potential for containing fossil remains; or (3) contain common
and/or widespread invertebrate fossils if the taxonomy, phylogeny, and ecology of the species
contained in the rock are well understood. Sedimentary rocks expected to contain vertebrate
fossils are not placed in this category because vertebrates are generally rare and found in more
localized strata. Rock units designated as low potential generally do not require monitoring and
mitigation. However, as excavation for construction gets underway, it is possible that new and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-8
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
unanticipated paleontological resources might be present. If this occurs, a Construction Change

Order (CCO) must be prepared in order to have a qualified Principal Paleontologist evaluate the
resource. If the resource is determined to be scientifically significant, monitoring and mitigation
are required.
No Potential: Rock units of intrusive igneous origin, most extrusive igneous rocks, and
moderately to highly metamorphosed rocks are classified as having no potential for containing
scientifically significant paleontological resources. For projects encountering only these types of
rock units, paleontological resources can generally be eliminated as a concern when the
Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) is prepared and no further action taken.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
According to the SVP, paleontological potential is the potential for the presence of scientifically
significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. All sedimentary rocks, some volcanic rocks,
and some metamorphic rocks have potential for the presence of scientifically significant,
nonrenewable paleontological resources, and review of available literature may further refine the
potential of each rock unit, formation, or facies. The SVP has four categories of potential, or
sensitivity: High, Low, None, and Undetermined. If a geographic area or geological unit is classified
as having undetermined potential for paleontological resources, studies must be undertaken to
determine whether that rock unit has a sensitivity of either High, Low, or None. These categories are
described in more detail below.
High Sensitivity: Rock units from which vertebrate or scientifically significant invertebrate, plant,
or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing
additional scientifically significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high
potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary
formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e.g., ashes or tephras), some low-grade
metamorphic rocks that contain scientifically significant paleontological resources anywhere
within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable
for the preservation of fossils (e.g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones,
argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained
marine sandstones). Paleontological potential consists of both: (a) the potential for yielding
abundant or scientifically significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few scientifically
significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils; and (b) the
importance of recovered evidence for new and scientifically significant taxonomic, phylogenetic,
paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data. Rock units that contain
potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, including deposits associated with
animal nests or middens, and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or
trackways, are also classified as having high potential.
Low Potential: Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified

professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have a low potential
for yielding scientifically significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil
specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus, fossils are only
preserved in rare circumstances; the presence of fossils is the exception, not the rule (e.g.,
basalt flows or Recent colluvium). Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact
mitigation measures to protect fossils.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-9
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
No Potential: Some rock units have no potential to contain scientifically significant

paleontological resources (e.g., high-grade metamorphic rocks [such as gneisses and schists] and
plutonic igneous rocks [such as granites and diorites]). Rock units with no potential require no
protection or impact mitigation measures relative to paleontological resources.
Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their
paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have
undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine whether these rock units have
high or low potential to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources. A field survey
by a qualified professional to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of
these rock units is required before a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological
potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface
stratigraphy.
3.11.2.5
Paleontological Sensitivity within the Project Areas for the Build

Alternatives
Generally, scientifically significant paleontological resources are geologic sites or sedimentary

deposits containing individual fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique or unusual, are
stratigraphically important, and add to the existing body of knowledge in specific areas,
stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. All vertebrate fossils are classified as significant.
These fossils found undisturbed and not subjected to disturbance after their initial burial and
fossilization are particularly important as they provide information for interpretation of tectonic
events, past climates, the relationship between aquatic and terrestrial species, and evolution in
general.
The project areas for the Build Alternatives would cross eight geologic units that were deposited
between approximately 16 mya and the present. Figures 3.11-1 through 3.11-4 present the
paleontological sensitivity within the Build Alternatives project areas.
Table 3.11.2 summarizes the specific sensitivities for units within the project areas of the Build
Alternatives and lists the Paleontological Sensitivity/Potential ranking system used by Caltrans and
the SVP.
TABLE 3.11.2:
Paleontological Sensitivity/Potential of Geologic Units
Geologic Unit
Artificial Fill
Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits
Young Alluvium
Old Alluvium
Fernando Formation
Puente Formation
Topanga Group
Paleontological Sensitivity/Potential
No
No
Low Above a depth of 10 feet
High Below a depth of 10 feet
Low Above a depth of 10 feet
High Below a depth of 10 feet
High
High
High
High
High
Source: Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (2014).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-10
DRAFT
Qyf
Mzbhd
Tt
Colorado Blvd
Qyaa
Ttcg
Qoaa
Qoa3a
Colorado Blvd
134
oc k B
lv
Qyf
Ttz
Ttz
Ttcg
St
Yo rk B
lv
Qyf
Ttz
Qyf
Tf1
Tf2
Tf1
nt
Hu
Mission St
nte
Mo
Qof
Ttz
re y
Qof
Rd
Tpnz
Qof
Tpnz
Hu
Qf
Tpna
Poplar Blvd
Qof
Qof
Tpna
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Daly St
Qf
LEGEND
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Tpns
Tpna
Tf3?
Tpnz
Qof
Tpnz
TSM/TDM Alternative Local Street and Intersection Improvements Project Area
Valley Blvd
Tf3?
Av
e
Qof
R
ion
Qof
br
a
Tpnz
Tpns
s
Mis
Tpnz
Tpna
FEET
SOURCE: ESRI (2008); Yerkes and Campbell (2005)
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Paleo\Sensitivity_TSM_TDM.mxd (10/27/2014)
Low
Not Applicable
Qof
Mis
sion
R
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qof
Qof
Qyf
Valley Blvd
Qof
Tf1
Tpnz
Qyf
Qof
Hellman Ave
Tpnz
Low - Above a depth of 10 feet, High - Below a depth of 10 feet

3300
Qof
Qof
High
Qw
Garfield Ave
Fremont Ave
Main St
Qwa
Commonwealth Ave
Tpns
Tpna
Tpna
ton D
ntin g
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Tpna
Al
ha
m
St
Tpna
ve
ld A
Qof
Qof
rfie
Tpnz
Ga
Qyf
Tpns
Atlantic Blvd
Tpns
F ig
d
do R
nan
Qyf
Qof
City Blv
Fer
Alhambra Rd
Tpna
a
ro
ue
Las Tunas Dr
Ttz
Ttz
Tpns
Qf
Temple
Qof
Qyf
Tpna
Del Mar Ave
n
Sa
Qyf
Qof
Tta
Ttz
Qyf
San Gabriel Blvd
110
Qyf
1650
D
on
Qof
Tpna
t
in g
Rosemead Blvd
Tpns
Qya
Qoa
Qoa
Qf
Qyf
Ttz
Tta
Tta
ve
rino A
Ttz
Tta
Qoa
Qoa
Qyf
Qoa
a
San M
Tta
Qyf
Qoa
Qof
Qoaa
Qyf
roa
Ttcg
Qof
Qyf2
Qyf1
Qw
Qu
e
Fig u
Kgr
Qoa3a
California Blvd
Qc
Ttcg
Qyf
Qu
Qyf1
Qoa1a
Qoaa
Eagle
R
Ttcg
Del Mar Blvd
Qf
Ttz
Qoaa
710
Qof
Qyf
Qywa
19
Qaf
10
Qywa
Qyf
Qywa
Qyf
Copyright: 2009 ESRI
FIGURE 3.11-1
SR 710 North Study
TSM/TDM Alternative Local Street and

Intersection Improvements Project Area Paleontological Sensitivity
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-12
DRAFT
101
Tpnz
Tpnz
Whittier Blvd
Qoa
Floral Dr
D
on
r
Tta
3rd St
Qof
Qoa
Qof
ss
Be
v
Ttz
Rd
Del Mar Blvd
Qyf3
Dr
Walnut St
n
gto
Qaf
Qya
Qoa
Lake Ave
Qyf2g
n
nti
Hu
Qaf
Qof
Washington Blvd
re y
Tfl
Qyf1g
Orange Grove Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Av
bles
nte
Mo
St
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Paleo\Sensitivity_BRT.mxd (10/27/2014)
in
Ma
FEET
Qof
Qof
Qaf
Qaf
Qyf3
Qyf4
Allen Ave
Qyf2

Qof2
FIGURE 3.11-2
High

3600
Qof
Ro
Los
Qoa
e
Qof
Qof
Qyf
BRT Alternative Project Area
Fair Oaks Ave
210
Qwa
Qof2
LEGEND
Qoa2g
Arroyo Pkwy
Ttcg
reservoir
Qoa3b
Lincoln Ave
Qoa2g
R
ion
Valley Blvd
Qoa
SOURCE: ESRI (2008);Yerkes and Campbell (2005)
Qof
s
Mis
Hellman Ave
Tfuc
Tfuc
Qoa
Tfuf
Garf
ield
Ave
Emerson Ave
Tfuc
Garvey Ave
Tfu
Newmark Ave
Tf2
Qywa
Qof1
Qof1
Qof
Qoa3g
Qf
Orange Grove Blvd
Qof
Qof
10
Tpnz
Ave
Ttcg
California Blvd
Qoa2
Tf3
Vista
Mountain St
vd
Bl
Qof
Qof
a
Lin d
Qf
Alhambra Rd
Qoa
Qoa
Qf
Tta
Commowealth Ave
c
nti
Qof
134
Qoaa
Rd
lvd
Ttz
la
At
e rl
yB
Fremont Ave
Pa
Qof
Ttz
710
Tf3?
re y
Tf3
Qu
Qof
Ttz
nte
Mo
Tf1
Ttz
Qya2a
Mission St
Cesar Chavez
Qof
Qoa
110
Tf3?
60
1800
Ttz
Tta
Qyf
Tta
Tpns
Mzbhd
Ttcg
e
Av
Tpna
Tf1
Qof
Qof
Qoaa
Qoa3a
Ttcg
a
br
m
ha
Al
lvd
yB
lle
Va
710
Qof
t
in g
Qof
Tpnz
Qyaa
Qyf
Tpna
Qof
Tpna
Tpnz
Qof
Ar izo
na Av
e
Tpna
Qaf
Eastern Ave
Ttz
Qyfg
Qyf
Ttz
Qyf
Tpnz
nt
Hu
Qof
Tpns
Tt
Qyf
Ttcg
Qf
Tpns
Qoaa
Qyf
Ttz
Tf1
Qyf
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Tf1
Ttz
Tpna
Qof
City Terrace Dr
Olympic Blvd
Qoa
Qof
Ttcg
Yo rk B
lv
Qof
Tpna
Tpns
Figu
eroa
St
Qf
Broadway
Sot
oS
Tpna
Low
Not Applicable
SR 710 North Study
BRT Alternative Project Area Paleontological Sensitivity
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-14
DRAFT
101
Tpnz
Tpnz
Whittier Blvd
Qoa
Floral Dr
D
on
r
Tta
3rd St
Qof
Qoa
Qof
ss
Rd
Dr
Walnut St
n
gto
Qaf
Qof
Del Mar Blvd
Qyf3
Qaf
Qya
Qoa
Lake Ave
Qyf2g
n
nti
Hu
Tfl
Washington Blvd
re y
Qof
Be
v
Qyf1g
Orange Grove Blvd
Av
bles
Colorado Blvd
Ro
Los
Qoa
e
nte
Mo
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Paleo\Sensitivity_LRT.mxd (10/27/2014)
St
in
Ma
FEET
Qof
Qof
Qaf
Qaf
Qyf3
Qyf4
Allen Ave
Qyf2

Qof2
FIGURE 3.11-3
High

3600
Fair Oaks Ave
Arroyo Pkwy
Ttcg
Qof
Qof
Qyf
LRT Alternative Project Area
Qoa2g
210
Qwa
Qof2
LEGEND
Qoa3b
Ttz
reservoir
Qf
Qoa2g
R
ion
Valley Blvd
Qoa
Qoa3g
Lincoln Ave
Qof
s
Mis
Hellman Ave
Tfuc
Tfuc
Qoa
Tfuf
Garf
ield
Ave
Emerson Ave
Tfuc
Garvey Ave
Tfu
Newmark Ave
Tf2
Qywa
Qof1
Qof1
Qof
Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Qof
Qof
10
Tpnz
Vista
Ttcg
California Blvd
Qoa2
Tf3
a
Lin d
Mountain St
vd
Bl
Qof
Qof
134
Qf
Alhambra Rd
Qoa
Qoa
Qf
Tta
Commowealth Ave
c
nti
Qof
Ttz
Qoaa
Rd
lvd
Ttz
la
At
e rl
yB
Fremont Ave
Pa
Qof
Qu
710
Tf3?
re y
Tf3
Qya2a
Qof
Ttz
nte
Mo
Tf1
Ttz
Mission St
Cesar Chavez
Qof
Qoa
110
Tf3?
60
1800
Ttz
Tta
Qyf
Tta
Tpns
Mzbhd
Ttcg
e
Av
Tpna
Tf1
Qof
Qof
Qoaa
Qoa3a
Ttcg
a
br
m
ha
Al
lvd
yB
lle
Va
710
Qof
t
in g
Qof
Tpnz
Qyaa
Qyf
Tpna
Qof
Tpna
Tpnz
Qof
Ar izo
na Av
e
Tpna
Qaf
Eastern Ave
Ttz
Qyfg
Qyf
Ttz
Qyf
Tpnz
nt
Hu
Qof
Tpns
Tt
Qyf
Ttcg
Qf
Tpns
Qoaa
Qyf
Ttz
Tf1
Qyf
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Tf1
Ttz
Tpna
Qof
City Terrace Dr
Olympic Blvd
Qoa
Qof
Ttcg
Yo rk B
lv
Qof
Tpna
Tpns
Figu
eroa
St
Qf
Broadway
Sot
oS
Tpna
Low
Not Applicable
SR 710 North Study
LRT Alternative Project Area Paleontological Sensitivity
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-16
DRAFT
101
Tpnz
Whittier Blvd
Qoa
Floral Dr
Tpns
t
in g
D
on
r
Ttz
3rd St
Qof
Qoa
Qof
ss
210
Washington Blvd
Dr
Walnut St
n
gto
Qaf
Qof
Del Mar Blvd
Qyf3
Qaf
Qya
Qoa
Lake Ave
Qyf2g
n
nti
Hu
Tfl
Be
v
Qyf1g
Orange Grove Blvd
Rd
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Paleo\Sensitivity_FwyTunnel.mxd (10/27/2014)
Fair Oaks Ave
Colorado Blvd
re y
Av
bles
Qoa
e
nte
Mo
FEET
Qof
Qof
Qaf
Qaf
Qyf3
Qyf4
Allen Ave
Qyf2

Qof2
FIGURE 3.11-4
High

3600
St
Qof
in
Ma
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Alignment
Ro
Los
Qoa2g
Arroyo Pkwy
Ttcg
Qof
Qyf
LEGEND
Qof
Qwa
Qof2
1800
Ttz
Reservoir
Lincoln Ave
Qoa2g
R
ion
Valley Blvd
Qoa
Qof
s
Mis
Hellman Ave
Emerson Ave
Tfuf
Garf
ield
Ave
Garvey Ave
Tfuc
Qoa3g
Qoa3b
Orange Grove Blvd
Qof
Qof
10
Tfuc
Tfuc
Qoa
Tfu
Qywa
Qof1
Qof1
Tf2
Newmark Ave
Qoa
Qof
Ave
Qf
California Blvd
Qoa2
Tpnz
Vista
Mountain St
vd
Bl
Qof
Tf3
a
Lin d
Qf
Alhambra Rd
Qoa
Qof
134
Ttcg
Tta
Commowealth Ave
c
nti
Qof
Ttz
Qoaa
Qf
Rd
lvd
Ttz
la
At
e rl
yB
Fremont Ave
Pa
Qof
Qu
710
Tf3?
re y
Tf3
Ttz
Qya2a
Qof
Ttz
nte
Mo
Tf1
Tta
Mission St
Cesar Chavez
Qof
Qoa
110
Tf3?
60
Tta
Mzbhd
Qoa3a
e
Av
Tpna
Tf1
Qof
Qof
Tpns
Qoaa
Ttcg
Qyf
Tta
a
br
m
ha
Al
lvd
yB
lle
Va
710
Ar izo
na Av
e
Qof
Tpnz
Qyaa
Qyf
Ttz
Ttcg
Qof
Qyfg
Qyf
Tpna
Qof
Tpna
Tpnz
Qof
Ttcg
Ttz
Tt
Qyf
Qyf
Qaf
Eastern Ave
Tpns
Tpnz
Tpna
Qoaa
Qyf
Qf
nt
Hu
Qof
Ttz
Ttz
Tf1
Qyf
Tpnz
Tpna
Qof
Ttcg
Tf1
Tpna
Qof
City Terrace Dr
Olympic Blvd
Qoa
Qf
Tpnz
Tpna
Tpns
Figu
eroa
St
Yo rk B
lv
Qof
Qof
Broadway
Sot
oS
Tpna
Low
Not Applicable
SR 710 North Study
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Project Area Paleontological Sensitivity
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-18
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Artificial Fill
Artificial Fill can contain fossils, but these fossils have been removed from their original location.
Because these fossils are out of context, they are not considered important for scientific study. As a
result, Artificial Fill is considered to have no paleontological sensitivity.
Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits
The Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits are less than 11,700 years old. Any fossils recovered from these
deposits would be conspecific with modern species and therefore not considered to be scientifically
significant fossils. As a result, these deposits are identified as having no paleontological sensitivity.
The Young Alluvial Fan Deposits are Late Pleistocene to Holocene in age (less than 126,000 years
ago), and fossils are known in similar age deposits from scientific research as well as from
excavations for roads, housing developments, and quarries within the Southern California area.
Examples of these fossils include bison, camels, saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, ground sloths,
horses, rodents, reptiles, birds, and fish, as well as invertebrates and plants. There is a potential to
encounter these types of fossils in the older sediments within this unit below a depth of
approximately 10 ft. Any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils recovered would be considered
scientifically significant because they would add to our understanding of the environment in this
area over the last 126,000 years, as well as the evolution of the animals and plants that lived here.
Therefore, these deposits are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity above a depth of 10 ft and a
high sensitivity below 10 ft.
Young Alluvium
The deposits of Young Alluvium are Late Pleistocene to Holocene in age (less than 126,000 years
ago), and fossils are known in similar age deposits from scientific research as well as from
Examples of these fossils include bison, camels, saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, ground sloths,
horses, rodents, reptiles, birds, and fish, as well as invertebrates and plants. There is a potential to
encounter these types of fossils in the older sediments within this unit below a depth of 10 ft, and
any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils recovered would be considered scientifically
significant because they would add to the understanding of the environment and biological
evolution over the last 126,000 years. Young Alluvium is therefore assigned a low paleontological
sensitivity above a depth of 10 ft and a high sensitivity below 10 ft.
The Old Alluvial Fan Deposits formed during the Middle to Late Pleistocene (781,000 to 11,700 years
ago), and fossils are known in similar age sediments from scientific research as well as from
Mammoths are perhaps the best-known fossil from the Pleistocene epoch, and remains of large
mammals such as camels, saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, ground sloths, and horses have been
found in these sediments. Smaller vertebrates like birds, rodents, reptiles, and fish as well as
invertebrates and plants have also been found in Pleistocene sediments and help describe climatic
and habitat conditions during this epoch. There is a potential to encounter these types of fossils in
the Old Alluvial Fan Deposits in the project areas. Any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils
recovered from these deposits would be considered scientifically significant because they would add
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-19
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
to our understanding of the environment of this area during the Pleistocene and the evolution of
the animals and plants that lived there. Therefore, these deposits are assigned a high
paleontological sensitivity.
Old Alluvium
The Old Alluvium deposits accumulated during the Middle to Late Pleistocene (781,000 to 11,700
years ago). Fossils are known in similar age deposits from scientific research as well as from
Mammoths are perhaps the best-known fossil from the Pleistocene epoch, and remains of other
large mammals such as camels, saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, ground sloths, and horses have
been found in these sediments. Smaller vertebrates like birds, rodents, reptiles, and fish as well as
invertebrates and plants have also been found in Pleistocene sediments and help describe climatic
and habitat conditions during this epoch. There is a potential to encounter these types of fossils in
the Old Alluvium deposits in the project areas, and any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils
recovered from these deposits would be considered scientifically significant because they would add
to our understanding of the environment and biological evolution during the Pleistocene. Therefore,
Old Alluvium is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity.
Fernando Formation
The shallow to deep marine siltstones, sandstones, and pebbly conglomerates of the Pliocene (5.333
to 2.588 mya) Fernando Formation are known to be fossiliferous throughout Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. Near the project area, marine fossils have been recovered, including brachiopods,
bivalves, gastropods, and shark teeth. Five localities from the Fernando Formation and from the
Santa Ana Mountains contain remains of gastropods, bivalves, and barnacles. The marine sediments
of the Fernando Formation in the project areas have the potential to yield similar fossils. By
producing both vertebrate and invertebrate fossils from shallow to deep marine environments,
these deposits provide information for studies on the biological evolution, biostratigraphy, and
paleoecology of this region. Therefore, these fossils are considered scientifically significant, and
because these deposits have the potential to yield scientifically significant paleontological resources,
they are given a high sensitivity rating.
Puente Formation
Scientifically significant paleontological resources have been recovered from the Late Miocene to
Early Pliocene (11.62 to 3.6 mya) sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Puente Formation. Near
the project areas, marine fossils have been recovered, including fish, marine mammals (mostly
whales), invertebrates such as bivalves, gastropods, and barnacles, plants, hexactinellid sponges,
and shrimp and crabs. The marine sediments of the Puente Formation in the project areas are
similar to those found in other areas where this formation is mapped and therefore have the
potential to yield similar fossils, which would be useful for taxonomic, evolutionary, and
paleoecological studies. Moreover, because these rocks record depositional and tectonic changes
that occurred in the Los Angeles Basin through the Late Miocene to Early Pliocene, fossils recovered
from this area could be beneficial for biostratigraphic studies and for correlating geologic units
across the basin. This information would ultimately present a clearer, more complete picture of the
geologic history of Southern California. Because these deposits have the potential to yield
scientifically significant paleontological resources, they are given a high sensitivity rating.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-20
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Topanga Group
The sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Topanga Group are known to be fossiliferous and to
record the marine life that existed in the ancient Los Angeles Basin during the Middle Miocene
(15.97 to 11.62 mya). Fifteen genera of fish were reported from the Topanga Group in the Repetto
and Elysian Hills, six of which were from four localities within 1 mi of the project areas. In addition,
many marine fossils have been recovered near the project area, including bivalves, gastropods,
foraminifera, plants, echinoids, barnacles, crabs, invertebrates, plants, and vertebrates like sharks,
whales, sea cows, and sea lions. The marine sediments of the Topanga Group in the project areas
have the potential to yield invertebrate and vertebrate fossils similar to those found in other areas
where this group is mapped. In addition, fossils recovered from these areas could be beneficial for
biostratigraphic studies and for correlating geologic units across the basin, which could ultimately
present a clearer, more complete picture of the geologic history of Southern California. As such,
fossils from the Topanga Group are considered scientifically significant, and these deposits are given
a high sensitivity rating.
3.11.2.6
Scientifically Significant Paleontological Resources
Scientifically significant paleontological resources are fossils and fossiliferous deposits that provide
taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic
information. Particularly important are fossils found in situ (undisturbed) in primary context because
they aid in stratigraphic correlation, as well as the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic
evolution, paleoecology, paleoclimatology, the relationships between aquatic and terrestrial
species, and evolution in general. All vertebrate fossils that are in stratigraphic context are
considered a scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resource. Invertebrate and plant
fossils associated with vertebrate fossils are considered scientifically significant. Certain invertebrate
and plant fossils that are regionally rare or uncommon, or help to define stratigraphy, age, or
taxonomic relationships, are also considered scientifically significant.
3.11.3
3.11.3.1
Temporary Impacts
Impacts to paleontological resources are considered permanent, not temporary, and are discussed
below under Section 3.11.3.2, Permanent Impacts.
3.11.3.2
Permanent Impacts
Fossils and their associated contextual data are significant nonrenewable scientific resources, and
the loss of these resources resulting from construction of any of the Build Alternatives would be the
primary impact on paleontological resources. Earth-moving operations could result in the
destruction of fossils and fossiliferous rock units within the construction disturbance limits. It is
often not possible to completely eliminate impacts to fossil resources. It is understood that
earthmoving activity could, unavoidably, destroy some fossils. These types of impacts can be
partially mitigated by collecting and preserving a representative sample of the entire fossil
assemblage and associated geological information in the areas disturbed by project construction.
Permanent impacts on paleontological resources would include:
Destruction of paleontological resources;
Damage to paleontological resources during grading;
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-21
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Destruction of rock units that may contain paleontological resources;
Loss of contextual data associated with paleontological resources; and
Loss of associations between paleontological resources.
The recovery of fossils during construction activities would make new information available to
scientists, educators, and the general public that they would not possess otherwise. Fossil recovery
and curation would make specimens available for scientific research by qualified paleontologists.
Their work may generate new data on the evolutionary relationships and development trends
among organisms, as well as information on the age of rock units or sedimentary strata, the
depositional history of the region and timing of geological events, the development of biological
communities, interactions between ancient plant and animal species, geographic restrictions on past
species, and unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life. Recovered fossil specimens
or casts of specimens could also serve as a source of educational material and be incorporated into
exhibits for public display.
Under the No Build Alternative, the permanent impacts discussed below for the SR 710 North Study
Build Alternatives would not occur because the No Build Alternative does not include construction
or operation of any of the improvements in the Build Alternatives. Because the No Build Alternative
would not involve grading, excavation, or tunneling in the study area, there would be no impact to
TSM/TDM Alternative
Most of the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative consist of modifications to existing ROW,
such as widening roads and sidewalks, installing new traffic signals, constructing medians, and
relocating light poles. For the most part, the TSM/TDM Alternative involves relatively minor ground
disturbance.
Most of the area within the TSM/TDM Alternative has been previously disturbed for the existing
roads, sidewalks, and landscaping and are likely underlain by some amount of Artificial Fill. Fossils
encountered in this unit are not considered important for scientific study. The amount of Artificial
Fill, excavation method, and depth at each of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements is unknown.
Excavation for the larger-scale improvements (e.g., Other Road Improvements T-1 [Valley Boulevard
to Mission Road Connector Road] and T-2 [SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps]) could reach
native deposits, which in most areas are considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological
resources.
The majority of improvements are in geologic units mapped as having high sensitivity, including Old
Alluvial Fan Deposits, Old Alluvium, Puente Formation, and Topanga Group. Scientifically significant
fossil remains have been recovered from these units in other areas; therefore, it is likely that similar
scientific significant paleontological resources may be encountered. Any vertebrate, invertebrate,
and plant fossils recovered from these deposits would be considered scientifically significant.
A few improvements are located in geologic units mapped as having a low sensitivity to a depth of
10 ft and a high sensitivity below 10 ft. These improvements pass through Young Alluvial Fan
Deposits and Young Alluvium.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-22
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
Potential direct impacts to paleontological resources could result from ground-disturbing activities
associated with the clearing of vegetation and soil, excavation, and construction of the TSM/TDM
Alternative. Although construction would be a short-term activity, the loss of some fossil remains
and fossil-bearing rocks would be a permanent impact of the TSM/TDM Alternative based on the
scientific significance of potential paleontological resources in formations in the project area.
Because some of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements are part of the BRT, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives, these impacts would also occur in the Build Alternatives discussed below.
BRT Alternative
Most of the improvements in the BRT Alternative consist of modifications to existing ROW, such as
widening roads and sidewalks, installing new traffic signals, constructing medians, and relocating
light poles. For the most part, the BRT Alternative involves relatively minor ground disturbance.
Most of the area within the BRT Alternative has been previously disturbed for the existing roads,
sidewalks, and landscaping and are likely underlain by some amount of Artificial Fill. The presence
and thickness of Artificial Fill and the excavation depth are unknown. Fossils encountered in this unit
are not considered important for scientific study.
Most of the improvements in the BRT Alternative occur in geologic units mapped as having high
sensitivity deposits, including Old Alluvial Fan Deposits, Old Alluvium, Fernando Formation, Puente
Formation, and Topanga Group. Scientifically significant fossil remains have been recovered from
these units in other areas; therefore, it is likely that similar scientifically significant paleontological
resources may be encountered. Any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils recovered from these
deposits would be considered scientifically significant.
A few improvements are located in a geologic unit mapped as having low sensitivity to a depth of
10 ft and a high sensitivity below 10 ft. The improvements pass through Young Alluvial Fan Deposits.
There is potential to encounter scientifically significant paleontological fossils in older sediments
within this unit (below 10 ft).
The BRT Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative with the
Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from
Glendon Way to I-10). The majority of the TSM/TDM improvements are in geologic units mapped as
having high sensitivity, and a few improvements are located in geologic units mapped as having a
low sensitivity to a depth of 10 ft and high sensitivity below 10 ft. However, many TSM/TDM
improvements are in areas that have been previously disturbed and likely contain some amount of
Artificial Fill. The amount of Artificial Fill, excavation method, and excavation depth at each of the
TSM/TDM Alternative improvements is unknown. Excavation for the larger-scale improvements
(e.g., Other Road Improvements T-1 [Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road] and T-2
[SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps]) could reach native deposits, which in most areas are
considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources.
associated with the clearing of vegetation and soil, excavation, and construction of the BRT
Alternative and all the improvements of the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of Local
Street Improvements L-8 and L-3. Although construction would be a short-term activity, the loss of
some fossil remains and the fossil-bearing soil and rock formations would be a permanent impact of
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-23
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
the BRT Alternative based on the scientific significance of potential paleontological resources in
formations in the project area.
LRT Alternative
The LRT Alternative involves much more substantial excavation and ground disturbance than the
TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives. The LRT Alternative includes excavation for support structures for the
aerial section, a bored tunnel section, and rail stations along the route. The bored tunnel sections
are expected to be excavated using a tunnel boring machine (TBM), which would prevent access to
the face of the excavation. The TBM will grind sediments and rock, thereby limiting the opportunity
for fossil recovery. However, the size of the material recovered and the actual amount of fossil
recovery will depend on the specific type of machinery used. During excavation for the portals and
underground stations, fossil recovery would not be limited.
Artificial Fill may be located at the small-scale improvements in existing ROW from previous
construction. Artificial Fill may be encountered at the surface in the southern part of the project
area, below the aerial portion approximately from Kern Avenue to Corporate Center Drive and
around the SR 710 and I-10 interchange, as well as in the tunnel portion around Valley Boulevard.
The presence and thickness of Artificial Fill and the excavation depth are unknown. Fossils
encountered in this unit are not considered important to scientific study.
Most of the improvements in the LRT Alternative occur in areas mapped as having high sensitivity
deposits, specifically:
Old Alluvial Fan Deposits: Old Alluvial Fan Deposits may be reached during excavation for the
maintenance yard; the Mednik, Floral, Alhambra, Huntington, and South Pasadena Stations; the
aerial section from East 3rd Street to Floral Drive and Hellman Avenue to Valley Boulevard; the
tunnel section from Valley Boulevard to Alhambra Road and Huntington Drive to SR 110 (Arroyo
Seco Parkway); and during widening of Mednik Avenue between 1st Street and Floral Drive.
Old Alluvium: Old Alluvium may be encountered in the subsurface approximately from Fillmore
Street to Glenarm Street and during excavation for the Fillmore Street Station.
Fernando Formation: The Fernando Formation may be encountered in the subsurface during
excavation for the aerial section from Corporate Center Drive to the I-710/I-10 interchange, in
the bored tunnel section roughly from Meridian Avenue to Commonwealth Avenue, and for the
Alhambra Station. This formation may also be reached at the surface during grading for
construction of a mechanically stabilized earth embankment that would support the aerial
section in the area south of the I-710/I-10 interchange.
Puente Formation: The Puente Formation may be encountered in the subsurface during
excavation for the aerial section from the I-710/I-10 interchange north to Valley Boulevard, the
Cal State LA Station, and in the tunnel section from Valley Boulevard to Mission Road and
Commonwealth Avenue to Main Street.
Topanga Group: The Topanga Group may be encountered in the subsurface during excavation
for the Huntington Street Station, as well as in the tunnel section roughly from Main Street
north to Huntington Drive and from Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110) to Glenarm Street.
Scientifically significant fossil remains have been recovered from these units in other areas;
therefore, it is likely that similar scientifically significant paleontological resources may be
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-24
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
encountered. Any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils recovered from these deposits would
be considered scientifically significant.
A few improvements are located in a geologic unit mapped as having low sensitivity to a depth of
10 ft and a high sensitivity below 10 ft. The improvements pass through Young Alluvial Fan Deposits.
There is potential to encounter scientifically significant paleontological fossils in older sediments
within this unit (below 10 ft).
The LRT Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative with the
exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road). The
majority of the TSM/TDM improvements are in geologic units mapped as having high sensitivity, and
a few improvements are located in geologic units mapped as having a low sensitivity to a depth of
10 ft and high sensitivity below 10 ft. However, many TSM/TDM Improvements are in areas that
have been previously disturbed and likely contain some amount of Artificial Fill. The amount of
Artificial Fill, excavation method, and excavation depth at each of the TSM/TDM Alternative
improvements is unknown. Excavation for the larger-scale improvements (e.g., Other Road
Improvement T-2 [SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps]) could reach native deposits, which in
most areas are considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources.
associated with the clearing of vegetation and soil, excavation, and construction of the LRT
Alternative and all the improvements of the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of Other
Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road). Although construction
would be a short-term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil-bearing soil and rock
formations would be a permanent impact of the LRT Alternative based on the scientific significance
of potential paleontological resources in formations in the project area.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative involves more substantial excavation and ground disturbance than
the TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes excavation for a central
bored tunnel with cut-and-cover tunnels at the portals at both ends. The bored tunnel sections are
expected to be excavated using a TBM, which would prevent access to the face of the excavation.
The TBM will grind sediments and rock, thereby limiting the opportunity for fossil recovery.
However, the size of the material recovered and the actual amount of fossil recovery will depend on
the specific type of machinery used. During excavation for the portals and underground stations,
fossil recovery would not be limited.
Artificial Fill may be located at improvements in the existing ROW from previous construction.
Artificial Fill may be encountered at the southern end of the project area at the SR 710 and I-10
interchange and in the cut-and-cover tunnel around Valley Boulevard. The presence and thickness of
Artificial Fill and the excavation depth are unknown. Fossils encountered in this unit are not
considered important to scientific study.
Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits are located at the surface in the northern end of the project area.
This geologic unit is identified as having no sensitivity rating; any fossils recovered from these
deposits would be conspecific with modern species and therefore not considered to be scientifically
significant fossils.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-25
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
A majority of the Freeway Tunnel Alternatives improvements, including the cut-and cover tunnels,
pass through high sensitivity deposits, specifically:
Old Alluvial Fan Deposits: Old Alluvial Fan Deposits may be encountered below the surface in
the cut-and-cover tunnel at the south portal near Valley Boulevard and in the bored tunnel from
Monterey Road to the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110).
Old Alluvium: Old Alluvium may be encountered in the cut-and-cover and bored sections of the
tunnel roughly from Del Mar Boulevard to Bellefontaine Street.
Fernando Formation: The Fernando Formation may be reached in the subsurface during
excavation of the bored tunnel roughly from Norwich Avenue to Huntington Drive.
Puente Formation: The Puente Formation may be reached in the cut-and-cover tunnel around
Valley Boulevard and in the bored tunnel roughly from Valley Boulevard to Norwich Avenue and
from Huntington Drive to Newtonia Drive.
Topanga Group: The Topanga Group may be reached in the subsurface during excavation for
the bored tunnel approximately from Newtonia Drive to Monterey Road and from Arroyo Seco
Parkway (SR 110) to Bellefontaine Street.
Scientifically significant fossil remains have been recovered from these units in other areas;
therefore, it is likely that similar scientifically significant paleontological resources may be
encountered. Any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils recovered from these deposits would
be considered scientifically significant.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternatives improvements also pass through a geologic unit mapped as having
low sensitivity to a depth of 10 ft and a high sensitivity below 10 ft. The improvements pass through
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits. There is potential to encounter scientifically significant paleontological
fossils in older sediments within this unit (below 10 ft).
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM
Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road
Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard).
The majority of the TSM/TDM improvements are in geologic units mapped as having high sensitivity,
and a few improvements are located in geologic units mapped as having a low sensitivity to a depth
of 10 ft and high sensitivity below 10 ft. However, many TSM/TDM improvements are in areas that
have been previously disturbed and likely contain some amount of Artificial Fill. The amount of
Artificial Fill, excavation method, and excavation depth at each of the TSM/TDM Alternative
improvements is unknown. Excavation for the larger-scale improvements (e.g., Other Road
Improvement T-2 [SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps]) could reach native deposits, which in
most areas are considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources.
associated with the clearing of vegetation and soil, excavation, and construction of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative and all the improvements of the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the exception of
Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John
extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard). Although construction would be a
short-term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil-bearing soil and rock formations
would be a permanent, adverse impact of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative based on the scientific
significance of potential paleontological resources in formations in the project area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-26
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
3.11.4
In most cases, avoidance and minimization are not viable options because the specific locations of
fossils within the scientifically significant geologic units are unknown and geologic units can extend
for great distances both horizontally and vertically. However, implementation of the mitigation
measure described below would reduce impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources. No
State or federal permits for impacts to paleontological resources would be required.
Measure PAL-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) and Paleontological

Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) (applies to all four
Build Alternatives): For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, during
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will prepare a PMP that
follows the guidelines provided in the Caltrans Standard
Environmental Reference Environmental Handbook, Volume 1,
Chapter 8, and that includes the measures listed below. For the
Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand
Management (TSM/TDM), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail
Transit (LRT) Alternatives, during final design, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will prepare
a PRIMP that follows the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (2010). The PMP and the PRIMP will both include the
following measures:
A qualified paleontologist or representative will attend the preconstruction meeting. At this meeting, the paleontologist will
conduct paleontological resources awareness training, including
describing the likelihood of encountering paleontological
resources during grading and excavation, what types of
resources might be discovered, the roles and authorities of the
paleontological resources monitors, the methods used to assess
and recover discovered resources, and other information
relevant to paleontological resources and the monitoring that
will be conducted during project construction.
A preconstruction field survey will be conducted in areas with

deposits of high paleontological sensitivity after vegetation and
paving have been removed, and any observed surface
paleontological resources salvaged prior to the beginning of
additional grading.
In general, a qualified paleontological monitor will initially be

present on a full-time basis whenever excavation would occur
within the sediments that have a high paleontological sensitivity
rating, and on a spot-check basis when excavating in sediments
that have a low sensitivity rating. No monitoring is generally
necessary in deposits with no paleontological sensitivity, such as
Artificial Fill and Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits. However, the
specific monitoring levels and locations will be developed
3.11-27
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
according to the final design plans and take into account the
excavation methods and depths, the thickness of any Artificial
Fill and/or Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits present in the project
area, and the sensitivity of the deposits underlying those two
geologic units.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Full-time monitoring may be reduced to a part-time or spotcheck basis if no resources are being discovered in sediments
with a high sensitivity rating (monitoring reductions, when they
occur, will be determined by the qualified Principal
Paleontologist in consultation with the Resident Engineer). The
monitor will inspect fresh cuts and/or spoils piles to recover
paleontological resources and/or screen wash for smaller
fossils, depending on the material available for inspection. The
monitor will be empowered to temporarily divert construction
equipment away from the immediate area of the discovery. The
monitor will be equipped to rapidly stabilize and remove fossils
to avoid prolonged delays to construction schedules. If large
mammal fossils or large concentrations of fossils are
encountered, heavy equipment will be used to assist in the
removal and collection of large materials.
Native sediments of high and low sensitivity will occasionally be

spot-screened on site through 1/8- to 1/20-inch mesh screens
to determine whether microvertebrates or other small fossils
are present. If small fossils are encountered, sediment samples
(up to 3 cubic yards, or 6,000 pounds) will be collected and
processed through 1/20-inch mesh screens to recover
additional fossils.
Recovered specimens will be prepared to the point of

identification and permanent preservation. This includes the
sorting of any washed mass samples to recover small
invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, the removal of surplus
sediment from around larger specimens to reduce the volume
of storage for the repository and storage cost, and the addition
of approved chemical hardeners/stabilizers to fragile
specimens.
Specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level

possible and curated into an institutional repository with
retrievable storage. The repository institutions usually charge a
one-time fee based on volume, so removing surplus sediment is
important. The repository institution may be a local museum or
university with a curator who can retrieve the specimens on
request. Caltrans requires that a draft curation agreement be in
place with an approved curation facility prior to the initiation of
any paleontological monitoring or mitigation activities.
3.11-28
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, a Paleontological

Mitigation Report will be prepared and submitted to Caltrans to
document completion of the mitigation plan. For the TSM/TDM,
BRT, and LRT Alternatives, a final report of findings will be
prepared and submitted to Metro to document completion of
the mitigation program.
3.11-29
DRAFT

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.11-30
DRAFT

3.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS
3.12 Hazardous Waste/Materials

3.12.1
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials including hazardous substances and wastes are regulated by many state and
federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials, substances, and waste, and also the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air
and water quality, human health and land use.
The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as
Superfund, is to identify and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and
welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for cradle to grave regulation of hazardous
waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include:
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Atomic Energy Act
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order (EO) 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution
Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental
pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.
California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the California
Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the
state. California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment,
reduction, cleanup and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act also restricts disposal of wastes and requires cleanup of wastes that are below
hazardous waste concentrations but could impact ground and surface water quality. California
regulations that address waste management and prevention and cleanup of contamination include
Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, Title
23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection.
Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may
affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous material
is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction.
3.12.2
The information in this section is based on the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (2014) prepared
for the proposed project.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-1
DRAFT

The ISA was prepared to evaluate the study area for the presence of recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) and/or activity and use limitations (AULs) and to recommend additional studies
(if needed) prior to the start of the construction phase of the proposed project. The ISA study area is
approximately 100 square miles (sq mi) and is generally bounded by Interstate 210 (I-210) on the
north, Interstate 605 (I-605) on the east, Interstate 10 (I-10) on the south, and Interstate 5 (I-5) and
State Route 2 (SR 2) on the west.
The ISA was prepared in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05, Phase 1 Assessment Standard
Process. The scope of this ISA does not include site inspections or interviews with property
owners/operators. This process included records review of historical information sources such as
the ones listed below using either a 0.5-mile (mi) buffer on either side of the corridor or a maximum
1 mi search area:
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database report, which provides a compiled list of
sites from a wide collection of local, State and federal databases that pertain to hazardous
materials
Historical aerial photographs
Historical topographic maps
Sanborn fire insurance maps
Oil and gas maps
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Database of Environmental Sites website
(GeoTracker)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Database of Environmental Sites

website (EnviroStor)
The EDR database report identified more than 1,000 known sites with known environmental impact
within the search distance. These identified sites were further screened based on their proximity to
the proposed Build Alternatives and whether they had impacts to soil or groundwater. Sites with no
impacts to soil or groundwater and that were not in close proximity to the proposed Build
Alternatives were not given further consideration. Based on this initial screening, 24 remaining sites
were researched further by:
Researching regulatory databases;
Reviewing current status and extent of environmental impact (based on reports available from
GeoTracker);
Conducting file reviews at various regulatory agencies such as the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works (LADPW);
Corresponding (phone or email) with various regulatory personnel; and
Performing site reconnaissance from outside the site boundaries.
Based on this detailed extensive review, many of the sites were either included or eliminated in the
final list based on the following criteria:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-2
DRAFT

Extent and Intensity of Environmental Impact: Localized on-site or off-site impact affecting the
study alternatives
Media of Impact: Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater
Existing Environmental Regulatory Case Status: Open, closed, or waiting closure
Based on these criteria, sites were eliminated from the final list if: (1) the site received closure
approval from the lead regulatory agency, (2) the site was determined to have impacts to the soil
only and was not in close proximity to the Build Alternatives, or (3) the site was determined to have
groundwater impacts, but the location was cross gradient or downgradient with respect to the local
groundwater flow direction relative to the Build Alternatives. Applying this final extensive detailed
screening resulted in a final list of six sites that may have an impact on the Build Alternatives right
of way (ROW). Figure 3.12-1 shows the locations of these six sites with respect to the Build
Alternatives ROW.
The following six sites are included in the final screening list:
1. Former Circle K Stores, 1000 West Valley Boulevard, Alhambra
2. Fashion Master Cleaners, 1433 Huntington Drive, South Pasadena
3. Railroad ROW, North of Valley Boulevard and State Route 710 (SR 710), and immediately south
of Alhambra Avenue/Mission Road
4. Elite Cleaners, 1310 Fair Oaks Avenue, Alhambra
5. Blanchard Landfill, 4531 East Blanchard Street, Monterey Park
6. Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated, 3201 West Mission Road, Alhambra
3.12.2.1
Former Circle K Stores (Subject Property 1)
Former Circle K Stores (Subject Property 1) is located at 1000 West Valley Boulevard and at the
intersection of Valley Boulevard and Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Alhambra (Figure 3.12-1). This
site is adjacent to the BRT Alternative. This site is a former Mobil gas station with a Circle K Store
and is identified as either Mobil Station 18-MJA or Circle K Stores in regulatory documents. Based on
records review, the Mobil Station/Circle K initiated operations sometime between 1959 and 1981,
although the exact year could not be determined. The facility continued operations until the end of
2012 after which the site was graded for redevelopment. In early 2013, a Chase Bank was
constructed on this site. This site is identified in the EDR database report and in the GeoTracker
database under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. Per the EDR database
report, the case status of this facility is listed as completed as of February 25, 2010. In January 2010,
a low-risk closure form for the site was reviewed and approved by LARWQCB. However, based on a
file reviewed from the GeoTracker database, LARWQCB later sent a letter, dated December 21,
2012, to Circle K indicating that LARWQCB had concerns about soil and groundwater impacts at this
location, and further information and investigation should be provided to LARWQCB. The
GeoTracker database has the case status listed as Open-Site Assessment. In addition, a low-threat
closure policy form provided in the GeoTracker database indicated that the site has been classified
as a soil-only issue. The report did not indicate any evidence of groundwater impact at the site and
indicates impacts mostly within 50 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs), although the extent of
impact (off site or on site) cannot be determined from the existing site data.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-3
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-4
DRAFT
4
!
(
!
(2
!
(6
!
(3
1
!
(
!
(5
FIGURE 3.12-1
LEGEND
Facilities with both groundwater and soil vapor impact
Facilities with soil/soil vapor impact
LRT Alternative
SR 710 North Study

0
2250
4500
Feet

I:\CHM1105\G\Sites of Concern.cdr (11/11/14)

TSM/TDM
Note: These are the facilities identified during environmental

screening to have impacted soil, soil vapor, or groundwater
that may be of significance to the project study. TSM/TDM
alternative is only partly shown because of its wide spread out.
Sites of Concern
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-6
DRAFT

A report dated February 26, 2012, indicated that underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed
from this location in February 2012, and soil sampling conducted from beneath the USTs indicated
elevated concentrations of volatile hydrocarbon fuel and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total
xylenes (BTEX). This indicates that the impact identified in 2012 could have been from a later-date
fuel release after the closure was granted in 2010. This report also indicated that during a previous
UST removal, soil containing hydrocarbons was removed and excavated from beneath the USTs.
Because the Former Circle K has elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as
documented during the 2012 UST removal, impacted soil may be present beneath the BRT
Alternative alignment.
3.12.2.2
Fashion Master Cleaners (Subject Property 2)
3.12.2.3
Railroad ROW (Subject Property 3)
3.12.2.4
Elite Cleaners (Subject Property 4)
Fashion Master Cleaners (Subject Property 2) is located at 1433 Huntington Drive in the City of
South Pasadena (Figure 3.12-1) and is currently used as a dry cleaning facility. The date operations
began at this facility could not be determined from the records review. This site is located adjacent
to construction activities for Intersection Improvement I-10 (Huntington Drive/Fair Oaks Avenue) to
the TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative. This site is
identified in the EDR database report under various databases, including the Spills, Leaks,
Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC) and Dry Cleaners, and in the GeoTracker database. Per the EDR
database report and GeoTracker, the case status of this facility is listed as Open-Site Assessment. A
letter prepared by LARWQCB dated February 2, 2012, indicates that VOCs in soil vapor, specifically
tetrachloroethene, also known as perchloroethylene (PCE), is present at this facility and has
migrated towards the Big Lots facility located to the immediate west of Fashion Master Cleaners.
This was also confirmed by the LARWQCB project manager for this facility during a telephone
interview on October 7, 2013. Fashion Master Cleaners installed one groundwater monitoring well
in June 2008. PCE was detected in groundwater at a concentration of 490 micrograms per liter
(g/L). The groundwater monitoring well has not been sampled since June 2008 because the facility
focused on installing a soil vapor extraction system to address the contamination in the vadose zone
(unsaturated zone). In a work plan dated October 2011, Athanor Environmental Services, Inc., on
behalf of Fashion Master Cleaners, proposed conducting a second subsurface soil vapor survey in
the Big Lots parking lot and sidewalk. However, it is unknown whether an investigation has been
completed because a report indicating the results for this investigation was unavailable.
Railroad ROW (Subject Property 3) is located north of Valley Boulevard and SR 710 and immediately
south of Alhambra Avenue/Mission Road (Figure 3.12-1). Parts of the TSM/TDM Alternative
associated with Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road)
and the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives pass through the footprint of this site. However, the
LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives beneath this site footprint are designed to be an underground
tunnel, and the shallowest ground impact during construction is expected to be 60 ft bgs. Therefore,
soil impact, if any, from this property may not have an impact on the LRT and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives. information is currently unavailable regarding environmental impacts (if any) at this
location. Railroads are typically anticipated to have environmental impacts from various chemical
constituents present in railroad ties and wooden posts (wood-treating chemicals).
Elite Cleaners (Subject Property 4) is located at 1310 Fair Oaks Avenue in the City of Alhambra
(Figure 3.12-1) and is currently a dry cleaning facility. Based on records review, this site probably
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-7
DRAFT

started operations around 1956; however, the exact date operations were initiated could not be
determined. This site is adjacent to the BRT and LRT Alternatives. This site is identified in the EDR
database report under various databases, including SLIC, RCRA-Small Quantity Generator (RCRASQG) and Dry Cleaners, and the GeoTracker database. Per the EDR database report and GeoTracker,
the case status of this facility is listed as Open-Site Assessment. Based on a chemical questionnaire
form reviewed during this screening, this facility stored PCE in a barrel (approximately 20 gallons).
In addition, a deep soil vapor investigation, a groundwater monitoring well construction work plan,
and soil vapor investigation reports indicated the presence of VOCs at depths up to 75 ft bgs.
According to records of the Los Angeles County Hydraulic and Water Conservation Department,
depth to groundwater encountered in the nearest monitoring well to this facility in 2006 was at
178 ft bgs.
3.12.2.5
Blanchard Landfill (Subject Property 5)
Blanchard Landfill (Subject Property 5) is located between Blanchard Avenue and McBride Avenue at
4531 East Blanchard Street in the City of Monterey Park (Figure 3.12-1). A portion of the LRT
Alternative is located immediately adjacent to the former landfill boundary. The landfill is bordered
on the north by the former Cogen Disposal Facility and the Sybil Brand Institute, on the west by
Biscailuz Center, and on the east by I-710. The site was once called the Blanchard Street Dump. The
property, which contains the former Blanchard Disposal Facility, is currently owned by the County of
Los Angeles. Currently residing on the Blanchard Landfill are County buildings, parking lots, an oval
jogging track, helipad, and an auto storage yard.
The landfill opened in approximately 1935 and operated as an open burning dump until
approximately 1946. Operations at the former Blanchard Disposal Facility predate current solid
waste management regulations by more than 30 years; as such, the facility did not have a liner,
leachate collection and recovery system, waste acceptance and screening procedures, or record
keeping substantiating waste acceptance and operational practices. The facility operated as a Class II
landfill from 1946 to 1958. The facility was allowed to accept liquid, solid, chemical, and industrial
wastes, with the exception of hazardous waste such as acid sludge, brines, and tank bottoms.
Historical documents indicate that the facility accepted several forms of liquid waste, which were
mixed with soil prior to disposal. In 1957, the State of California condemned a small part of the
southeastern corner of the disposal facility for construction of the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). The
site closed and ceased disposal activities in 1958. The structures observed today on the former
disposal facility were constructed in the early 1970s. The on-site facilities were primarily used as a
custody facility for male inmates (known as the Biscailuz Recovery Center). The site was then
developed to consist of five inmate accommodation blocks, an administrative office building, a
visitors center, an inmate outdoor recreation area, a weapons training central pistol range, a
gymnasium, a portable classroom building, two aluminum portable buildings, a carpet shop, a car
wash, a carpenter shop, a kitchen/dining room building, a sheriff radio service building, and storage
buildings. The site also had approximately 180 parking spaces contained within three large parking
lots located on the southern perimeter, along Sheriff Road. The men's custody facility ceased
operations in 2001. The site was then used as a training facility for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department.
Based on a review of environmental reports for this site, none of the reports identified hydrocarbon
contaminant issues in soil; however, additional methane gas investigations are being done at this
facility. A methane gas investigation conducted in 2010 indicated methane concentrations
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-8
DRAFT

exceeding the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 regulatory limit of 5 percent by volume
in air for methane monitoring wells installed within the site. The GeoTracker database lists the
facility cleanup status as Open Verification Monitoring. Based on this information, methane or
VOC vapors may have migrated beneath the LRT Alternative alignment.
3.12.2.6
Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated (Subject Property 6)
Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated (Subject Property 6) is located at 3201 West Mission Road in the
City of Alhambra (Figure 3.12-1). Segments of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives and parts of
the TSM/TDM Alternative associated with Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road) run through this site. A letter dated July 14, 1997, from the LADPW
indicated that a closure status requested from Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated was approved by
the agency, and no further action was required. However, based on information provided by the
Project Manager for EPAs Area 3 Project, there are subsurface shallow soil vapor VOC impacts at
this site (Waite 2014). The EPA is planning to conduct additional investigations at this facility to
investigate whether there are also impacts to soil and groundwater at greater depths below ground
surface at this site. Impacted soil vapor and/or groundwater may be present beneath the LRT
Alternative, Freeway Tunnel Alternative, parts of the TSM/TDM Alternative associated with Other
Road Improvement T-1, or Mission Road. A small part of the proposed ROW for the TSM/TDM
Alternative passes through Mission Road.
Table 3.12.1 lists the sites of concern for the Build Alternatives.
TABLE 3.12.1:
Sites of Concern for the Build Alternatives
Subject
Facility
Property No.
1
Former Circle K
Stores
2
Fashion Master
Cleaners
3
Railroad ROW
4
5
6
Hazardous Material(s)
of Concern
1000 West Valley Boulevard, VOCs from gasoline
Alhambra
1433 Huntington Drive,
Chlorinated VOCs
South Pasadena
North of Valley Boulevard
VOCs, semi-VOCs from
and SR 710 and immediately transported materials,
south of Alhambra Avenue/ pesticides, metals, woodMission Road
treating chemicals
Elite Cleaners
1310 Fair Oaks Avenue
Chlorinated VOCs
Blanchard Landfill
4531 East Blanchard Street, Methane, VOCs
Monterey Park
Mercury Die/
3201 West Mission Road,
VOCs
Mission Corrugated Alhambra
Address
Media Affected1
Soil
Soil Vapor, GW
Alternative(s)
Affected
BRT
Soil
BRT, LRT, TSM/TDM

(I-10)
TSM/TDM
(Other Road
Improvement T-12)
Soil Vapor, GW
Soil Vapor
BRT, LRT
LRT
Soil Vapor
LRT, Freeway Tunnel,

TSM/TDM
(Other Road
Improvement T-12)
Source: Phase I Initial Site Assessment (2014).

1
Media affected indicates an existing impact or a potential to impact one.
2
Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road
BRT = Bus Rapid Transit
SR 710 = State Route 710
GW = Groundwater
TDM = Transportation Demand Management
LRT = Light Rail Transit
TSM = Transportation System Management
ROW = right of way
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Other hazardous materials of potential concern for the Build Alternatives include:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): PCBs were used in electrical transformers manufactured prior
to 1980 for cooling purposes. Utility companies have replaced most PCB-containing
transformers over the past 20 years, and transformers are not considered a potential
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-9
DRAFT

environmental concern unless they are leaking. However, PCBs still may remain in the project
area. Pole-mounted transformers were observed on or adjacent to Subject Properties 1, 2,
and 3. The transformers appeared to be in good condition, though it is unknown whether these
transformers contain PCBs.
Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL): Because part of the study area includes older roadways, there is
a high potential for encountering ADL (which is associated with exhaust from former leadgas
combustion in motor vehicles) along the unpaved sides of the roadways.
Lead Chromate: Yellow traffic markings (thermoplastic and paint) potentially contain hazardous
levels of lead chromate.
Lead-Based Paint (LBP): It is possible for LBP to be present in buildings and structures, including
bridges.
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs): The potential exists for the bridges within the study
area to have been constructed prior to 1989. ACMs may be present in any of these structures
that were built before 1989.
Equipment Containing Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): It is possible for CFC-containing equipment

to be present in buildings and structures.
Soils Within Railroad ROW Containing Wood-Treating Chemicals: The potential exists for soils
containing wood-treating chemicals from railroad ties and wood posts to be present within or
adjacent to the ROW for the Build Alternatives.
For the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives, hazardous materials would be identified,
characterized, treated, and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal
regulations and requirements.
3.12.3
3.12.3.1
Temporary Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives would not be constructed.
As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any short-term adverse effects related to
hazardous materials and wastes associated with improvements in the SR 710 corridor.
Build Alternatives
The Build Alternatives would involve the disturbance of soils and the demolition of existing
structures and bridges; therefore, known and unknown hazardous materials (i.e., PCBs, ADL, lead
chromate, LBP, and ACM) may be encountered during construction. Where known contamination is
located adjacent to a Build Alternative, a Phase II Site Investigation would be conducted during final
design to clarify the limits of contamination and its location to the Build Alternative. Results of the
Phase II could require design modifications if contamination is encountered within the construction
limits of the improvements. Other potential temporary impacts are listed by Build Alternative below.
TSM/TDM Alternative
The majority of the proposed improvements under the TSM/TDM Alternative do not involve
ground-disturbing activities during construction; therefore, potential adverse hazardous
materials impacts would be less than those associated with the LRT or Freeway Tunnel
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-10
DRAFT

Alternatives. However, the TSM/TDM Alternative includes improvements to local streets and
intersections and other road improvements that would involve some ground disturbance during
construction. As shown in Table 3.12-1, the TSM/TDM would potentially be impacted by the
hazardous materials associated with Subject Properties 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Subject Property 1 is immediately adjacent to Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard
from Glendon Way to I-10) of the TSM/TDM Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft) and is
known to have impacted soil with VOCs, mostly within 50 ft bgs. Reports reviewed from
GeoTracker did not indicate groundwater contamination at this site, and the depth to
groundwater at wells within 1.5 to 2 mi of this site is mentioned to be 250 to 350 ft bgs. During
final design of Local Street Improvement L-3, a Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with
regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject Property 1. The purpose of a Phase II
Investigation is to collect samples (e.g., soil and/or groundwater samples) to determine the
potential for contaminants present in the soil or groundwater at levels that would be considered
hazardous according to federal and State regulations.
Subject Property 2 is immediately adjacent to Intersection Improvement I-10 (Huntington Drive/
Fair Oaks Avenue) of the TSM/TDM Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft). Review of historical
reports indicates that the site has soil (vapor) and groundwater impacted with VOCs.
Construction activities for Intersection Improvement I-10 in the TSM/TDM Alternative are
expected to be within 10 to 15 ft bgs; therefore, groundwater impact from this site, if any, will
not be a potential issue. However, soil (vapor) could adversely affect the I-10 improvement in
the TSM/TDM Alternative. During final design of Intersection Improvement I-10, a Phase II Site
Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject
Property 2. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of impact within
and adjacent to the limits of the I-10 improvement if Intersection Improvement I-10 is selected
as part of the Preferred Alternative.
A small part of Subject Property 3, railroad ROW, is within the footprint of Other Road
Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) in the TSM/TDM
Alternative. The TSM/TDM Alternative is designed to be an underpass at this location, but the
shallowest depth of ground disturbance during construction is anticipated to be 15 ft bgs. The
construction of Other Road Improvement T-1 could potentially be affected by soil impacted at
Subject Property 3. Although information is currently unavailable regarding environmental
impacts (if any) at this location, railroads are typically anticipated to have environmental
adverse impacts from various chemical constituents present in railroad ties and wooden posts
(wood-treating chemicals). Therefore, hazardous materials may be present in the soil in this
area and could adversely impact this alternative. During final design of Other Road Improvement
T-1, a Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for
Subject Property 3. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of adverse
impacts within and adjacent to the limits of the T-1 improvement if Other Road Improvement
T-1 is selected as part of the Preferred Alternative.
Subject Property 6 is immediately adjacent to Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road) in the TSM/TDM Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft).
Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated has shallow soil vapor impacts beneath its footprint. VOC soil
vapors may have migrated from this property into the TSM/TDM alignment footprint and could
present a concern for this alternative. During final design of Other Road Improvement T-1, a
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-11
DRAFT

Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for
Subject Property 6. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of adverse
impacts within and adjacent to the limits of the T-1 improvement if Other Road Improvement
T-1 is selected as part of the Preferred Alternative.
BRT Alternative
The majority of the proposed improvements under the BRT Alternative do not involve grounddisturbing activities during construction; therefore, potential adverse hazardous materials
impacts would be less than those associated with the LRT or Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. The
BRT alternative does include the construction of 17 BRT stations with associated improvements
placed, on average, at approximately 0.8 mi intervals at major activity centers and cross streets.
Typical station improvements would include new shelters, seating, wind screens, leaning rails,
variable message signs (next bus information), lighting, bus waiting signals, trash receptacles,
and stop markers. Construction of these improvements would involve some ground disturbance.
As shown in Table 3.12-1, the BRT Alternative would potentially be impacted by the hazardous
materials associated with Subject Properties 1, 2, and 4.
Subject Property 1 is immediately adjacent to the BRT Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft)
and is known to have impacted soil with VOCs, mostly within 50 ft bgs. Construction activities
for the BRT Alternative are expected to be within 10 to 15 ft bgs; therefore, groundwater impact
from this site, if any, will not be a potential issue. However, soil impact from this property could
be a concern for the BRT Alternative. During final design of the BRT Alternative, a Phase II Site
Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject
Property 1. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of impact within
and adjacent to the limits of the BRT Alternative if it is selected as the Preferred Alternative.
Subject Property 2 is immediately adjacent to the BRT Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft).
Review of historical reports indicates that the site has soil (vapor) and groundwater impacted
with VOCs. Construction activities for the BRT Alternative are expected to be within 10 to 15 ft
bgs; therefore, groundwater impact from this site, if any, will not be a potential issue. However,
soil (vapor) impact from this property could be a concern for the BRT Alternative. During final
design of the BRT Alternative, a Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory
requirements, would be required for Subject Property 2. The Phase II Site Investigation would
provide clarity on the extent of impact within and adjacent to the limits of the BRT Alternative if
it is selected as the Preferred Alternative.
Subject Property 4 is immediately adjacent to the BRT Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft). For
Elite Cleaners, Subject Property 4 , previous soil vapor investigation conducted at this site
indicated the presence of VOCs at depths up to 75 ft bgs. Therefore, soil vapor impacts from
Subject Property 4 could be a concern for the construction of BRT Alternative. During a
telephone interview on October 3, 2013, the LARWQCB project manager for this facility
indicated that this facility may have impacted groundwater beneath the area. A Phase II Site
Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, is required for Subject Property 4 during
final design of the BRT Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation will provide clarity on the
extent of impact within and adjacent to the limits of the BRT Alternative, if selected as the
Preferred Alternative.
The BRT Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative with
the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-12
DRAFT

Monterey Road), and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic
Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). Therefore, the BRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM
component would potentially be impacted by the hazardous materials associated with Subject
Properties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.
LRT Alternative
The LRT Alternative would construct a passenger rail system operated along a dedicated
guideway, similar to other Metro light rail lines. The LRT alignment is approximately 7.5 mi long,
with approximately 3 mi of aerial segments and approximately 4.5 mi of bored tunnel segments.
Construction of these improvements would involve major ground disturbance during
construction. As shown in Table 3.12-1, the LRT Alternative would potentially be impacted by
the hazardous materials associated with Subject Properties 2, 4, 5, and 6. Subject Property 5 is
located adjacent to the aerial segment of the LRT Alternative alignment. Subject Properties 3
and 6 are located adjacent to the maintenance yard and above the tunnel segment and Subject
Properties 2 and 4 are located above the tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative alignment.
Subject Property 2 is immediately adjacent to the LRT Alternative footprint. Review of historical
reports indicates that the site has soil (vapor) and groundwater impacted with VOCs. The LRT
Alternative beneath this sites footprint is designed to be an underground tunnel. As a result,
impacted groundwater, in addition to soil vapor, could be encountered during construction
activities. In addition, reviewed reports indicate that based on local topography, the
groundwater flow is expected to be to the east or southeast toward the center of the Main San
Gabriel Basin. This groundwater flow direction is toward the LRT alignment and could be a
concern for this alternative. A Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory
requirements, would be required for Subject Property 2 during final design of the LRT
Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of impact within
and adjacent to the LRT Alternative if it is identified as the Preferred Alternative.
A segment of the LRT Alternative that is to the north SR 710 and Valley Boulevard, and at the
intersection of Mission Road and Concord Avenue, passes through part of Subject Property 3,
Railroad ROW. However, the LRT Alternative beneath this site footprint is designed to be an
underground tunnel and the shallowest ground impact from this is expected to be 60 ft bgs.
Therefore, this property may not cause an impact to the LRT Alternative. Although information
is currently unavailable regarding environmental impacts at this location, if any, railroads are
typically anticipated to have adverse environmental impacts from various chemical constituents
present in railroad ties and wooden posts (wood-treating chemicals).
Subject Property 4 is immediately adjacent to the LRT Alternative. For Subject Property 4, Elite
Cleaners, previous soil vapor investigation conducted at this site indicated the presence of VOCs
at depths up to 75 ft bgs. Previous investigation has also confirmed VOC impact to groundwater.
According to the records of the Los Angeles County Hydraulic and Water Conservation
Department, depth to groundwater encountered in the monitoring well nearest to this facility in
2006 was at 178 ft bgs. In addition, this site is a facility of interest for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its ongoing investigation of the San Gabriel Valley
Area 3 Superfund Site. The LARWQCB project manager for this facility mentioned during a
telephone interview that this facility may have impacted groundwater beneath the area. The
LRT Alternative beneath this site footprint is designed to be an underground tunnel. As a result,
impacted groundwater, in addition to soil vapor, could be encountered during construction
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-13
DRAFT

activities and could be a concern for this alternative. During a telephone interview on October 3,
2013, the LARWQCB project manager for this facility indicated that this facility may have
impacted groundwater beneath the area. A Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with
regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject Property 4 during final design of the LRT
Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent of impact within
and adjacent to the LRT Alternative, if selected as the Preferred Alternative.
Segments of the LRT Alternative are immediately adjacent to Subject Property 5, the Blanchard
Landfill boundary. The former Blanchard Disposal Facility had operations predating current solid
waste management regulations by more than 30 years; as such, the facility did not have a liner,
leachate collection and recovery system, waste acceptance and screening procedures, or record
keeping substantiating waste acceptance and operational practices. Moreover, a methane gas
investigation conducted in 2010 indicated methane concentrations exceeding the CCR Title 27
regulatory limit of 5 percent by volume in air in methane monitoring wells installed at the site.
Since the LRT Alternative at this location would be an aerial structure and tunneling would not
occur, the potential to encounter impacted groundwater, if any, during construction activities is
minimal. However, if structural reinforcements for the project at this area could reach deeper
depths, then groundwater impact should also be considered as a potential issue. A Phase II Site
Investigation, consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject Property 5
during final design of the LRT Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on
the extent of impact within and adjacent to the LRT Alternative if it is identified as the Preferred
Alternative.
Subject Property 6 is immediately adjacent to the LRT Alternative footprint (within 10 to 15 ft).
Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated has shallow soil vapor impacts beneath its footprint. Adverse
soil vapor and groundwater impacts may have migrated from this property into the alignment of
the LRT Alternative and could present a concern for this alternative. A Phase II Site Investigation,
consistent with regulatory requirements, would be required for Subject Property 6 during final
design of the LRT Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would provide clarity on the extent
of impacts within and adjacent to the LRT Alternative if it is identified as the Preferred
Alternative.
The LRT Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative with
the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector
Road). Therefore, the LRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would potentially be
impacted by the hazardous materials associated with Subject Properties, 1, 2, and 4.
For the tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative, it is expected that the tunnel boring machine
(TBM) could potentially pass through impacted soil or groundwater as stated in the discussions
for Subject Properties 2 and 4.
During tunnel construction activities for the LRT Alternative, a temporary stockpiling area will be
set up at the construction portal so that excavated material can be sampled as it is excavated. A
sampling and analysis plan would be required so that the excavated material is classified
properly and the correct handling methods and appropriate disposal facility are selected
according to State and Caltrans regulatory requirements. Water (including construction water,
groundwater, and wet weather flows), if encountered, would also be sampled. If necessary, the
water can be treated at the construction portal area prior to being discharged in compliance
with an appropriate approved discharge permit into the sewer system. A contractor is typically
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-14
DRAFT

required to have basic water treatment capabilities at the construction site. If the water cannot
be treated to meet sewer discharge requirements or if the volume of water for disposal exceeds
the discharge permits capacity, it may need to be transported to an off-site disposal
location. Disposal of all materials would need to meet all local, State, and federal regulations,
where applicable.
For the construction of the tunnel for the LRT Alternative, the tunneling method proposed for
the bored tunnel is a pressurized-face TBM. This closed-face machine would reduce or eliminate
the potential for uncontrolled entry of groundwater during excavation due to its closed
excavation face.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would construct a tunnel starting at the existing southern stub
of SR 710 in Alhambra, just north of I-10, and connecting to the existing northern stub of SR 710,
south of the I-210/State Route 134 (SR 134) interchange in Pasadena. The Freeway Tunnel
Alternative has two design variations: a dual-bore tunnel and a single-bore tunnel. An
operations and maintenance (O&M) building would be constructed at the northern and
southern ends of the tunnel. As part of both design variations of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative, the SR 710 northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp at Valley Boulevard
would be modified. Construction of these improvements would involve major ground
disturbance during construction. As shown in Table 3.12-1, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would potentially be impacted by the hazardous materials associated with Subject Properties 5
and 6.
The segment of the proposed Freeway Tunnel Alternative that is to the north of I-710 and Valley
Boulevard, and at the intersection of Mission Road and Concord Avenue, passes through part of
Subject Property 3, Railroad ROW. However, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative beneath this site
footprint is designed to be an underground tunnel and the shallowest ground impact from this is
expected to be 75 ft bgs. Therefore, this property may not cause an impact to the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative. Although information is currently unavailable regarding environmental
impacts at this location, if any, railroads are typically anticipated to have adverse environmental
impacts from various chemical constituents present in railroad ties and wooden posts (woodtreating chemicals).
The segment of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative immediately south of I-10 along SR 710 is
immediately adjacent to the boundary of Subject Property 5, Blanchard Landfill. The former
Blanchard Disposal Facility had operations predating current solid waste management
regulations by more than 30 years; as such, the facility did not have a liner, leachate collection
and recovery system, waste acceptance and screening procedures, or record keeping
substantiating waste acceptance and operational practices. Moreover, a methane gas
investigation conducted in 2010 indicated methane concentrations exceeding the CCR Title 27
regulatory limit of 5 percent by volume in air in methane monitoring wells installed at the site.
Since the Freeway Tunnel Alternative at this location would be an aerial structure and tunneling
would not occur, the potential to encounter impacted groundwater, if any, during construction
activities is minimal. However, if structural reinforcements for the project in this area could
reach deeper depths, then groundwater impact should also be considered as a potential
concern for this alternative. A Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory
requirements, would be required for Subject Property 5, if the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-15
DRAFT

selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would be conducted during
final design of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative to provide clarity as to the extent of any effect on
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
Subject Property 6 is immediately adjacent to the Freeway Tunnel Alternative footprint (within
10 to 15 ft). Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated is known to have shallow soil vapor impacts
beneath its footprint and may have deeper impacts to soil vapor and groundwater. Therefore,
adverse soil vapor and groundwater impacts from this property extending into the alignment of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative could be a potential concern for this alternative. In order to
avoid or minimize these adverse impacts, a Phase II Site Investigation, consistent with regulatory
requirements, would be required for Subject Property 6 if the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is
selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Phase II Site Investigation would be conducted during
final design of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative to provide clarity as to the extent of any effect on
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM
Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California
Boulevard). Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would
potentially be impacted by the hazardous materials associated with Subject Properties 1, 2, 5,
and 6.
For the construction of the tunnels for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, it is expected that the
TBM could potentially pass through impacted soil or groundwater as stated in the discussions
for Subject Properties 5 and 6.
During tunnel construction activities for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, a temporary stockpiling
area at the construction portals would be set up so that excavated material can be sampled as it
is excavated. A sampling and analysis plan would be required so that the excavated material is
classified properly and the correct handling methods and appropriate disposal facility are
selected according to State and Caltrans regulatory requirements. Water (including construction
water, groundwater, and wet weather flows), if encountered, would also be sampled. If
necessary, the water can be treated at the construction portal areas prior to being discharged in
compliance with an appropriate approved discharge permit into the sewer system. A contractor
is typically required to have basic water treatment capabilities at the construction site. If the
water cannot be treated to meet sewer discharge requirements or if the volume of water for
disposal exceeds the discharge permits capacity, it may need to be transported to an off-site
disposal location. Disposal of all materials would need to meet all local, State, and federal
regulations, where applicable.
For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the TBM tunneling methods would be similar to those
discussed for the LRT Alternative. The tunneling methods of the bored tunnels proposed for the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would also use pressurized-face TBMs. These closed-face machines
reduce or eliminate the potential for uncontrolled entry of groundwater during excavation due
to their closed excavation faces.
Construction Activities for Bridges
For the TSM/TDM Alternative, the widening of the Garfield Avenue Bridge would be required.
For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the dual-bore design variation would require the widening
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-16
DRAFT

of the Ramona Boulevard undercrossing bridge and the SR 710/I-10 bridge. Both the single- and
dual-bore design variations would require demolition and replacement of the Hellman Avenue
overcrossing bridge, the Green Street overcrossing bridge, and the Del Mar Boulevard
overcrossing. No widening or demolition of bridges would be required for the BRT and LRT
Alternatives.
Based on the potential for bridges within the project area to have been constructed prior to
1989 (when the federal ban on asbestos use was implemented), ACM may be present in these
structures. The presence of these materials would pose a potential hazardous waste risk if the
removal of materials for the widening or demolition of bridges is required. An asbestos survey
would be conducted, the potential for ACM would be identified and characterized, and the ACM
would be disposed of during construction activities at a Class I or II disposal facility in
conformance with applicable regulatory requirements.
3.12.3.2
Permanent Impacts
Under the No Build Alternative, with the operation of the existing roadways and freeways, there is
potential for accidents and hazardous spills to occur that would be similar to the potential for
accidents and hazardous spills under the Build Alternatives. Any spills would be cleaned up and
treated consistent with regulatory requirements. Similar to the Build Alternatives, routine
maintenance activities would continue under the improvements included in the No Build
Alternative, including compliance with applicable regulations regarding the handling and disposal of
potentially hazardous materials.
Build Alternatives
During operation of the tunnels for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the anticipated linings
of the TBM-constructed tunnels are expected to be water- and gas-tight, gasketed, precast concrete
segmental liners, which will reduce or eliminate water or gas entry into the tunnels. It should be
noted that vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous materials would be restricted from using the
tunnel(s) for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative under all design variations.
Operation and maintenance of the new facilities proposed for the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives would not introduce new sources of hazardous materials/waste. Routine
maintenance activities would continue after the completion of the project, and would be required to
follow applicable regulations with respect to handling and disposal of potentially hazardous
materials/wastes.
No new permanent adverse impacts related to hazardous materials/waste (direct or indirect)
beyond existing conditions would occur during the operation of the project. Therefore, potential
adverse permanent impacts associated with hazardous materials/waste are not considered
substantial.
3.12.4
The measures below would avoid or substantially minimize impacts related to hazardous materials/
wastes potentially encountered during construction of the Build Alternatives.
Measure HW-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Striping and Pavement Markings (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): During Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), the
3.12-17
DRAFT

Project Engineer will ensure the specifications related to the

sampling, handling, and treatment of pavement markings are
included and implemented during construction. A qualified
contractor will sample and test the striping paint along roads to be
disturbed as part of the project for lead chromate. The field and
analytical data obtained during this study will be used to provide a
review of the sampling locations and descriptions, a summary of the
analytical results, and recommendations for striping paint removal,
containment, and off-site transportation and disposal, as
appropriate. The sampling, handling, treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste will be conducted in accordance with applicable
local, State and federal regulations and requirements, prior to and
during construction of the project.
Measure HW-2
Transformers (applies to the Transportation System Management/

Transportation Demand Management [TSM/TDM], Bus Rapid
Transit [BRT], and Light Rail Transit [LRT] Alternatives): During
PS&E, the Project Engineer will ensure the specifications related to
the handling and treatment of transformers are included and
implemented if transformer removal is required. The Construction
Contractor will contact Southern California Edison prior to handling
or removal of electric transformers. Should utility poles require
removal, the Resident Engineer will require the Construction
Contractor to conduct additional sampling and analysis to
determine the presence of creosote (often associated with the
preservation of wooden electric poles) and appropriate disposal
methods. Any hazardous transformers or poles that are
disturbed/removed will be disposed of in accordance with the
California Health and Safety Code.
Measure HW-3
Lead Compliance Plan (applies to all four Build Alternatives): Prior

to construction, the Project Engineer will ensure that the
specifications related to the testing and handling of soils with
aerially deposited lead (ADL) are included during PS&E and
implemented during construction. The Construction Contractors
responsible for excavating, transporting, or stockpiling soil will
prepare a Lead Compliance Plan in accordance with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Code of Safety Practices
(Freeway Tunnel Alternative), the California Code of Regulations (all
four Build Alternatives), and California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (all four Build Alternatives) standards. The
Lead Compliance Plan will address the presence of ADL in the soils
within the project area and the health and safety of construction
workers.
Measure HW-4
Aerially-Deposited Lead Investigation (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): During PS&E, the Project Engineer will ensure the
specifications related to soil sampling and handling of soils with ADL
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-18
DRAFT

are included and implemented prior to any site preparation,

disturbance, grading, and construction. The qualified contractor will
conduct soil sampling for ADL in unpaved locations adjacent to
existing roadways within the project alignment. The analytical
results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling
of the soil in those areas and the disposal of surplus materials. The
sampling, handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste will
be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State and federal
regulations and requirements, prior to and during construction of
the project.
Measure HW-5
Demolition of Structures and Bridges (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): The Project Engineer will ensure the specifications
related to the sampling, handling, treatment, and disposal of
asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), and
equipment containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for properties
planned for demolition are included during PS&E and implemented
after property acquisition and prior to demolition. The qualified
contractor will assess structures planned for demolition within the
project area for the possible presence of ACM, LBP, and equipment
containing CFCs. These studies will be conducted by trained and/or
licensed professionals and will comply with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403, Housing and Urban Development, and
California Department of Public Health guidelines. The results of
these studies will provide a description of the ACM, LBP, and CFC
locations, estimated quantity, and recommendations for removal,
containment, and off-site transportation and disposal. The
the project.
Measure HW-6
SCAQMD Rule 1403 (applies to all four Build Alternatives): The

Project Engineer will ensure the specifications related to air
pollution control during demolition or renovation of a structure or
bridge are included during PS&E and implemented prior to
demolition or renovation of a structure or bridge. The Construction
Contractor will notify the SCAQMD and submit the required fees at
least 10 days prior to proceeding with the demolition work (refer to
SCAQMD Rule 1403). Failure to do so may result in Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) or Caltrans
being cited for regulatory noncompliance. Notification would fall
under Section 7-1.01F, Air Pollution Control, and Section 7-1.04,
Permits and Licenses of the Standard Specifications. The
Construction Contractors will be required to adhere to the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-19
DRAFT

requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 during renovation/demolition

activities. The sampling, handling, treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste will be conducted in accordance with applicable
local, State and federal regulations and requirements, prior to and
during construction of the project.
Measure HW-7
Phase II Site Investigations (applies to all four Build Alternatives):

The Project Engineer will ensure the specifications related to the
handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes are included
during PS&E and implemented prior to Phase II Site Investigations to
determine if special handling, treatment, or disposal provisions
associated with hazardous wastes will be required for the project. A
qualified contractor will conduct Phase II Site Investigations at the
following locations:
1. Former Circle K Stores (Subject Property 1), 1000 West Valley
Boulevard, Alhambra
2. Fashion Master Cleaners (Subject Property 2), 1433 Huntington
Drive, South Pasadena
3. Railroad Right of Way (ROW) (Subject Property 3) north of
Valley Boulevard and State Route 710 (SR 710) and immediately
south of Alhambra Avenue/Mission Road
4. Elite Cleaners (Subject Property 4), 1310 Fair Oaks Avenue,
Alhambra
5. Blanchard Landfill (Subject Property 5), between Blanchard
Avenue and McBride Avenue at 4531 East Blanchard Street,
Monterey Park
6. Mercury Die/Mission Corrugated (Subject Property 6), 3201
West Mission Road, Alhambra
The Phase II Site Investigations will be performed prior to
completion of the PS&E phase of the project for properties that may
be potentially impacted by the selected Build Alternative. Based on
the results of the Phase II Site Investigations, additional soil and/or
groundwater sampling as well as removal and/or treatment of soil
and/or groundwater prior to construction may be necessary. The
the project.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-20
DRAFT

Measure HW-8
Soils Adjacent to the Railroad ROW (applies to the TSM/TDM

Alternative): The Project Engineer will ensure the specifications
related to the sampling and handling of soils adjacent to the railroad
ROW are included during PS&E and implemented prior to
disturbance of soils adjacent to the railroad ROW in the Build
Alternative ROW. A qualified contractor will sample those soils to
determine whether they require special handling and disposal.
Measure HW-9
Tunnel Construction Activities (applies to the LRT and Freeway

Tunnel Alternatives): The Project Engineer will ensure the
specifications related to the sampling and handling of soils and
water during tunnel excavation and boring activities are included
during PS&E and implemented prior to the initiation of tunnel
excavation and boring. The Construction Contractor will set up a
temporary stockpiling area at the construction portals so that
excavated material can be sampled as it is excavated. A Sampling
and Analysis Plan will be required so that the excavated material is
classified properly and so the correct handling methods and the
appropriate disposal facility are selected according to Caltrans and
State regulatory requirements. Water, including construction water,
groundwater, and wet weather flows, will also be sampled. If
necessary, the water can be treated at the construction portal areas
by the Construction Contractor prior to discharge following an
appropriate approved discharge permit into the sewer system;
typically a Construction Contractor is required to have basic water
treatment capabilities at the construction site. If the water cannot
be treated to meet sewer discharge requirements or if the volume
of water for disposal exceeds the discharge permits capacity, it may
need to be transported to an offsite disposal location. Disposal of
all materials would need to meet all local, State, and federal
regulations, where applicable.
Measure HW-10
Unknown Hazards (applies to all four Build Alternatives): The

Project Engineer will ensure the specifications related to the
monitoring of soil excavations for visible soil staining, odor, and the
possible presence of unknown hazardous material sources are
included during PS&E and implemented during construction. The
Construction Contractor will monitor excavations soil excavations
for visible soil staining, odor, and the possible presence of unknown
hazardous material sources. The Construction Contractor will have
field monitoring equipment (e.g., photoionization detector) on site
to facilitate the timely detection of potentially hazardous conditions
in the field. If signs of potential impact (odors, discolored soil, etc.)
are noted or observed during construction activity, sampling and
analysis should be conducted. Soil samples should be analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons with carbon chain analysis using EPA
Method 8015B and volatile organic compounds by EPA Method
8260B where run-off may have collected. If other hazardous
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-21
DRAFT

materials contamination or sources are suspected or identified

during project construction activities, an environmental professional
will evaluate the course of action required. This course of action will
follow the Unknown Hazards Procedures described in Chapter 7 of
the Caltrans Construction Manual (August 2006) for areas within
State-owned ROW. For improvements outside the State-owned
ROW, applicable State and federal regulations will be followed
during construction activities and if any impacts are identified. The
the project.
In addition to these measures, Measure WQ-2 in Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water
Runoff, would be required for construction activities related to dewatering. Measure GEO-1 in
Section 3.10, Geology, would be required prior to construction activities in areas potentially
contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.12-22
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
3.13 Air Quality

3.13.1
Regulatory Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality
while the California Clean Air Act is its companion state law. These laws, and related regulations by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and California Air Resources Board (ARB), set
standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are
called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality
standards have been established for six transportation-related criteria pollutants that have been
linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3),
particulate matter (PM) which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10
micrometers or smaller (PM10) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (Pb), and state standards exist
for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and
state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety, and are subject to
periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air
contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics
in their general definition.
Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project-level air quality
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to this environmental
analysis, a parallel Conformity requirement under the FCAA also applies.
3.13.1.1
Conformity
The conformity requirement is based on Federal Clean Air Act Section 176(c), which prohibits the
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or
approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
attaining the NAAQS. Transportation Conformity applies to highway and transit projects and takes
place on two levels: the regionalor planning and programminglevel and the project level. The
proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved.
Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and maintenance (former nonattainment)
areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. U.S. EPA regulations
at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements
do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards
regardless of the status of the area.
Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports plans
for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2).
California has nonattainment or maintenance areas for all of these transportation-related criteria
pollutants except SO2, and also has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not
currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis. Regional
conformity is based on emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Federal
Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all transportation projects planned for a
region over a period of at least 20 years for the RTP, and 4 years for the FTIP. RTP and FTIP
conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether or not the
implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests at various
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-1
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
analysis years showing that requirements of the Clean Air Act and the SIP are met. If the conformity
analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), make determinations that the RTP
and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act. Otherwise, the
projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept,
scope, and open-to-traffic schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as
described in the RTP and FTIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements
for purposes of project-level analysis.
Conformity analysis at the project-level includes verification that the project is included in the
regional conformity analysis and a hot-spot analysis if an area is nonattainment or
maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO) and/or particulate matter (PM10 or PM2.5). A region is
nonattainment if one or more of the monitoring stations in the region measures a violation of the
relevant standard and the U.S. EPA officially designates the area nonattainment. Areas that were
previously designated as nonattainment areas but subsequently meet the standard may be officially
re-designated to attainment by the U.S. EPA, and are then called maintenance areas. Hot-spot
analysis is essentially the same, for technical purposes, as CO or particulate matter analysis
performed for NEPA purposes. Conformity does include some specific procedural and
documentation standards for projects that require a hot-spot analysis. In general, projects must not
cause the hot-spot-related standard to be violated, and must not cause any increase in the
number and severity of violations in nonattainment areas. If a known CO or particulate matter
violation is located in the project vicinity, the project must include measures to reduce or eliminate
the existing violation(s) as well.
The proposed projects final conformity determination will be made after the Draft EIR/EIS has been
circulated for public review and after a preferred alternative has been identified.
3.13.2
This section is based on the Air Quality Assessment Report (2015) for the State Route 710 (SR 710)
North Study Project.
3.13.2.1
Climate
The project site is in the part of Los Angeles County in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin
includes all of Orange County and the non-desert parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. Air quality regulation in the Basin is administered by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The climate in the Basin is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal
plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwest boundary
of the Basin, and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin. The Basin is in the semipermanent
high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool
ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot
weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions do occur in the Basin.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle
60s (measured in degrees Fahrenheit [F]). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas
show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The
climatological station closest to the site where temperature is monitored is the Pasadena Station.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-2
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
The annual average maximum temperature recorded at that station is 76.8F, and the annual
average minimum is 51.0F. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the Basin.
The majority of rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal
and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in
the east part of the Basin along the coastal side of the mountains. The closest climatological station
to the project limits where precipitation is monitored is the Pasadena Station. Average rainfall
measured at that station varied from a high of 4.54 inches in February to 0.43 inch or less between
May and September, with an average annual total of 20.24 inches. Patterns in monthly and yearly
rainfall totals are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather.
The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing
altitude) as a result of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air
contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower
air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the
inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower
layer. This phenomenon is observed from mid-afternoon to late afternoon on hot summer days,
when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning.
Winds in the project area blow predominantly from the west and southwest at relatively low
velocities, with wind speeds averaging approximately 4 miles per hour (mph). Summer wind speeds
average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds together with a
persistent temperature inversion limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin.
Strong, dry, northerly or northeasterly Santa Ana winds occur during the fall and winter months,
dispersing air contaminants. Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time.
Inversion layers have a substantial role in determining O3 formation. O3 and its precursors will mix
and react to produce higher concentrations under an inversion. Inversions also simultaneously trap
and hold directly emitted pollutants such as CO2. PM10 is both directly emitted and created indirectly
in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions. Concentration levels are directly related to
inversion layers due to the limitation of mixing space.
Surface or radiation inversions are formed when the ground surface becomes cooler than the air
above it during the night. The earths surface goes through a radiative process on clear nights, when
heat energy is transferred from the ground to a cooler night sky. As the earths surface cools during
the evening hours, the air directly above it also cools, while air higher up remains relatively warm.
The inversion is destroyed when heat from the sun warms the ground, which in turn heats the lower
layers of air; this heating stimulates the ground-level air to float up through the inversion layer.
The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest
concentration of air pollutants. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant
concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants
generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore from Los Angeles and Orange
Counties into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollutants are CO
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night
and early morning hours. In the summer, longer daylight hours and brighter sunshine combine to
cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOX to form photochemical smog.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-3
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
3.13.2.2
Monitored Air Quality
3.13.2.3
Sensitive Receptors
3.13.2.4
Criteria Pollutant Attainment/Nonattainment Status
The SCAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The closest monitoring
station to the project area is the 752 South Wilson Avenue Pasadena Station. Pollutants monitored
at that station are CO, O3, PM2.5, and NO2. The next closest station to the project area is the 1630
North Main Street Los Angeles Station, which monitors CO, O3, PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2. Tables
3.13.1 and 3.13.2 list air quality trends identified from data collected between 2009 and 2013 for
the South Wilson Avenue Pasadena Station and the North Main Street Los Angeles Station,
respectively. These stations are in proximity to SR 710, Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 5 (I-5), and
State Route 110 (SR 110), which are area freeways that could be affected by the Build Alternatives.
The ambient air quality monitoring is conducted at these stations for the criteria pollutants of
concern but not mobile source air toxics (MSATs). The air quality levels measured at these stations
represent the ambient conditions for the criteria pollutants in the project area.
Sensitive populations are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air
pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) in proximity to
localized sources of MSATs and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered to be sensitive
receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term
health care facilities, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.
The majority of the sensitive receptors in or adjacent to the project area are residences, parks, and
schools. Figure 3.1-1, provided earlier in Section 3.1, Land Use, shows existing land uses in the study
area, including sensitive uses such as residential uses.
As noted earlier, the six criteria pollutants are O3, CO, PM (including both PM2.5 and PM10), NO2, SO2,
and lead. Table 3.13.3 lists the primary standards for these criteria pollutants, and provides brief
descriptions of the health effects associated with exposures to these pollutants and the typical
sources of these pollutants. The NAAQS are two-tiered: Primary, to protect public health; and
Secondary, to prevent degradation to the environment (e.g., impairment of visibility, damage to
vegetation and property).
There are air quality monitoring stations located throughout the nation that are maintained by the
local air districts and State air quality regulating agencies. Data collected at permanent monitoring
stations are used by the EPA to identify regions as attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance,
depending on whether the regions meet the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. The EPA
imposes additional restrictions on nonattainment areas. Different classifications of nonattainment
(e.g., marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) are used to classify each air basin on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The classifications are used to develop air quality management
strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS. Table 3.13.3 lists the attainment
statuses for the criteria pollutants in the Los Angeles County part of the Basin.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-4
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.1:
Air Quality Levels Measured at the 752 South Wilson Avenue Pasadena Station
Pollutant
Standard
2009
Carbon Monoxide
Max 1-hr concentration (ppm)
3.6
No. days exceeded: State
> 20 ppm/1-hr
0
Federal
> 35 ppm/1-hr
0
2.13
> 9.1 ppm/8-hr
0
Federal
> 9.5 ppm/8-hr
0
Ozone
0.176
> 0.09 ppm/1-hr
12
Ozone
0.114
> 0.07 ppm/8-hr
19
Federal
> 0.075 ppm/8-hr
12
Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10)
Max 24-hr concentration (g/m3)
N/A
> 50 g/m3
N/A
Federal
> 150 g/m3
N/A
Annual avg. concentration (g/m3)
N/A
Exceeds Standard? State
> 20 g/m3
N/A
Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5)
51.9
No. days exceeded: Federal
> 35 g/m3
3
12.2
> 12 g/m3
Yes
Federal
> 15 g/m3
No
Nitrogen Dioxide
Max 1-hr concentration (ppb)
80.0
> 180 ppb/1-hr
0
Federal
> 100 ppb/1-hr
0
Annual avg. concentration (ppb)
22
Exceeds Standard? Federal
53 ppb annual average
No
Sulfur Dioxide
N/A
250 ppb
N/A
Federal
75 ppb
N/A
Exceed standard?
State
40 ppb
N/A
Sources: Air Quality Assessment Report (2014).
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
N/A = there was insufficient (or no) data available to determine a value
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-5
2010
2011
2012
2013
2.4
0
0
1.94
0
0
2.9
0
0
2.15
0
0
2.4
0
0
1.58
0
0
2.5
0
0
1.7
0
0
0.101
1
0.107
5
0.111
8
0.099
2
0.081
6
3
0.084
13
5
0.086
20
9
0.075
2
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35.2
0
10.2
No
No
43.8
1
10.8
No
No
30.5
0
10.1
No
No
25.7
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
71.0
0
0
20
No
101.5
0
1
20
No
71.2
0
0
17
No
66.7
0
0
20
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.2:
Air Quality Levels Measured at the 1630 North Main Street Los Angeles Station
Pollutant
Standard
2009
Carbon Monoxide
2.7
> 20 ppm/1-hr
0
Federal
> 35 ppm/1-hr
0
2.2
> 9.1 ppm/8-hr
0
Federal
> 9.5 ppm/8-hr
0
Ozone
0.139
> 0.09 ppm/1-hr
3
Ozone
0.100
> 0.07 ppm/8-hr
5
Federal
> 0.075 ppm/8-hr
2
Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10)
72
> 50 g/m3
4
Federal
> 150 g/m3
0
33.1
> 20 g/m3
Yes
Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5)
61.6
No. days exceeded: Federal
> 35 g/m3
7
15.7
> 12 g/m3
Yes
Federal
> 15 g/m3
Yes
Nitrogen Dioxide
115
> 180 ppb/1-hr
0
Federal
> 100 ppb/1-hr
2
Annual avg. concentration (ppb)
28
Exceeds Standard? Federal
53 ppb annual average
No
Sulfur Dioxide
9.0
250 ppb
0
Federal
75 ppb
0
1.7
Exceed standard?
State
40 ppb
No
Sources: Air Quality Assessment Report (2014).
N/A = there was insufficient (or no) data available to determine a value.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-6
2010
2011
2012
2013
2.7
0
0
2.32
0
0
2.8
0
0
2.40
0
0
2.2
0
0
1.91
0
0
2.5
0
0
2.0
0
0
0.098
1
0.087
0
0.093
0
0.081
0
0.080
1
1
0.065
0
0
0.077
2
1
0.069
0
0
42
0
0
27.1
Yes
53
9
0
29.0
Yes
80
43
0
30.2
Yes
57
20
0
29.5
Yes
39.2
2
14.1
Yes
No
49.3
4
13.0
Yes
No
58.7
4
13.1
Yes
No
43.1
1
12.5
Yes
No
89.0
0
0
25
No
109.6
0
1
25
No
77.3
0
0
25
No
90.3
0
0
22
No
9.8
0
0
1.5
No
19.8
0
0
11.0
No
5.2
0
0
5.0
No
6.0
0
0
1.6
No
DRAFT

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES
TABLE 3.13.3:
State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources
Pollutant
Ozone (O3)2
Averaging Time
1 hour
8 hours
State Standard8
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm
Federal Standard9
--- 4
0.075 ppm
th
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)2
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)2
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Lead (Pb)3
1 hour
8 hours
8 hours
(Lake Tahoe)
24 hours
Annual
20 ppm
9.0 ppm1
6 ppm
24 hours
Annual
Secondary
--12 g/m3
---
Standard (annual)
1 hour
0.18 ppm
50 g/m3
20 g/m3
Annual
1 hour
0.030 ppm
0.25 ppm
3 hours
24 hours
Monthly
Rolling 3-month average
--0.04 ppm
1.5 g/m3
--3
(4 highest in 3 years)
35 ppm
9 ppm
--150 g/m3
---2
(expected number of days
above standard 1)
35 g/m3
12.0 g/m3
15 g/m3
(98th percentile over 3 years)
0.100 ppm6
0.053 ppm
0.075 ppm7
0.5 ppm
--0.15 g/m3 10
Principal Health and Atmospheric Effects

High concentrations irritate lungs. Long-term exposure may cause lung tissue
damage and cancer. Long-term exposure damages plant materials and
reduces crop productivity. Precursor organic compounds include many known
toxic air contaminants. Biogenic VOCs may also contribute.
CO interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive
tissues of oxygen. CO also is a minor precursor for photochemical ozone.
Typical Sources
Low-altitude ozone is almost entirely formed from ROGs/VOCs and NOX in the
presence of sunlight and heat. Major sources include motor vehicles and
other mobile sources, solvent evaporation, and industrial and other
combustion processes.
Combustion sources, especially gasoline-powered engines and motor vehicles.
CO is the traditional signature pollutant for on-road mobile sources at the
local and neighborhood scale.
Attainment Status
Federal: Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour)
Irritates eyes and respiratory tract. Decreases lung capacity. Associated with
increased cancer and mortality. Contributes to haze and reduced visibility.
Includes some toxic air contaminants. Many aerosol and solid compounds are
part of PM10.
Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.
Reduces visibility and produces surface soiling. Most diesel exhaust
particulate matter (a toxic air contaminant) is in the PM2.5 size range. Many
toxic and other aerosol and solid compounds are part of PM2.5.
Dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations; combustion

smoke and vehicle exhaust; atmospheric chemical reactions; construction and
other dust-producing activities; unpaved road dust and re-entrained paved
road dust; natural sources.
Combustion including motor vehicles, other mobile sources, and industrial
activities; residential and agricultural burning; also formed through
atmospheric chemical (including photochemical) reactions involving other
pollutants including NOX, SOX, ammonia, and ROGs.
Federal: Attainment/Maintenance
Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish-brown.

Contributes to acid rain. Part of the NOX group of ozone precursors.
Motor vehicles and other mobile sources; refineries; industrial operations.
Federal: Attainment/ Maintenance
Fuel combustion (especially coal and high-sulfur oil), chemical plants, sulfur
recovery plants, metal processing; some natural sources like active volcanoes.
Limited contribution possible from heavy-duty diesel vehicles if ultra-low
sulfur fuel not used.
Disturbs gastrointestinal system. Causes anemia, kidney disease, and
Lead-based industrial processes like battery production and smelters. Lead
neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Also a toxic air contaminant and paint, leaded gasoline. Aerially deposited lead from gasoline may exist in soils
water pollutant.
along major roads.
Premature mortality and respiratory effects. Contributes to acid rain. Some
Industrial processes, refineries and oil fields, mines, natural sources like
toxic air contaminants attach to sulfate aerosol particles.
volcanic areas, salt-covered dry lakes, and large sulfide rock areas.
24 hours
25 g/m
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
1 hour
0.03 ppm
---
Colorless, flammable, poisonous. Respiratory irritant. Neurological damage

and premature death. Headache, nausea.
Visibility Reducing
Particles (VRP)
8 hours
---
Reduces visibility. Produces haze.11
Vinyl Chloride3
24 hours
Visibility of 10 mi or
more (Tahoe: 30 mi)
at relative humidity
< 70%
0.01 ppm
Industrial processes such as: refineries and oil fields, asphalt plants, livestock
operations, sewage treatment plants, and mines. Some natural sources like
volcanic areas and hot springs.
See particulate matter above.
State: Attainment
State: Nonattainment
Federal: Nonattainment
Federal: Attainment/ Unclassified

State: Attainment/ Unclassified
Federal: Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)
State: Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)
Federal: Not applicable
---
Neurological effects, liver damage, cancer. Also considered a toxic air

contaminant.
Industrial processes
Source: Air Quality Assessment Report (2014).

1
Rounding to an integer value is not allowed for the State 8-hour CO standard. Violation occurs at or above 9.05 ppm.
2
Annual PM10 NAAQS revoked October 2006; was 50 g/m3. 24-hour. PM2.5 NAAQS tightened October 2006; was 65 g/m3. Annual PM2.5 NAAQS tightened from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3 December 2012, and secondary standard set at 15 g/m3.
3
The ARB has identified vinyl chloride and the particulate matter fraction of diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is part of PM10 and, in larger proportion, PM2.5. Both the ARB and the EPA have identified lead and various
organic compounds that are precursors to ozone and PM2.5 as toxic air contaminants. There are no exposure criteria for substantial health effect due to toxic air contaminants, and control requirements may apply at ambient concentrations below any criteria
levels specified above for these pollutants or the general categories of pollutants to which they belong.
4
Prior to June 2005, the 1-hour NAAQS was 0.12 ppm. Emission budgets for 1-hour ozone are still in use in some areas where 8-hour ozone emission budgets have not been developed, such as the San Francisco Bay Area.
5
The 0.08 ppm 1997 ozone standard is revoked FOR CONFORMITY PURPOSES ONLY when area designations for the 2008 0.75 ppm standard become effective for conformity use (July 20, 2013). Conformity requirements apply for all NAAQS, including revoked
NAAQS, until emission budgets for newer NAAQS are found adequate, SIP amendments for the newer NAAQS are approved with a emission budget, EPA specifically revokes conformity requirements for an older standard, or the area becomes attainment/
unclassified. SIP-approved emission budgets remain in force indefinitely unless explicitly replaced or eliminated by a subsequent approved SIP amendment. During the Interim period prior to availability of emission budgets, conformity tests may include some
combination of build vs. no build, build vs. baseline, or compliance with prior emission budgets for the same pollutant.
6
Final 1-hour NO2 NAAQS published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2010, effective March 9, 2010. Initial area designation for California (2012) was attainment/unclassifiable throughout. Project-level hot-spot analysis requirements do not currently exist.
Near-road monitoring starting in 2013 may cause redesignation to nonattainment in some areas after 2016.
7
The EPA finalized a 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb in June 2010. Nonattainment areas have not yet been designated as of September 2012.
8
State standards are not to exceed or not to be equaled or exceeded unless stated otherwise. Federal standards are not to exceed more than once a year or as described above.
9
Secondary standard, set to protect public welfare rather than health. Conformity and environmental analysis address both primary and secondary NAAQS.
10
Lead NAAQS are not considered in Transportation Conformity analysis.
11
Not related to the Regional Haze program under the Federal Clean Air Act, which is oriented primarily toward visibility issues in National Parks and other Class I areas.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Federal: Attainment/ Maintenance
Irritates respiratory tract; injures lung tissue. Can yellow plant leaves.
Destructive to marble, iron, steel. Contributes to acid rain. Limits visibility.
Sulfate
---
State: Nonattainment (1-hour and 8-hour)
3.13-7

LEGEND:
ARB = California Air Resources Board
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
mi = mile(s)
NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards
NOX = nitrogen oxides
ROGs = reactive organic gases
SIP = State Implementation Plan
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-8
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
3.13.3
3.13.3.1
Temporary Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction of any of the improvements in the SR 710
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in adverse
short-term air quality effects associated with improvements in the SR 710 North Study Build
Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of
particulate emissions (airborne dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities
related to construction. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would
include CO, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Ozone is a
regional pollutant that is derived from NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and heat.
Site preparation and construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, removing or
improving existing transportation facilities, and paving. Construction-related effects on air quality
from most transportation projects would be greatest during the site preparation phase because
most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils to and
from the site. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5,
and small amounts of CO, SO2, NOX, and VOCs. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils
at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled,
vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of
airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature
and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend
on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger
dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater
distances from the construction site.
Construction activities for large projects are estimated by the EPA to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust
per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control
dust, the emissions can be reduced by up to 50 percent.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by
gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOX, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM10
and PM2.5) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the
area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed.
These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the
construction site.
SO2 is generated by oxidation during combustion of organic sulfur compounds contained in diesel
fuel. Off-road diesel fuel meeting federal standards can contain up to 5,000 parts per million (ppm)
of sulfur, whereas on-road diesel is restricted to less than 15 ppm of sulfur. However, under
California law and ARB regulations, off-road diesel fuel used in California must meet the same sulfur
and other standards as on-road diesel fuel, so SO2-related issues due to diesel exhaust would be
minimal. Some phases of construction, particularly asphalt paving, would result in short-term odors
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-9
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
in the immediate area of each paving site(s). Such odors would be quickly dispersed below
detectable thresholds as distance from the site(s) increases.
Construction emissions were estimated for the Build Alternatives using detailed equipment
inventories and project construction scheduling information, combined with emissions factors from
the EMFAC2011 and OFFROAD models. The construction-related emissions associated with each of
the Build Alternatives are discussed below. The emissions presented in Table 3.13.4 are based on
the best information available at the time of calculations.
Construction activities would not last for more than 5 years at one general location, so constructionrelated emissions do not need to be included in the regional and project-level conformity analyses
(40 CFR 93.123(c)(5)).
TSM/TDM Alternative
Construction-related emissions for the Transportation System Management/Transportation

Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative are presented in Table 3.13.4. The EMFAC2011
model does not include emission rates for SO2; therefore, SO2 was not included in Table 3.13.4.
All the intersection, local road, and other improvements associated with the TSM/TDM
Alternative were separated into four construction groups:
Group I
Group II
Intersection Improvements I-10, I-11, I-18, I-43, I-44, and I-45

Local Street Improvements L-2a and L-5
Other Road Improvement T-1
Group III
Intersection Improvements I-1, I-8, I-9, I-16, I-19, and I-25

Local Street Improvement L-2c
Intersection Improvements I-2, I-13, I-14, I-15, and I-22)

Local Street Improvement L-3
Group IV
Intersection Improvements I-3 and I-24

Local Street Improvements L-1, L-4, and L-8
The emissions listed in Table 3.13.4 represent the peak daily construction emissions that would
be generated by each construction activity.
BRT Alternative
Construction-related emissions for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative are presented in
Table 3.13.4. The EMFAC2011 model does not include emission rates for SO2; therefore, SO2 was
not included in Table 3.13.4. The BRT Alternative would be built in six segments. The emissions
listed in Table 3.13.4 represent the peak daily construction emissions that would be generated
by each construction activity.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-10
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.4:
Maximum Construction Emissions by Alternative (lbs/day)
Construction Activity
ROGs
Mobilization/Utility Relocation
Group I Improvements
Group II Improvements
Group III Improvements
Group IV Improvements
Fugitive Dust
TSM/TDM Alternative Peak Activity
7
33
49
16
20
49
Mobilization/Staging
Whittier to SR 60
SR 60 to I-10
I-10 to Huntington Drive
Huntington Drive to Del Mar Avenue
Del Mar Avenue to Colorado Boulevard
Fugitive Dust
BRT Alternative Peak Activity
5
8
11
8
11
6
12
Mobilization/Staging
Aerial Structure
At-Grade Structures
Tunnel Excavation and Construction
Above-Grade Construction
Rail Tracks and Maintenance Yard
Fugitive Dust
LRT Alternative Total
CO
TSM/TDM Alternative
PM10
PM2.5
83
366
548
180
217
548
134
629
935
310
373
935
5
21
33
10
12
480
513
5
19
30
9
11
101
130
56
90
123
90
123
69
123
91
153
206
153
206
117
206
3
5
7
5
7
4
320
327
3
5
7
5
7
4
67
74
LRT Alternative
6
78
34
375
33
370
21
229
16
180
8
102
119
1,335
123
648
627
394
295
154
2,242
5
22
22
13
11
7
640
720
5
20
20
12
10
6
134
207
34
580
183
296
54
1,326
308
505
2
49
11
17
2
38
9
16
34
875
156
9
2,167
54
1,796
257
36
4,337
2
64
9
1
960
1,116
2
52
8
1
202
330
34
693
256
294
54
1,715
450
505
2
64
15
17
2
48
14
16
34
525
232
233
17
2,284
54
1,314
408
409
70
4,926
2
50
14
14
3
1,280
1,460
2
37
12
12
2
269
411
BRT Alternative
Single-Bore Design Variation

South Portal
Staging and Survey
3
Earth Work
63
Bridge Construction
16
27
North Portal
Staging and Survey
3
Earth Work
88
13
Material Delivery
1
Fugitive Dust
Freeway Tunnel Single-Bore Total

214
Dual-Bore Design Variation
South Portal
Staging and Survey
33
Earth Work
799
Bridge Construction
23
277
North Portal
Staging and Survey
33
Earth Work
60
Bridge Construction
21
21
Material Delivery
33
Fugitive Dust
Freeway Tunnel Dual-Bore Total

237
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
NOX
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size

ROGs = reactive organic gases
3.13-11
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
The BRT Alternative includes portions of the TSM/TSM Alternative; therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative analysis discussed above would also apply to this alternative. However, because the
construction schedule for the TSM/TDM improvements would not overlap with the construction
schedule for the BRT Alternative, the emissions would not be additive.
LRT Alternative
Construction-related emissions for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative are presented in Table
3.13.4. The EMFAC2011 model does not include emission rates for SO2; therefore, SO2 was not
included in Table 3.13.4. The emissions listed in Table 3.13.4 represent the peak daily
construction emissions that would be generated during construction of the LRT Alternative and
assume that all of the construction activities would overlap on a peak day.
The LRT Alternative includes portions of the TSM/TSM Alternative; therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative analysis discussed above would also apply to this alternative. However, because the
construction schedule for the TSM/TDM improvements would not overlap with the construction
schedule for the LRT Alternative, the emissions would not be additive.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Single-Bore Design Variation
Construction-related emissions for the single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative are presented in Table 3.13.4. The EMFAC2011 model does not include emission
rates for SO2; therefore, SO2 was not included in Table 3.13.4. The emissions listed in Table
3.13.4 represent the peak daily construction emissions that would be generated during
construction of the single-bore design variation and assume that all of the construction activities
would overlap on a peak day.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation includes portions of the TSM/TSM
Alternative; therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative analysis discussed above would also apply to
this design variation. However, because the construction schedule for the TSM/TDM
improvements would not overlap with the construction schedule for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore design variation, the emissions would not be additive.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Dual-Bore Design Variation
Construction-related emissions for the dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative are presented in Table 3.13.4. The EMFAC2011 model does not include emission
rates for SO2; therefore, SO2 was not included in Table 3.13.4. The emissions listed in Table
3.13.4 represent the peak daily construction emissions that would be generated during
construction of the dual-bore design variation and assume that all of the construction activities
would overlap on a peak day.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation includes portions of the TSM/TSM
Alternative; therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative analysis discussed above would also apply to
this design variation. However, because the construction schedule for the TSM/TDM
improvements would not overlap with the construction schedule for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dual-bore design variation, the emissions would not be additive.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The project is located in Los Angeles County, which is among the counties listed as containing
serpentine and ultramafic rock. However, the portion of the County known to contain serpentine or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-12
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
ultramafic rock is limited to the island of Santa Catalina. Therefore, the impact from naturally
occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction would be minimal to none.
3.13.3.2
Permanent Impacts
The baselines used for the air quality evaluation are existing conditions and the No Build conditions
in the 2020/2025 Opening Years and the 2035 Build Out Year. Comparison of the Build Alternatives
to the 2020/2025 and 2035 No Build condition, as well as existing conditions, is appropriate because
air quality effects are considered for the projected future conditions. For long-term planning on
their facilities, Caltrans uses a 20-year planning horizon, which is consistent with standard FHWA
practice for transportation project planning.
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in the longterm air quality effects associated with improvements in the SR 710 Build Alternatives.
As discussed in more detail below under the Build Alternatives, the EPAs vehicle and fuel
regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would result in substantial reductions over time that would
cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are today. As a result, as shown
later in Table 3.13.6, the future No Build Alternative MSAT emissions in the project study area would
be substantially lower compared to existing conditions. The MSAT emissions under the Build
Alternatives would generally be only slightly less than under the No Build Alternative in the Opening
Years. In the Horizon Year, the emissions of the Build Alternatives would generally be slightly less or
more than under the No Build Alternative, depending on the individual MSATs.
The No Build Alternative would not result in the construction of any of the proposed project
improvements and, therefore, would not result in permanent effects related to CO, PM2.5, PM10,
MSATs, or regional emissions described below for the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
The air quality analysis for the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives described in this section
includes the effects of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements that would be included in these
Build Alternatives. These improvements include the complete TSM/TDM Alternative minus the
following portions:
Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road), the
reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon
Way to I-10), and enhancements to Route 762 would not be implemented with the BRT
Alternative.
Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) would not be
implemented with the LRT Alternative.
Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector) and T-3 (St. John
Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard) would not be implemented
with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-13
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
Regional Conformity
The proposed project is listed in the 2012 financially constrained RTP, which was found to
conform to the SIP by SCAG on April 4, 2012, and the FHWA and FTA made a regional conformity
determination finding on June 5, 2012. The project is also included in the financially constrained
2015 FTIP, which was determined to conform by FHWA and FTA on December 15, 2014. The
design concept and scope of the TSM/TDM Alternative is not consistent with the project
description in the 2012 RTP, the 2015 FTIP, and the open to traffic assumptions in SCAGs
regional emissions analysis.
The 2012 RTP states the following:
SR-710 North Extension (tunnel) (alignment TBD). 4 toll lanes in
each direction in tunnel.
The project is described in the 2015 FTIP (Project ID: 18790) and is described in the FTIP as:
Route 710: Study to perform alternative analysis, engineering and
environmental studies to close 710 Freeway gap.
The tolled operational variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation is
consistent with the scope of the design concept of the RTP and FTIP. Therefore, the tolled
operational variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation is in
conformance with the SIP. The RTP and FTIP would have to be amended should one of the
following be selected: TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, LRT Alternative, Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore design variation, or the non-tolled operational variations of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation. The project would also comply with all SCAQMD
requirements.
Project-Level Conformity
The proposed project is in a nonattainment area for the federal PM2.5 standards and in an
attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO and PM10 standards. Therefore, per 40 CFR
Part 93, CO and PM hot-spot analyses are required for conformity purposes. The results of the
hot-spot analyses are provided below.
Carbon Monoxide Screening Analysis
The methodology required for a CO local analysis is summarized in the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol (Protocol) in Section 3 (Determination of Project Requirements) and Section 4
(Local Analysis). Section 3 of the Protocol provides two conformity requirement decision
flowcharts designed to assist project sponsors in evaluating the requirements that apply to
specific projects. The flowchart in the Protocol applies to new projects and was used in this
local analysis conformity decision. Below is a step-by-step explanation of the flow chart.
Each level cited is followed by a response for the SR 710 North Study Project, which in turn
determines the next applicable level of the flowchart for the project. The flowchart begins
with Section 3.1.1:
3.1.1. Is this project exempt from all emissions analyses? ............................................. NO

Table 1 of the Protocol is Table 2 of Section 93.126 of 40 CFR. Section 3.1.1 is inquiring if
the project is exempt. Such projects appear in Table 1 of the Protocol. The Freeway
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-14
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
Tunnel Alternative includes the construction of a freeway tunnel. In addition, the BRT
and TSM/TDM Alternatives would widen local streets. Therefore, the project is not
exempt from all emissions analyses.
3.1.2. Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses? ..................................... NO

Table 2 of the Protocol is Table 3 of Section 93.127. The question is intended to
determine whether the project is listed in Table 2. Projects that are included in Table 2
of the Protocol are exempt from regional conformity. Because the project will be
constructing a new highway tunnel and/or will widen existing local roads, it is not
exempt from regional emissions analyses.
3.1.3. Is the project locally defined as regionally significant? ........................................ YES

As mentioned above, the proposed project would construct a new highway tunnel
and/or widen existing local roads. Therefore, the project is potentially regionally
significant.
3.1.4. Is the project in a federal attainment area? .......................................................... NO

The project is in an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standard.
Therefore, the project is subject to a regional conformity determination.
3.1.5. Are there a currently conforming RTP and transportation improvement

program [TIP]? ................................................................................................................ YES
3.1.6. Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the
currently conforming RTP and TIP? ................................................................................ YES
The project is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP (Project ID: 1M0101. SR-710 North
Extension [tunnel] [alignment TBD]. 4 toll lanes in each direction in tunnel) and the 2015
FTIP (Project ID: 18790. Route 710: Study to perform alternative analysis, engineering
and environmental studies to close 710 Freeway gap).
3.1.7. Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from
that in the regional analysis? ........................................................................................... NO
3.1.9. Examine local impacts.

Section 3.1.9 of the flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 4 (Local Analysis)
of the Protocol. This concludes Figure 1 of the CO Protocol.
Section 4 contains Figure 3. This flowchart is used to determine the type of CO analysis
required for the Build Alternatives. Below is a step-by-step explanation of the flowchart.
Each level cited is followed by a response, which in turn determines the next applicable level
of the flowchart for the Build Alternatives. The flowchart begins at level 1:
Level 1. Is the project in a CO non-attainment area? ...................................................... NO

The project site is in an area that has demonstrated attainment with the federal CO
standard.
Level 1 (cont.). Was the area redesignated as attainment after the 1990
Clean Air Act? .................................................................................................................. YES
Level 1 (cont.). Has continued attainment been verified with the local air
district, if appropriate? ................................................................................................... YES
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-15
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
The Basin was designated as attainment/maintenance by the EPA on June 11, 2007.
(Proceed to Level 7.)
Level 7. Does the project worsen air quality? ................................................................. YES

Because the proposed project would add a new freeway tunnel to the project area
and/or would widen existing local roads, it would potentially worsen air quality.
Level 7 (cont.): Is the project suspected of resulting in higher CO concentrations

than those existing in the region at the time of attainment demonstration? ................ NO
Four intersections were evaluated in the 1997 CO Attainment Demonstration: Wilshire

Boulevard at Veteran Avenue, Sunset Boulevard at Highland Avenue, La Cienega Boulevard
at Century Boulevard, and Long Beach Boulevard at Imperial Highway. CO concentrations at
the intersections under study would be lower than those reported for the maximum of the
intersections analyzed in the CO attainment plan because all of the following conditions,
listed in Section 4.7.2 of the Protocol, are satisfied:
The receptor locations at the intersections under study are at the same distance or
farther from the traveled road than the receptor locations used in the intersection in
the attainment plan. The attainment plan evaluates the CO concentrations at a distance
of 10 ft from the edge of the roads. The Protocol does not permit the modeling of
receptor locations closer than this distance.
The project intersection traffic volumes and geometries are not substantially different
from those included in the attainment plan. Also, the intersections under study have
less total traffic and the same or fewer numbers of lanes than the intersections in the
attainment plan.
The assumed meteorology for the intersections under study is the same as the assumed
meteorology for the intersections in the attainment plan. Both use the worst-case
scenario meteorology settings in the CALINE4 and/or CAL3QHC model.
As shown in Table 3.13.5, total intersection volumes are lower for the intersections
under study than those assumed for the intersection in the attainment plan.
The percentages of vehicles operating in cold start mode are the same or lower for the
intersection under study compared to those used for the intersection in the attainment
plan. It is assumed that all vehicles in the intersection are in a fully warmed-up mode.
The percentage of heavy-duty gas trucks in the intersections under study is the same or
lower than the percentages used for the intersections in the attainment plan analysis. It
is assumed that the traffic distribution at the intersections under study does not vary
from the California Emission Factor Model (EMFAC) standards.
Average delay and queue length for each approach are the same or less for the
intersection under study compared to those found in the intersections in the attainment
plan. The predicted levels of service (LOS) for the intersections under study range from
LOS A to F. The LOS for the intersections in the attainment plan are not listed; however,
the traffic counts and intersection geometries correspond to LOS F for three of the four
intersections in the attainment plan.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-16
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.5:
Total Intersection Traffic Volume Comparisons
INTERSECTION 1:
Wilshire Blvd/ Veteran Ave
AM
PM
8,062
7,719
Alternatives
INTERSECTION 1:
Fremont Ave / Norwood Ave
AM
PM
2,028
2,254
1,714
1,980
1,724
1,978
2,011
2,405
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
Single-Bore Operational Variations
With Tolls
With Tolls and No Trucks
With Tolls and Express Bus
Dual-Bore Operational Variations
No Tolls
No Trucks
With Tolls
EB = eastbound
WB = westbound
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
INTERSECTION 2:
Garfield Ave / Norwood Pl
AM
PM
2,740
3,291
2,551
2,975
2,503
2,981
2,744
3,157
Attainment Plan Maximum Volumes

INTERSECTION 2:
INTERSECTION 3:
Sunset Blvd/ Highland Ave
La Cienega Blvd/Century Blvd
AM
PM
AM
PM
6,614
7,374
6,635
8,674
INTERSECTION 3:
I-210 EB Ramps / Berkshire Pl
AM
PM
1,101
764
1,099
766
1,095
768
1,095
763
INTERSECTION 4:
Long Beach Blvd/Imperial Hwy
AM
PM
4,212
5,514
2035 Proposed Project Maximum Volumes

INTERSECTION 4:
INTERSECTION 5:
I-210 WB Ramps / Berkshire Pl
Broadway / Colorado Blvd
AM
PM
AM
PM
1,903
1,283
1,697
2,976
1,924
1,289
1,749
3,055
1,921
1,295
1,744
3,037
1,925
1,294
1,759
3,053
INTERSECTION 6:
Concord Ave / Alhambra Ave
AM
PM
1,437
1,822
2,314
3,874
2,326
3,838
1,360
1,808
INTERSECTION 7:
Pasadena Ave / Broadway
AM
PM
3,746
2,288
3,624
2,270
3,667
2,284
3,790
2,313
INTERSECTION 8:
Rosemead Blvd / Mission Dr
AM
PM
4,065
4,188
5,473
5,300
5,493
5,293
5,878
5,369
2,200
2,127
2,213
2,420
2,380
2,373
2,569
2,580
2,559
3,072
3,061
3,061
1,232
1,161
1,239
935
873
923
2,118
2,114
2,123
1,582
1,681
1,571
1,805
1,793
1,804
3,247
3,223
3,266
1,297
1,306
1,286
1,796
1,793
1,740
3,732
3,747
3,748
2,311
2,298
2,314
5,434
5,385
5,418
5,231
5,220
5,224
2,134
2,097
2,134
2,355
2,350
2,355
2,573
2,569
2,573
2,960
2,958
2,960
1,499
1,475
1,551
1,124
995
1,103
2,395
2,309
2,407
1,681
1,582
1,667
1,825
1,823
1,825
3,359
3,414
3,359
1,277
1,265
1,277
1,666
1,659
1,666
3,593
3,547
3,593
2,314
2,309
2,314
5,506
5,471
5,506
5,089
5,049
5,089
3.13-17
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-18
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
The background concentrations in the area of the intersection under study are
2.9 ppm for 1 hour and 2.4 ppm for 8 hours, which are lower than the background
concentrations for the intersections in the attainment plan. These varied from 5.3 to
13.2 ppm for 1 hour and 3.7 to 9.9 ppm for 8 hours.
The project is not expected to result in any concentrations exceeding the 1-hour or 8-hour
CO standards. Therefore, a detailed CALINE4 CO hot-spot analysis is not required.
Particulate Matter
The proposed project is in a nonattainment area for the federal PM2.5 standards and in an
attainment/maintenance area for the federal PM10 standard. Therefore, per 40 CFR Part 93,
analyses are required for conformity purposes. However, the EPA does not require hot-spot
qualitative or quantitative analyses for projects that are not listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) as
an air quality concern.
A PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot form (May 2014) was submitted to and reviewed by the
Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) on May 27, 2014 and additional
requested information was provided in June 2014. 1 The primary TCWG members are EPA,
FHWA, and Caltrans Headquarters. On October 28, 2014, the TCWG determined that the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives are not Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). In
other words, based on the information in the PM Hot-Spot Form, these alternatives are not
expected to result in new exceedances, or delay attainment, of the federal PM standards.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single- and dual-bore design variations are POAQC. If the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative with either the single-bore or dual-bore design variation is
identified as the preferred alternative, a quantitative PM hot-spot analysis will be conducted
to demonstrate that the project would not delay attainment of or worsen existing violation
of or cause an exceedance of the PM2.5 or PM10 NAAQS and meets conformity requirement.
In addition to the demonstration of conformity requirement, PM2.5 and PM10, 24-hour PM2.5,
annual PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 concentration values were calculated along the existing and
proposed roadways within the project area. These values were calculated based on the EPA
Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA Guidance November 2013).
Types of Emissions Considered
In accordance with the EPA Guidance, this quantitative analysis was based on directly
emitted and re-entrained PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Tailpipe, brake wear, tire wear, and
road dust PM2.5 and PM10 emissions were therefore considered in this analysis.
Vehicles cause dust from paved and unpaved roads to be re-entrained, or re-suspended,
in the atmosphere. The SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) identified
re-entrained road dust as a substantial source of particulate matter in the areas
emission budget. Therefore, re-entrained road dust was considered in this analysis.
Secondary particles formed through PM2.5 and PM10 precursor emissions from a
transportation project take several hours to form in the atmosphere, giving emissions
time to disperse beyond the immediate study area of concern for localized analyses;
1
PM Hot-spot form available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/TCWG%20Document%20Library/4.12%2018790EPAcomments/4.1-3_18790revJune2014Complete.pdf
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-19
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
therefore, they were not considered in this analysis. Secondary emissions of PM2.5 and
PM10 are considered part of the regional emissions analysis prepared for the conforming
RTP and FTIP.
Emission and Dispersion Models Used
The EPA Guidance requires use of the latest emissions model in quantitative analyses.
This quantitative analysis was prepared based on the latest EPA-approved emissions
model for use in California (EMFAC2011). As recommended by the EPA Guidance, this
quantitative analysis applied the simplified approach, using the assessment tool
EMFAC2011 to help generate emission rates for the traffic forecasted within the South
Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County in the years 2020, 2025, and 2035.
The EPA Guidance recommends that quantitative analyses be developed consistent with
the EPAs current recommended model under Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. While the
American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the EPA's
recommended near-field dispersion model, Section 3.2 of Appendix W provides
applicable guidance with which an EPA's Regional Office may determine acceptability of
alternative models (e.g., some commercial Graphical User Interface [GUI] versions of
AERMOD). Due to the magnitude of the study area and complexity of the project scope,
this analysis has been prepared utilizing the Lakes Environmental AERMOD View (Lakes
AERMOD View version 8.8.8.9, which includes AERMOD version 14134).
The PM modeling was set up to capture the areas that are potentially of air quality
concern for particulates based on initial discussion with EPA. Thus, the PM2.5 and PM10
quantitative analysis includes:
I-210, approximately 0.5 mile (mi) east of the SR 710 interchange;
SR 134, approximately 0.5 mi west of the SR 710 interchange;
I-210, approximately 0.5 mi west of the SR 710 interchange;
SR 710 South, either to the current terminus or the proposed tunnel entrance;
I-10, between the SR 710 interchange and the I-5 interchange and approximately 0.5
mi west of the SR 710 interchange;
SR 710 North, either to the current terminus or the proposed tunnel entrance;
I-5, approximately 0.5 mile south of the I-10 interchange;
I-5, approximately 0.5 mile north of the SR 2 interchange;
SR 2, approximately 0.5 miles east of the I-5 interchange;
SR 2, approximately 0.5 miles west of the I-5 interchange;
SR 110, approximately 0.5 miles east of the I-5 interchange;
I-10, approximately 1 mi east of the SR 710 interchange; and
Principal arterials Colorado Boulevard and Valley Boulevard, which are each
approximately 0.5 mi on either side of SR 710.
In addition to the roadways, the modeling included the freeway tunnel ventilation
towers at both the north and south portals. The subsections below describe each source
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-20
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
type modeled in AERMOD. The AERMOD model was configured to run in flat mode
with either the PM10 or PM2.5 pollutant ID used for the separate analyses for each
pollutant.
Vehicle emissions from highways and principal arterials were modeled as volume
sources. Emissions from the freeway tunnel ventilation towers were modeled as point
sources. A summary of the parameters used for each type of source is shown in
Table 3.13.6 and explained further in the following sections.
TABLE 3.13.6:
AERMOD Source Parameters for the PM2.5 and PM10 Quantitative Analysis
Source Type
Source Description
AERMOD
Source
Type
Release
Height
(ft)
Source
Width
Line
Source
Spacing
Exit
Velocity
(fpm)
Exit
Temperature
( F)
Ventilation
Structure
Diameter
(ft)
-
Highway Mainlines
Volume
Various1 Various2 Various2
Highway Interchanges
Volume
Principal Arterials
Volume
Vehicle Fugitive
Highway Mainlines
Volume
1
Various2 Various2
Emissions
Principal Arterials
Volume
1
Various2 Various2
Tunnel Ventilation
North and South Portal
3
3
Point
50
Various
Ambient
22.974
Towers
Exhaust and Fugitive
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (2014)
1
Vehicle emissions from all highway and arterial mainlines were modeled with volume source dimensions corresponding to trucks.
Initial release heights of 11 ft for trucks and 4 ft for cars are assumed. A weighted average of the vehicle mix was used to determine an
average release height for each roadway segment. Selected values are consistent with the parameters used in the Human Health Risk
Assessment for the SchuylerHeim Bridge Replacement and SR 47 Expressway Project (Western Solutions, Inc. October 2008).
2
Source width and line spacing are dependent on specific road width.
3
Exhaust flow exit velocity is dependent on the tunnel design and traffic directions.
4
Ventilation structure height and diameter were based on preliminary engineering design specifications.
F = degrees Fahrenheit
AERMOD = American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model
fpm = feet per minute
Vehicle Exhaust
Emissions
For volume sources, initial horizontal dimensions (y0) were based on Table 3.1 in the
Users Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model-AERMOD EPA-454/B-03-001
September 2004. As specified in the EPA Guidance, the initial vertical dimensions (z0)
were based on a weighted average of the vehicle mix (22 ft for trucks and 8.5 ft for
cars). The line source spacing, or separation of the volume sources, was twice the width
of each individual volume source. The width of the volume source for each roadway
segment was calculated based on the average width of the roadway. The initial
horizontal dimensions (y0) are equal to the source separation divided by 2.15. All
sources were considered to be elevated sources not on or adjacent to a building, with
initial vertical dimensions (z0) equal to the vertical source extent divided by 2.15.
Freeway Mainlines
The freeway mainline roads modeled in AERMOD included existing roadways as well
as new alignments to be constructed as part of the project. Roadway alignments,
widths, and elevations were determined using engineering drawings, geographic
information system (GIS) layers, and aerial photographs of the project. The
operational vehicle exhaust emissions from roadways were modeled as a line of
volume sources. Volume source representations of the highways were developed
based on roadway configurations and assumed vertical dimensions for car and truck
traffic. The major freeways were modeled with the average width of each specific
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-21
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
freeway. Roadway volume source spacings were determined based on road widths.
The initial release height relative to the roadbed was 11 ft for trucks (EPA Guidance,
November 2013) and 4 ft for cars. A weighted average of the vehicle mix was used
to determine an average release height for each roadway segment. For both atgrade and elevated roadways, the final modeled release height was calculated
relative to terrain elevation at the receptor location. Because the fugitive PM
emissions can be characterized with the same modeling parameters as the vehicle
exhaust (other than release height), they were modeled with identical volume
sources, except for the release heights, which were all set to 1 ft.
Freeway Interchanges
Similar to the freeway mainlines, a line of volume sources following the average
centerline of the interchange was used. The width of the volume source and source
spacing were adjusted to the average width of each specific freeway interchange.
Principal Arterials
Principal arterials were modeled as a line of volume sources using the average
centerline of the roadway. Most major arterials were modeled with the width of a
fourlane roadway, with the exception of a few arterials that are mainly two-lane
roadways. Vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from principal arterials were
modeled the same way the freeway mainlines were.
Tunnel Ventilation Towers
The tunnel ventilation tower emissions for the north and south tunnel portals were
modeled as point sources. Exhaust flow rates of the ventilation towers vary
depending on the tunnel design variation (i.e., singlebore or dual-bore). For the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative, emissions from the freeway tunnel were adjusted to
take into account the control efficiency of an air pollution control system. The PM
emissions from the SR 710 new freeway tunnel will be treated with PM filters.
Control efficiency of the PM filter is dependent on the particle size distribution and
varies between a low of 80 percent and a high of greater than 99 percent for the
proposed PM emission control system (ILF Consulting Engineers, 2013). To be
conservative, the lowest control efficiency of 80 percent was used to estimate the
emissions from the ventilation towers such that 20 percent of total PM emissions
will be released to the atmosphere. It is assumed that both ventilation towers of the
tunnel (i.e., the southbound and northbound ventilation towers) will be equipped
with PM control systems. As such, emissions were separately calculated for each
ventilation tower to most accurately represent controlled emissions associated with
either the northbound or southbound traffic.
Data Inputs and Receptors
The AERMOD model uses emission rates based on traffic data, emission factors, and
meteorological data to estimate ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 at a
series of receptors. AERMOD requires specific information for each roadway segment
and emissions from vehicles operating on that roadway segment. The forecast average
daily traffic data were applied to appropriate emission factors to estimate emissions for
each of the segments along the proposed alignment. Emissions for tire and brake wear,
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-22
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
as well as re-entrained road dust, were calculated and included according to the same
forecasted traffic data.
Meteorological input files were processed using surface data and upper air data from
the Central Los Angeles Monitoring Station. As provided by the SCAQMD, surface
meteorological data from the Central Los Angeles Station and upper meteorological air
data from the Miramar Station in San Diego for the 5-year period of 2006 through 2011
(2008 was left out because the raw data from the Central Los Angeles Station did not
meet the EPA data completeness requirement for meteorological data) were used to
meet the EPA' s modeling guidance that recommends use of data sets with 90 percent
or more complete per parameter and per quarter.
Receptors were placed in order to estimate the highest concentrations of PM2.5 and
PM10 to determine any possible violations of the NAAQS. As specified in the EPA
Guidance, a line of receptors was placed at the right of way (ROW) line or roadway
boundary for conformity analysis. Layers of receptor grids were then placed every 25
meter spacing along highway boundaries and 100 meter spacing along arterials.
Calculation of Emission Concentrations

24-Hour PM2.5
Using appropriate control and output pathways, AERMOD was programmed to

calculate and identify the highest average 24-hour concentration from the AERMOD
run among all the receptors. As specified by the EPA Guidance, all values were
rounded to the nearest 1 g/m3. Table 3.13.7 shows the results of the 24-Hour PM2.5
analysis for every scenario.
Annual PM2.5

calculate and identify the highest average annual concentration from the AERMOD
run among all the receptors. As specified by the EPA Guidance, all values were
rounded to the nearest tenth of a g/m3. Table 3.13.8 shows the results of the
annual PM2.5 concentration for every scenario.
24-Hour PM10

calculate and identify the highest of all sixth-highest concentrations from the
AERMOD run among all the receptors. Table 3.13.9 shows the results of the PM10
analysis, listing the sixth-highest 24-hour concentration for every scenario.
Long-Term Regional Emissions
The purpose of the proposed project is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and
local north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and
east/northeast Los Angeles. The VMT and VHT data used in these analyses were calculated using
the daily traffic volumes on all the road and freeway segments in the project study area. The
proposed project would not generate new vehicular traffic trips because it would not construct
new homes or businesses. However, there is a possibility that some traffic currently using other
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-23
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-24
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.7:
24-Hour PM2.5 Quantitative Results
Scenario
Opening Year 2025
Single-Bore Design Variation Operational Variations
With Toll
With Toll without Trucks
With Toll with Express Bus
Dual-Bore Design Variation Operational Variations
Without Toll
Without Toll without Trucks
With Toll
Horizon Year 2035
With Toll
Without Toll
With Toll
TABLE 3.13.8:
Annual PM2.5 Quantitative Results
Highest 24-hour PM2.5
Concentration from
3
AERMOD (g/m )
5.280
5.137
5.234
5.165
4.963
5.139
5.085
5.233
5.101
5.165
5.095
4.903
5.096
5.030
TABLE 3.13.9:
24-Hour PM10 Quantitative Results
Highest Annual PM2.5
Concentration from
3
AERMOD (g/m )
Scenario
Opening Year 2025
With Toll
Without Toll
With Toll
Horizon Year 2035
With Toll
Without Toll
With Toll
3.671
3.572
3.640
3.598
3.444
3.570
3.531
3.634
3.543
3.591
3.539
3.404
3.538
3.492
Scenario
Opening Year 2025
With Toll
Without Toll
With Toll
Horizon Year 2035
With Toll
Without Toll
With Toll
Highest 24-Hour PM10

Concentration from
3
AERMOD (g/m )
15.836
15.408
15.696
15.491
14.884
15.412
15.252
15.685
15.299
15.474
15.279
14.704
15.282
15.084



Note: Concentrations are provided for the alternatives that were determined to be of air quality
concern for particulate matter.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-25
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-26
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
routes would use the new facilities, therefore increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the
project area. Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed project on regional vehicle
emissions was calculated using traffic data for the project region and emission rates from the
EMFAC2011 emission model.
The traffic analysis estimated the impact that the proposed project would have on regional VMT
and vehicle hours traveled (VHT). The VMT and VHT data, along with the EMFAC2011 emission
rates, were used to calculate the CO, ROGs, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and CO2 emissions for the Existing
(2012), 2020, 2025, and 2035 regional conditions. The results of the modeling are summarized in
Table 3.13.10.
TSM/TDM Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2020 TSM/TDM Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are
lower than the existing condition emissions and, with the exception of PM10, are lower than
the 2020 No Build Alternative emissions. As also shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2035 TSM/TDM
Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are lower than the existing condition emissions. With
the exception of the reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions, the 2035 TSM/TDM Alternative
criteria pollutant emissions are all higher than the 2035 No Build Alternative emissions.
BRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2020 BRT Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are lower
than the existing condition emissions and the 2020 No Build Alternative emissions. As
shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2035 BRT Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are lower than
the existing condition emissions. With the exception of the ROG emissions, the 2035 BRT
Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are all higher than the 2035 No Build Alternative
emissions.
LRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2025 LRT Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are lower
shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2035 LRT Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are lower than
the existing condition emissions. With the exception of the ROG emissions, the 2035 LRT
Alternative criteria pollutant emissions are all higher than the 2035 No Build Alternative
emissions.
As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2025 criteria pollutant emissions for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions and,
with the exception of PM10 and PM2.5, are lower than the 2025 No Build Alternative
emissions. As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2035 criteria pollutant emissions for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition
emissions and, with the exception of PM10 and PM2.5, are lower than the 2035 No Build
Alternative emissions.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-27
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-28
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.10:
2020/2025 Opening Year and 2035 Horizon Year Regional Vehicle Emissions Project Study Area (lbs/day)
Alternative
2012 Existing
Change from Existing
TSM/TDM Alternative
Change from No Build
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
Single-Bore Operational Variation: With Tolls
Single-Bore Operational Variation: With Tolls and No Trucks
Single-Bore Operational Variation: With Tolls and Express Bus
Dual-Bore Operational Variation: No Tolls
Dual-Bore Operational Variation: No Trucks
Dual-Bore Operational Variation: With Tolls
SCAQMD Thresholds
CO
117,533
60,728
-56,805
60,605
-56,928
-123
60,544
-56,989
-184
550

CO = carbon monoxide
ROG = reactive organic gases
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
TSM/TDM = Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
2020 Opening Year

ROG
NOX
PM10
5,118
35,830
3,296
2,435
20,354
3,059
-2,683
-15,476
-237
2,420
20,318
3,060
-2,698
-15,512
-236
-16
-36
0
2,416
20,300
3,057
-2,702
-15,530
-239
-19
-54
-2
55
55
150
PM2.5
1,724
1,391
-333
1,391
-334
0
1,390
-335
-2
CO
117,533
47,936
-69,597
47,843
-69,690
-93
55
47,692
-69,841
-244
47,700
-69,833
-237
47,708
-69,826
-229
47,835
-69,698
-101
47,892
-69,641
-45
47,895
-69,639
-42
550
3.13-29
2025 Opening Year

ROG
NOX
5,118
35,830
2,034
14,176
-3,084
-21,654
2,024
14,158
-3,094
-21,672
-10
-18
1,996
-3,122
-38
1,995
-3,123
-39
1,998
-3,120
-36
1,989
-3,129
-45
1,992
-3,126
-42
1,995
-3,123
-39
55
14,141
-21,689
-35
14,148
-21,682
-28
14,149
-21,681
-27
14,204
-21,626
28
14,229
-21,601
53
14,227
-21,603
51
55
PM10
3,296
3,116
-180
3,116
-180
0
PM2.5
1,724
1,416
-308
1,416
-308
0
CO
117,533
40,059
-77,474
40,103
-77,430
44
40,094
-77,439
35
40,118
-77,416
59
3,129
-167
13
3,132
-164
15
3,130
-166
14
3,156
-140
39
3,161
-135
45
3,158
-138
42
150
1,421
-303
5
1,422
-302
6
1,421
-303
5
1,432
-292
16
1,435
-289
18
1,434
-291
17
55
39,994
-77,539
-65
40,003
-77,530
-56
39,987
-77,546
-72
40,138
-77,395
79
40,199
-77,334
141
40,133
-77,400
74
550
2035 Horizon Year

ROG
NOX
5,118
35,830
1,873
12,406
-3,245
-23,424
1,868
12,419
-3,250
-23,411
-5
13
1,869
12,417
-3,249
-23,413
-4
11
1,869
12,412
-3,249
-23,418
-4
6
1,843
-3,275
-30
1,843
-3,275
-30
1,840
-3,278
-32
1,841
-3,277
-32
1,842
-3,276
-31
1,840
-3,278
-33
55
12,383
-23,447
-23
12,386
-23,444
-20
12,378
-23,452
-28
12,436
-23,394
30
12,454
-23,376
48
12,437
-23,393
31
55
PM10
3,296
3,251
-44
3,260
-36
8
3,258
-38
6
3,255
-40
4
PM2.5
1,724
1,486
-238
1,490
-235
4
1,489
-235
3
1,487
-237
1
3,272
-24
20
3,274
-22
22
3,271
-25
20
3,300
4
48
3,306
10
55
3,301
5
49
150
1,494
-230
8
1,495
-229
9
1,494
-231
8
1,506
-218
20
1,509
-215
23
1,507
-217
21
55
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-30
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
As shown in Table 3.13.10, the 2025 criteria pollutant emissions for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dual-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions.
With the exception of the CO and ROG emissions, the 2025 criteria pollutant emissions are
all higher than the 2025 No Build Alternative emissions. As shown in Table 3.13.10, with
the exception of PM10, the 2035 criteria pollutant emissions for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dual-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions. With
the exception of the ROG emissions, the 2035 criteria pollutant emissions are all higher than
the 2035 No Build Alternative emissions.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, the EPA also regulates air
toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources,
non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary
sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known
as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources and identified a group of 93
compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). In addition, EPA identified the following seven compounds with significant
contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk
drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA): acrolein, benzene, 1,3butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM),
formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). While FHWA considers these
seven compounds to be the priority MSAT, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in
consideration of future EPA rules.
The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT
emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Based on an FHWA analysis using EPA's
MOVES2010b model, as shown on Figure 3.13-1, even if VMT increased by 102 percent as
assumed from 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83 percent in total annual emissions for
the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period. The projected reduction in MSAT
emissions would be slightly different in California due to the use of the EMFAC model in place of
the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model.
Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess
the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools
and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT
exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential
health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making
within the context of NEPA.
Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA
process. Even as the science emerges, decision-makers are duly expected by the public and
other agencies to address MSAT impacts in environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, Health
Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-31
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
140000
120000
Emissions (Tons/Year)
100000
5
Acrolein
Benzene
Butadiene
Diesel PM
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
Polycyclics
Trillion VMT
80000
60000
40000
20000
Trillion Vehicle Miles Traveled
NATIONAL ANNUAL MSAT EMISSION TRENDS 2010 - 2050 FOR

VEHICLES OPERATING ON ROADWAYS USING EPA's MOVES2010b
MODEL
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Year
Source: FHWA, Interim Guidelines on Air Toxics Analysis in NEPA Documents (December 2012)
Figure 3.13-1: National MSAT Emission Trends

define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. FHWA will
continue to monitor the developing research in this field.
NEPA requires, to the fullest extent possible, that the policies, regulations, and laws of the
federal government be interpreted and administered in accordance with its environmental
protection goals. NEPA also requires federal agencies to use an interdisciplinary approach
in planning and decision-making for any action that adversely impacts the environment.
NEPA requires, and FHWA is committed to, the examination and avoidance of potential adverse
impacts to the natural and human environment when considering approval of proposed
transportation projects. In addition to evaluating the potential adverse environmental effects,
we must also take into account the need for safe and efficient transportation in reaching a
decision that is in the best overall public interest. The FHWA policies and procedures for
implementing NEPA are contained in regulations at 23 CFR Part 771.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-32
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
In December 2012, FHWA issued guidance to advise FHWA division offices as to when and how
to analyze MSAT in the NEPA process for highways. This document is an update to earlier
guidance released in February 2006 and September 2009. The 2012 guidance is described as
interim because MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update the
guidance. This analysis follows the FHWA guidance.
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
In FHWAs view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict project-specific

health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of
highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be
influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and
speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly
attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.
The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from known or
anticipated adverse effects of an air pollutant. The EPA is the lead authority for
administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and has specific statutory obligations
with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of
assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain
IRIS, which is a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the
environment and their potential to cause human health effects. Each report contains
assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and
quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects
of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute. Two Health Effects Institute studies are
summarized in Appendix D of FHWAs Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds
at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and
irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the
adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations
or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease.
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling, dispersion
modeling, exposure modeling, and then final determination of health impacts; each step in
the process builds on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are
encumbered by technical shortcomings and/or uncertain science that prevent a more
complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives.
These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70-year) assessments, particularly because
unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns
and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame since such
information is unavailable.
It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and
exposure near roads, to determine the amount of time that people are actually exposed at a
specific location, and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially
given that some of the information needed is unavailable.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-33
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the
various MSAT because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of
occupational exposure data to the general population, which is a concern expressed by the
Health Effects Institute. As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response
values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in
particular for diesel PM. The EPA and the Health Effects Institute have not established a
basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current
context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine
whether more stringent controls are required to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources
subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene
emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step
requires the EPA to determine a safe or acceptable level of risk due to emissions from a
source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors
are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people
with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this
statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics
are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in
maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June
2008 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld
the EPAs approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision framework. Information is
incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would
result in levels of risk determined to be greater than safe or acceptable.
Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described,
any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller
than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of
such assessments would not be useful to decision-makers, who would need to weigh this
information against project benefits such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and
fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, which are better suited for
quantitative analysis.
Qualitative MSAT Analysis
Depending on the specific project circumstances, the FHWA has identified three levels of
analysis:
1. Projects with No Meaningful Potential MSAT Effects, or Exempt Projects: The types of
projects included in this category are:
a. Projects qualifying as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c) (subject to
consideration whether unusual circumstances exist under 23 CFR 771.117(b));
b. Projects exempt under the Clean Air Act conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.126; or
c. Other projects with no meaningful impacts on traffic volumes or vehicle mix.
For projects that are categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c), or that are exempt
from conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act pursuant to 40 CFR 93.126, no
analysis or discussion of MSAT is necessary. Documentation sufficient to demonstrate
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-34
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
that the project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion and/or exempt project will suffice.
For other projects with no or negligible adverse traffic impacts, regardless of the class of
NEPA environmental document, no MSAT analysis is recommended. However, the
project record should document the basis for the determination of no meaningful
potential impacts with a brief description of the factors considered.
2. Projects with Low Potential MSAT Effects: The types of projects included in this
category are those that serve to improve operations of highway, transit, or freight
without adding substantial new capacity or without creating a facility that is likely to
meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. This category covers a broad range of projects.
It is anticipated that most highway projects that need an MSAT assessment will fall into
this category. Any projects not meeting the criteria in Category 1 above or Category 3
below should be included in this category. Examples of these types of projects are minor
widening projects, new interchanges, replacement of a signalized intersection on a
surface street, or projects where design year traffic is projected to be less than 140,000
to 150,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT).
For these projects, a qualitative assessment of emissions projections should be
conducted. This qualitative assessment would compare, in narrative form, the expected
effect of the project on traffic volumes, vehicle mix, or routing of traffic and the
associated changes in MSAT for the project alternatives, including No Build, based on
VMT, vehicle mix, and speed. It would also discuss national trend data projecting
substantial overall reductions in emissions due to stricter engine and fuel regulations
issued by the EPA. Because the adverse emission effects of these projects are typically
low, it is expected that there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT
emissions among the various alternatives.
3. Projects with Higher Potential MSAT Effects: This category includes projects that have
the potential for meaningful differences in MSAT emissions among project alternatives.
It is expected that a limited number of projects would meet this two-pronged test. To
fall into this category, a project should:
a. Create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential
to concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location, involving
a significant number of diesel vehicles for new projects or accommodating a
significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles for expansion projects; or
b. Create new capacity or add significant capacity to urban highways such as
interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector-distributor routes with traffic
volumes where the AADT is projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000 or
greater by the design year.
The project should also be proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas.
Projects falling within this category should be more rigorously assessed for adverse
impacts. For these projects, a quantitative assessment of emissions projections should
be conducted. This approach would include a quantitative analysis to forecast localspecific emission trends of the priority MSAT for each alternative for use as a basis of
comparison.
As indicated in the Transportation Technical Report (2014), the traffic volumes along I-10,
I-210, State Route 60 (SR 60), and SR 134 in the project area have average annual daily trips
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-35
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
exceeding 140,000. In addition, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variations would
construct a new highway facility within 500 to 1,000 ft of sensitive land uses. Consequently,
this project is considered to have higher potential MSAT effects, and a quantitative analysis
of MSAT emissions is required. The results of that analysis are summarized below.
Quantitative MSAT Analysis Methodology
The basic procedure for analyzing emissions for on-road MSATs is to calculate emission
factors using CT-EMFAC 5.0 and apply the emission factors to speed and VMT data specific
to the project. CT-EMFAC 5.0 is an emission model developed by Caltrans that calculates
emission inventories for motor vehicles using EMFAC2011 emission rates.
This analysis focuses on the seven MSAT pollutants identified by the EPA as being the
highest priority MSATs (i.e., acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel PM, formaldehyde,
naphthalene, and POM). EMFAC2011 provides emission factor information for diesel PM but
does not provide emissions factors for the remaining six MSATs. Each of the remaining six
MSATs, however, is a constituent of motor vehicle total organic gas emissions, and
EMFAC2011 provides emission factors for total organic gas. The ARB has supplied Caltrans
with speciation factors for each of the remaining six MSATs not directly estimated by
EMFAC2011. Each speciation factor represents the part of total organic gas emissions
estimated to be a given MSAT. For example, if a speciation factor of 0.03 is provided for
benzene, its emission level is estimated to be 3 percent of total organic gas emissions, using
the speciation factor as a multiplier once total organic gas emissions are known. This
analysis used the ARB-supplied speciation factors to estimate emissions of the six cited
MSATs as a function of total organic gas emissions.
Quantitative MSAT Analysis Results
Emissions factors for each of the MSATs were obtained for the Basin using emission rates
generated by CT-EMFAC 5.0. Individual MSAT emissions were calculated using VMTs
separated by speed bins and the emission rates. Results of the analyses are tabulated in
Table 3.13.11 for the 2020, 2025, and 2035 conditions.
The analysis indicates that a substantial decrease in MSAT emissions can be expected
between the existing (2012) and future (2020, 2025, and 2035) No Build Alternative
conditions. This decrease is prevalent throughout the highest priority MSATs and the
analyzed alternatives. This decrease is also consistent with the aforementioned EPA study
that projects a substantial reduction in on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde,
1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde between 2000 and 2050. Based on the analysis for this
project, between the 2012 Existing and 2035 No Build Alternative conditions, reductions in
MSAT expected are: 59 percent of diesel PM, 67 percent of benzene, 70 percent of
1,3-butadiene, 24 percent of naphthalene, 46 percent of POM, 73 percent of acrolein, and
46 percent of formaldehyde. These projected reductions are achieved while total VMT in the
project area increase by 11.3 percent.
TSM/TDM Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2020 TSM/TDM Alternative MSAT emissions are lower
shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2035 TSM/TDM Alternative MSAT emissions are lower than
the existing condition emissions. With the exception of the diesel PM emissions, the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-36
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3.13.11:
2020/2025 Opening Year and 2035 Horizon Year MSAT Emissions Project Study Area (lbs/day)
Alternative
2020 Opening Year

Diesel
Benzene 1,3-Btadiene Naphthalene POM Acrolein Formaldehyde
PM
669
165
35
12
4
8
271
245
71
14
8
2
3
148
-424
-94
-21
-4
-2
-5
-123
245
71
14
8
2
3
147
-424
-94
-21
-4
-2
-5
-124
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
245
71
14
8
2
3
146
-424
-94
-21
-4
-2
-5
-125
0
-1
0
0
0
0
-1
2012 Existing
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
and No Trucks
and Express Bus

Dual-Bore Operational Variation: No Tolls
Dual-Bore Operational Variation: No Trucks
Dual-Bore Operational Variation: With Tolls

Diesel PM = diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases
MSAT = Mobile Source Air Toxics
POM = polycyclic organic matter
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
2025 Opening Year

Diesel
PM
669
165
35
12
4
8
271
248
60
12
9
2
2
137
-421
-105
-24
-3
-2
-5
-134
249
59
12
9
2
2
136
-421
-105
-24
-3
-2
-5
-135
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2035 Horizon Year

Diesel
PM
669
165
35
12
4
8
271
276
55
10
9
2
2
146
-393
-110
-25
-3
-2
-6
-125
277
55
10
9
2
2
145
-392
-110
-25
-3
-2
-6
-126
1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
277
55
10
9
2
2
145
-392
-110
-25
-3
-2
-6
-126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
276
55
10
9
2
2
146
-394
-110
-25
-3
-2
-6
-125
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
-420
1
59
-106
-1
11
-24
0
8
-4
0
2
-2
0
2
-5
0
134
-137
-3
278
-392
1
54
-111
-1
10
-25
0
9
-3
0
2
-2
0
2
-6
0
143
-128
-3
250
59
11
134
278
54
10
143
-419
2
-106
-1
-24
0
-4
0
-2
0
-5
0
-137
-3
-391
2
-111
-1
-25
0
-3
0
-2
0
-6
0
-128
-3
250
59
11
134
278
54
10
142
-419
2
252
-417
4
253
-417
4
252
-417
4
-106
-1
58
-106
-1
59
-106
-1
59
-106
-1
-24
0
11
-24
0
11
-24
0
11
-24
0
-4
0
8
-4
0
8
-4
0
8
-4
0
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
-2
0
-5
0
2
-5
0
2
-5
0
2
-5
0
-137
-3
133
-138
-4
133
-138
-4
134
-137
-4
-392
1
281
-388
5
282
-391
5
281
-392
5
-111
-1
54
-111
-1
54
-111
-1
54
-111
-1
-25
0
10
-25
0
10
-25
0
10
-25
0
-3
0
9
-3
0
9
-3
0
9
-3
0
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
-2
0
-6
0
2
-6
0
2
-6
0
2
-6
0
-129
-4
142
-129
-4
142
-128
-4
142
-129
-4
3.13-37
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-38
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
2035 TSM/TDM Alternative MSAT emissions are all lower than the 2035 No Build
Alternative emissions. While the TSM/TDM Alternative would result in a small increase
in localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet
turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time that would cause regionwide
MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are today.
BRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2020 BRT Alternative MSAT emissions are lower than the
existing condition emissions and the 2020 No Build Alternative emissions. As shown in
Table 3.13.11, the 2035 BRT Alternative MSAT emissions are lower than the existing
condition emissions and, with the exception of diesel PM, are lower than the 2035 No
Build Alternative emissions. While the BRT Alternative would result in a small increase in
localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet
turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time that would cause regionwide
MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are today.
LRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2025 LRT Alternative MSAT emissions are lower than or
equal to the existing condition emissions and, with the exception of diesel PM, are lower
than the 2025 No Build Alternative emissions. As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2035 LRT
Alternative MSAT emissions are lower than or equal to the existing condition emissions
and the 2035 No Build Alternative emissions. While the LRT Alternative would result in a
small increase in localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations,
coupled with fleet turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time that would
cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are today.
As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2025 MSAT emissions for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
single-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions and, with
the exception of diesel PM, are lower than or equal to the 2025 No Build Alternative
emissions. As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2035 MSAT emissions for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions
and, with the exception of diesel PM, are lower than or equal to the 2035 No Build
Alternative emissions. While the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design
variation would result in a small increase in localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle
and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would cause substantial reductions
over time that would cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they
are today.
As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2025 MSAT emissions for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
dual-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions and, with the
exception of diesel PM, are lower than or equal to the 2025 No Build Alternative
emissions. As shown in Table 3.13.11, the 2035 MSAT emissions for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dual-bore design variation are lower than the existing condition emissions
and, with the exception of diesel PM, are lower than or equal to the 2035 No Build
Alternative emissions. While the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.13-39
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
would result in a small increase in localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle and fuel
regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would cause substantial reductions over time
that would cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are today.
3.13.3.3
Climate Change
Climate change is analyzed in detail in Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Evaluation. The EPA and FHWA have not issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct projectlevel greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis. As stated on FHWAs climate change website
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/index.htm), climate change considerations should be
integrated throughout the transportation decision-making process, from planning through project
development and delivery. Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation up front in the
planning process will aid decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level, and will
inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project-level decision-making. Climate change
considerations can easily be integrated into many planning factors, such as supporting economic
vitality and global efficiency, increasing safety and mobility, enhancing the environment, promoting
energy conservation, and improving the quality of life.
Because there have been more requirements set forth in California legislation and executive orders
on climate change, the issue is addressed in Chapter 4 under CEQA and that analysis may be used to
inform the NEPA decision. The four strategies set forth by FHWA to lessen climate change impacts
(i.e., improved transportation system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and reduction in the
growth of VHT) correlate with efforts that the State of California has undertaken and is undertaking
to deal with transportation and climate change.
3.13.4
The following measures apply to all the Build Alternatives:

Measure AQ-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Fugitive Dust (applies to all four Build Alternatives): During

clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations, the
Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to
control excessive fugitive dust emissions by regular watering or
other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as
specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
403. The Construction Contractor will be required to:
Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering

and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative where
appropriate. This applies to both inactive and active sites during
workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions.
Install wind fencing, phase grading operations where

appropriate, and operate water trucks for stabilization of
surfaces under windy conditions.
When hauling material and operating non-earthmoving

equipment, prevent spillage and limit off-road speeds to
15 miles per hour (mph). Limit speed of off-road earthmoving
equipment to 10 mph.
3.13-40
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
Measure AQ-2
Measure AQ-3
Equipment and Vehicle Emissions (applies to all four Build

Alternatives): During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and
construction, either the Resident Engineer for the TSM/TDM, BRT,
and LRT Alternatives or the Resident Engineer for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative, as applicable, will require the Construction
Contractor to:
Reduce use, trips, and unnecessary idling from heavy

equipment.
Use solar-powered rather than diesel-powered changeable

message signs.
Obtain electricity from power poles rather than from generators

where feasible.
Maintain and tune engines per manufacturers specifications to

perform at United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) certification levels and at verified standards applicable to
retrofit technologies. Employ periodic, unscheduled inspections
to limit unnecessary idling and to ensure that construction
equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified
consistent with established specifications.
Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing

adherence to manufacturers recommendations.
Use new, clean (diesel or retrofitted diesel) equipment meeting

the most stringent applicable federal or State standards and
commit to the best available emissions control technology. Use
Tier 3, or higher, engines for construction equipment with a
rated horsepower exceeding 75. Use Tier 2, or higher, engines
for construction equipment with a rated horsepower of less
than 75. If non-road construction equipment that meets or
exceeds Tier 2 or 3 engine standards is not available, the
Construction Contractor will be required to use the best
available emissions control technologies on all equipment.
Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate

controls where suitable to reduce emissions of diesel
particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site.
Diesel Fuel Emissions and Sensitive Receptors (applies to all four

Build Alternatives): Prior to any site disturbance, either the
Resident Engineer for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives or
the Resident Engineer for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, as
applicable, will require the Construction Contractor to:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Meet EPA diesel fuel requirements off road and on highway

and, where appropriate, use alternative fuels such as natural
gas and electric.
3.13-41
DRAFT

3.13 AIR QUALITY
Identify sensitive receptors in the project area (e.g., residences,

schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, longterm health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent
centers, and retirement homes) and specify the means by which
impacts to these populations will be minimized. For example,
locate construction equipment and staging zones away from
sensitive receptors and away from fresh air intakes to buildings
and air conditioners.
In addition to the measures listed above, the following measure would apply to the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations:
Measure AQ-4
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard

Specifications for Construction (applies to the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative): During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and
construction, the Resident Engineer will require the Construction
Contractor to adhere to Caltrans Standard Specifications for
Construction (Sections 14-9.03 and 18 [Dust Control] and Section
39-3.06 [Asphalt Concrete Plant Emissions]).
In addition to Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3, above, the following measure would apply to the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives.
Measure AQ-5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Metro Green Construction Policy (applies to the TSM/TDM, BRT,

and LRT Alternatives): Metro will require the Construction
Contractors to comply with its Green Construction Policy
(adopted 2011, or more current) related to the use of greener, less
polluting construction equipment and vehicles, and the
implementation of best practices to meet or exceed air quality
emission standards.
3.13-42
DRAFT

3.14 NOISE AND VIBRATION
3.14 Noise and Vibration

3.14.1
Regulatory Setting
3.14.1.1
California Environmental Quality Act
3.14.1.2
National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) provide the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of
these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements
for noise analysis and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation, however, differ between
NEPA and CEQA.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess
whether a proposed project will have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a
significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be
incorporated into the project unless those measures are not feasible. The rest of this section will
focus on the NEPA 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772 noise analysis; please see Chapter 4 of
this document for further information on noise analysis under CEQA.
For highway transportation projects, with FHWA (and the California Department of Transportation
[Caltrans], as assigned) involvement, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated
implementing regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 772) govern the analysis and
abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of
frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The
regulations include noise abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact
would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC
for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). Table 3.14.1 lists the
noise abatement criteria for use in the NEPA 23 CFR 772 analysis.
Figure 3.14-1 lists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the actual and
predicted highway noise levels discussed in this section with common activities.
According to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and
Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future noise level with
the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more increase) or
when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. Approaching the NAC
is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC.
If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures must
be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible at the
time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. This document
discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the project.
The Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an
abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. A minimum 5 dBA reduction in the future noise level
must be achieved at one or more receptors shielded by the noise barrier for an abatement measure
to be considered feasible. Other considerations include topography, access requirements, other
noise sources, and safety considerations.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-1
DRAFT

TABLE 3.14.1:
Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity
Category
A
NAC, Hourly A-Weighted

Noise Level, Leq(h)
57 (Exterior)
B1
C1
67 (Exterior)
67 (Exterior)
52 (Interior)
72 (Exterior)
No NACreporting only
No NACreporting only
Description of Activity Category

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
Residential.
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care
centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship,
playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television
studios, trails, and trail crossings.
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of
worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios.
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or
activities not included in AD or F.
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance
facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water
resources, water treatment, electrical, etc.), and warehousing.
Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.
Figure 3.14-1: Noise Levels of Common Activities
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-2
DRAFT

The reasonableness determination is a two-step process. The first step of the reasonable
determination requires that one or more receptors benefiting from the abatement considered
achieve the reduction goal of 7 dBA. The second step in determining reasonableness is a costbenefit analysis. Additional factors used in determining whether a proposed noise abatement
measure is reasonable include: residents acceptance and the cost per benefited residence.
These criteria will be used for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Transportation System Management/
Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM), and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives in this analysis.
3.14.1.3
Federal Transit Administration Criteria
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
Federal noise impact thresholds are defined in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual, May 2006). The FTA criteria are based on
the best available research on community response to noise. The research shows that characterizing
the overall noise environment using measures of noise exposure provides the best correlation with
human annoyance. The FTA provides different thresholds for different land uses. Table 3.14.2 lists
the three FTA land use categories and the applicable noise metric for each category. (Please note
that the tables and figures cited in this section, with the exception of Table 3.14.1 and Figure 3.14-1,
are provided in Appendix N, Noise Tables and Figures.) For Category 2 land uses (residential areas
where people sleep), the noise exposure is characterized using Ldn. In calculating Ldn, noise created
during the nighttime hours is more heavily weighted than daytime noise to reflect residents greater
sensitivity to noise during the nighttime hours. For Categories 1 and 3 land uses, areas with primarily
daytime use, noise exposure is characterized using the 1-hour Leq. Leq is the steady sound level that
represents the same sound energy as the time-varying sound levels over the specified measurement
period.
The basic concept of the FTA noise thresholds is that project-related noise levels are allowed to be
greater in environments in which ambient noise is higher; however, the allowable increase above
existing levels of noise exposure once the project impacts are included is less, in order to protect the
sensitive uses from experiencing an even louder environment. The criteria for allowable cumulative
noise exposure are shown in Table 3.14.3 (refer to Appendix N) for the three different categories of
land use.
If the predicted project noise exceeds the moderate threshold, noise abatement must be
considered. If the predicted project noise exceeds the severe threshold, noise abatement must be
included in the project unless there are compelling reasons why abatement is not feasible. Noise
from existing sources, such as traffic, is not included in the project noise level.
FTA Operational Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria
Predicted levels of ground-borne noise and vibration were evaluated using the FTA criteria for the
land use categories defined in Table 3.14.4 (refer to Appendix N). The vibration criteria provided in
Table 3.14.4 are based on the 1/3-octave band levels. However, if the overall vibration level does
not exceed the relevant criterion, then neither do the 1/3-octave levels. Therefore, it is sufficient to
evaluate just the predicted overall vibration levels unless the criteria are exceeded, in which case an
evaluation of the 1/3-octave levels is warranted.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-3
DRAFT

No receivers along the alignment were identified that can be classified under Land Use Category 1.
As shown in Table 3.14.4 (refer to Appendix N), those types of receivers include vibration-sensitive
manufacturing, research, or special medical facilities. The majority of receivers along the tunnel
alignments of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are Land Use Category 2,
which includes residential uses and uses such as hospitals and hotels where people sleep at night.
The FTA criteria for Category 2 receivers are 35 dBA for ground-borne noise and 72 vibration velocity
decibels (VdB) (re: 10-6 inches per second [in/sec]) for vibration. The FTA criteria for institutional
land uses under Category 3 with daytime uses only (e.g., schools and churches) are 40 dBA for
ground-borne noise and 75 VdB for vibration. Category 3 also applies to quiet office spaces such as
doctors offices and some commercial spaces where quiet is important to occupants. In general,
commercial (except for quiet offices) and industrial uses are not considered to be noise and
vibration sensitive receptors based on the FTA criteria.
An alignment may also include specific receivers (auditoriums or theaters) considered to be Special
Land Uses for ground-borne noise and vibration impacts. The criteria for Special Land uses are
shown in Table 3.14.5 (refer to Appendix N). No special land uses were identified within 450 feet (ft)
of the LRT tunnel alignment.
FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria
FTA provides criteria for two types of impact from construction vibration: impacts due to annoyance
and impacts due to building damage. For evaluating annoyance impacts, the criteria presented in
Table 3.14.4 (refer to Appendix N) are applicable. Construction impacts can result in short term
annoyance and can be classified as Infrequent events as indicated in Table 3.14.4 (refer to
Appendix N). Construction vibration damage criteria from FTA are provided in Table 3.14.6 (refer to
Appendix N).
FTA recommends a damage criterion of 0.12 in/sec for buildings that are extremely susceptible to
vibration, which would include fragile historic buildings. At this level of vibration, a fragile historic
building may suffer cosmetic damage, characterized by fine plaster cracking and the re-opening of
old cracks.
The FTA criteria will be used for the LRT Alternative in this analysis.
3.14.2
3.14.2.1
Noise Measurements
The information in this section is based on and summarized from the project Noise Study Report
(NSR) (2014), the Groundborne Noise and Vibration Impacts (2014), and the Noise Abatement
Decision Report (NADR) (2014).
Short- and long-term noise measurements were conducted at representative receptor locations in
the vicinity of the improvements in the Build Alternatives to document existing noise levels in the
study area. Typically, the area in which noise impacts are analyzed is limited to an area within 500 ft
of the physical improvements. If the nearest receptor is located greater than 500 ft away, impacts
are handled on a case-by-case basis. If multiple rows of receptors exist within the 500 ft buffer,
impacts are typically assessed at the first and second rows, but this is also dependent on the
physical setting and topographical considerations. The short-term noise measurements were
specific to each Build Alternative and are described below by Alternative.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-4
DRAFT

A total of 26 long-term, 24-hour noise measurements were conducted at representative receptor

locations in the overall study area using Quest Type 2 Noise Level Dosimeters. The purpose of these
long-term measurements was to identify variations in sound levels throughout the day and to
determine the existing peak-hour noise levels. Fifteen measurements were conducted in the study
area adjacent to the improvements in the four Build Alternatives. In addition, there were 11 longterm, 24-hour background noise level measurements conducted in areas farther from area freeways
and local streets, where those noise sources would not contribute to the total noise level, in order
to establish existing ambient background levels in the study area neighborhoods. In addition to the
long-term measurements, a total of 152 short-term measurements were gathered throughout the
study area to calibrate the TNM noise model and to establish existing noise levels for the LRT
Alternative. The locations of the noise monitoring locations are shown on Figures 3.14-2 through
3.14-7 (refer to Appendix N).
3.14.2.2
Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors
Field investigation and review of land use maps and aerial photographs were conducted to identify
land uses that could be subject to traffic/light rail and construction noise from the Build
Alternatives. Land uses in the project area were categorized by land use type, by Activity Category as
defined in Table 3.14.1, and by the extent of frequent human use. Existing noise-sensitive land uses
in the SR 710 North Study project area vary by Alternative and include residential, commercial, and
industrial uses, parks and recreation areas, schools and daycare facilities, hospitals and medical
centers, and vacant land. Existing noise-sensitive land uses in the SR 710 North Study project area
are described briefly below by Build Alternative and are represented as receptor locations on
Figures 3.14-3 through 3.14-7 (refer to Appendix N). A total of 757 representative receptors were
evaluated for Future No Build conditions, and 899 representative receptors were evaluated for
potential noise impacts resulting from the Build Alternatives.
Although all developed land uses were evaluated, the focus of the noise impact analysis was on
locations of frequent human use that would benefit from lowered noise levels. As a result, the
impact analysis focused on locations with defined outdoor activity areas such as residential
backyards, common use areas at multifamily residences, playgrounds, schools, parks, and healthcare
facilities. The geometry of the project relative to nearby existing and planned land uses was also
used as a method for determining noise impacts at specific locations and benefits from a lowered
noise level. Noise abatement was only considered for areas of frequent human use that would
benefit from lowered noise levels.
Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the TSM/TDM Alternative
Existing land uses in the vicinity of the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative include singlefamily and multifamily residences, five schools, commercial uses, two restaurants, a hospital, a
church, a sports field, a park, office and industrial uses, and vacant land. In the vicinity of the
TSM/TDM Alternative, there are 13 existing noise barriers. These existing land uses in the vicinity of
the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements were evaluated under several of the Activity Categories
shown in Table 3.14.1. Existing land uses in the vicinity of individual improvements in the TSM/TDM
Alternative are described in further detail in Table 3.14.7 (refer to Appendix N). The noise sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative and the existing and
predicted noise levels of those receptors are described in Tables 3.14.8 and 3.14.9 and are shown on
Figure 3.14-3 (refer to Appendix N).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-5
DRAFT

Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the BRT Alternative
Existing land uses in the vicinity of the improvements in the BRT Alternative include single-family
and multifamily residences, a day-care center, two parks, hospital and medical centers, a museum,
two schools, two preschools, seven churches, three hotels, and commercial, office, and industrial
uses. In the vicinity of the BRT Alternative, there are eight existing noise barriers. The existing land
uses in the vicinity of the BRT Alternative improvements were evaluated under several of the
Activity Categories shown in Table 3.14.1. Existing land uses in the vicinity of improvements in the
BRT Alternative are described in further detail in Table 3.14.10 (refer to Appendix N). The noisesensitive receptors in the vicinity of improvements in the BRT Alternative and the existing and
predicted noise levels of those receptors are described in Tables 3.14.11 and 3.14.12 and are shown
on Figure 3.14-4 (refer to Appendix N).
Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the LRT Alternative
Existing land uses in the vicinity of the improvements in the LRT Alternative include single-family and
multifamily residences, office, commercial, and recreational uses, and vacant land. Receptors
considered for the noise impact analysis were located within 1,000 ft of the LRT Alternative
alignment. There are no existing noise barriers in the area considered for the noise impacts analysis
for the LRT Alternative. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the LRT Alternative are described in detail
in Table 3.14.13 (refer to Appendix N). The noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
improvements in the LRT Alternative and the existing and predicted noise levels of those receptors
are described in Table 3.14.14 and are shown on Figure 3.14-5 (refer to Appendix N).
Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative study area include single-family
and multifamily residences, a golf course, four schools, California State University, Los Angeles (Cal
State LA), a church, a hospital, office, commercial, and recreational uses, and vacant land. In
addition, there is an office development planned at the intersection of South Pasadena Avenue and
West Dayton Street. In the area of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, there are 15 existing noise
barriers. The existing land uses in the vicinity of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements were
evaluated under several of the Activity Categories shown in Table 3.14.1. Existing land uses in the
vicinity of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are described in further detail in Table 3.14.15 (refer to
Appendix N). The noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the improvements in the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation and the existing and predicted noise levels of those
receptors are described in Tables 3.14.16 and 3.14.17 and are shown on Figure 3.14-6 (refer to
Appendix N). The noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the improvements in the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation and the existing and predicted noise levels of those
receptors are described in Tables 3.14.18 and 3.14.19 and are shown on Figure 3.14-7 (refer to
Appendix N).
Sensitive Receptor of Concern for Both the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Grifols Biologicals, Inc. maintains a laboratory located at 2410 Lillyvale Avenue in Los Angeles that is
considered a sensitive receptor for vibration (Receptors 15, 16, and 17 on Figure 3.14-7 [refer to
Appendix N]). This division of Grifols specializes in the development and manufacturing of highquality, plasma-derived protein therapies for the medical industry. The closest labs at this Grifols
facility are located at least 450 ft and most likely 600 ft from where the closest tunnel would be
bored. Concern has been raised about the potential for dust becoming airborne inside their clean
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-6
DRAFT

room laboratories by vibration created during temporary construction activities, including tunnel
boring.
3.14.3
3.14.3.1
Temporary Impacts
The proposed SR 710 North Study project is classified as a Type I project because federal aid is
proposed under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative to both construct a highway at a new location and
physically alter an existing highway, and under the BRT and TSM/TDM Alternatives for which the
physical alteration of a highway/roadway will occur. The LRT analysis will follow the criteria
established in the FTA Manual. The potential short- and long-term noise and ground-borne noise
and vibration impacts of the No Build and Build Alternatives are described in the following sections.
North Study Build Alternatives and, as a result, would not result in any short-term noise impacts or
impacts associated with ground-borne noise or vibration. However, the No Build Alternative does
include projects/planned improvements through 2035 that are included in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), as listed in the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS), Measure R, and the funded part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). It is possible that the construction of
those improvements could result in short-term impacts related to short-term noise effects or effects
associated with ground-borne noise or vibration. Those effects would be analyzed and mitigated, if
needed, as each of those projects/improvements is advanced for implementation.
Build Alternatives
Construction Noise
Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during construction of the improvements in
the Build Alternatives. The first type of construction noise would be from construction crew
commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to and from the project
site, which would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to and from the
project site. The pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be
moved onto the project site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and
would not add to the daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity. A high single-event noise
exposure potential at a maximum instantaneous noise level of 87 A-weighted decibels (dBA Lmax)
from trucks passing at 50 ft would occur as a result of trucks traveling on roads leading to/from
project construction areas. The projected traffic volumes from construction crew commutes
would be minimal compared to existing traffic volumes on existing freeways and major arterials,
and the change in noise level as a result of the increased traffic associated with construction
worker commutes would not be perceptible. It is expected that under a worst-case condition of
24-hour operations, based on the construction equipment estimates provided by the project
engineer, that approximately 30 heavy trucks per hour would be carrying materials away from
the project site to off-site disposal areas. The haul routes will follow existing freeways and major
arterials that currently have much greater hourly and daily volumes than the expected haul
truck traffic. As a general rule, it takes doubling of the traffic volumes to raise the traffic noise by
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-7
DRAFT

3 dBA. Since construction traffic volume would be much lower than the existing traffic volumes
on the freeway and major arterials, the increase in traffic noise would be much smaller than
3 dBA. Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in noise associated with short-term,
construction-related worker commutes, equipment, and material transport.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation,
grading, and facility construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has
its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various
sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated and, consequently, the
noise levels in the vicinity of the improvements within each Build Alternative as construction
progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the
dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be
categorized by work phase. Table 3.14.20 (refer to Appendix N) lists typical construction
equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance
of 50 ft between a piece of construction equipment and a noise receptor. Due to the distance
between the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements and the other Build Alternatives,
construction-related impacts are not expected to compound should they be constructed
simultaneously.
As shown in Table 3.14.20 (refer to Appendix N), typical noise levels at 50 ft from an active
construction area range up to 88 dBA Lmax during the noisiest construction phases (which
assumes the combination of a grader, a bulldozer, and trucks). The site preparation phase,
which includes grading and paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the
noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving and compacting
equipment include excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, and front loaders as
well as compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of
construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4
minutes at lower power settings.
Construction of the improvements in the Build Alternatives is expected to require the use of a
variety of construction equipment, depending on the specific improvement. Noise associated
with pile driving activities, if necessary, is estimated to approach 93 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from center
of activity. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment for the grading phase is
estimated to be 88 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the active construction area. As shown in Table
3.14.20 (refer to Appendix N), the maximum noise level generated by a grader is estimated to be
approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the source. A bulldozer would generate approximately
85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is
approximately 55 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles.
Each doubling of a sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each
piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. The worst-case
composite noise level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be
88 dBA Lmax when the distance between the residences and an active construction area is 50 ft.
Construction Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration

TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives
Based on the types of improvements in the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives and the
construction methods and equipment (i.e., no pile driving or other activities that generate
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-8
DRAFT

high levels of vibration) to construct those improvements, there would be no short-term

ground-borne noise or vibration impacts during construction of the TSM/TDM and BRT
Alternatives.
LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment, the type of construction operation being performed, the location of
construction equipment inside a construction zone, and the distance to the nearest sensitive
receptor. The ground-borne noise and vibration analysis indicated that the following
construction activities could result in short-term ground-borne noise and vibration:
Tunnel excavation (tunnels in the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are expected to
be constructed with tunnel boring machines [TBMs].)
Supply and muck train movements to bring supplies and personnel into the tunnel and
to remove excavated materials from the tunnel portal areas, if used. If a muck train is
used to remove spoils, the installation of an under-track mat (commonly referred to as a
ballast mat) at the track level would reduce ground-borne noise and vibration.
Construction of previous Metro rail tunnel projects has shown ballast mats to be
effective at substantially reducing ground-borne noise and vibration impacts. Ballast
mats are elastomeric sheets that can be placed under the muck train tracks to reduce
vibration. These mats are typically 1 inch or more thick.
Excavation and construction of tunnel portals and underground stations, including pile
driving, where residents are located nearby.
Potential Effects on all Sensitive Receptors
The bored tunnels of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are expected to be
excavated with TBMs, which could result in ground-borne vibration. No blasting is
anticipated; however, if higher strength bedrock is expected in the cut-and-cover
sections or in the excavation of the cross passages, controlled blasting methods may be
evaluated. This would be determined when more detailed geotechnical information is
evaluated for these areas.
The following short-term, construction-related impact discussion applies to the tunnel
boring for both the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. During tunnel boring, there
could be short-term construction vibration impacts, which have a potential to be greater
for the LRT Alternative because it is generally shallower than the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative. The impacts could last as long as 3 days when the tunnel is being
constructed directly below sensitive receptors, and is based on how quickly the TBM
advances under the sensitive receptor.
The Category 2 (residential) vibration criterion for Infrequent Events is 80 VdB and for
Occasional Events it is 75 VdB. Consequently, there may be a very short-term vibration
impact (up to 3 days) due to TBM operation, when the tunnel is being constructed
directly below a sensitive receiver. This level of vibration would not be capable of
producing damage to structures. There would also be longer-term construction
vibration impacts associated with supply and muck train movements; however, it is not
certain that trains would be used in the tunnels to deliver supplies or remove excavated
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-9
DRAFT

material. A conveyor system could be used to remove spoils, in place of the muck trains
and there would be no vibration impact from this activity. A conveyor is simply a
moving conveyor belt onto which soil and rock are placed to be carried along to the
point of removal from the tunnel. The belt would run continuously and would produce
very little vibration compared to a muck train.
The tunnel for the LRT Alternative would be developed at shallower depths than the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative. As a result, tunnel boring and other construction activities
for the LRT Alternative would be more likely to cause adverse short-term, constructionrelated vibration impacts than the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
There may be short-term construction vibration impacts at station sites where
residential receptors are within 200 ft of pile driving and other vibration-producing
activities. Best management practices and vibration monitoring to limit vibration at
these receptors can be used to minimize, if not eliminate vibration impacts. Where
vibration impacts cannot be avoided there may be short-term construction impacts
around the stations sites. Other methods of construction could be used to avoid impacts
from pile driving. Pre-drilling holes for soldier piles and where feasible, the use of soil
mix wall for excavation are some of the vibration control measures that could be
applied to reduce ground-borne vibration impacts in these areas.
Potential Effects on Sensitive Receptors of Concern
Potential short-term vibration impacts were assessed at the Grifols laboratory facility. At
a distance of 450 ft, a conservative estimate of the ground-borne vibration during
tunnel boring is approximately 0.0018 in/sec root mean square (RMS). This is equivalent
to a vibration level of 65 VdB. There is no published industry criterion available to
evaluate the vibration level necessary for dust inside a clean room to become airborne.
For a dust particle to become airborne, the vibration would need to accelerate the
particle enough to overcome adhesion factors such as Van der Waals forces, which act
at the molecular level and involve electrostatic interactions.
A level of 66 VdB (0.002 in/sec), although very conservative, is sometimes used as an
unofficial criterion in the micro-electronics industry as a threshold to evaluate the
potential for generation of airborne dust due to vibration. The reason for this is that
micro-electronic clean rooms are designed to a vibration level that is substantially less
than this. More recently, higher levels are being evaluated as possible criteria for
limiting vibration as it relates to dust in clean rooms.
Based on this analysis, it would appear that there would be no impact from tunnel
boring vibration to this facility. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research of the
type that Grifols engages in will require a more detailed evaluation to define the
acceptable vibration level to avoid causing dust in their clean rooms to become
airborne. If either the LRT Alternative or Freeway Tunnel Alternative is selected, during
the engineering phase of the project, this issue would be examined in more detail based
on information to be provided by Grifols about ambient levels of dust in their laboratory
and refinement of vibration predictions based on identification of the tunnel boring
machine and specific soil conditions between the tunnel alignment and the Grifols
laboratory.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-10
DRAFT

3.14.3.2
Permanent Impacts
The baseline used for the Noise evaluation is the No Build condition in the 2035 Build Out year.
Comparison of the Build Alternatives to the 2035 No Build condition is appropriate because noise
effects and abatement are considered for the projected future conditions. For long-term planning
on its facilities, Caltrans uses a 20-year planning horizon, which is consistent with standard FHWA
practice for transportation project planning.
North Study Project Build Alternatives and, as a result, would not result in any permanent noise
impacts or impacts associated with ground-borne noise or vibration. However, the No Build
Alternative does include projects/planned improvements through 2035 that are included in the FTIP,
as listed in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, Measure R, and the funded part of Metros 2009 LRTP.
The combined short-term noise measurements taken for each individual Build Alternative were used
to calibrate the noise model and to predict the noise levels at all 757 unique modeled receptors in
the study area. A total of 59 receptors overlap for the BRT and TSM/TDM Build Alternative and 54
receptors overlap for the Freeway Tunnel and TSM/TDM Build Alternatives. Potential long-term
noise impacts for No Build conditions were considered assuming only traffic noise. Traffic noise was
evaluated for the worst-case traffic condition. Future traffic noise levels at the 757 receptor
locations were determined with existing property line walls and noise barriers using the future No
Build (2035) peak-hour traffic volumes or the worst-case traffic operations (prior to speed
degradation). Traffic noise impacts result from one or more of the following occurrences: (1) if the
traffic noise level at a receptor location is predicted to approach or exceed the NAC applicable to
the land use at that receptor, or (2) if the predicted traffic noise level is 12 dBA or more over its
corresponding modeled existing noise level at the receptor location analyzed. When traffic noise
impacts occur, noise abatement measures must be considered.
Of the 757 receptor locations, noise levels at 201 receptor locations would approach or exceed the
NAC under Activity Categories B, C, D, and E (as applicable to the land uses at each receptor
location) for the No Build Alternative. With an increase of up to 2 dBA at all receptors, none of the
757 receptor locations would experience a noise level increase of 12 dBA or more over their
corresponding existing noise levels under the No Build Alternative. The Existing and Future No Build
noise levels are presented within the tables for each Build Alternative (i.e., Tables 3.14.8, 3.14.11,
3.14.14, and 3.14. 16) (refer to Appendix N).
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
Short-term noise measurements for the TSM/TDM Alternative were conducted at 22

representative receptor locations in the vicinity of the improvements in this Alternative. Of the
22 short-term noise level measurements, 20 noise measurements were used to calibrate the
noise model and to predict the noise levels at all 227 modeled receptors in the TSM/TDM
Alternative area. The short-term noise measurement receptor locations for the TSM/TDM
Alternative are shown on Figure 3.14-3 (refer to Appendix N).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-11
DRAFT

Potential long-term noise impacts associated with operations of the TSM/TDM Alternative are
solely from traffic noise. Traffic noise was evaluated for the worst-case traffic condition. Future
traffic noise levels at the modeled receptor locations were determined with existing property
line walls and noise barriers using the future (2035) peak-hour traffic volumes or the worst-case
traffic operations (prior to speed degradation). Of the 227 receptor locations, noise levels at 70
receptor locations would approach or exceed the NAC under the TSM/TDM Alternative. None of
the 227 receptor locations would experience a noise level increase of 12 dBA or more over their
corresponding existing noise levels under the TSM/TDM Alternative. Of those 70 receptor
locations, 43 were not considered for abatement because of the need for driveway or
pedestrian access or because abatement placed along the right of way (ROW) for the TSM/TDM
Alternative would not break the line of sight to the impacted receivers. The existing and
modeled noise levels for the TSM/TDM Alternative at each of the receptor locations are
provided in Tables 3.14.8 and 3.14.9 (refer to Appendix N).
The noise levels with the TSM/TDM Alternative at the remaining 27 receptor locations would
approach or exceed the NAC under Activity Categories B, C, D, and E (as applicable to the land
uses at each receptor location). Those receptor locations, and the noise abatement considered
at those receptor locations, are summarized in Table 3.14.21 (refer to Appendix N).
Section 3 of the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol states that a minimum noise reduction
of 5 dBA must be achieved at an impacted receptor for the proposed noise abatement measure
to be considered feasible. Greater noise reductions are encouraged if they can be reasonably
achieved. Feasibility may also be restricted by the following factors:
Topography
Access requirement for driveways
Presence of local cross streets
Underground utilities
Other noise sources in the area
Safety considerations
Nine noise barriers were evaluated at 2 ft increments at heights ranging between 6 ft and 20 ft
to determine the feasibility of reducing noise at the 27 noise receptor locations impacted by the
TSM/TDM Alternative. Table 3.14.22 (refer to Appendix N) summarizes the feasibility of the
modeled noise barriers, lists the noise barrier heights, approximate lengths, the receptors
benefited, the noise attenuation range, the number of benefited units/receptors, the
reasonable allowance per benefited unit/receptor, and the total reasonable allowance. The
analyzed noise barriers are shown on Figure 3.14-3 (refer to Appendix N). Of the 9 modeled
noise barriers evaluated for the TSM/TDM Alternative, all 9 were determined to be feasible. For
each noise barrier that was found to be acoustically feasible and had one or more associated
receptor that met the 7 dBA design goal, reasonable cost allowances were also calculated as
shown in Table 3.14.22 (refer to Appendix N). The feasible and reasonable noise barriers for the
TSM/TDM Alternative will also be included with the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
unless the selected alternative prevents specific TSM/TDM improvements from occurring. For
the BRT Alternative, TSM/TDM Alternative Local Street Improvements L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard
from Glendon Way to I-10) and L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-12
DRAFT

would not be constructed. For the LRT Alternative, TSM/TDM Other Road Improvement T-1
(Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) would not be constructed. For the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative, TSM/TDM Other Road Improvements T-1 and T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension
between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard) would not be constructed.
BRT Alternative
Short-term noise measurements for the BRT Alternative were conducted at 50 representative
receptor locations along the alignment of this Alternative. Of the 50 representative receptor
measurements taken, 42 were used to calibrate the noise model and to predict the noise levels
at 506 modeled receptors in the vicinity of the BRT Alternative alignment. The short-term noise
measurement locations for the BRT Alternative are shown on Figure 3.14-4 (refer to
Appendix N).
Potential long-term noise impacts associated with operations of the BRT Alternative are solely
from traffic noise. Traffic noise was evaluated for the worst-case traffic condition. Future traffic
noise levels at the 506 receptor locations were determined with existing property line walls and
noise barriers using the future (2035) peak-hour traffic volumes or the worst-case traffic
operations (prior to speed degradation). Existing and predicted future noise levels under the
BRT Alternative are provided in Tables 3.14.11 and 3.14.12 (refer to Appendix N). Of the 506
receptors, 129 receptors would approach or exceed the NAC under the BRT Alternative. None of
the 506 receptors would experience a noise level increase of 12 dBA or more over their
corresponding existing noise levels. Of those 129 receptors, 120 were not considered for
abatement because of the need for driveway or pedestrian access or because abatement placed
along the ROW of the BRT Alternative would not break the line of sight to the impacted
receivers.
The noise levels with the BRT Alternative at the remaining 9 receptor locations would approach
or exceed the NAC under Activity Categories B, C, D, and E (as applicable to the land uses at each
receptor location). Those receptor locations, and the noise abatement considered at those
receptor locations, are summarized in Table 3.14.23 (refer to Appendix N).
Six noise barriers were evaluated at 2 ft increments at heights ranging between 6 ft and 20 ft to
determine the feasibility of reducing noise at the 9 receptors impacted by the BRT Alternative.
Table 3.14.24 (refer to Appendix N) summarizes the feasibility of the modeled noise barriers for
the BRT Alternative, lists the noise barrier heights, approximate lengths, the receptors
benefited, the noise attenuation range, the number of benefited units/receptors, the
reasonable allowance per benefited unit/receptor, and the total reasonable allowance. The
analyzed noise barriers are shown on Figure 3.14-4 (refer to Appendix N). Of the 6 modeled
noise barriers evaluated for the BRT Alternative, 5 were determined to be feasible as shown in
Table 3.14-24 (refer to Appendix N). For each noise barrier that was found to be acoustically
feasible and had one or more associated receptor that met the 7 dBA design goal, reasonable
cost allowances were also calculated as shown in Table 3.14.24 (refer to Appendix N).
LRT Alternative
Short-term noise measurements for the LRT Alternative were conducted at 16 representative
receptor locations along the project alignment. These measurements were used to calibrate the
noise model and determine the noise levels at the modeled receptors in the LRT Alternative
area. The existing and modeled noise levels for the LRT Alternative at each of the receptor
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-13
DRAFT

locations are provided in Table 3.14.14 (refer to Appendix N). All short term noise measurement
locations for the LRT Alternative are shown on Figure 3.14-5 (refer to Appendix N). Potential
long-term noise impacts associated with operations of the LRT Alternative are based on the
noise levels at receptors that are within 1,000 ft of the LRT Alternative alignment. Land uses in
the vicinity of the LRT Alternative alignment include single-family and multifamily residences,
office, commercial, and recreational uses, and vacant land.
Table 3.14.25 (refer to Appendix N) summarizes the potential noise impacts of the LRT
Alternative rail operations. With the daily operations of the light rail trains, prior to mitigation,
12 receptors will experience a moderate impact while 5 receptors will experience a severe noise
impact as defined by FTA noise criteria. To reduce or eliminate potential future noise impacts,
noise barriers were considered at the edge of the track due to the track being elevated
aboveground. Table 3.14.25 (refer to Appendix N) lists the track height elevations, the noise
barrier heights, distance to the tracks, the receptors benefited, the train noise level with
mitigation, and the noise exposure increase after mitigation. Figure 3.14-5 (refer to Appendix N)
shows the location and height of each evaluated track barrier. All the noise barriers shown on
Figure 3.14-5 (refer to Appendix N) are feasible.
Short-term noise measurements for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore
design variations were conducted at 64 representative receptor locations along the alignment of
this Alternative. Of the 64 representative measurements taken, 55 measurements were used to
calibrate the noise model and to predict the noise levels at all 137 modeled receptors in the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative area. The existing and modeled noise levels at each of the receptor
locations for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative are provided in Tables 3.14.16 and 3.14.17 (refer to
Appendix N) for the single-bore design variation, and in Tables 3.14.18 and 3.14.19 (refer to
Appendix N) for the dual-bore design variation. The short-term noise measurement locations for
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations are shown on
Figures 3.15-6 and 3.15-7, respectively (refer to Appendix N).
Potential long-term noise impacts associated with operations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
are from traffic noise. The tunnel portals will have ventilation systems that could generate noise
impacts, however, those impacts will be overshadowed by the traffic noise. Traffic noise was
evaluated for the worst-case traffic condition. Future traffic noise levels at 137 receptor
locations were determined with existing walls using the future (2035) peak-hour traffic volumes
or the worst-case traffic operations (prior to speed degradation).
A total of 137 receptor locations were evaluated for noise impacts associated with operation of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. As shown in Table 3.14.26 (refer to Appendix N), of the 137
receptors, 66 receptors for the single-bore design variation and 75 receptors for the dual-bore
variation would experience noise levels that would approach or exceed the NAC under Activity
Categories B, C, D, and E (as applicable to the land uses at each receptor location). None of the
137 receptors would experience a noise level increase of 12 dBA or more over their
corresponding existing noise levels. Noise barriers were considered to shield receptors along
Interstate 710 (I-710), State Route 60 (SR 60), SR 710, Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 210 (I-210),
and State Route 134 (SR 134) where receptors would continue to be exposed to traffic noise
levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. At each location, noise barriers were evaluated at 2 ft
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-14
DRAFT

increments at heights ranging between 6 ft and 20 ft to determine the feasibility of reducing

noise at the impacted noise receptor locations.
Tables 3.14.27 and Table 3.14.28 (refer to Appendix N) summarize the feasibility of the modeled
noise barriers, lists the noise barrier heights, approximate lengths, the receptors benefited, the
noise attenuation range, the number of benefited units/receptors, the reasonable allowance per
benefited unit/receptor, and the total reasonable allowance for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
single-bore and dual-bore design variations, respectively. The analyzed noise barriers are shown
on Figures 3.14-6 and 3.14-7 (refer to Appendix N). Of the 18 modeled noise barriers evaluated
for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, 16 were determined to be feasible. For each noise barrier
that was found to be acoustically feasible and that had one or more associated receptor that
met the 7 dBA design goal, reasonable cost allowances were also calculated.
Interior Noise Impacts for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Thirteen schools (SM-01 through SM-13; refer to Figures 3.14-3, 3.14-4, 3.14-6, and 3.14-7 in
Appendix N for the locations of those schools) in the study area were analyzed under the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives for existing exterior-to-interior reductions in
noise levels provided by the buildings at each school. As shown in Table 3.14.29 (refer to
Appendix N), the predicted future interior noise levels with the TSM/TDM, BRT and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives would not approach or exceed the NAC at any of the schools. Therefore,
there would be no substantial increase in interior noise levels at the schools evaluated in the
project area, and no noise abatement measures are required.
There are no schools within the study area for the LRT Alternative.
Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration Impacts
Ground-borne noise and vibration impacts were predicted based on an empirical model
developed for the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and adopted by the
FTA, project-specific data measured in the SR 710 corridor along the alignments of the Build
Alternatives, and other data sources.
TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
The analysis of the potential for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives to
result in ground-borne noise and vibration effects during operations indicated there would
be no impacts associated with ground-borne noise and vibration from the operation of
these Build Alternatives.
LRT Alternative
The analysis of the potential for the LRT Alternative to result in ground-borne noise and
vibration impacts associated with rail operations in the tunnel segment of the alignment
indicated there would be several areas of ground-borne noise impacts during operations in
the tunnel. Specifically, the ground-borne noise predictions indicated that 454 residential
buildings and 1 commercial office building would be impacted by ground-borne noise.
Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration Control Measures
The specific operational ground-borne noise and vibration effects for any particular location and
measures to address those effects are dependent on several factors, including the dynamic
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-15
DRAFT

characteristics of the transit vehicle and track, soil characteristics, as well as the type and use of
the nearby buildings, all of which affect the frequency content of the resultant noise and
vibration inside buildings.
In general, ground-borne noise reduction will be achieved by vibration isolation of the track
from the underlying tunnel structure by implementation of individual vibration control
measures, such as:
Highly resilient direct fixation (HRDF) fasteners (e.g., egg type direct fixation fastener)
Rail suspension fastener (RSF) system (e.g., Panguard fastener)
Isolated slab track (IST) system (concrete slab poured on top of a continuous elastomeric
mat)
Floating slab track (FST) system (concrete slab supported by discrete elastomeric pads)
If moderate ground-borne noise reduction (i.e., 5 to 7 dBA) is required, then an HRDF rail
fastener would be adequate. Where more reduction (i.e., up to 10 dBA) is necessary, an RSF
would suffice. If more than 10 dBA of reduction is necessary, then either an IST system (up to 12
dBA reduction) or an FST system (18 dBA or more reduction depending on the design) would be
necessary. If properly designed, an FST can result in as much as 25 to 30 dBA of reduction, which
would be accomplished by tailoring the FST design. (i.e., tuning it) to the specific circumstances.
In terms of ground-borne noise reduction, the important characteristic of an FST is its natural
frequency. For the LRT tunnel alignment, an FST with a natural frequency of 16 Hertz (Hz)
appears to be adequate.
Figure 3.14-8 (refer to Appendix N) shows the anticipated control measures for ground-borne
noise and vibration along the LRT tunnel alignment. The extent of these control measures is the
minimum required to achieve the FTA criteria. Table 3.14.30 (refer to Appendix N) summarizes
the locations (by civil station), length, and types of control measures to reduce ground-borne
vibration impacts along the alignment of the LRT Alternative.
The analysis indicated there would be no ground-borne vibration impacts during rail operations
in the tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative.
3.14.4
3.14.4.1
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Abatement Measures

Measures for Noise and Vibration Effects during Construction
The following measures would avoid and/or minimize construction noise impacts during
construction of the improvements in the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and/or Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
as noted:
Measure N-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Construction in State-Owned Rights of Way (ROW) (applies to the

Freeway Tunnel Alternative only): During construction of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) will require the Construction Contractor to
control noise from construction activities within State-owned ROWs
in conformance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section
14-8.02, Noise Control. The noise level from the Contractors
operations between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. will not
3.14-16
DRAFT

exceed 86 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 50 feet. In

addition, the Construction Contractor will equip all internal
combustion engines with the manufacturer-recommended mufflers
and will not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site
without the appropriate muffler.
Measure N-2
Construction Outside State-Owned ROW (applies to the

Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand
Management [TSM/TDM], Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] and Light Rail
Transit [LRT] Alternatives): During construction outside Stateowned ROWs, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) will require the Construction Contractors to
comply with the hours of operation, the allowable noise levels at
specified distances from construction activities, and other noise
reduction/avoidance requirements in the applicable jurisdictions
Municipal Code and/or Noise Ordinance.
Measure N-3
Tunnel Boring Machine (applies to the LRT and Freeway Tunnel

Alternatives only): Metro (LRT Alternative) or Caltrans (Freeway
Tunnel Alternative), as appropriate, will require the Construction
Contractor to maintain machinery in good working order during all
tunnel boring activities.
Measure N-4
Supply and Muck Trains (applies to the LRT and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives only): The Metro (LRT Alternative) or Caltrans
(Freeway Tunnel Alternative) Project Engineer will include the
following measure in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E)
if supply or muck trains are used to remove spoils:
Measure N-5
Resilient Mat: A resilient mat system will be used to support

and fasten the tunnel train tracks to reduce the ground-borne
noise by at least 4 dBA.
Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration. For the TSM/TDM and BRT

Alternatives, Caltrans or Metro will not allow the Construction
Contractor to use pile driving or other activities that generate high
levels of vibration during the construction of the TSM/TDM or BRT
Alternatives, respectively.
Metro will require the Construction Contractor to carry out
construction activities for the LRT Alternative in compliance with
applicable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria and
guidelines as well as any applicable local regulations related to
ground-borne noise and vibration.
Caltrans will require Construction Contractors to carry out
construction activities for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative in
compliance with applicable Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-17
DRAFT

and Caltrans guidelines as well as any applicable local regulations

related to ground-borne noise and vibration.
The Project Engineer will develop specific property line vibration
limits during final design for inclusion in the construction vibration
specifications. Metro (LRT Alternative) or Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel
Alternative), as appropriate, will require the Construction
Contractors to conduct regular vibration monitoring during
construction to verify compliance with those limits.
The following vibration control and minimization measures are
anticipated to be applied during construction to meet the vibration
limits:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
The Project Engineer will incorporate comprehensive

construction vibration specifications in all construction bid
documents.
The Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor

to initially conduct vibration monitoring daily at the nearest
representative affected buildings during the startup of tunnel
boring. The vibration measurements will be measured in the
vertical direction on the ground surface and measured during
peak vibration-generating construction activities. If the
measured vibration data are in compliance with the vibration
limits (either in terms of velocity levels in dB re: 1 microinch/second or peak particle velocity in inches/second), then
vibration monitoring may be performed weekly instead of daily
monitoring, on approval by Metro.

to use pre-drilled holes for soldier piles (instead of driving them
into the ground) in areas where the LRT Alternative station sites
are within 200 feet of residential receptors. The use of soil mix
wall for excavation methods could be used in place of pile
driving activities; if soldier piles are to be placed into a soil-mix
wall, this placement would be done after the excavation of the
wall, so the soldier piles would not be driven into the ground.

to perform vertical direction vibration root-mean-square
monitoring on the ground at the nearest representative
residential structure during supply train operations in the
tunnels. These measurements will be repeated at approximately
1-mile intervals along the tunnel construction.

to implement a public notification program to alert residents
well in advance of construction activities that may result in
vibration effects.
3.14-18
DRAFT

Measure N-6

to implement a complaint resolution procedure to rapidly
address any noise and vibration problems that may develop
during construction.

to reduce muck train speeds in the vicinity of noise-sensitive
receptors if complaints occur after the supply train is
operational, reduce train speeds in the vicinity of noise-sensitive
receptors, use ballast mats underneath the train rails, and/or
use a conveyor system to remove spoils.
Grifols Vibration Study. For the TSM/TDM Alternative, Caltrans or

Metro will not allow the Construction Contractor to use pile driving
or other activities that generate high levels of vibration during the
construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative.
During PS&E for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the Caltrans
Project Engineer will prepare a site-specific evaluation of potential
airborne dust due to vibration associated with freeway tunnel
construction at the Grifols facility. The analysis will use more
detailed engineering and soil conditions developed during final
design. The Caltrans Project Engineer will include the results of the
evaluation, and any specific measures to ensure that vibration from
the Project does not affect the clean rooms compliance with the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for
airborne dust in clean rooms, if found to affect clean room
compliance with ISO airborne dust standards, will be incorporated
into the PS&E.
During PS&E for the LRT Alternative, the Metro Project Engineer will
prepare a site-specific evaluation of potential airborne dust due to
vibration associated with the construction of the LRT Alternative at
the Grifols facility based on more detailed engineering and soil
conditions developed during final design. The Metro Project
Engineer will include the results of the evaluation, and any specific
measures to address vibration, if found to affect clean room
operation, will be incorporated into the PS&E.
In addition to these measures, Measure GEO-1 in Section 3.10, Geology, would be required for
construction activities related to the evaluation of potential excavation in high strength bedrock for
ground-borne noise and vibration effects.
3.14.4.2
Measures for Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise during Operation
The following measure would avoid and/or minimize vibration and ground-borne noise impacts
during the operation of the LRT Alternative.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-19
DRAFT

Measure N-7
3.14.4.3
The Metro Project Engineer, during final design of the LRT

Alternative, will conduct additional field testing and analysis for the
specific identification of ground-borne noise impacts and will
incorporate the vibration isolation system or systems to comply
with FTA ground-borne noise level criteria. The vibration isolation
systems could include one or a combination of the following
systems:
o
Highly resilient direct fixation (HRDF) fasteners (e.g., Egg Type

DF fastener)
Rail suspension fastener (RSF) system (an example of which is

the Panguard fastener)
Isolated slab track system (IST) concrete slab poured on top of

an continuous elastomeric mat
Floating slab track system (FST) concrete slab supported by

discrete elastomeric pads
Measures for Noise Effects during Operation
In accordance with 23 CFR 772, noise abatement is considered where noise impacts are predicted in
areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Potential noise
abatement measures identified in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol include the following:
Avoid the impact by using design alternatives, such as altering the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the project.
Construct noise barriers.
Acquire property to serve as a buffer zone.
Use traffic management measures to regulate types of vehicles and speeds.
Acoustically insulate public use or nonprofit institutional structures.
All these abatement options have been considered. However, because of the configuration and
location of the Build Alternatives, abatement in the form of noise barriers is the only abatement that
is considered feasible.
Noise Barrier Feasibility
A minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA must be achieved at impacted receptors for a proposed noise
abatement measure (i.e., noise barriers) to be considered feasible. The feasibility criterion is not a
noise abatement design goal. Greater noise reductions are encouraged if they can be reasonably
achieved. Feasibility may be restricted by the following factors:
Geometric standards
Safety
Maintenance contracts with private property owners
Security
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-20
DRAFT

Underground utilities
Drainage
Geotechnical considerations
As shown in Tables 3.14.30 through 3.14.33 (refer to Appendix N), 46 noise barriers were
determined to be feasible by reducing noise levels by 5 dBA or more at one or more receptor
locations for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Tables 3.14.30 through 3.14.33
(refer to Appendix N) also list the height, approximate length, noise attenuation range, number of
benefited receptors, total reasonable allowance, the construction cost associated with each height
analyzed, and the reasonableness for each noise barrier that was considered feasible for those Build
Alternatives.
As shown in Table 3.14.25 (refer to Appendix N) the daily operations of the light rail trains, prior to
mitigation, will result in 12 receptors experiencing a moderate impact while 5 receptors will
experience a severe noise impacts as defined by FTA noise criteria. With the addition of the noise
barriers listed within the same table, noise impacts will be reduced to no impact. Within the FTA
Noise Criteria there is not a reasonable cost component from abatement to train operations.
Noise Barrier Reasonableness
All the noise barriers that were considered feasible were analyzed to determine their
reasonableness. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by considering the
noise reduction goal combined with the construction cost of the barrier. For a noise barrier to be
considered reasonable, the noise level reduction design goal of 7 dBA must be achieved at one or
more of the benefited receptors. For any noise barrier to be considered reasonable from a cost
perspective, the estimated construction cost of the noise barrier would need to be equal to or less
than the total cost allowance calculated for the barrier. The total reasonable allowance was
determined based on the number of benefited receptors multiplied by the reasonable allowance per
residence. The reasonable allowance per residence, established by Caltrans, at the time the noise
studies were conducted was $55,000 per benefited unit/receptor. If the estimated noise barrier
construction cost exceeds the total reasonable allowance, the noise barrier is determined to be not
reasonable.
As shown in Tables 3.14.30 through 3.14.33 (refer to Appendix N), when the cost of construction
was considered, 16 of the 46 feasible noise barriers were found to be reasonable. As part of the
reasonable cost determination, it was requested by Caltrans to compare the reasonable allowance
to the barrier cost with ROW costs included and with ROW donated as shown in Tables 3.14.30
through 3.14.33. The term ROW donated assumes that the resident or property owner would
enter into an agreement to donate a portion of their property necessary to construct the noise
barrier without receiving compensation for the property relinquished. Table 3.14.34 shows the
summary of the reasonable barriers by alternative.
The following noise barriers were determined not to be feasible and/or reasonable for the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. The specific heights of the walls determined not
to be feasible and/or reasonable are also provided below.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-21
DRAFT

TSM/TDM Alternative Noise Barriers (TNB)
T1/TNB No. 3, all heights
T1/TNB No. 4, all heights
BRT Alternative Noise Barrier (BNB)
BNB No. 2, all heights
BNB No. 4, all heights
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Noise Barrier (FTNB)
Single-Bore Design Variation
FTNB No. 2, all heights

FTNB No. 3A, all heights
FTNB No. 3B, all heights
FTNB No. 6S, all heights
FTNB No. 7, for heights 6 to 10 ft and 14 to 20 ft
FTNB No. 8, for heights 16 to 20 ft
FTNB No. 10, for height 8 ft
FTNB No. 13A+B, all heights
Dual-Bore Design Variation

FTNB No. 3A, all heights
FTNB No. 6D, for heights 6 to 12 ft and 16 to 20 ft
FTNB No. 7, for heights 6 to 10 ft and 14 to 20 ft
FTNB No. 10, for heights 8 ft and 12 ft
FTNB No. 13A+B, all heights
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-22
DRAFT

Based on the studies completed to date, Caltrans or Metro (as appropriate) would incorporate noise
abatement in the form of noise barriers at the locations described in the following sections for the
TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, and Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation.
If conditions have substantially changed prior to or during final design, noise abatement may not be
necessary. The final decision of the noise abatement will be made on completion of the project
design and the public involvement process. While each Build Alternative was analyzed individually, it
is expected that various components of the Build Alternatives may be implemented (i.e., the BRT
Alternative and some improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, or the LRT Alternative and some
improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative). The noise barriers described below would be
considered appropriate and accurate abatement measures regardless of the combination of Build
Alternatives chosen.
Noise Barriers for the TSM/TDM Alternative
The analyzed noise barriers for the TSM/TDM Alternative are shown on Figure 3.14-3 in
Appendix N. Preliminary abatement measures proposed for the TSM/TDM Alternative includes
7 noise barriers, they are described as follows:
The following noise barriers are proposed for Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard
from Glendon Way to I-10):
L3/TNB No. 1 would be an approximately 48-foot (ft) long barrier along the perimeter of the
private swimming pool area at the Atlantic Riviera Apartments located at 1417 South
Atlantic Boulevard and would range in height from 16 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 2 of
Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM Alternative noise barrier.)
L3/TNB No. 2 would be an approximately 46 ft long barrier along the private property line of
1721 South Atlantic Boulevard and would range in height from 6 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 2
of Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM Alternative noise barrier.)
The following noise barrier is proposed for Local Street Improvement L-5 (Rosemead Boulevard
from Lower Azusa Road to Marshall Street):
L5/TNB No. 1 would be an approximately 202 ft long barrier along the private property line
of 3955 Rosemead Boulevard and would range in height from 6 to 14 ft. (Refer to Sheet 4 of
Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM Alternative noise barrier.)
The following noise barriers are proposed for Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road):
T1/TNB No. 1 would be an approximately 1,247 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/
private property line along the northbound side of SR 710 south of Valley Boulevard and
would be 8 ft in height. (Refer to Sheet 7 of Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM
Alternative noise barrier.)
T1/TNB No. 2 would be an approximately 963 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on
the southbound side of SR 710, south of Valley Boulevard, and would range in height from
16 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 7 of Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM Alternative
noise barrier.)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-23
DRAFT

The following noise barriers are proposed for Other Road Improvement T-2 (SR 110/Fair Oaks
Avenue Hook Ramps):
T2/TNB No. 1 would be an approximately 743 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/private
property line along the northbound side of State Route 110 (SR 110) and would range in
height from 6 to 16 ft. (Refer to Sheet 8 of Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM
Alternative noise barrier.)
T2/TNB No. 2 would be an approximately 963 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder on
the southbound side of SR 110 and would range in height from 12 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 8
of Figure 3.14-3 in Appendix N for this TSM/TDM Alternative noise barrier.)
Noise Barriers for the BRT Alternative
The analyzed noise barriers for the BRT Alternative are shown on Figure 3.14-4 in Appendix N.
Preliminary abatement measures proposed for the BRT Alternative include three noise barriers,
which are described as follows:
BNB No. 1 would be a 340 ft long barrier along the private property line of the multifamily
use along Atlantic Boulevard and De La Fuente Street and would range in height from 10 to
18 ft. (Refer to Sheets 6 and 7 of Figure 3.14-4 in Appendix N for this BRT Alternative noise
barrier.)
BNB No. 3 would be a 623 ft long barrier along the private property line of the multifamily
use along Atlantic Boulevard and De La Fuente Street and would range in height from 6 to
20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 6 of Figure 3.14-4 in Appendix N for this BRT Alternative noise barrier.)
BNB No. 5 would be a 623 ft long barrier along the private property line at the northeast
corner of Atlantic Boulevard and San Marino Avenue and would range in height from 6 to
10 ft. (Refer to Sheet 9 of Figure 3.14-4 in Appendix N for this BRT Alternative noise barrier.)
Noise Barriers for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
The analyzed noise barriers for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation are
shown on Figure 3.14-6, and the analyzed noise barriers for the dual-bore design variation are
shown on Figure 3.14-7 (both figures are provided in Appendix N). Preliminary abatement
measures proposed for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative include 6 noise barriers: 4 noise barriers
are feasible and reasonable for both single- and dual-bore design variations, and an additional 2
noise barriers are feasible and reasonable for only the dual-bore design variation. They are
described as follows:
The noise barriers proposed for both the single- and dual-bore design variations are:
FTNB No. 5 would be a 1,801 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/private property line on
the east side of SR 710, between Hellman Avenue and Valley Boulevard that would shield
multiple single-family homes and range in height from 6 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheet 5 of
Figure 3.14-6 and Sheet 5 of Figure 3.14-7 in Appendix N for the noise barriers for the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative single- and dual-bore design variations, respectively).
FTNB No. 7 would be a 673 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/private property line on
the west side of SR 710 south of Valley Boulevard, that would shield multiple single-family
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-24
DRAFT

homes and would be built as a 12 ft high noise barrier if the private land is donated 1 by the
property owners. (Refer to Sheet 5 of Figure 3.14-6 and Sheet 5 of Figure 3.14-7 in
Appendix N for the noise barriers for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single- and dual-bore
design variations, respectively.)
FTNB No. 8 would be a 406 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/private property line on
the west side of SR 710, south of Valley Boulevard, that would shield multiple single-family
homes and range in height from 6 to 14 ft. (Refer to Sheet 5 of Figure 3.14-6 and Sheet 5 of
Figure 3.14-7 in Appendix N for the noise barriers for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative singleand dual-bore design variations, respectively.)
FTNB No. 10 would be a 1,207 ft long barrier along the Caltrans ROW/private property line
at the northeast quadrant of the I-210/SR 134 interchange that would shield multiple singlefamily homes. For the single-bore design variation, FTNB No. 10 would range in height from
10 to 20 ft. For the dual-bore design variation, the height of FTNB No. 10 would be either
10 ft or would range from 14 to 20 ft. (Refer to Sheets 12, 13 and 15 of Figure 3.14-6 and
Sheet 12, 13 and 15 of Figure 3.14-7 in Appendix N for the noise barriers for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative, single- and dual-bore design variations, respectively.)
The additional noise barriers that are proposed only for the dual-bore design variation are:
FTNB No. 6D would be a 1,404 ft long barrier along the edge of shoulder of the SR 710 Valley
Boulevard southbound on-ramp that would shield multiple single-family homes and would
be 14 ft in height. (Refer to Sheet 5 of Figure 3.14-7 in Appendix N for the noise barriers for
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation.)
FTNB No. 9 would be an 84 ft long barrier along the private property line of the restaurant
at the corner of Pasadena Avenue and Colorado Boulevard that would range in height from
6 to 14 ft. (Refer to Sheet 11 of Figure 3.14-7 in Appendix N for the noise barriers for the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation.)
Noise Abatement Summary for the TSM/TDM, BRT and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives
A summary of the reasonable barriers including the height in feet, noise attenuation range,
number of benefitted units, total reasonable allowance, estimated noise barrier construction
costs with ROW cost included, and estimated noise barrier construction costs with ROW
donated is provided below.
For a barrier for which the cost exceeds the reasonable allowance with the cost of right-of-way included,
that barrier was also analyzed as if the resident(s) would be willing to donate the right-of-way for the
barrier. This was to assess whether the barrier cost would be less than the total reasonableness allowance
if the right-of-way was donated and no cost for right-of-way acquisition was included in the cost of the
barrier. For noise barrier FTNB No. 7, the barrier became reasonable at some heights with donated right-ofway. For this barrier, a process will be carried out in which the affected residents are surveyed for their
opinion on the proposed abatement (barrier), per the Protocol.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-25
DRAFT

Summary of Reasonable Noise Abatement TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Alternative
Noise
Barrier No.
TSM/TDM - L-3
TNB No. 1
TNB No. 2
TSM/TDM - L-5
TNB No. 1
TSM/TDM - T-1
TNB No. 1
TNB No. 2
TSM/TDM - T-2
TNB No. 1
TNB No. 1
BRT
BNB No. 1
BNB No. 3
BNB No. 5
Freeway Tunnel FTNB No. 5

Single-Bore
Design Variation
FTNB No. 7
Noise
Height
Attenuation
(ft)
Range (dBA)
16
18
20
6
84
10
12
14
16
18
20
6
8
10 4
12
14
8
16
18
20 5
6
8
10 4
12
14
16
12
14
16
18
20 4
10
12
14
16
18
6
84
10
12
14
16
18
20
6
8
10 4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 4
12
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7
7
7
7
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
7
9
9
10
10
7-10
5-7
5-8
5-8
9
10
11
12
12
14
5-7
7-8
8-9
9
9
9
11
12
13
14
7-11
8-13
8-14
9-14
9-15
9-15
9-16
9-16
7
10
12
5-12
6-13
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-19
6-10
Number of
Benefited
Units1
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
18
15
16
16
4
4
4
4
4
4
34
34
34
34
34
12
12
12
12
12
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
1
1
1
19
19
22
32
33
39
42
42
8
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$990,000
$825,000
$880,000
$880,000
$220,000
$220,000
$220,000
$220,000
$220,000
$220,000
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
$660,000
$660,000
$660,000
$660,000
$660,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$1,320,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$1,045,000
$1,045,000
$1,210,000
$1,760,000
$1,815,000
$2,145,000
$2,310,000
$2,310,000
$440,000
3.14-26
With ROW Costs

Estimated Noise
Barrier
Reasonable?3
Construction
Cost2,3
$33,720
Yes
$36,960
Yes
$40,200
Yes
$49,053
Yes
$52,158
Yes
$55,263
No
$58,368
No
$61,473
No
$64,578
No
$67,683
No
$70,788
No
$111,936
No
$125,571
No
$139,206
No
$152,841
No
$166,476
No
$981,972
Yes
$541,387
Yes
$603,380
Yes
$665,373
Yes
$104,264
Yes
$127,821
Yes
$151,379
Yes
$174,936
Yes
$198,494
Yes
$222,051
No
$347,353
Yes
$397,505
Yes
$447,658
Yes
$497,810
Yes
$547,963
Yes
$567,613
Yes
$590,308
Yes
$613,003
Yes
$635,698
Yes
$660,688
No
$476,237
Yes
$519,699
Yes
$563,161
Yes
$606,624
Yes
$650,086
Yes
$693,548
Yes
$741,209
Yes
$785,138
Yes
$39,413
Yes
$49,425
Yes
$59,438
No
$606,188
No
$751,245
No
$981,960
No
$1,027,590
No
$1,048,043
No
$1,163,265
No
$1,462,560
No
$1,415,310
No
$848,838
No
With ROW Donated

Estimated Noise
Barrier
Reasonable?3
Construction
Cost2,3
$27,120
Yes
$30,360
Yes
$33,600
Yes
$10,178
Yes
$13,283
Yes
$16,388
Yes
$19,493
Yes
$22,598
Yes
$25,703
Yes
$28,808
Yes
$31,913
Yes
$52,811
Yes
$66,446
Yes
$80,081
Yes
$93,716
Yes
$107,351
Yes
$921,009
Yes
$541,387
Yes
$603,380
Yes
$665,373
Yes
$88,995
Yes
$112,553
Yes
$136,110
Yes
$159,668
Yes
$183,225
Yes
$206,783
Yes
$314,846
Yes
$364,999
Yes
$415,151
Yes
$465,304
Yes
$515,456
Yes
$546,363
Yes
$569,058
Yes
$591,753
Yes
$614,448
Yes
$639,438
Yes
$359,612
Yes
$403,074
Yes
$446,536
Yes
$489,999
Yes
$533,461
Yes
$576,923
Yes
$624,584
Yes
$668,513
Yes
$33,788
Yes
$43,800
Yes
$53,813
Yes
$595,113
Yes
$740,170
Yes
$970,885
Yes
$1,016,515
Yes
$1,036,968
Yes
$1,152,190
Yes
$1,451,485
Yes
$1,404,235
Yes
$418,504
Yes
DRAFT

Summary of Reasonable Noise Abatement TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
Alternative
Noise
Barrier No.
Noise
Height
Attenuation
(ft)
Range (dBA)
Number of
Benefited
Units1
Total
Reasonable
Allowance

Single-Bore
Design Variation
With ROW Costs

Estimated Noise
Barrier
Reasonable?3
Construction
Cost2,3
$431,939
No
$459,344
No
$486,749
No
$514,154
No
$541,559
No
$437,797
Yes
$523,041
Yes
$608,286
Yes
$693,530
Yes
$778,774
Yes
$864,019
Yes
$606,188
Yes
$751,245
Yes
$981,960
Yes
$1,027,590
Yes
$1,048,043
Yes
$1,163,265
Yes
$1,462,560
Yes
$1,415,310
Yes
$698,929
Yes
$789,311
Yes
$848,838
No
$431,939
No
$459,344
No
$486,749
No
$514,154
No
$26,985
Yes
$32,655
Yes
$38,325
Yes
$43,995
Yes
$49,665
Yes
$55,335
No
$61,005
No
$437,797
Yes
$523,041
Yes
$608,286
Yes
$693,530
Yes
$778,774
Yes
$864,019
Yes
With ROW Donated

Estimated Noise
Barrier
Reasonable?3
Construction
Cost2,3
$201,468
Yes
$228,873
Yes
$256,278
Yes
$283,683
Yes
$311,088
Yes
$437,797
Yes
$523,041
Yes
$608,286
Yes
$693,530
Yes
$778,774
Yes
$864,019
Yes
$595,113
Yes
$740,170
Yes
$970,885
Yes
$1,016,515
Yes
$1,036,968
Yes
$1,152,190
Yes
$1,451,485
Yes
$1,404,235
Yes
$698,929
Yes
$789,311
Yes
$418,504
Yes
$201,468
Yes
$228,873
Yes
$256,278
Yes
$283,683
Yes
$19,110
Yes
$24,780
Yes
$30,450
Yes
$36,120
Yes
$41,790
Yes
$47,460
Yes
$53,130
Yes
$437,797
Yes
$523,041
Yes
$608,286
Yes
$693,530
Yes
$778,774
Yes
$864,019
Yes
6
7-8
6
$330,000
8
9-11
6
$330,000
10
10-13
6
$330,000
12
12-14
6
$330,000
14
13-15
6
$330,000
FTNB No. 10
10
7-9
10
$550,000
12
5-11
12
$660,000
14 4
5-12
18
$990,000
16
5-13
22
$1,210,000
18
6-14
22
$1,210,000
20
6-15
22
$1,210,000
6
5-13
21
$1,155,000
Dual-Bore
8
5-14
21
$1,155,000
Design Variation
10
5-15
21
$1,155,000
12
5-16
25
$1,375,000
14
5-17
34
$1,870,000
16
5-18
40
$2,200,000
18
5-19
40
$2,200,000
20 4
5-19
43
$2,365,000
FTNB No. 6D
14
5-12
15
$825,000
16
6-12
15
$825,000
FTNB No. 7
12
7-12
8
$440,000
FTNB No. 8
6
7-8
6
$330,000
8
8-11
6
$330,000
10
10-13
6
$330,000
12
11-15
6
$330,000
FTNB No. 9
6
7
1
$55,000
84
8
1
$55,000
10
10
1
$55,000
12
11
1
$55,000
14
12
1
$55,000
16
13
1
$55,000
18
14
1
$55,000
FTNB No. 10
10
8-9
10
$550,000
12
9-11
10
$550,000
14 4
5-12
18
$990,000
16
5-13
22
$1,210,000
18
5-14
22
$1,210,000
20
6-15
23
$1,265,000
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (2014).
1
Number of units that are attenuated by 5 dBA or more by the modeled barrier.
2
Sound barrier construction cost information provided by CH2MHILL.
3
Shaded area represents barrier heights that have been determined to be not reasonable because the barrier would not reduce noise levels by 7 dBA or more.
4
Denotes the minimum wall height required to break the line of sight between the receiver and truck exhaust stack.
5
Denotes that the maximum feasible barrier height would not break the line of sight between the receptor and the truck exhaust stack.
BNB = BRT Noise Barrier
FTNB = Freeway Tunnel Noise Barrier
L-3 = Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10)
L-5 = Local Street Improvement L-5 (Rosemead Boulevard from Lower Azusa Road to Marshall Street)
T-1 = Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road)
T-2 = Other Road Improvement T-2 (SR 110/Fair Oaks Avenue Hook Ramps)
TNB = TSM/TDM Noise Barrier
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-27
DRAFT

Noise Barriers for the LRT Alternative
The analyzed noise barriers for the LRT Alternative are shown on Sheets 1, 2, and 6 of Figure
3.14-5 in Appendix N. Noise barriers ranging in height from 4.0 to 9.5 ft will be placed at the
edge of track adjacent to the noise sensitive uses. Additionally, a noise barrier with a
recommended height of 8 ft is proposed along the perimeter of the LRT Alternative
maintenance yard.
Noise Abatement for the LRT Alternative
The calculations based on preliminary design data show that noise barriers constructed along
the edge of the elevated track ranging in height from 4 to 9.5 feet would reduce noise levels
from either a moderate or severe impact to no impact. With the majority of noise impacts being
generated at the track elevation, all barrier heights will break the line of sight between source
and receptor. A summary of the reasonable barriers is provided below.
Summary of Reasonable Noise Abatement LRT Alternative
Train
Noise
Proposed
Train Noise
No Impact,
No Impact,
Operations Exposure
Noise
Level With
Moderate,
Moderate,
Noise Level
Increase
Barrier
Abatement
Severe After
Severe1
2
(Ldn)
(dBA)
Height (ft)
(dBA)
Abatement1
LR-01
54.6
63.6
9.5
Severe
6.0
54.4
No Impact
LR-02
54.6
57.2
4.5
Moderate
4.0
51.8
No Impact
LR-03
63.1
67.5
5.7
Severe
5.5
59.5
No Impact
LR-04
63.1
60.5
1.9
Moderate
4.0
55.8
No Impact
LR-05
64.6
63.7
2.6
Moderate
4.0
58.4
No Impact
LR-06
58.0
67.3
9.8
Severe
9.5
56.9
No Impact
LR-07 3
61.9
63.7
4.0
0.0
LR-08
61.9
68.3
7.3
Severe
7.0
58.7
No Impact
LR-09
60.0
59.1
2.6
Moderate
4.0
54.4
No Impact
LR-10
65.6
69.3
5.2
Severe
5.0
60.8
No Impact
LR-11
67.8
68.4
3.3
Moderate
4.0
61.4
No Impact
LR-12
67.6
67.9
3.2
Moderate
4.0
60.6
No Impact
LR-13
67.6
67.9
3.2
Moderate
4.0
60.6
No Impact
LR-14
67.6
67.3
2.9
Moderate
4.0
60.2
No Impact
LR-15
67.6
67.6
3.0
Moderate
4.0
60.4
No Impact
LR-16
67.7
60.5
0.8
No Impact
0.0
LR-17
61.7
54.7
0.8
No Impact
0.0
LR-18
67.0
56.3
0.4
No Impact
0.0
LR-19
64.4
55.9
0.6
No Impact
0.0
LR-20
61.9
61.9
3.0
Moderate
4.0
56.4
No Impact
LR-21
65.9
62.1
1.5
Moderate
4.0
56.5
No Impact
LR-22
61.8
62.0
3.1
Moderate
4.0
57.0
No Impact
LR-23
69.7
63.0
0.8
No Impact
0.0
LR-24
77.0
65.8
0.3
No Impact
0.0
LR-25
63.3
56.2
0.8
No Impact
0.0
LR-26
76.7
57.0
0.0
No Impact
0.0
LR-27
71.4
61.6
0.4
No Impact
0.0
LR-28
58.9
52.3
0.9
No Impact
0.0
LR-29
58.1
54.2
1.5
No Impact
0.0
1
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 3-1.
2
Proposed barrier height is relative to the track height level.
3
Non-noise-sensitive active park. Only passive parks are classified as being noise sensitive. Level shown for reporting
purposes only.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet
Ldn = day-night average sound level
Receptor
Location
Existing
Noise
Level (Ldn)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.14-28
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
3.15 Energy
3.15.1
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires the
identification of all potentially significant impacts to the environment, including energy impacts.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, state
that EIRs are required to include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects,
with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption
of energy.
3.15.2
3.15.2.1
Energy Resources and Consumption
The potential impacts of the proposed project related to energy resources are evaluated in detail in
the Energy Technical Report (2014).
California is rich in conventional and renewable energy resources. It has large crude oil and
substantial natural gas deposits in six geological basins located in the Central Valley and along the
Pacific Coast. Most of those reserves are concentrated in the southern San Joaquin Basin. Seventeen
of the 100 largest oil fields in the United States are located in California, including the Belridge South
oil field (the third-largest oil field in the contiguous United States). In addition, federal assessments
indicate that large undiscovered deposits of recoverable oil and gas lie offshore in the federally
administered Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which in 2008 was reopened for potential oil and gas
leasing. Californias renewable energy potential is extensive. The States hydroelectric power
potential ranks second in the United States behind Washington State, and substantial geothermal
and wind power resources are found along the coastal mountain ranges and the States eastern
border with Nevada. High solar energy potential is found in southeastern Californias sunny deserts.
California is the most populous State in the United States, and its total energy demand is second
only to Texas. Although California is a leader in the energy-intensive chemical, forest products, glass,
and petroleum industries, the State has one of the lowest per-capita energy consumption rates in
the country. The California governments energy-efficiency programs have contributed to the low
per-capita energy consumption. Driven by high demand from Californias many motorists, major
airports, and military bases, the transportation sector is the States largest energy consumer. More
motor vehicles are registered in California than in any other State, and worker commute times are
among the longest in the country.
Petroleum
California is one of the top producers of crude oil in the United States, with output accounting for
more than one-tenth of total United States production. Drilling operations are concentrated
primarily in Kern County and the Los Angeles Basin, although substantial production also takes place
offshore in both State and federal waters. Concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of offshore oil
and gas development, combined with a number of major marine oil spills throughout the world in
recent years, have led to a permanent moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing in California
waters. However, development on existing State leases is not affected and may still occur within
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-1
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
offshore areas leased prior to the effective date of the moratorium. A moratorium on oil and gas
leasing in federal OCS waters expired in 2008.
A network of crude oil pipelines connects production areas to refining centers in the Los Angeles
area, the San Francisco Bay area, and the Central Valley. California refiners also process large
volumes of Alaskan and foreign crude oil received at ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the San
Francisco Bay area. Crude oil production in California and Alaska is in decline, and California
refineries have become increasingly dependent on foreign imports. Led by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and
Ecuador, foreign suppliers now provide more than two-fifths of the crude oil refined in California;
however, Californias dependence on foreign oil remains less than the national average.
California ranks third in the country in petroleum refining capacity and accounts for more than onetenth of total United States capacity. Californias largest refineries are highly sophisticated, capable
of processing a wide variety of crude oil types, and designed to yield a high percentage of light
products like motor gasoline. To meet strict federal and State environmental regulations, California
refineries are configured to produce cleaner fuels, including reformulated motor gasoline and lowsulfur diesel.
Most California motorists are required to use a special motor gasoline blend called California Clean
Burning Gasoline. In the ozone nonattainment areas of Imperial County and the Los Angeles
metropolitan area, motorists are required to use California Oxygenated Clean Burning Gasoline.
There are five ethanol production plants in Central and Southern California, but most of Californias
ethanol supply is transported by rail from corn-based producers in the Midwest. Some supply is also
imported from abroad.
Due to the relative isolation and specific requirements of the California fuel market, California
motorists are particularly vulnerable to short-term spikes in the price of motor gasoline. No
pipelines connect California to other major refining centers in the United States, and California
refineries often operate at near maximum capacity due to high demand for petroleum products.
When an unplanned refinery outage occurs, replacement supplies must be brought in via marine
tanker. Locating and transporting this replacement gasoline (which must conform to the States
strict fuel requirements) can take from 2 to 6 weeks.
Natural Gas
California natural gas production typically accounts for less than 2 percent of total United States
production and satisfies less than one-fifth of the States demand. Production takes place in basins
located in Northern and Southern California, as well as offshore in the Pacific Ocean. As with crude
oil production, California natural gas production is in decline. However, State supply has remained
relatively stable due to increases in net receipts from pipelines that supply California with natural
gas produced in the Rocky Mountains, the Southwest, and western Canada. California markets are
served by two key natural gas trading centers (the Golden Gate Center in Northern California and
the California Energy Hub in Southern California), and the State has a dozen natural gas storage
facilities that help stabilize supply. In part to help meet Californias demand for natural gas, an
offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Southern California was proposed to the
Maritime Administration and the United States Coast Guard on August 18, 2006. If approved, this
terminal could import up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Two additional potential
Southern California LNG import facility sites have been identified by project sponsors (i.e., the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-2
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
Clearwater Port offshore of Oxnard was proposed in 2006, and the Esperanza Port offshore of the
Port of Long Beach was proposed in 2008).
Biomethane
Biomethane (aka, BioGas) has been identified as a potentially viable alternative to natural gas.
Biomethane has the same chemical makeup and can be made to have the same fuel specifications
as the compressed natural gas (CNG) currently being used for vehicle power. Biomethane, however,
has the lowest carbon intensity among alternative fuels (including natural gas) because it does not
come from fossil fuel raw materials but instead from dairies, landfills, and wastewater treatment
plants, among others. Consequently, the use of biomethane would significantly reduce carbon
emissions with no change to the current Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) bus fleet and fueling infrastructure. Development for implementation and greater use of
biomethane is still ongoing.
Coal, Electricity, and Renewables
Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for more than half of the States electricity
generation. California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and
with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State
electricity generation. While the contribution of renewable generation has been increasing, the role
of nuclear generation has dropped considerably since the shutdown of the two-unit San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in January 2012. Due to strict emission laws, only a few small
coal-fired power plants operate in California.
California leads the United States in electricity generation from nonhydroelectric renewable energy
sources. California generates electricity using wind, geothermal, solar, fuel wood, and municipal
solid waste/landfill gas resources. California is the top producer of geothermal energy in the country
with over 2,500 megawatts (MW) of capacity. A facility known as The Geysers (located in the
Mayacamas Mountains north of San Francisco) is the largest complex of geothermal power plants in
the world, with more than 700 MW of installed capacity. California is also a leading producer of wind
energy and holds nearly 10 percent of United States capacity. The worlds largest solar power
facility, completed in 1991, operates in Californias Mojave Desert. Eleven projects in California,
totaling 7,341 MW of solar generating capacity, have been approved by the United States Bureau of
Land Management since 2010. To further boost renewable energy use, Californias Energy Action
Plan includes incentives that encourage Californians to install solar power systems on their rooftops.
Due to high electricity demand, California imports more electricity than any other state. States in
the Pacific Northwest deliver power to California markets primarily from hydroelectric sources,
while states in the Desert Southwest deliver power primarily from coal-fired sources. Hydroelectric
power comes to California primarily through the Western United States of America interconnection,
which runs from northern Oregon to Southern California. The system, also known as the Pacific
Intertie, is the largest single electricity transmission program in the United States. Although the
Pacific Intertie was originally designed to transmit electricity south during Californias peak summer
demand season, flow is sometimes reversed overnight and has occasionally been reversed during
periods of reduced hydroelectric generation in the Northwest. California restricts the use of coalfired generation within its boundaries. However, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) operates the coal-fired Intermountain Power Plant in Utah (Intermountain), which delivers
almost all of its output to LADWP and other California municipal utilities. A recent California law
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-3
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
forbids utilities from entering into long-term contracts with conventional coal-fired power
producers. Intermountains existing contracts with Southern California cities are set to expire in
2027.
In 2000 and 2001, California suffered an energy crisis characterized by electricity price instability and
four major blackouts that were caused by a supply-and-demand imbalance. Multiple factors
contributed to this imbalance, including a heavy dependence on out-of-State electricity providers,
drought conditions in the northwest that reduced hydroelectric power generation, a rupture on a
major natural gas pipeline supplying California power plants, strong economic growth leading to
increased electricity demand in the western United States, an increase in unplanned power plant
outages, and unusually high temperatures that increased electricity demand for air-conditioning and
other cooling uses. Following the energy crisis, the State government created an Energy Action Plan
designed to eliminate outages and excessive price spikes. To achieve these goals, the Energy Action
Plan calls for optimizing energy conservation, building sufficient new generation facilities, upgrading
and expanding the electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, and ensuring that
generation facilities can quickly come online when needed.
In 2006, California amended its renewable portfolio standard to require investor-owned utilities,
electric service providers, small and multijurisdictional utilities, and community choice aggregators
to provide at least 20 percent of retail sales from renewable sources by the end of 2010 and
33 percent by the end of 2020. California has also adopted other policies to promote energy
efficiency and renewable energy, including energy standards for public buildings, power source
disclosure requirements for utilities, and net metering.
3.15.2.2
Energy Consumption in California and Los Angeles County
The following statistics have been provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC). Statistics are
the most recent available as of October 2013.
Electricity
Fueled by population growth, the demand for electricity in California is increasing. At the same time,
the State is mandating a decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Californias electricity mix is
generated by natural gas (approximately 53.4 percent), coal (approximately 1.7 percent), large
hydroelectric (approximately 14.6 percent), nuclear (approximately 15.7 percent), and renewable
(approximately 14.6 percent) sources. In 2011, California produced approximately 71 percent of the
electricity it uses; the rest was imported from the Pacific Northwest (approximately 8 percent) and
the United States Southwest (approximately 21 percent). Under the Renewables Portfolio Standard,
Californias goal was to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy
resources to 20 percent by 2010, and legislation passed in 2011 pushed that goal to 33 percent by
2020. Currently, Californias in-State renewable generation consists of biomass, geothermal, small
hydroelectric, wind, and solar generation sites that make up approximately 17 percent of the total
in-State generational output. Los Angeles County electrical usage in 2011 is shown in Table 3.15.1.
Natural Gas Consumption
Only approximately 12 percent of the natural gas California used came from in-State production in
2010; the rest was delivered by pipeline from several production areas in the western United States
and western Canada. California is at the stopping point of these pipelines, forcing the State to
compete with other states for its natural gas supply. Once the gas arrives in California, it is
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-4
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.1:
Annual Electric Consumption in Los Angeles County in 2011
Type of Consumer
Residential
Nonresidential
Total
Source: Energy Technical Report (2014).

kWh = kilowatt-hours
Millions of kWh
19,292
44,607
63,899
distributed by the States three major gas utility companies (San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern
California Gas Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric), which together provide a collective total of
approximately 98 percent of the States natural gas. The Cities of Long Beach and Palo Alto are the
only municipal utilities in California that operate City-owned utility services for natural gas
customers.
Natural gas is the second most widely used energy source in California. Depending on yearly
conditions, approximately 40 to 45 percent of the total amount used is burned for electricity
generation, approximately 10 percent is consumed in facilitating the extraction of oil and gas, and
the rest is used for everything from space heating to fuel for bus fleets. The residential sector in Los
Angeles County uses approximately 44 percent of the natural gas consumed (Table 3.15.2).
TABLE 3.15.2:
Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County in 2011
Land Use
Residential
Non-Residential
Total
Millions of Therms
1,369
1,752
3,121

therm = a unit of heat containing 100,000 British thermal units (BTUs).
Liquid Petroleum Gas/Propane
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons (mainly propane and butane)
that change into liquid form under moderate pressure. LPG (usually called propane) is commonly
used as a fuel for rural homes for space and water heating, as a fuel for barbecues and recreational
vehicles, and as a transportation fuel. It is normally created as a byproduct of petroleum refining
and from natural gas production.
LPG is generally an unregulated fuel in California (except for storage and safety issues, which are
regulated). Because it is an unregulated commodity, the State does not collect data on LPG sales or
usage. The statistics for LPG in Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (provided later in this
section) were provided by the United States Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration (EIA), Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. As such, statistics are
unavailable for LPG as a fuel for rural homes, for space and water heating, or for barbecues, and
none are provided in this section.
Traditional Transportation Fuels (Fossil Fuels)
Fossil fuels are energy resources that come from the remains of plants and animals that are millions
of years old. There are three fossil fuels: petroleum oil, natural gas, and coal. These fossil fuels
provide the energy that powers our lifestyles and our economy, and are overwhelmingly responsible
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-5
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
for fueling our transportation system. Our countrys entire transportation infrastructure of pipelines
and gas stations is built around fossil fuels. They are the foundation that we base our energy mix
upon, but they are a limited resource. Once these resources are depleted, they will no longer be
part of our energy mix.
The main challenges with fossil fuels, in addition to their unsustainability, are related to their
negative environmental impacts. The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for emissions that
contribute to global climate change, acid rain, and ozone problems. As such, the development of
alternatives to traditional transportation fuels is a priority.
Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels
Alternatives to traditional transportation fuels are being developed and introduced into the
consumer marketplace. Alternative fuels and vehicles currently in use in the United States are:
Biodiesel and biogas
CNG
LNG
LPG/propane
Ethanol, 85 percent (E85) (used in flexible fuel vehicles)
Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles
Electric vehicles
The following information was prepared by the EIA, the independent statistical and analytical
agency within the United States Department of Energy. Each year, the EIA collects data on the
number of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) supplied and, for a limited set of fleet user groups, the
number of AFVs in use and the amount of alternative transportation fuel consumed. The user
groups surveyed are the federal and State governments, alternative fuel providers, and transit
companies.
Alternative Fuel in Vehicle Use
The use of AFVs in the United States has steadily increased between 1995 and 2010, as shown
on Figure 3.15-1. Overall, an estimated 938,650 AFVs were in use in the United States in 2010.
Total AFV use in California increased from 81,652 in 2004 to 136,409 in 2009.
Alternative Fuel Consumption
Overall consumption of alternative transportation fuels in the United States increased almost
13 percent in 2011 to a total of 515,920,000 gasoline gallon equivalents (GGEs), compared to
457,755,000 GGEs in 2010. The estimated consumption of alternative fuels (in million GGEs) in
the United States from 1995 through 2010 is shown on Figure 3.15-2.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-6
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
1,000
Hydrogen
900
Electric
Thousand Vehicles
800
700
E95
600
E85
500
Methanol (M100)
400
Methanol (M85)
300
LNG
200
CNG
100
Propane
Figure 3.15-1: Alternative Fueled Vehicles in Use in the U.S. 1995 Through 2010
250
CNG
Propane
200
Million GGEs
E85
LNG
150
Electric
Hydrogen
100
E95
Methanol
(M85)
Methanol
M100
50
Figure 3.15-2: Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuel by AFVs in the U.S. 1995 Through 2010
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-7
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
3.15.3
Implementation of the project would result in the use of energy resources in Los Angeles County.
The analysis of energy impacts is at the regional level and, therefore, by its nature, is an analysis of
cumulative impacts. The energy analysis addresses three elements: indirect and direct energy
consumption (each as temporary and permanent energy consumption) and service parameters.
Indirect energy refers to energy associated with construction, maintenance, and operation of a
transportation facility. Direct energy refers to the fuel consumed by vehicles using a transportation
facility. Service parameters concern the actual transportation service versus the potential
transportation service. Potential service of a vehicle would be the maximum rated capacity for
passengers or cargo, and actual service is the real number it does carry. The ratio of actual service
rendered versus potential service is called the load factor.
The baselines used for the energy evaluation are existing conditions and the No Build conditions in
the 2035 Build Out year. Comparison of the Build Alternatives to the 2035 No Build condition, as
well as existing conditions, is appropriate because energy effects are considered for the projected
future conditions. For long-term planning on their facilities, Caltrans uses a 20-year planning
horizon, which is consistent with standard FHWA practice for transportation project planning.
Of the scenario years analyzed, estimated energy consumption in 2035 is expected to represent the
most conservative (i.e., highest) energy consumption because population and employment are
projected to be higher in that year than in any earlier year. In addition, this analysis does not reflect
the benefit of energy efficiency and conservation measures that are likely to be adopted by 2035
and that would result in lower energy consumption than projected in these estimates (i.e., new
California Environmental Protection Agency [Cal/EPA]/United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) fuel economy standards, bus rapid transit programs reducing personal vehicle use, and
increased use of high-occupancy vehicles [HOVs]).
This energy analysis for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives described in this section includes the effects of the Transportation System
Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative improvements that
would be included in these Build Alternatives. These improvements include the complete TSM/TDM
Alternative, minus the following portions:
Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road), the
reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon
Way to I-10), and enhancements to Route 762 would not be implemented with the BRT
Alternative.
Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) would not be
implemented with the LRT Alternative.
Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector) and T-3 (St. John
Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard) would not be implemented
with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
3.15.3.1
Temporary Indirect Impacts
Temporary indirect energy impacts result from the manufacture of vehicles that operate on the
project and project construction. Indirect manufacturing energy effects involve the one-time,
nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the manufacture of vehicles. Construction energy
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-8
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
effects involve the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with construction of roads and
structures. The indirect energy analysis for the project was conducted using the Caltrans InputOutput Method. Based on this method, indirect energy consumption related to vehicle
manufacturing consists of: (1) materials and quantities, (2) manufacture energy, (3) useful life,
(4) salvage energy.
North Study Build Alternatives. However, the No Build Alternative would include the temporary
indirect impacts from the manufacture of the vehicles that would continue to use the existing
roadway system. Additionally, as this energy analysis is a cumulative analysis, the construction
energy shown for all project alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, includes the energy
necessary to build all the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planned projects
in the project study area and in all the SCAG region. The estimated study area and regional energy
consumption for construction of the No Build Alternative are shown in Tables 3.15.3 and 3.15.4,
respectively.
TSM/TDM Alternative
Because the TSM/TDM Alternative has essentially the same operational vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
as the baseline No Build Alternative, the temporary indirect energy impacts from vehicle
manufacturing for the TSM/TDM Alternative and the baseline No Build Alternative would be the
same.
It is anticipated that the construction energy demands from the TSM/TDM Alternative would be
accommodated by the LADWP and the Pasadena Water and Power Utility.
Table 3.15.3 shows that the TSM/TDM Alternative would have an approximately 40 percent increase
in total temporary indirect energy consumption in the study area (entirely from construction energy
use) compared to the baseline No Build Alternative. Table 3.15.4 shows that when including the
construction energy use for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to build and the
total indirect energy impacts for the TSM/TDM Alternative would be the same as the No Build
Alternative.
BRT Alternative
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative discussed above, the BRT Alternative has essentially the same
operational vehicle VMT as the baseline No Build Alternative. Thus, the temporary indirect energy
impacts from vehicle manufacturing for the BRT Alternative and the baseline No Build Alternative
would be the same.
It is anticipated that the construction energy demands from the BRT Alternative will be
accommodated by the LADWP and the Pasadena Water and Power Utility.
Table 3.15.3 shows that the BRT Alternative would have an approximately 93 percent increase in
total temporary indirect energy consumption in the study area (entirely from construction energy
use) compared to the baseline No Build Alternative. Table 3.15.4 shows that when including the
construction energy for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to build and the total
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-9
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.3:
Study Area Temporary Indirect Energy Impacts
Scenario
2013 Existing
2035 No Build Alternative
2035 TSM/TDM Alternative
2035 BRT Alternative
2035 LRT Alternative
2035 Freeway Tunnel Alternative
Single-Bore Operational Variations:
2035 Single-Bore with Toll
2035 Single-Bore with Toll without Trucks
2035 Single-Bore with Toll (with and without Express Bus)
Dual-Bore Operational Variations:
2035 Dual-Bore without Toll
2035 Dual-Bore without Toll without Trucks
2035 Dual-Bore with Toll (with and without Express Bus)
1
Build cost in 2020 dollars, the earliest planned opening year.
BTUs = British thermal units
Construction-Related Energy
Manufacturing
Energy to
Build
Build
Auto
Truck &
Cost1
(billion Bus (billion (billion
(billions)
BTUs)
BTUs)
BTUs)
11,700
775
11,800
1,160
16,700
$0.10
11,800
1,160
33,600
$0.21
11,800
1,170
55,300
$0.34
11,800
1,160
422,000
$2.62
Total
Indirect
Energy
(billion
BTUs)
23,300
41,400
58,300
80,000
447,000
11,900
11,900
11,900
1,180
1,150
1,180
523,000
523,000
523,000
$3.25
$3.25
$3.25
548,000
548,000
548,000
1,220%
1,220%
1,220%
12,000
12,100
12,000
1,180
1,130
1,170
926,000
926,000
926,000
$5.75
$5.75
$5.75
951,000
951,000
951,000
2,200%
2,200%
2,200%
% Change
from No
Build
40%
93%
980%
TABLE 3.15.4:
Regional Temporary Indirect Energy Impacts
Scenario
2013 Existing
2035 Freeway Tunnel Alternative:
1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Construction-Related Energy
Manufacturing
Energy to
Build
Build
Auto
Truck &
Cost1
(trillion Bus (trillion (trillion
(billions)
BTUs)
BTUs)
BTUs)
187
15
216
28
84,400
$524.70
216
28
84,400
$524.81
216
28
84,500
$524.94
216
28
84,800
$527.22
Total
Indirect
Energy
(trillion
BTUs)
381
84,900
84,900
85,000
85,300
% Change
from No
Build
0%
0%
0.5%
216
216
216
28
28
28
84,900
84,900
84,900
$528.85
$528.85
$528.85
85,400
85,400
85,400
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
216
216
216
28
28
28
85,300
85,300
85,300
$530.35
$530.35
$530.35
85,800
85,800
85,800
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
3.15-10
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
indirect energy impacts for the BRT Alternative would each be approximately 100 trillion BTUs more
than the No Build Alternative, which is nearly a 0 percent increase.
LRT Alternative
Similar to the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives discussed above, the LRT Alternative has essentially
the same operational vehicle VMT as the baseline No Build Alternative. Thus, the temporary indirect
energy impacts from vehicle manufacturing for the LRT Alternative and the baseline No Build
Alternative would be the same.
However, the LRT Alternative includes the construction of 4.5 mi of bored tunnels and supporting
tunnel systems, which would require substantially more energy than either the TSM/TDM or BRT
Alternatives. LADWP has indicated they would supply the necessary power to handle the electrical
demands of the tunneling equipment for the tunnel portal south of Valley Boulevard. Thus, it is
anticipated that the construction energy demands from the LRT Alternative would be
accommodated by the LADWP.
Table 3.15.3 shows that the LRT Alternative would have an approximately 980 percent increase to
total indirect energy consumption in the study area compared to the baseline No Build Alternative.
The LRT Alternative would include construction energy demands for the tunnels and for the LRT
stations and maintenance facilities. Table 3.15.4 shows that when including the construction costs
for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to build and the total indirect energy costs
for the LRT Alternative would each be approximately 300 trillion BTUs more than the No Build
Alternative, or approximately 0.5 percent more.
All variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative have a greater operational vehicle VMT than the
baseline No Build Alternative; therefore, the temporary indirect energy impacts from vehicle
manufacturing for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be greater than the baseline No Build
Alternative.
The LADWP and the Pasadena Water and Power Utility have indicated they could supply the
necessary power to build electrical substations at each end of the freeway tunnel in any of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variations to handle the electrical demands of the tunneling
equipment. The LADWP would supply power to the southern tunnel portal and the Pasadena Water
and Power Utility would supply power to the northern tunnel portal for the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative. Thus, it is anticipated that the construction energy demands from the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative will be accommodated by both power utilities.
Table 3.15.3 shows that the single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would
have an approximately 1,220 percent increase to total indirect energy consumption, and the dualbore design variation would have an approximately 2,200 percent increase to total indirect energy
consumption in the study area compared to the baseline No Build Alternative.
Table 3.15.4 shows that when including the construction energy impacts for all transportation
projects for the region, the single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would
have an approximately 0.6 percent increase compared to the No Build Alternative. The dual-bore
design variation would have an approximately 1.1 percent increase compared to the No Build
Alternative.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-11
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
3.15.3.2
Permanent Indirect Impacts
Permanent indirect energy impacts consist principally of the ongoing, nonrecoverable energy costs
associated with the maintenance of vehicles. This analysis was also conducted using the Caltrans
Input-Output Method. Based on this method, the per-vehicle indirect energy impacts for the Build
Alternatives and the existing condition would all be the same. These maintenance costs are borne by
all users of the project, regardless of where they live and whether they actually pay the
maintenance costs.
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any
permanent indirect energy consumption impacts. However, the No Build Alternative would include
the permanent indirect impacts from the maintenance of the vehicles that would continue to use
the existing roadway system. Estimated permanent indirect energy consumption for the No Build
Alternative (2035 baseline condition) is provided in Tables 3.15.5 and 3.15.6.
TSM/TDM Alternative
Table 3.15.5 shows that the TSM/TDM Alternative would result in a maintenance-related energy
consumption increase of approximately 0.3 percent in the study area compared to the 2035 baseline
condition (No Build Alternative). Table 3.15.6 shows that for the region, the TSM/TDM Alternative
would not result in a measurable change in maintenance-related energy consumption from the 2035
baseline condition (No Build Alternative).
BRT Alternative
Table 3.15.5 shows that the BRT Alternative would result in a maintenance-related energy
condition (No Build Alternative). Table 3.15.6 shows that for the region, the BRT Alternative would
not result in a measurable change in maintenance-related energy consumption from the 2035
baseline condition (No Build Alternative).
LRT Alternative
Table 3.15.5 shows that the LRT Alternative would result in a maintenance-related energy
condition (No Build Alternative). The LRT Alternative would require a maintenance yard for cleaning,
maintaining, and storing light rail vehicles (LRVs). The maintenance yard would include a car wash, a
paint shop, and other support facilities, and would also have enough storage tracks to accommodate
all of the LRVs required to operate the light rail line. The Caltrans handbook maintenance factors
used in this analysis include maintenance activities such as these.
Table 3.15.6 shows that for the region, the LRT Alternative would not result in a measurable change
in maintenance-related energy consumption from the 2035 baseline condition (No Build
Alternative).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-12
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.5:
Study Area Permanent Indirect Energy Impacts
Scenario
2013 Existing
1
Maintenance-Related Energy
Auto
Truck
% Change from
(billion BTUs)
(billion BTUs)
No Build
9,410
1,450
9,530
2,170
9,560
2,170
0.3%
9,550
2,180
0.3%
9,550
2,170
0.2%
9,590
9,620
9,590
2,200
2,150
2,200
0.8%
0.6%
0.8%
9,680
9,740
9,690
2,210
2,120
2,180
1.6%
1.4%
1.5%
TABLE 3.15.6:
Regional Permanent Indirect Energy Impacts
Scenario
2013 Existing
1
Maintenance-Related Energy
Auto
Truck
% Change from
(trillion BTUs)
(trillion BTUs)
No Build
151
28
174
53
174
53
0%
174
53
0%
174
53
0%
174
174
174
53
53
53
0%
0%
0%
174
174
174
53
53
53
0%
0%
0%
Table 3.15.5 shows that the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in a maintenance-related
energy consumption increase ranging from 0.6 to 1.6 percent in the study area compared to the
2035 baseline condition (No Build Alternative). This increase in vehicle maintenance costs go up
because there's more travel in the project (the freeway tunnel).Table 3.15.6 shows that for the
region, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in a measurable change in maintenancerelated energy consumption from the 2035 baseline condition (No Build Alternative).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-13
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
3.15.3.3
Permanent Direct Impacts
Local energy demand for transportation projects typically is dominated by vehicle fuel usage.
Operational energy consumption was estimated for vehicles (autos; light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
trucks; transit buses) and passenger rail traveling:
Within the study area, which is bounded by Interstate 210 (I-210) on the north, Interstate 605
(I-605) on the east, Interstate 10 (I-10) on the south, and Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 2
(SR 2) on the west; and
Within the six-county SCAG region.
Energy calculations are based on annual VMT for the 2013 base year and each of the year 2035
alternatives. In addition to VMT, travel conditions within the study area also influence fuel
consumption rates. Without the capacity improvements proposed in the Build Alternatives,
congested traffic conditions would be more prevalent throughout the study area and, to a lesser
extent, the region. These conditions contribute to a higher energy consumption rate because
vehicles use extra fuel while idling in stop-and-go traffic or moving at slow speeds through
congested roadways. Both VMT and travel speeds were used to estimate the vehicle fuel
consumption for each of the scenarios analyzed below.
For the energy consumption calculations, the fuel use percentages for each vehicle category were
used to determine total gasoline and diesel fuel usage rates. For the buses, it was assumed that the
transitway, express buses, and local buses would be 75 percent CNG fueled and 25 percent diesel,
while the Rapid Buses would all be CNG fueled. For the passenger rail, it was assumed that all highspeed and light rail would be electric and that all commuter rail would be diesel. CNG is marketed in
terms of diesel gallon equivalent (DGE), created to allow comparison of the cost and fuel economy
of a natural gas vehicle to a comparable diesel vehicle. Data from the United States Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, lists the average energy use by commuter
rail (diesel) engines as 92,474 BTUs per mile and by transit rail (electric) engines as 64,585 BTUs per
mile.
related to energy consumption associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives. Estimated
permanent direct energy consumption for the No Build Alternative (2035 baseline condition) is
provided in Tables 3.15.7 through 3.15.10.
Tables 3.15.7 and 3.15.8 report annual energy use for cars and trucks (millions of gallons), buses
(millions of DGE), and trains (millions of BTUs) for the study area and region, respectively. Tables
3.15.9 and 3.15.10 convert these measures of energy consumption into BTUs in order to provide a
uniform metric to represent energy consumption for the comparison of the project alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-14
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.7:
Study Area Energy Consumption Annual
Scenario
2013 Existing
2035 Freeway Tunnel Alternative Single-Bore Design Variations:
2035 Freeway Tunnel Alternative Dual-Bore Design Variations:
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DGE = diesel gallon equivalent = 140 standard cubic feet of natural gas
Annual Study Area Energy Consumption

Gasoline
Diesel
CNG
Train Energy
(millions of
(millions of
(millions of
(billions of
gallons)
gallons)
DGE)
BTUs)
292
27
2.9
255
301
37
2.9
347
302
36
3.3
347
302
36
3.2
347
302
37
3.3
431
299
299
299
36
35
36
3.2
3.2
3.3
347
347
347
301
303
302
37
35
36
3.2
3.2
3.2
347
347
347
TABLE 3.15.8:
Regional Energy Consumption Annual
Scenario
2013 Existing

CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DGE = diesel gallon equivalent = 140 standard cubic feet of natural gas
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-15
Annual Regional Energy Consumption

Gasoline
Diesel
CNG
Train Energy
(millions of
(millions of
(millions of
(billions of
gallons)
gallons)
DGE)
BTUs)
4,521
447
38.1
2,200
5,297
739
38.3
3,831
5,297
739
38.9
3,831
5,297
740
38.9
3,831
5,295
739
39.0
3,915
5,298
5,300
5,298
739
740
740
38.9
38.9
39.0
3,831
3,831
3,831
5,303
5,302
5,302
739
738
739
38.9
38.9
38.9
3,831
3,831
3,831
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.9:
Study Area Operational Energy Consumption Percent Change
Scenario
37,800
40,200
40,200
40,200
40,500
Annual
% Change from
2013 Existing
-6%
6%
6%
7%
% Change from
2035 Baseline
--0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
39,900
39,800
39,900
6%
5%
6%
-0.7%
-1.0%
-0.7%
40,200
40,200
40,200
6%
6%
6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
586,000
715,000
715,000
715,000
715,000
Annual
% Change from
2013 Existing
-22%
22%
22%
22%
% Change from
2035 Baseline
--0%
0%
0%
715,000
715,000
715,000
22%
22%
22%
0%
0%
0%
716,000
715,000
716,000
22%
22%
22%
0%
0%
0%
Billion BTUs
2013 Existing

1
Assumes an energy content of 130,500 BTUs per gallon of diesel fuel, 115,000 BTUs per gallon of gasoline, and 1,020 BTUs per cubic
foot of natural gas.
TABLE 3.15.10:
Regional Operational Energy Consumption Percent Change
Scenario
Billion BTUs
2013 Existing

1
Assumes an energy content of 130,500 BTUs per gallon of diesel fuel, 115,000 BTUs per gallon of gasoline, and 1,020 BTUs per cubic
foot of natural gas.
TSM/TDM Alternative
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the TSM/TDM Alternative would result in the same
approximately 6 percent increase in operational energy consumption from the 2013 existing
condition as the baseline (No Build) alternative. Table 3.15.10 shows that all the Build Alternatives
would result in the same approximately 22 percent increase in operational energy consumption in
the region.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-16
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
Similarly, Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the TSM/TDM Alternative would result in no
change in operational energy consumption compared to the 2035 baseline condition (No Build
Alternative). Table 3.15.10 shows that none of the project alternatives would result in a measurable
change in operational energy consumption in the region compared to the 2035 baseline condition
(No Build Alternative).
BRT Alternative
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the BRT Alternative would result in the same
approximately 6 percent increase in operational energy consumption from the 2013 existing
condition as the baseline (No Build) alternative. Table 3.15.10 shows that all the Build Alternatives
would result in the same approximately 22 percent increase in operational energy consumption in
the region.
For operational energy consumption, the BRT Alternative will include new bus stops. The structures
at these stops will only use light-emitting diode lighting, which would be only a very small amount of
energy used annually by this alternative per year.
Similarly, Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the BRT Alternative would result in no change in
operational energy consumption compare to the 2035 baseline condition (No Build Alternative).
Table 3.15.10 shows that none of the Build Alternatives would result in a measurable change in
operational energy consumption in the region compared to the 2035 baseline condition (No Build
Alternative).
LRT Alternative
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the LRT Alternative would result in an approximately
7 percent increase in operational energy consumption from the 2013 existing condition. Table
3.15.10 shows that all the Build Alternatives would result in the same 22 percent increase in
operational energy consumption in the region.
For operational energy consumption, the seven new LRT stations are estimated to have a daily
electrical demand of approximately 200 or 400 kilovolt-amperes (kVA) each for the elevated and
underground stations, respectively, for a total additional daily electrical demand of 2,200 kVA.
Southern California Edison would supply the electricity for these LRT stations. This demand
translates to approximately 0.11 billion BTUs per year for the LRT Alternative stations.
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the LRT Alternative would result in an approximately
0.7 percent increase in operational energy consumption from the 2035 baseline condition (No Build
Alternative). Table 3.15.10 shows that none of the project alternatives would result in a measurable
change in operational energy consumption in the region compared to the 2035 baseline condition
(No Build Alternative).
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative variations would result in
an approximately 5 to 6 percent increase in operational energy consumption from the 2013 existing
condition. Table 3.15.10 shows that all the Build Alternatives would result in the same 22 percent
increase in operational energy consumption in the region.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-17
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
For operational energy consumption, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would require approximately
48 MW for the daily operation of the tunnel(s). This demand translates to approximately 2.5 billion
BTUs per year.
Table 3.15.9 shows that in the study area, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design
variation would result in a decrease in operational energy consumption from the 2035 baseline
condition (No Build Alternative), ranging from approximately 0.7 to 1.0 percent. The dual-bore
design variation would result in no change in operational energy consumption from the 2035
baseline condition (No Build Alternative). Table 3.15.10 shows that none of the project alternatives
would result in a measurable change in operational energy consumption in the region compared to
the 2035 baseline condition (No Build Alternative).
Service Parameters
The difference between actual and potential transportation has been given careful consideration.
Potential service of a vehicle would be the maximum rated capacity for passengers or cargo, and
actual service is the real number it carries. The implications of this concept are vital in comparisons
between different transportation modes. For example, a commuter bus may be filled to capacity in
one direction while taking people to work or shopping, but may return nearly empty to complete
the loop of its route. It has the potential to carry a full passenger load on the return trip, but it is
unlikely that the return trips will carry the same volume of passengers carried in the other direction.
Thus, although it consumes fuel for the complete loop, it actually provides transportation for fewer
than the maximum rates of passenger-miles. The same holds true for a delivery truck that leaves a
warehouse full and returns empty. The ratio of actual service rendered versus potential service is
called the load factor and must be used in connection with an energy analysis.
Load factors also apply to private vehicles. For example, a passenger car rated for six seats and
carrying only the driver has a load factor of 1/6th, whereas motorcycles, which are usually
considered to be single-seaters in spite of their extra-long seat and foot pegs for a passenger, may
actually be given a load factor of 2 when a passenger is carried.
The purpose of the proposed project is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and local
north-south travel demands in the study area. Making this accommodation would not alter the ratio
of the actual transportation service versus the potential transportation service within the project
region; thus, the proposed project would have no effect on service parameters.
3.15.3.4
Total Energy Impacts
The combination of the direct and indirect energy impacts is summarized in Tables 3.15.11 and
3.15.12. An important criterion in any energy impact analysis is whether, or when, the energy
savings a project would achieve would offset the energy cost to construct the project. If the energy
savings would offset the energy costs, the project would have a payback period defined as the
period of time taken to do so. As shown in Table 3.15.11, the estimated energy needed to construct
the various Build Alternatives would range from approximately 17 trillion to 926 trillion BTUs. As is
also shown in Table 3.15.11, there are very small or no direct or indirect energy savings associated
with any of the Build Alternatives compared to the baseline (No Build) alternative, so the payback
period for any of the Build Alternatives is not quantifiable.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-18
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
TABLE 3.15.11:
Study Area Energy Consumption Summary
Scenario
2013 Existing
2035 Single-Bore with Toll without
Trucks
2035 Single-Bore with Toll (with and
without Express Bus)
2035 Dual-Bore without Toll without
Trucks
2035 Dual-Bore with Toll (with and
Nonconstruction Energy
Construction
Total Energy % Change % Change
Energy
Direct Energy
from
(Billion
from No
Indirect Energy
(Billion
(Billion
Existing
BTUs/yr)
Build
(Billion BTUs/yr)
BTUs/yr)
BTUs/yr)
37,800
12,500
-50,300
--40,200
13,000
16,700
69,900
40%
-40,200
13,000
33,600
86,800
70%
20%
40,200
13,000
55,300
108,500
120%
55%
40,500
13,000
422,000
475,400
850%
580%
39,900
39,800
13,100
13,100
523,000
523,000
576,000
575,900
1,050%
1,040%
720%
720%
39,900
13,100
523,000
576,000
1,050%
720%
40,200
40,200
13,200
13,200
926,000
926,000
979,400
979,400
1,850%
1,850%
1,300%
1,300%
40,200
13,200
926,000
979,400
1,850%
1,300%

1
A payback period of fewer than 5 years is considered an excellent investment, while a payback period of greater than 20 years will generally
be beyond the foreseeable future of the project (Caltrans 1983).
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
Billion BTUs/yr = billion British thermal units per year
TABLE 3.15.12:
Regional Energy Consumption Summary
Scenario
2013 Existing
2035 Freeway Tunnel Alternative:
2035 Single-Bore with Toll without
Trucks
2035 Single-Bore with Toll (with and
without Trucks
2035 Dual-Bore with Toll (with and
Nonconstruction Energy
Construction
Total Energy % Change % Change
Energy
Direct Energy Indirect Energy
from No
from
(Trillion
(Trillion
(Trillion
(Trillion
Build
Existing
BTUs/yr)
BTUs/yr)
BTUs/yr)
BTUs/yr)
586
202
-788
--715
244
84,400
85,400
10,740%
-715
244
84,400
85,400
10,740%
0%
715
244
84,500
85,500
10,750%
0.12%
715
244
84,800
85,800
10,790%
0.47%
715
715
244
244
84,900
84,900
85,900
85,900
10,800%
10,800%
0.59%
0.59%
715
244
84,900
85,900
10,800%
0.59%
716
715
244
244
85,300
85,300
86,300
86,300
10,850%
10,850%
1.1%
1.1%
716
244
85,300
86,300
10,850%
1.1%

1
A payback period of fewer than 5 years is considered an excellent investment, while a payback period of greater than 20 years will generally
be beyond the foreseeable future of the project (Caltrans 1983).
Trillion BTUs/yr = trillion British thermal units per year
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-19
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
As shown in Table 3.15.11 for the study area, the temporary indirect energy impacts of constructing
the Build Alternatives would be substantial. However, as shown in Table 3.15.12 for the region, none
of the Build Alternatives would consume substantially more energy than the No Build Alternative.
Thus, while none of the Build Alternatives would have a quantifiable payback period from energy
savings, the project impact to regional energy supplies would be minor. Because the regional energy
impacts from any of the Build Alternatives would be small, the three energy utilities (LADWP,
Pasadena Water and Power Utility, and Southern California Edison) would not be impacted by the
maintenance or operation energy demands of any of the proposed Build Alternatives. Thus, for the
region, none of the three analysis elements, direct and indirect energy consumption and service
parameters, would be substantially impacted by any of the Build Alternatives.
Additionally, while the vehicle mix operating on the project study area roadways is showing
increasing numbers of passenger car EVs and AFVs, these vehicles use similar amounts of energy as
gasoline-powered vehicles per mile. Therefore, this transition will not result in a large change to the
energy use results shown in Tables 3.15.11 and 3.15.12.
3.15.3.5
Consistency with Energy Conservation Plans
In 2003, the CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Consumer Power and
Conservation Financing Authority (now defunct) approved the final State of California Energy Action
Plan, which was proposed by a subcommittee of these three agencies. The Plan established shared
goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power
and natural gas supplies are achieved and provided through policies, strategies, and actions that are
cost-effective and environmentally sound for Californias consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, an
updated Energy Action Plan was adopted by the CEC and the CPUC to reflect policy changes and
actions after 2003.
The States energy policies have been substantially influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill
(AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The CECs Integrated Energy Policy
Report (IEPR) advances policies that would enable the State to meet its energy needs in a carbonconstrained world. That report also provides a comprehensive set of recommended actions to
achieve these policies.
Rather than produce a new Energy Action Plan, the CEC and the CPUC have instead prepared the
Energy Action Plan 2008 Update, which examines the States ongoing actions in the context of
global climate change. The update was prepared using the information and analysis prepared for the
2007 IEPR as well as recent CPUC decisions.
As described in Sections 3.15.3.2 and 3.15.3.3, Permanent Indirect Impacts and Permanent Direct
Impacts, while the temporary indirect energy impacts of the Build Alternatives would be substantial,
the total indirect energy impacts would not be substantial at the regional level, and the total project
impact to regional energy supplies would be minor. Therefore, none of the Build Alternatives would
conflict with the California energy conservation plans.
3.15.4
No avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required for maintenance or operation of

any of the Build Alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-20
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
The following measures would minimize energy use during construction of any of the Build
Alternatives:
Measure E-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Construction Efficiency Plan (applies to all four Build Alternatives):

As part of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase, the Project
Engineer will prepare a construction efficiency plan, which may
include the following:
Reusing existing rail, steel, and lumber wherever possible, such

as for falsework, shoring, and other applications during the
construction process.
Recycling of asphalt taken up from roadways, if practicable and

cost-effective.
Using newer, more energy-efficient equipment where feasible

and maintenance of older construction equipment to keep it in
good working order.
Promoting scheduling of construction operations to efficiently

use construction equipment (e.g., only haul waste when haul
trucks are full and combine smaller dozer operations into a
single comprehensive operation where possible).
Promoting construction employee carpooling.
3.15-21
DRAFT

3.15 ENERGY
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.15-22
DRAFT

3.16 NATURAL COMMUNITIES
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.16 Natural Communities
3.16.1
Regulatory Setting
This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is
on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes
information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat
used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for
dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value.
Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species
Act are discussed below in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section 3.20. Wetlands and
other waters are also discussed below in Section 3.17.
3.16.2
3.16.2.1
Biological Study Area
3.16.2.2
Plant Communities
The analysis of impacts of the State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study on natural communities is based
on the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014).
The Biological Study Area (BSA) for the proposed project is inclusive of, and substantially larger than,
the area in which direct impacts to biological resources may occur as a result of construction and
operation of the Build Alternatives. The BSA was defined to include an approximately 200-foot (ft)
buffer around the limits of disturbance for each Build Alternative, including anticipated staging and
equipment storage areas. The BSA, at approximately 3,410 acres (ac), is much larger than the area
where ground-disturbing permanent and temporary impacts may occur (approximately 570 ac for all
of the Build Alternatives combined). In some cases, the edge of the BSA is approximately 0.5 mile
(mi) from the nearest temporary or permanent impact areas. The BSA is entirely within Los Angeles
County and includes parts of the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, San
Gabriel, Rosemead, San Marino, and Monterey Park, as well as unincorporated parts of Los Angeles
County. Figure 3.16-1 shows the location of the BSA. (Please note that the figures cited in this
section are provided following the last page of text in this section.)
In 2013, general reconnaissance surveys, protected tree surveys, and plant community mapping of
the area in the BSA were conducted. The 11 plant communities and one non-vegetation cover type
that were identified in the BSA are discussed in further detail below and are shown on Figure 3.16-2.
The plant communities and cover types were classified using A Manual of California Vegetation
(Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens, 2009).The acreages of the plant communities and cover types in
the BSA are summarized in Table 3.16.1.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-1
DRAFT

TABLE 3.16.1:
Acreages of Plant Communities and Cover Types in the BSA
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Nonnative Woodland
Nonnative Grassland
Nonnative Riparian Woodland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Semi-Natural Stand
White Alder Groves
Black Cottonwood Forest
Arroyo Willow Thickets
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Coast Live Oak Woodland
1
Streams
Total
Acres
3,223.2
79.7
85.8
0.5
1.5
0.2
1.0
0.8
2.3
5.0
5.9
4.4
3,410
Source: Natural Environment Study (2014).

1
Streams is a non-vegetation cover type. The area for this cover type has been
calculated in a way to ensure zero overlap with vegetation cover types.
BSA = Biological Study Area
In general, very little natural vegetation remains in the area. The majority of vegetation in the BSA
occurs as planted trees along sidewalks as well as ruderal and ornamental vegetation and trees
planted along the edges of freeways and within freeway medians. As shown in Table 3.16.1, most
common plant community/land cover type in the BSA is disturbed/developed, which, at 3,223.2 ac,
represents 95 percent of the area in the BSA. Additional plant communities in the BSA are nonnative
woodland, nonnative grassland, nonnative riparian woodland, wetland complex, giant reed seminatural stand, white alder groves, black cottonwood forest, arroyo willow thickets, laurel sumac
scrub, and coast live oak woodland. The white alder groves, black cottonwood forest, and arroyo
willow thickets are all riparian communities and are collectively referred to as riparian nonwetland
habitat throughout the section.
Disturbed/Developed
The disturbed/developed cover type includes all areas of existing urbanization in the BSA (e.g.,
buildings, residences, yards, gardens, ornamental landscaping, and road surfaces) and covers
approximately 3,223.2 ac. These cover types have very low potential for rare or native plant
occurrence. Even naturalized weedy pests are in low diversity under this cover type. This cover type
also includes concrete-lined channels that provide little opportunity for plant establishment. Aquatic
and moderately moist vegetation were present in these channels, but vegetation development was
not complex enough to qualify for any alliance-level classification.
Nonnative Woodland
Nonnative woodland is a generalized cover type that includes several semi-natural vegetation
communities that cover approximately 79.7 ac in the BSA. Vegetation communities in this cover type
in the BSA consist of Eucalyptus (E. globulus, E. camaldulensis) semi-natural woodland stands
(eucalyptus groves), Schinus (S. molle, S. terebinthifolius)Myoporum laetum semi-natural woodland
stands (pepper tree or Myoporum groves), and stands without formal alliance status, dominated by
any of the following: Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon), Aleppo pine
(Pinus halepensis), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta),
and rosewood (Tipuana tipu).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-2
DRAFT

The nonnative woodland cover type is generally less maintained than the disturbed/developed
cover type and has a higher diversity of plant species, although native plant diversity is still low.
Native trees were often intermixed in these stands, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and
velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina). An understory shrub layer was typically present, indicating a low level
of maintenance. This cover type was predominantly found along the margins of existing freeways in
the BSA.
Nonnative Grassland
Nonnative grassland is a generalized cover type that includes several semi-natural vegetation
communities. The nonnative grassland cover type covers approximately 85.8 ac in the BSA.
Vegetation communities in this cover type in the BSA consist of Bromus (B. diandrus, B.
hordeaceus)Brachypodium distachyon semi-natural stands (annual brome grassland), Lolium
perenne semi-natural stands (perennial rye grassfields), Avena (A. barbata, A. fatua) semi-natural
stands (wild oats grasslands), Brassica (B. nigra) and other mustards semi-natural stands (upland
mustards), and Centaurea (C. solstitialis, C. melitensis) semi-natural stands (yellow starthistle fields).
The nonnative grassland cover type is generally less maintained than the disturbed/developed cover
type, although broad areas of it are generally found to be mowed late in the season for fire
abatement. Naturalized species are in relative abundance in nonnative grassland fields, and native
plants are often intermixed in small numbers. This cover type was predominantly found along the
margins of existing freeways in the BSA. Rare plants can be present in this cover type; however, the
landscape in the BSA is highly modified (e.g., along the banks of freeways), and the native soil and
associated seed bank required for the presence of rare plants are likely absent.
Nonnative Riparian Woodland
Nonnative riparian woodland is a generalized cover type representing areas dominated by trees that
occur in the riparian zone. Riparian habitats typically have higher biological productivity than
nonriparian habitats and often have high habitat value for plants and wildlife. No recognized seminatural communities occur in this cover type in the BSA. In the BSA, this cover type is dominated by
an overstory of Mexican fan palm and is not regularly maintained. This cover type covers
approximately 0.5 ac and occurs streamside in the south end of the BSA, along the Laguna Channel.
Rare plants can be present in this cover type; however, the landscape in the BSA is highly modified,
and the native soil and associated seed bank of rare plants are likely absent.
Wetland Complex
Wetland complex is a generalized cover type that includes several vegetation communities
associated with wetland and riparian areas. The wetland complex cover type covers 1.5 ac in the
BSA. As a riparian habitat, it typically has higher biological productivity than nonriparian habitats and
high habitat value for plants and wildlife. Vegetation communities under this cover type in the BSA
include Typha species (T. angustifolia, T. domingensis, T. latifolia), herbaceous alliances (cattail
marshes), Lolium perenne semi-natural herbaceous stands (perennial rye grass fields), Distichlis
spicata herbaceous alliance (salt grass flats), arroyo willow thickets, giant reed semi-natural
herbaceous stands, and Echinochloa undetermined semi-natural stands (barnyard grass marshes).
The vegetation communities in the wetland complex cover type are usually associated with periodic
flooding and are found in low-lying areas such as swales, ditches, and along low-gradient streams
and channels. Both the landscape features and the presence of water can be either naturally
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-3
DRAFT

occurring or the result of human activities. This cover type occurs in the BSA at an isolated
manmade wetland (1.09 ac) associated with the Del Mar Pump Station and abutting the Laguna
Channel (0.44 ac) at its southernmost location in the BSA. Vegetation communities at the Del Mar
Pump Station include cattail marshes, perennial rye grass fields, salt grass flats, arroyo willow
thickets, and barnyard grass marshes. Vegetation communities in the wetland at the Laguna
Channel include cattail marshes, arroyo willow thickets, giant reed breaks, and barnyard grass
marshes. The native-dominated vegetation communities at both sites (cattail marsh, salt grass flats,
and arroyo willow thicket) were all smaller than the minimum mapping unit of 0.1 ac and therefore
were pooled into the wetland complex cover type. Rare plants can be present in this cover type;
however, the landscape in the BSA is highly modified (e.g., along the banks of freeways), and the
native soil and associated seed bank required for the presence of rare plants are likely absent.
Giant Reed Semi-Natural Stands
Giant reed (Arundo donax) is a large and fast-growing member of the grass family that can reach
heights of 25 ft. This semi-natural vegetation community is characterized by at least 75 percent
cover of giant reed. In riparian settings, giant reed often grows in dense, virtually monotypic stands.
This cover type covers approximately 0.2 ac along the Laguna Channel in the southern end of the
BSA. Rare plants can be present in this cover type; however, few native species can compete
effectively with giant reed. In the BSA, the native soil and associated seed bank required for the
presence of rare plants are likely absent.
White Alder Groves
White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) is a deciduous hardwood tree that can grow to over 100 ft in height.
In California, white alder stands are a riparian plant community that generally occurs in the inland
foothills and lower montane zones as a narrow strip along river bottoms. Stands typically occur on
seasonally flooded stream banks, but they can also occur on floodplains or permanently saturated
seeps. Other co-dominant trees in the stands can include big leaf maple (Acer macrophylla), western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii).
An approximately 1 ac stand of white alder groves was identified in the BSA under a bridge where
State Route 134 (SR 134) crosses the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena. Although the majority of this
vegetation stand occurs underneath the wide SR 134 overpass, sunlight penetration appears to be
adequate to maintain this riparian system. The Arroyo Seco here is not channelized in concrete, and
a moderate riparian understory is present, including some of the following species: California rose
(Rosa californica), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). There is also
a large component of nonnative species here that degrades habitat quality, including eupatory
(Ageratina adenophora), cape ivy (Delairea odorata), veldtgrass (Ehrharta erecta), and smilo grass
(Stipa miliacea).
Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) is one of two species of cottonwood that commonly occur
in riparian areas in Southern California. It is a fast-growing tree that can grow to over 150 ft in
height. In California, black cottonwood forest is generally found in montane elevations or outer
coastal regions but is replaced by Fremont cottonwood forests in hotter and drier climates. Like
white alder groves, this is a riparian plant community. Other riparian trees that can be associated
with this plant community can include Fremont cottonwood, willows (Salix sp.), and western
sycamore.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-4
DRAFT

Approximately 0.8 ac of black cottonwood forest was mapped in the BSA north of where SR 134
crosses the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena. This plant community abuts and intergrades with the white
alder grove to the south. The river here is not channelized in concrete, and other riparian vegetation
is present, including arroyo willow and white alder.
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Arroyo willow is a tall riparian shrub or tree that can grow to approximately 25 ft in height. In
California, arroyo willow thickets occur in seasonally or intermittently flooded locations, which
include riparian areas. This plant community can be dominated by arroyo willow growing as trees or
shrubs. Other riparian trees that can be associated with this plant community can include black
cottonwood and western sycamore.
Approximately 2.3 ac of arroyo willow thicket were mapped in riparian areas in the BSA. The
vegetation appeared to have been planted as part of the Arroyo Seco habitat restoration area and is
relatively young. A diversity of other plants were detected within this area, including Southern
California black walnut (Juglans californica), white alder, narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua), coast
live oak, rose (Rosa spp.), and western sycamore. Understory was sparse in some areas as a result of
trail maintenance and foot traffic, and was mostly dominated by nonnative plants. The only stands
of arroyo willow thickets in the BSA occurred south of where SR 134 crosses the Arroyo Seco. A
manmade dam helps maintain the community north of the Colorado Street Bridge, and the
community continues through the area where water has been diverted.
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) is a large evergreen shrub that can grow to approximately 15 ft in
height. In California, laurel sumac scrub is generally found on temperate slopes near the coast, and
its extent is largely limited by its frost sensitivity. This species is often found to grow in steep slopes
with shallow soils among California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California brittlebush (Encelia
californica), California buckwheat, and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), among others.
Approximately 5 ac of laurel sumac scrub were mapped in the BSA. California buckwheat was found
to dominate the interspaces among the large shrubbery, and the prevalence of California sagebrush,
toyon, and California brittlebush was relatively low. The stands of laurel sumac scrub in the BSA
were found on a steep slope west of the SR 134/Interstate 210 (I-210) interchange in Pasadena,
both north and south of the Colorado Street Bridge.
Coast live oak is a drought-tolerant evergreen tree that can grow over 50 ft in height. In California,
stands of coast live oak woodland occur in a range of settings, from upland savannas to bottomlands
and riparian forests. The plant association for this plant community in the BSA is the Quercus
agrifolia/chaparral community, which is dominated by chaparral shrub species in the understory of
coast live oak. Shrub and herbaceous layers are sparse to intermittent, and chaparral species for this
association include species that are more evergreen than typical coastal sage scrub species.
Chaparral species can include California buckwheat, toyon, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), and
sugarbush (Rhus ovata).
Approximately 5.9 ac of coast live oak woodland were mapped in the BSA. Stands were present in
the BSA where SR 134 crosses the Arroyo Seco. This community typically dominated areas between
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-5
DRAFT

the riparian plant communities and more upland areas such as nonnative grasslands and laurel
sumac scrub.
Streams
The streams cover type is a generalized non-vegetation cover type that includes flowing streams
present within the BSA. This cover type includes water channels that are concrete-lined and provide
little opportunity for plant establishment. Aquatic and mesic vegetation were present in these
channels, but vegetation development was not complex enough to qualify for any alliance-level
classification. This cover type also included earthen bottom streams.
The streams cover type comprises 4.4 ac of the BSA and consists of the Arroyo Seco and the Laguna
Channel. The Arroyo Seco is an 80 ft wide, usually shallow stream with an earthen bottom that
drains into the Los Angeles River and then into the Pacific Ocean. The Laguna Channel, which is also
a tributary of the Los Angeles River, is mostly channelized in a concrete-lined box channel in the
BSA. The only earthen bottom portion is associated with an abutting wetland.
3.16.2.3
Sensitive and Natural Communities of Special Concern
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) designates certain natural communities as
being of special concern based on a State rarity ranking of S1 (the rarest), S2, or S3. Based on the
CDFW designations, black cottonwood forest is the only natural community of special concern in the
BSA, with a State ranking of S3. Riparian communities and habitats may be regulated by CDFW and
would be addressed during State regulatory permitting under Fish and Game Code Section 2081
(California Endangered Species Act [CESA] permitting) or under Fish and Game Code Section 1600
for Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) permitting if CDFW determines jurisdiction
over the resource.
Additional natural communities and habitats are considered sensitive based on other criteria and
merit consideration when evaluating the potential impacts of projects on the environment as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The BSA contains small areas (less than
6 ac) of three other sensitive natural communities: coast live oak woodland, riparian wetland and
nonwetland habitats (white alder groves and arroyo willow thickets), and black cottonwood forest.
The only other identified area of natural vegetation included small areas of laurel sumac scrub.
3.16.2.4
Migration Corridors
There are no known migration corridors or wildlife linkages in the BSA; however, the area likely
serves as a stopover site during bird migration. Trees and other vegetation in the BSA provide
potential foraging and roosting sites for migrating birds, as do the trees and vegetation in the
surrounding area. For example, some birds observed during focused avian surveys (e.g., California
gull [Larus californicus], Townsends warbler [Setophaga townsendii], Vauxs swift [Chaetura vauxi],
and Wilsons warbler [Cardinella pusilla]) were presumed to be using the project area during
migration because the BSA does not overlap with their breeding grounds.
Historically, the Los Angeles River Watershed served as habitat for the federally endangered
steelhead salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss). However, due to the dramatic population decline of this
species, as well as river modifications such as channelization and alterations associated with flood
control and metropolitan development, it is very unlikely that the species is present in the BSA.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-6
DRAFT

3.16.2.5
Significant Ecological Areas
3.16.2.6
Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan in

BSA
There are no designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) in the BSA. SEAs are identified as
ecologically important land and water systems designated by the County of Los Angeles. The nearest
SEAs are: the Puente Hills (approximately 2.5 mi to the east), Griffith Park (approximately 6 mi to the
west), the Verdugo Mountains (approximately 4.3 mi to the northwest), the Altadena Foothills and
Arroyos Proposed SEA (approximately 1.3 mi to the north), and the San Gabriel Canyon
(approximately 8 mi to the northeast).
The BSA and study area are within areas that are largely developed. There is no Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), or any other approved local, regional, or
State HCP located within or adjacent to the BSA.
3.16.3
3.16.3.1
Temporary Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction of any improvements in the SR 710 North
Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any impacts related
to natural communities associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
As shown in Table 3.16.2, the Build Alternatives would not result in direct or indirect temporary
impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern (specifically, no impacts
on riparian nonwetland, coast live oak woodland, laurel sumac scrub, and wetland complex).
However, the Build Alternatives would result in temporary impacts on three nonsensitive plant
communities (nonnative grassland, nonnative woodland, and disturbed/developed) as shown in
Table 3.16.2 and discussed below.
TABLE 3.16.2:
Temporary Impacts to Plant Communities and Cover Types by Build Alternative
Plant Communities within
the BSA
Riparian Nonwetland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
Nonnative Grassland
Nonnative Woodland
Disturbed/Developed
Total
Impacts by Build Alternative (acres)

Freeway Tunnel
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Single-Bore
Dual-Bore
Design Variation
Design Variation
Natural Plant Communities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Plant Communities
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
2.1
2.9
2.2
0
0
8.0
<0.1
1.1
0.5
0.6
29.7
53.4
51.7
0.8
0.6
39.8
56.4
55.0

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-7
DRAFT

TSM/TDM Alternative
There are no sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern within the limit
of disturbance of the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand
Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative. Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in
any temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern in
the BSA as shown in Table 3.16.2. The TSM/TDM Alternative would result in temporary impacts
to nonsensitive nonnative grassland (0.3 ac) and disturbed/developed (0.5 ac) communities as
shown in Table 3.16.2. Temporary indirect impacts of the TSM/TDM Alternative to nonnative
grassland and disturbed/developed communities would include construction noise, dust,
lighting, litter, and vibration as well as personnel and vehicles traveling to and from the project
area.
BRT Alternative
There are no sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern within the limit
of disturbance of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. Therefore, the BRT Alternative would
not result in any temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of
concern in the BSA as shown in Table 3.16.2. When combined with the TSM/TDM Alternative,
the BRT Alternative does not temporarily affect any sensitive natural communities. The BRT
Alternative would result in 0.6 ac of temporary impacts to nonsensitive disturbed/developed
communities as well as the 0.8 ac of total temporary impacts from the TSM/TDM Alternative on
plant communities as shown in Table 3.16.1. Temporary indirect impacts of the BRT Alternative
to nonnative grassland and disturbed/developed communities would include construction noise,
dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel and vehicles traveling to and from the
project area.
LRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.16.2, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative would not result in any direct
temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern. The LRT
Alternative would result in temporary impacts to nonsensitive plant communities as discussed
below. When combined with the TSM/TDM Alternative, the LRT Alternative does not result in
direct temporary effects to any sensitive natural communities or natural communities of
concern.
The LRT Alternative is approximately 180 ft away from the southern riparian habitat north of
Floral Drive and adjacent to I-710, which consists of wetland complex and arroyo willow thicket.
Construction of the LRT Alternative could potentially result in indirect temporary impacts to this
habitat that could include construction noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as
personnel and vehicles traveling to and from the project area. No other temporary impacts to
natural communities would occur as a result of the construction of the LRT Alternative. When
combined with the TSM/TDM Alternative, the LRT Alternative does not result in any greater
temporary indirect effect on sensitive natural communities than identified for the LRT
Alternative. The LRT Alternative would result in temporary impacts to 2.1 ac of nonnative
grassland, 8.0 ac of nonnative woodland, and 29.7 ac of disturbed/developed communities, all
nonsensitive plant communities, as well as 0.8 ac of total temporary impacts from the TSM/TDM
Alternative on plant communities as shown in Table 3.16.1. Temporary indirect impacts of the
LRT Alternative to nonnative woodland, nonnative grassland, and disturbed/developed
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-8
DRAFT

communities would include construction noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as
personnel and vehicles traveling to and from the project area.
The conceptual design of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative was refined to avoid and/or minimize
impacts to riparian habitats, including the northernmost section of the Laguna Channel, near the
tunnel portal. As shown in Table 3.16.2, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in any
direct temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in temporary impacts to nonsensitive plant
communities as discussed below. When combined with the TSM/TDM Alternative, the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative does not result in direct temporary effects to any sensitive natural
communities.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation would result in temporary impacts
to 2.9 ac of nonnative grassland, less than 0.1 ac of nonnative woodland, and 53.4 ac of
disturbed/developed communities, all of which are nonsensitive plant communities. The
Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation would result in temporary impacts to 2.2
ac of nonnative grassland, 1.1 ac of nonnative woodland and 51.7 ac of disturbed/developed
communities. In addition, the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would result in 0.8 ac of total temporary impacts from the TSM/TDM Alternative on
plant communities as shown in Table 3.16.1. Temporary indirect impacts of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative to nonnative woodland, nonnative grassland and disturbed/developed communities
would include construction noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel and
vehicles traveling to and from the project area.
Construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative could potentially result in indirect temporary
impacts to riparian habitats consisting of white alder groves, black cottonwood forest, and
arroyo willow thicket located underneath SR 134. Temporary indirect impacts may include
construction noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel and vehicles traveling
to and from the project area. However, the riparian habitats in the BSA are not considered to be
of high quality due to the presence of invasive species, high human disturbance (foot traffic,
litter, etc.), and minimal signs of reproduction (few saplings, seedlings, etc.), which is typical in
an urban environment. No other temporary impacts to natural communities are anticipated as a
result of the construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. When combined with the
TSM/TDM Alternative, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative does not result in any greater temporary
indirect effect on natural communities than identified for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
3.16.3.2
Permanent Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the operation any of the improvements in the SR 710
related to natural communities associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
The potential effects of the Build Alternatives to plant and cover type communities are shown in
Table 3.16.3 and are discussed in the following sections.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-9
DRAFT

TABLE 3.16.3:
Permanent Impacts to Plant Community and Cover Types by Build Alternative
Plant Communities
within the BSA
Riparian Nonwetland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
Nonnative Grassland
Nonnative Woodland
Disturbed/Developed
Total
Permanent Impacts by Build Alternative (acres)

Freeway Tunnel
Single-Bore
Dual-Bore
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Design
Design
Variation
Variation
Natural Communities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.09
1.09
Other Plant Communities
0.6
1.9
12.6
25.2
25.2
<0.1
0
3.9
31.6
32.4
0.7
123.8
93.6
244.9
244.9
1.4
126.0
110.0
303.0
304.0

TSM/TDM Alternative
As shown in Table 3.16.3, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts
to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern but would result in
permanent impacts to 0.6 ac of nonnative grassland, less than 0.1 ac of nonnative woodland,
and 0.7 ac of disturbed/developed communities, all of which are nonsensitive plant
communities. Permanent direct impacts of the TSM/TDM Alternative on these communities
would include loss of habitat. Permanent indirect impacts of the TSM/TDM Alternative on these
communities would include increased noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as
increased foot and vehicular traffic after construction.
BRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.16.3, the BRT Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts to
sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern. When combined with the
TSM/TDM Alternative, the BRT Alternative does not result in any permanent effect on sensitive
natural communities. The BRT Alternative would result in permanent impacts to 1.9 ac of
nonnative grassland and 123.8 ac of disturbed/developed communities; both of which are
nonsensitive plant communities. The BRT Alternative would also result in the permanent
impacts from the TSM/TDM Alternative on 0.6 ac of nonnative grassland, less than 0.1 ac of
nonnative woodland, and 0.7 ac of disturbed/developed communities. Permanent direct
impacts of the BRT Alternative on these communities would include loss of habitat. Permanent
indirect impacts of the BRT Alternative on these communities would include increased noise,
dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as increased foot and vehicular traffic after
construction.
LRT Alternative
As shown in Table 3.16.3, the LRT Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts to
sensitive natural communities or natural communities of concern. When combined with the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-10
DRAFT

TSM/TDM Alternative, the LRT Alternative does not result in any permanent effect on sensitive
natural communities. The LRT Alternative would result in permanent impacts on 12.6 ac of
nonnative grassland, 3.9 ac of nonnative woodland, and 93.6 ac of disturbed/developed
communities, all of which are nonsensitive plant communities. The LRT Alternative would also
result in the permanent impacts from the TSM/TDM Alternative on 0.6 ac of nonnative
grassland, less than 0.1 ac of nonnative woodland, and 0.7 ac of disturbed/developed
communities. Permanent direct impacts of the LRT Alternative on these communities would
include loss of habitat. Permanent indirect impacts of the LRT Alternative on these communities
would include increased noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as increased foot and
vehicular traffic after construction.
As shown in Table 3.16.3, the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would each result in permanent impacts to approximately 1.09 ac of disturbed, lowquality, sensitive, natural wetland complex vegetation due to the removal and disturbance of
vegetation at the Del Mar Pump Station. The riparian nonwetland habitats and riparian wetland
habitats in this part of the BSA are not considered to be of high quality due to the presence of
invasive species, high human disturbance (foot traffic, litter, etc.), and minimal signs of
reproduction (few saplings, seedlings, etc.), which is typical in an urban environment.
No other permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities or natural communities of
concern are anticipated under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. When combined with the
TSM/TDM Alternative, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative does not result in any greater permanent
effect on natural communities than previously identified for the Freeway Alternative.
The single-bore and dual-bore design variations would each result in permanent impacts to
25.2 ac of nonnative grassland and 244.9 ac of disturbed/developed communities, and would
result in permanent impact s to 31.6 ac and 32.4 ac of nonnative woodland, respectively. These
three plant communities are not considered sensitive communities. Permanent direct impacts of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on these communities would include loss of habitat. Permanent
indirect impacts of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on these communities would include
increased noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration as well as increased foot and vehicular traffic
after construction.
3.16.4
The following measures would avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for temporary and/or
permanent impacts to natural communities, including riparian habitats (riparian wetland,
nonriparian wetland, white alder groves, black cottonwood forest, arroyo willow thickets) and the
wetland complex in the BSA.
Measure NC-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Riparian/Riverine Habitat Protection (applies to the Freeway

Tunnel Alternative): Prior to any construction or ground-disturbing
activities, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
will require the Construction Contractor to place a highly visible
barrier such as Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing or
other marker around any riparian or riverine habitats to be
preserved. No grading or fill activities will be authorized within the
marked areas. No structures of any kind, or incidental storage of
3.16-11
DRAFT

equipment or supplies, will be allowed within the marked areas. Silt

fence barriers will be installed along the ESA boundary to prevent
inadvertent deposition of fill in the ESAs.
Measure NC-2
Construction Plan (applies to the Freeway Tunnel Alternative):

Caltrans will require the Construction Contractor to identify
designated areas in developed or nonsensitive upland habitat areas
on the construction plans for equipment maintenance, staging,
fueling, and other related activities. Those areas will be selected
such that spills and runoff would not enter riparian or riverine
habitats or any fenced ESAs.
Measure NC-3
Compliance Monitoring (applies to the Freeway Tunnel

Alternative): Caltrans will require the Construction Contractor to
have a qualified biologist monitor on site during construction in the
vicinity of riparian and riverine areas consistent with the Section
404 permit (refer to Measure WET-1) or Streambed Alteration
Agreement (refer to Measure WET-2) issued for the project to
ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures are properly
applied and followed.
In addition to the measures described above for natural communities, the following measures would
also protect natural communities:
Measure WQ-1 in Section 3.9, Water Quality
Measures WET-1, WET-2, and WET-3 in Section 3.17.4, Wetlands and Other Waters
Measure IS-1 in Section 3.21, Invasive Species
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-12
DRAFT
Pasadena
Mount Wilson
Los Angeles
El Monte
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.16-1
7.5-minute Index
N
0
0.25 0.5
1.5
Miles
SOURCE:ESRI LSA (8/2013); Sapphos Environmental (9/2013)

I:\CHM1105\G\NES-JD\Biological Study Area.cdr (10/28/14)
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-14
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
N
0
Biological Study Areas
400
800
1600
Feet
SOURCE: Bing Maps(circa 2008); CH2MHill (5/2013); AECOM (4/2013)

I:\CHM1105\G\NES-JD\Plant Communities.cdr (10/28/14)
60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
710
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Non-Native Riparian Woodland
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
Non-Native Grassland
White Alder Groves
Sheet 1 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-16
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
710
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 2 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-18
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
710
60
Habitat Assessment Site 2

for Special-Status Riparian Birds
(Arroyo Willow Thicket, Black Cottonwood
Forest, White Alder Grove Communities)
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 3 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-20
DRAFT

(Arroyo Willow Thicket, Black Cottonwood
Forest, White Alder Grove Communities)
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

710
60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 4 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-22
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

710
60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 5 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-24
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10
101
10
60
710
60
Burrowing Owl Habitat

Assessment Area

Assessment Area
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 6 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-26
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10

Assessment Area
710
101
10
60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

60
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 7 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-28
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110

Assessment Area
10
101
10
60
710
60

FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 8 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-30
DRAFT
Index
159
210
134
710
110
10

101
10
60
N
0
400
800
1600
Feet

710
60
FIGURE 3.16-2
LEGEND
Stream
Plant Communities
Disturbed/Developed
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Native Woodland
Laurel Sumac Scrub
Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
Sheet 9 of 9
SR 710 North Study
Plant Communities
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.16-32
DRAFT

3.17 WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS
3.17 Wetlands and Other Waters

3.17.1
Regulatory Setting
Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal
level, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 1344), is the primary law regulating wetlands and surface
waters. One purpose of the CWA is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the U.S., including wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include navigable waters, interstate waters,
territorial seas and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify
wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the
presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils formed
during saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances,
for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the CWA.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of dredged or
fill material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the
aquatic environment or if the nations waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 404
permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with oversight by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Standard permits. There are two types of
General permits: Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a
general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental
effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more
than minimal effects.
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under
one of USACEs Standard permits. There are two types of Standard permits: Individual permits and
Letters of Permission. For Standard permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance
with U.S. EPAs Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part
230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines
(Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge
of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable
alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not
issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA) to the
proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters of the U.S., and not have any other
significant adverse environmental consequences.
The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates the activities of
federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, EO 11990 states that a federal agency, such as
FHWA and/or Caltrans, as assigned, cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction
located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: 1) that there is no practicable alternative to
the construction and 2) the proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm.
At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In certain circumstances, the Coastal Commission (or Bay Conservation
and Development Commission or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) may also be involved.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-1
DRAFT

Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project
that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank
of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that
the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed
Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of
the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands
under jurisdiction of the USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed
Alteration Agreement obtained from the CDFW.
The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee
water quality. Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt
under the CWA. In compliance with Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs also issue water quality
certifications for activities which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. This is most
frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. Please see the Water Quality
section for more details.
3.17.2
This section is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014), the Jurisdictional Delineation
Report: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2014; Appendix I in the NES), and the Jurisdictional
Delineation Report: Agencies of the State of California (2014, Appendix J in the NES). Detailed
discussions and maps of identified jurisdictional features are provided in Appendices I and J and
summarized in this section.
The Biological Study Area (BSA) is inclusive of, and substantially larger than, all areas that may be
directly impacted by the construction and/or operation of the Build Alternatives. The BSA was
created to include an approximately 200-foot (ft) buffer around all the areas included in the limits of
disturbance for the Build Alternatives. The 200 ft buffer was established to ensure adequate analysis
of project impacts to biological resources and to accommodate possible future minor refinements to
the design of the proposed Build Alternatives. At approximately 3,410 acres (ac), the BSA is
substantially larger than the anticipated area where ground-disturbing permanent and temporary
impacts may occur under the Build Alternatives. The acreage potentially affected by each Build
Alternative are as follows: approximately 2 ac by the Transportation System Management/
Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative, 126 ac by the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Alternative, 150 ac by the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative, and 359 ac each by the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations. In some cases, the edge of the BSA is
approximately 0.5 mile (mi) from the nearest temporary or permanent areas of impacts. All
potential drainages, wetlands, and riparian areas in the BSA were evaluated in the literature review,
field surveys, and identification of potential jurisdictional areas.
Field surveys were conducted throughout the BSA between April and October 2013. Based on that
fieldwork, it was determined there are jurisdictional features, including wetland areas, in the BSA
that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and
RWQCB. A total of 27 potential drainages and wetlands were evaluated for the State Route 710
(SR 710) North Study. Table 3.17.1 lists these potential jurisdictional drainage features in the BSA
and the acreages that are subject to USACE jurisdiction. Table 3.17.2 lists the potential jurisdictional
drainage features in the BSA and the acreages that are subject to CDFW and/or RWQCB jurisdiction.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-2
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.1:
Drainages and Wetland Features in the BSA and USACE Jurisdictional Areas
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
Ditch
5-A
5-B
10
11-A
Description
4 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; drains hillside runoff;

unvegetated; no OHWM or riparian/wetland
characteristics; does not flow into or have any
connection to a TNW or TNW tributary.
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Unnamed surface drainage; 5 ft wide; drains hillside
runoff; unvegetated; no OHWM or riparian/wetland
Stream Arroyo Seco; 80 ft wide; earthen-lined; blue-line; riparian
vegetation; no flowing water during survey; standing
water at 1 ft depth on 10/4/13; drains to Los Angeles
River.
Stream Arroyo Seco alternate channel; 10 ft wide; earthen-lined;
drains waters diverted from main channel of Arroyo
Seco; flowing water present during visit on 10/4/13;
originates from culvert at the northern end; flows into
Arroyo Seco main channel.
Ditch
Wetland At Del Mar Pump Station; up to 90 ft wide; earthen
bottom; riparian vegetation present immediately around
the pump station; isolated; does not flow into or have
any connection to a TNW or TNW tributary. Excluded
under CWA because it is a storm water treatment
system.
Ditch
8 ft wide; concrete-lined cobble ditch; unvegetated; no
OHWM or riparian/wetland characteristics; drains
commercial runoff; does not flow into or have any
Ditch
8 ft wide; concrete-lined ditch; drains hillside runoff;
Stream Laguna Channel; 20 ft wide; concrete-lined channel and
rock-lined channel; blue-line; mostly unvegetated; drains
surface water runoff, water flowing during all site visits;
drains south into Los Angeles River.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-3
USACE CWA
Jurisdictional Area
(acres)
NonWetland
wetland
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
1,077
1,231
509
915
80
1,076
1.98
10
287
0.07
1,894
89
1,308
20
1,419
0.65
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.1:
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
12
Ditch
Description
4 ft wide; concrete lined v-ditch; unvegetated; no

OHWM or riparian/wetland characteristics; drains road
and hillside runoff; does not flow into or have any
13
Ditch
5 to 8 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; drains hillside
11-B
Stream Laguna Channel; OHWM 1024 ft wide; concrete bottom
and riprap sides; drains south into Los Angeles River.
14 Detention Laguna Channel (Feature 11-B) runs the length of this
Basin
detention basin in a north-south orientation; earthen
bottom; no OHWM or riparian/wetland characteristics;
terminus of ditch Feature 13; named the Laguna
Regulating Basin; created as a flood control basin.
11-C
Stream Laguna Channel; 12 ft wide; concrete-lined channel
below grade; drains south into Los Angeles River.
11-D
Stream Laguna Channel; 12 ft wide; concrete-lined open
rectangular channel below grade; drains south into Los
Angeles River.
15
Ditch
4 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; unvegetated; no
hillside runoff; does not flow into or have any
16
Ditch
3 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; unvegetated; no
hillside runoff; does not flow into or have any
17
Ditch
18
Ditch
Unnamed surface drainage; 5 to 25 ft wide; concreteand earthen-lined ditch; native and nonnative
vegetation; no OHWM or riparian/wetland
characteristics; originates from commercial runoff and
precipitation events; also received flows from Feature
19; water flowing during site visit (10/2/13); flows into
Laguna Channel occasionally.
19
Ditch
Unnamed surface drainage; 4 ft wide; three separate,
roughly parallel sections; concrete- and earthen-lined
v-ditch; mostly unvegetated; no OHWM or
riparian/wetland characteristics; drains hillside runoff
into Feature 18 and then into Laguna Channel.
11-E
Stream Laguna Channel; 18 ft wide; concrete-lined open
Angeles River.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-4
USACE CWA
Jurisdictional Area
(acres)
NonWetland
wetland
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
920
983
10-24
1,740
0.57
12
189
0.05
12
170
0.05
717
528
867
1,754
882
18
2,104
0.87
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.1:
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
20
Ditch
21
11-F
22
24
25
26
27
Description
Unnamed surface drainage; 2 to 8 ft wide; concretelined ditches; drains hillside runoff; unvegetated; no
OHWM or riparian/wetland characteristics; flows drain
into 12 ft wide concrete box channel; does not flow into
or have any connection to a TNW or TNW tributary.
Ditch
5 to 25 ft wide; concrete-lined ditch; drains hillside
Stream Laguna Channel; 6 ft wide; earthen bottom; drains south
into Los Angeles River; abutted by wetland (Feature 22)
and riparian nonwetland woodland (Feature 23);
surrounded by detention basin (Feature 24).
Wetland Abuts Laguna Channel (Feature 11-F); riparian
vegetation; surrounded by detention basin (Feature 24).
Detention Laguna Channel (Feature 11-F) runs the length of this
Basin
detention basin in a north to south orientation; earthen
surrounds Features 11-F, 22, and 23; outfall located to
the south; created as a flood control basin.
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
USACE CWA
Jurisdictional Area
(acres)
NonWetland
wetland
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
11,027
1,100
1,387
0.19
0.44
202
645
1,736
Total
4.43
0.44
Source: Jurisdictional Delineation Report: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2014) (Appendix I in the Natural Environment Study [2014]).
Note: Features 6 and 23 are not listed in this table because they were used to label features that only have the potential to be
considered jurisdictional by CDFW and/or the RWQCB. Because the scope of this table is limited to the potential jurisdiction of the
USACE, these features are not shown in the table.
1
Features need an OHWM or wetland vegetation as an indicator of USACE jurisdiction. Features classified as ditches and detention
basins that did not exhibit an OHWM or were not delineated as a wetlands under the USACE criteria.
2
USACE jurisdictional features would need an OHWM to be delineated as a wetland under the USACE criteria.
3
Sums vary due to rounding.
OHWM = ordinary high water mark
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
CWA = Clean Water Act
TNW = Traditional Navigable Water
ft = feet
USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-5
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.2:
Drainages, Wetlands, and Riparian Features in the BSA and CDFW/RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdictional
Area (acres)
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
Description
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
5-A
Stream
5-B
Stream
Ditch
Wetland
Ditch
10
Ditch
11-A
Stream
12
Ditch
13
Ditch
11-B
Stream

unvegetated; does not provide fish habitat but does
provide minimal wildlife habitat.
runoff; unvegetated; does not provide fish habitat but
does provide minimal wildlife habitat.
Arroyo Seco; 80 ft wide; earthen-lined; blue-line; riparian
vegetation; no flowing water during survey; standing
water at 1 ft depth on 10/4/13; drains to Los Angeles
River; abutted by riparian nonwetland habitat; provides
fish and wildlife habitat.
Arroyo Seco alternate channel; 10 ft wide; earthen-lined;
drains waters diverted from main channel of Arroyo Seco;
flowing water present during visit on 10/4/13; originates
from culvert at the northern end; flows into Arroyo Seco
main channel; abutted by riparian nonwetland habitat;
provides fish and wildlife habitat.
At Del Mar Pump Station; up to 90 ft wide; earthen
bottom; riparian vegetation present immediately around
the pump station; isolated; provides fish and wildlife
habitat.
8 ft wide; concrete-lined cobble ditch; unvegetated; drains
commercial runoff; does not provide fish habitat but does
8 ft wide; concrete-lined ditch; drains hillside runoff;
Laguna Channel; 20 ft wide; concrete-lined channel and
rock-lined channel; blue-line; mostly unvegetated; drains
surface water runoff; water flowing during all site visits;
drains south into Los Angeles River; provides fish habitat
and minimal wildlife habitat.
4 ft wide, concrete-lined v-ditch; unvegetated; drains road
and hillside runoff; does not provide fish habitat but does
5 to 8 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; drains hillside
Laguna Channel; OHWM 1024 ft wide; concrete bottom
and riprap sides; drains south into Los Angeles River;
provides fish habitat and minimal wildlife habitat.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-6
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
1,077
CDFW
RWQCB
1,231
509
915
80
1,076
5.16
1.98
10
287
1.01
0.07
1,894
89
1,308
20
1,419
0.65
0.65
920
983
10-24
1,740
0.57
0.57
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.2:
Jurisdictional
Area (acres)
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
Description
14
Detention
Basin
11-C
Stream
11-D
Stream
15
Ditch
16
Ditch
17
Ditch
18
Ditch
19
Ditch
11-E
Stream
20
Ditch
21
Ditch
11-F
Stream
Surrounds Laguna Channel (Feature 11-B); earthen

terminus of ditch Feature 13; named Laguna Regulating
Basin; does not provide fish habitat but does provide
minimal wildlife habitat.
Laguna Channel; 12 ft wide; concrete-lined channel below
grade; drains south into Los Angeles River; provides fish
habitat and minimal wildlife habitat.
Laguna Channel; 12 ft wide; concrete-lined open
Angeles River; provides fish habitat and minimal wildlife
habitat.
4 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; unvegetated; drains
hillside runoff; does not provide fish habitat but does
3 ft wide; concrete-lined v-ditch; unvegetated; drains
hillside runoff; does not provide fish habitat but does
Unnamed surface drainage; 5 to 25 ft wide; concrete- and
earthen-lined ditch; native and nonnative vegetation;
originates from commercial runoff and precipitation
events; also received flows from Feature 19; water flowing
during site visit (10/2/13); flows into Laguna Channel
occasionally; does not provide fish habitat but does
Unnamed surface drainage; 4 ft wide; three separate,
roughly parallel sections; concrete- and earthen-lined
v-ditch; mostly unvegetated; drains hillside runoff into
Feature 18 and then into Laguna Channel; does not
provide fish habitat but does provide minimal wildlife
habitat.
Laguna Channel; 18 ft wide; concrete-lined, open
Angeles River; provides fish habitat and minimal wildlife
habitat.
Unnamed surface drainage; 2 to 8 ft wide; concrete-lined
ditch; drains hillside runoff; unvegetated; flows drain into
12 ft wide concrete box channel; does not provide fish
habitat but does provide minimal wildlife habitat.
5 to 25 ft wide; concrete-lined ditch; drains hillside runoff;
Laguna Channel; 6 ft wide; earthen bottom; drains south
into Los Angeles River; abutted by wetland (Feature 22)
and riparian nonwetland woodland; surrounded by
detention basin (Feature 24); provides fish habitat and
minimal wildlife habitat.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-7
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
12
CDFW
RWQCB
189
0.05
0.05
12
170
0.05
0.05
717
528
867
1,754
882
18
2,104
0.87
0.87
11,027
1,100
1,387
0.98
0.19
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.2:
Jurisdictional
Area (acres)
Feature Description
1
No.
Type
Description
22
Wetland
24
Detention
Basin
25
Ditch
26
Ditch
27
Ditch
Abuts Laguna Channel (Feature 11-F); riparian vegetation;

surrounded by detention basin (Feature 24); does not
provide fish habitat but does provide wildlife habitat.
Laguna Channel (Feature 11-F) runs the length of this
detention basin in a north-to-south orientation; earthen
surrounds Features 11-F, 22, and 23; does not provide fish
habitat but does provide minimal wildlife habitat; outfall
located to the south; created as a flood control basin.
OHWM
Width (ft)
Length
(ft)
CDFW
RWQCB
0.44
0.44
202
645
1,736
Total
9.78
4.87
Source: Jurisdictional Delineation Report: Agencies of the State of California (2014) (Appendix J in the Natural Environment Study [2014]).
1
Features classified as ditches and detention basins did not exhibit an OHWM or riparian vegetation.
2
Sums vary due to rounding.
OHWM = ordinary high water mark
ft = feet
As part of the jurisdictional delineation, analysis of the functions and values of the drainages in the
project area was conducted. All wetlands and other waters have some degree of functionality, and
no single wetland can perform all the functions considered below. The following functions are
analyzed at low, moderate, or high value levels based on feature conditions. Each water feature
category is analyzed in detail in Table 1 in Appendix M of the NES (2014) and is based on the
following criteria:
Hydrologic Regime: This function is the ability of a wetland or stream to absorb and store water
below ground. The degree of this saturation is dependent on the soil composition and is
affected by prior flooding events. For example, clay soils possess more pore space than sandy
soils. However, the smaller pore size slows the rate at which water is absorbed and released;
therefore, clay soil has a lower capacity to store water than sandy soils. The storage of water
below ground allows for the fluctuation between anaerobic and aerobic conditions that benefits
environmental conditions necessary for microbial cycling.
Flood Storage and Flood Flow Modification: This function is determined based on the ability of
a wetland or stream at which the peak flow in a watershed can be attenuated during major
storm events and during peak domestic flows to take in surface water that may otherwise cause
flooding. This is dependent on the size of the wetland or stream, the amount of water it can
hold, and its location in the watershed. For instance, larger wetlands or streams that have a
greater capacity to receive waters have a greater ability to reduce flooding. In addition, areas
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-8
DRAFT

high in the watershed may have more ability to reduce flooding in downstream areas, but areas
lower in the watershed may have greater benefits to a specific area. Vegetation, shape, and the
configuration of the wetland or stream may also affect flood storage by dissipating the energy of
flows during flood events.
Sediment Retention: Removal of sediment is the process that keeps sediments from migrating
downstream. This is accomplished through the natural processes of sediment retention and
entrapment. This function is dependent on the sediment load being delivered by runoff into the
watershed. The vegetation, shape, and configuration of a wetland will affect sediment retention
if water is detained for long durations, as would be the case with dense vegetation, a bowlshaped watershed, or slow-moving water. This function would be demonstrated (i.e., high) if the
turbidity of the incoming water is greater than that of the outgoing water.
Nutrient Retention and Transformation: Nutrient cycling consists of two variables: uptake of
nutrients by plants and detritus turnover, in which nutrients are released for uptake by plants
downstream. Wetland systems in general are much more productive with regard to nutrients
than upland habitats. The regular availability of water associated with the wetland or stream
may cause the growth of plants (nutrient uptake) and associated detritivores and generate
nutrients that may be used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife downstream.
Toxicant Trapping: The major processes by which wetlands remove nutrients and toxicants are
by trapping sediments rich in nutrients and toxicants, absorption to soils high in clay content or
organic matter, and nitrification and denitrification in alternating oxic and anoxic conditions.
Removal of nutrients and toxicants is closely tied to the processes that provide for sediment
removal.
Social Significance: This is a measure of the probability that a wetland or stream will be used by
the public because of its natural features, economic value, official status, and/or location. This
includes being used by the public for recreational uses, such as boating, fishing, birding, walking,
and other passive recreational activities. In addition, a wetland or stream used as an outdoor
classroom, as a location for scientific study, or near a nature center would have a higher social
significance standing.
Wildlife Habitat: General habitat suitability is the ability of a wetland to provide habitat for a
wide range of wildlife. Vegetation is a large component of wildlife habitat. As plant community
diversity increases along with connectivity with other habitats, so does potential wildlife
diversity. In addition, a variety of open water, intermittent ponding, and perennial ponding is
also an important habitat element for wildlife.
Aquatic Habitat: The ability of a wetland or stream to support aquatic species requires that
there be ample food supply, pool and riffle complexes, and sufficient soil substrate. Food supply
is typically in the form of aquatic invertebrates and detrital matter from nearby vegetation. Pool
and riffle complexes provide a variety of habitats for species diversity as well as habitat for
breeding and rearing activities. Species diversity is directly related to the complexity of the
habitat structure.
Table 3.17.3 summarizes the existing functions and values of the jurisdictional water features in the
Laguna Channel and the wetland at the Del Mar Pump Station.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-9
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.3:
Functions and Values of Laguna Channel and the Del Mar Pump Station
Feature
Type
Stream
Feature Feature Hydrologic

Flood
Sediment
Nutrient
Toxicant
Social
Wildlife
Aquatic
Name
Nos.
Regime
Storage
Retention Retention Trapping Significance Habitat
Habitat
Laguna
11
Low to
Low to
Low to
Low to
Low
Low to
Low
Moderate
Channel
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate
Wetland
Del Mar
8
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Pump
Station
Source: Jurisdictional Delineation Report: Agencies of the State of California (2014) (Appendix J of the Natural Environment Study
[2014]).
3.17.2.1
USACE Jurisdiction
Two drainages, the Arroyo Seco and the Laguna Channel, are located in the BSA and identified as
meeting the USACE criteria for jurisdiction. Both drainages drain directly into the Los Angeles River,
a traditional navigable water, outside the BSA.
The Arroyo Seco is subject to USACE jurisdiction because it has relatively permanent waters that
flow into the Los Angeles River, a traditional navigable water. The total acreage of the Arroyo Seco
likely subject to USACE jurisdiction in the BSA is approximately 2 ac.
The Del Mar Pump Station is not subject to USACE jurisdiction because it was created as part of a
storm water system that is considered to be a wastewater treatment facility (33 USC 1251 218(a))
and is excluded from jurisdiction under Section 404 (33 CFR 328.3(b)(8)).
The Laguna Channel is a channelized drainage that includes both aboveground and belowground
culvert segments in the BSA. The total acreage of the aboveground segments of the Laguna Channel
in the BSA likely subject to USACE jurisdiction is approximately 2.8 ac (approximately 2.4 ac of
nonwetland waters and 0.4 ac of wetlands). The belowground culvert segments of the Laguna
Channel are not likely subject to USACE jurisdiction. The Laguna Channel runs through two different
detention basins that are not under USACE jurisdiction because they were created as flood control
features.
The total area of wetland and nonwetland areas meeting the criteria for USACE jurisdiction in the
BSA is approximately 4.8 ac, of which 0.4 ac is wetlands and 4.4 ac are nonwetland waters of the
United States. The locations of these waters are shown on Figures 3.17-1 and 3.17-2. (Please note
that the figures cited in this section are provided following the last page of text in this section.)
3.17.2.2
CDFW Jurisdiction
All the areas identified as meeting the criteria for USACE jurisdiction also meet the criteria for CDFW
jurisdiction.
The Arroyo Seco is subject to CDFW jurisdiction because it has a defined bed and bank. The total
acreage of the Arroyo Seco likely subject to CDFW jurisdiction in the BSA is approximately 2 ac.
Along the Arroyo Seco, one area consisting of nonwetland riparian vegetation (white alder groves,
black cottonwood forest, and arroyo willow thicket) totaling approximately 4 ac was identified as
meeting the criteria for CDFW jurisdiction.
The total acreage of the aboveground segments of the Laguna Channel likely subject to CDFW
jurisdiction is approximately 3.6 ac (approximately 3.2 ac of nonwetland stream and adjacent
nonwetland riparian habitat and 0.4 ac of wetlands and adjacent nonwetland riparian habitat). The
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-10
DRAFT

belowground culvert segments of the Laguna Channel are not likely subject to CDFW jurisdiction as
they do not provide habitat for wildlife species. The total area meeting the criteria for CDFW
jurisdiction is approximately 9 ac, of which 4 ac are nonwetland waters. The locations of these
waters are shown on Figures 3.17-3 and 3.17-4.
3.17.2.3
RWQCB Jurisdiction
All the areas meeting the criteria for CDFW jurisdiction, except for the nonwetland riparian
vegetation areas (approximately 5 ac), meet the criteria for RWQCB jurisdiction. The RWQCB may or
may not elect to assert jurisdiction over the wetland at the Del Mar Pump Station because it is an
entirely manmade storm water facility that depends on actively pumped storm water to maintain
existing conditions.
The total area potentially subject to RWQCB jurisdiction is approximately 4 ac of nonwetland waters.
The locations of these waters are shown on Figures 3.17-3 and 3.17-4.
3.17.2.4
Nonjurisdictional
All the areas that do not fall under either the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB are
classified as nonjurisdictional and include those classified as ditches and detention basins. As such,
nonjurisdictional features are excluded from rule by the USACE under Section 401 of the CWA, by
the RWQCB under Section 404 of the CWA, or by CDFW due to the absence of lake or stream with
habitat value for fish and wildlife.
The wetland at the Del Mar Pump Station (Feature 8) is excavated exclusively in uplands and
depends on water actively pumped onto the site. The wetland contains suitable habitat for fish and
wildlife is dominated by broadleaf cattain (Typha latifolia) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Feature 8
is isolated and drains into the groundwater without a connection to streams or lakes. The Del Mar
Pump Station detention basin, lacking bed, bank, and channel, does not fall under the jurisdiction of
the 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. A minimal amount of off-site mitigation could be
done based on native plant community impacts.
Two associated detention basins (Features 14 and 24) were recorded along the Laguna Channel. One
of the detention basins (Feature 14) had small amounts of opportunistic vegetation both above and
below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (e.g., Mexican fan palm [Washingtonia robusta]), but
there were no wetland indicators at this site or riparian habitat. The other detention basin (Feature
24) encompassed the main Laguna Channel (Feature 11-F), a small wetland buffering the channel
itself (Feature 22), and riparian nonwetland habitat (Feature 23). At these locations, the Laguna
Channel and wetland were considered jurisdictional. Neither detention basin was identified as
jurisdictional due to the lack of wetland indicators, lack of relatively permanent waters, and lack of
OHWM.
3.17.3
The potential permanent and temporary impacts to nonwetland waters and wetland waters under
USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction are summarized in Table 3.17.4 and discussed in detail in the
following sections. As shown in Table 3.17.4, only the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would impact
jurisdictional nonwetland waters. The TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives would not impact
jurisdictional waters and therefore are not included in Table 3.17.4.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-11
DRAFT

TABLE 3.17.4:
Jurisdictional Impacts of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative Design Variations
1
Design Variation
Single Bore
Dual Bore
Jurisdiction
USACE
CDFW
RWQCB
USACE
CDFW
RWQCB
Acres of Impacts
Nonwetland Waters
Wetland Waters
Permanent
Temporary Permanent Temporary
0.06
0.02
0
0
0.06
0.02
0
0
0.06
0.02
0
0
0.51
0.22
0
0
0.51
0.22
0
0
0.51
0.22
0
0
Riparian
Habitats
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA

Note: The TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives are not listed in the table because those Build Alternatives would not result
in any temporary or permanent impacts to nonwetland or wetland waters under USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdiction.
NA = Not Applicable
3.17.3.1
Temporary Impacts
As shown in Table 3.17.4, only the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would potentially have temporary impacts to jurisdictional nonwetland and
wetland waters. Since none of the TSM/TDM improvements affect jurisdictional waters, there would
be no additional impacts to waters with the TSM/TDM improvements included in the BRT, LRT, or
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on the potential temporary
effects of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction any of the improvements in the SR 710
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any impacts
related to wetlands and other waters associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Temporary impacts include physical impacts from construction activities (e.g., grading and
vegetation removal) that would cease once construction of that phase is complete. Temporary
impacts will be restored, as necessary, through agency coordination and executed permits, including
a Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a Streambed
Alteration Agreement. The single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would
result in approximately 0.02 ac of temporary impacts to nonwetland waters under USACE, CDFW,
and RWQCB jurisdiction, as shown on Figure 3.17-5. The dual-bore tunnel design variation of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in approximately 0.2 ac of temporary impacts to
nonwetland waters under USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction as shown on Figure 3.17-5. The
single-bore and dual-bore design variations would not result in any temporary impacts to wetland
waters under USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdiction.
3.17.3.2
Permanent Impacts
As shown in Table 3.17.4, only the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would potentially have permanent impacts to nonwetland jurisdictional waters.
Since none of the TSM/TDM improvements affect jurisdictional waters, there would be no additional
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-12
DRAFT

impacts to waters with the TSM/TDM improvements included in the BRT, LRT, or Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any impact
related to wetlands and other waters associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in permanent impacts on waters of the United States
as a result of widening, modifying, or otherwise improving drainages and culverts to accommodate
the proposed improvements in this alternative. Permanent impacts include physical impacts caused
by permanently filling jurisdictional areas from road widening and new structures. The single-bore
design variation would result in approximately 0.06 ac of permanent nonwetland waters impacts
under USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction at the Laguna Channel (Feature 11). The dual-bore
design variation would result in approximately 0.5 ac of permanent nonwetland water impacts
under USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction to the Laguna Channel (Feature 11). The potential
impacts of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on those waters are shown on Figure 3.17-5. The impacts
of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not permanently alter the values and functions of those
jurisdictional features, listed earlier in Table 3.17.3. The primary function of the identified features is
the conveyance of urban runoff and storm water flows. As such, impacts from the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative will not affect these functions and values of the jurisdictional features because they will
continue to serve their primary function after construction of the project.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in permanent impacts on the Laguna Channel but
would not impact the Arroyo Seco.
3.17.4
The single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative were refined
during design development to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters in the
northernmost segment of the Laguna Channel, near the south tunnel portal. Additional design
modifications to the Freeway Tunnel Alterative have resulted in avoidance of impacts to the Laguna
Channel within the BSA.
The following measures would avoid, minimize and/or compensate for temporary and permanent
impacts of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on wetlands and other jurisdictional waters and are
anticipated to offset those impacts such that there would be no net loss of those types of resources.
Measure WET-1
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404

Dredge and Fill Permit (applies to the Freeway Tunnel Alternative):
Areas identified as being under the jurisdiction of the USACEUSACE
will be avoided wherever possible.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will obtain a
Dredge and Fill Permit from the USACE if any USACE jurisdictional
areas are to be impacted and prior to approval of Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E). The measures specified in the
Dredge and Fill Permit would minimize temporary and permanent
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-13
DRAFT

project impacts to drainages and habitats subject to USACE

jurisdiction. In addition, commonly used Best Management
Practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize project impacts. For
streams, compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio would be
required to meet the no net loss national goal. Compensatory
measures may include restoration of previously existing waters,
enhancement of the functions of existing waters, establishment of
new waters, preservation of existing aquatic sites, participation in
an in-lieu fee program, and/or participation in a mitigation bank
approved by the USACE.
Measure WET-2
Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) (applies to the Freeway

Tunnel Alternative): Areas identified as being under the jurisdiction
of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will be
avoided wherever possible.
Caltrans will obtain an SAA from the CDFW under Section 1600 of
the Department of Fish and Game Code if any CDFW jurisdictional
areas are to be impacted and prior to approval of PS&E. The
measures specified in the SAA would minimize temporary and
permanent project impacts to drainages and habitats subject to
CDFW jurisdiction. In addition, commonly used BMPs will be used to
minimize project impacts. Those measures may include restoration
of previously existing waters, enhancement of the functions of
existing waters, establishment of new waters, preservation of
existing aquatic sites, and/or participation in a mitigation bank
approved by the CDFW.
Measure WET-3
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (applies to the Freeway

Tunnel Alternative): Areas identified as being under the jurisdiction
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will be
avoided wherever possible.
Caltrans will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from
the RWQCB if any RWQCB jurisdictional areas are to be impacted
and prior to approval of PS&E. In addition, commonly used BMPs
will be used to minimize project impacts. Compensatory mitigation
may be identified to offset temporary and permanent impacts to
RWQCB jurisdictional waters. The RWQCB has published preliminary
draft compensatory mitigation requirements to ensure achievement
of the RWQCB no net loss and long-term net gain policy for aquatic
resources. Mitigation ratios would be determined in consultation
with the RWQCB at the time of issuance of the certification. The
measures specified in the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
would minimize project impacts to drainages and habitats subject to
RWQCB jurisdiction. Those measures may include restoration of
previously existing waters, enhancement of the functions of existing
waters, establishment of new waters, preservation of existing
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-14
DRAFT

aquatic sites, and/or participation in a mitigation bank approved by

the RWQCB.
The following measures described elsewhere in Chapter 3 would also provide protection and
mitigation benefits to wetlands and other waters:
Measures NC-1 through NC-3 provided in Section 3.17, Natural Communities
Measures WQ-1 through WQ-6 provided in Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff
Measure IS-1 provided in Section 3.21, Invasive Species
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-15
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-16
DRAFT
2
3
4
5
6
7
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-1

Extent Boxes
N
0
0.25
0.5
1.5
Miles
SOURCE:ESRI LSA (8/2013); Sapphos Environmental (9/2013); California InterAgency Watershed Map (1999)
I:\CHM1105\G\Wetlands\Potential USACE JD Index.cdr (11/20/14)
SR 710 North Study
Extent Indicators for Potential

USACE Jurisdictional Features Map
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-18
DRAFT
Index
Arroyo Se
co
3
5
2
4
6
7
Se
yo
Ar
ro
5-B
co
5-A
5-
o
roy
co
Se
Ar
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 1 of 7
Non-Wetland
Stream Flow Direction
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet
SOURCE: ESRI (3/2014); Sapphos Environmental (11/2013)

I:\CHM1105\G\Wetlands\Potential USACE JD Features.cdr (11/20/14)
Wetland
SR 710 North Study
Potential USACE Jurisdictional Features

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-20
DRAFT
Index
na C
hann
el
2
4
6
7
11A
Lagu
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 2 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-22
DRAFT
Index
3
5
2
4
6
7
11-B
Laguna Ch
annel
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 3 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-24
DRAFT
11-B
Index
1
2
4
6
7
11-D
Lag
una
Cha
nne
11C
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 4 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-26
DRAFT
Index
1
3
5
2
4
6
7
11-E
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 5 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-28
DRAFT
Index
3
5
2
4
6
7
11
-E
Laguna
Channe
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 6 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-30
DRAFT
11
-
Index
1
2
4
6
7
11-F
LAG-8
LAG-9
La
gu
na
Ch
an
ne
22
LAG-10
LAG-6
LAG-5
LAG-14
LAG-11
LAG-7
LAG-2
LAG-1
LAG-3
LAG-13
LAG-12 LAG-4
LEGEND
50 100
200
400
#
*
Sheet 7 of 7
Non-Wetland
FIGURE 3.17-2
USACE Jurisdiction
Soil Test Pit

Feet

Wetland
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-32
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-3

Extent Boxes
N
0
0.25
0.5
1.5
Miles
SOURCE:ESRI LSA (8/2013); Sapphos Environmental (9/2013); California InterAgency Watershed Map (1999)
I:\CHM1105\G\Wetlands\Potential CDFW JD Index.cdr (10/28/14)
SR 710 North Study
Extent Indicators for Potential

CDFW and RWQCB Jurisdictional Features Map
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-34
DRAFT
Index
1
Arroyo Se
co
6
4
6
8
3
5
7
Se
yo
Ar
ro
5-B
co
5-A
ec
5-
ro
Ar
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
S
yo
FIGURE 3.17-4
Potential Jurisdiction
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

I:\CHM1105\G\Wetlands\Potential CDFW JD Features.cdr (10/28/14)
Riparian Communities and Wetland Areas
White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 1 of 8
SR 710 North Study
Potential CDFW and RWQCB

Jurisdictional Features
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-36
DRAFT
Index
1
2
DM-1B DM-1A
DM-3
3
4
5
6
7
8
Del Mar Pump

Station Wetland
DM-2 DM-4
DM-5
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 2 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-38
DRAFT
Index
1
na C
hann
el
3
4
5
6
Lagu
11A
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 3 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-40
DRAFT
Index
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
11-B
Laguna Ch
annel
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 4 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-42
DRAFT
11-B
Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11-D
Lagu
na C
han
nel
11C
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 5 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-44
DRAFT
Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11-E
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 6 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-46
DRAFT
Index
1
Channe
3
4
5
6
Laguna
11
-E
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 7 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-48
DRAFT
E
11
-
Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11-F
23
LAG-8
an
ne
LAG-9
La
gu
na
Ch
22
LAG-11
LAG-10
LAG-6
LAG-5
LAG-14
LAG-7
LAG-2
LAG-1
LAG-3
LAG-13
LAG-12 LAG-4
#
*
N
0
50 100
200

Soil Test Pit
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.17-4
Non-Wetland
400
Feet

White Alder Groves
Wetland
Wetland Complex
Giant Reed Breaks

Sheet 8 of 8
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-50
DRAFT
Index
159
210
710
134
110
Wetland Complex
Permanent Impact to Feature
10
3
4
710
FIGURE 3.17-5
LEGEND
0 100
300
500
Freeway Tunnel
Alternative Impacts
700
Temporary
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Wetland
SOURCE: Microsoft(Imagery date: 5-8-2010); Sapphos Environmental (10/2013)
I:\CHM1105\G\Wetlands\Potential JD Impacts-Tunnel.cdr (10/28/14)
Sheet 1 of 4
Permanent
Feet

Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
SR 710 North Study
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Impacts to

Potentially Jurisdictional Features
07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-52
DRAFT
Index
159
210
710
134
110
10
3
4
710
Temporary Impact
to Feature
Permanent Impact
to Feature
Temporary Impact
to Feature
11-A
Permanent Impact
to Feature
Temporary Impact
to Feature
FIGURE 3.17-5
LEGEND
0 100
300
500
Freeway Tunnel
Alternative Impacts
700
Temporary
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Wetland
Sheet 2 of 4
Permanent
Feet

Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-54
DRAFT
Index
159
210
710
134
110
Permanent Impact
to Feature
Temporary Impact
to Feature
10
3
4
710
11C
11-B
i
11-D
Permanent Impact
to Feature
FIGURE 3.17-5
LEGEND
0 100
300
500
Freeway Tunnel
Alternative Impacts
700
Temporary
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Wetland
Sheet 3 of 4
Permanent
Feet

Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-56
DRAFT
11-D
Index
159
210
710
134
Permanent Impact
to Feature
110
10
3
4
710
i
11
-E
i
FIGURE 3.17-5
LEGEND
0 100
300
500
Freeway Tunnel
Alternative Impacts
700
Temporary
Giant Reed Breaks
Non-Wetland
Sheet 4 of 4
Permanent
Feet

Wetland Complex
White Alder Groves
SR 710 North Study

07-LA-710 (SR 710)
EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.17-58
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
3.18 Plant Species

3.18.1
Regulatory Setting
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. Special-status
species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat
declines. Special status is a general term for species that are provided varying levels of regulatory
protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are
species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Please
see the Threatened and Endangered Species section 3.20 in this document for detailed information
about these species.
This section of the document discusses all the other special-status plant species, including CDFW
species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare
and endangered plants. The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at 16 United States
Code (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. The
regulatory requirements for CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et
seq. Caltrans projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at Fish and Game
Code, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CA Public Resources
Code, Sections 2100-21177.
The County of Los Angeles and local cities within the Biological Study Area (BSA) have ordinances
that protect designated trees within their jurisdictions. The Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
requires a permit prior to the cutting, removing, destroying, relocating, inflicting damage on, or
encroaching into a protected zone of any tree within the oak genus. The Cities of Los Angeles,
Rosemead, Pasadena, and South Pasadena also have tree protection ordinances.
3.18.2
The analysis of the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts to special-status plant
species is described in detail in the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014). The findings of the NES
are discussed in this section. The BSA was described earlier in this Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) in Section 3.16.2.1, Biological Study Area.
The 11 plant communities in the BSA are disturbed/developed, nonnative woodland, nonnative
grassland, nonnative riparian woodland, wetland complex, giant reed semi-natural stand, white
alder groves, black cottonwood forest, arroyo willow thickets, laurel sumac scrub, and coast live oak
woodland. Also in the BSA is one non-vegetation cover type identified as Streams. In general, very
little natural vegetation remains in the BSA; the majority of vegetation present in the BSA is planted
trees along sidewalks, and ruderal and ornamental vegetation and trees planted along the edges of
freeways and within freeway medians.
The natural communities in the BSA have the potential to support a variety of plant species
considered sensitive by federal, State, and/or local governments and organizations regulating
and/or monitoring their development; limited distributions; and/or habitat requirements. The BSA
supports suitable habitat for a variety of special-status plant species. Based on literature and
database reviews, it was determined that a total of 54 sensitive plant species have the potential to
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-1
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
occur within the BSA or in the vicinity of the BSA (refer to Table 10, Listed, Proposed, and SpecialStatus Plants Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur within and in the Vicinity of the BSA). Eleven
of those sensitive plant species are federally and/or State-listed endangered, threatened, or
candidate species, and are discussed in detail later in this EIR/EIS in Section 3.20, Threatened and
Endangered Species. Five special-status plant species occur or potentially occur in the BSA: Coulters
goldfields, Southern California black walnut, Engelmann oak, Parishs gooseberry, and slender
mariposa-lily. Table 10 in the NES describes the habitat and potential for occurrence for these
species. That information is also discussed in the following sections.
A botanical survey was conducted to identify plant species in the BSA, document any rare plant
occurrences, and identify suitable habitat for plants potentially present. The survey was conducted
in late July and early August 2013, during the blooming period for the majority of the sensitive
plants considered potentially present in the BSA. Species that were observed or have habitat
present in the BSA are discussed further below. Additional sensitive plants may have the potential to
occur in the BSA but were not discovered during the literature and database review or the botanical
survey.
3.18.2.1
Coulters Goldfields
Coulters goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) has no State or federal listing status; however,
it has a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B.1, indicating that it is seriously threatened in
California. CRPR is the CNPS ranking system that was created to categorize various levels of concern
for plant species. Coulters goldfields is an annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that is
generally found in saline places, such as on the margins of marshes, playas, and vernal pools.
Coulters goldfields blooms from February to June. This species is typically found in Southern
California from Bakersfield to San Diego in areas below 3,281 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl).
Coulters goldfields is occasionally found outside of its typical habitat due to its inclusion in native
wildflower seed mixes distributed by certain seed suppliers (e.g., Theodore Payne Foundation). As a
result, some populations occurring in revegetated areas may be cultivated and not naturally
occurring, and therefore, may not meet the definition of a native plant pursuant to California
Fish and Game Code Section 1901, which is limited to plants growing in a wild uncultivated state.
The 2013 botanical surveys resulted in the identification of a small population (approximately 300
individuals) of Coulters goldfields within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right of
way (ROW) along Interstate 10 (I-10) near the Interstate 710 (I-710)/I-10 interchange. Individuals of
the population were blooming out of season with other spring annuals near a leaking irrigation
system in an area that appeared to have been recently hydroseeded, most likely during highway
landscape maintenance. The wetland complex, riparian, and other mesic habitats within the BSA do
not contain the alkaline features required for naturally occurring populations of this species. There is
no other suitable habitat for Coulters goldfields in the BSA.
3.18.2.2
Southern California Black Walnut
Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) has no federal or State listing status but has a
CRPR of 4.2, indicating that it is uncommon and moderately threatened in California. In addition,
this tree is protected by the City of Pasadena Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Southern California black walnut is a relatively small deciduous tree in the walnut family
(Juglandaceae) that is generally found on hillsides and canyons in the coastal and inland valleys in
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-2
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
Southern California. This species blooms from March to August and is usually found at elevations
between 64 and 2,953 ft amsl.
During the 2013 botanical surveys, a single young Southern California black walnut was observed
growing in the understory of a stand of unmaintained Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) woodland,
upslope from westbound Interstate 210 (I-210) in the Caltrans ROW. Other associated species in the
vicinity were coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon). No other
Southern California black walnut individuals were identified in the BSA. Due to the conspicuous
nature of trees such as the Southern California black walnut during botanical surveys, the potential
for the species to be present but not observed is low. Therefore, with the exception of the individual
tree described above, the species is considered absent from the BSA.
3.18.2.3
Engelmann Oak
Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) has no federal or State listing status but has a CRPR of 4.2,
indicating that it is uncommon and moderately threatened in California. In addition, this tree is
protected by the City of Pasadena City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance. Engelmann oak is an
evergreen tree in the oak family (Fagaceae) that is generally found on foothill slopes below 4,265 ft
in elevation. It typically blooms between March and June. Engelmann oak is known only from the
coastal and inland valleys of Southern California south of the Transverse Ranges and from Baja
California.
During the 2013 botanical survey of the entire BSA, a single Engelmann oak individual was found
within the BSA, in the City of Pasadena. The individual was found along Arroyo Boulevard, just west
of the State Route 134 (SR 134) overpass, and appears to potentially be a planted street tree among
several coast live oak trees. No other individuals of this species were identified within the BSA. Due
to the conspicuous nature of trees such as the Engelmann oak during botanical surveys, the
potential for the species to be present but not observed is low. Therefore, with the exception of the
individual described above, the species is considered absent from the BSA.
3.18.2.4
Parishs Gooseberry
Parishs gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii) has no State or federal listing status; however, it
has a CRPR of 1A, indicating that it is presumed extirpated in California but may occur elsewhere in
its range. Parishs gooseberry is a perennial deciduous shrub in the currant family (Grossulariaceae)
that is generally found in moist riparian woodlands. Parishs gooseberry blooms from February to
April. This species is typically found in areas between 213 and 984 ft amsl. The last known
population of Parishs gooseberry was observed in 1980 at the Whittier Narrows Nature Center,
approximately 3 miles (mi) southeast of the BSA.
Parishs gooseberry was not found in the BSA during the 2013 botanical survey of the entire BSA.
However, surveys were conducted outside the appropriate blooming period for this species.
Marginally suitable habitat for Parishs gooseberry is present in the BSA in the riparian nonwetland
habitat at the SR 134 bridge over the Arroyo Seco, within the white alder grove, black cottonwood
forest, and arroyo willow thicket plant communities. Because surveys were not conducted within
the appropriate blooming period for Parishs gooseberry and marginally suitable habitat for this
species was determined to be present, Parishs gooseberry is considered to be potentially present in
the BSA.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-3
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
3.18.2.5
Slender Mariposa-Lily
Slender mariposa-lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) has no State or federal listing status;
however, it has a CRPR of 1B.2, indicating that it is fairly threatened in California. Slender mariposalily is a perennial bulbiferous herb in the lily family (Liliaceae) that is generally found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Slender mariposa-lily blooms from March to
June. This species is typically found in areas on the slopes of the Transverse Range between 1,050 ft
and 3,281 ft amsl.
Slender mariposa-lily was not found in the BSA during the 2013 botanical survey of the entire BSA.
However, surveys were conducted outside of the appropriate blooming period for this species.
Marginally suitable chaparral/coastal scrub habitat for slender mariposa-lily is present in the BSA in
the laurel sumac scrub plant community on a steep slope west of the SR 134/I-210 interchange.
Because surveys were not conducted within the appropriate blooming period for slender mariposalily, and marginally suitable habitat for this species was determined to be present, slender mariposalily is considered to be potentially present in the BSA.
3.18.2.6
Other Special-Status Plants
There were 37 other special-status plant species identified with the potential to occur within or in
the vicinity of the BSA. No suitable habitat for 25 of these species is present in the BSA (see Natural
Environment Study [2014] Table 10, Listed, Proposed, and Special-Status Plants Potentially Occurring
or Known to Occur within and in the Vicinity of the BSA).
Focused botanical surveys during 2013 determined that suitable habitat was present in the BSA for
the following special-status plants: California muhly (Muhlenbergia californica), California saw-grass
(Cladium californicum), Davidsons bush-mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii), Greatas aster
(Symphyotrichum greatae), Los Angeles sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii), Parishs
gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii), Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora), Robinsons
pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum
defoliatum), Santa Barbara morning-glory (Calystegia sepium ssp. binghamiae), slender mariposa-lily
(Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis), Sonoran maiden fern (Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis),
southern tarplant (Hemizonia parryi australis), and white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum).
None of those species were found in the BSA during the 2013 botanical surveys. Those botanical
surveys were conducted during the appropriate blooming period for all these plants with the
exception of Santa Barbara morning-glory. Therefore, California muhly, California saw-grass,
Davidsons bush-mallow, Greatas aster, Los Angeles sunflower, Peruvian dodder, Robinsons
pepper-grass, San Bernardino aster, Santa Barbara morning glory, Sonoran maiden fern, southern
tarplant, and white rabbit-tobacco are considered absent from the BSA (see Natural Environment
Study [2014] Table 10, Listed, Proposed, and Special-Status Plants Potentially Occurring or Known to
Occur within and in the Vicinity of the BSA). Although not likely blooming, Santa Barbara morningglory has readily identifiable parts aboveground year-round and is therefore also considered absent
from the BSA.
3.18.2.7
Other Protected Trees
Pedestrian surveys were conducted from June through August of 2013 to provide the numbers and
locations of trees protected by county and city ordinances in the BSA. A total of 5,459 trees were
identified in accordance with the applicable cities tree ordinances and the Los Angeles County Oak
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-4
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
Tree Ordinance, including 811 oaks (Quercus sp.) and 113 other ordinance-protected California
native trees. The majority of trees identified were nonnative ornamental trees located along city
streets and within State-owned ROW, and therefore, were likely planted and not naturally occurring.
Table 3.18.1 summarizes the numbers of surveyed trees in the BSA for each Build Alternative by
jurisdiction.
TABLE 3.18.1:
Surveyed Trees by Build Alternative and City
1
Jurisdictions that Protect Trees
Los Angeles
Rosemead
Pasadena
South Pasadena
Total
TSM/TDM
Alternative
19
11
220
120
0
370
Number of Protected Trees by Alternative

BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
0
0
732
767
6
1,505
15
0
0
139
2
156
Freeway Tunnel
Alternative
21
0
3,462
0
4
3,487

1
Alhambra, Monterey Park, and San Marino are not listed because no trees protected under city ordinance were identified in those
cities.
3.18.3
3.18.3.1
Temporary Impacts
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction any of the improvements in the State
Route 710 (SR 710) North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not
result in any impacts related to plant species associated with improvements in the Build
Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
The Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)

Alternative would not result in temporary construction impacts to any special-status plant
species or trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances (see Table 3.18.2).
The riparian nonwetland and laurel sumac scrub plant communities in which suitable habitat for
Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are present will not be temporarily impacted by
the TSM/TDM Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural Communities, Table 3.16.2). The limit of
disturbance of the TSM/TDM Alternative is approximately 0.5 mi away from suitable habitat for
these species. As such, indirect impacts from construction are not anticipated. Therefore, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in direct or indirect temporary construction impacts to
these species.
BRT Alternative
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative would not result in temporary construction impacts to
any special-status plant species or trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances (see Table
3.18.2).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-5
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
TABLE 3.18.2:
Impacts to Protected and Other Trees Affected by the Build Alternatives
Number of Impacted Protected and Other Trees by Alternative
Number of Trees by Jurisdiction
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Single- and Dual-Bore
Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Temp.
Trees Protected by Local Ordinance
Pasadena
0
0
73
0
0
0
11
36
South Pasadena
0
0
63
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Trees Not Protected by Local Ordinance
Caltrans ROW
0
0
0
0
4
8
73
0
Total
0
0
136
0
21
8
84
36
1
Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, and San Marino are not listed because no trees protected under city ordinances
outside of Caltrans ROW were identified in those cities.
Perm. = permanent
ROW = right of way
Temp. = temporary
1
Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are present will not be temporarily impacted by
the BRT Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural Communities, Table 3.16.2). The limit of
disturbance of the BRT Alternative is approximately 0.8 mi away from suitable habitat for these
species. As such, indirect impacts from construction are not anticipated. Therefore, the BRT
Alternative would not result in direct or indirect temporary construction impacts to these
species.
The improvements included in the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of
the BRT Alternative with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from
Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street
Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). As discussed above, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in temporary impacts to special-status plant species.
Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative component of the BRT Alternative would not result in
additional temporary impacts to special-status plant species.
LRT Alternative
The Coulters goldfields population is within approximately 170 ft of the temporary impact area
for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative. Therefore, the LRT Alternative has the potential to
result in indirect temporary impacts to this population, which may include construction noise,
dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel and vehicle activities outside designated
construction areas. Individuals of the population were blooming out of season with other spring
annuals near a leaking irrigation system. The apparent seeding of this population and the fact
that the population is being sustained by a non-natural water source suggest that these
individuals would not meet the definition of a native plant pursuant to California Fish and
Game Code Section 1901, which is limited to plants growing in a wild uncultivated state.
However, unless documentation is provided that the population was planted, the assumption
and treatment would be that it is a naturally occurring population. For this population to be
excluded from consideration for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation, documentation
such as the bill of lading for the seed mix, the date(s) of seeding, and the contents and supplier
of the seed mix used must be verified.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-6
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are present will not be impacted by the LRT
Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural Communities, Table 3.16.2). The limit of disturbance of
the LRT Alternative is approximately 1.1 mi away from suitable habitat for these species. As
such, indirect impacts from construction are not anticipated. Therefore, the LRT Alternative
would not result in direct or indirect temporary construction impacts to these species.
The LRT Alternative including the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not result in any
temporary impacts to Southern California black walnut, Engelmann oak, or any other specialstatus plant species.
The part of the BSA along the LRT Alternative contained the fewest ordinance-protected trees,
and nearly all appeared to be planted and/or nonnative. Construction of the LRT Alternative
would result in temporary impacts to an estimated eight (8) trees located within the Caltrans
ROW in the City of Los Angeles as shown in Table 3.18.2. Tree removal within Caltrans ROW is
exempt from local regulations. The TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not result in
temporary construction impacts to trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances.
the LRT Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road) because it would conflict with the LRT Alternative maintenance
yard near Mission Road. As discussed above, the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would
not result in temporary construction impacts to special-status plant species. Therefore, the
TSM/TDM Alternative component of the LRT Alternative would not result in additional
temporary impacts to special-status plant species.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in temporary construction impacts to any
special-status plant species in the BSA. The riparian nonwetland and laurel sumac scrub plant
communities in which suitable habitat for Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are
present will not be impacted by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural
Communities, Table 3.16.2). The limit of disturbance of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is
approximately 850 ft away from suitable habitat for these species. These habitats may
experience effects resulting from non-ground-disturbing construction. Non-ground-disturbing
construction activities that may occur within 850 ft of these habitats include lane restriping,
installation of temporary signage, and other daytime work within the existing highway ROW on
existing pavement. These construction activities would not create a disturbance level greater
than what currently exists on SR 134. As such, indirect impacts from construction are not
anticipated. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in direct or indirect
temporary construction impacts to these species. Permanent loss of Coulters goldfields and a
single Southern California black walnut are discussed below.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative covers the largest area of all the Build Alternatives, with almost
half of the area of that alternative in the City of Pasadena, which has protection for all public
trees. The part of the BSA along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes areas of nonnative
woodland and grassland in and around the freeway interchanges and white alder groves and
laurel sumac scrub along and underneath SR 134. Construction of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations would each result in temporary impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-7
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
to an estimated 36 trees located outside of the Caltrans ROW in the City of Pasadena protected
by the City of Pasadena City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code 8.52) as
shown in Table 3.18.2. As discussed above, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in
temporary construction impacts to special-status plant species. Therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in additional
temporary impacts to special-status plant species.
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (including either of the dual-bore or single-bore design
variations) with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California
Boulevard). As discussed above, the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not result in
temporary construction impacts to trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances.
3.18.3.2
Permanent Impacts
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any impacts
related to special-status plant species associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to any special-status plant
species or trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances. In addition, the operation activities
associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in indirect permanent impacts to any
special-status plant species or trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances.
BRT Alternative
The BRT Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts to any special-status plant
species.
The protected trees in the BSA along the BRT Alternative are almost entirely planted trees along
city streets. As shown in Table 3.18.2, the BRT Alternative would result in the permanent
removal of an estimated 136 trees as follows:
73 trees located outside the Caltrans ROW in the City of Pasadena (protected by the City of
Pasadena City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, Municipal Code 8.52)
63 trees located outside the Caltrans ROW in the City of South Pasadena (protected by the
City of South Pasadena Municipal Code 34, Trees and Shrubs)
The operation activities associated with the BRT Alternative would not result in indirect
permanent impacts to any special-status plant species or trees potentially subject to local tree
ordinances. As discussed above, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent
impacts to special-status plant species. Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative component of the
BRT Alternative would not result in additional permanent impacts to special-status plant
species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-8
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
LRT Alternative
Because the Coulters goldfields population is within approximately 250 ft of the permanent
impact area for the LRT Alternative, that alternative has the potential to result in indirect
permanent impacts to this population. This population already experiences indirect effects
associated with I-10 and adjacent urban land uses. Indirect permanent impacts include edge
effects such as future development, exotic plant and animal infestations, litter, fire, and
pollutants associated with vehicle use of the transportation facility. The LRT Alternative would
further exacerbate these indirect effects by constructing another urban use within this setting.
These indirect impacts are not anticipated to result in a permanent loss of this population. As
noted earlier, this population may not meet the definition of a native plant pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code Section 1901. However, unless documentation is provided that
the population was planted, the assumption and treatment would be that it is a naturally
occurring population. For this population to be excluded from consideration for avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures, sufficient documentation of the anthropogenic origin of
the population must be verified.
Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are present will not be impacted by the LRT
Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural Communities, Table 3.16.2). Therefore, the LRT
Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to these species.
The LRT Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts to Southern California black
walnut, Engelmann oak, or any other special-status plant species.
The BSA along the LRT Alternative contained the fewest ordinance-protected trees, and nearly
all appeared to be planted and/or nonnative. Tree removal within Caltrans ROW is exempt from
local regulations. As shown in Table 3.18.2, the LRT Alternative would result in the permanent
removal of an estimated 21 protected trees as follows:
15 trees in the City of South Pasadena (protected by the City of South Pasadena Municipal
Code 34, Trees and Shrubs)
2 trees in unincorporated Los Angeles County (protected by the Los Angeles County Oak
Tree Ordinance)
4 trees in the Caltrans ROW
The operation activities associated with the LRT Alternative (including the TSM/TDM Alternative
improvements) would not result in indirect permanent impacts to any special-status plant
species or trees potentially subject to local tree ordinances. As discussed above, the TSM/TDM
Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to special-status plant species; therefore, the
TSM/TDM Alternative component of the LRT Alternative would not result in additional
permanent impacts to special-status plant species.
The Coulters goldfields population is within the permanent impact area of the single-bore and
dual-bore tunnel design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative and would be permanently
impacted by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative through the removal of the population. As a
species with a CRPR of 1B.1, Coulters goldfields is considered seriously threatened in California.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-9
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
This population of Coulters goldfields is currently highly impacted by the level of development
(freeways, infrastructure, etc.) within its vicinity. There are over 130 records of this plant in
Southern California that occur after 1930 (Calflora), and this plant may be included in hydroseed
mixes applied to highway margins, as appears to be the case with this population. As such, the
removal of this population would not constitute a substantial effect to the Southern California
regional population of this subspecies. As discussed earlier, if it is determined that this
population exists as a result of the species inclusion in a seed mix during planting, then this
species would not be considered impacted by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative because it would
not be considered a naturally occurring population.
A Southern California black walnut is approximately 4 ft outside the permanent impact area for
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Parts of the canopy and root system of the tree likely overlap
with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative permanent impact zone; therefore, direct permanent
impacts to all or part of the tree would be expected. Southern California black walnut is not a
federally or State-listed species but has a CRPR of 4.2, indicating it is uncommon and moderately
threatened in California. Over 280 records of individuals and/or populations of Southern
California black walnut exist in Los Angeles County after 1940 (Calflora). As only one individual
was determined to be present within the BSA, the impacts to this individual are not likely to
warrant compensatory mitigation. The cumulative impacts resulting from the removal of this
individual tree would not reduce the viability of the local or global population of this species.
Parishs gooseberry and slender mariposa-lily are present will not be impacted by the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative (see Section 3.16, Natural Communities, Table 3.16.2).
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in any permanent impacts to Engelmann oak
or any other special-status plant species in the BSA.
The BSA along the Freeway Tunnel Alternative covered the largest area for all the Build
Alternatives, with almost half of the area in the City of Pasadena, which has protection for all
public trees. Tree removal within Caltrans ROW is exempt from local regulations. As shown in
Table 3.18.2, the Freeway Tunnel Alternatives single-bore and dual-bore design variations would
each result in the permanent removal of an estimated 84 trees, as follows:
11 trees in the City of Pasadena (protected by the City of Pasadena City Trees and Tree
Protection Ordinance, Municipal Code 8.52)
73 trees in the Caltrans ROW
The operation activities associated with the Freeway Tunnel would not result in indirect
permanent impacts to any special-status plant species or trees potentially subject to local tree
ordinances.
As discussed above, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to specialstatus plant species. Therefore, the TSM/TDM component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would not result in additional permanent impacts to special-status plant species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-10
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
3.18.4
The following measures would be implemented to address impacts to special-status plant species.
Measure PS-1
Measure PS-2
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Coulters Goldfields (applies to the LRT Alternative): Should the

Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative be selected and documentation
of the planting efforts of the population of Coulters goldfields in
the Biological Study Area (BSA) be unavailable, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will address
the effects of the LRT Alternative on the Coulters goldfields
population as follows:
The disturbance of this population will be avoided to the

greatest extent possible during final design. Prior to any
construction or ground-disturbing activities near the population,
the Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor
to plan a highly visible barrier such as Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) fencing or other marker near or around any part of
the population that will not be directly impacted to avoid
effects on that part of the population. No access or work will be
authorized within the ESA.

to have a qualified biologist monitor construction in the vicinity
of the ESA for the duration of any ground-disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the ESA to ensure that indirect effects to the
population are minimized.
Coulters Goldfields (applies to Freeway Tunnel Alternative):

Should the Freeway Tunnel Alternative be selected and
documentation of the planting efforts of the population of Coulters
goldfields in the BSA be unavailable, the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) will address the effects of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative on the Coulters goldfields population as follows:
The removal of this population will be avoided to the greatest

extent possible during final design. If during Plans,
Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), direct impacts to Coulters
goldfields is avoided by project design, prior to any construction
or ground-disturbing activities near the population, the
Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to
plan a highly visible barrier (e.g., Environmentally Sensitive Area
[ESA] fencing or other marker) near or around any part of the
population that will not be directly impacted to avoid effects on
that part of the population. No access or work will be
authorized within the ESA.

to have a qualified biologist monitor construction in the vicinity
of the ESA for the duration of any ground-disturbing activities in
3.18-11
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
the vicinity of the ESA to ensure that indirect effects to the

population are minimized.
Measure PS-3
Measure PS-4
Southern California Black Walnut (applies to the Freeway Tunnel

Alternative): The Caltrans Resident Engineer will require the
Construction Contractor to implement the following to address the
effects of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative on the Southern California
black walnut:
The removal and/or disturbance of this individual tree will be

avoided to the greatest extent possible during final design and
construction. A qualified arborist will establish the dripline of
this tree, which will be identified on the design plans, and an
ESA will be established.
Prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities, the

Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to
plan a highly visible barrier (e.g., ESA fencing or other marker)
near or around any part of the population that will not be
directly impacted to avoid effects on that part of the
population. No access or work will be authorized within the ESA.

to have a qualified arborist monitor construction within the
vicinity of any established ESA for the duration of any grounddisturbing activities.
Trees Protected by City and/or County Ordinances (applies to the

four Build Alternatives): The following will be required to address
project effects on protected trees:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Should removal of the Coulters goldfields population be

required, Caltrans will consult with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to determine the appropriate
mitigation-to-impact ratio for this population. Mitigation may
include replacement within a State-owned right of way (ROW).
Caltrans will coordinate with the CDFW prior to construction to
determine the appropriate mitigation actions required and to
ensure the actions are carried out.
Prior to construction or ground-disturbing activities, the

plan a highly visible barrier (e.g., ESA fencing or other marker)
near or around any part of the population that will be placed
around the dripline or trunk of protected trees within and
adjacent to the limits of disturbance such that no work will
occur within the protected area. If this is infeasible, the
obtain appropriate tree removal permits for each impacted
protected tree from the appropriate local agency (i.e., Cities of
3.18-12
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Rosemead, or Los

Angeles County).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Compensatory mitigation may be required at the discretion of

the agency with jurisdiction over protected trees; therefore, the
compensatory mitigation would vary by jurisdiction.
Compensation will be provided consistent with the
requirements of the appropriate local agencys tree protection
ordinance.
3.18-13
DRAFT

3.18 PLANT SPECIES
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.18-14
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
3.19 Animal Species

3.19.1
Regulatory Setting
Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries Service), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are responsible for
implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements
associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the federal or state Endangered
Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in
Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered Species, below. All other special-status animal species are
discussed here, including CDFW fully protected species and species of special concern, and USFWS
or NOAA Fisheries Service candidate species. The term special-status also includes wildlife that
appears on the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Special Animals List. Animals
that are included in this list are those that the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their
legal or protection status. CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation
need. These species are included on the list due to identification by other governmental agencies
and/or non-governmental conservation organizations as being of conservation concern.
Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
National Environmental Policy Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
State laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
California Environmental Quality Act
Sections 1600 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 4150 and 4152 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code
3.19.2
The analysis of the effects of the proposed project on special-status animal species is based on the
Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014). The findings of the NES are summarized in this section. A
description of the Biological Study Area (BSA) was provided earlier in this Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) in Section 3.16.2.1, Biological Study Area.
Wildlife species that occur in the BSA are generally limited to species that are well adapted to
human-modified environments and are typically associated with urbanized habitats. Common
mammal species observed or expected to be present in the BSA were raccoon (Procyon lotor),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), house mouse
(Mus musculus), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), (feral) domestic cat
(Felis catus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Common reptiles observed or expected to be
present in the BSA were western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and common side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana). A number of bird species were observed in the BSA during focused bird
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-1
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
surveys. The dominant bird species present in the BSA were house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus),
house sparrow, northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
rock pigeon, and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A full list of wildlife identified and
expected to be present in the BSA is provided in the Faunal Compendium in Appendix K of the NES.
Based on literature and database reviews, it was determined that 71 special-status wildlife species
had the potential to occur in the BSA. Of these 71 species, 15 are federally and/or State-listed as
endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Further information on those 15 species, including
status, habitat requirements, and potential for occurrence, is provided in detail in the NES and
summarized in Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered Species.
General reconnaissance surveys, focused avian surveys, focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
and special-status riparian bird habitat assessments, and focused bat surveys were conducted in
2013.
Animal species that were observed or have habitat present in the BSA are discussed in this section.
Additional sensitive wildlife species may have the potential to occur in the BSA but were not
discovered during the literature and database reviews or the field surveys.
3.19.2.1
Special-Status Riparian Bird Species
Riparian obligate birds depend on riparian habitat types. Three State- and/or federally listed riparian
obligate birds have the potential to occur, as migrants, in the BSA; those species are discussed later
in Section 3.20. Two riparian obligate California Species of Special Concern, yellow-breasted chat
(Icteria virens) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechial), have the potential to be present in the BSA
and are discussed below.
A habitat assessment for riparian obligate birds was conducted in March and August 2013 to
determine whether suitable habitat for special-status riparian birds was present in the BSA. Two
areas of potentially suitable streamside vegetation in the BSA were identified during pedestrian
surveys and plant community mapping and were then the subject of the focused habitat
assessment. One area is the Laguna Channel adjacent to the eastern edge of Interstate 710 (I-710)
and north of Floral Drive in the City of Monterey Park. The vegetation at this location was classified
as wetland complex, nonnative riparian woodland, and giant reed semi-natural stands. Vegetation at
this site was determined to be unsuitable for use by breeding riparian obligate birds. However, this
location was determined to be suitable for use during the nonbreeding season on occasion by
riparian obligate birds.
The second location was along the Arroyo Seco drainage, where it is spanned by State Route 134 (SR
134) in the northern part of the BSA. This location consisted of contiguous native-dominated
vegetation, including stands of arroyo willow thicket, black cottonwood forest, and white alder
groves. This location was determined to be unsuitable for use by breeding riparian obligate birds but
suitable for use outside the breeding season.
Two individual yellow warblers were observed on May 15, 2013, in disturbed/developed habitat at
the California State University, Los Angeles (Cal State LA) easternmost parking lot adjacent to the
existing SR-710 freeway during the transect surveys of the focused avian survey. However, those
individuals were not observed in the marginally suitable habitat previously identified. No yellowbreasted chats were observed during the habitat assessment or any other surveys. Because optimal
suitable breeding habitat is not present and there is only minor substandard riparian habitat for
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-2
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
breeding in the BSA, yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat are not expected to nest or breed in
and/or adjacent to the BSA, although sporadic use outside the breeding season by non-territorial
individuals likely does occur.
3.19.2.2
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is classified as a California Species of Special Concern and is also covered under
the federal MBTA. The burrowing owl is a year-round resident throughout much of Southern
California, with an incursion of visitors retreating from higher elevations and more northerly
latitudes in the winter months. In the past, burrowing owls nested in small numbers throughout
southern Los Angeles County south of the San Gabriel Mountains, but this species is now nearly
extirpated as breeders in that part of the County. Burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and
perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation and flat to
moderate slopes with less than 30 percent canopy cover of trees and shrubs. Burrows are the
essential component of burrowing owl habitat. Both natural and artificial burrows provide
protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by
mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but also may use manmade structures, such as
cement culverts; cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings under cement or asphalt
pavement.
Surveys were conducted in June and July 2013 to determine whether the burrowing owl occurs, or
has the potential to occur, in the BSA. Habitat in the BSA was assessed for burrowing owl suitability.
Three sites included expanses of open low vegetation and were considered to have the potential to
be suitable for burrowing owls. These sites were visited to evaluate their potential to provide
habitat. The habitat assessment resulted in the determination that there is no suitable burrowing
owl habitat present in the BSA. Although the areas were open grassy areas with few trees and
shrubs, there was no evidence of small mammal burrows or colonies that would provide a suitable
prey base. Further, no burrowing owls, suitable burrows, or burrowing owl sign were observed
during surveys. It is unlikely that burrowing owls occur in and adjacent to the BSA; therefore,
burrowing owl is considered absent from the BSA.
3.19.2.3
Special-Status Bat Species
One potentially present bat species, Townsends big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), was
recently listed as a State candidate threatened species and is discussed later in Section 3.20. There
are 13 special-status bat species with the potential to occur in the BSA. The following six of those
bat species are designated as California Species of Special Concern: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus),
pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosacca), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), western
yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii). The following seven bat species are designated as California Special Animals
due to their local importance: fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus),
long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), long-eared myotis
(Myotis evotis), western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), and Yuma myotis (Myotis
yumanensis). Locally important species are species that are not monitored by the resource agencies
but are monitored by local municipal governments or private organizations such as the Western Bat
Working Group. However, all bat species in California are protected from unlawful take in
accordance with Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code. All these potentially occurring bat
species primarily roost in caves, rock crevices, and/or trees. All but the western yellow bat and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-3
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
western red bat have been reported to use human-developed structures such as bridges and
buildings for roosting.
Focused bat habitat assessment surveys and passive and active nighttime acoustic monitoring
surveys were conducted in 2013 to determine whether any bat species were roosting on or within,
or have the potential to roost on or within, 14 bridges in the BSA (see NES, Appendix G, Bat Surveys).
Five of the bridges and one nearby foraging area were identified as having characteristics suitable
for bat roosting, and passive and active acoustic bat surveys were conducted at those locations to
determine bat presence. All five bridges were identified as providing marginally suitable roosting
habitat. The most valuable foraging habitat near the four bridges in the southern part of the BSA
was a golf course approximately 0.25 mi to the southeast where there are water bodies and bright
lights that attract insects. The most valuable foraging habitat near the bridge in the northern part of
the BSA was the wetland associated with the Del Mar Pump Station, which is immediately adjacent
to the bridge, due to the presence of standing water. These two foraging locations were identified
to be the most valuable foraging locations in close proximity to the bridges in the BSA; however,
bats may forage elsewhere throughout the BSA. In addition, large trees throughout the entire BSA
may provide roosting sites for tree-roosting bat species.
Passive acoustic bat surveys were also conducted at a reference bridge (a non-impacted bridge that
is partly inside and partly outside the BSA) to determine what species may potentially be foraging in
the BSA. While bats were detected acoustically near all five project bridges, no evidence of roosting
bat use at those bridges was observed. None of the bat species positively identified via acoustic
surveys near the five project bridges were special-status species. One California Species of Special
Concern, the western red bat, was detected at the reference bridge. Bat calls recorded at the five
project bridges that were identified to the phonic group level indicated that the following specialstatus species may be foraging near those bridges: hoary bat, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis,
pocketed free-tailed bat, and silver-haired bat. Based on the surveys, there is no indication that the
bridges that would be widened or demolished as part of the Build Alternatives are used for specialstatus bat roosting. However, due to the positive detection of bats during acoustic surveys, bats are
likely roosting and foraging elsewhere in the BSA.
3.19.2.4
Other Special-Status and Protected Wildlife Species
There were 40 other special-status wildlife species identified with the potential to occur in the BSA
or in the vicinity of the BSA. There is no suitable habitat for 20 of those species in the BSA (see
Table 11, Listed, Proposed, and Special-Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur
within and in the Vicinity of the BSA, of the NES). There is potential habitat in the BSA for the
remaining 20 special-status wildlife species. Migratory birds protected under the MBTA and birds of
prey protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 are also expected to
occur in the BSA.
The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was listed as endangered pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA) but was delisted in 2009 due to its recovered populations. It is
currently listed as Fully Protected in California. It is covered under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA), as are most native North American birds. The range of the American peregrine falcon
extends throughout most of the western United States. It occurs in cliff, shrubland/chaparral,
urban/edificarian (habitats that are dominated by buildings with little vegetation), conifer
woodland, hardwood woodland, mixed woodland, estuarine, bay/sound, herbaceous wetland,
lagoon, river mouth/tidal river, and tidal flat/shore habitats. American peregrine falcons typically
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-4
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
nest on cliff ledges, but other nesting sites can include electricity transmission towers, tall buildings,
and bridges. Breeding pairs exhibit high fidelity to nesting sites used previously and rarely establish
new nesting sites.
No American peregrine falcons were observed in the BSA during focused bird surveys conducted in
2013. The nearest previously observed nesting location of this species was at the AT&T building in
Pasadena at the northwest corner of East Colorado Boulevard and South Marengo Avenue,
approximately 0.3 mile (mi) from the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative, approximately 0.8 mi from
the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative, and approximately 0.4 mi from the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative (eBird, Pasadena Audubon Society Yahoo Group 2013; Los Angeles Times 2005). This
nest site has been used repeatedly for several years. In general, the BSA includes tall buildings in
downtown Pasadena that provide additional potential nesting habitat for American peregrine
falcons. Nonetheless, unrecorded pairs are not anticipated to occur in the BSA.
Plant community mapping, focused avian surveys, and general reconnaissance surveys conducted in
2013 determined that suitable habitat was present in the BSA for the following special-status
wildlife species: monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa),
western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), coast patchnosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), San
Bernardino ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), western pond turtle (Actinemys
marmorata), California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata),
coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), south coast garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis
infernalis), Allens hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Costas hummingbird (Calypte costae),
Lawrences goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei), merlin (Falco columbarius), Nuttalls woodpecker
(Picoides nuttallii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), and Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii). For
monarch butterfly, the habitat for winter roosting aggregations was considered marginal because all
known monarch wintering sites are closer to the coast where winter weather is moderated by the
oceanic influence. Overnight fall roosts, which occur during migration, could occur in trees in the
BSA.
Of the special-status wildlife species mentioned above, only Allens hummingbird, Nuttalls
woodpecker, oak titmouse, and Coopers hawk were observed in the BSA during the 2013 surveys,
although none of these four species were observed nesting during the 2013 surveys. Nuttall's
woodpecker, oak titmouse, and Coopers hawk are year-round residents within the BSA and can
nest in urban, riparian woody areas. Although these species were not observed nesting during 2013
surveys, it is possible for these species to nest within the BSA during subsequent nesting seasons.
In addition to the special-status species discussed above, the following seven special-status bird
species were observed incidentally and during focused avian surveys in the BSA: black-crowned
night heron, California gull (Larus californicus), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus),
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
and Vauxs swift (Chaetura vauxi). The BSA is outside the nesting/breeding range for black-crowned
night heron, California gull, double-crested cormorant, great blue heron, great egret, and Vauxs
swift. The occurrences of those species in the BSA were transient, and no nesting resources would
be used in the BSA by these species. The BSA is within the wintering grounds of sharp-shinned hawk
but is well outside of its breeding/nesting grounds; therefore, this species is not expected to nest in
the BSA. Two pairs of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), which are not considered to be specialstatus but are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-5
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
MBTA, exhibited territorial and breeding behavior at two locations in or adjacent to the BSA. One
pair, seen repeatedly near the south end of the BSA, was observed mating and a potential nest
location was discovered in a eucalyptus tree approximately 500 feet (ft) outside the BSA. No
fledglings were noted at any time in or around that nest despite subsequent visits to this area, so it
was assumed that the nesting attempt was not successful. A second pair of red-tailed hawks was
repeatedly noted as acting territorial near the Del Mar Pump Station in the north part of the BSA,
but no nest site was documented in that area. In addition to the special-status species mentioned
above, 78 additional avian species not considered to be special-status or included on the CNDDB
Special Animals List but still protected under the MBTA were identified incidentally and during
focused avian surveys in the BSA (see Appendix F, Avian Surveys, of the NES).
3.19.3
3.19.3.1
Temporary Impacts
related to animal species associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
Temporary impacts to animal species may occur during construction where habitats are temporarily
disturbed during grading or other construction-related activities. Temporary indirect construction
effects to animal species are expected as a result of construction noise, light, vibration, dust, and
human encroachment. Table 3.19.1 describes the potential temporary impacts on animal species by
the Build Alternatives.
3.19.3.2
Permanent Impacts
related to animal species associated with improvements in the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
Permanent impacts to animal species may occur as a result of implementation of the Build
Alternatives through direct loss of habitat. Other direct impacts to animal species and/or suitable
habitat may result from increased night lighting, headlamp glare, and noise. Indirect impacts may
result from edge effects such as future development, exotic plant and animal infestations, litter, fire,
unauthorized recreational use, and pollutants associated with vehicle use of the transportation
facility. Table 3.19.2 describes the potential permanent impacts on animal species by the Build
Alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-6
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
TABLE 3.19.1:
Temporary Impacts to Animal Species by Build Alternative
Animal Species
Riparian Obligate Bird Species
(yellow warbler and yellowbreasted chat)
Burrowing Owl
TSM/TDM Alternative
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in direct or
indirect temporary impacts to known populations of yellow
warbler or yellow-breasted chat. While habitat suitable for
use by these species outside the breeding season is present
in the BSA and may be used by riparian obligate species
sporadically during migration in winter months, no
construction activities would occur in those areas. In
addition, the birds may leave the vicinity during
construction in winter months and forage elsewhere.
Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in
direct or indirect temporary impacts to yellow warblers or
yellow-breasted chats.

indirect temporary impacts on habitat for, or known
populations of, burrowing owl because this species is
absent from the BSA.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in direct
temporary impacts to any known special-status bat
populations due to the absence of roosting bat detections
at the bridge proposed for demolition and/or widening.
Should bats begin using the bridge prior to project
construction, those construction activities under the
TSM/TDM Alternative could have the potential to result in
temporary, indirect impacts through the loss of the roosting
location, construction noise, light, and vibration.
Indirect temporary impacts to foraging bats may occur from
noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc., if nighttime
construction activities take place. However, the bats may
leave the vicinity during instances of nighttime construction
and forage elsewhere.
BRT Alternative
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, the BRT Alternative
would not result in direct or indirect adverse temporary
impacts to yellow warblers or yellow-breasted chats.
Therefore, combined with the TSM/TDM component, the
BRT Alternative would not result in temporary impacts to
The BRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would

not result in direct or indirect temporary impacts on habitat
for, or known populations of, burrowing owl because this
species is absent from the BSA.
The BRT Alternative does not include the widening or
demolition of bridges that could serve as potential sites for
bat roosting. However, the BRT Alternative does contain
trees with the potential for removal that may serve as
roosting locations for tree-roosting bat species. Should bats
begin using trees in the BRT Alternative impact area prior to
project construction, those construction activities under the
BRT Alternative could have the potential to result in
noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc., if nighttime
construction activities take place. However, the bats may
leave the vicinity during instances of nighttime construction
and forage elsewhere.
In addition, the improvements included in the TSM/TDM
Alternative would also be constructed as part of the BRT
Alternative, with the exception of Local Street Improvement
L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey
Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street
Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-7
LRT Alternative
The LRT Alternative would result in indirect temporary
impacts to riparian obligate bird species from noise,
lighting, vibration, dust, etc., due to the proximity of the
potential nonbreeding habitat provided by the riparian
areas to construction areas for the LRT Alternative. Site 1,
which has potential nonbreeding riparian habitat along the
Laguna Channel, is approximately 180 ft from the LRT
Alternative and, as a result, could experience indirect
impacts during the construction of this alternative. Riparian
obligate birds may use Site 1 sporadically during migration
in winter months. Specifically, non-ground-disturbing
construction activities during winter months (such as lane
restriping, installation of temporary signage, and other
daytime work within the existing highway right of way)
could result in indirect adverse effects on riparian obligate
bird species. Construction activities near Site 1 would be a
sufficient distance away so that Site 1 would not experience
indirect adverse effects greater than what currently occurs
as a result of I-710. In addition, no suitable nesting habitat
was identified at Site 1. Therefore, any nonbreeding
riparian birds occupying the site would not experience
direct temporary construction impacts.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in temporary
impacts to riparian obligate birds; therefore, the TSM/TDM
component of the LRT Alternative would not result in
temporary impacts in addition to those discussed above.
The LRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would
not result in direct or indirect temporary impacts on habitat
for, or known populations of, burrowing owl because this
species is absent from the BSA.
The LRT Alternative does not include the widening or
bat roosting. However, the LRT Alternative does contain
trees with the potential for removal that may serve as
roosting locations for tree-roosting bat species. Should bats
begin using trees in the LRT Alternative impact area prior to
project construction, those construction activities under the
LRT Alternative could have the potential to result in
Additionally, the LRT Alternative does include the
construction of a new bridge, which could potentially result
in additional bat roosting habitat.

The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in indirect
temporary impacts to riparian obligate bird species from
noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc., during construction in
winter months due to the proximity of the potential
nonbreeding habitat provided by the riparian areas to the
construction areas for this alternative. Site 2 has potential
nonbreeding riparian habitat along the Arroyo Seco more
than 850 ft away from the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
Riparian obligate birds may use Site 2 sporadically during
migration in winter months. As result, Site 2 would not
experience any direct impacts during construction. Site 2 is
a sufficient distance from the Freeway Tunnel Alternative;
thus, it would not experience indirect effects greater than
what currently exists as a result of SR 134. In addition, no
suitable nesting habitat was identified at Site 2. Therefore,
any nonbreeding riparian birds occupying the site would
not experience direct temporary construction impacts.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in temporary
component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not
result in temporary impacts in addition to those discussed
above.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the TSM/TDM

component would not result in direct or indirect temporary
impacts on habitat for, or known populations of, burrowing
owl because this species is absent from the BSA.
Under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the temporary
adverse impacts to special-status bat species would be
similar to those discussed for the TSM/TDM and LRT
Alternatives.
Alternative would also be constructed as part of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the exception of Other
Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road
Connector Road) and Other Road Improvement T-3 (St.
John Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and California
Boulevard). The temporary impacts to bats that could
potentially occur during bridge widening for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would also occur for the LRT Alternative.

noise, lighting, dust, etc. if nighttime construction activities
take place. However, the bats may leave the vicinity during
instances of nighttime construction and forage elsewhere.
Alternative would also be constructed as part of the LRT
Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvement
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
TABLE 3.19.1:
Temporary Impacts to Animal Species by Build Alternative
Animal Species
Other Special-Status and

Protected Wildlife Species
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
I-10). The temporary impacts to bats that could potentially
occur during bridge widening for the TSM/TDM Alternative
would also occur for the BRT Alternative.

indirect temporary impacts on potentially suitable habitat
for coast horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, coast
range newt, California legless lizard, two-striped garter
snake, western pond turtle, South Coast garter snake, rosy
boa, and coastal whiptail as the TSM/TDM Alternative
would not have temporary impacts on the plant
communities that provide habitat for these species (riparian
nonwetland, coast live oak woodland, laurel sumac scrub,
or wetland complex).
The BRT Alternative would not result in direct or indirect

temporary impacts on potential suitable habitat for coast
horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, coast range newt,
California legless lizard, two-striped garter snake, western
pond turtle, western spadefoot, South Coast garter snake,
rosy boa, and coastal whiptail as the BRT Alternative would
not have temporary impacts on the plant communities that
provide habitat for these species (riparian nonwetland,
coast live oak woodland, laurel sumac scrub, or wetland
complex).
The TSM/TDM Alternative would impact a negligible

amount of nonnative grasslands that may support suitable
habitat for western spadefoot and San Bernardino ringnecked snake. Therefore, there is the potential for
construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative to result in
indirect temporary impacts to these species through noise,
lighting, vibration, dust, etc.
The BRT Alternative would not result in temporary impacts

to nonnative grasslands. Therefore, there would be no
indirect temporary impacts to animal species through loss
of nonnative grasslands habitat.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would result in temporary

impacts to the disturbed/developed community, which may
contain suitable habitat for the San Bernardino ring-necked
snake. Therefore, there is the potential for construction of
the TSM/TDM Alternative to result in indirect temporary
impacts to San Bernardino ring-necked snake as a result of
noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc.
For monarch butterfly eggs, caterpillars, and pupae, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would impact a negligible amount of
nonnative grasslands that may support milkweed plants
required by these life stages.

MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Although Coopers hawk, Allens hummingbird, oak

titmouse, Nuttalls woodpecker, and other bird species
protected under the MBTA were observed in the BSA, they
are not expected to remain in the area during construction.
Nonetheless, indirect temporary impacts on these species
may include disturbance of nesting habitat through noise,
lighting, vibration, dust, etc.
LRT Alternative
T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road).
The temporary impacts to bats that could potentially occur
during bridge widening for the TSM/TDM Alternative would
also occur for the LRT Alternative.
The LRT Alternative would not result in direct or indirect
temporary impacts on potential suitable habitat for coast
horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, coast range newt,
California legless lizard, two-striped garter snake, western
pond turtle, South Coast garter snake, rosy boa, and coastal
whiptail as the LRT Alternative would not have temporary
impacts on the plant communities that provide habitat for
these species (riparian nonwetland, coast live oak
woodland, laurel sumac scrub, or wetland complex).
The LRT Alternative would result in temporary impacts
(noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc.) to nonnative
woodlands that may contain eucalyptus trees with winter
roosting aggregations of adult monarch butterflies.
Under the BRT Alternative, temporary impacts to the

disturbed/developed community would be the same as
those discussed for the TSM/TDM Alternative.
Under the LRT Alternative, temporary adverse impacts to

nonnative grasslands and the disturbed/developed
community would be the same as those discussed for the
TSM/TDM Alternative.
Under the BRT Alternative, temporary impacts to the

nesting birds would be the same as those discussed for the
Under the LRT Alternative, temporary impacts to the

nesting birds would be the same as those discussed for the
The improvements included in the TSM/TDM Alternative

would also be constructed as part of the BRT Alternative,
with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair
Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and
the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement
L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). The
temporary impacts to other special-status and protected
wildlife species discussed for the TSM/TDM Alternative

would also be constructed as part of the LRT Alternative,
with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley
Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road). The
would also occur for the LRT Alternative.
3.19-8
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in direct

or indirect temporary impacts on potential suitable habitat
boa, and coastal whiptail because the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would not have temporary impacts on the plant
communities that provide habitat for these species (riparian
nonwetland, coast live oak woodland, laurel sumac scrub,
or wetland complex).
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in temporary
impacts (noise, lighting, vibration, dust, etc.) to nonnative
roosting aggregations of adult monarch butterflies.
Under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, adverse impacts to
community would the same as those discussed for the
Under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, temporary impacts
to the nesting birds would be the same as those discussed
for the TSM/TDM Alternative.
would also be constructed as part of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvement
T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) and
Other Road Improvement T-3 (St. John Extension between
Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard). The
would also occur for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
TABLE 3.19.2:
Permanent Impacts to Animal Species by Build Alternative
Animal Species
(yellow warbler and yellowbreasted chat)
Burrowing Owl
TSM/TDM Alternative
indirect permanent impacts to known populations of yellow
warbler or yellow-breasted chat. While there is habitat
suitable for use outside the breeding season in the BSA, the
birds may leave the vicinity during operation and forage
elsewhere. Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not
result in direct or indirect permanent impacts to yellow
warblers or yellow-breasted chats.
BRT Alternative
would not result in direct or indirect permanent impacts to
yellow warblers or yellow-breasted chats. Therefore,
combined with the TSM/TDM component, the BRT
Alternative would not result in permanent impacts to
LRT Alternative
The LRT Alternative would not result in any direct
temporary impacts to any listed riparian obligate bird
species because no suitable nesting habitat was identified
within the BSA, and no riparian habitat will be permanently
impacted by the LRT Alternative.

The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in any
direct temporary impacts to any listed riparian obligate bird
species because no suitable nesting habitat was identified
in the BSA and no riparian habitat will be permanently
impacted by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent

component of the LRT Alternative would not result in
permanent impacts in addition to those discussed above.

indirect permanent impacts on habitat for, or known
populations of, burrowing owl due to the absence of the
species from the BSA.
permanent impacts on any known bat populations due to
the absence of roosting bat detections at the bridge
proposed for demolition and/or widening. While suitable
foraging habitat for bats is present, no appreciable amount
of habitat would be permanently removed as a result of the
TSM/TDM Alternative. Permanent indirect impacts to
nearby roosting and foraging bats resulting from the
operation of the TSM/TDM Alternative may include
increased traffic, invasive species, storm water runoff, road
noise, lighting, and vibration.
The BRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would

not result in direct or indirect permanent impacts on
habitat for, or known populations of, burrowing owl due to
the absence of the species from the BSA.
bat roosting. Therefore, the BRT Alternative would not
result in any direct permanent impacts to special-status bat
species. Therefore, combined with the TSM/TDM
component, the BRT Alternative would not result in
permanent direct impacts to special-status bat species.
The LRT Alternative with the TSM/TDM component would

not result in direct or indirect permanent impacts on
habitat for, or known populations of, burrowing owl due to
the absence of the species from the BSA.
bat roosting. Therefore, implementation of the LRT
Alternative would not result in any direct or permanent
impacts to special-status bat species. However, the LRT
Alternative does include a new bridge, which could
potentially result in additional bat roosting habitat.

component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not
result in additional permanent impacts than those
discussed above.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the TSM/TDM
component would not result in direct or indirect permanent
impacts on habitat for, or known populations of, burrowing
owl due to the absence of the species from the BSA.
Under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the temporary
adverse impacts to special-status bat species would be the
same as those discussed for the LRT Alternatives.
Permanent indirect impacts to nearby roosting and foraging

bats resulting from the operation of the BRT Alternative
may include increased traffic, invasive species, storm water
runoff, road noise, lighting, and vibration.
Construction of the LRT Alternative could result in the

removal of large trees that may be used by tree-roosting
bat species. These sites are typically used only by solitary
bats at low densities, and individual trees are not often
used repeatedly by a single bat. Due to the frequent
switching of roost trees by tree-roosting bats, it is unlikely
that the construction of the LRT Alternative would have a
substantial permanent impact on tree-roosting bats.
Therefore, construction of the LRT Alternative would not
result in direct or permanent impacts to special-status bat
species.

bats resulting from the operation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative may include increased traffic, invasive species,
storm water runoff, road noise, lighting, and vibration.
impacts to special-status bat species; therefore, the
TSM/TDM component of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would not result in permanent impacts in addition to those
discussed above.

bats resulting from the operation of the LRT Alternative
may include increased traffic, invasive species, storm water
runoff, road noise, lighting, and vibration.
Other Special-Status and

Protected Wildlife Species
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

indirect permanent impacts on potentially suitable habitat
boa, and coastal whiptail because the TSM/TDM Alternative
would not have permanent impacts on the plant
communities that provide habitat for these species
(riparian nonwetland, coast live oak woodland, laurel
The BRT Alternative would not result in permanent impacts

to potentially suitable habitat for coast horned lizard, coast
patch-nosed snake, coast range newt, California legless
lizard, two-striped garter snake, western pond turtle, South
Coast garter snake, rosy boa, and coastal whiptail because
the BRT Alternative would not have permanent impacts on
the plant communities that provide habitat for these
species (riparian nonwetland, coast live oak woodland,
laurel sumac scrub, or wetland complex).
3.19-9

impacts to special-status bat species; therefore, the
TSM/TDM component of the LRT Alternative would not
result in permanent impacts in addition to those discussed
above.
The LRT Alternative would not result in permanent impacts
to potentially suitable habitat for coast horned lizard, coast
patch-nosed snake, coast range newt, California legless
lizard, two-striped garter snake, western pond turtle, South
Coast garter snake, rosy boa, and coastal whiptail because
the LRT Alternative would not have permanent impacts on
species (riparian nonwetland, coast live oak woodland,
laurel sumac scrub, or wetland complex)..
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in a

permanent impact to potentially suitable habitat for coast
horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, California legless
lizard, rosy boa, or coastal whiptail because the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would not have permanent impacts on
species (riparian nonwetland, coast live oak woodland, or
laurel sumac scrub).
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
TABLE 3.19.2:
Permanent Impacts to Animal Species by Build Alternative
Animal Species
TSM/TDM Alternative
sumac scrub, or wetland complex).
For monarch butterfly eggs, caterpillars, and pupae, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would result in permanent adverse
effects to the nonnative grasslands that may support
milkweed plants required by these life stages. Furthermore,
the nonnative grassland community provides suitable
habitat for western spadefoot and San Bernardino ringnecked snake and, therefore, has the potential to result in
permanent adverse effects to these species through habitat
loss.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would result in permanent
impacts to the disturbed/developed community, which may
contain suitable habitat for the San Bernardino ring-necked
snake.
Although Coopers hawk, Allens hummingbird, oak
titmouse, Nuttalls woodpecker, and other bird species
protected under the MBTA were observed in the BSA, they
are not expected to remain in the area. Even though there
is nearby suitable habitat for these species outside of the
BSA, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in any
major nesting habitat changes in the region.
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
Under the BRT Alternative, permanent impacts to

potentially suitable habitat for coast horned lizard, coast
patch-nosed snake, California legless lizard, rosy boa, and
coastal whiptail would be the same as those discussed for
the TSM/TDM Alternative.
Under the BRT Alternative, permanent adverse impacts to
community would be the same as discussed for the
would not result in any major nesting habitat changes in
the region.
would also be constructed as part of the BRT Alternative,
with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair
Oaks Avenue from Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and
the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement
L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). The
permanent impacts to other special-status and protected

MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-10
The LRT Alternative would result in permanent adverse

impacts to nonnative woodlands that may contain
eucalyptus trees with winter roosting aggregations of adult
monarch butterflies.
Under the LRT Alternative, permanent adverse impacts to
community would be the same as those discussed for the
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, the LRT Alternative
would not result in any major nesting habitat changes in
the region.
would also be constructed as part of the LRT Alternative,
with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley
Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road). The

For monarch butterfly adults, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would result in permanent impacts to nonnative
roosting aggregations of monarch butterflies.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in permanent
impacts to nonnative woodlands that may contain
eucalyptus trees with winter roosting aggregations of adult
monarch butterflies.
Under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, permanent impacts
to nonnative grasslands and the disturbed/developed
community would the same as those discussed for the
Similar to the TSM/TDM Alternative, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would not result in any major nesting habitat
changes in the region.
would also be constructed as part of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvement
T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) and
Other Road Improvement T-3 (St. John Extension between
Del Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard). The
would also occur for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
3.19.4
The following measures would avoid and/or minimize impacts to special-status animal species.
Measure AS-1
Bats (applies to all Build Alternatives). Due to the presence of

marginally suitable bridge roosting habitat within the TSM/TDM and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the following avoidance and
minimization efforts will be implemented:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

(Metro) (TSM/TDM Alternative) or the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will have
preconstruction bat surveys conducted by a qualified bat
biologist prior to ground-disturbing and/or bridge construction
activities. The surveys will be conducted at least 30 days prior to
the start of project construction activities regardless of the time
of year. The most effective dates to determine the presence of
day or maternity roosts is during the breeding season (March
September). If it is determined during the preconstruction
bridge surveys that a structure is being used as a bat roost site,
work will be avoided within 100 feet (ft) of the roost site. No
work will take place between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise, and
airspace access to the bridge will be restricted. Lights will not be
used under the structure, foot traffic and equipment use will
not be allowed under the structure, and combustion equipment
will not be parked or operated under the structure. If a
structure is determined to be used by roosting bats, a qualified
bat biologist will be on site for the duration of construction
activities that may impact bats. If it is determined that the
above activities cannot be avoided, bats will be excluded from
the bridge using California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) approved exclusionary devices to the extent necessary
to prevent mortality to the colony. Exclusion will take place
prior to April 15. If a structure is determined to be in use by
roosting bats, CDFW will be contacted to determine additional,
appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, including
exclusionary measures.
Due to the presence of potentially impacted trees that may provide

roosting habitat within the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives the following avoidance and minimization efforts will
be implemented:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Metro (TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, and LRT

Alternative) or Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will have
preconstruction bat surveys conducted by a qualified bat
biologist prior to the removal of any large trees containing
cavities that may be suitable for roosting. A qualified bat
biologist will inspect the tree for roosting bats prior to tree
3.19-11
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
removal. If a bat is found, tree removal will be postponed until

the bat has vacated the tree, at least 24 hours. As tree-roosting
bats often switch roosting trees from night to night, clearance
of the tree by a qualified bat biologist immediately prior to tree
removal would serve to avoid and minimize any direct impact or
mortality to tree roosting bat species.
Measure AS-2
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Monarch Butterfly (applies to all four Build Alternatives): Metro

(TSM/TDM, Bus Rapid Transit [BRT], and Light Rail Transit [LRT]
Alternatives) or Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will require
the Construction Contractor to implement the following avoidance
and minimization measures in areas of potentially suitable habitat
for winter roosting aggregations of monarch butterfly and the
species egg, caterpillar, and pupal stages:
If eucalyptus trees are to be removed or trimmed between

October and March, preconstruction surveys for winter roosting
aggregations of monarchs will be conducted by a qualified
biologist.
If a winter roosting aggregation is discovered, the area will be

flagged and posted with Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)
signs. If practicable, activities within this area will be avoided
until the aggregation disperses in spring.
If any mature trees are to be removed or trimmed between

September and October, preconstruction surveys for overnight
fall roosts of monarchs will be conducted by a qualified
biologist.
If an overnight fall roost is discovered, the area will be flagged

and posted with ESA signs by a qualified biologist. If practicable,
activities within this area will be avoided until the fall roosting
group disperses (during the day).
Preconstruction surveys for milkweed plants that may support

monarch eggs, caterpillars, or pupae will be conducted within
grassland and riparian areas by a qualified biologist.
Any milkweed plants found that may support monarch eggs,

caterpillars, or pupae will be flagged and ESA signs posted by a
qualified biologist. Construction in the area will be avoided and
minimized.
3.19-12
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
Measure AS-3
Amphibian and Reptile Avoidance and Minimization Measures

(applies to all four Build Alternatives): Metro (TSM/TDM, BRT, and
LRT Alternatives) will require the Construction Contractor to
implement the following avoidance and minimization measures in
areas of potentially suitable nonnative grassland and disturbed/
developed habitat for western spadefoot and San Bernardino ringnecked snake:
Potentially suitable habitat for these species will be avoided to

the greatest extent possible during construction and design.
Staging areas will be confined to existing disturbed areas to the
greatest extent possible.
Preconstruction surveys will be conducted in areas of

potentially suitable habitat by a qualified biologist.
If any individuals of these species are determined to be present

during the preconstruction surveys, CDFW will be notified and
translocation will be conducted by a qualified biologist.
The translocation process will be conducted in accordance with

the guidelines outlined by CDFW.
Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will require the Construction

Contractor to implement the following avoidance and minimization
measures in areas of potentially suitable wetland complex,
nonnative grassland, and disturbed/developed habitat for coast
range newt, western spadefoot, two-striped garter snake, western
pond turtle, San Bernardino ring-necked snake, and South Coast
garter snake:
Measure AS-4
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Potentially suitable habitat for these species will be avoided to

the greatest extent possible during construction and design.
Staging areas will be confined to existing disturbed areas to the
greatest extent possible.
Preconstruction surveys will be conducted in areas of

potentially suitable habitat by a qualified biologist.
If any individuals of these species are determined to be present

during the preconstruction surveys, CDFW will be notified and
translocation will be conducted by a qualified biologist.
The translocation process will be conducted in accordance with

the guidelines outlined by CDFW.
Other Special-Status Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures

(applies to all four Build Alternatives): Metro (TSM/TDM, BRT, and
LRT Alternatives) or Caltrans (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) will
require the Construction Contractor to implement the following
avoidance and minimization efforts for Coopers hawk, Allens
hummingbird, Costas hummingbird, Lawrences goldfinch, merlin,
3.19-13
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
Nuttalls woodpecker, oak titmouse, and any nesting or breeding

birds of prey protected under California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503 and 3503.5, and any other nesting or breeding birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA):
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
The removal and/or disturbance of trees or suitable roosting

shrubbery will be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Any activities in which tree or native vegetation trimming/

removal or construction on bridges may occur will take place
outside of the nesting bird season (February 1August 31)
where feasible.
Should bridge construction be required during the nesting

season, a qualified biologist will be required to inspect the
construction site prior to February 1 and be present during bird
nest removal. The presence of a qualified biologist is required to
inspect the construction site and confirm that any nests
potentially occurring are unoccupied or inactive prior to nest
removal, because removing active nests violates State and
federal law.
If avoidance of these activities during this period is not possible,

preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist will be
conducted to identify any existing nests or breeding birds within
200 ft of and including the area scheduled for construction. The
survey will be completed no more than 48 hours prior to the
start of project activities. Additional surveys will be conducted if
more than 3 days pass between preconstruction nesting bird
surveys and the start of construction.
If breeding/nesting birds are located within 300 ft of the limits

of disturbance, a buffer will be flagged around the nest by a
qualified biologist and ESA signs posted. Any work within 300 ft
of the flagged area will require a qualified biologist to monitor
the birds and ensure that the construction activities do not
negatively impact the birds.
If the biologist identifies signs of stress to any bird species, the

biologist will halt activities in the immediate area until the birds
resume their normal behavior or until the nest has been
determined to be no longer active. This intervention will
provide adequate protection to native nesting bird species
under the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code.
Should breeding/nesting birds of prey be located within the

area scheduled for construction, the buffer will be extended to
500 ft as birds of prey are typically more sensitive to
disturbance.
3.19-14
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Unoccupied nests will be removed from bridges prior to

the colony returning to the nesting site to begin nesting
(February 1August 31). During the period of time between the
removal of unoccupied nests and the start of bridge
construction, bridges will be checked often and unoccupied
nests that are under construction will be removed. The removal
of unoccupied nests will be monitored by a qualified biologist
through the duration of construction. These efforts will
continue until September or until the completion of
construction in order to keep the structures free of nesting
birds. Nest removal will not take place for nests found in trees
or other vegetation.
The construction buffer limits may be modified at the discretion

of a qualified biologist familiar with the specific circumstances
of the situation. Coordination with CDFW will be conducted to
confirm appropriate buffers and determine when it is safe to
remove the buffers. If there are no breeding/nesting birds, no
further action is necessary.
3.19-15
DRAFT

3.19 ANIMAL SPECIES
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.19-16
DRAFT

3.20 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
3.20 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.20.1
Regulatory Setting
The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 402. This act and later amendments provide for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7
of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are required to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) to ensure that they are
not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat
is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species.
The outcome of consultation under Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental
Take statement or a Letter of Concurrence. Section 3 of FESA defines take as harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct.
California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid
potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species; and to develop appropriate planning
to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. The
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the agency responsible for implementing CESA.
Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits take of any species determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game
Code as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.
CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an
incidental take permit is issued by CDFW. For species listed under both the FESA and CESA requiring
a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, the CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA
species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code.
Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,
was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as
anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising
(A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish
within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10,
1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over
such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas.
3.20.1.1
Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation
Under provisions of Section 7(a)(2) of FESA, a federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or
otherwise authorizes a project activity must consult with USFWS to ensure that its actions would not
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Formal Section 7 consultation is not anticipated to be required because adverse effects to
federally threatened and/or endangered species and habitats are not anticipated. No FESA
consultation with USFWS has been initiated to date.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-1
DRAFT

3.20.1.2
California Endangered Species Act Consultation
3.20.2
CESA protects plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered and candidates for
listing. Take of listed and candidate species is authorized by CDFW through the provisions of
Sections 2081 and 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code. No impacts to listed or candidate
species are anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project. Formal consultation
with CDFW pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code and request of
authorization for an Incidental Take Permit are not expected to be required. No CESA consultation
with CDFW has been initiated to date.
The analysis of the potential effects of the proposed project on threatened and/or endangered
species is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014). The findings of the NES are
summarized in this section; detailed information, including the methodology for this analysis, is
provided in the NES.
The Biological Study Area (BSA) is highly developed and disturbed. However, the BSA does contain
small areas (less than 6 acres [ac]) of sensitive natural communities that could support threatened
and/or endangered species. Refer to Section 3.16, Natural Communities, for further discussion on
sensitive naturally occurring communities within the BSA.
Federally or State-listed endangered, threatened, proposed endangered, or threatened species;
California Species of Special Concern (CSC); or otherwise sensitive species that may occur within or
in the immediate vicinity of the project were queried in the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) for the four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series topographical
quadrangles of Pasadena, Los Angeles, El Monte, and Mt. Wilson that encompass the BSA; and the
surrounding 12 USGS 7.5-minute series topographical quadrangles of Burbank, Chilao Flat, Condor
Peak, Waterman Mountain, Azusa, Baldwin Park, La Habra, Hollywood, Inglewood, South Gate,
Sunland, and Whittier. However, as previously noted, the BSAs habitats are degraded to such a
degree that they provide little value for native plants or wildlife. Most of the species identified by
the CNDDB within the relevant quadrangles are not likely to be present due to a lack of speciesspecific habitat requirements. In addition, many of these species are not tolerant of the types of
disturbances or proximity to human activities that currently occur in the BSA. Furthermore, the
CNDDB search included quadrangles that extend into areas of the Angeles National Forest up to
7,100 feet (ft) in elevation, which support plant and wildlife species unlikely to be present within the
BSA, which is primarily within the alluvial fan of the Los Angeles Basin. The USFWS provided an
Endangered Species Act Species List for the SR 710 North Study project. A copy of that letter is
provided in Appendix K. That list identified a total of ten wildlife species and 5 plant species. The
letter also indicated that six designated Critical Habitats could occur in the project area. None of
those Critical Habitats are within the BSA or in the vicinity of the BSA and, therefore, they are not
discussed further in this section. There is no NOAA Fisheries Service designated Critical Habitat for
any listed species present within the BSA.
3.20.2.1
Threatened and/or Endangered Plant Species
After a thorough literature and database review, it was determined that a total of 54 special-status
plant species (refer to Table 10 of the NES) have the potential to occur within or in the vicinity of the
BSA; special-status plant species are a combination of federal or State-listed endangered or
threatened, proposed endangered or threatened, California Species of Special Concern (CSC), and/or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-2
DRAFT

other special designations. Of the 54 special-status plant species with the potential to occur within
the BSA, 11 have federal and/or State-listed designations (Table 3.20.1). After further analysis, it was
determined that suitable habitat and soil requirements are not present within the BSA for 7 of these
11 plant species; therefore, those 7 plant species are not discussed further in this evaluation.
Discussion of the other 4 federally and State-listed plant species that have the potential to occur in
the BSA (marsh sandwort, slender-horned spineflower, Gambels watercress, and thread-leaved
brodiaea) is provided below.
TABLE 3.20.1:
Federally and/or State-Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Plant Species
Species
State Listed Status

Federally Listed Status
Plant Species on the USFWS FESA Species List
Gambels watercress
Threatened
Endangered
(Rorippa gambelii) (aka: Nasturtium gambelii)
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Endangered
Threatened
(Brodiaea filifolia)
Slender-horned spineflower
Endangered
Endangered
(Dodecahema leptoceras)
1,2
Nevins barberry,
Endangered
Endangered
(Berberis nevinii)
1,2
Brauntons milk-vetch
No status
Endangered
(Astragalus brauntonii)
Other Plant Species Evaluated in the Current Study
Marsh sandwort
Endangered
Endangered
(Arenaria paludicola)
2
Brands star phacelia
No status
Removed from Federal list on
(Phacelia stellaris)
11-22-2013
2
California Orcutt grass
Endangered
Endangered
(Orcuttia californica)
2
Coastal dunes milk-vetch
Endangered
Endangered
(Astragalus tener var. titi)
2
San Fernando Valley spineflower
Endangered
Federal Candidate for listing
(Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina)
2
Spreading navarretia
No status
Threatened
(Navarretia fossalis)
Sources: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List for the Project, dated January 13, 2015; State of California, State and
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California and State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Plants of California Lists, January 2015. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/. Accessed February 4, 2015; and
the NES.
1
It was determined during the analysis conducted for the project, that these species are not present in the BSA because the area lacks
the soil requirements and habitat types for these species. Therefore, these species are not discussed further in this evaluation.
2
There is no suitable habitat for these species in the BSA; therefore, these species are not discussed further in this evaluation.
NES = Natural Environment Study
Marsh Sandwort
Marsh sandwort is federally and State-listed as endangered. It also has a California Rare Plant Rank
(CRPR) of 1B.1, indicating that it is seriously threatened in California. CRPR is the California Native
Plant Societys ranking system that was created in order to categorize various levels of concern for
plant species. Marsh sandwort is a perennial stoloniferous herb in the family Caryophyllaceae that
blooms from May to August. This species occurs in freshwater marsh, marsh and swamp, and
wetland habitats. It is often found in openings on sandy soils between 10 and 558 ft in elevation.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-3
DRAFT

Botanical surveys conducted within the BSA in 2013, during the appropriate blooming period for this
species, were negative. Only one other plant in the family Caryophyllaceae, red sandspurry
(Spergularia rubra), which is readily distinguishable from marsh sandwort, was observed during the
surveys. Neither blooming nor seeded individuals were observed as a result of the surveys. The
wetland complex habitat present in the BSA was marginally suitable for this species due to its low
quality. The CNDDB includes one recorded observation of marsh sandwort in this area from 1900 in
the Cienega community (near Beverly Hills) of Los Angeles County, approximately 8.5 to 9.5 miles
(mi) southwest of the BSA, in an area that is now urban with no remaining habitat. Because there
was only marginally suitable habitat, there are no known occurrences of this species proximate to
the BSA, and the species was not observed as a result of focused surveys during the appropriate
blooming period, the potential for the species to be present but not observed is low. Therefore, the
species is considered absent from the BSA and is not discussed further in this section.
Slender-Horned Spineflower
Slender-horned spineflower is federally and State-listed as endangered. It also has a CRPR of 1B.1,
indicating that it is seriously threatened in California. This species is an annual herb in the family
Polygonaceae that blooms from April to June. Slender-horned spineflower occurs in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. It is often found on alluvial fans in sandy soils
between 656 and 2,493 ft in elevation.
Botanical surveys conducted within the BSA in 2013 were negative for this species. Neither
blooming nor seeded individuals were observed as a result of the surveys. However, as the surveys
were conducted approximately 1 month later than the appropriate flowering period for slenderhorned spineflower, it is possible that individuals were present but not seen or were unidentifiable.
There is marginally suitable habitat within the BSA within the laurel sumac scrub and coast live oak
woodland areas of the BSA. The CNDDB includes five records of slender-horned spineflower
observations near the BSA. The closest occurrence was documented in 1920 near the Rubio Wash in
Altadena, approximately 3 mi northeast of the BSA; this population has since been extirpated as a
result of urbanization. The most recent occurrence was documented in 2006 at the Big Tujunga
Wash near Sunland, approximately 11.5 mi northwest of the BSA. This species is normally associated
with Riversidean or Venturan coastal sage scrub on alluvial terraces adjacent to natural rivers and
streams. There are no known extant occurrences of this species proximate to the BSA and it was not
observed as a result of focused surveys; therefore, the potential for the species to be present is low.
However, due to botanical surveys being conducted outside of the appropriate blooming period for
this species, the absence of slender-horned spineflower from the BSA cannot be confirmed.
Gambels Watercress
Gambels watercress is federally listed as endangered and State-listed as threatened. It also has a
CRPR of 1B.1, indicating that it is seriously threatened in California. This species is a perennial
rhizomatous herb in the family Brassicaceae that blooms from April to October. Gambels
watercress occurs in brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, marsh and swamp, and wetland habitats. It
occurs between 6 and 1,083 ft in elevation.
Botanical surveys conducted within the BSA in 2013, during the appropriate blooming period for this
species, were negative. Neither blooming nor seeded individuals were observed as a result of the
surveys. The two wetland complex habitats present within the BSA in Pasadena and Monterey Park
were marginally suitable but not ideal habitat due to high human disturbance. This species is nearly
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-4
DRAFT

extinct in the United States. The CNDDB includes one recorded observation of Gambels watercress
in this area from 1904 in the Cienega community (near Beverly Hills) of Los Angeles County,
approximately 8.5 to 9.5 mi southwest of the BSA, in an area that is now urban with no remaining
habitat. Because there is only low-quality, marginally suitable habitat present in the BSA, there are
no known occurrences of this species proximate to the BSA, and the species was not observed as a
result of focused surveys during the appropriate blooming period, the potential for Gambels
watercress to be present but not observed is low. Therefore, the species is considered absent from
the BSA and is not discussed further in this section.
Thread-Leaved Brodiaea
Thread-leaved brodiaea is federally listed as threatened. It also has a CRPR of 1B.1, indicating it is
seriously threatened in California. This species is a perennial bulbiferous herb that blooms from
March to June. Thread-leaved brodiaea occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
playa, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats. It is often found in clay soils at
elevations between 83 ft and 3,675 ft.
Botanical surveys conducted in 2013 throughout the entire BSA were negative for this species.
Neither blooming nor seeded individuals were observed as a result of surveys. However, because
the surveys were conducted approximately 1 month later than the appropriate flowering period for
thread-leaved brodiaea, it is possible that individuals were present but were not seen or were
unidentifiable. There is marginally suitable habitat present on site within the laurel sumac scrub and
coast live oak woodland areas of the BSA.
The CNDDB includes six records of thread-leaved brodiaea observations near the BSA. The nearest
21st century occurrence was documented in 2013 in the City of Glendora, approximately 12.7 mi
from the BSA. There are no known extant occurrences of this species within 12.7 mi of the BSA, and
it was not observed during focused surveys; therefore, the potential for the species to be present is
low. However, due to botanical surveys being conducted outside the appropriate blooming period
for this species, the absence of this species from the BSA cannot be confirmed.
3.20.2.2
Threatened and/or Endangered Animal Species
After a thorough literature and database review, it was determined that 71 special-status wildlife
species (refer to Table 11 in the NES) have the potential to occur within the BSA; special-status
wildlife species are a combination of federal or State-listed endangered or threatened, proposed
endangered or threatened, CSC, and/or other special designations. Of the 71 wildlife species with
the potential to occur within the BSA, 14 have federal and/or State-listed designations (Table
3.20.2). The analysis determined that 10 of these 14 wildlife species are not present in the BSA due
to lack of suitable habitat types; therefore, those 10 wildlife species are not discussed further in this
evaluation. Discussion of the other four federally and/or State-listed wildlife species that have the
potential to occur within the BSA (least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellowbilled cuckoo, and Townsends big-eared bat) is provided below.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-5
DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.2:
Federally and/or State Listed Endangered, Threatened and/or Candidate Wildlife Species
Species
State Listed Status

Wildlife Species on the USFWS Species List
Bird Species
1
California least tern
Endangered
(Sterna antillarum browni)
1
Coastal California gnatcatcher
No status
(Polioptila californica californica)
Least Bells vireo
Endangered
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
1
Light-footed clapper rail
Endangered
(Rallus longirostris levipes)
Southwestern willow flycatcher
State Candidate Endangered
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
Mammal Species
1
Pacific pocket mouse
No status
(Perognathus longimembris pacificus)
Fish Species
1
Santa Ana sucker
No status
(Catostomus santaanae)
Amphibian Species
1
Arroyo toad
No status
(Anaxyrus californicus)
Mountain yellow-Legged frog, Southern California
State Candidate Endangered
1
distinct population segment
(Rana muscosa)
Insects
1
Palos Verdes Blue butterfly
No status
(Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)
Other Wildlife Species Evaluated in the Current Study
Bird Species
1
Bank swallow
Threatened
(Riparia riparia)
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Endangered
(Coccyzus americanus)
Mammal Species
Townsends big-eared bat
State Candidate Threatened
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
Amphibian Species
1
California red-legged frog
No status
(Rana draytonii)
Federally Listed Status
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
No status
Threatened
No status
Threatened
Sources: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List for the Project, dated January 13, 2015; State of California, State and
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California and State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Plants of California Lists, January 2015. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/. Accessed February 4, 2015; and
the NES.
1
It was determined during the analysis conducted for the project that these species are not present in the BSA because the area lacks
the soil requirements and habitat types for these species. Therefore, these species are not discussed further in this evaluation.
NES = Natural Environment Study
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-6
DRAFT

Riparian obligate birds depend on riparian habitat types, which are a limited resource in California.
Three State- and/or federally listed riparian obligate birds (least Bells vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo) have the potential to occur, as migrants, in the BSA.
Least Bells vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher are both federally and State listed as
endangered; western yellow-billed cuckoo is listed as a federally threatened and State endangered
species. All three species are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Least Bells vireo is a riparian obligate during the breeding season and is typically associated with
early successional riparian habitat that is structurally diverse. This species can occupy a range of
riparian vegetation types (e.g., cottonwood willow and oak woodland) and vegetation age classes
but is most often associated with a dense understory. The southwestern willow flycatcher requires
riparian woodland habitats for all, or portions, of its lifecycle; during the breeding season, it is a
riparian obligate. Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat generally has vegetation that
includes dense tree or shrub cover, dense twig structure, and high levels of live green foliage. The
western yellow-billed cuckoos habitat criteria includes: large blocks of riparian woodlands
(particularly those composed of cottonwoods and willows), sufficient patch size (10 ac average in
California), and presence of low woody vegetation.
A habitat assessment for riparian obligate birds was conducted in March and August 2013 to
determine whether suitable habitat for threatened and/or endangered riparian birds was present
within the BSA. Two areas of potentially suitable streamside vegetation within the BSA were
identified during pedestrian surveys and plant community mapping and were then the subject of the
focused habitat assessment. Site 1 was located along the Laguna Channel stream adjacent to the
eastern edge of Interstate 710 (I-710) and north of Floral Drive in the City of Monterey Park, and the
vegetation at Site 1 was classified as wetland complex, nonnative riparian woodland, and giant reed
semi-natural stands. Vegetation at this site was determined to be unsuitable for use by breeding
riparian obligate birds. However, Site 1 was determined to be suitable for use during the
nonbreeding season on occasion by riparian obligate birds.
Site 2 was located along the Arroyo Seco drainage, where it is spanned by State Route 134 (SR 134)
on the northern end of the BSA. Site 2 consisted of contiguous native-dominated vegetation
alliances, including stands of arroyo willow thicket, black cottonwood forest, and white alder groves.
Site 2 was determined to be unsuitable for use by breeding riparian obligate birds. However, the site
was determined to be suitable for use outside the breeding season.
Focused avian surveys (including point-counts and transect surveys) were conducted between
March and May 2013. No listed riparian obligate bird species were observed during these surveys.
The CNDDB does not include any records for least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or
western yellow-billed cuckoo in or close to the BSA within the past 50 years. However, eBird, a
database aimed at compiling casual observations of all bird species, includes several records of least
Bells vireo and willow flycatcher (records do not identify whether it is southwestern or a different
subspecies) in the area, including locations along the Arroyo Seco both upstream and downstream
of the BSA. These records were closest to Site 2 in the BSA; however, there were no records near
Site 1. There are no records of western yellow-billed cuckoo near the BSA and only three recorded in
Los Angeles County. It is unlikely that least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western
yellow-billed cuckoo breed within and/or adjacent to the BSA, although sporadic use outside the
breeding season by non-territorial individuals likely does occur.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-7
DRAFT

Townsends Big-Eared Bat
Townsends big-eared bat has recently been listed as a State candidate threatened species. This bat
species has a very low potential to be present within the BSA since it is normally found in
undisturbed areas and roosts in abandon mines and caves. However, focused bat habitat
assessment surveys and passive and active nighttime acoustic monitoring surveys were conducted in
2013 to determine whether this bat species was roosting on or within, or has the potential to roost
on or within, any of the bridges in the BSA that may be affected by the Build Alternatives. Habitat at
and near 14 bridge locations was assessed for bat-use suitability. Five of the project bridges and one
nearby foraging area were identified as having characteristics suitable for bat roosting, and passive
and active acoustic bat surveys were conducted at these locations to determine bat presence. All
five project bridges were identified as providing marginally suitable roosting habitat. The foraging
habitat nearest to the four bridges in the southern portion of the BSA was a golf course
approximately 0.25 mi to the southeast. The foraging habitat nearest to the bridge in the northern
portion of the BSA was the wetland associated with the Del Mar Pump Station immediately adjacent
to the bridge. Passive acoustic bat surveys were also conducted at a reference bridge (a nonimpacted bridge that is partly inside and partly outside the BSA) to determine whether this species
has the potential to be foraging in the BSA. While bats were detected acoustically near all five
project bridges, no evidence of roosting bat use at those bridges was observed. Townsends bigeared bat was not positively identified via acoustic surveys near the five project bridges. Based on
the surveys, there is no indication that the bridges that would be widened or demolished as part of
the Build Alternatives are used for Townsends big-eared bat roosting.
3.20.3
3.20.3.1
Temporary Impacts
Temporary impacts to threatened and/or endangered species may occur during construction, where
habitats are temporarily disturbed during grading or other construction-related activities.
Temporary construction impacts to listed species are expected as a result of construction noise,
light, vibration, dust, and human encroachment. Refer to Table 3.20.2 for a discussion of potential
temporary impacts to threatened and endangered species that could potentially occur in the BSA by
Build Alternative. (Please note that the tables cited in this section are provided following the last
page of text in this section.) Table 3.20.3 does not discuss temporary impacts on plant and animal
species that do not have the potential to occur in the BSA, as described in Table 3.20.1.
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any direct or
indirect temporary impacts related to threatened and/or endangered species associated with
Build Alternatives
Table 3.20.1 discusses the temporary impacts to listed species by Build Alternative. As shown in
Table 3.20.1, all Build Alternatives were determined: (1) to have no direct or indirect temporary
impacts on federally listed threatened or endangered species, (2) to not result in take of State-listed
threatened or endangered species, and (3) to have a preliminary no effect on all species identified in
Tables 3.20-1 and 3.20-2 as well as on any other species or critical habitat listed in the USFWS
species list (Appendix K).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-8
DRAFT

3.20.3.2
Permanent Impacts
Permanent impacts to threatened and/or endangered species may occur as a result of

implementation of the proposed project through direct loss of habitat. In addition to direct loss of
habitat, other direct impacts to listed species and/or suitable habitat may result from increased
lighting at night, headlamp glare, and noise. Indirect impacts may result from edge effects such as
future development, exotic plant and animal infestations, litter, fire, unauthorized recreational use,
and pollutants associated with vehicle use of the transportation facility. Refer to Table 3.20.4 for a
discussion of potential permanent impacts to specific threatened and endangered species by Build
Alternative. Table 3.20.4 does not discuss temporary impacts on plant and animal species that do
not have the potential to occur in the BSA, as described in Table 3.20.2.
North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in any direct or
indirect permanent impacts related to threatened and/or endangered species associated with
Build Alternatives
Table 3.20.2 includes a discussion of permanent impacts to listed species by Build Alternative within
the BSA. As shown in Table 3.20.2, all Build Alternatives were determined: (1) to have no direct or
indirect permanent impacts on federally listed threatened or endangered species, (2) to not result in
take of State-listed threatened or endangered species, and (3) to have a preliminary no effect on all
species identified in Tables 3.20-1 and 3.20-2 as well as on any other species or critical habitat listed
in the USFWS species list (Appendix K).
3.20.3.3
Measures NC-1 through NC-3 (provided previously in Section 3.16, Natural Communities) and
Measure AS-1 (provided previously in Section 3.19, Animal Species) would protect threatened
and/or endangered species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-9
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-10
DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.3:
Temporary Impacts to Threatened and/or Endangered Species By Build Alternative
Species
Plant Species
Slender-horned
spineflower
Status
Federally listed as endangered,
State-listed as endangered
Federally listed as threatened
Bird Species (listed riparian obligate)

Least Bells vireo
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
Marginally suitable habitat for the slender-horned

spineflower was identified within the BSA in the
laurel sumac scrub and coast live oak woodland plant
communities. However, no temporary construction
activities associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative
are planned within this habitat. The limits of
disturbance of the TSM/TDM Alternative are
approximately 0.5 mile away from the suitable
habitat for this species, so no indirect impacts are
anticipated to occur. Therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative would not result in direct or indirect
temporary impacts on any known populations or
habitat of this species.
The BRT Alternative, including the TSM/TDM

Alternative components, would not result in direct or
indirect temporary impacts on any known
populations or habitat of this species. The limits of
disturbance of the BRT Alternative are approximately
0.8 mile away from the suitable habitat for this
species, so no indirect impacts are anticipated to
occur.
The LRT Alternative, including the TSM/TDM

components, would not result in direct or indirect
habitat of this species. The limits of disturbance of
the LRT Alternative are approximately 1.1 mile away
from the suitable habitat for this species, so no
indirect impacts are anticipated to occur.
Marginally suitable habitat for the thread-leaved

brodiaea was identified within the BSA in the laurel
sumac scrub and coast live oak woodland plant
communities. However, no temporary construction
activities associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative
are planned in this habitat. The limits of disturbance
of the TSM/TDM Alternative are approximately 0.5
mile away from the suitable habitat for this species,
so no indirect impacts are anticipated to occur.
Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not result
in direct or indirect temporary impacts on any known
populations or habitat of this species.

the BRT Alternative are approximately 0.8 mile away

the LRT Alternative are approximately 1.1 miles away

or indirect temporary impacts to any known
populations of least Bells vireo or its habitat. While
habitat suitable for use outside the breeding season
is present within the BSA and may be used by least
Bells vireo sporadically during migration in winter
months, no construction activities are planned in
those areas. The nearest TSM/TDM Alternative
impact area is approximately 1.9 miles away from
Riparian Site 1 and 0.6 mile away from Site 2. In

habitat of this species. The nearest BRT Alternative
Riparian Site 1 and 0.8 mile away from Site 2. The
nearest TSM/TDM component impact area is
approximately 1.9 miles away from Riparian Site 1
and 0.6 mile away from Site 2.

components, would not result in direct temporary
impacts to this species because no suitable nesting
habitat was identified within the BSA.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative, including the

TSM/TDM components, would not result in direct
temporary impacts to this species because no
suitable nesting habitat was identified within the BSA.

components, could result in limited indirect,
temporary noise, lighting, dust, etc., impacts to this
species at one location. However, that location is
approximately 180 feet away from potential non-
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative could result in

limited indirect, temporary noise, lighting, dust, etc.,
impacts to this species at one location. However, that
location is approximately 850 feet away from
potential nonbreeding riparian habitat and would
3.20-11
LRT Alternative

TSM/TDM components, would not result in direct or
The limit of disturbance of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative is approximately 850 feet away from
suitable habitat for this species. This habitat may
experience effects resulting from non-grounddisturbing construction. Non-ground-disturbing
construction activities that may occur within 850 feet
of this habitat includes lane restriping, installation of
temporary signage, and other daytime work within
the existing highway right of way on existing
pavement. These construction activities would not
create a disturbance level greater than what currently
exists on SR 134. As such, indirect impacts from
construction are not anticipated. Therefore, the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in direct
or indirect temporary construction impacts to this
species.
TSM/TDM components, would not result in direct or
construction activities that may occur within 850 feet
of this habitat includes lane restriping, installation of
exists on SR 134. As such, indirect impacts from
construction are not anticipated. Therefore, the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in direct
or indirect temporary construction impacts to this
species.
DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.3:
Species
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Mammal Species
Townsends big-eared
bat
Status

Federally listed as threatened,

State candidate as threatened
TSM/TDM Alternative
addition, the birds may leave the vicinity during
construction in winter months and forage elsewhere.

populations of southwestern willow flycatcher or its
habitat. While habitat suitable for use outside the
breeding season is present within the BSA and may
be used by southwestern willow flycatcher
sporadically during migration in winter months, no
construction activities are planned in those areas. The
nearest TSM/TDM Alternative impact area is
approximately 1.9 miles away from Riparian Site 1
and 0.6 mile away from Site 2. In addition, the birds
may leave the vicinity during construction in winter
months and forage elsewhere.

Riparian Site 1 and 0.8 mile away from Site 2.

populations of western yellow-billed cuckoo or its
habitat. While habitat suitable for use outside the
breeding season is present within the BSA and may
be used by western yellow-billed cuckoo sporadically
during migration in winter months, no construction
activities are planned in those areas. The nearest
TSM/TDM Alternative impact area is approximately
1.9 miles away from Riparian Site 1 and 0.6 mile away
from Site 2. In addition, the birds may leave the
vicinity during construction in winter months and
forage elsewhere.

Riparian Site 1 and 0.8 mile away from Site 2.

impacts to any known Townsends big-eared bat
individuals during construction due to the absence of
roosting bat detections at the Garfield Avenue Bridge,
which is proposed for widening.

demolition of bridges that could serve as potential
sites for Townsends big-eared bat roosting.
Therefore, construction of the BRT Alternative would
not result in direct or indirect temporary impacts to
Townsends big-eared bat or its habitat.
Although no evidence of roosting was found during
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
BRT Alternative
3.20-12
LRT Alternative
breeding riparian habitat and would experience
effects resulting from non-ground-disturbing
construction. Non-ground-disturbing construction
activities include lane restriping, installation of
exists on I-710.

construction activities include lane restriping,
installation of temporary signage, and other daytime
work within the existing highway right of way on
existing pavement. These construction activities
would not create a disturbance level greater than
what currently exists on SR 134.
The LRT Alternative could result in limited indirect,

species at one location However, that location is
approximately 180 feet away from potential nonbreeding riparian habitat and would experience
construction. Non-ground-disturbing construction
exists on I-710.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative could result in

limited indirect, temporary noise, lighting, dust, etc.,
impacts to this species at one location. However, that
location is approximately 850 feet away from
potential nonbreeding riparian habitat and would
construction activities include lane restriping,
installation of temporary signage, and other daytime
work within the existing highway right of way on
existing pavement. These construction activities
would not create a disturbance level greater than
what currently exists on SR 134.
Construction of the LRT Alternative improvements

could result in limited indirect, temporary noise,
lighting, dust, etc., impacts to this species at one
location. However, that location is approximately 180
feet away from potential non-breeding riparian
habitat and would experience effects resulting from
non-ground-disturbing construction. Non-grounddisturbing construction activities include lane
restriping, installation of temporary signage, and
other daytime work within the existing highway right
of way on existing pavement. These construction
activities would not create a disturbance level greater
than what currently exists on I-710.
Construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative

improvements could result in limited indirect,
species at one location. However, that location is
approximately 850 feet away from potential
nonbreeding riparian habitat and would experience
construction. Nonground-disturbing construction
exists on SR 134.

demolition of bridges that could serve as potential
sites for Townsends big-eared bat roosting.
Therefore, construction of the LRT Alternative would
not result in direct or indirect temporary impacts to
Townsends big-eared bat or its habitat.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes the

widening and removal of five bridges (Ramona
Boulevard UC Bridge, SR 710/I-10 Separation Bridge,
Hellman Avenue OC Bridge, Del Mar Boulevard OC
Bridge, and Green Street OC Bridge). However, due to
the absence of roosting bat detections at these
bridges, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not

DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.3:
Species
Status
TSM/TDM Alternative
surveys, Townsends big-eared bats may establish day
or night roosts in the interim between surveys and
the start of construction. If Townsends big-eared
bats begin using the bridge, the TSM/TDM Alternative
would have the potential to result in temporary
indirect impacts during the bridge widening.
Indirect temporary impacts to foraging or roosting
Townsends big-eared bat may occur from noise,
lighting, dust, vibration, etc., if nighttime construction
activities take place. However, the bats may leave the
vicinity during instances of nighttime construction
and forage elsewhere; therefore, there would be no
take of Townsends big-eared bat pursuant to the
definition of take in CESA regarding hunt, pursue,
catch, captive, or kill of a species.
Townsends big-eared bat is known to rarely roost in
very large (ex. Redwood sp.) trees in old-growth
forests within basal holes that are several meters tall.
No trees within the BSA exhibit these characteristics.
Further, Townsends big-eared bat is highly
susceptible to human disturbance and would be
highly unlikely to roost in ornamental trees within the
urban BSA that have a high level of human
disturbance.
BRT Alternative
Indirect temporary impacts to foraging Townsends
big-eared bat may occur from noise, lighting, dust,
vibration, etc., if nighttime construction activities
take place. However, the bats may leave the vicinity
during instances of nighttime construction and forage
elsewhere; therefore, there would be no take of
Townsends big-eared bat pursuant to the definition
of take in CESA regarding hunt, pursue, catch,
captive, or kill of a species.
In addition, the improvements included in the
TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as
part of the BRT Alternative, with the exception of
Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from
Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and the reversible
lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3
(Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). The
temporary impacts to bats that could potentially
occur during widening of the Garfield Avenue Bridge
for the TSM/TDM Alternative would also occur for the
BRT Alternative.
disturbance.

CESA = California Environmental Quality Act
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-13
LRT Alternative
However, the LRT Alternative does include the
construction of a new bridge over SR 60 that could
adversely affect the existing bridge on Mednik
Avenue, as well as potentially result in additional bat
roosting habitat.
part of the LRT Alternative with the exception of
Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector Road). The temporary
impacts to bats that could potentially occur during
widening of the Garfield Avenue Bridge for the
TSM/TDM Alternative would also occur for the LRT
Alternative.
disturbance.

result in direct temporary impacts to any known
Townsends big-eared bat individuals. Although no
evidence of roosting was found during surveys,
Townsends big-eared bats may establish day or night
roosts in the interim between surveys and the start of
construction. If bats begin using any of the bridges,
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would have the
potential to result in temporary indirect impacts
through disturbance and the loss of the roosting
location.
part of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the
exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley
Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road) and
Other Road Improvement T-3 (St. John Extension
between Del Mar Boulevard and California
Boulevard). The temporary impacts to bats that could
potentially occur during widening of the Garfield
Avenue Bridge for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
disturbance.
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-14
DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.4:
Permanent Impacts to Threatened and/or Endangered Species By Build Alternative
Species
Plant Species
Slender-horned spineflower
Status
Federally listed as threatened
Bird Species (listed riparian obligate)

Least Bells vireo
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
Marginally suitable habitat for the slenderhorned spineflower was identified within the BSA
in the laurel sumac scrub and coast live oak
woodland plant communities. However, no
TSM/TDM Alternative improvements are planned
in this habitat. The limits of disturbance of the
TSM/TDM Alternative are approximately 0.5 mile
away from the suitable habitat for this species, so
no indirect impacts are anticipated to occur.
Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not
result in direct or indirect permanent impacts on
any known populations or habitat of this species.

permanent impacts on any known populations or
habitat of this species. The limits of disturbance
of the BRT Alternative are approximately 0.8 mile

of the LRT Alternative are approximately 1.1
miles away from the suitable habitat for this
occur.

or indirect permanent impacts on any known
Marginally suitable habitat for the thread-leaved

brodiaea was identified within the BSA in the
laurel sumac scrub and coast live oak woodland
plant communities. However, no TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements are planned in this
habitat. The limits of disturbance of the
TSM/TDM Alternative are approximately 0.5 mile
Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not
result in direct or indirect permanent impacts on
any known populations or habitat of this species.

of the BRT Alternative are approximately 0.8 mile

of the LRT Alternative are approximately 1.1
miles away from the suitable habitat for this
occur.
Improvements included in the TSM/TDM

permanent impacts to any known populations of
least Bells vireo. While habitat suitable for use
outside the breeding season is present within the
BSA, there would be no permanent impacts to
this habitat.


components, would not result in direct
permanent impacts to this species because no
suitable nesting habitat was identified within the
BSA.

TSM/TDM Alternative components, would not
result in direct permanent impacts to this species
because no suitable nesting habitat was
identified within the BSA.

components, would not result in indirect
permanent impacts to this species because
implementation of the LRT Alternative would not

TSM/TDM components, would not result in
indirect permanent impacts to this species
because implementation of the Freeway Tunnel
3.20-15

construction activities that may occur within 850
feet of this habitat includes lane restriping,
installation of temporary signage, and other
daytime work within the existing highway right of
way on existing pavement. These construction
activities would not create a disturbance level
greater than what currently exists on SR 134. As
such, indirect impacts from construction are not
anticipated. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel
temporary construction impacts to this species.
or indirect permanent impacts on any known
construction activities that may occur within 850
feet of this habitat includes lane restriping,
installation of temporary signage, and other
daytime work within the existing highway right of
way on existing pavement. These construction
activities would not create a disturbance level
greater than what currently exists on SR 134. As
such, indirect impacts from construction are not
anticipated. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel
temporary construction impacts to this species.
DRAFT

TABLE 3.20.4:
Permanent Impacts to Threatened and/or Endangered Species By Build Alternative
Species
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Mammal Species
Townsends big-eared bat
Status

Federally listed as threatened,

State candidate as threatened
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative

southwestern willow flycatcher. While habitat
suitable for use outside the breeding season is
present within the BSA, there would be no
permanent impacts to this habitat.


western yellow-billed cuckoo. While habitat
suitable for use outside the breeding season is
present within the BSA, there would be no
permanent impacts to this habitat.

The TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would

not result in direct permanent impacts on any
known Townsends big-eared bat individuals due
to the absence of roosting bat detections at the
Garfield Avenue Bridge, which is proposed for
widening. While suitable foraging habitat for bats
is present, no habitat would be permanently
removed as a result of implementation of the
TSM/TDM Alternative. Therefore, the TSM/TDM
Alternative would not result in take of
Townsends big-eared bat as defined under CESA.
The BRT Alternative does not include the

widening or demolition of bridges that could
serve as potential sites for Townsends big-eared
bat roosting. Therefore, implementation of the
BRT Alternative would not result in take of
Therefore, combined with the TSM/TDM
component, the BRT Alternative would not result
in permanent impacts to Townsends big-eared
bats.

CESA = California Endangered Species Act
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.20-16
LRT Alternative
create a disturbance level greater than what
currently exists on I-710.
BSA.

Alternative would not create a disturbance level
greater than what currently exists on SR 134.
BSA.

BSA.

BSA.


The LRT Alternative does not include the

widening or demolition of bridges that could
serve as potential sites for Townsends big-eared
bat roosting. Therefore, implementation of the
LRT Alternative would not result in take of
Therefore, combined with the TSM/TDM
component, the LRT Alternative would not result
in permanent impacts to Townsends big-eared
bats.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative includes the

widening and removal of five bridges (Ramona
Boulevard UC Bridge, SR 710/10 Separation
Bridge, Hellman Avenue OC Bridge, Del Mar
Boulevard OC Bridge, and Green Street OC
Bridge). Due to the absence of roosting bat
detections at these bridges, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would not result in direct permanent
impacts to any known Townsends big-eared bat
individuals. While suitable foraging habitat for
bats is present, no substantial amount of habitat
would be removed as a result of the removal of
the bridges. Therefore, implementation of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in
take of Townsends big-eared bat as defined
under CESA. Therefore, combined with the
TSM/TDM component, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would not result in permanent
impacts to Townsends big-eared bats.
DRAFT

3.21 INVASIVE SPECIES
3.21 Invasive Species

3.21.1
Regulatory Setting
3.21.2
On February 3, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13112 requiring
federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The
order defines invasive species as any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological
material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose
introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance issued August 10, 1999 directs the use of the
States invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council, to define the
invasive plants that must be considered as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis for a proposed project.
This section is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014) for the proposed project.
Invasive plant species were categorized following the classifications provided in the California
Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) California Invasive Plant Inventory and were cross-checked with the
Invasive Species Council of California (ISCC) invasive species list, which lists noxious weeds and
invasive plants in California. The Inventory provides ratings (high, moderate, and limited) designated
for invasive plant species. Plants with a high rating have severe ecological impacts on physical
processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure, and have reproductive biology
and other attributes that are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment.
Plants with a moderate rating have substantial and apparent, but not severe, ecological impacts.
Plants with a limited rating are invasive, but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level.
These ratings reflect the view of the Cal-IPC on the statewide importance of the invasive species, the
likelihood that eradication or control efforts would be successful, and the present distribution of
invasive species in the State.
The State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study area provides habitat for a variety of plant and animal
species. Several plant communities and numerous plant species were observed during the 2013
surveys in the Biological Study Area (BSA). A complete list of the plant and animal species observed
in the BSA is provided in the NES.
Invasive plants are prominent in the BSA and primarily span areas in the BSA along the edges of
freeways and within freeway medians. Invasive species are primarily found within the alignment of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative and within the non-native grassland, non-native woodland, and
disturbed/developed plant communities. Common invasive plants found in the BSA are: ripgut
brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), slender oat (Avena barbata), hottentot fig
(Carpobrotus edulis), castor bean (Ricinus communis), Italian plumeless thistle (Carduus
pycnocephalus), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima). A full list of invasive plants identified in the BSA is provided in Appendix E in the NES. A
total of 81 exotic plant species, subspecies, and/or varieties in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory
and/or on the watch list were identified in the BSA. Of these species, 13 have an overall high rating,
30 have a moderate rating, 26 have a limited rating, and 12 have been evaluated but not listed.
Species identified in the BSA that have a high rating are giant reed (Arundo donax), red brome
(Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), hottentot fig, spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp.
micranthos), purple pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), Uruguayan pampas grass (C. selloana), cape
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.21-1
DRAFT

ivy (Delairea odorata), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus), saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Algerian ivy
(Hedera helix), and Uruguay water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala).
3.21.3
3.21.3.1
Temporary Impacts
Impacts related to invasive species are considered permanent adverse impacts because the
introduction of invasive species into previously undisturbed areas during construction would result
in permanent adverse impacts to the habitat rather than just a temporary impact that would cease
when construction is complete. Therefore, adverse impacts related to invasive species are described
below under Permanent Impacts.
3.21.3.2 Permanent Impacts

The No Build Alternative does not include the construction or operation of any of the improvements
in the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives associated with improvements in the SR 710 corridor,
and therefore, would not result in any effects related to invasive species associated with the Build
Alternatives.
Build Alternatives
TSM/TDM Alternative
Construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative has the potential to spread invasive species by the
entering and exiting of construction vehicles and equipment contaminated by invasive species, the
inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and the improper removal and disposal of
invasive species. In the long term, continued introduction of new and existing species could occur as
a result of seeds carried on the body and tires of vehicles utilizing roadways associated with the
TSM/TDM Alternative improvements. Invasive species are abundant in the BSA, primarily within the
non-native grassland, non-native woodland, and disturbed/developed plant communities.
Construction activities within these communities may result in the local spread of invasive plant
species. The TSM/TDM Alternative would impact approximately 1 ac of non-native grassland, <0.1 ac
of non-native woodland, and 1 ac of disturbed/developed habitat. The spread of invasive species
within areas of the disturbed/developed habitat that lack available soil and open space and are
entirely developed (i.e., city streets, sidewalks, etc.) would be minimal.
BRT Alternative
Construction of the BRT Alternative has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and
exiting of construction vehicles and equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of
invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and the improper removal and disposal of invasive
species. In the long term, continued introduction of new and existing species could occur as a result
of seeds carried on the body and tires of buses and other vehicles using roadways associated with
the BRT Alternative facility. Invasive species are abundant in the BSA, primarily within the nonnative grassland, non-native woodland, and disturbed/developed plant communities. Construction
activities within these communities may result in the local spread of invasive plants. The BRT
Alternative would impact approximately 2 ac of non-native grassland and 124 ac of disturbed/
developed habitat.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.21-2
DRAFT

The improvements included in the TSM/TDM Alternative would also be constructed as part of the
BRT Alternative, with the exception of Local Street Improvement L-8 (Fair Oaks Avenue from
Grevelia Street to Monterey Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement
L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard from Glendon Way to I-10). The BRT Alternative including the TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements would impact approximately 3 ac of non-native grassland, <0.1 ac of nonnative woodland, and 125 ac of disturbed/developed habitat. The spread of invasive species within
areas of the disturbed/developed habitat that lack available soil and open space and are entirely
developed (i.e., city streets, sidewalks, etc.) would be minimal.
LRT Alternative
Construction of the LRT Alternative has the potential to spread invasive species by the entering and
exiting of construction vehicles and equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of
invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and the improper removal and disposal of invasive
species. In the long term, continued introduction of new and existing species could occur as a result
of seeds carried on the train and rail cars on the LRT Alternative rail line. Invasive species are
abundant in the BSA, primarily within the non-native grassland, non-native woodland, and
disturbed/developed plant communities. Construction activities within these communities may
result in the local spread of invasive plants species. The LRT Alternative would impact approximately
15 ac of non-native grassland, 12 ac of non-native woodland, and 123 ac of disturbed/developed
habitat.
LRT Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road) because it would conflict with the LRT Alternative maintenance yard near
Mission Road. The LRT Alternative including the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would impact
approximately 16 ac of non-native grassland, 12 ac of non-native woodland, and 124 ac of
disturbed/developed habitat. The spread of invasive species within areas of the disturbed/
developed habitat that lack available soil and open space and are entirely developed (i.e., city
streets, sidewalks, etc.) would be minimal.
Construction of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative has the potential to spread invasive species by the
entering and exiting of construction vehicles and equipment contaminated by invasive species, the
inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and the improper removal and disposal of
invasive species. In the long term, continued introduction of new and existing species could occur as
a result of seeds carried in tires and auto bodies for this alternative. Invasive species are abundant in
the BSA, primarily within the non-native grassland, non-native woodland, and disturbed/developed
plant communities. Construction activities within these communities during construction may result
in the local spread of invasive species. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would impact approximately
27 ac of non-native grassland, 34 ac of non-native woodland, and 297 ac of disturbed/developed
habitat.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative with the exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to
Mission Road Connector) and Other Road Improvement T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension between Del
Mar Boulevard and California Boulevard). The Freeway Alternative including the TSM/TDM
Alternative improvements would impact approximately 28 ac of non-native grassland, 34 ac of nonnative woodland, and 298 ac of disturbed/developed habitat. The spread of invasive species within
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.21-3
DRAFT

areas of the disturbed/developed habitat that lack available soil and open space and are entirely
developed (i.e. city streets, sidewalks, etc.) would be minimal.
3.21.4
In compliance with EO 13112 on Invasive Species, the following measures would be implemented
with all four Build Alternatives to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species:
Measure IS-1
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Weed Abatement Program (applies to all four Build Alternatives):

During final design, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Transportation System Management/
Transportation Demand Management, Bus Rapid Transit, and Light
Rail Transit Alternatives) or the California Department of
Transportation (Freeway Tunnel Alternative) Project Engineer will
develop a weed abatement program and will include it in the Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates package. The intent of this program is
to minimize the introduction and spread of nonnative plant material
during construction of the selected Build Alternative. This program
will include, but not be limited to, the following monitoring and
eradication measures during and after construction:
Preconstruction surveys will be conducted to identify

populations of invasive species within the project disturbance
limits with the potential to be encouraged by construction
activities such as exposure or tilling of bare ground, disturbance
of adjacent habitats that are not highly invaded, and/or
enhanced distribution of pollen or seeds. Such populations will
be controlled by mechanical or chemical means prior to
construction.
Revegetation of soils will occur as soon as practical after

completion of construction activities in those areas. To prevent
the spread of invasive species on the project site, invasive
species-free products will be exclusively used for all activities;
including, but not limited to, landscaping materials and soil
erosion materials (i.e., mulch, soil mats, straw fencing, or
wattles).
Any disturbance in any construction area not containing existing

infestations of exotic plants will be monitored for 1 year
postconstruction to ensure that establishment of invasive plant
species in the area has not occurred. If evidence of invasive
plant species establishment is found, invasive species control
measures will be implemented immediately.
3.21-4
DRAFT

3.22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
3.22 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of

the Human Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Project implementation will result in attainment of short-term and long-term transportation goals
and economic benefits at the expense of some short-term and long-term social, aesthetic, biological,
noise, air quality, visual, and/or other land use impacts.
3.22.1
3.22.2
TSM/TDM Alternative
The No Build Alternative would do nothing to improve the efficiency of the existing regional freeway
and transit network or to reduce congestion on local arterials in the study area beyond the projects
already programmed in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the
Federal Transportation Improvement Program. There would continue to be out-of-direction traffic
using local streets and the freeway network to access destinations inside and outside the study area.
Additionally, the No Build Alternative would not result in the generation of short-term jobs and
revenues during construction, and is not expected to result in the potential environmental effects of
some or all of the Build Alternatives (e.g., long-term losses of property taxes, parkland,
paleontological resources, and plant and wildlife resources; increases in noise, vibration, and air
quality; effects on community character and cohesion; business displacements; visual impacts; and
the permanent use of construction materials and energy).
Short-term losses would include: construction impacts such as noise, air quality, and motorized and
non-motorized traffic delays or detours.
Short-term benefits would include: increased jobs and revenue generated during construction.
Long-term losses would include: permanent loss of wildlife resources, noise increases, and use of
construction materials and energy.
Long-term gains include: improvement of the transportation network in the region and the project
vicinity, improved efficiency of the existing regional transit network, and reduced congestion on
local arterials in the study area.
3.22.3
BRT Alternative
Short-term losses would include: construction impacts such as noise, air quality, and motorized and
non-motorized traffic delays or detours.
Long-term losses would include: permanent loss of plant and wildlife resources, noise increases,
use of construction materials and energy, and loss of parkland.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.22-1
DRAFT

3.22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
3.22.4
LRT Alternative
Short-term losses would include: economic losses experienced by businesses that relocate and
construction impacts such as noise, air quality, and motorized and non-motorized traffic delays or
detours.
Long-term losses would include: property tax loss, permanent loss of plant and wildlife resources,
visual impacts, community character and cohesion impacts, noise and vibration increases, use of
construction materials and energy, businesses displaced from the community, and loss of
3.22.5
Short-term losses would include: economic losses experienced by businesses that relocate and
construction impacts such as noise, air quality, and motorized and non-motorized traffic delays or
detours.
Long-term losses would include: property tax loss, permanent loss of plant and wildlife resources,
visual impacts, noise increases, use of construction materials and energy, businesses displaced from
the community, and loss of paleontological resources.
vicinity, improved efficiency of the existing regional freeway and transit network, and reduced
congestion on local arterials in the study area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.22-2
DRAFT

3.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of

Resources That Would Be Involved in the
Proposed Project
3.23.1
3.23.2
Build Alternatives
The No Build Alternative does not include the construction or operation of any of the improvements
in the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives. As a result, the No Build Alternative would not result in
the irretrievable commitment of the resources required to construct the Build Alternatives. The No
Build Alternative would also not provide the benefits of the reduced travel time and improved
transportation system efficiency for the movement of vehicles and people that would occur under
the Build Alternatives. There would continue to be out-of-direction traffic that would use local
streets, which would result in more frequent street maintenance that requires ongoing irretrievable
commitments of construction materials and labor resources.
The Build Alternatives involve a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal
resources. Land used in the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible
commitment during the period that the land is used for a transportation facility. However, if a
greater need arises for use of the land or if the transportation facility is no longer needed, the land
can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would
ever be necessary or desirable.
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels and construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and
bituminous material are expected to be used for construction of the Build Alternatives, particularly
for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Fossil fuels and natural resources
are used in the making of construction materials such as cement and steel. These materials are
generally not retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use would not have an
adverse effect on the continued availability of these resources in the region. The project
construction would also require a substantial one-time use of local, State, and/or federal funds,
which are not retrievable; however, the savings in travel time and improved transportation system
efficiency would offset this effect to some degree. In addition to the costs of construction and right
of way (ROW), there would be operations-related costs for facility maintenance (e.g., pavement,
roadside, litter/sweeping, signs and markers), electrical and storm drain maintenance, and
operation of buses and light rail transit vehicles.
Excavation associated with the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives could reach depths where
paleontological resources could be encountered. That excavation could result in permanent
irretrievable adverse impacts to paleontological resources in the following sediments: Old Alluvial
Fan Deposits, Old Alluvium, the Fernando Formation, the Puente Formation, and the Topanga
Group.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in an irreversible commitment of riparian/riverine
habitats, including wetland and non-wetland waters, to transportation uses.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.23-1
DRAFT

3.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that people in the study area, region,
and State would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation system. These benefits
would consist of improved accessibility and mobility, which are a trade-off to the commitment of
these resources.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.23-2
DRAFT

3.24 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
3.24 Construction Impacts
This section summarizes the potential construction-related impacts considered for the Build
Alternatives. Some construction-related impacts are considered temporary impacts for some
resources, such as the use of temporary construction easements (TCEs) on parcels of land, but for
some resources, construction-related impacts can be a permanent impact on a resource, such as
Paleontological resources. These impacts are discussed in detail in the corresponding sections in
Chapter 3 (Sections 3.1 through 3.21). The environmental impacts described below for the Build
Alternatives would not occur under the No Build Alternative because the No Build Alternative does
not include construction of any of the improvements in the Build Alternatives.
The following technical studies provided the analysis for the discussion of each environmental
parameter provided in the sections in Chapter 3, including this section: Community Impact
Assessment (2014), Draft Relocation Impact Report (2014), Transportation Technical Report (2014),
Visual Impact Assessment (2014), Historic Property Survey Report (2015), Summary Floodplain
Encroachment Report (2014), the Location Hydraulic Study (2014), Water Quality Assessment Report
(2014), Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation (2014),
Preliminary Geotechnical Report (2014), Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (2014),
Phase I Initial Site Assessment (2014), Air Quality Assessment Report (2015), Noise Study Report
(2014), the Groundborne Noise and Vibration Impacts (2014), Noise Abatement Decision Report
(2014), Energy Technical Report (2014), Natural Environment Study and Jurisdictional Delineations
(2014), and the Cumulative Impact Assessment (2015).
Construction activities for each of the Build Alternatives are described, in detail, in Chapter 2.0. The
sections titled Construction Activities in Chapter 2 provide additional details for each alternative and
describe grading, excavation, and construction staging and phasing. In general, during construction
of the Build Alternatives, the improvements of the alternatives are anticipated to be constructed
within existing publicly owned rights-of-way (ROWs). However, it is anticipated that the Build
Alternatives would require temporary construction easements (TCEs) where there is not sufficient
room within the public ROWs to accommodate the construction activities and/or storage of
materials or equipment for those improvements. Any land used as a TCE during construction of
improvements under the Build Alternatives would be returned to its original or better condition
prior to the return of that land to its original owner following completion of the construction
activities requiring that TCE. No permanent project features would be constructed within the
boundaries of the TCEs used during construction of the Build Alternatives. For the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative construction staging and storage is anticipated to be conducted within the existing State
right-of-way.
3.24.1
Land Use
All the Build Alternatives would result in direct, temporary, construction-related effects on existing
land uses, including business and neighborhood disruptions during construction that may include
disruption of local traffic patterns, access to homes and businesses, and increased traffic congestion,
noise, vibration, and dust, as described in Section 3.1. Temporary land use impacts would also
include the use of privately owned properties for TCEs. At the completion of construction, land used
for TCEs would be returned to its original condition prior to return of the land to the original owners.
As a result, the TCEs are not expected to adversely affect existing or planned land uses on those
parcels.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-1
DRAFT

Construction of the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management

(TSM/TDM) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) would not result in short-term impacts to on- or off-street
parking. Construction of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative improvements would result in the
temporary loss of approximately 240 parking spaces in East Los Angeles, Monterey Park, Pasadena,
and South Pasadena. These include approximately 128 on-street parking spaces along Mednik
Avenue in East Los Angeles, approximately 26 on-street parking spaces along Floral Drive in
Monterey Park and East Los Angeles, approximately 30 on-street parking spaces along Huntington
Drive and Fair Oaks Avenue in the vicinity of the Huntington Station site in South Pasadena,
approximately 30 on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the South Pasadena Station site in South
Pasadena, and approximately 26 on-street parking spaces on Raymond Avenue in the vicinity of the
Fillmore Station site in Pasadena. Once construction is completed, each of the approximately 240
parking spaces would be restored and available for use during all hours. Construction of both design
variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in the temporary loss of approximately 17
parking spaces on the Green Street Bridge over Interstate 210 (I-210) in the City of Pasadena while
that bridge is being reconstructed. Once the bridge reconstruction is complete, each of the
approximately 17 parking spaces would be restored and available for use during all hours.
Based on their distance from the nearest construction of any improvements in the Build Alternatives
and the presence of intervening land uses, none of the parks, recreation resources, and bikeways
that are more than 500 feet (ft) from the physical improvements in the Build Alternatives would
experience temporary air quality, noise, traffic/access, or parking effects during construction of the
Build Alternatives. No TCEs would be required at any resources more than 500 ft from the physical
improvements in the Build Alternatives. Temporary air quality, noise, and/or traffic impacts could
occur on parks, recreation resources, and bikeways within 500 ft of improvements in the Build
Alternatives.
Construction of the TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would not require the use of
land from any parks, recreation resources, or bikeways for TCEs and would not adversely impact
parking at any of those resources. In some cases, on-street bikeways in the vicinity of the Build
Alternative improvements may need to be temporarily rerouted around construction zones.
Detoured on-street bikeways would be restored to their original conditions on completion of
construction, and no adverse effects are anticipated.
The TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would not temporarily occupy any land from
any Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources and would not result in constructive use of any of those resources.
As a result, the TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would not trigger the requirements
for protection of those resources under Sections 4(f) and 6(f).
The BRT Alternative would use 0.02 acres (ac) of land from Cascades Park in the City of Monterey
Park for TCEs during construction. The land being used for the TCEs would be returned to a
condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project at the completion of the
construction of the BRT Alternative in this area. The existing sidewalks will be replaced within the
boundary of Cascades Park, and the grass/turf areas affected by project construction would be
re-landscaped and returned to a condition at least as good as prior to the project. The temporary
occupancy of approximately 0.02 ac of land from Cascades Park would not adversely affect the
qualities or activities that give the property protection under Section 4(f). No Section 6(f) funds were
used at Cascades Park and, as a result, the BRT Alternative would not trigger the requirements
under Section 6(f) at Cascades Park.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-2
DRAFT

Measures Parks-1, Cascades-1, and Cascades-2, as outlined in Section 3.1, would be implemented
during construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential effects to parks associated with
construction activities.
3.24.2
Growth
3.24.3
Community Impacts
Impacts related to growth would result from operation of any of the Build Alternatives, but not from
construction of the project itself as described in Section 3.2. Therefore, construction activities
associated with the Build Alternatives would not result in growth-related effects.
All of the Build Alternatives would result in temporary impacts to community character and
cohesion from air quality, noise, traffic/access, and/or parking effects to community facilities within
500 ft of the Build Alternatives, as described in Section 3.3. For all the Build Alternatives,
construction traffic impacts that could affect community character and cohesion range from minor
temporary lane restrictions to overnight closures and detours. All of the Build Alternatives would
require TCEs on between 13 and 53 parcels, with the TSM/TDM Alternative requiring the fewest
TCEs and the single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative requiring the most. The
Build Alternatives would all result in an increase in person-year jobs and employment earnings.
Environmental justice and non-environmental justice populations across the study area would
experience short-term air quality, noise, and traffic impacts during construction of the Build
Alternatives. As discussed in Section 3.3, those short-term effects on all populations, including
environmental justice populations, can be substantially reduced through implementation of the
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures discussed in Sections 3.5, Traffic/
Transportation and Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities; 3.13, Air Quality; and 3.14, Noise and Vibration.
With implementation of those measures, the construction of the Build Alternatives would not result
in impacts that are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on environmental justice
populations than the effects experienced by non-environmental justice populations.
3.24.4
Utilities/Emergency Services
During construction of the Build Alternatives, some impairment to the delivery of emergency
services, including fire and police response times, may occur as a result of lane restrictions, ramp
closures, road closures, and/or detours. The proposed improvements could result in traffic delays to
travelers and emergency service providers when traveling in and around construction areas and to/
from emergency scenes when lane restrictions, ramp closures, road closures, and/or detours are in
effect. Specific locations where lane restrictions, ramp closures, road closures and/or detours are
identified in Section 3.4. Also, please refer to discuss under 3.24.5 below regarding potential effects
to local circulation.
Measure T-1, provided Section 3.5, Transportation and Traffic/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,
addresses short term transportation impacts during construction of the Build Alternatives, including
potential delays for emergency service providers. Measure T-1 requires the preparation of a
Transportation Management Plan (TMP) during final design, including coordination of the
development of the TMP with emergency services providers. The TMP would be implemented
during project construction.
Construction activities under the Build Alternatives would affect various underground and overhead
utilities through removal or relocation, which may result in temporary service disruptions to some
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-3
DRAFT

utility users in the vicinity of those removals/relocations. The utilities that would not need to be
relocated would be protected in-place.
3.24.5
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Construction of the Build Alternatives could result in temporary impacts to vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic circulation due to lane-width reductions, lane restrictions, and traffic diversions
from temporary closures to local roadways, sidewalks and bikeways, and freeway lanes and ramps,
as described in Section 3.5. As a result, construction activities associated with construction of the
Build Alternative could result in delays for the traveling public. Construction of the Build Alternatives
may require temporary closures of sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facilities to protect the safety
of pedestrians, bicyclists, and construction workers. Many sidewalks on the local streets in the
vicinity of and/or crossed by improvements in the Build Alternatives are compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because local streets, sidewalks, and crosswalks would be
closed temporarily during construction of the Build Alternatives, ADA accessibility would also be
affected during those closures.
Under the TSM/TDM Alternative, lane restrictions during construction of the improvements may
include lane width reductions, reductions in the number of lanes, and restrictions on the number of
lanes during off-peak hours. In general, these improvements are minor, and no detours are
anticipated to be needed. Construction activities associated with the improvements under the
TSM/TDM Alternative would result in temporary delays for the traveling public. However, some
travelers may choose alternate routes around the area to avoid construction activity and traffic
delays.
Under the BRT Alternative, where widening or improvements are proposed along Atlantic
Boulevard, Huntington Drive, and Fair Oaks Avenue in Alhambra, East Los Angeles, Monterey Park,
and South Pasadena, temporary lane restrictions (including lane width reductions, reductions in the
number of lanes, and restrictions on the number of lanes during off-peak hours) would be required.
Temporary ramp closures are also anticipated at the State Route 60 (SR 60) on-ramps to reconstruct
parts of the ramps to widen and accommodate BRT service on Atlantic Boulevard. In general, these
improvements are minor and would not result in major travel delays. However, some travelers may
choose alternate routes around the area to avoid construction activity and traffic delays.
Construction of the LRT Alternative would require lane closures at nine locations. None of these
closures are anticipated to require signed detour routes; however, the road closures described
below would require advance public and driver notification to use alternative routes. Where the
elevated alignment of the LRT would cross SR 60, Interstate 710 (I-710)/SR 710, or other roads,
overnight closures would be required to accommodate the placement of concrete barriers adjacent
to the median and the construction of falsework. Other than these overnight closures, the roads
below the aerial LRT alignment would remain open during construction of the LRT Alternative. The
falsework would be designed so there are no vertical clearance impairments for vehicles traveling
under the falsework.
The single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative could result in delays at 5
locations and detours in 7 locations in Alhambra, El Sereno, and Monterey Park in the vicinity of the
south tunnel portal, as well as delays at 8 locations and detours in 11 locations in Pasadena in the
vicinity of the north tunnel portal. The dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would result in delays at 4 locations and detours in 9 locations in Alhambra, El Sereno, and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-4
DRAFT

Monterey Park in the vicinity of the south tunnel portal, as well as delays at 8 locations and detours
in 11 locations in Pasadena in the vicinity of the north tunnel portal.
Construction of the improvements in the vicinity of the north and south portals for the single-bore
and dual-bore design variations would take place in several stages. The stages at the north and
south tunnel portals would not necessarily coincide. Some construction stages would occur in
phases to maintain traffic lanes. Prior to the estimated time of construction, coordination would
take place to ensure that the proposed closures and/or detours would be coordinated with other
transportation improvement projects in the area that may be impacted and that potential traffic
impacts during the construction of this alternative are adequately addressed.
As described in Chapter 2.0, construction of the Build Alternatives has the potential to require
import and export of soil material. Sections 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 describe how the TSM/TDM
Alternative and BRT Alternative, respectively, are generally expected to require limited amounts of
import or export of material. Improvements T-1, T-2, T-3, and I-16 have the potential to generate
more substantial amounts of import and/or export material. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.1,
excavated materials resulting from these improvements would be reused on site to the extent
feasible, and any remaining material would be transported to a Class I landfill and/or sold to a soil
broker.
As described in Sections 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.4, construction of the bored segment of the LRT
Alternative and the bored and cut-and cover tunnel segments of both design variations of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would generate excess excavated soil and other materials that cannot
be reused within the project limits. That material is proposed to be disposed of at the Manning and
Olive Pits in Irwindale. If the Manning and Olive Pits are unavailable, other Class I landfills and/or
sale to a soil broker are also options for disposing of the excavated material would be considered.
The preliminary routes for hauling the excavated material from the LRT Alternative tunneling would
include segments on Fair Oaks Avenue (from the South Pasadena and Fillmore Station sites) and
Fremont Avenue (from the Huntington and Alhambra Station sites), on Arrow Highway and Live Oak
Avenue (to/from I-605 at the disposal end of the haul trips), and on Azusa Canyon Road (to access
the Olive Pit) and Vincent Avenue (to access the Manning Pit). Those haul routes would be used only
during construction of the LRT Alternative tunnel segments and underground stations (refer to
Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2).
For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the preliminary route for hauling excavated material generated
at the south tunnel portal and at the north tunnel portal would be via the existing SR 710. Haul
trucks would enter SR 710 without traveling on local streets. The preliminary route at the disposal
end of the trip under both design variations includes Live Oak Canyon and Arrow Highway (to/from
I-605 at the disposal end of the haul trips), and Azusa Canyon Road (to access the Olive Pit) and
Vincent Avenue (to access the Manning Pit) (refer to Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2).
A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) as outlined in Measure T-1 (in Section 3.5) would be implemented
during construction in order to construct the project in a cost-efficient and timely manner with
minimal interference to the traveling public. The TMP will also address changes in pedestrian and
bicycle circulation and provide measures to minimize the effects of construction activities on
pedestrian and bicycle travel within the study area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-5
DRAFT

3.24.6
Visual/Aesthetics
Short-term visual impacts would occur to viewer groups during construction of the Build
Alternatives, as described in Section 3.6. Those effects would include views of demolition of existing
structures; removal of existing mature vegetation; grading of cut-and-fill slopes; construction of
tunnel, bridge, and road structures; construction vehicles; construction staging areas; temporary
roadside barriers; and construction lighting and signage. The effects of vegetation clearing would
gradually cease over time as landscaping for the Build Alternatives matures. New plantings can
reasonably be expected to reach mature growth within a 1- to 3-year period (depending on the
species and initial planting size). Some tree species could take longer to reach mature growth.
Measure V-7, as outlined in Section 3.6, would be implemented during construction of the Build
Alternatives to address potential visual effects associated with construction activities.
3.24.7
Cultural Resources
The construction of the Build Alternatives could potentially impact documented and previously
undocumented cultural resources, as described in Section 3.7. Any such impacts during construction
of the Build Alternatives would be considered permanent (not temporary) impacts of the Build
Alternatives.
There is potential for previously undocumented cultural materials or human remains to be
unearthed during site preparation, grading, or excavation. Because there are no Native American
sacred sites/traditional cultural properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Build
Alternatives, the construction and operation of a Build Alternative would not result in adverse
impacts on those types of resources. However, several Native American Tribal representatives have
indicated the overall study area is sensitive for unknown cultural resources. As a result, construction
of a Build Alternative could potentially impact those types of cultural resources.
Measures CR-1 through CR-5 and property-specific project conditions, as outlined in Section 3.7,
would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential effects to
cultural resources during construction.
3.24.8
Hydrology and Floodplain
Construction activities associated with the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives would not result in
impacts to floodplains because they would not encroach into any floodplains, as described in
Section 3.8. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore and single-bore design variations require
widening State Route 710 (SR 710) along its east side, which is along the Laguna Regulating Basin
western boundary. Therefore, construction activities for the dual-bore and single-bore design
variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would encroach in the Laguna Regulating Basin
floodplain.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation also requires widening SR 710 along its
west side, which is along Dorchester Channels eastern boundary, and replacing portions of an
existing reinforced concrete channel with a reinforced concrete box. Therefore, construction
activities for the dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would encroach in the
Dorchester Channel floodplain.
Construction equipment would be operated along the Laguna Regulating Basin western boundary
and along the Dorchester Channel eastern boundary. Potential temporary impacts could occur
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-6
DRAFT

during the widening of the road, construction of the bridge structure, excavation under the new
bridge structure, and reconstruction of the existing maintenance road. Land and vegetation would
be cleared, exposing soil to the potential for erosion and downstream transport of sediments to
occur. Under the Construction General Permit, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at
reducing pollutants of concern in storm water runoff would be required. Therefore, the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would not result in temporary impacts related to the floodplains of the Laguna
Regulating Basin or Dorchester Channel.
In addition, the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel have limited value to support fish,
wildlife, and plant habitat. Furthermore, the open space, natural beauty, and outdoor recreational
values of the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel are limited. Therefore,
implementation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to the
natural and beneficial floodplain values of the Laguna Regulating Basin and Dorchester Channel.
3.24.9
Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete
waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil
would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing
conditions, as described in Section 3.9. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at
an accelerated rate. Chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and
fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction and thereby have
the potential to be transported via storm runoff into receiving waters.
During construction of the TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, LRT Alternative, Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore design variation, or Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation, a
total of approximately 21 ac, 56 ac, 44 ac, 90 ac, or approximately 102 ac, respectively, of soil would
be disturbed. Soil disturbance exposes soils and increases the potential for soil erosion, which could
be a source of downstream sediment. When sediment enters a receiving water body, it can increase
turbidity, smother bottom dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth. When new
structures are installed or modified (e.g., street and on-/off-ramp improvements), concrete and/or
asphalt applications could be a source of fine sediment, metals, and chemicals that could change the
pH levels in downstream water bodies. Grading and other earth-moving activities during
construction could be a source of petroleum products and heavy metals if the equipment engines
leak. Furthermore, temporary or portable sanitary facilities provided for construction workers could
be a source of sanitary waste.
Groundwater dewatering during construction of the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would not be
required. Groundwater dewatering during construction at the tunnel portals may be required for
the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Discharge of the dewatered groundwater has the
potential to introduce pollutants to receiving surface waters.
Tunnel boring activities associated with construction the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are
not expected to affect groundwater levels or quality because: (a) the bored tunnels would be
excavated with pressurized-face tunnel boring machines (TBMs) that would control the groundwater
inflows into the tunnel, and (b) the concrete lining would be designed and constructed to be
watertight. After excavation, the space between the outside of the tunnel lining and the soil is
typically grouted to prevent groundwater flow along the tunnel bores. In addition, the soil
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-7
DRAFT

conditioners that may be injected into the ground at the face of the excavation would be non-toxic
and biodegradable and, therefore, would not adversely impact groundwater quality.
Measures WQ-1 through WQ-3, as outlined in Section 3.9, would be implemented during
construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential effects to water quality during
construction.
3.24.10 Geology
Each of the Build Alternatives will alter existing landforms due to grading and construction activities
as described in Section 3.10. Temporary impacts also include soil compaction and increased
possibility of soil erosion due to exposure of excavated soil. Additionally, during a storm event, soil
erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. The Build Alternatives will be required to adhere to the
requirements of the General Construction Permit and implement erosion and sediment control
BMPs specifically identified in a project SWPPP in order to keep sediment from moving off site into
receiving waters.
The construction activities associated with the proposed build alternatives could be impacted by
ground motion, liquefaction, and possibly ground rupture (deformation) to some degree if an
earthquake were to occur during construction. Implementation of safe construction practices and
compliance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Division
of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) requirements will minimize the
impacts of these conditions.
Naturally occurring gas could be encountered in any of the geologic formations in the study area.
However, based on historic experience with the construction of other tunnels in Los Angeles,
naturally occurring gas is most likely to be encountered within the Puente Formation. Encountering
naturally occurring gas during construction activities poses risk of ignition and hazard to
construction workers health.
Most of the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternative improvements would be located either at or close to the
ground surface (generally less than 10 feet below ground surface); therefore, the potential to
encounter naturally occurring oil or gas during construction is low. However, naturally occurring oil
and gas could be encountered during construction of the deep foundations for the bridge structure
supports associated with Improvements I-16 and T-1 of the TSM/TDM Alternative.
The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would require earthwork that would extend below the
ground surface. There is potential for naturally occurring gas to be encountered during construction
of these alternatives. During tunneling, the hazard of encountering gas is related to the volume and
concentration of the gas in the working environment of the tunnel during construction and in the
tunnel during operation. Gas concentrations in the tunnel are not the same as those in the
surrounding soil because the presence of the tunnel lining limits the flow of gas into the tunnel - the
tunnels are immediately supported with gasketed concrete liners that serve as both initial and final
lining support and prevent inflow of gas and water into the tunnel both during the construction
period as well as over the life of the project. Also, the tunnels are expected to be excavated with
closed, pressurized-face TBMs that have previously been successfully used to limit inflow of gas and
water into the tunnel face of the excavation during construction. Additionally, ventilation would be
required during construction which can dilute and remove gases that enter the tunnel to provide a
tenable working environment during construction. The presence of naturally occurring oil and/or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-8
DRAFT

gas is not unusual, especially in the Los Angeles region, and tunnels have been excavated through
these conditions previously.
All appropriate measure prescribed by Cal/OSHA would be incorporated into the design and
construction specifications for I-16, T-1, LRT Alternative and the Freeway Tunnel Alternatives to
protect worker health and against potential ignition.
All improvements in the Build Alternatives would be designed, constructed, and operated in
accordance with all applicable standards, including the following design and safety standards:
Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-1, Seismic Design Methodology for the seismic design of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative (2010 or more current).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) tunnel design standards (for tunnel-related highway
improvements included in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative) in the FHWA Technical Manual for
Design and Construction of Road Tunnels Civil Elements (2009 or more current).
Metros Rail Design Criteria (for light rail improvements included in the LRT Alternative) in the
Rail Transit Design Criteria and Standards (2013 or more current). Includes Metro
Supplementary SDC appended to Section 5 in 2013.
Metro design criteria for BRT systems (2008 or more current) for roadway and other
improvements for the BRT Alternative.
Local jurisdiction design and safety standards (for local roadway improvements included in the
Build Alternatives)
Cal/OSHA related to worker safety during construction and operation in Title 8, Chapter 3.2,
California Safety and Health Regulations, California Code of Regulations.
Additionally, with implementation of Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3 and GEO-4 (identified in
Section 3.10) appropriate engineering design and construction methods to address potential
geological effects described above during construction of the Build Alternatives.
3.24.11 Paleontology
Direct impacts to paleontological resources will result from construction of any of the Build
Alternatives but not from operation of the facility itself, as described in Section 3.11. Impacts to
paleontological resources are considered permanent, not temporary. Therefore, construction of the
Build Alternatives would result in permanent impacts to paleontological resources. Specifically,
potential direct impacts to paleontological resources could result from ground-disturbing activities
associated with the construction of the Build Alternatives. Although the construction would be
short-term, the loss of some fossils and fossil-bearing rocks would be a permanent impact of the
Build Alternatives based on the scientific significance of potential paleontological resources in
formations in the project area. Measure PAL-1, as outlined in Section 3.11, would be implemented
during construction of the Build Alternatives where there is potential for encountering
paleontological resources during construction.
3.24.12 Hazardous Waste/Materials
All of the Build Alternatives involve soil disturbance and the demolition of existing structures and
bridges, which could release hazardous materials such as lead and asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) during construction, as described in Section 3.12. Additionally, all of the Build Alternatives
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-9
DRAFT

are within the vicinity of subject properties that may result in potential exposure to hazards or
hazardous materials during construction. The TSM/TDM and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would
require widening or demolition of bridges constructed prior to 1989 (when the federal ban on
asbestos use was implemented); therefore, ACMs may be present in these structures. The presence
of these materials would pose a potential hazardous waste risk if the removal of materials for the
widening or demolition of bridges is required. Most of the improvements under the TSM/TDM and
BRT Alternatives do not require ground-disturbing activities during construction and therefore have
less potential to result in hazardous materials impacts than the LRT and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives, which require substantial ground-disturbing activity. In addition, during construction of
both the tunnel segment of the LRT Alternative and the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and
dual-bore design variations, the TBM could potentially pass through soil or groundwater impacted
by hazardous materials. During tunnel construction for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, a
temporary stockpiling area would be set up at the construction portal so that excavated material
and any encountered water could be sampled. Water would be treated to meet sewer discharge
requirements or disposed of at a designated off-site disposal location. Disposal of all materials
would need to meet all local, State, and federal regulations, where applicable. Measures HW-1
through HW-10, as outlined in Section 3.12, would be implemented during construction of the Build
Alternatives where there is potential for encountering hazardous waste/materials and use/disposal
of hazardous materials during construction.
3.24.13 Air Quality
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of
particulate emissions (airborne dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities
related to construction, as described in Section 3.13. Emissions from construction equipment also
are anticipated and would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter less than 10 microns and 2.5 microns in size
(PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate
matter. Ozone (O3) is a regional pollutant that is derived from NOX and VOCs in the presence of
sunlight and heat.
Site preparation and roadway construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading,
removing or improving existing roadways, and paving roadway surfaces. Construction-related
effects on air quality from most highway projects would be greatest during the site preparation
phase because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of
soils to and from the site. These activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, and small
amounts of CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and VOCs. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed
soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled,
vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of
airborne dust after it dries. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the
nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 and PM2.5
emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of
equipment operating. Larger dust particles (PM10) would settle near the source, while fine particles
(PM2.5) would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-10
DRAFT

month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust, the emissions can be
reduced by up to 50 percent.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by
gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOX, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM10
and PM2.5) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the
area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed.
These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the
construction site.
SO2 is generated by oxidation during combustion of organic sulfur compounds contained in diesel
fuel. Off-road diesel fuel meeting federal standards can contain up to 5,000 parts per million (ppm)
of sulfur, whereas on-road diesel is restricted to less than 15 ppm of sulfur. However, under
California law and California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulations, off-road diesel fuel used in
California must meet the same sulfur and other standards as on-road diesel fuel, so SO2-related
issues due to diesel exhaust would be minimal. Some phases of construction, particularly asphalt
paving, would result in short-term odors in the immediate area of each paving site(s). Such odors
would be quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance from the site(s) increases.
The TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, LRT Alternative, Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore
design variation, and Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation would result in a
maximum construction emission of reactive organic gases (ROGs) of approximately 49 pounds/day
(lbs/day), 12 lbs/day, 119 lbs/day, 214 lbs/day, and 237 lbs/day, respectively. Maximum
construction emissions of CO would be approximately 548 lbs/day, 123 lbs/day, 1,335 lbs/day, 2,167
lbs/day, and 2,284 lbs/day, respectively. Maximum construction emissions of NOX would be
approximately 935 lbs/day, 206 lbs/day, 2,242 lbs/day, 4,337 lbs/day, and 4,926 lbs/day,
respectively. Maximum concentrations of PM10 would be approximately 513 lbs/day, 327 lbs/day,
720 lbs/day, 1,116 lbs/day, and 1,460 lbs/day, respectively. Finally, maximum construction emission
of PM2.5 would be approximately 130 lbs/day, 74 lbs/day, 207 lbs/day, 330 lbs/day, and 411 lbs/day,
respectively.
Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, as outlined in Section 3.13, would be implemented during
construction of the Build Alternatives to address pollutant emissions associated with construction
activities and equipment.
The SR 710 North Study Project is in Los Angeles County, which is among the counties listed as
containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. However, the part of the County that is known to contain
serpentine or ultramafic rock is limited to the Island of Santa Catalina. Therefore, the impact from
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction would be minimal to none.
3.24.14 Noise
3.24.14.1
Construction Noise
Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during construction of the improvements in the
Build Alternatives, as described in Section 3.14. The first type of construction noise would be from
construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the
project site, which would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the project site.
The pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved onto the
project site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-11
DRAFT

daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity. A high single-event noise exposure potential at a
maximum instantaneous noise level of 87 A-weighted decibels (dBA Lmax) from trucks passing at 50 ft
would occur as a result of trucks traveling on roads leading to/from project construction areas. The
projected traffic volumes from construction crew commutes would be minimal compared to existing
traffic volumes on existing freeways and major arterials, and the change in noise level as a result of
the increased traffic associated with construction worker commutes would not be perceptible.
Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in noise associated with short-term,
construction-related worker commutes and equipment transport.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading,
and facility construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix
of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases
would change the character of the noise generated and, consequently, the noise levels in the vicinity
of the improvements in each Build Alternative as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the
type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of
operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.14.20
(refer to Appendix N) lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise
impact assessments based on a distance of 50 ft between a piece of construction equipment and a
noise receptor.
Typical noise levels at 50 ft from an active construction area range up to 91 dBA Lmax during the
noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes grading and paving, tends
to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving
equipment. Earthmoving and compacting equipment include excavating machinery such as
backfillers, bulldozers, and front loaders as well as compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical
operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power
operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.
Construction of the improvements in the Build Alternatives is expected to require the use of a
variety of construction equipment, depending on the specific improvement. Noise associated with
pile driving activities, if necessary, is estimated to approach 93 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the center of
activity. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment for the grading phase is estimated
to be between 79 dBA Lmax and 89 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the active construction area. The maximum
noise level generated by a scraper is estimated to be approximately 87 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the
scraper. A bulldozer would generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level
generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles.
Each doubling of a sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each piece
of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. The worst-case composite noise
level at the nearest residence during this phase of construction would be 93 dBA Lmax at a distance of
50 ft between the residences and an active construction area.
Measures N-1 through N-4, as outlined in Section 3.14, would be implemented during construction
of the Build Alternatives to address short-term noise associated with construction operations,
materials handling and storage, and TBM operations, including limitations on construction
operations.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-12
DRAFT

3.24.14.2
Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration
Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment, the type of construction operation being performed, the location of construction
equipment inside a construction zone, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, as
described in Section 3.14.
Based on the types of improvements in the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives and the construction
methods and equipment, the construction of those improvements would not include pile driving or
other activities that could generate high levels of vibration. As a result, the construction of the
TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would not result in adverse short-term ground-borne noise or
vibration effects.
The ground-borne noise and vibration analysis indicated that the following construction activities
associated with construction of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives could result in short-term
ground-borne noise and vibration: tunnel excavation, supply and muck train movements, and
excavation and construction of tunnel portal and underground stations, including pile driving.
The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would require tunnel boring that could result in groundborne vibration. During tunnel excavation activities, the bored tunnels are expected to be excavated
with TBMs, and no blasting is anticipated. However, if higher strength bedrock is expected in the
cut-and-cover sections or in the excavation cross passages, controlled blasting methods may be
evaluated. This would be determined when more detailed geotechnical information is evaluated for
these areas. During tunnel boring, there would be short-term construction vibration impacts which
have the potential to be greater for the LRT Alternative because it is generally shallower than the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The impacts could last as long as 3 days when the tunnel is being
constructed directly below sensitive receptors, and is based on how quickly the TBM advances
under the sensitive receptor. The Category 2 (residential) vibration criterion for Infrequent Events is
80 VdB and for Occasional Events it is 75 VdB. Consequently, there may be a very short-term
vibration impact (up to 3 days) \due to TBM operation, when the tunnel is being constructed directly
below a sensitive receiver. This level of vibration would not be capable of producing damage to
structures. There would also be longer-term construction vibration impacts associated with supply
and muck train movements; however, it is not certain that trains would be used in the tunnels to
deliver supplies or remove excavated material. A conveyor system could be used to remove spoils,
in place of the muck trains, and there would be no vibration impact from this activity. A conveyor is
simply a moving conveyor belt onto which soil and rock are placed to be carried along to the point of
removal from the tunnel. The belt would run continuously and would produce very little vibration
compared to a muck train.
If a muck train is used to remove spoils, the installation of an under-track mat (commonly referred
to as a ballast mat) at the track level would reduce ground-borne noise. This method has been used
successfully to reduce vibration for muck trains in the past. Ballast mats are elastomeric sheets that
can be placed under the muck train tracks to reduce vibration. These mats are typically 1 inch or
more thick. Construction of previous Metro rail tunnel projects has shown ballast mats to be
effective at substantially reducing ground-borne noise impacts. The tunnel for the LRT Alternative
would be developed at shallower depths than the single-bore or dual-bore design variations of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative. As a result, tunnel boring and other construction activities for the LRT
Alternative would be more likely to cause short-term, construction-related vibration impacts than
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-13
DRAFT

There may be short-term construction vibration impacts at station sites where residential receptors
are within 200 ft of pile driving and other vibration-producing activities. BMPs and vibration
monitoring to limit vibration at these receptors can be used to minimize, if not eliminate, vibration
impacts. Where vibration impacts cannot be avoided, there may be short-term construction impacts
around the stations sites. Other methods of construction could be used to avoid impacts from pile
driving. Pre-drilling holes for soldier piles and, where feasible, the use of soil mix wall for excavation
are some of the vibration control measures that could be applied to reduce ground-borne vibration
impacts in these areas.
Measures N-5 through N-7 specifically address the potential for ground-borne noise and vibration
during construction of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Potential short-term vibration
effects were assessed at the Grifols laboratory facility. At a distance of 450 ft, a conservative
estimate of the ground vibration during tunnel boring is approximately 0.0018 inch/second rootmean-square (RMS). This is equivalent to a vibration level of 65 VdB. There is no published industry
criterion available to evaluate the vibration level necessary for dust inside a clean room to become
airborne. For a dust particle to become airborne, the vibration would need to accelerate the particle
enough to overcome adhesion factors such as Van der Waals forces, which act at the molecular level
and involve electrostatic interactions. A level of 66 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) (0.002
inch/second), although very conservative, is sometimes used as an unofficial criterion in the microelectronics industry as a threshold to evaluate the potential for generation of airborne dust due to
vibration. The reason for this is that micro-electronic clean rooms are designed to a vibration level
that is substantially less than this. More recently, higher levels are being evaluated as possible
criteria for limiting vibration as it relates to dust in clean rooms. Based on this analysis, it would
appear there would be no impact from tunnel boring vibration. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or
research of the type that Grifols engages in will require a more detailed evaluation to define the
acceptable vibration level to avoid causing dust in their clean rooms to become airborne. As
required in Measure N-6, during the engineering phase of the project, this issue would be examined
in more detail based on information to be provided by Grifols about ambient levels of dust in their
laboratory and refinement of vibration predictions based on identification of the TBM and specific
soil conditions between the tunnel alignment and the Grifols laboratory.
3.24.15 Energy
Temporary indirect energy impacts result from the manufacture of vehicles that operate on the
project and project construction, as described in Section 3.15. Indirect manufacturing energy effects
involve the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the manufacture of vehicles.
Construction energy effects involve the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with
construction of roads and structures.
It is anticipated that the large construction energy demands from the Build Alternative would be
accommodated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the Pasadena
Water and Power Utility.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would have an approximately 40 percent increase to total indirect energy
consumption in the study area with relatively minor construction costs. When including the
construction costs for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to build and the total
indirect energy costs for the TSM/TDM Alternative would be the same as the No Build Alternative.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-14
DRAFT

The BRT Alternative would have an approximately 94 percent increase to total indirect energy
consumption in the study area with relatively minor construction costs. When including the
construction costs for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to build and the total
indirect energy costs for the BRT Alternative would each be approximately 100 trillion British
thermal units (BTUs) more than the No Build Alternative.
The LRT Alternative would have an approximately 980 percent increase in total indirect energy
consumption in the study area. The LRT Alternative would have greater construction costs for the
LRT stations and maintenance facilities. When including the construction costs for all transportation
projects for the region, the energy to build and the total indirect energy costs for the LRT Alternative
would each be approximately 300 trillion BTUs more than the No Build Alternative.
The single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would have an approximately
1,220 percent increase to total indirect energy consumption, and the dual-bore design variation
would have an approximately 1,220 percent increase to total indirect energy consumption in the
study area. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would have greater construction costs than the other
Build Alternatives.
When including the construction costs for all transportation projects for the region, the energy to
build and the total indirect energy costs for the single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would each be approximately 500 trillion BTUs more than the No Build Alternative. The
energy to build and the total indirect energy costs for the dual-bore design variation would each be
approximately 900 trillion BTUs more than the No Build Alternative.
Based on the estimated costs to construct the TSM/TDM Alternative, it would take approximately
33,600 billion British thermal units (BTUs) to construct the TSM/TDM Alternative, approximately
55,300 billion BTUs to construct the BRT Alternative, approximately 422,000 billion BTUs to
construct the LRT Alternative, 523,000 billion BTUs to construct the single-bore design variation of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, and approximately 926,000 billion BTUs to construct the dual-bore
design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. There are very small or no direct energy savings
associated with the Build Alternatives, so the payback period for the energy consumed during
construction is not quantifiable.
3.24.16 Natural Communities
There are no natural communities in the construction impact zone of the TSM/TDM or BRT
Alternatives, as described in Section 3.16. Therefore, the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would not
result in any temporary impacts to natural plant communities.
The LRT Alternative is approximately 180 ft away from the southern riparian habitat north of Floral
Drive and adjacent to Interstate 710 (I-710), which consists of wetland complex and arroyo willow
thicket. Construction activities such as noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel
and vehicles traveling to and from the project area could potentially result in indirect temporary
impacts to the southern riparian habitat north of Floral Drive and adjacent to I-710, which consists
of wetland complex and arroyo willow thicket habitat that could include construction. For the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative, similar temporary construction impacts could occur to riparian habitats
consisting of white alder groves, black cottonwood forest, and arroyo willow thicket located
underneath State Route 134 (SR 134). Measures NC-1 through NC-5, WQ-1, and IS-1, as outlined in
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-15
DRAFT

Section 3.16, would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternatives to address
potential short-term construction effects to natural communities.
3.24.17 Wetlands and Other Waters
Temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters include physical impacts from construction
activities that would cease once construction of that phase is complete. The improvements in the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives are not located in the vicinity of any wetlands and other
waters in the Biological Study Area (BSA); therefore, the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives would
not result in any temporary impacts to nonwetland waters or wetland waters under the jurisdiction
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as described in Section 3.17.
The single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in approximately
0.02 ac of temporary impacts to nonwetland waters under USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction.
The dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in approximately 0.22
ac of temporary impacts to nonwetland waters under USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction. The
single-bore and dual-bore design variations would not result in any temporary or permanent
impacts to wetland waters under USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdiction, as described in Section 3.17.
Measures WET-1 through WET-3, as outlined in Section 3.17, would be implemented during
construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential short-term construction effects to
wetlands and other waters.
3.24.18 Plant Species
The TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would not result in any temporary impacts to special-status
plant species or trees subject to local tree protection ordinances due to construction activities, as
described in Section 3.18. However, both the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives may result in
temporary impacts from noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as well as personnel and vehicle
activities outside designated construction areas. The LRT Alternative would result in indirect
temporary impacts to a Coulters goldfields population and temporary impacts to approximately
8 trees within the Caltrans right of way (ROW) that are not protected by a local ordinance. The
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in temporary impacts to approximately 36 trees in the City
of Pasadena that are protected by the Citys Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance. Measures PS-1
through PS-5, as outlined in Section 3.18, would be implemented during construction of the Build
Alternatives to address potential short-term construction effects to plant species.
3.24.19 Animal Species
Temporary construction impacts to animal species are expected as a result of construction noise,
light, vibration, dust, and human encroachment. All of the Build Alternatives would result in
temporary impacts to the disturbed/developed community during construction, as described in
Section 3.19. The TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in temporary indirect
impacts to special-status bat populations if these bats begin using bridges proposed for demolition
or widening as roosting habitat. Additionally, if nighttime construction activities occur for any of the
Build Alternatives, indirect temporary impacts to foraging bats may occur. The LRT and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives would result in temporary impacts to riparian obligate bird species due to the
proximity of project construction areas to potential nonbreeding habitat provided by the riparian
areas and to nonnative woodlands that may contain eucalyptus trees with winter roosting
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-16
DRAFT

aggregations of adult monarch butterflies. Measures AS-1 through AS-4, as outlined in Section 3.19,
would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential short-term
construction effects to animal species.
3.24.20 Threatened and Endangered Species
Temporary construction impacts to threatened and/or endangered species may occur as a result of
construction noise, light, vibration, dust, and human encroachment, as described in Section 3.20.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would result in potential temporary indirect impacts through habitat loss
if Townsends big-eared bats begin using bridges proposed for widening as roosting habitat, and
temporary indirect impacts to foraging bats may occur if nighttime construction activities take place.
In addition, the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives could result in limited indirect temporary
impacts to listed riparian obligate bird species due to the proximity of potential nonbreeding
riparian habitat to project construction areas. Measures NC-1 through NC-3 and AS-1, as outlined in
Section 3.20, would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternatives to address
potential short-term construction effects to threatened and endangered species.
3.24.21 Invasive Species
Impacts related to invasive species are considered permanent impacts because the introduction of
invasive species into previously undisturbed areas during construction would result in permanent
impacts to the habitat rather than just a temporary impact that would cease when construction is
complete, as described in Section 3.21. Therefore, no temporary impacts related to invasive species
would occur as a result of construction of the Build Alternatives. Measure IS-1, as outlined in Section
3.21, would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternatives to address potential
short-term construction effects associated with invasive species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-17
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.24-18
DRAFT

3.25 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
3.25 Cumulative Impacts

3.25.1
Regulatory Setting
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effect assessment looks
at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor, but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts to resources in the study area may result from residential, commercial,
industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural development and the conversion
to more intensive types of agricultural cultivation. These land use activities can degrade habitat and
species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and
populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration
corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. They can also
contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community
character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130, describes when a cumulative impact analysis is warranted and
what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition of
cumulative impacts, under CEQA, can be found in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A
definition of cumulative impacts, under NEPA, can be found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations.
3.25.2
Methodology
This section is based on the Cumulative Impact Assessment (2015). The cumulative impacts analysis
for the State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study was developed by following the eight-step process as
set forth in the Guidelines for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis (California Department of
Transportation [Caltrans], June 2005), posted on the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference
(SER) website (www.dot.ca.gov/ser/guidance.htmNo.cumulative). The eight-step process is as
follows:
1. Identify the resources to consider in the cumulative impacts analysis by gathering input from
knowledgeable individuals and reliable information sources. This process is initiated during
project scoping and continues throughout the National Environmental Policy Act/California
Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) analysis.
2. Define the geographic boundary or Resource Study Area (RSA) for each resource to be
addressed in the cumulative impacts analysis.
3. Describe the current health and historical context of each resource.
4. Identify the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project that might contribute to a
cumulative impact on the identified resources.
5. Identify a set of other current and reasonably foreseeable future actions or projects and their
associated environmental impacts to include in the cumulative impacts analysis.
6. Assess cumulative impacts.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-1
DRAFT

7. Report the results of the cumulative impacts analysis.

8. Assess the need for mitigation and/or recommendations for actions by other agencies to
address a cumulative impact.
As specified in the Caltrans guidance, if the proposed project would not result in a direct or indirect
impact to a resource, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource. This
cumulative impacts analysis includes resources that would be substantially impacted by the
proposed project, as well as resources that are currently in poor or declining health or that would be
at risk even if proposed project impacts were not substantial.
The reasonably foreseeable actions used in this cumulative impacts analysis were based on
information obtained from the websites of the cities within the study area and the County of Los
Angeles, which identified approved and pending developments proposed in the proximity of the
study area. These files were cross-checked against files maintained by the State of California, Office
of Planning and Research. Information on future transportation projects was provided by Caltrans,
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), the California High Speed Rail Authority, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority. The reasonably foreseeable
actions are listed in Table 3.25-1 and shown on Figure 3.25-1. This list may not be exhaustive of
every planned project within the study area cities/communities, but it contains projects that have
the possibility of contributing to a cumulative effect (due to size, location, etc.)
3.25.3
Resources Excluded from Cumulative Impact Analysis
The SR 710 North Study involves improving the efficiency of the existing regional freeway and transit
networks, reducing congestion on local arterials affected due to accommodating regional traffic
volumes, and minimizing environmental impacts related to mobile sources. Based on the scope of
the SR 710 North Study, the affected environment of the study area, and the technical studies
prepared for the SR 710 North Study, the following resources would not be substantially impacted
by the SR 710 North Study and are not at risk:
Farmlands and Timberlands: There are no timberlands or prime, unique, or soils of local
significance for farmlands within the study area. Therefore, there are no recognized
environmental concerns related to farmlands and timberlands for any of the SR 710 North Study
Build Alternatives (Build Alternatives).
3.25.4
Resources Evaluated for Cumulative Impact Analysis
Given the level of effect identified in the technical studies, potential cumulative effects related to
the following resources and environmental topics may result from implementation of the Build
Alternatives. Each of these topics is discussed below. Reasonably foreseeable actions for the study
area are listed in Table 3.25-1. For each environmental topic, relevant projects are listed along with
the project identification number shown on Figure 3.25-1. The source documents for the
environmental impact information for these major projects are provided in Table 3.25-1. For each
environmental topic listed below, the RSA is described.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-2
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
1
Project Title
I-710 South Corridor Project
I-5 Corridor Improvement

Project (I-605 to I-710)
I-5 Improvement Project

between SR 118 to SR 170
Lead Agency
Caltrans
Caltrans
Project Description
The project would improve I-710 in Los Angeles County between Ocean
Boulevard and SR 60. Major features include widening I-710 up to 10
general-purpose lanes (five lanes in each direction); modernizing and
reconfiguring I-405, SR 91, and a portion of the I-5 interchanges with
I-710; modernizing and reconfiguring most local arterial interchanges
along I-710; and providing a separated four-lane freight corridor to be
used by conventional or zero-emission trucks.
The project would widen I-5 from I-605 to I-710 (a total of 8 mi).
An alternative may include modifications to the I-605 and I-710
interchanges.
Caltrans
The project is constructing an HOV lane in each direction on I-5

between the Hollywood Freeway (SR 170) and SR 118, a distance of
6.8 mi (3.4 mi in each direction).
The project is also widening four undercrossings, replacing sections of
pavement, and building a direct HOV connector at the I-5/SR 170
interchange. A direct HOV connector allows for freeway-to-freeway
transfers without exiting the carpool lane.
I-5 North Improvement

Projects from SR 134 to
SR 170
I-5/Western Avenue
Interchange Improvements
San Bernardino Freeway

(I-10)/ San Gabriel River
Freeway (I-605) Direct
Connector Project
Caltrans
The project will construct four segments of improvements on I-5

between SR 134 and SR 170 as follows:
Western Avenue Interchange: Realignment of the northbound I-5
Western Avenue on- and off-ramps.
SR 134 to Magnolia Boulevard: Addition of one HOV lane in each
direction.
Magnolia Boulevard to Buena Vista Street: Addition of HOV lanes,
Empire Avenue interchange modification, railroad realignment and
relocation, Burbank Boulevard bridge reconstruction and on- and
off-ramp modifications.
SR 170 to Buena Vista Street: Addition of one HOV lane in each
direction and pavement replacement.
Caltrans
Caltrans
The two-lane northbound Western Avenue off-ramps will be widened

to four lanes at Flower Street.
Cosmic Way (south of the northbound off-ramp) will be converted to a
cul-de-sac, eliminating through traffic.
A fly-over connector will provide a direct connection between
southbound I-605 and eastbound I-10 and eliminate weaving at this
connector, providing for improved goods movement and enhanced
safety and mobility throughout the region.
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/travel/projects/
details.php?id=27, accessed May 28, 2014.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Project Status
A DEIR/DEIS was circulated in summer 2012. An RDEIR/SDEIS is being
prepared to analyze a revised set of Build Alternatives completed and
will be released for public review and comment in 2015. The
anticipated start of construction is 2020.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/i-710-corridor-project/,
accessed May 16, 2014.
A DEIR/DEIS will be prepared. Project approval is anticipated in May
2017, with construction anticipated to begin in winter 2025.
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/travel/projects/I-5/, accessed
May 16, 2014.
Work began in August 2010 and completion is anticipated in late 2014.
Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2013/09/15/updates-on-i-5-hovimprovement-project-between-sr-118-and-sr-170/, accessed

September 19, 2013.
Western Avenue Interchange: Completed March 2012.
SR 134 to Magnolia Boulevard: In construction, with completion
anticipated late 2016. Source: http://i-5info.com/ventura-freewaysr-134-to-magnolia-boulevard/, accessed May 16, 2014.
Magnolia Boulevard to Buena Vista Street: Construction started
mid-2014, with completion anticipated in 2017. Source: http://i5info.com/magnolia-boulevard-to-buena-vista-street/, accessed
May 16, 2014.
SR 170 to Buena Vista Street: In construction, with completion
anticipated mid-2014. Source: http://i-5info.com/hollywoodfreeway-sr-170-to-buena-vista-street/, accessed May 16, 2014.
Source: http://i-5info.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SR134SR170-MapPoster10-18-12FINAL.jpg, accessed September 19, 2013.
Relevant Cumulative Environmental Factors

Community Impacts
Traffic/Transportation
Hydrology/Floodplain
Air Quality
Source: I-710 Corridor Project Draft EIR/EIS (June 2012).
This project would not have substantial impacts relevant to the SR 710
North Study Cumulative Impact Assessment.
Source: Initial Study Environmental Assessment Negative

Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact I-5 HOV 134 to 118
Lane Improvement Project (December 2000).
Source: Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Negative

Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact I-5 HOV 134 to 118
Lane Improvement Project (December 2000).
Construction was completed in summer 2012.
Construction began fall 2012 and has an anticipated completion of fall

2015. An IS was prepared in October 2008, and an MND/FONSI was
issued in January 2009.
According to the MND/FONSI (January 2009), this project would not

have substantial impacts relevant to the SR 710 North Study
Cumulative Impact Assessment.
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/, accessed

May 29, 2014.
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/10605_connector_MND_FONSI_040309.pdf, accessed May 29, 2014.
3.25-3
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
7
10
11
Project Title
Lead Agency
San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) Caltrans

Add One HOV Lane from I-605
to SR 57/71 and I-210
I-10 HOT Lanes
Caltrans
Project Description
Project Status
The project would construct one HOV lane in each direction on I-10
between I-605 and the SR 57/SR 71/I-210 interchange.
An IS/EA MND was prepared for this project in October 2002.

Construction began in October 2009 and has an anticipated completion North Study Cumulative Impact Assessment.
date of fall 2013. Construction of the Baldwin Park Boulevard bridge
and freeway median barrier work has been completed. Bridge work on
Athol Street is complete. The Bess Avenue pedestrian bridge
overcrossing is currently being replaced to accommodate the freeway
widening. Sound wall and retaining wall work is continuing along with
freeway lane construction.
The segment between Puente Avenue and SR 57 will be constructed in

two segments: Puente Avenue to Citrus Avenue, and Citrus Avenue to
SR 57.
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/travel/projects/
details.php?id=16, accessed September 17, 2013.
Tolling began on I-10 on February 23, 2013.
This project is located on I-10 and proposes conversion of the HOV

lanes on I-10 to HOT lanes from Alameda Street to I-605 in Los Angeles
County. The preferred alternative includes conversion of the existing
HOV lane to an HOT lane, installation of signs, toll infrastructure, and
restriping of the existing lanes to add an additional HOT lane.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/, accessed

September 17, 2013.
The I-110 (Harbor Freeway)/ Caltrans

Transitway HOT Lanes Project
nd
(182 Street to Adams
Boulevard) and on I-105 from
Crenshaw Boulevard to
Compton Avenue
The project would build a flyover structure from the northbound I-110
nd
HOV off-ramp directly to Figueroa Street and on I-110 from 182
Street/Artesia Transit Center to Adams Boulevard.
I-110 Widening and

Rehabilitation Project
The project limits extend from 0.5 mi south of Washington Boulevard to Completed in 2012.
th
th
north of Wilshire Boulevard, and include West 6 and 8 Streets, and
Olympic, Pico, and Venice Boulevards. The project widened lanes in
both directions, widened bridge structures and ramps, realigned and
reconstructed ramps, added merge and auxiliary lanes and a concrete
median barrier, and improved the I-110/I-10 interchange connector.
San Gabriel Trench Grade

Separation Project
Caltrans
Alameda Corridor-East
Construction Authority
Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/
story.php?id=703, accessed September 20, 2013.
The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority proposes to
eliminate four at-grade railroad crossings along the UPRR in the City of
San Gabriel. These improved crossings would occur at Ramona Street,
Mission Drive, Del Mar Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard. Currently
the 2.2 mi stretch of railroad includes four at-grade crossings with no
grade separations between the railroad and vehicles or pedestrians.
The proposed project would lower the existing railroad from its current
at-grade condition into a trench. Although the actual trench would be
located in the City of San Gabriel, construction activities and some
limited track work would take place in the Cities of Alhambra and
Rosemead, and the County of Los Angeles.
Source: http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/DocDescription.asp?DocPK=
648346.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Source: I-10 HOV Lane Project EIR (November 2011).

Source: The Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway/El Monte Busway)
High Occupancy Toll Lanes Project (February 2010).
An FEIR/EA/FONSI (April 2010) was prepared for this project.

Construction began in 2010 and was completed in 2012.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/expresslanes/images/
notice_2012_1112.pdf
Source: The Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway/El Monte Busway)

High Occupancy Toll Lanes Project Final EIR/FONSI (April 2010).
Although the environmental document is not available for this project,
it is anticipated that this project would not result in substantial
cumulative impacts because construction is complete.
The San Gabriel Trench construction contract was awarded in July 2012. Community Impacts
Early construction activities and utility relocations began in July 2013.
Utilities
The anticipated completion date is winter 2017.
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Air Quality
Source:http://www.theaceproject.org/construction%20alerts/SGT/Star
t%20of%20construction%20of%20trenchphupdates.pdf, accessed
May 27, 2014.
Source: San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project EIR/FONSI
Source: http://www.theaceproject.org/sangabrieltrench.htm.
(November 2010).
3.25-4
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
12
13
14
15
16
Project Title
Rosemead Boulevard Safety
Enhancement &
Beautification Project
Washington Boulevard
Improvement Project
Lead Agency
Temple City
City of Commerce
San Fernando Road Widening City of Los Angeles

Between Elm Street and Eagle
Rock Boulevard
Riverside Drive Bridge and

Grade Separation
Replacement Project
Valley Boulevard/I-605
Project
City of Los Angeles
City of Industry
Project Description
Project Status
The project is a safety enhancement and beautification project that

Construction began March 2013 and was completed in spring 2014.
would establish consistency along the entire length of Rosemead
Boulevard (approximately 2 mi) from Callita Street (north) to the south
side of the UPRR railroad tracks (south) in Temple City. The project
would remove and replace concrete sidewalks and construct new
sidewalk, curb, and gutter (incidental under-sidewalk drain extensions);
install new and reconfigure raised, irrigated, and landscaped roadway
medians; re-slope and reconfigure (as well as minor removal/relocation Source: http://thesource.metro.net/tag/rosemead-blvd, accessed May
and replacement of) driveways and curbs to meet ADA requirements.
16, 2014. /. An IS/MND was prepared in January 2012.
Source: http://www.templecity.us/Rosemead%20Blvd/
Rosemead%20Blvd,%20IS-MND.pdf, accessed May 16, 2014.
658604.
Source: http://rosemeadblvd.com/blog/, accessed September 17, 2013.
Widen and reconstruct Washington Boulevard (from two lanes to three Plans and Specifications are 95 percent complete. Construction is
lanes in each direction) from the western City boundary at Vernon (350 anticipated to start in late summer 2014, with a 12- to 18-month
ft west of Indiana Street) to I-5 at Telegraph Road.
construction duration.
The project will also increase turn radius and medians, upgrade traffic
Source: City of Commerce email correspondence with Alex Hamilton,
signals and street lighting, and improve sidewalks.
November 7, 2013.
The project would widen San Fernando Road between Elm Street and
IS/ND November 2009. Construction was scheduled to begin in
Eagle Rock Boulevard to install one additional northbound lane. The
November 2011 and last approximately 1 year.
intersection of San Fernando Road, Eagle Rock Boulevard, Verdugo
Road, and Cypress Avenue would be reconfigured. Sidewalks
throughout the project would be expanded to a width of 10 ft.
Improvements are also proposed for San Fernando Road at SR 2. A new
southbound San Fernando Road to northbound freeway on-ramp
would be constructed by cutting into the adjacent slope and
constructing a retaining wall approximately 100 ft in length and up to
10 ft in height. This new on-ramp would join the existing northbound
on-ramp. The off-ramp from southbound SR 2 would be widened. The
east side of San Fernando Road, between this off-ramp and Roswell
Street to the north, would also be widened.
638029.
The City of Los Angeles proposes to replace the existing Riverside Drive
Bridge over the Los Angeles River and Riverside Drive Viaduct/Grade
Separation Structure with an integrated two-lane, standard-curvature
bridge and grade separation structure.

Source: Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification

Project IS/MND (January 2012).
it is anticipated that this project would not result in substantial
cumulative impacts because of its distance from the Build Alternatives.
Source: San Fernando Road Widening Between Elm Street and Eagle
Rock Boulevard IS/ND (November 2009)
An IS/ND was completed in January 2006. Construction is ongoing, with This project would not have substantial impacts relevant to the SR 710
project completion expected on April 1, 2015.
Source: http://eng.lacity.org/docs/dpw/agendas/2006/200604/
Source: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/CWA/documents/cycle.../
20060426/ce/20060426_ag_br_ce_1_tr.pdf, accessed September
20, 2013.
hrcsa.xlsx, accessed September 20, 2013.
Reconfiguration of the Valley Boulevard on- and off-ramps to I-605 to
Status not available.
improve mobility and circulation and to relieve the current congestion
at Valley Boulevard. Includes: right turn from Valley Boulevard onto
existing southbound on-ramp; construction of dual westbound to
southbound lanes to southbound on-ramp and reconstruction of entire
southbound on-ramp; improvements at Valley/Temple/northbound
I-605 off-ramp intersection; and widening of eastbound Valley
Boulevard to three lanes in advance of the southbound ramps.
Source: Riverside Drive Bridge/Grade Separation Replacement IS/ND

(January 2006).
it is anticipated that this project would not result in substantial impacts
because it involves minor improvements to an existing interchange.
Source: http://www.scag.ca.gov/FTIP/pdf/draft/2013/D2013-FTIPStateLA.pdf, accessed September 20, 2013.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-5
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
17
18
19
20
Project Title
Regional Connector Transit
Corridor
Eastside Transit Corridor

Phase 2 Metro Gold Line
Eastside Extension
Metro Gold Line Foothill

Extension
Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid

Transit Project Phases I and
II
Lead Agency
Metro
Metro
Metro/Foothill
Extension Authority
Metro
Project Description
The Metro Regional Connector Project extends from the Metro Gold
th
Line Little Tokyo/Arts District Station to the 7 Street/Metro Center
Station in downtown Los Angeles, allowing passengers to transfer to
Blue, Expo, Red, and Purple Lines, bypassing Union Station.
California High Speed Rail

Project
A DEIR was prepared in September 2010 and an FEIR was completed in

January 2012. The RFP for Design Build is under review, with a forecast
opening of 2020. A contractor has been selected and the
groundbreaking was on September 30, 2014.
Source: http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/
deis-deir/Cover.pdf, accessed May 16, 2014.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/connector/.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/connector/connector-finaleiseir/, accessed May 16, 2014.
The project would connect with and extend the Gold Line Eastside
The DEIS/DEIR document is anticipated to be released for public review
Extension light rail line, which runs between Union Station in
in summer 2014. The project will be constructed when the project
downtown Los Angeles and Pomona and Atlantic Boulevard in East Los studies and engineering are completed and funding is available. Current
Angeles to communities farther east. The projects goals include
Metro funding scenarios show that the majority of local Measure R
improving mobility in the study area and planning for future growth in a money could be available starting in 2028.
sustainable manner. Metro is leading this study effort in conjunction
with the FTA.
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/, accessed
May 16, 2014.
The proposed extension consists of two phases. The first phase will
The FEIR for the first phase (Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa) was certified in
continue from Sierra Madre Villa in Pasadena east over 11 mi, with
2007. Construction is underway on the Pasadena to Azusa Extension
stops in the Cities of Arcadia, Duarte, Irwindale, and Monrovia, and two and is scheduled to be completed in September 2015.
stops in Azusa. Construction of the first phase is expected to be
An FEIR was certified in March 2013 for the Azusa to Montclair
completed in September 2015.
segment.
The second phase will continue from Azusa to Montclair, a distance of
Source: http://www.foothillextension.org/construction_phases/
12.3 mi, with stops in the cities of Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne,
construction-updates/, accessed September 20, 2013.
Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair. This phase of the project is in the
Source: http://www.foothillextension.org/construction_phases/
advanced engineering conceptual phase.
azusa_to_montclair/metro-gold-line-foothill-extension-azusa-tomontclair-draft-environmental-impact-report-1/, accessed May 16,
2014.
The project would consist of a 12.5 mi corridor with a 7.7 mi peakThe first segment of the bus lanes between South Park View Street and
period bus lane on Wilshire Boulevard in the City and County of Los
Western Avenue was scheduled to open June 2013. All remaining
Angeles from Valencia Street to the City of Santa Monica.
segments of the project are estimated to be completed by November
2014.
Phase I includes street widening, curb lane repaving/reconstruction,
A FONSI was issued in August 2011.
improved traffic signal timing, and bus signal priority.
Phase II includes enhanced shelters and landscaping, street repair/
reconstruction, concrete bus pads, and park-and-ride facilities.
21
Project Status
Authority and Federal

The project would develop an 800 mi statewide system of high-speed
Railroad Administration trains from Southern to Northern California, with potential crossing of
the I-710 corridor between Washington Boulevard and Bandini
Boulevard and just north of Washington Boulevard.

Community Impacts
Utilities
Air Quality
Source: Regional Connector Transit Corridor Draft EIS/EIR (September
2010).
Land Use
Community Impacts
Utilities
Visual
Hydrology
Hazardous Waste
Source: Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis Report
(October 2009).
Community Impacts (acquisitions)
Air Quality
Source: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Pasadena to Azusa Final

Environmental Impact Report (February 2007).
Source: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Azusa to Montclair Final
Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/wilshire/, accessed

September 20, 2013.
Source: http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/wilshire/images/
Finding_No_Significant_Impact.pdf, accessed May 27, 2014.
Source: Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit Project Draft EIR/EA (June 2010).
A Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report was completed for the
Palmdale to Los Angeles section in April 2012. Community Open Houses
for the Palmdale to Los Angeles section were held in spring 2014.
A Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report was completed for the Los
Angele to Anaheim section in July 2010.
A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis was completed for the Los Angeles
to San Diego section in March 2011.
Also underway in Southern California is continued work on the Book
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-6
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
Project Title
Lead Agency
Project Description
Project Status
End projects. Developed as a joint effort between the Authority, SCAG,

Metro, Metrolink, SANDAG, City of Anaheim, RCTC, and SANBAG, the
Book End projects represent early investments that clear the way for
high-speed rail by completing required local infrastructure projects
early in order to minimize local impacts during construction of the highspeed rail system.
High-speed rail service connecting the Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin
is anticipated by 2029.
22
23
Gold Line Transit Plaza
Station Square Transit Village
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
City of Arcadia
City of Monrovia
This project involves the design and construction of a transit plaza

adjacent to the Gold Line Arcadia Station. The transit plaza will include
hardscape, softscape, street furniture (e.g., benches, trash receptacles
and lighting fixtures), way-finding signage, and public art features.
Source: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/fact%20sheets/
Statewide%20Rail%20Modernization%20Plan.pdf, accessed May,
2014.
Source: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/brdmtg_
item3_status_rpt_southern_cal_project_sections.pdf, accessed
November 7, 2013.
Source: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/
proj_sections/Palmdale_LA/Palmdale_to_LA_Central_Hollywood_
Neighborhood_Council_presentation_4_23_12.pdf, April 23, 2012;
High Speed Rail Website, http://www.hsr.ca.gov/,- accessed July
2013.
Source: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_
Modernization/Project_Sections/palmdale_losangeles.html,
Source: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/
proj_sections/LA_Anaheim/Supplemental_Alternatives_Analysis_
Report_July_2010_7_17_10.pdf, accessed May 27, 2014.
Construction closures for the Transit Plaza began in September 2014.
Metros Gold Line is anticipated to open in 2015 in this area.
Source: City of Arcadia website http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/docs/
final_adopted_cip_equipment_budget_fy13-18.pdf, accessed July
2013.
Source: http://arcadiasbest.com/2012/07/gold-line-station-design/,
accessed July 2013.
Source: http://thesource.metro.net/tag/arcadia/, accessed May 27,
2014.
Gold Line Operations Facility on Evergreen Avenue between California
and Shamrock Avenues: October 2012 to January 2015.
The project will provide a transportation facility for satellite parking for
the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station, park-and-ride for commuters,
and a Foothill Transit store. The center will have three bus bays and at
least four shelters. The shelters will all have benches, with a seating
Grade crossings:
capacity of at least 10 people in each shelter. The area will have lighting
for safety and security, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, and
California Boulevard: Work began on March 9, 2013, on
information kiosks. Additional traffic signals and a right-hand bus-only
improvements at this grade crossing. California Boulevard will be
turn lane will also be provided.
closed through September 2013 to complete this work. California
Boulevard is forecast to reopen by mid-January 2014.
Mayflower Avenue: Work was completed in late November 2013.
Myrtle Avenue: Work will begin on the Myrtle Avenue crossing
following the reopening of California Boulevard in mid-January 2014.
Myrtle Avenue is forecast to be fully closed to through traffic for
5 months (through June 2014). A detour route will be in place during
the closure.
Mountain Avenue: Utility relocation work began in July 2013 and
3.25-7
Source: California High-Speed Train Final Program EIR/EIS (August

2005).
Community Impacts

Source: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension - Azusa to Montclair Final
Environmental Impact Report (February 2013)
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
Project Title
Lead Agency
Project Description
Project Status
will occur on an intermittent basis through early 2014. Once
completed, a full closure of Mountain Avenue is planned. The
closure will begin following Myrtle Avenue reopening to through
traffic, and is forecast to begin in June 2014 and be completed in
November 2014.
Magnolia Avenue: Work on the crossing at Magnolia Avenue is
forecast to begin in June 2014 and last through August 2014.
Monrovia (Center Platform): Construction is underway on the
Monrovia Station. Work began in February 2013 and will continue
until May 2015.
24
25
26
27
Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan City of Alhambra
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan
Crown City Medical Center
16 East California Project
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
City of Pasadena
City of Pasadena
City of Pasadena
Source: http://www.foothillextension.org/cities-stations/monrovia/,
A series of prioritized bikeway projects will be implemented over the
next 10 years. A Draft Master Plan was published in February 2013.
Development of a comprehensive network of bike paths, lanes, and

routes while integrating this system with homes, jobs, public transit,
recreational resources, and adjacent communities. The project would
also implement a bicycle parking policy.
The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and zone change proposes to change
land uses as well as establish new development standards within the
Lincoln Avenue corridors. The Specific Plan proposes to gradually
convert existing industrial and auto-related land uses to a
neighborhood-serving retail/commercial district. Build out of the
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan would allow up to an additional 500,000 sf
of commercial/office/retail uses and 91 additional residential units.
Mixed-use opportunities (commercial/residential) would also be
introduced along the corridor. Additionally, two Opportunity Sites are
identified in the Specific Plan that are underutilized and have the
potential for redevelopment.
Source: Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan (February 2013).

Source: Alhambra Administrative Draft Plan (November 14, 2012).
Source: http://www.cityofalhambra.org/imagesfile/file/201311/
bikeplan_03_13.pdf, accessed May 16, 2014.
The Specific Plan was adopted in October 2013 and will guide future
development in the Lincoln Avenue Corridor.

Source: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Azusa to Montclair Final
Land Use
Source: Findings of Fact Regarding the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan
(accessed May 2014).
Land Use
Utilities
Visual
Air Quality
660685.
The project allows for the development of a 112,252 sf, five-story
medical office and retail building over a six-level parking garage (one
level at-grade and five subterranean levels). Excavation for the parking
garage would be to an approximate depth of approximately 56 ft and
would require a total of 80,000 cy of export. The project will provide
476 parking spaces. Access to and from the parking structure would be
from Converse Alley.
Source: http://cityofpasadena.net/Lincoln_Avenue_Specific_Plan.aspx,
A DEIR was completed in November 2012. A public hearing to consider
approval of the proposed land use approvals and the SEIR, and to
consider adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, was
held April 24, 2013.
Source: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

(March 2013).
Visual
665413.
The proposed project includes demolition of the three existing on-site
structures totaling approximately 12,635 sf and surface parking areas in
order to develop a four-story, 113,200 gross square feet of office
building with 255 parking spaces provided within a two-level
subterranean parking garage.
665413, accessed May 27, 2014.
Demolition of three existing buildings for construction of a four-story,
100,000 sf office building occurred in 2008. Information regarding the
start of construction is not available.
Source: Crown City Medical Center Subsequent Draft EIR (Executive

Summary) (October 2012).
the following impacts are expected to occur:
630765.
Source: Personal conversation City of Pasadena Planning Desk, June

27, 2014.
3.25-8
Visual
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
28
29
30
31
Project Title
Magellan Gateway Project
El Monte Walmart
Olive Pit Mining and

Reclamation Operations and
Long Term Reuse Project
Lead Agency
City of El Monte
City of El Monte
City of Irwindale
Huntington Memorial
City of Pasadena
Hospital Master Development
Plan Amendment
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Project Description
Project Status
The Magellan Gateway Project (formerly Temple Palms Business Park)

proposes the construction of 502,020 sf of light industrial, commercial,
and warehousing facilities on a vacant 26.8 ac site. The proposed
business park would consist of a total of five buildings ranging in size
from 54,800 to 164,330 sf in a business park setting. All five buildings
would be arranged to take access from a central driveway traversing
the project site in an east to west orientation, with a secondary
driveway located at the northeast corner of the project boundary.
Building heights would range between 35 and 40 ft to the top of the
parapet.
An NOD for the Magellan Gateway Project (formerly Temple Palms

Business Park), an Addendum to the EIR No. 1, was issued in February
2014.
Air Quality
651589.
The project proposes 182, 429 sf of new retail/commercial uses within
an approximately 15.41 ac site located in the northwestern portion of
the City of El Monte near the intersection of Valley Boulevard and
Arden Drive. The project includes the proposed El Monte Walmart, all
facilities proposed within the project site, on-and off-site supporting
improvements, and associated discretionary actions.
Source: http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/NODdescription.asp?DocPK=
678717, accessed May 27, 2014.
An NOP was published in March 2014. Construction is anticipated to
begin in late 2014.
Source: Temple Palms Business Park Environmental Impact Report (May

2011).
Traffic/Circulation
Energy
Source: http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/ProjDocList.asp?ProjectPK=
630100, accessed May 27, 2014.
The City of Irwindale owns and maintains an inactive mining site
referred to as the Olive Pit. The Citys long term goal for the property
is to use a portion of the site for development and the remainder for
long-term use as a storm water retention area. The City intends to
enter into a License and Mining Agreement with United Rock Products
to extract of all economically recoverable mineral resources from the
Olive Pit and to reclaim the eastern 32 ac by filling to street level for
future development. The remainder of the property will be reclaimed
for storm water retention.
630100, accessed May 27, 2014.
Source: http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/20130910/residentsvoice-comments-concerns-over-proposed-walmart-in-el-monte,
An NOP was published in March 2014. Construction is anticipated to
begin summer 2015 and be completed in 2020.
Air Quality
Traffic/Circulation
679402, accessed May 28, 2014.
Huntington Memorial Hospital, located at 100 West California
An IS was prepared in July 2011. An EIR is in preparation.
Boulevard, is a 29.11 ac site. The hospital is proposing to amend its
master development plan with rehabilitation and development that will
occur in phases over the next 20 years, as well as reconfiguration of the
plans boundary area.
Land Use
Visual
Air Quality
654053.
Source: Huntington Memorial Hospital Master Development Plan

Amendment and Zone Change Initial Study (July 2011).
3.25-9
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
32
33
34
Project Title
Devils Gate Reservoir
Sediment Removal and
Management Project
Garfield Reservoir
Replacement Project
Arroyo Seco Pedestrian and

Bicycle Trail
Lead Agency
Los Angeles County
Flood Control District
City of South Pasadena
Project Description
Project Status
This project will remove sediment from Devils Gate Reservoir to

restore capacity and to protect the dam and its valves to reduce the risk
of flooding in the communities located downstream along the Arroyo
Seco. This effort will include removal of approximately 2.9 million cy of
existing excess sediment in the reservoir in addition to any additional
sediment that accumulates during construction. The purpose of the
proposed annual management is to reduce buildup of sediment in the
reservoir management area and eliminate or substantially reduce the
occurrence of another large-scale sediment removal project in the
future.
675267, accessed June 4, 2014.
The City of South Pasadena proposes the construction of a replacement
for the Garfield Reservoir. The Garfield Reservoir is a 6.25-million-gallon
reservoir constructed of concrete and covered by a metal roof
supported on a wood frame. A replacement reservoir is needed to bring
the Garfield Reservoir up to current seismic standards. The proposed
project includes demolition of the existing Garfield Reservoir and pump
station and construction of two replacement reservoirs, a pump
station, an inlet/outlet vault, a rechlorination room, and a Water
Distribution support yard on the project site. The proposed project also
includes the replacement of a storm drain within an existing easement
through the adjacent Blair High School athletic field.
Sediment removal activities are expected to occur over the course of

approximately 5 years beginning in summer 2015. Reservoir
management is expected to start after 2020. An NOP was published in
September 2011, and a DEIR was published in October 2013.
Source: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/DevilGate/DEIR/
Devils_Gate_DEIR_2013_10_23_Executive_Summary.pdf - Accessed
June 19, 2014.
An MND was completed in November 2011 and an NOD issued in
October 2013.

Traffic/Circulation
Air Quality
Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in fall 2013

and is expected to last for 18 months.
Source: http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/NODdescription.asp?DocPK=
676082, accessed May 28, 2014.
Construction of a pedestrian and bicycle trail (approximately 0.65 mi),
An MND was completed in September 2013. Construction is anticipated Although no environmental document was available for this project, it
which will be an extension of the existing Arroyo Seco Bike Trail located to begin in March 2016 and be completed by October 2016.
is anticipated that no substantial impacts would occur relevant to the
in the City of Los Angeles. The proposed trail is planned to begin at the
SR 710 North Study Cumulative Impact Assessment.
western limit of the City of South Pasadena, run north through the
Citys Nature Park and the Arroyo Seco Golf Course, continue north
along Lohman Lane, and terminate at Stoney Drive. The project will
require the removal of a 20 ft wide section from the driving range of
the golf course, the replacement of driving range facilities, and an
encroachment into the golf course parking lot. Proposed trail elements
include landscaping, irrigation, benches, trash cans, drinking fountains,
educational displays, information and directional signage to amenities
and other trails, and an enhanced pedestrian and bicycle entry gate at
golf course entrance.
674681, accessed May 28, 2014.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-10
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
35
36
37
38
Project Title
Olson San Gabriel Residential
Community Project
100 West Walnut Planned

Development
Hill and Colorado Project
Green Hotel Apartments

Project
Lead Agency
City of San Gabriel
City of Pasadena
City of Pasadena
City of Pasadena
Project Description
Project Status
The proposed project consists of 88 new condominium residential units

occupying 5.4 ac and demolition of a portion of a 170,000 sf warehouse
building that overlaps the Cities of San Gabriel and Rosemead. The
entire property occupies 9.18 ac, spans both sides of the Rubio Wash (a
Los Angeles County flood control channel), and is just south of the
UPRR line. The existing warehousing use in Rosemead will continue and
is being processed as Categorical Exemption (Class I Existing
Facilities), but the EIR will examine the cumulative effects of both
discretionary actions. The portion of the building located west of the
Rubio Wash in the City of San Gabriel will be demolished and the
remaining 77,000 sf building located in Rosemead will be converted to
a freestanding warehouse building.
An NOP was published in December 2013. A DEIR was prepared in

March 2014 and an FEIR was prepared in May 2014. The project was
approved by the City Council in June 2014. Construction is anticipated
to begin in late 2014 and be completed by early 2017.
Source: Draft EIR (April 2014). Personal conversation LSA Associates,
628538, accessed May 28, 2014.
Inc.
The proposed 100 West Walnut development is a mixed-use
An NOP and IS were prepared in July 2013. Construction is anticipated
development that would complement the existing office buildings on
to begin in 2016 and be completed by 2020.
the site with the proposed development of 620,000 sf of office uses, of
which up to 30,000 sf could be used for ancillary retail uses, 10,000 sf of
restaurant uses, and 475 residential units. The proposed development
would be located on the paved parking area on the site, and parking for
this project would be provided via a multi-level subterranean parking
structure offering a minimum of 3,760 parking spaces, which includes
replacement spaces lost with the removal of the existing surface
parking areas at the project site. All proposed development would
occur within the portion of the project site located north of Holly
Street.
672184, accessed May 28 2014.
The proposed project involves the establishment of a Planned
An NOP and IS were prepared in October 2013.
Development District for two sites on opposite sides of Colorado
Boulevard in the City of Pasadena. The proposed project involves the
establishment of a Planned Development District that delineates
development standards relative to building setbacks, heights, form,
mass, scale, and other design considerations for future development at
the site. Based on the proposed development standards, which can be
considered to constitute a development envelope, the project
proponent proposes a potential development concept that would
provide approximately 438,685 sf of building space at the project site
for uses currently allowed under the existing zoning, specifically hotel
development and commercial/retail uses.
675165, accessed May 28, 2014.
The proposed project involves construction of a six-story mixed-use
building with 64 residential units and 5,000 sf of commercial space on
an existing surface parking lot at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue in
Pasadena. The project site is 32,362 sf and the proposed mixed-use
building would be 76,980 sf in size and 75 ft high.
A DEIR was circulated in January 2014. Construction is anticipated to

begin in August 2014 and be completed by December 2016.

Archaeological/Historic Resources
Land Use
Visual/Aesthetics
Air Quality
Traffic/Circulation
Land Use
Visual/Aesthetics
Air Quality
Traffic/Circulation
Land Use
Traffic/Circulation
677874, accessed May 28, 2014.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-11
DRAFT

TABLE 3.25.1:
Summary Table
Project
ID No.
39
40
Project Title
Reuse of the Desiderio Army
Reserve Center
SR 710 Surplus Property Sale
Lead Agency
City of Pasadena
Caltrans
FTA = Federal Transit Administration

HOT = high-occupancy toll
HOV = high-occupancy vehicle
NOD = Notice of Determination
NOP = Notice of Preparation
RCTC = Riverside County Transportation Commission
RDEIR = Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Project Description
Project Status
The 5.1 ac site was formerly the grounds and recreation area of the
Vista del Arroyo Hotel and Resort complex built in 1903. The proposed
project includes two primary components: a 3.87 ac City park and nine
single-family detached bungalow homes in a courtyard formation. The
southeast portion of the site would be developed into nine bungalow
homes by Habitat for Humanity encompassing a total of 1.29 ac.
An NOP was published in September 2013 and a DEIR was circulated in

April 2014. Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2014 and be
completed by 2016.
Archaeological/Historical Resources
Transportation
An NOP was issued on June 27, 2014. An EIR will be prepared.
At this time, an NOP has been issued. Without an environmental

document it is speculative to try to identify the cumulative
environmental factors related to this project. Specific issues to be
addressed in the Draft EIR include historic resources, growth
inducement, land use, hazardous waste, fiscal impacts, population/
housing balance, and cumulative effects.
680110, accessed May 27, 2014.
Caltrans proposes to sell surplus properties originally acquired for a
surface freeway project on SR 710 in the Cities of Los Angeles,
Pasadena, and South Pasadena, in Los Angeles County. Some of the
properties are listed on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, and/or designated
locally significant.
RFP = Request for Proposal

SANBAG = San Bernardino Associated Governments
SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
SDEIS = Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SEIR = Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
3.25-12
DRAFT
118
Cumulative Projects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

I-5 Corridor Improvement Project (I-605 to I-710)
I-5 Improvement Project between SR-118 & SR-170
I-5 North Improvement Projects between SR-134 & SR-170
I-5/Western Interchange Improvements
San Bernardino Freeway (I-10)/San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605)
Direct Connector Project
San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) add one HOV lane from
I-605 to SR-57/71 & I-210
I-10 HOT Lanes
I-110 (Harbor Freeway)/Transitway HOT Lanes Project
I-110 Widening & Rehabilitation Project
San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project
Rosemead Blvd Safety Enhancement & Beautification Project
Washington Blvd Improvement Project
San Fernando Rd Widening between Elm St & Eagle Rock Blvd
Riverside Drive Bridge & Grade Separation Replacement Project
Valley Blvd/I-605 Project
Regional Connector Transit Corridor
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
Wilshire Blvd Bus Rapid TransitProject - Phases I & II
California High Speed Rail Project
City of Monrovia
Transit Village
27
Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan
El Monte Wal-Mart
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Operations
and Long Term Reuse Project
Huntington Memorial Hospital Master
Development Plan Amendment
Devil's Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal
and Management Project
Garfield Reservoir Replacement Project
Arroyo Seco Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail
Olson San Gabriel Residential Community Project
100 West Walnut Planned Development
Hill & Colorado Project
Green Hotel Apartments Project
Reuse of the Desiderio Army Reserve Center
SR-710 Surplus Property Sale
170
La Canada
Flintridge
Glendale
134
101
170
101
5
2
134
34
14
210
Project Location
10
60
110
42
105
19
90
38
26
22
37
27
San
Marino
South
San
Pasadena 33
Gabriel 35
24
Alhambra
40
17
710
Monterey
Park
8
Rosemead
21
Arcadia
19
12
Temple
City
28
29
210
Irwindale
El Monte
South El
Monte
6
16
Baldwin 30
Park
10
39
18
13
60
19
57
110
Duarte
72
39
72
710
Pasadena
10
42
605
10
405
110
15
20
36
Monrovia
Sierra
Madre
25
31
405
Los
Angeles
County
10
39
Los
Angeles
Project Vicinity
118
32
Orange
County
LEGEND
105
605
90
142
FIGURE 3.25-1
Cities within Project Area
SR 710 North Study
1.5
Miles
SOURCE: US-CA-LosAngeles-S (05/25/2010)
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\Chapter_3\Cumulative\CumulativeProjects.mxd (11/20/2014)
Cumulative Projects
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-14
DRAFT

The cumulative impact analysis considered the effects of the Build Alternatives on each
environmental topic and then considered which other projects listed in Table 3.25.1 might
contribute to cumulative effects on that environmental parameter. It is acknowledged that the
majority of the projects in Table 3.25.1 may result in some level of effects for most of the
environmental parameters discussed in this chapter although many of those effects would be
expected to be minor or relatively limited. Nonetheless, the cumulative impacts analyses consider
the additive effect of impacts of all projects in an area on a specific environmental parameter. The
analyses in the following sections considered the effects of the projects in Table 3.25.1 and also
specifically identify individual projects from Table 3.25.1 that would potentially contribute
substantially to cumulative effects for the identified parameter. Those analyses do not exclude
potential effects of the other projects, but rather highlight those projects with the greatest potential
to contribute to cumulative effects.
It should be noted that some analyses by their nature are cumulative. For example, the assumptions
for project-specific traffic modeling and analyses include approved and planned projects (based on
adopted local General Plans and adopted traffic forecasting model assumptions). As a result, traffic
forecasts for future with and without project improvements include traffic associated with the
existing circulation systems and land uses as well as approved and planned land use and
transportation projects. Therefore, the traffic analysis for the SR 710 North Study is a cumulative
impacts analysis. In addition, because the air quality and noise analyses are based on the traffic
forecasts, they would also be cumulative analyses. Similarly, because land use impacts analyses are
based on adopted General Plans, they consider the effects of both existing and future land uses and
are also cumulative impacts analyses.
3.25.4.1
Land Use
The information in this section is based on the Community Impact Assessment (2014) prepared for
the SR 710 North Study.
Resource Study Area
Because land use impacts would occur in the area where the Build Alternatives would be operating,
the study area is used as the RSA for the purpose of the land use cumulative analysis. The study area
is bounded by Interstate 210 (I-210) on the north, Interstate 605 (I-605) on the east, Interstate 10
(I-10) on the south, and Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 2 (SR 2) on the west. The study area
includes portions of the Cities and communities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte,
Glendale, Irwindale, La Caada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park,
Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Temple City.
Health and Historical Context
The study area for the SR 710 North Study consists of a mixture of residential, commercial,
industrial, open space, transportation, and agricultural land uses. Areas of mixed commercial and
industrial uses are mainly located along the major freeways in the Cities/communities of Pasadena,
Lincoln Heights, El Sereno, El Monte, and Irwindale. Overall, the study area cities are older,
substantially urbanized communities where existing development and land use patterns have been
in place for many years.
According to the local General Plans, substantial new growth in the area is no longer occurring, or
projected to occur, with the exception of redevelopment projects in selected areas. Three
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-15
DRAFT

generalizations about the study area cities emerge from the General Plans. First, most of the cities
seek a more transit-oriented transportation system. Second, most cites would prefer an integrated
system of walking, bicycling, and equestrian trails. Last, an efficient roadway system is a common
goal among the study area cities.
Project Impacts
Future and Existing Land Uses
As stated in Section 3.1, Land Use, the Build Alternatives would permanently convert between
approximately 1.0 acre (ac) (Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] Alternative) and 50 ac (Light Rail Transit
[LRT] Alternative) of General Plan-designated non-transportation land uses to transportation
land uses. Additionally, the Build Alternatives would result in inconsistencies with the
Circulation/Transportation Elements of various local jurisdictions General Plans, Specific Plans,
and community plans (Valley Boulevard Corridor). If any of the Build Alternatives are selected
for implementation, these inconsistencies would exist until that local General Plan is amended
by the local jurisdiction to reflect the transportation improvements for the selected Build
Alternative.
Please refer to Section 3.1, Land Use, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effects
on future and existing land uses.
Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans
The Build Alternatives would not conflict with any project that would close the SR 710 freeway
gap as described in the SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS) and would be generally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in
the local jurisdictions General Plans and Specific Plans. However, as stated previously under
Future and Existing Land Uses, the Build Alternatives would result in inconsistencies with various
Circulation/Transportation Elements of local jurisdictions General Plans, Specific Plans, and
community plans. Please refer to Section 3.1, Land Use, for more detail regarding the SR 710
North Studys effects on consistency with State, regional, and local plans.
Parks and Recreation
As described in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment (2014), the Build Alternatives would have
both temporary and permanent impacts on park and recreation facilities. However, the impacts
would not affect the ability of these parks and recreation facilities to serve their communities.
Please refer to Section 3.1, Land Use, for more detail regarding these impacts.
Of the resources mentioned above, only Cascades Park triggers the requirements for protection
under Section 4(f). Please refer to Section 3.1, Land Use, and Appendix B, Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation, for more detail regarding this facility relative to Section 4(f).
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
The reasonably foreseeable actions would occur in the areas that are planned for development or
redevelopment. The 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have some potential to result in changes in
land use and potentially contribute to cumulative impacts related to land use, consistency with
plans, and parks and recreation. The following 7 projects have the potential to result in substantial
changes in land use as described below and, therefore, contribute to a cumulative land use impact:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-16
DRAFT

Huntington Memorial Hospital Master Development Plan Amendment
Olson San Gabriel Residential Community
The cumulative impacts of these seven projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impacts
Future and Existing Land Uses
As discussed previously, all of the Build Alternatives would permanently convert General Plandesignated singlefamily residential, multifamily residential, commercial and services,
educational institution, and mixed urban uses to transportation uses, with the LRT Alternative
converting the most (approximately 50ac). Metro and Caltrans will request the applicable local
jurisdictions to amend their General Plans and/or other local land use plans to reflect the
improvements if a Build Alternative is selected as the Preferred Alternative.
According to the Initial Studies (ISs) prepared for the Huntington Memorial Hospital Master
Development Plan Amendment and the 100 West Walnut Planned Development, and the
environmental documents prepared for the Olson San Gabriel Residential Community, Eastside
Transit Corridor Project, the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan, and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan
amendments and zone changes will be processed to incorporate these projects/plans. Although
an environmental document is not available for the Eastside Transit Corridor Project, the
Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, Hill and Colorado Project,
implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be required to
comply with CEQA and/or NEPA.
While land use amendments and zoning changes would occur as part of the SR 710 North Study
and cumulative projects, none of the Build Alternatives would convert a substantial amount of
land to transportation uses. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to a
cumulative land use impact.
Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans
As discussed previously, the Build Alternatives would result in inconsistencies between the
project improvements and several local jurisdictions General Plans. Additionally, the cumulative
projects listed above would require land use changes, which would result in inconsistencies with
local General Plans. As with the SR 710 North Study, these projects will require that the local
jurisdictions amend their General Plans to reflect these changes.
With regard to State and regional plans, the SR 710 North Study is also consistent with the SCAG
2012 RTP/SCS. The other cumulative transportation projects listed above are also included in,
and are therefore consistent with, the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS. The land development projects
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-17
DRAFT

listed above are consistent with the advisory and voluntary 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan
(RCP) policies and applicable 2012 RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study would not
contribute to a cumulative impact related to State or regional plans.
As local General and Specific Plans will be amended to reflect the appropriate land use, no
cumulative impact to State, regional, and/or local plans will occur.
As discussed previously, the Build Alternatives would result in temporary and permanent
increases in noise as well as short-term traffic/access impacts at some study area parks. The
SR 710 North Study BRT Alternative would also require acquisition of a nominal amount of land
from Cascades Park in Monterey Park. The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 projects State
Route 60 (SR 60) LRT Alternative may have potential impacts to Whittier Narrows Recreation
Center. In the event that the BRT Alternative is selected as the Preferred Alternative for the
SR 710 North Study, measures will be necessary under CEQA/NEPA to mitigate for these
impacts. There would be no substantial impacts to park and recreation facilities as a result of the
remaining cumulative projects. Therefore, there is no cumulative effect to parks and recreation
facilities in the RSA.
The measures identified in Section 3.1, Land Use, and Section 3.14, Noise, avoid, minimize, and/or
mitigate the land use, noise, access, and property acquisition impacts of the Build Alternatives,
thereby reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
3.25.4.2
Growth
Resource Study Area
Since growth occurs on a regional level, the SCAG region is used as the RSA for the purpose of the
growth cumulative impact analysis.
At the regional level, much of Los Angeles County is built out and urbanized, with little
redevelopment opportunities, especially within the study area. However, SCAG anticipates
population, housing, and employment growth to occur through 2035. At the local level (within the
study area), SCAG anticipates that most of the cities and communities will experience increases in
population, ranging from 0.9 percent in Sierra Madre to 42.9 percent in Irwindale. The lower
percentages typically reflect cities and communities that are largely built out with relatively little
land available for development, including residential uses.
All but one of the study area cities and communities are forecast to experience increases in the
number of households from 2008 to 2035. No increase in households is forecast in San Marino, and
Commerce and South Pasadena are both forecast to experience only a 2.9 percent increase in
households between 2008 and 2035. Similar to the population forecasts, the lower forecasts of
households typically reflect cities and communities that are largely built out with relatively little land
available for development.
All but two of the study area cities and communities are forecast to experience increases in the
number of employees from 2008 to 2035. Employment in Irwindale and South El Monte is forecast
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-18
DRAFT

to decline by 8.2 and 1.9 percent, respectively, which is reflective of the addition of housing and
reduction of non-residential uses in those cities over the forecast period. Similar to the population
and household forecasts, the lower employment forecasts typically reflect cities and communities
that are largely built out with relatively little land available for development.
In summary, the study area cities and communities are forecast to experience various rates of
growth in population, households, and employment between 2008 and 2035.
Project Impacts
As stated in Section 3.2, Growth, the Build Alternatives would not result in growth pressures in the
study area. Additionally, the Build Alternatives are expected to accommodate existing, approved,
and planned growth in the area but are not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of
growth in the area. Please refer to Section 3.2, Growth, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North
Studys effects on growth.
redevelopment. There are 39 reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA with particular relevance to
impacts related to growth. None of these projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative
growth-inducing impacts because they have been accounted for in the regional land use and
transportation planning by SCAG.
Cumulative Impact
The Build Alternatives and/or cumulative projects are expected to accommodate existing, approved,
and planned growth in the area but are not expected to influence the amount, timing, or location of
growth in the area. Therefore, there would not be a cumulative growth-inducing effect.
Because neither the SR 710 North Study nor any of the cumulative projects are anticipated to be
growth inducing, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are necessary.
3.25.4.3
Community Impacts
Resource Study Area
The SR 710 North Study area is used as the RSA for the purpose of the community impact
cumulative analysis. The study area is bounded by I-210 on the north, I-605 on the east, I-10 on the
south, and I-5 and SR 2 on the west. The study area includes portions of the Cities and communities
of Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale, La Caada Flintridge, Los
Angeles, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino,
Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Temple City.
The County of Los Angeles was established on February 18, 1850, as one of the 27 original counties
of California. In 1852, a fivemember Board of Supervisors was created, and the County continued to
grow over the next few decades, establishing more schools (1852), the first library (1859), a Board of
Health (1863), a Board of Education (1869), and the first publication of the Los Angeles Times (1881).
In 1905, the County approved the Owens Valley water project to build an aqueduct from the Owens
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-19
DRAFT

Valley, and by 1913, the aqueduct began delivering water to the County. Over the next century, the
area continued to grow in population and became a major regional economic center. Infrastructure
needs grew (e.g., ports, highways, the Colorado River Aqueduct) and regulatory agencies were
formed (e.g., Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles Air Pollution Control Board).
At the time of the 2010 Census, racial minorities accounted for approximately 52 to 86 percent of
the population in the study area cities. Education, Health & Social Services is the largest County
industry sector in terms of employment, comprising approximately 20.2 percent of the total
employed population, followed by Professional and Technical Services (approximately 12.1 percent)
and Manufacturing (approximately 11.2 percent).
The base property tax rate in Los Angeles County is 1 percent of the assessed property value, while
the total property tax includes additional district assessments that vary by tax rate area. Effective
April 1, 2013, the sales tax rate in the County of Los Angeles is 9 percent, of which 6.5 percent is
allocated to the State, 0.75 percent is allocated to the County for public services, 1.25 percent is
allocated to the County transportation fund, and 0.5 percent is used to fund transportation
improvements in Los Angeles County (Metro Measure R). The State Board of Equalization tabulates
taxable sales transactions for each city and county in California and reports them on a quarterly and
yearly basis. According to the latest published report, the 266,868 permitted sales taxproducing
businesses in Los Angeles County generated approximately $126,440,737 in taxable sales in 2011.
Based on the sales tax rate in effect in April 2013, the County of Los Angeles average sales tax
revenue per business in 2011 was $42,642.
According to preliminary data issued by the State Employment Development Department in August
2013, there were 4,486,400 persons employed in the civilian labor force in the County, and 510,200
persons (approximately 10.2 percent) were unemployed. The Countys unemployment rate is higher
than that of the State, which is 8.8 percent.
During Fiscal Year (FY) 20122013, Los Angeles County collected a total of $11 billion in property tax
revenue. The County allocates 15.04 percent of its property tax revenue to incorporated cities,
40.97 percent to school districts, 7.05 percent to special districts, and 12.79 percent to
redevelopment agencies. Based on information provided by the Los Angeles County Department of
AuditorController, an estimated 22.8 percent of the 1 percent property tax collected is distributed
to the Countys General Fund.
The study area includes numerous parks and recreational resources as well as other community
facilities (fire stations, police stations, schools, libraries, transit stations, etc.).
Project Impacts
Community Character and Cohesion
As stated in Section 3.3, Community Impacts, the LRT Alternative would result in permanent
impacts on community cohesion in East Los Angeles. Please refer to Section 3.3., Community
Impacts, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effects on community character and
cohesion.
Environmental Justice
As stated in Section 3.3, Community Impacts, the construction of the Build Alternatives would
not result in temporary impacts that are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-20
DRAFT

environmental justice populations than the impacts experienced by nonenvironmental justice

populations.
Additionally, the operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts that would be
appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on environmental justice populations than the
impacts experienced by nonenvironmental justice populations after taking offsetting benefits
such as improved mobility into account. Please refer to Section 3.3., Community Impacts, for
more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effects on environmental justice.
Relocations
As stated in Section 3.3, Community Impacts, the Build Alternatives would result in the
relocation of between approximately 1 and 100 businesses and the displacement of between
approximately 5 and 725 employees.
Although the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management
(TSM/TDM), LRT, and Freeway Tunnel (both single- and dual-bore design variations) Alternatives
would result in nonresidential displacements, it would not negatively affect the character or
cohesion of the communities in which the improvements would be located because local
residents would still be able to receive goods and services similar to those currently provided by
the displaced businesses. Further, there is an adequate supply of replacement properties
available in the study area to relocate these displaced businesses. For the TSM/TDM and
Freeway Tunnel (both single- and dual-bore design variations) Alternatives, it is anticipated that
these displaced businesses could be relocated near their current locations, but for the LRT
Alternative, some businesses may not be able to be relocated near their current locations.
However, all businesses displaced by these alternatives would receive relocation assistance
under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Uniform Act). Due to the number of properties unable to be relocated near their current
locations, overall these alternatives would not cause disruption to the social fabric of the
communities in which they are located. Please refer to Section 3.3, Community Impacts, for
more detail on relocations.
Community Facilities
As stated in Section 3.3, Community Impacts, shortterm noise level increases and traffic
impacts during construction and permanent noise increases during operation would occur at
several community facilities in the study area cities/communities. However, these noise levels
would not affect the ability of these facilities to serve their communities because they are
active-use facilities.
Additionally, the BRT Alternative would require the permanent acquisition of approximately
0.011 ac of land from Cascades Park in the City of Monterey Park, and the LRT and Freeway
Tunnel (both single- and dual-bore design variations) Alternatives would permanently acquire
approximately 3 ac and 1 ac of land, respectively, on the California State University, Los Angeles
(Cal State LA) campus. Additionally, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would permanently require
an approximately 0.6 ac permanent easement on the Cal State LA campus.
Regarding air quality, while the Build Alternatives would result in a small increase in localized
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions in comparison to the No Build Alternative, the
United States Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-21
DRAFT

with fleet turnover, will cause substantial reductions over time that will cause regionwide MSAT
levels to be substantially lower than they are today. Please refer to Section 3.3, Community
Impacts, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on community facilities.
redevelopment. Many of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have some potential to contribute to
cumulative impacts related to community character and cohesion, environmental justice,
relocations, and community facilities. The following 4 projects have the potential to result in
substantial changes related to community impacts as described below and, therefore, contribute to
a cumulative community impact:
Interstate 710 (I-710) South Corridor Project
San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation
The cumulative impacts of the cumulative projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impact
Community Character and Cohesion
As stated previously, the Build Alternatives are anticipated to have temporary traffic, air quality,
and noise impacts during construction. All the cumulative projects within the RSA are
anticipated to have these types of temporary impacts. Nine projects are anticipated to be
constructed concurrent with the SR 710 North Study. Four of these projects are located far
enough away from the SR 710 North Study or would create such nominal impacts that they
would not contribute to a temporary cumulative traffic, air quality, and/or noise effect. Five of
the cumulative projects (Regional Connector Transit Corridor, Crown City Medical Center, Devils
Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and Management, Olson San Gabriel Residential Community,
and 100 West Walnut Planned Development) are located very near the SR 710 North Study and
have the potential to contribute to a temporary cumulative traffic, air quality, and/or noise
effect. However, these projects would implement their own best management practices (BMPs)
during construction to minimize these impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these
projects, in combination with the SR 710 North Study, would contribute to temporary traffic, air
quality, and/or noise impacts.
Additionally, although the Build Alternatives would result in minor changes in access or
circulation, they would also provide the traveling public with improvements in mobility and
increase the efficiency of the existing circulation system without dividing or otherwise affecting
the character of the communities in which they would be located. However, as stated below in
the Relocation subsection, displacement of neighborhood-oriented businesses in East Los
Angeles would negatively affect the community character and cohesion of that neighborhood.
The I-710 South Corridor Project would have a negative effect on community character and
cohesion in the communities of Commerce, Bell Gardens, and Compton. However, these
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-22
DRAFT

communities are not the same communities affected by the SR 710 North Study and will
therefore not contribute to a cumulative effect on community and cohesion.
Environmental Justice
The I-710 South Corridor Project would have near-roadway noise and air quality impacts.
Additionally, the Regional Connector Transit Corridor would have temporary access and
relocation impacts as well as permanent visual and noise impacts to environmental justice
communities. However, as stated above in the Project Impacts subsection, operation of the
Build Alternatives would not result in temporary or permanent impacts that would be
appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on environmental justice populations than the
impacts experienced by nonenvironmental justice populations after taking offsetting benefits
into account. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study would not contribute to a cumulative effect on
environmental justice communities.
Relocation
As stated previously under the Relocation subsection, within the unincorporated community
of East Los Angeles, the LRT Alternative would result in the displacement of approximately 15
adjacent neighborhoodoriented businesses that are not likely to be relocated in the immediate
vicinity of their current location. Therefore, their displacement would negatively affect the
community of East Los Angeles. Additionally, three of the cumulative projects would also
require both residential and non-residential relocations. However, it is anticipated that these
properties would be able to be relocated within their communities. Additionally, none of these
relocations would occur in the community of East Los Angeles and therefore will not contribute
to a cumulative effect on the community.
The Build Alternatives would result in temporary traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on various
community facilities during construction. Additionally, minor acquisitions of land from
community facilities would be required that range from approximately 0.011 ac to 3 ac,
depending on the Build Alternative. The Build Alternatives would also result in permanent noise
level increases at as few as approximately two or as many as approximately nine community
facilities, depending on the Build Alternative. However, these increases in noise levels would be
barely perceptible to the human ear and would not affect the ability of the facilities to serve
their communities. The I-710 South Corridor Project is anticipated to have direct and indirect
operational impacts to approximately seven community facilities, and the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Project would have noise impacts on adjacent schools. However, impacts to
these community facilities would be minimized and/or mitigated to comply with CEQA/NEPA
and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative effect on community facilities.
The measures identified in Section 3.3, Community Impacts, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thereby reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-23
DRAFT

3.25.4.4
Utilities and Emergency Services
Resource Study Area
The direct physical impacts of the Build Alternatives related to emergency services and utilities
would be largely limited to the proposed right of way (ROW) and the areas adjacent to the proposed
improvements. The specific locations of public services and utilities were identified based on
information provided by the respective providers. As a result, the discussion of the affected
environment focuses on utilities either within the ROW or close enough to the ROW to be impacted
by the Build Alternatives. Services such as fire and police protection are, however, generally
provided to fairly large geographic areas (e.g., a city or service area), and for this reason the
cumulative RSA for emergency services would correspond to the geographic area serviced by the
given service provider. Emergency service providers in the study area include various city police and
fire departments, as well as the Los Angeles County Sheriffs and Fire Departments. In addition,
approximately 40 different utility owners were identified that operate facilities within the study
area.
The study area is located in the largest population concentration on the west coast of the United
States. Large-scale urban growth has and will continue to put pressure on emergency services and
require prudent land use, hazard abatement, and risk management programs. Intensification of land
uses throughout an urban area also requires a coordinated emergency response network like the
one that exists throughout Los Angeles County.
Regional utility facilities critical to national and regional interests are located throughout the study
area. These regional facilities are proprietary in nature and are regulated under State and federal
jurisdictions. Those identified within the study area include power transmission systems, petroleum
transmission pipelines, gas transmission pipelines, water aqueducts, sewer interceptor trunk lines,
and telecommunication systems. Historically, utility corridors have been engineered for the purpose
of accommodating sewer, water, and other utility lines and providing access for their maintenance.
Project Impacts
Utilities
As described in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, the Build Alternatives would require
the relocation and/or protection in place of utilities in various study area cities/communities.
However, this would not result in additional negative effects to these utility facilities. Please
refer to Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North
Studys effects on utilities.
Emergency Services
As described in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, emergency services throughout the

study area could experience shortterm traffic effects during construction of the Build
Alternatives. However, operation of the Build Alternatives would not degrade emergency
response times or require the construction of new police or fire facilities within the study area.
Please refer to Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, for more detail regarding the SR 710
North Studys effects on emergency services.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-24
DRAFT

redevelopment. The 39 cumulative projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have some potential to result in
impacts related to utilities and emergency services and potential to contribute to cumulative
impacts related utilities and emergency services. The following 6 projects have the potential to
result in substantial changes related to utilities and emergency services as described below and,
therefore, to contribute to a cumulative impact on utilities and emergency services:
The cumulative impacts of these six projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impact
Utilities
All of the Build Alternatives would require the relocation and protection in place of utilities
throughout the study area. Additionally, eight of the cumulative projects would either protect in
place or require the relocation of affected utilities. One project would require improvements to
existing utilities, six projects would require new infrastructure, and one alternative for the
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project would conflict with a Southern California Edison (SCE)
facility. At this time, it is not known how the potential impact to this SCE facility would be
avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. However, because all impacts would be minimized
and/or mitigated by relocation, protection in place, or fee payment, the SR 710 North Study
would not contribute to a cumulative impact on utilities.
Emergency Services
Under the Build Alternatives as well as the cumulative projects, fire and police stations in the
Cities/communities of Alhambra, Eagle Rock, El Monte, San Marino, South Pasadena, Pasadena,
and San Gabriel could experience shortterm traffic effects during construction. Although this
impact would be temporary and would be minimized by implementation of a Transportation
Management Plan, there is a potential for the SR 710 North Study, the Regional Connector
Transit Corridor Project, the Arroyo Seco Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail, the Olson San Gabriel
Residential Community Project, the 100 West Walnut Planned Development, and the Green
Hotel Apartments Project to be under construction concurrently, thus causing a temporary
cumulative impact to emergency service response times in the community of East Los Angeles,
the neighborhood of El Sereno, the Cities of South Pasadena and Pasadena, and adjacent cities.
Additionally, the Build Alternatives would require minimal amounts of land from the San Gabriel
Police Station. None of the other cumulative projects require land from emergency facilities;
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-25
DRAFT

therefore, the SR 710 North Study does not contribute to a permanent cumulative impact on
emergency services.
The measures identified in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, avoid, minimize, and/or
mitigate the effects of the Build Alternatives, thereby reducing the cumulative effects discussed
above.
3.25.4.5
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Resource Study Area
For the purpose of the traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities cumulative impacts
analysis, the RSA is the area analyzed in the Transportation Technical Report. The traffic operations
analysis used a focus area slightly larger than the study area. The traffic operations analysis study
area was selected to capture all freeway segments with potential changes in overall traffic for the
Build Alternatives. Traffic operations analysis was conducted on a defined set of freeway segments
and intersections for evaluation. A total of 156 intersections were identified for the intersection
analysis.
There are seven major east-west routes and seven major north-south routes located in the central
portion of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Of the seven
north-south routes, four are located partially within the study area (I-5, State Route 110 [SR 110],
I-710, and I-605), and two of them (SR 110 and SR 710) terminate within the study area without
connecting to another freeway. As a result, a substantial amount of north-south regional travel
demand is concentrated on a few freeways or diverted to local streets within the study area. This
effect is exacerbated by the overall southwest-to-northeast orientation of I-605, which makes it an
unappealing route for traffic between the southern part of the region and the urbanized areas to
the northwest in the San Fernando Valley, the Santa Clarita Valley, and the Arroyo-Verdugo region.
As a result, there is a lack of continuous north-south transportation facilities in the study area.
In 2012, the daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the study area was 24,150,000 miles (mi), and the
daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT) in the study area was 660,000 hours. The sum of VMT on the
arterial system in the study area was 7,645,000 mi. The percentage of total daily person trips that
use transit was approximately 3.5 percent, and the percentage of study area population and
employment located within 0.25 mi of a transit stop with high-frequency service was approximately
80.8 percent.
In 2013, there was an average of approximately 45 pedestrians per hour in the AM peak hour, and
56 pedestrians per hour in the PM peak hour at intersections with the RSA. The highest-volume
pedestrian intersections were at the Daly Street/Broadway intersection in Los Angeles
(374 pedestrians per hour), the Los Robles Avenue/Colorado Boulevard intersection in Pasadena
(338 pedestrians per hour), and the Atlantic Boulevard/Whittier Boulevard intersection in East Los
Angeles (330 pedestrians per hour). Additionally, there was an average of approximately 9 bicycles
per hour in the AM peak hour and 13 bicycles per hour in the PM peak hour. The highest-volume
bicycle intersections were at Atlantic Boulevard/Pomona Boulevard in Los Angeles (40 bicycles per
hour), Baldwin Avenue/Valley Boulevard in El Monte (39 bicycles per hour), and Fair Oaks
Avenue/Orange Grove Boulevard in Pasadena (also 39 bicycles per hour).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-26
DRAFT

Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, the SR 710
North Study would have direct and indirect effects on active transportation users, including
bicyclists and pedestrians. However, in general, the forecasts show mobility improvements for all
Build Alternatives compared to the No Build Alternative. Please refer to Section 3.5, Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys
effects on traffic, transportation, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
redevelopment. The 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have some potential to result in traffic
impacts and potential to contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. The following 19 projects have the
potential to contribute to result in substantial changes in traffic conditions as described below and,
therefore, to a cumulative impact on traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities:
Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Project Phases I and II
California High Speed Rail Project
El Monte Walmart
Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Operations and Long Term Reuse Project
Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and Management Project
Green Hotel Apartments Project
The cumulative impacts of these 19 projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-27
DRAFT

Cumulative Impact
Traffic and Transportation
The SR 710 North Study would have temporary and permanent direct and indirect effects on
active transportation users, including bicyclists and pedestrians. Temporary impacts during
construction would include delays and the temporary loss of on-street parking. Additionally,
truck traffic related to the hauling of construction waste would occur. It is possible that the I-5
Improvement projects (SR 118 to SR 130), the Regional Connector Project, the California High
Speed Rail Project, and the Devils Gate Dam Project would be constructed concurrent with the
SR 710 North Study. However, it is anticipated that these projects would not be depositing their
waste at the same location as the SR 710 North Project (Olive Pits), and would therefore not
have the same haul routes. The cumulative project with the most anticipated spoils (dirt) to be
removed is the Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and Management Project. However, it
is anticipated that construction of this project would not overlap with the portions of
construction on the SR 710 North Study related to the hauling of dirt.
Operationally, SR 710 North Study is anticipated to result in improved mobility within the study
area. Additionally, nine of the cumulative projects would have or are anticipated to have
unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. However, since the SR 710 North Studys
Transportation Technical Report included these cumulative projects in its analysis and the
project would improve mobility in the study area, the SR 710 North Study would not contribute
to a cumulative traffic and transportation impact.
Pedestrian and/or Bicycle Facilities
The SR 710 North Study would not have a negative impact on pedestrian and/or bicycle
facilities. As for the cumulative projects, one project, the Huntington Memorial Hospital Master
Development Plan Amendment, would have an impact on pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.
Although there is an impact, it occurs in a small portion of the study area and, in combination
with the SR 710 North Study (which does not have impacts to pedestrian and/or bicycle
facilities), would not result in a cumulative impact.
The measures identified in Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,
avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative
effects discussed above.
3.25.4.6
Visual/Aesthetics
Resource Study Area
The study area is used as the RSA for the purpose of the visual/aesthetics cumulative impacts
analysis. The study area is bounded by I-210 on the north, I-605 on the east, I-10 on the south, and
I-5 and SR 2 on the west. The study area includes portions of the Cities and communities of
Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale, La Caada Flintridge, Los
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-28
DRAFT

Los Angeles County is heavily urbanized, and most of the undeveloped land that remains is within
unincorporated areas. Unincorporated areas within the County are climatically and ecologically
diverse and include coastal, mountain, forest, and desert ecosystems.
The Arroyo Seco Parkway National Scenic Byway watershed begins in the San Gabriel Mountains and
passes through the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena, and the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County. The Arroyo Seco Parkway unites a highly diverse region and serves as the focal
point of a shared identity. The Arroyo Seco Parkway proceeds on, passing under State Route 134 (SR
134), and crosses at the southern boundary of Pasadena. The channel continues along the western
boundary of South Pasadena and then into northeast Los Angeles, flowing southeast of the Verdugo
Mountains and Mount Washington.
The landscape units within the RSA include residential, recreation, education, industrial,
commercial/retail, and freeway.
While the County of Los Angeles has three State-designated Scenic Highways and eight Countydesignated Scenic Highways, none are within the SR 710 North Studys viewshed. The Arroyo Seco
Parkway, which runs through Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Los Angeles, was awarded National
Scenic Byway status in 2002. The City of Los Angeles has designated several scenic corridors;
however, only the San Gabriel/Verdugo Mountains Scenic Preservation Area falls within the
viewshed of the SR 710 North Study. Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena have
not designated any local scenic roads or areas within the SR 710 North Study viewshed.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, the LRT Alternative has the most substantial visual
effects since the majority of the alignment in East Los Angeles, Monterey Park, and Alhambra is
above ground and visible to the communities. Additionally, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would
result in visual impacts only in areas where the entrances and exits are visible. Please refer to
Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys visual effects.
redevelopment. The 39 cumulative projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have some potential to result in
visual changes and potential to contribute to cumulative visual changes. The following 7 projects
have the potential to result in substantial visual changes as described below and, therefore, to
contribute to an impact on visual/aesthetics:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-29
DRAFT

The cumulative impacts of these seven projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impact
The TSM/TDM Alternative does not contribute to negative visual impacts in the study area;
therefore, it would not contribute to a cumulative visual impact.
Five reasonably foreseeable projects in combination with the BRT Alternative have the potential to
contribute to a cumulative visual impact in the study area. This is due mostly to the distance of
these cumulative projects to the BRT Alternative improvements (mainly the addition of bus stations
on Atlantic Boulevard between Pomona Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard and at Fair Oaks Avenue
and California Boulevard) and the elevated features of the Eastside Transit Corridor Project.
Additionally, the new buildings proposed as part of the 16 East California Project and the Huntington
Memorial Hospital Master Development Plan Amendment and the addition of new buildings as a
result of the 100 West Walnut Planned Development and the Hill Colorado Project add to the
cumulative visual impact in the study area. However, the bus stations under the BRT Alternative will
be small shelters with seating and signage that would not create a substantial visual impact and
would not result in a change in visual quality from the existing condition. Also, it is anticipated that
the new features constructed as part of the cumulative projects will be visually compatible with the
surrounding areas, and visual impacts would be lessened due to minimization and/or mitigation
measures proposed in the environmental documents of these projects.
Three of the reasonably foreseeable projects in combination with the LRT Alternative have the
potential to contribute to a cumulative visual impact in the study area. This is due mostly to the
proximity of the Eastside Transit Corridor Project to the elevated portions of the LRT Alternative.
The LRT Alternative proposes an elevated track alignment and stations in unincorporated East Los
Angeles and the Eastside Transit Corridor proposes at-grade segments and stations in East Los
Angeles and aerial segments and stations just to the east in the City of Monterey Park. Although it is
anticipated that the new features constructed as part of these projects will be visually compatible
with the surrounding areas to the extent feasible, they would still result in a large visual change to
the area and visual impacts would occur.
Five of the reasonably foreseeable projects in combination with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
have the potential to contribute to a cumulative visual impact in the SR 710 North Study area. This is
due mostly to the distance of the Huntington Memorial Hospital Master Development Plan
Amendment and the 100 West Walnut Planned Development to the northern entrance/exit of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative in the City of Pasadena. However, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would
result in visual impacts only in areas where the entrances and exits are visible. Since the remaining
cumulative projects in this area are near the areas in which the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is below
ground, there will not be a cumulative visual impact in those areas. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative does not contribute to a cumulative visual impact.
The measures identified in Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-30
DRAFT

3.25.4.7
Cultural Resources
Resource Study Area
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) used in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), Historical
Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) is used as the RSA for
the purpose of the cultural resources cumulative impacts analysis. The APE for this project is a
combination of the areas of direct and indirect effects, including, but not limited to: existing and
proposed ROW, temporary construction easements, staging areas, and areas where there are
potential impacts to the visual setting of some historic resources. It also contains several
discontiguous areas to cover numerous intersection improvements over a wide geographic area.
The APE is located within the Los Angeles Basin in the alluvial fan of the San Gabriel Mountains and
areas of steep vegetated canyons and hillsides in Pasadena. Eight geologic units may be
encountered within the APE of this project.
The APE is densely developed with a wide range of primarily historic-period (pre-1971) property
types, including single-family and multifamily residences, commercial businesses, offices, medical
facilities, religious and educational institutions, industrial facilities, government and quasi-public
facilities, and parks.
Approximately 11 previously documented archaeological sites are located within 0.5 mi of the APE.
No archaeological resources were identified within or adjacent to the APE, including at the locations
of the two village sites. However, based on ethnographic accounts and archival research, there is
potential for archaeological resources to be present in native soils at two sites (the Horatio Rust and
Otsungna prehistoric village sites) in the APE.
Of approximately 2,200 properties in the project APE, a total of 73 properties are listed in or eligible
for listing in the National Register. This includes 42 properties previously listed in or determined
eligible for listing in the National Register (including 11 Historic Districts), 22 properties that were
determined eligible for listing in the National Register as a result of this study (including 2 Historic
Districts and 1 park), and 8 properties (Horatio Rust Prehistoric Village Site, Otsungna Prehistoric
Village Site, segments of Route 66, 318 Fairview Avenue, 2020 Fremont Avenue, 904 Monterey
Road, 270 South Orange Grove Boulevard, and the Library Neighborhood Historic District) that are
being considered eligible for listing in the National Register for purposes of this study only.
Fifteen bridges were also identified in the APE (HPSR, Attachment B). Of these, the Fair Oaks
Overcrossing Bridge #53 0440 is eligible for listing in the National Register as a contributing element
of the Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District. The remaining bridges in the APE are Category 5 (not
eligible for the National Register). All other historic-period resources within the APE have been
determined exempt from further evaluation per the 2014 Section 106 PA.
Project Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources:
The TSM/TDM Alternative would result in No Adverse Effect on 11 historic properties
The BRT Alternative would result in No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions on 6 historic
properties and No Adverse Effect on 11 historic properties
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-31
DRAFT

The LRT Alternative would result in No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions on 7 historic
properties and No Adverse Effects on 10 historic properties
The non-tunnel segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in No Adverse Effect
on 9 historic properties
The tunnel segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in No Adverse Effect on 42
historic properties
The non-tunnel and tunnel segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in No
Adverse Effect on a total of 51 historic properties
redevelopment. The majority of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have no or limited potential to
result in effects on cultural resources and, therefore, limited potential to contribute to cumulative
effects on cultural resources. The following 4 projects have the potential to result in substantial
effects on cultural resources and, therefore, contribute to a cumulative impact on cultural
resources:
The cumulative impacts of these four projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impact
Four projectsthe San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project, the 100 West Walnut Planned
Development, the Hill and Colorado Project, and the Reuse of the Desiderio Army Reserve Center
would result in impacts to cultural resources. However, the SR 710 North Study would not have a
substantial impact on any cultural, historical, or archaeological resources. Therefore, the SR 710
North Study would not contribute to a cumulative impact on cultural resources. It should be noted
that any of the projects listed above, including the SR 710 North Study, have the potential to
encounter buried undiscovered resources, including human remains. Typical measures would be
implemented if this were to occur. With the implementation of measures (which include monitoring
during construction), these projects would not contribute to cumulative effects on cultural
resources.
The measures identified in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects described above.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-32
DRAFT

3.25.4.8
Hydrology and Floodplains
Resource Study Area
The project study area is located in Los Angeles County in the Los Angeles River Watershed.
Therefore, the Los Angeles River Watershed is the RSA for the hydrology and floodplains cumulative
impacts analysis.
Approximately two floodplains are affected by the SR 710 North Study: the Laguna Regulating Basin
and the Dorchester Channel. The Laguna Regulating Basin collects runoff from the watersheds north
of I-10, including the Cities and communities of Alhambra, Monterey Hills, and South Pasadena. The
Dorchester Channel collects runoff from the watersheds north of I-10, including the Cities and
communities of Alhambra, Monterey Hills, and South Pasadena, and drains into the Laguna
Regulating Basin. The Laguna Regulating Basin drains through several channel systems and
eventually discharges into the Los Angeles River in the City of Vernon.
As designated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Region 4, the
study area is located within the Los Angeles-San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit (HU), Raymond Hydrological
Area (HA), Pasadena Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) (405.31); the Coastal Plain HA, Central HSA Split
(405.15); and the San Fernando HA, Eagle Rock HSA (405.25). The Los Angeles-San Gabriel HU covers
approximately 1,608 square miles in Los Angeles County and small areas in Ventura County
(LARWQCB 2007c).
The major receiving waters to the study area are the Los Angeles River in the west and the Rio
Hondo in the east. The Rio Hondo drains to the Los Angeles River, which drains to the Pacific Ocean.
The San Gabriel River drains directly to the Pacific Ocean. The major drainages in the study area
include the Arroyo Seco , San Gabriel River, and Dorchester Channel (also referred to as Laguna
Channel). The Arroyo Seco and Dorchester Channel both drain to the Los Angeles River.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Floodplain, the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives do
not encroach into any floodplains. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore design variation
alignment crosses the Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain, and the dual-bore design variation
alignment crosses the Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain and Dorchester Avenue Storm Drain
(Dorchester Channel) floodplain.
Additionally, both the single-bore and dual-bore tunnel design variations of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative would encroach into the Laguna Regulating Basin and the dual-bore design variation
would encroach into the Dorchester Channel. However, the single- and dual-bore design variations
would not have the potential to negatively affect the flood control functions of the Laguna
Regulating Basin or the Dorchester Channel. Therefore, neither the single-bore nor the dual-bore
tunnel design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would have the potential to substantially
affect the flood control functions of surface waters or storm drain facilities in or downstream of the
study area. Please refer to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Floodplain, for the SR 710 North Studys
effects regarding hydrology and floodplains.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-33
DRAFT

redevelopment. The majority of the 39 projects in Table 3.25.1, have no or limited potential to result
in effects related to hydrology and floodplains and, therefore, limited potential to contribute to
cumulative effects on hydrology and floodplains. The following 6 projects have the potential to
result in substantial effects related to hydrology and floodplains and, therefore, contribute to a
cumulative impact on hydrology and floodplains:
The cumulative impacts of these six projects in relation to the Build Alternatives are discussed
below.
Cumulative Impact
Four projectsthe I-710 South Corridor Project, the Olive Pit Mining and Reclamation Operations
and Long Term Reuse Project, the 100 West Walnut Planned Development, and the Hill and
Colorado Projectare anticipated to impact to both hydrology and floodplains. Additionally, the
Eastside Transit Corridor Project is anticipated to have an impact on the floodplain. Last, the Temple
Palms Business Park, which was completed in 2012, had impacts to area hydrology. The SR 710
North Study is anticipated to result in an approximately 1.1 to 16.4 ac increase in impervious surface
area (depending on the alternative) that would result in an increase in the volume of storm water
runoff and pollutants over existing conditions. The LRT Alternative would result in the greatest
increase of impervious area and the BRT Alternative with the least.
Additionally, both design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative cross floodplains and would
involve a horizontal encroachment within floodplains of the Laguna Regulating Basin. However,
under the single-bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variation, the base floodplain elevation
would not change. The dual-bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variation would encroach into
the Dorchester Channel, which would result in a narrowing of the floodplain boundary. The dualbore Freeway Tunnel Alternative design variation minimizes the horizontal encroachment within the
floodplain of the Dorchester Channel. Other design variations considered for this alternative would
have required geometric modifications to the horizontal or vertical alignment, or realignment of the
freeway mainline. Those design variations would result in more severe impacts to existing ROW,
land uses, and hydrology east of the freeway. Therefore, alternatives to the horizontal
encroachment are not feasible.
Based on the above analysis, the SR 710 North Study, when combined with the cumulative projects,
is not anticipated to result in substantial a cumulative impact to hydrology and floodplains.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-34
DRAFT

The measures identified in Section 3.8, Hydrology/Floodplains, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
3.25.4.9
Resource Study Area
The project study area is located in Los Angeles County, in the Los Angeles River Watershed.
Therefore, the Los Angeles River Watershed is the RSA for the water quality and storm water runoff
cumulative impacts analysis.
Pollutants from dense clusters of residential, industrial, and other urban activities have impaired
water quality in the middle and lower Los Angeles River watersheds. Added to this complex mixture
of pollutant sources (particularly pollutants associated with urban and storm water runoff) is the
high number of point-source discharges. Water quality issues in the Los Angeles River Watershed
include protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, removal of exotic vegetation,
enhancement of recreational areas, attaining a balance between water reclamation and minimum
flows to support habitat, management of storm water quality, assessment of other nonpoint
sources (e.g., horse stables, golf courses, and septic systems), pollution from contaminated
groundwater, groundwater recharge with reclaimed water, contamination of groundwater by
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), leakage of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) from
underground storage tanks, groundwater contamination with heavy metals (particularly hexavalent
chromium), and contaminated sediments in the Los Angeles River estuary.
Groundwater is impaired by VOCs from industry and nitrates from subsurface sewage disposal and
past agricultural activities. These are the primary pollutants in much of the groundwater through the
Los Angeles Coastal Plain Central Basin, the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin, the San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Raymond Groundwater Basin.
On the 2010 California 303(d) List, Los Angeles River Reach 2 (Carson Street to Figueroa Street) is
listed as impaired for ammonia, coliform bacteria, copper, lead, nutrients (algae), oil, and trash;
Arroyo Seco Reach 1 (Los Angeles River to West Holly Avenue) is listed as impaired for benthicmacroinvertebrate bioassessments, coliform bacteria, and trash; and Rio Hondo Reach 2 (at
Spreading Grounds) is listed as impaired for coliform bacteria and cyanide.
Project Impacts
As stated in Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, with implementation of BMPs,
pollutants of concern during construction would be retained in the study area and would not reach
receiving waters; therefore, there is low potential for water quality impacts during construction of
Additionally, because the Build Alternatives would implement effective BMPs that would treat the
proposed new impervious surface area as well as portions of the existing impervious surface area,
there is a low potential for the Build Alternatives to have a permanent effect on the
physical/chemical characteristics of the on-site or downstream aquatic environment. Please refer to
Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North
Studys effect on water quality.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-35
DRAFT

redevelopment. Of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, none have the potential to contribute to an
impact on water quality because they all implement BMPs and other avoidance, minimization,
and/or mitigation measures.
Cumulative Impact
The SR 710 North Study, in combination with the cumulative projects, would have temporary
construction-related pollution and waste discharge effects. However, during the construction stage,
all disturbed slopes would be vegetated and surface water from the project site would be diverted
to designed collection and permanent treatment facilities. This work would minimize the effects of
erosion and downstream siltation on any of the receiving waters once these projects become
operational. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study, in combination with the cumulative projects, would
not contribute to a cumulative impact on water quality.
With implementation of BMPs and other avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, the
cumulative projects would not result in a substantial impact on water quality and storm water
runoff. Additionally, compliance with requirements such as obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit and implementing BMPs would ensure that the SR 710 North Study
would result in a low potential for the Build Alternatives to have a substantial effect on water
quality.
Based on the above analysis in combination with the reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA with
particular relevance to water quality and storm water runoff, the SR 710 North Study would not
have an cumulative impact on water quality, thus reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
The measures identified in Section 3.9, Water Quality, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects
of the Build Alternatives.
3.25.4.10
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
Resource Study Area
The SR 710 North Study area is used as the RSA for the purpose of this cumulative impacts
assessment because impacts related to geology/soils/seismic and/or topography would occur in
close proximity to any given project. The study area is bounded by I-210 on the north, I-605 on the
east, I-10 on the south, and I-5 and SR 2 on the west. The study area includes portions of the Cities
and communities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale, La
Caada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San
Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Temple City.
The SR 710 North Study area encompasses portions of the San Gabriel Valley, the southern San
Rafael Hills, the Elysian Hills, and the Repetto Hills. These areas are within a transition zone between
the northwestsoutheast-trending Peninsular Ranges physiographic province to the south and the
eastwesttrending Transverse Ranges province to the north. Geologic units/formations in the study
area include young alluvium, old alluvium, Fernando, Puente (which includes Monterey, Modelo,
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-36
DRAFT

and an unnamed shale), Topanga, and Basement Rocks/Wilson Quartz Diorite. The geologic
structure of the area is a result of ongoing compressional geologic forces that have resulted in the
uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains and folding of the rocks within the hills present in the SR 710
North Study area. These compressional geologic forces have yielded active, potentially active, and
inactive faults across the study area. The only confirmed active fault identified in the SR 710 North
Study area that could produce ground rupture is the Raymond fault. The Raymond fault crosses the
BRT (at the surface), LRT (at the surface), and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives (at tunnel depth), and is
considered to be an active fault and has the potential for causing surface rupture in the area of the
Build Alternatives. In addition, two potentially active faults are present in the study area: the Eagle
Rock and San Rafael faults. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Eagle Rock and San
Rafael faults are also active. Strong ground shaking may occur in the SR 710 North Study area as the
accumulated strain on these and other regional faults is released.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, the Build Alternatives will be

designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable Metro, Caltrans, and local (city
and County) standards to account for geologic hazards. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
have a substantial geology-related impact. Please refer to Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/
Topography, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on geology.
redevelopment. Of the 39 reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA, none have the potential to
contribute to an impact on geology/soil/seismic/topography.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects, which are all required to comply with regulations, agency permits, and
BMPs, would not have a substantial impact related to geology/soils/seismicity and/or topography.
These improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable Caltrans,
Metro, and/or local (city and county) standards to account for the geologic hazards. Therefore, the
SR 710 North Study, in combination with the cumulative projects, would not contribute to
cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards.
As no impacts would occur related to geologic hazards, no avoidance, minimization, and/or

mitigation measures are necessary.
3.25.4.11
Resource Study Area
The area studied in the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report

(PIR/PER) for each Build Alternative included all areas in the alternatives alignment where project
activities will occur. However, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources may reach beyond
this area; therefore, the RSA for the purpose of the paleontological resources cumulative impacts
analysis is the SR 710 North Study area. The study area is bounded by I-210 on the north, I-605 on
the east, I-10 on the south, and I-5 and SR 2 on the west. The study area includes portions of the
Cities and communities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale, La
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-37
DRAFT

Caada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San
Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Temple City.
The SR 710 North Study borders the western edge of the San Gabriel Valley, running from north to
south along the San Rafael Hills and through the Repetto Hills. These hills contain exposures of
marine sedimentary rocks that were deposited in the ancient Los Angeles Basin approximately 16 to
2.6 million years ago (Ma). It is from these sedimentary rocks that most of the petroleum in the Los
Angeles Basin has been produced, and for this reason, oil wells have been drilled throughout the San
Rafael and Repetto Hills. Also present within the project area are sediments that eroded from the
San Rafael Hills, the Repetto Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains. These deposits accumulated in
the valleys and range in age from approximately 800,000 to 10,000 years ago.
There are eight geologic units within the project areas for the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives. In addition to native deposits, there are areas of artificial fill that were placed
during construction of interstates, freeways, and other roads. Artificial fill does not have the
potential to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources because of its disturbed
context. Although there are no known fossil localities within the boundaries of the project areas,
paleontological resources have been recovered near the project areas and elsewhere in the region.
These deposits have high paleontological sensitivity based on their age, composition, and
depositional environment as well as the scientifically significant fossil remains they have produced in
other areas.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.11, Paleontology, the Build Alternatives have the potential to encounter
paleontologically sensitive sediments and may impact nonrenewable paleontological resources.
Please refer to Section 3.11, Paleontology, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect
on paleontological resources.
redevelopment. A number of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have the potential to result in
effects on paleontological resources. The following 15 projects have the potential to result in
substantial effects on paleontological resources and, therefore, to contribute to a cumulative impact
on paleontological resources:
Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement & Beautification
San Fernando Road Widening Between Elm Street and Eagle Rock Boulevard
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-38
DRAFT

El Monte Walmart
Olson San Gabriel Residential Community Project
below.
Cumulative Impact
The Build Alternatives as well as the 15 cumulative projects have the potential to encounter
paleontologically sensitive sediments and may impact scientifically significant, nonrenewable
paleontological resources. However, all of these projects, including the SR 710 North Study, will
include a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) that includes measures such as preconstruction field
surveys, full-time monitoring by a qualified paleontologist, and the recovery, identification, and
appropriate storage of any paleontological resources found. Because these cumulative projects
include this requirement, the cumulative projects contribution to cumulative paleontological
impacts would not be considerable.
The measures identified in Section 3.11, Paleontology, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects
of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
3.25.4.12
Hazardous Waste
Resource Study Area
The RSA for the purpose of the hazardous waste cumulative impacts analysis is the SR 710 North
Study area. The study area is bounded by I-210 on the north, I-605 on the east, I-10 on the south,
and I-5 and SR 2 on the west. The study area includes portions of the Cities and communities of
Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale, La Caada Flintridge, Los
The study area primarily consists of the western San Gabriel Valley, the southernmost San Rafael
Hills, the Repetto Hills, and the northern portion of the Central Basin between the Repetto Hills and
the Merced Hills. The San Gabriel Valley includes two groundwater basins: the Raymond Basin,
which is in the northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley; and the San Gabriel Basin, which
encompasses the rest of the San Gabriel Valley. These areas are in the transition zone between the
northwestsoutheasttrending Peninsular Ranges physiographic/geological province to the south
and the eastwesttrending Transverse Ranges province to the north.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-39
DRAFT

Land uses within the study area can be described as a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial.
More than 1,000 known hazardous waste sites with environmental impacts were identified within a
1 mi radius of the SR 710 North Study area. Many of these sites were eliminated as posing an
environmental threat due to the extent/intensity of their environmental impact, the media of
impact (soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater), or existing environmental regulatory case status.
Based on the available information, six sites were determined to potentially pose an environmental
impact.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.12, Hazardous Waste/Materials, six sites were identified as having
hazardous waste concerns that could potentially impact the Build Alternatives. Additionally, because
part of the study area includes freeways that have been in existence for over 50 years, there is a
high potential for encountering aerially deposited lead (ADL) associated with exhaust from former
leadedgas combustion motor vehicles along the sides of these older freeways. However, a Phase II
investigation for off-site soil and groundwater impacts would be conducted prior to any construction
activities. Therefore, the Build Alternatives are not anticipated to have a substantial impact related
to hazardous waste. Please refer to Section 3.12, Hazardous Waste/Materials, for more detail
regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect related to hazardous waste.
redevelopment. Of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, 1 has the potential to contribute to an
impact on hazardous waste:
The cumulative impact of this project in relation to the Build Alternatives is discussed below.
Cumulative Impact
Only one cumulative project, the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Metro Gold Line Eastside
Extension, would potentially have a substantial impact related to hazardous waste. The Gold Line
Eastside Extension is in the initial phases of environmental development, and although it is not
known at this time, it is anticipated that any impact related to hazardous waste would be able to be
avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. All other cumulative projects would implement avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation measures to ensure no substantial impact related to hazardous
waste. Additionally, six sites have been identified within the SR 710 North Study area as having a
potential hazardous waste impact on the project. However, a Phase II investigation would be
conducted prior to any construction activities for these sites and would provide appropriate
minimization, avoidance, and mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary exposure to
contaminants during construction activities. Depending on the results of the Phase II, subsequent
sampling to determine the presence and/or absence of contaminated soil and/or groundwater or to
characterize the extent of contamination on site may be required. The results of these studies will
be used as part of the evaluation of any property to be acquired. Additionally, measures to avoid
and or minimize construction-related impacts from the removal of yellow thermoplastic paint
and/or soil contaminated with ADL would be implemented. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study, in
combination with the cumulative projects, would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to
hazardous waste.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-40
DRAFT

The measures identified in Section 3.12, Hazardous Waste/Materials, avoid, minimize, and/or
mitigate the effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
3.25.4.13
Air Quality
Resource Study Area
For the purpose of the air quality cumulative impacts analysis, the RSA for air quality impacts
includes all areas adjacent to the study area that would be affected by construction emissions and
vehicle emissions from operation of the completed project. The RSA includes portions of the Cities
and communities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Commerce, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Irwindale,
La Caada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead,
San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Temple City that are adjacent to the
study area.
Regionally, the RSA is within a portion of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) in Los Angeles County.
The study area and the other past, present, and future projects considered in the analysis are
located in Los Angeles County, which is within the Basin. A single RSA would not effectively consider
the appropriate areas for potential short-term air quality impacts during construction of the SR 710
North Study. Short-term air quality impacts can result from equipment operations as well as from
dust generated during grading or travel on unpaved surfaces. An RSA for short-term air quality
impacts would focus on a specific area under construction at the time, the roads and intersections in
the vicinity of the construction zone, and other projects under construction at the same time in the
same area. As a result, an RSA for short-term air quality impacts focuses on areas in proximity to
active construction areas for the proposed SR 710 North Study and other nearby cumulative projects
under construction at the same time.
The RSA is located in a largely urbanized area. The health of the resource changes with emission
levels in the area surrounding the project. Over time, as the RSA has become more urbanized, the
air quality in the Basin has been substantially degraded by short- and long-term emissions of
pollutants and dust generated by a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, urban, industrial,
and manufacturing uses. However, it should be noted that with implementation of federal and State
emission regulations and improvements in stationary- and mobile-source emission control
technology, air quality has improved in the Basin compared to the frequent Stage 2 and Stage 3
smog alerts that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.
The SR 710 North Study is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin.
The closest monitoring station to the project area is the South Wilson Avenue Pasadena Station, and
the next closest station is the North Main Street Los Angeles Station. The following air quality
information briefly describes the various types of pollutants monitored in the vicinity of the project
study area:
Carbon Monoxide: The Basin is in attainment and in attainment/maintenance for the State and
federal carbon monoxide (CO) standards, respectively. The State and federal standards were not
exceeded at either monitoring station between 2010 and 2012.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-41
DRAFT

Ozone: The Basin is a nonattainment area for both the federal and State ozone (O3) standards.
The State 1-hour standard was exceeded at both monitoring stations. The State and federal
8-hour standards were exceeded at both monitoring stations.
Nitrogen Dioxide: The Basin is in nonattainment and in attainment/maintenance for the State
and federal Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) standards, respectively. The State standards were not
exceeded at either monitoring station. The federal 1-hour standard was exceeded at both
monitoring stations in 2011.
Sulfur Dioxide: The entire Basin is in attainment for both the federal and State sulfur dioxide
(SO2) standards. The State and federal standards were not exceeded at either monitoring station
between 2010 and 2012.
Respirable Particulate Matter: The Basin is a nonattainment area for the State respirable
particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, or PM10) standards and
a maintenance/attainment area for the federal standards. The State 24-hour standard was
exceeded at the Los Angeles Station in 2011 and 2012. The federal 24-hour standard was not
exceeded between 2010 and 2012. The average annual concentrations exceeded the State
standard in each of the past 3 years.
Fine Particulate Matter: The Basin is a nonattainment area for both the federal and State fine
particulate matter (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) standards.
The federal 24-hour standard was exceeded at both stations. The State annual standard was
exceeded in each of the past 3 years at the Los Angles Station. The average annual
concentrations did not exceed the federal standard in the past 3 years.
Lead: The Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State
lead standards.
Project Impacts
As stated in Section 3.13, Air Quality, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and Caltrans Standard
Specifications Sections 14.9-02 and 14-9.03 during construction will reduce construction-related air
quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment emissions. These measures
would address public health concerns related to airborne dust (e.g., Valley Fever). Additionally, it
was determined that the SR 710 North Study will not result in any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8hour CO standards.
The tolled operational variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual- bore design variation is
consistent with the scope of the design concept of the RTP and FTIP. Therefore, the tolled
operational variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation is in
conformance with the SIP. The RTP and FTIIP would have to be amended should one of the following
be selected: TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT Alternative, LRT Alternative, Freeway Tunnel Alternative
single-bore design variation, or the non-tolled operational variations of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dual-bore design variation. The project would also comply with all SCAQMD
requirements.
A PM2.5 and PM 10 hot-spot form (May 20th) was submitted to and reviewed by the Transportation
Conformity Working Group (TCWG) on May 27, 2014, and additional requested information was
provided in June 2014. The primary TCWG members are GPA, FHWA, and Caltrans Headquarters. On
October 29, 2014, the TCWG determined that the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives are not
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-42
DRAFT

Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-and dual-bore
design variations are POAQC. If the Freeway Tunnel Alternative with either the single-bore or dualbore design variation is identified as the preferred alternative, a quantitative PM hot-spot analysis
will be conducted to demonstrate that the project would not delay attainment of or worsen existing
violation of or cause an exceedance of the PM2.5 or PM 10 NAAQS and meets certain conformity
requirements. While the Build Alternatives would result in a small increase in localized MSAT
emissions in comparison to the No Build Alternative, the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
levels to be substantially lower than they are today. It is expected that there would be similar MSAT
emissions in the study area under the Build Alternatives relative to the No Build Alternative in the
design year.
Please refer to Section 3.13, Air Quality, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on
air quality.
redevelopment. Most of the 39 projects listed in Table 3.25-1, have the potential to result in air
quality impacts and could contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The following 11 projects
have the potential to result in substantial air quality impacts and could contribute to a cumulative
impact on air quality:
Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and Management Project
below.
Cumulative Impact
Nine of the cumulative projects would have a temporary substantial and unavoidable impact related
to air quality during construction. Three of these nine projectsthe Regional Connector Transit
Corridor, the Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and Management Project, and the 100 West
Walnut Planned Developmentcould be constructed concurrently with the SR 710 North Study.
However, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and Caltrans Standard Specifications Sections 14.9-02
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-43
DRAFT

and 14-9.03 during construction will reduce the SR 710 North Studys construction-related air quality
impacts from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment emissions. Therefore, the SR 710
North Study, in combination with these projects, would not contribute to a cumulative air quality
impact.
Seven of the cumulative projects would contribute to a permanent air quality impact in the RSA. For
the SR 710 North Study, implementation of the proposed Build Alternatives would result in a slight
increase in MSAT emissions within the project study area. However, the proposed projects increase
in MSAT emissions would be minimal. While the Build Alternatives would result in a small increase in
localized MSAT emissions, the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will
cause substantial reductions over time that will cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially
lower than they are today.
The measures identified in Section 3.13, Air Quality, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects of
the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects described above.
3.25.4.14
Noise and Vibration
Resource Study Area
For the purpose of the noise and vibration cumulative impacts analysis, the RSA for noise impacts
includes all areas adjacent to the study area where there are sensitive land uses that would be
affected by construction noise and traffic noise generated by operation of the completed project.
The study area focuses on those areas in the vicinity of the Build Alternatives with potential noisesensitive uses, including residential uses, parks, and open space uses, or areas of frequent human
activity.
The study area is located in a largely urbanized area. Noise in this area is generated by traffic on the
freeways and area roads, equipment operations, urban uses, aircraft, and other noise sources
typical in urban and developed areas. The health of the resource is affected by noise from I-710,
I-210, I-10, SR 110, State Route 19 (SR 19), local arterial roadways, and surrounding noise-generating
land uses such as large commercial or industrial operations. As the study area has become more
densely developed over time and traffic volumes have increased, the levels of background noise in
much of the RSA have increased and, in some areas, already exceed the applicable noise standards.
Land uses in the vicinity of the BRT Alternative include single-family and multifamily residences, two
schools, two preschools, a daycare center, seven churches, two parks, three hotels, hospitals/
medical centers, a museum, and office, industrial, and commercial uses.
Land uses in the vicinity of the LRT Alternative project area include single-family and multifamily
residences, vacant land, and office, commercial, and recreational uses.
Land uses in the vicinity of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative include single-family and multifamily
residences, four schools and Cal State LA, two churches, a hospital, a museum with gardens, a golf
course, vacant land, and office, commercial, and recreational uses. In addition, a planned office
development is located within the project area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-44
DRAFT

Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, the Build Alternatives result in potential long-term
noise impacts. However, noise abatement measures were evaluated for receptors located in the
project limits that would be or would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or
exceeding the Noise Abatement Criteria. Please refer to Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, for more
detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys noise effects.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Their Impacts
redevelopment. The land uses and circulation improvements in some of the 39 projects listed in
Table 3.25.1 have the potential to result in localized short-term noise increases and/or vibration
during construction and long-term changes in noise levels. The following projects have the potential
to result in changes in noise levels that have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact
related to noise and vibration:
Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project
Olson San Gabriel Residential Community
Green Hotel Apartments
I-10 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
Cumulative Impact
The Build Alternatives as well as the cumulative projects could result in shortterm noise effects
during construction. Although this impact would be temporary and would be minimized by
implementation of minimization measures, there is the potential that the SR 710 North Study, the
Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project, the Olson San Gabriel Residential Community, the 100
West Walnut Planned Development, and the Green Hotel Apartments would be under construction
concurrently, thus causing a temporary cumulative noise impact in the Cities/communities of East
Los Angeles, El Sereno, Pasadena, and South Pasadena, as well as adjacent cities. However, each
project would be responsible for following applicable noise ordinances during construction, thereby
reducing this temporary impact.
Additionally, neither the I-10 HOT Lanes, nor the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives would result
in substantial unmitigable long-term noise impacts. Abatement measures are proposed and none of
the receptors reach a noise level that exceeds 12 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Therefore, the SR 710
North Study would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact.
The measures identified in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects described above.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-45
DRAFT

3.25.4.15
Energy
Resource Study Area
Because energy consumption is typically tracked on a regional or State level, consideration of

cumulative effects related to energy consumption is considered in the context of the SCAG planning
region.
California is rich in conventional and renewable energy resources. It has large crude oil and
substantial natural gas deposits in six geological basins located in the Central Valley and along the
Pacific Coast. Most of those reserves are concentrated in the southern San Joaquin Basin. A total of
17 of the 100 largest oil fields in the United States are located in California, including the Belridge
South oil field (the third largest oil field in the contiguous United States). In addition, federal
assessments indicate that large undiscovered deposits of recoverable oil and gas lie offshore in the
federally administered Outer Continental Shelf, which in 2008 was reopened for potential oil and
gas leasing. Californias renewable energy potential is extensive. The States hydroelectric power
potential ranks second in the United States behind Washington State, and substantial geothermal
and wind power resources are found along the coastal mountain ranges and the States eastern
border with Nevada. High solar energy potential is found in southeastern Californias sunny deserts.
California is the most populous State in the United States, and its total energy demand is second
only to Texas. Although California is a leader in the energyintensive chemical, forest products, glass,
and petroleum industries, the State has one of the lowest per-capita energy consumption rates in
the country. The California governments energyefficiency programs have contributed to the low
per-capita energy consumption.
Much of the energy consumed in the SCAG region is for residential, commercial, and transportation
purposes. Driven by high demand from Californias many motorists, major airports, and military
bases, the transportation sector is the States largest energy consumer. More motor vehicles are
registered in California than in any other state, and worker commute times are among the longest in
the country. Transportationrelated activities account for approximately half of all the petroleum
products consumed in California. While State and federal policies (e.g., the California LowEmission
Vehicle Program and the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992) are increasing the use of alternative fuel
and low-emission vehicles, the consumption of nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels) remains
high.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.15, Energy, construction energy effects involve the onetime,
nonrecoverable energy costs associated with construction of roads and structures. It is anticipated
that the construction energy demands from any of the Build Alternatives, will be accommodated by
the three energy utilities (LADWP, Pasadena Water and Power, and SCE). Compared to the baseline
No Build Alternative, the construction of any of the Build Alternatives would result in substantial
increases in total indirect energy consumption (entirely from construction energy use) in the study
area. However, for the region, indirect energy consumption would not be substantially impacted by
For operational energy consumption in the region, all SR 710 North Study alternatives (including the
No Build Alternative) would result in the same approximately 22 percent increase in operational
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-46
DRAFT

energy consumption compared to existing conditions. Compared to the No Build Alternative, none
of the Build Alternatives would result in a measurable change in operational energy consumption in
the region. Please refer to Section 3.15, Energy, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys
effect on energy.
redevelopment. The 39 reasonably foreseeable actions have no or limited potential to result in
effects related to energy and, therefore, limited potential to contribute to cumulative effects related
to energy with particular relevance to energy. Of those projects, only one has the potential to result
in substantial effects related to energy and, therefore, to contribute to a cumulative impact on
energy:
El Monte Walmart
Cumulative Impact
All the transportation and transit cumulative projects will reduce energy consumption by either
easing congestion or providing public transit and taking vehicles off the study area local arterials and
highways. Although the cumulative land development projects listed above would result in
additional energy consumption, it is anticipated that they would be designed to reduce energy
consumption and would comply with the energy standards in the California Energy Code, Part 6 of
the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), and applicable city regulations/codes. Additionally,
all the SR 710 North Study alternatives (including the No Build Alternative) would result in an
approximately 22 percent increase in operational energy consumption compared to existing
conditions. However, for operational energy consumption in the region, none of the SR 710 North
Study Build Alternatives would result in a measurable change. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study, in
combination with the cumulative projects, would not contribute to a cumulative energy effect.
The measures identified in Section 3.15, Energy, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects of the
Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects described above.
3.25.4.16
Natural Communities
Resource Study Area
The RSA for natural communities is consistent with the Biological Study Area (BSA) established for
the SR 710 North Study. The BSA is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the
Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, San Marino,
and Monterey Park, as well as unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses in
and adjacent to the BSA primarily include: transportation, residential, commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and recreational land uses.
Much of the SR 710 North Study area is intensively developed for urban and suburban uses. The
natural vegetation of the area prior to urbanization consisted primarily of chaparral and coastal sage
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-47
DRAFT

scrub. Most of the current natural vegetation within the BSA occurs in scattered, isolated patches on
hillsides or in other areas not easily developed (e.g., freeway edges and medians). The SR 710 North
Study is located entirely in Los Angeles County and is generally focused between the areas of the
existing I-710/I-10 and I-210/SR 134 freeway interchanges.
The BSA contains primarily disturbed/developed habitats with small, isolated areas of natural
vegetation. Natural communities in the BSA that are considered sensitive include: (1) riparian
wetland habitats, (2) riparian non-wetland habitats, (3) coast live oak woodland, and (4) black
cottonwood forest. In addition to the riparian habitats and coast live oak woodland, only one nativedominated plant community (laurel sumac scrub) was identified in the BSA.
Additionally, three types of riparian and riverine communities are present in the BSA: (1) riparian
non-wetland habitats, (2) wetlands, and (3) riverine (streams).
A total of approximately 4.1 ac of riparian non-wetland habitats (white alder groves, black
cottonwood forest, and arroyo willow thickets), approximately 1.5 ac of wetlands, and
approximately 4.4 ac of stream habitats were identified in the BSA. The riparian and riverine
communities present in the BSA are not considered to be of high quality due to the presence of
invasive species, high human disturbance (foot traffic, litter, etc.), and minimal signs of reproduction
(few saplings and seedlings, etc.), as is typical in an urban environment. Additionally, one small area
(approximately 5.9 ac) of the coast live oak woodland community was identified within the BSA.
The SR 710 North Study is not located within any Significant Ecological Areas, which are identified as
ecologically important land and water systems by the County of Los Angeles. Other protected lands
(i.e., wildlife refuges, State Parks) that occur within or adjacent to the BSA include several
recreational city parks and the Lower Arroyo Seco Park in Pasadena, which is a city park that
contains native and naturalized vegetation that provides habitat for local wildlife.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.16, Natural Communities, measures would be required to avoid, minimize,
and/or compensate temporary and permanent impacts to natural communities in the BSA. Please
refer to Section 3.16, Natural Communities, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys
effect on natural communities.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Their Impacts
redevelopment. Of the projects listed in Table 3.25-1, none have the potential to contribute to an
impact on natural communities.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects either would have no impact to natural communities or, upon
implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, would not have a
substantial impact on natural communities.
Implementation of the SR 710 North Study, specifically the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (single-bore
and dual-bore design variations) and the LRT Alternative, would result in effects on riparian and
riverine habitats in the BSA. However, compensatory mitigation would result in the creation or
restoration of more habitat than is lost and is likely to completely offset any impacts from the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-48
DRAFT

SR 710 North Study, especially considering that the functions and values of the habitats that would
be impacted are relatively low. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study would not likely contribute
incrementally to cumulative effects on riparian, wetland, or riverine communities.
Based on the above discussion in combination with the reasonably foreseeable actions in the SR 710
North Study BSA with particular relevance to natural communities, the SR 710 North Study would
not contribute to a cumulative impact on natural communities in the RSA.
The measures identified in Section 3.16, Natural Communities, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the SR 710 North Studys contribution to any
cumulative effects to natural communities.
3.25.4.17
Wetlands and Other Waters
Resource Study Area
The RSA for wetlands and other waters is consistent with the BSA established for the SR 710 North
Study. The BSA is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles,
Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, San Marino, and Monterey Park, as
well as unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses within and adjacent to the
BSA primarily include: transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and
recreational land uses.
The entire BSA is located within the Los Angeles River Watershed, called the Los Angeles River HU.
Two drainages, the Arroyo Seco and the Laguna Channel (sometimes called the Dorchester Channel,
or Laguna Channel), occur within the BSA and include riverine, wetland, and riparian drainages and
habitats. Most of the drainages within the BSA are channelized and provide relatively limited habitat
value for terrestrial and aquatic species.
Approximately Two wetlands, two areas of non-wetland riparian habitat, and several ditch features
were identified. In all, approximately 27 features were identified in the BSA. The streams provide
the only potential habitat value in the BSA for fish and other riparian aquatic species. However,
habitat quality is limited by the fact that large portions of these streams have been channelized for
flood control, like most streams and rivers in the Los Angeles region.
Riparian plant communities occur along the Arroyo Seco within the BSA, providing potential habitat
for riparian-associated plants and animals. The Laguna Channel, which is also a tributary of the Los
Angeles River, is mostly channelized in a concrete-lined rectangular channel in the BSA. The sole
earthen-bottom portion of this stream in the BSA is associated with an abutting wetland that
provides potential habitat for plants and wildlife with riparian non-wetland habitats.
A second approximately 1.09 ac wetland, which is associated with the Del Mar Pump Station, was
also identified. This apparently isolated wetland is man-made due to the pumping of storm water
into the area, and the vegetation lacks a shrub or canopy layer. Habitat for plants and wildlife is
present but limited due to the artificial and maintained (mowed) nature of the habitat.
A number of excavated ditches were identified in the BSA that were created to drain storm water,
hillside runoff, and nuisance flows, most of which were concrete lined. These features rarely carry
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-49
DRAFT

water, support little vegetation, and have very limited habitat value. None of these ditch features
were identified as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB).
Waters and wetlands potentially subject to USACE jurisdiction included the abovementioned Arroyo
Seco and Laguna Channel, totaling approximately 4.42 jurisdictional acres, and an abutting 0.44 ac
wetland. Areas potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction included those subject to USACE jurisdiction
as well as approximately 4.12 ac of non-wetland riparian plant communities associated with the
Arroyo Seco and approximately 0.79 ac of non-wetland riparian plant communities associated with
the Laguna Channel. Waters and wetlands potentially subject to RWQCB jurisdiction included all of
the above, with the exception of nonwetland riparian plant communities.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.17, Wetlands and Other Waters, the SR 710 North Study has been refined
to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters. Specifically, the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations have minimized impacts to the
northernmost section of the Laguna Channel, near the tunnel portal. Additional segments of the
Laguna Channel have been completely eliminated from the impact areas. Please refer to Section
3.17, Wetlands and Other Waters, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on
wetlands and other waters.
Impacts to drainages and habitats potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction varied among the Build
Alternatives, with the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives having no anticipated substantial
impacts and the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations having both
permanent impacts (approximately 0.06 ac and 0.51 ac, respectively) and temporary impacts
(approximately 0.02 ac and 0.22 ac, respectively).
impact on wetlands and other waters.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects would either have no impact to wetlands or other waters or, upon
substantial impact on wetlands and other waters.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative (both single-bore and dual-bore design variations) would have both
permanent and temporary impacts to non-wetland and wetland areas subject to USACE, CDFW,
and/or RWQCB jurisdiction. However, with the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation/
compensation measures outlined below, impacts would not be substantial.
Based on the above discussion in combination with the reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA
with particular relevance to wetlands and other waters, the SR 710 North Study would not
contribute to a cumulative impact on wetlands and other waters in the RSA.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-50
DRAFT

The measures identified in Section 3.17, Wetlands and Other Waters, avoid, minimize, and/or
mitigate the effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the SR 710 North Studys contribution to
any cumulative effects on wetlands and other waters.
3.25.4.18
Plant Species
Resource Study Area
The RSA for plant species is consistent with the BSA established for the SR 710 North Study. The BSA
is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena,
South Pasadena, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, San Marino, and Monterey Park, as well as
unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses in and adjacent to the BSA
primarily include: transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and recreational
land uses.
The South Coast and San Gabriel Mountains subregions within the BSA are characterized by valleys
and small hills extending from the coast inland to the foothills of the Western Transverse Ranges.
Much of the area is intensively developed for urban and suburban uses. The natural vegetation of
the subregion prior to urbanization consisted primarily of chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Most of
the current natural vegetation within the BSA in these subregions occurs in scattered, isolated
patches on hillsides or in other areas not easily developed, such as freeway edges and medians.
The BSA contains primarily disturbed/developed habitats with small isolated areas of natural
vegetation. By far the most common plant community/land cover type present is disturbed/
developed, which represents more than 95 percent of the BSA. Additional plant communities
identified included nonnative grassland, nonnative woodland, nonnative riparian woodland, wetland
complex, giant reed semi-natural stands, laurel sumac scrub, coast live oak woodland, white alder
groves, black cottonwood forest, and arroyo willow thickets. The only sensitive plant community
that could be impacted is wetland complex, which would be permanently impacted by the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative. A total of approximately 53 sensitive plant species have the potential to occur on
or within the vicinity of the BSA. Approximately two non-listed special-status species that might be
directly impacted are Coulters goldfields and Southern California black walnut.
A small population (approximately 300 individuals) of Coulters goldfields was identified within a
freeway edge along I-10 near the I-710/I-10 interchange. No other suitable habitat for Coulters
goldfields occurs within the BSA.
A single young Southern California black walnut was observed growing in the understory of a stand
of unmaintained Aleppo pine woodland upslope from westbound I-210 in the City of Pasadena. No
other individuals of this species were identified within the BSA. Due to the conspicuous nature of
trees such as the Southern California black walnut during botanical surveys, the potential for the
species to be present but not observed is low. Therefore, with the exception of the individual
described above, the species is considered absent from the BSA.
Focused botanical surveys during 2013 determined that suitable habitat was present for the
following additional approximately 14 special-status plants: California muhly, California saw-grass,
Davidsons bush-mallow, Greatas aster, Los Angeles sunflower, Parishs gooseberry, Peruvian
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-51
DRAFT

dodder, Robinsons pepper-grass, San Bernardino aster, Santa Barbara morning-glory, slender
mariposa-lily, Sonoran maiden fern, southern tarplant, and white rabbit-tobacco. None of these
species were found in the BSA during botanical surveys conducted throughout the entire BSA in
2013.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.18, Plant Species, the Freeway Tunnel Alternatives (single-bore and dualbore design variations) and LRT Alternatives potential impacts to special-status plant species would
be prevented by implementation of avoidance and minimization efforts. No other Build Alternatives
would have any substantial direct, indirect, temporary, or permanent impacts on special-status plant
species. Please refer to Section 3.18, Plant Species, for more detail regarding the SR 710 North
Studys effect on plant species.
redevelopment. Of the projects listed in Table 3.25-1, none have the potential to contribute to an
impact on plant species.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects either would have no substantial impact to plant species or, upon
substantial impact on plant species.
Additionally, with implementation of the suggested avoidance and minimization measures, the Build
Alternatives would not have any temporary or indirect substantial impacts on the Coulters
goldfields population. However, even with implementation of avoidance and minimization
measures, the Southern California black walnut and the Coulters Goldfields population does have
the potential to be impacted by the Freeway Tunnel Alternative (single- and dual-bore variations).
Impacts on Southern California black walnut from the Freeway Tunnel Alternative construction
activities would be limited to the existing tree discovered during botanical surveys. Additionally, if it
is determined that the Coulters Goldfields population exists as a result of the species inclusion in a
seed mix during planting, then this species would not be considered impacted by the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative because it would not be considered a naturally occurring population. The
contribution to cumulative impacts to this species takes into account the avoidance and
minimization efforts described below. Therefore, cumulative impacts resulting from the removal of
this individual tree would not likely reduce the viability of the local or global population of this
species.
Based on the above discussion in combination with the reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA
with particular relevance to plant species, the SR 710 North Study would not contribute to a
cumulative impact on most plant species in the RSA. Depending on the plant mix, the SR 710 North
Study may contribute to a cumulative impact to Coulters Goldfields.
The measures identified in Section 3.18, Plant Species, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects
of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the SR 710 North Studys contribution to any cumulative
effects on plant species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-52
DRAFT

3.25.4.19
Animal Species
Resource Study Area
The RSA for animal species is consistent with the BSA established for the SR 710 North Study. The
BSA is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena,
unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses within and adjacent to the BSA
land uses.
Wildlife species that occur within the BSA are generally limited to species that are well adapted to
human-modified environments and are species typically associated with urbanized habitats.
There are no known migration corridors or wildlife linkages within the BSA; however, the area likely
serves as a stopover site during bird migration. Trees and other vegetation within the BSA provide
potential foraging and roosting sites for migrating birds, as do the trees and vegetation in the
surrounding area. Historically, the Los Angeles River Watershed served as habitat to the federally
endangered steelhead salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss). However, due to the dramatic population
decline of this species, as well as river modifications such as channelization and alterations
associated with flood control and metropolitan development, it is very unlikely to be present within
the BSA.
Aquatic resources within the BSA were identified during the jurisdictional delineation and plant
community mapping efforts. All aquatic resources have some value for biological resources even
when highly degraded because of their relative scarcity in the Arid West region. The streams provide
the only potential habitat value in the BSA for fish and other riparian aquatic species. However,
habitat quality is limited by the fact that large portions of these streams (like most streams and
rivers in the Los Angeles region) have been channelized for flood control.
A total of approximately 77 special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the BSA.
Of these sensitive animal species, approximately 15 are federally and/or State-listed endangered,
threatened, rare, or proposed endangered or threatened, or are considered Fully Protected Species
by the State of California. These species are discussed in Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered
Species. Additional protected or special-status animal species have the potential to occur in the BSA
and are discussed below.
No American peregrine falcons were observed in the BSA during focused bird surveys conducted in
2013. Approximately Two areas of potentially suitable streamside vegetation for riparian obligate
birds were identified within the BSA and were then the subject of the focused habitat assessment. It
is unlikely that yellow warbler and/or yellow-breasted chat breed within and/or adjacent to the BSA,
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-53
DRAFT

although sporadic use outside the breeding season by non-territorial individuals of yellow warbler
and yellow-breasted chat likely does occur.
Three sites included expanses of open low vegetation and were considered to have the potential to
be suitable for burrowing owls. It was determined that no suitable burrowing owl habitat is present
within the BSA. Therefore, it is unlikely that burrowing owls occur within and adjacent to the BSA.
Therefore, burrowing owl is considered absent from the BSA.
Five bridges and one nearby foraging area within the BSA were identified as having characteristics
suitable for bat roosting, It was determined that the following special-status species are potentially
using the BSA as foraging habitat near the bridges: hoary bat, long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis,
pocketed free-tailed bat, and silver-haired bat.
Suitable habitat is present in the BSA for other special-status wildlife species. Of these species, only
the Allens hummingbird, Nuttalls woodpecker, oak titmouse, and Coopers hawk were observed
within the BSA during the 2013 surveys. None of these four species were observed nesting during
the 2013 surveys. In addition, approximately two pairs of red-tailed hawks exhibited territorial and
breeding behavior at approximately two locations within or adjacent to the BSA. In addition to the
species mentioned above, 78 avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
were identified within the BSA.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.19, Animal Species, impacts related to animal species as a result of the
TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be reduced with implementation of
avoidance and minimization measures. Please refer to Section 3.19, Animal Species, for more detail
regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on animal species.
impact on animal species.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects would either have no impact to animal species or, upon implementation of
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, would not have a substantial impact on
animal species.
Suitable habitat for monarch butterfly, coast range newt, western spadefoot toad, two-striped
garter snake, western pond turtle, south coast garter snake, San Bernardino ring-necked snake,
Coopers hawk, Allens hummingbird, Costas hummingbird, Lawrences goldfinch, merlin, Nuttalls
woodpecker, oak titmouse, any nesting or breeding birds of prey protected under California Fish and
Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 (e.g., red-tailed hawk), and any other nesting or breeding
birds protected under the MBTA has the potential to be impacted by the SR 710 North Study even
after avoidance and minimization efforts. Therefore, the SR 710 North Study has the potential to
contribute to a cumulative impact on nesting or breeding birds under the MBTA.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-54
DRAFT

The measures identified in Section 3.19, Animal Species, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the effects
of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the cumulative effects discussed above.
3.25.4.20
Threatened and Endangered Species
Resource Study Area
The RSA for threatened and endangered species is consistent with the BSA established for the SR
710 North Study. The BSA is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the Cities of
Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, San Marino, and
Monterey Park, as well as unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses within
and adjacent to the BSA primarily include: transportation, residential, commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and recreational land uses.
Although no federally listed or candidate species were observed, habitat suitable for nonbreeding
use by least Bells vireo (approximately 180 feet [ft] from the nearest planned ground-disturbing
activities), southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo was determined to be
present within the BSA.
The wetland complex habitat present in the BSA is marginally suitable for the marsh sandwort due
to its low quality. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) includes approximately one
recorded observation of marsh sandwort. Therefore, the potential for the species to be present but
not observed is low.
There is marginally suitable habitat present on site within the laurel sumac scrub and coast live oak
woodland areas of the BSA for the slender-horned spineflower. The CNDDB includes five records of
slender-horned spineflower observations near the BSA. However, due to urbanization of this area
the potential for the species to be present is low.
The approximately two wetland complex habitats present within the BSA in Pasadena and Monterey
Park are marginally suitable for Gambels watercress but not ideal habitat due to high human
disturbance. The CNDDB includes approximately one recorded observation of Gambels watercress
in this area, which is an area that is now urban with no remaining habitat. Because there is only lowquality, marginally suitable habitat present in the BSA and there are no known occurrences of this
species within 8.59.5 mi of the BSA, the potential for the species to be present but not observed is
low.
Due to the timing of botanical surveys it is possible that thread-leaved brodiaca individuals were
present within the BST, but not seen or were unidentifiable. There is marginally suitable habitat
present on site within the laurel sumac scrub and coastal live oak woodland acres of the BSA. The
CNDDB includes six records of thread leaved brodiaca observations near the BSA. Although the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-55
DRAFT

potential for species to be present is low, the absence of this species from the BSA cannot be
confirmed.
Limited marginally suitable foraging habitat for the Townsends big-eared bat is present within the
BSA primarily within nonnative woodland, laurel sumac scrub, and oak woodland habitats. No
suitable roosting habitat is present within the BSA.
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered Species, the Build Alternatives were
determined to have no direct or indirect permanent impacts on federally-listed or endangered
species and would not result in take of State-listed threatened or endangered species.
impact on threatened or endangered species.
Cumulative Impact
The cumulative projects would either have no effect on threatened and/or endangered species or,
upon implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, would not likely
have a substantial effect on threatened and/or endangered species. The cumulative projects would
not result in take of any State-listed threatened and/or endangered species.
The SR 710 North Study would have no effect on threatened and/or endangered species, and would
not result in take of any State-listed threatened and/or endangered species.
Based on the above discussion in combination with the 17 reasonably foreseeable actions in the RSA
with particular relevance to threatened and/or endangered species, the SR 710 North Study would
not contribute to a cumulative impact on threatened and/or endangered species in the RSA.
The measures identified in Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered Species, avoid, minimize,
and/or mitigate the effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the SR 710 North Studys
contribution to any cumulative impacts to threatened and/or endangered species.
3.25.4.21
Invasive Species
Resource Study Area
The RSA for invasive species is consistent with the BSA established for the SR 710 North Study. The
BSA is an approximately 3,410 ac area that includes portions of the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena,
unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County. Existing land uses within and adjacent to the BSA
land uses.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-56
DRAFT

Exotic plant species are present throughout the BSA and are primarily found within the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative. A total of approximately 81 exotic plant species, subspecies, and/or varieties
occurring on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) California Invasive Plant Inventory and/or
watchlist were identified within the BSA. Of these species, there are approximately 13 with an
overall high rating, 30 with a moderate rating, 26 with a limited rating, and 12 that have been
evaluated but not listed. Invasive species that have severe ecological impacts on physical processes,
plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure, and have reproductive biology and other
attributes that are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment are given a
high rating (Cal-IPC 2013). Species with a high rating identified within the BSA were: (1) giant reed,
(2) red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), (3) hottentot fig, (Carpobrotus edulis) (4) spotted
knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), (5) purple pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), (6) Uruguayan
pampas grass (C. selloana), (7) cape ivy, (8) sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), (9) Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), (10) salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), (11) scotch broom (Cytisus
scoparius), (12) Algerian ivy (Hedera helix), and (13) Uruguay water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala).
Project Impacts
As described in Section 3.21, Invasive Species, with implementation of the avoidance and
minimization measures listed in Section 3.21.4, the SR 710 North Study is not anticipated to have a
substantial effect related to invasive species. Please refer to Section 3.21, Invasive Species, for more
detail regarding the SR 710 North Studys effect on invasive species.
impact on invasive species.
Cumulative Impact
Upon implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, the cumulative

projects would not have a substantial impact related to invasive species.
With implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures listed below, the SR 710 North
Study is not anticipated to have an effect related to invasive species. Based on the above discussion,
in combination with the reasonably foreseeable actions with particular relevance to invasive
species, the SR 710 North Study would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to invasive
species in the RSA.
The measures identified in Section 3.21, Invasive Species, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the
effects of the Build Alternatives, thus reducing the SR 710 North Studys contribution to any
cumulative impacts related to invasive species.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-57
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3.25-58
DRAFT
4. California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA) Evaluation
4.1 Determining Significance Under CEQA
The State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study (proposed project) is a joint project by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is
subject to State and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore,
has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
FHWAs responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in
accordance with NEPA and other applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been,
carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 United States Code
(USC) 327. Caltrans is the lead agency under CEQA and NEPA.
One of the primary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance is determined.
Under NEPA, significance is used to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or
a lower level of documentation, will be required. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when the
proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. The determination of significance is based on context and intensity. Some
impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not be of sufficient magnitude to be
determined significant under NEPA. Under NEPA, once a decision is made regarding the need for an
EIS, it is the magnitude of the impact that is evaluated, and no judgment of its individual significance
is deemed important for the text. NEPA does not require that a determination of significant impacts
be stated in the environmental documents.
CEQA, on the other hand, does require Caltrans to identify each significant effect on the
environment resulting from the project and ways to mitigate each significant effect. If the project
may have a significant effect on any environmental resource, then an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) must be prepared. Each and every significant effect on the environment must be disclosed in
the EIR and mitigated, if feasible. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines list a number of mandatory
findings of significance that also require the preparation of an EIR. There are no types of actions
under NEPA that parallel the findings of mandatory significance of CEQA. This chapter discusses the
effects of this project and CEQA significance.
4.2 Effects of the Proposed Project
This section discusses the level of significance of the impacts of the Build Alternatives under CEQA.
To aid with comparison between the Build Alternatives, this chapter is organized by topic, and the
levels of significance for each Build Alternative are discussed under each subheading. More detailed
analyses can be found in the respective sections within Chapter 3 of this document.
The evaluation of the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives under CEQA provided in this
chapter was conducted by comparing the Build Alternatives to the baseline conditions, which in
most cases are the existing conditions in the study area. For some resources, this is a different
baseline than what was used in the NEPA analysis in Chapter 3. Existing conditions are the
appropriate baseline per the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), which states An EIR must
include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-1
DRAFT

CHAPTER 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at
the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. The
environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead
agency determines whether an impact is significant. Collection of data for the technical studies,
field surveys, and preparation of the technical studies were initiated after the publication of the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) in March 2011. As a result, the existing conditions are based on the
conditions in 2012/2013, when the information was collected. This baseline is also appropriate
because the 2012/2013 conditions are more current than the conditions in 2011.
However, for several environmental topics, the evaluation compared the Build Alternative to the
future No Build conditions (2020/2025 Opening Year and/or 2035 Build Out) and the existing
conditions because those comparisons provide for the most appropriate consideration of effects of
the Build Alternatives. This is appropriate for these topics because the impacts are analyzed for
when the improvements will first be operational as well as the 20-year build-out conditions (which is
the closest forecast model year for the traffic data on which these studies are based). Caltrans has a
20-year planning horizon and sizes its facilities based on travel demand projections, which is
consistent with standard FHWA practice for transportation project planning. This approach ensures
that the improvements will meet the need for the project in the future as well as in the opening
year. Additionally, where impacts will occur with or without the project, they are not attributable to
the project.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, the majority of improvements included as part of the
Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative
would also be constructed as part of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Specifically, the following improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative
would not be included in the other Build Alternatives:
The BRT Alternative would include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the
Road) and the reversible lane component of Local Street Improvement L-3 (Atlantic Boulevard
from Glendon Way to Interstate 10 [I-10]).
The LRT Alternative would include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM Alternative, with the
exception of Other Road Improvement T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission Road Connector Road).
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would include all the improvements in the TSM/TDM
Alternative, with the exception of Other Road Improvements T-1 (Valley Boulevard to Mission
Road Connector Road) and T-3 (St. John Avenue Extension between Del Mar Boulevard and
California Boulevard).
As a result, these Build Alternatives would include the effects of the improvements in the TSM/TDM
Alternative with the exception of the individual improvements noted above. Therefore, all impacts
discussed as part of the TSM/TDM Alternative would also apply to the other three Build
Alternatives.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-2
DRAFT

4.2.1 Aesthetics
I. AESTHETICS:
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in visual impacts was assessed in the
Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) (2014). The results of this report are presented in Section 3.6,
Visual/Aesthetics, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where
applicable.
I(a). Scenic Vistas. As discussed in the VIA, distant views of the Verdugo Mountains, the San Gabriel
Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains can be found within the project viewshed. However, the
project viewshed is already highly developed. Because the Build Alternatives would place structures
in already developed areas, impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
I(b). Scenic Resources. As discussed in the VIA, a State Scenic Highway is any freeway, highway,
road, or other public right of way (ROW) designated by Caltrans that traverses an area of
exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on the visual
concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity. None of the freeways or roads in the proposed projects
viewshed are designated as State Scenic Highways. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
result in impacts to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.
Noise barriers have been proposed as preliminary noise abatement measures. These barriers may
be optional and determined during the public input process. Therefore, the barrier impacts were
assessed separately from the other potential visual effects of the Build Alternatives. In general,
these noise barriers would be out of scale with the neighboring residences and commercial
businesses. They would entirely eliminate and/or partially obscure views and sunlight. In several
cases, these barriers would replace 5- to 6-foot (ft) tall wood or chainlink property line fences, or
screening vegetation adjacent to residences, with up to 20 ft tall concrete walls. These would be
drastic changes in visual quality and character, but for a relatively small number of viewers.
I(c). Visual Character and Quality. As discussed in Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, short-term visual
impacts would occur to sensitive viewers during the construction period. Overall, construction
activities would be temporary and the visual impacts related to construction activities would cease
after completion of construction. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
The TSM/TDM Alternative involves only minor improvements to existing roads and intersections
without substantive changes in physical facilities or views to/from those improvements. In addition,
due to the low-profile (ground-level) nature of these improvements and the low perspective of
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-3
DRAFT

potential viewers, permanent visual impacts associated with the TSM/TDM Alternative would be
minimal.
The BRT Alternative includes new dedicated bus lanes that would generally be created within the
existing street ROW. Buses would share existing lanes with other traffic in cases where there is not
sufficient ROW to accommodate a dedicated bus lane. The BRT Alternative also includes BRT
stations, some of which would be combined with existing stops. However, these stations would be
small shelters with seating and signage that would create only minimal visual impacts.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would result in visual impacts only in areas where tunnel entrances
and exits are visible. For example, the area near northbound SR 710 north of Paseo Rancho Castilla
in the City of Alhambra would experience a decrease in visual quality with the view of the entrance
tunnels. Since single-bore tunnels would create smaller openings, the single-bore design variation of
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would lessen the impact of these changes.
The LRT Alternative would include a passenger rail that is operated along a dedicated guideway,
similar to other Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) light rail lines.
The LRT Alternative alignment is approximately 7.5 miles (mi) long, with 3 mi of aerial segments and
4.5 mi of bored tunnel segments. The LRT Alternative would result in a significant visual impact since
the majority of the alignment in East Los Angeles, Monterey Park, and Alhambra is above ground
and visible to the communities.
As specified in Measures V-1 through V-7, design features would be incorporated into the Build
Alternatives to reduce visual impacts. With implementation of these measures, the visual impacts of
the TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be less than significant. Although it is
anticipated that, to the extent feasible, the new features constructed as part of these projects
would be visually compatible with the surrounding areas, the LRT Alternative would still result in a
large visual change to the area, and visual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after
mitigation.
I(d). Light and Glare. As discussed in Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, the TSM/TDM Alternative would
include features to minimize light spillage onto adjacent land uses. Glare impacts associated with
the TSM/TDM Alternative would be negligible. Changes in the timing and duration of the traffic
control cycles would not noticeably create or lessen glare. In addition, glare from new automotive
traffic on new roads would be dissipated by means of distance from source to viewer.
The BRT Alternative would slightly increase vehicle lights along the bus route, although this would
represent only a very minor increase in lighting along those routes. Glare impacts associated with
the BRT Alternative would be negligible because vehicles operating along the bus routes would be
similar to the existing vehicles on those routes. The BRT Alternative bus stops would have shielded
lighting to direct glare away from the surrounding land uses.
In the LRT Alternative, traffic light fixtures installed along the elevated LRT facility would add
increased night lighting to some surrounding neighborhoods. The effects of this new light would be
reduced based on the use of light control appliances on the light fixtures. Glare from the elevated
segment of the LRT Alternative would be minimized by the distance of the viewer from the LRT
vehicles and through the implementation of various screening and use of light shields on the new
light fixtures.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-4
DRAFT

With the headlights of automobiles traveling at a horizontal line of sight, it is anticipated that the
vehicle light under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not impact the surrounding land uses. In
addition, the new light fixtures in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be placed at a far enough
distance from the surrounding neighborhoods that they would result in no impacts. The new nontunnel segments of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be built below the existing grade level
that leads to the tunnel portals; therefore, vehicle headlight glare would be minimal. In addition,
light fixtures will be designed to direct light onto the freeway facilities and away from adjacent land
uses.
For the reasons discussed above, the impacts of the Build Alternatives related to light and glare
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
No impact
No impact
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Discussion:
II(a)(e). Farmlands and Timberlands. As discussed in Chapter 3, the study area does not include
any farmlands or timberlands. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in any impacts
related to agricultural or timberland resources.
4.2.3 Air Quality
III. AIR QUALITY:

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-5
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
DRAFT

III. AIR QUALITY:

Would the project:
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in air quality impacts was assessed in
the Air Quality Assessment Report (2014). The results of that report are presented in Section 3.13,
Air Quality, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
III(a). Conflict with Air Quality Plans. As discussed in Sections 3.1, Land Use, and 3.13, Air Quality,
the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is included in and is consistent with the scope of the design concept
in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program (FTIP). Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the RTP or FTIP. No mitigation is required.
As specified in Measure LU-2 in Section 3.1, Land Use, should the TSM/TDM Alternative, BRT
Alternative, LRT Alternative, single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, or the
non-tolled operational variation of the dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
be selected, the RTP and FTIP would have to be amended. Once amended, the TSM/TDM
Alternative, BRT Alternative , LRT Alternative, single-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative, or the non-tolled operational variation of the dual-bore design variation of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RTP or FTIP. With
implementation of Measure LU-2, impacts related to air quality plan consistency would be less than
significant, and no further mitigation is required.
III(b). Violation of Air Quality Standards. The study area is in nonattainment for the following
criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), particulate
matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead. As discussed in Section
3.13, Air Quality, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate
emissions generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other construction activity emissions from
construction equipment, which would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), directly emitted particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and toxic air
contaminants (TACs) such as diesel particulate matter (DPM). However, Measures AQ-1 through
AQ-5 include measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts from fugitive dust and
construction equipment emissions to less than significant levels.
As discussed in Section 3.13, Air Quality, it was determined that the Build Alternatives would not
result in any exceedance of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. The 2025 criteria pollutant emissions
for the No Build, TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives, and all the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
design variations would be lower than the existing conditions. On August 12, 2014, the
Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) determined that the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT
Alternatives are not projects of air quality concern (POAQCs). If the Freeway Tunnel Alternative with
either the single-bore or dual-bore design variation is selected as the Preferred Alternative,
quantitative PM modeling will be conducted to demonstrate that the project would not delay
attainment of or cause an exceedance of the PM2.5 or PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-6
DRAFT

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in a minimal increase in Mobile Source Air
Toxics (MSAT) emissions within the project study area. While the Build Alternatives would result in a
small increase in localized MSAT emissions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) vehicle and fuel regulations, when coupled with fleet turnover, will cause substantial
reductions over time that will cause regionwide MSAT levels to be substantially lower than they are
today. Therefore, based on the analysis above, impacts related to violations of air quality standards
III(c). Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutants in Nonattainment Areas. The study area is in
nonattainment for the following criteria pollutants: O3, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and lead. Project impacts
related to criteria pollutants are discussed above in III(b). As discussed in Section 3.24, Cumulative
Impacts, nine of the cumulative projects would have a temporary substantial and unavoidable
impact related to air quality during construction. Three of these nine projectsthe Regional
Connector Transit Corridor, Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal, and 100 West Walnut
Planned Development projectscould be constructed concurrently with the SR 710 North Study
Project. However, Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce construction-related air quality
impacts from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment emissions of the Build Alternatives
to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Build Alternatives, in combination with these projects,
would not contribute to a cumulative temporary short-term air quality impact.
As discussed in Section 3.25, Cumulative Impacts, seven of the cumulative projects would contribute
to a permanent adverse air quality impact. For the SR 710 North Study, the Build Alternatives would
result in a slight increase in MSAT emissions within the project study area. However, the proposed
projects increase in MSAT emissions would be negligible. While the Build Alternatives would result
in a small increase in localized MSAT emissions, the EPA vehicle and fuel regulations, when coupled
levels to be substantially lower than they are today. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts
related to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment
would be less than significant with construction of the Build Alternatives in combination with these
projects. No mitigation is required.
III(d). Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The Build
Alternatives are intended to improve efficiency of the regional freeway and transit networks and to
reduce congestion on local arterials. Improved traffic conditions would increase vehicle travel
speeds and, in general, reduce vehicle emissions in the area. As discussed above in III(b) and III(c)
and based on the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (2014), the Build Alternatives would not result in a
significant increase or significant cumulative increase in criteria pollutants that are in
nonattainment. In addition, because vehicle emissions in the area would be reduced, the Build
Alternatives would result in overall reduced cancer and noncancer chronic and acute risks in the
region.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would redistribute some vehicle trips from existing traffic corridors
to the new freeway tunnel that connects I-10 and Interstate 210/State Route 134 (I210/SR 134).
This redistribution of the traffic volumes in the region could have potential to cause localized health
impacts in some areas. The HRA was conducted to understand the localized and regional health risk
impacts and benefits of the project. The 2012 existing condition was used as the baseline and
compared the health risks of the No Build and Build Alternatives of the project to the health risks of
the existing condition.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-7
DRAFT

The following is a summary of the results of the HRA. The detailed analysis is provided in the HRA.
Cancer risks were evaluated starting at the project baseline of 2012 and extended to 2081.
For informational purposes, cancer risks of 10 in 1 million were used as a reference level
when evaluating potential health risks associated with the project.
Cancer Risks
The HRA indicated the project would result in substantial regional benefits that reduce
health risks from exposure to MSATs in the majority of the study area. Compared to the
2012 existing condition, there would be a net benefit in the entire study area under the No
Build Alternative and all the Build Alternatives.
The No Build Alternative and all the Build Alternatives would cause a net decrease of cancer
risks compared to the 2012 existing condition everywhere in the study area, including
locations at the point of maximum impact (PMI), maximally exposed individual resident
(MEIR), and maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) receptors. The cancer risk
decreases ranged from 14.7 to 16 in 1 million at the MEIR locations for the No Build and
Build Alternatives and from 3.46 to 3.71 in 1 million at MEIW locations. The overall
decreased cancer risk from the existing condition is consistent with the FHWA forecasted
nationwide DPM emission decrease trend attributed to the implementation of more
stringent emission standards, the improvements in vehicle emission control technologies,
and improved fuel efficiency regardless of the regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase
projected in future years.
The majority of the cancer risks near the freeways are attributed to DPM emissions from
vehicle travel. Due to the installation of the PM control system in the tunnel ventilation
system, vehicle emissions from the tunnel ventilation towers could contribute minimally to
the cancer risks at the MEIR and MEIW locations.
Chronic and Acute Risks
The Hazard Index (HI), both chronic (HIC) and acute (HIA), for the No Build and all the Build
Alternatives will either decrease (net benefits) or the increase will be much lower than the
HIC and HIA threshold of 1 compared to the existing condition. The worstcase HIC increase
of 0.039 occurs with the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dualbore design variation without toll
operational variation at the western boundary of the SR 710 ROW near the freeway tunnel
north portal area. The worstcase HIA increase of 0.0047 occurs with the Freeway Tunnel
Alternative dualbore design variation without toll operational variation near the freeway
tunnel south portal.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The project is located in Los Angeles County (County), which is among the counties listed as
containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. However, the portion of the County known to
contain serpentine or ultramafic rock is limited to the island of Santa Catalina. Therefore,
the impact from naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction would be
minimal to none.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-8
DRAFT

Based on the above analysis, impacts of the Build Alternatives related to exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
III(e). Odors. As discussed in Section 3.13, Air Quality, some phases of construction of the Build
Alternatives (particularly asphalt paving) would result in short-term odors in the immediate area of
each paving site(s). Such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance
from the site(s) increases. Therefore, impacts related to odors would be less than significant, and no
4.2.4 Biological Resources
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) 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?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts to biological resources was
assessed in the Natural Environment Study (NES) (2014), the Jurisdictional Delineation Report: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (2014; Appendix I in the NES), and the Jurisdictional Delineation Report:
Agencies of the State of California (2014, Appendix J in the NES). The results of these reports are
presented in Sections 3.16 through 3.21 of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that
information, where applicable.
IV(a). Candidate, Sensitive, and Special-Status Species.
Animal Species. Impacts to threatened, endangered, and special-status animal species are
discussed in detail in Sections 3.19, Animal Species, and 3.20, Threatened and Endangered
Species. As discussed in these sections, all four Build Alternatives would impact suitable habitat
for the following special-status species: western spadefoot, San Bernardino ring-necked snake,
monarch butterfly, Coopers hawk, Allens hummingbird, oak titmouse, Nuttalls woodpecker,
and other bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-9
DRAFT

In addition, construction at bridges for the TSM/TDM and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives has the
potential to impact bats. The TSM/TDM and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are not anticipated to
result in any direct permanent impacts on any known threatened, endangered, or special-status
bat species due to the absence of roosting bat detections at the bridge proposed for demolition
and/or widening. However, should bats begin utilizing the bridge, the TSM/TDM and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives would have the potential to result in temporary indirect impacts through
the loss of roosting location and foraging habitat if nighttime construction occurs. In addition,
construction at bridges also has the potential to impact bridge- and crevice-nesting birds. With
implementation of Measures AS-1 (which requires preconstruction bat surveys) and AS-4 (which
requires bridge work to occur outside the nesting season or preconstruction surveys), impacts to
bats and bridge- and crevice-dwelling birds from construction of the TSM/TDM, LRT, and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be less than significant.
The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would not result in indirect temporary noise and dust
impacts during construction activities on potential nonbreeding riparian habitat for least Bells
vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow warbler, and yellowbreasted chat because the construction activities would be more than 850 ft from that potential
non-breeding riparian habitat. As such, the riparian habitats are a sufficient distance from the
construction activities that they wouldnt experience indirect effects greater than what currently
exists as a result of the proximity of SR 134 and I-710.
Plant Species. Impacts to threatened, endangered, and special-status plant species are
discussed in Sections 3.18, Plant Species, and Section 3.20, Threatened and Endangered Species.
As discussed in these sections, the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would not result in direct
impacts to threatened, endangered, and special-status plant species.
The LRT Alternative has the potential to result in indirect impacts to Coulters goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) from construction noise, dust, lighting, litter, and vibration, as
well as personnel and vehicle activities outside designated areas. Measure PS-1 requires that
disturbance of this population be avoided to the greatest extent possible during final design.
Prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities near the population, the Resident
Engineer will require the construction contractor to plan a highly visible barrier such as
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing or other marker near or around any part of the
population that will not be directly impacted to avoid effects on that part of the population. No
access or work will be authorized within the ESA. With implementation of Measure PS-1,
impacts to Coulters goldfields under the LRT Alternative would be less than significant under
CEQA.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative has the potential to have a permanent impact on a population
of Coulters goldfields. Measure PS-2 requires this population to be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. However, should the removal of this population of Coulters goldfields be
necessary, coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would take
place to ensure appropriate mitigation actions are taken. With implementation of Measure PS-2,
impacts to Coulters goldfields would be less than significant.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative has the potential to have a permanent impact on one Southern
California black walnut (Juglans californica) individual through disturbance of the tree. Measure
PS-3 requires that this tree be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. However, should the
removal of this Southern California black walnut individual be necessary, coordination with
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-10
DRAFT

CDFW would take place to ensure appropriate mitigation actions are required and to ensure
that such actions are carried out. With implementation of Measure PS-3, impacts to Southern
California black walnut would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
IV(b). Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities. As discussed in Section 3.16, Natural
Communities, there are no sensitive natural communities within the construction impact zone of the
TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives. Therefore, the TSM/TDM, LRT, and BRT Alternatives would
not result in direct temporary or permanent impacts to natural plant communities or riparian
habitat. The LRT Alternative would potentially result in temporary indirect impacts on riparian
habitat that could include construction noise dust, lighting, litter and vibration. Measures NC-1
through NC-3 require the establishment and monitoring of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to
exclude construction activities and staging from the riparian and riverine habitat areas. As described
in Measures NC-1 through NC-3, the ESA would be fenced off from grading and construction areas,
and non-sensitive upland habitat would be used to store and maintain equipment. These measures
limit the indirect effects of construction activities on riparian habitat. With implementation of these
measures, the potential indirect impacts of the LRT Alternative on riparian and riverine habitats
would be reduced to a less than significant level under CEQA.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations would result in
temporary and permanent impacts to riparian and/or riverine habitats as a result of the disturbance
and/or removal of existing wetland vegetation. Measures NC-1 through NC-3 require establishment
and monitoring of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to exclude construction activities and
staging from the riparian and riverine areas. In addition, Measures WET-1 through WET-3 requires
compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters and habitats. With implementation of Measures
NC-1 through NC-3 and WET-1 through WET-3, impacts of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative to
riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less than significant level.
IV(c). Wetlands. As discussed in Section 3.17, Wetlands and Other Waters, there are no wetlands or
other jurisdictional waters within the construction impact zone of the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT
Alternatives. Therefore, the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives would not result in direct
temporary or permanent impacts to CDFW, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction. No mitigation is required.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations would result in
temporary and permanent impacts to CDFW, USACE, or RWQCB nonwetland waters. Measure
WET-1 requires a Dredge and Fill Permit to be obtained from the USACE and compensatory
mitigation for impacts to USACE jurisdiction. Measures WET-2 and WET-3 require a Streambed
Alteration Agreement and Section 401 Water Quality Certification to be obtained from the CDFW
and RWQCB. With implementation of Measures WET-1 through WET-3, impacts of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative to nonwetland and other waters would be reduced to a less than significant level.
IV(d). Migratory Corridors. As discussed in Sections 3.16 (Natural Communities), 3.19 (Animal
Species), and 3.20 (Threatened and Endangered Species), there are no known migratory fish,
migration corridors, or wildlife linkages within the BSA. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
result in impacts related to migratory corridors. No mitigation is required.
IV(e). Tree Ordinances. As discussed in the NES (2014) prepared for the project, in accordance with
the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance, any project work that occurs in unincorporated Los
Angeles County outside of Caltrans ROW within 5 ft of the dripline of a protected oak tree whose
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-11
DRAFT

diameter is at least 8 inches at 4.5 ft above natural grade or a multitrunk oak tree with a combined
diameter of 12 inches, or within 15 ft from the trunk of the oak, whichever distance is greater,
constitutes an impact to the oak tree. Additional trees outside of Caltrans ROW and within the
Biological Study Area (BSA) that are not covered under the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance
are protected under individual city ordinances.
The TSM/TDM Alternative would not impact any tress protected by the County or city ordinances.
The BRT Alternative would potentially result in the removal of approximately 136 trees protected by
local tree ordinances. The LRT Alternative would result in temporary impacts to approximately
8 trees and result in the permanent removal of approximately 21 trees protected by various local
tree ordinances. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative single-bore and dual-bore design variations would
result in temporary impacts to approximately 36 trees that are protected by the Citys trees and tree
protection ordinance. The single-bore and dual-bore design variations would each result in the
removal of approximately 84 trees protected by local tree ordinances. Measure PS-4, which is
discussed in Section 4.4, requires ESA fencing to be placed around protected oak trees, as feasible. If
this is not feasible, an Oak Tree Permit will be obtained from the Los Angeles County Forester and
Fire Warden. The project would comply with any compensatory mitigation required by the agency
with jurisdiction over the impacted tree. With implementation of Measure PS-4, impacts related to
tree protection ordinances for the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
IV(f). Habitat Conservation Plans. The study area is within areas that are largely developed and is
not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP),
or any other approved local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
conflict with any biological resource habitat plans. No mitigation is required.
4.2.5 Cultural Resources
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
and Project
Conditions
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
and Project
Conditions
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Potentially
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
and Project
Conditions
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact
Discussion: Cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) were identified in the Historic
Property Survey Report (HPSR) (2014), which includes the Historical Resources Evaluation Report
(HRER) (2014), and the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (2014). The potential effects of the Build
Alternatives on National Register of Historic Places (National Register) listed and eligible historic
properties and conditions to address those effects are documented in the preliminary Finding of No
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-12
DRAFT

Adverse Effect for the State Route 710 North Study (2015). The potential for the SR 710 North Study
Build Alternatives to affect historical resources is summarized in this section.
Paleontological resources were identified and potential effects of the Build Alternatives evaluated in
the Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (2014).
The results of these reports are presented in Sections 3.7, Cultural Resources, and 3.11,
Paleontology, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where
applicable.
V(a). Historical Resources. The HPSR identified 82 cultural properties in the Area of Potential Effects
(APE) that were determined to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA because they meet
the California Register of Historical Resources criteria and/or are locally designated under a local
government ordinance or were identified as significant in a survey that meets the Office of Historic
Preservation standards. This includes National Register and California Register listed and eligible
properties, California Register listed or eligible resources per State Historical Resources Commission
determination resources, resources identified as significant in surveys that meet Office of Historic
Preservation standards, resources that are designated landmarks under local ordinances. Those
resources are listed in Table 4.1. That table also shows the California Historic Resources Status Code
of each of those historical properties and the Build Alternatives in the APE in the vicinity of each
property. Table 4.1 also summarizes the potential effects of the Build Alternative on those resources
and whether those effects would be significant under CEQA.
The HPSR also identified and evaluated 710 properties that were determined not to be historical
resources for the purposes of CEQA. Because these resources do not meet the California Register of
Historical Resources criteria and/or are locally designated under a local government ordinance or
were identified as significant in a survey that meets the Office of Historic Preservation standards,
they are not considered significant under CEQA. No further analysis of these properties is required.
As described in Table 4.1, potential impacts to these resources would be less than significant or
reduced to below a level of significant with application of the Project Conditions, identified in
Section 3.7. Additionally, potential impacts to unknown historical resources encountered during
construction would be avoided and/or minimized through compliance with CR-1, CR-4 and CR-5 and
are considered less than significant.
V(b). Archaeological Resources. As discussed in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources, no archaeological
resources are documented in the APE. However, based on ethnographic accounts and archival
research, there is potential for archaeological resources to be present in native soils at two sites (the
Otsungna and Horatio Rust prehistoric village sites) in the APE. These two archaeological sites have
been determined eligible for the National Register for this project only. As they have been
determined eligible for the National Register they are also considered eligible for the California
Register, for the purposes of this project only. Improvements proposed under the LRT and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives may occur within the boundaries of the Otsungna and Horatio Rust sites.
Although it is not likely that the proposed improvements would result in physical destruction or
damage to these resources, the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining features that
qualify these properties for inclusion in the National Register. With implementation of Measure
CR-4, Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan, potential effects to these two sites would be
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-13
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Historical Resources for the Purposes of CEQA
Name, Address, and Local
Jurisdiction/Community
OHP
Code1
100 N. Fremont Ave.

Alhambra
2S2
3927 -3947 Lowell Ave.

Los Angeles
2S2
4777 E. Cesar Chavez (aka

411 Mednik)
Los Angeles
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
2S2
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
LRT Alternative: The LRT Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation of land from or TCEs at this
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative would be in a tunnel approximately 60 feet deep and 15 ft
west of this resource boundary and may diminish the integrity of materials and workmanship but would not
modify the integrity of location or the essential physical features or characteristics of the resource. The changes in
the vicinity of the building at 100 North Fremont Avenue as a result of the LRT Alternative improvements would
not affect the occupation and intended uses of the resource. The vibration-related effects to the building as a
result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the
Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation of
land from or TCEs at this resource. . The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the
characteristics of this property that qualify it as a historical resource under CEQA for the following reasons:
The duration of activity underneath this resource would be approximately 1 or 2 days and would occur at a
depth of approximately 140 ft below the surface. At this depth, the tunnel boring-related activity under this
resource would be virtually undetectable at the surface.
The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not include any associated construction-related activity at the ground
surface in the vicinity of this historical resource.
The tunnel excavation will be conducted using pressurized-face tunnel boring machines (TBMs) designed for
boring in densely urbanized areas to lessen ground movements. During TBM excavation, machine
performance and ground movement would be monitored in real time to ensure that specified, acceptable
ground control is being achieved prior to passing below any historical resources.
As a result, a finding of no detectable risk of impact (i.e. damage) to this historical resource would occur as a result
of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to the historical resource as a result of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing
elements of the resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are
considered less than significant.
resource. The alignment of the LRT Alternative would be on an elevated track along Mednik Avenue and east of
the historical resource. The project features in this area would affect views of the historical resource, but would
not demolish or materially alter the resource in an adverse manner. The changes in views from and to 4777 E.
Cesar Chavez would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. The vibration-related effects to
the building as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the
4-14
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
St. Alphonsus Church

532 S. Atlantic Blvd.
Los Angeles
2S2
Short Line Villa Tract

Historic District
Roughly bounded by
Kendall Ave., Huntington
Dr., Alpha St., Newtonia
Dr., and Maycrest Ave.
Los Angeles (El Sereno
neighborhood)
2S
Golden Gate Theater

909 S. Atlantic Blvd. (aka
51705188 E. Whittier
Blvd.)
Los Angeles County
(unincorporated)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
1S
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the LRT
Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation of land from or TCEs at this
resource. The project features in this area would be minor and would not detract from the essential physical
features or characteristics of St. Alphonsus Church. The changes in views from and to St. Alphonsus Church would
not affect the occupation and intended uses of the resource. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential
impacts are considered less than significant.
land from or TCEs at this resource. The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the
The depth of activity underneath the district would be approximately 140 ft to 150 ft below the surface. At
this depth, the tunnel boring-related activity under the districts contributing elements would be virtually
undetectable at the surface.
surface in the vicinity of the districts contributing elements.
ground control is being achieved prior to passing below any of the districts contributing elements.
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in permanent incorporation of land from or TCEs at this
features or characteristics of the Golden Gate Theater. The changes in views from and to the Golden Gate Theater
would not affect the occupation and intended uses of the resource. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not
Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
4-15
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Jardin Del Encanto and

2S2/1CS
Cascades Park
Generally, El Portal Place
with its associated median
and sidewalks from
Kingsford Street at the
northwest end to El
Mercado Avenue at the
southeast end.
Monterey Park
Dr. Kawamoto Office

823 S. Atlantic Blvd.
Monterey Park
2S2
Reverend Hiram Hill/

Alonzo Beal House
866 S. Pasadena Ave.
Pasadena
2S2/1D
Potential Impacts
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would require the temporary occupancy of approximately 0.02 ac of land in
two small areas for TCEs and the permanent incorporation of approximately 0.011 ac of land in two small areas at
this historical resource. At the completion of construction of the BRT Alternative in this area, the land temporarily
occupied by the TCEs would be returned to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the
project. The areas in Jardin Del Encanto and Cascades Park proposed for permanent incorporation into the BRT
Alternative currently consist of sidewalks with grass/turf on each side of the sidewalks. The sidewalks would be
replaced as part of the BRT Alternative, and the grass/turf disturbed during construction but not in the areas
included in the permanent right of way for the BRT Alternative would be replaced. The effects of the features of
the BRT Alternative on the Jardin Del Encanto and Cascades Park would be mitigated to a less than significant level
with the incorporation of Measures BRT-1 and BRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the BRT
features or characteristics of 823 South Atlantic Boulevard. The changes in views from and to 823 South Atlantic
Boulevard would not affect the occupation and intended uses of the resource. In summary, the BRT Alternative
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-16
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Hurlbut Street Fire Station 2S2/1D

No. 5
Pasadena
J. Durand Kennett House

Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
2B/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation
of land from or TCEs at this resource. The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the
4-17
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
F.J. Kennet House

Pasadena
Mrs. D. Hagan House

Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
2B/1D
2B/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
4-18
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
James and Fanny Hale

House
Pasadena
W.W. Phelps House

Pasadena
2B/1D
2B/1D
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-19
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
A.G. Simons/John
McWilliams Jr. House
Pasadena
2B/1D
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-20
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Mary Werner House

Pasadena
2S2/1D
Ralph B. Hubbard
Residence
Pasadena
2S2
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-21
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
R. Sturgis Cook House

180 W. State St. (aka 1170
S. Pasadena Ave.)
Pasadena
206216 W. California
Blvd.
Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
2B/1D
2B/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
4-22
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts

224 W. State St.
Pasadena
225 W. California Blvd.

Pasadena
2B/1D
5S2
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in the permanent use of land from
or TCEs at this resource. The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the characteristics
of this property that qualify it as a historical resource under CEQA for the following reasons:
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-23
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:

232 W. State St.
Pasadena
OHP
Code1
2S2/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-24
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Norton Simon Museum

411 W. Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena
2S2
Herkimer Arms Apartment

House (part of Herkimer
Gardens)
411412 N. Raymond Ave.
Pasadena
2S2
Hospital Veterinary
959 S. Raymond Ave.
Pasadena
2S2
Bekins Storage Co. Roof

Sign
511 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena
1S
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Potential Impacts
land from or TCEs at this resource. As currently proposed, there would be no tunnel-related excavation or
associated construction activity occurring within 0.2 mile of this historical resource. Any changes in this historical
resource as a result of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and
intended uses of this resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse
land from or TCEs at this resource. As currently proposed, there would be no tunnel-related excavation or
associated construction activity occurring within 0.4 mile of this historical resource. Any changes in this historical
intended uses of this resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative would be in a tunnel approximately 60 feet under this
resource and may diminish the integrity of materials and workmanship but would not modify the integrity of
location or the essential physical features or characteristics of the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the
Hospital Veterinary building as a result of the LRT Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and
intended uses of the resource. The vibration-related effects to the Hospital Veterinary as a result of the project
features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1
and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are
considered less than significant after mitigation.
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation of land from or TCEs at
this resource. This historic resource is approximately 60 ft above the grade of the street. The BRT Alternative
improvements in this area would not detract from the essential physical features or characteristics of the Bekins
Storage Company Roof Sign and would not change views to or from that sign. In summary, the BRT Alternative
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
4-25
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Sequoyah School/
Neighborhood Church;
(3 buildings: Childrens
Chapel, Nursery School,
and Religious Education
Building)
OHP
Code1
2S2
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent incorporation of land from or
TCEs at this resource. The project features in this area would be minor and would not detract from the essential
physical features or characteristics of the Historic District. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential

Pasadena
Raymond Florist Historic

District
6062 E. California Blvd./
597 S. Raymond Ave.
Pasadena
Potential Impacts
2S2
LRT Alternative: The LRT Alternative would not result in permanent incorporation of land from or TCEs at this
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative in the vicinity of this Historic District may diminish the integrity
of materials and workmanship but would not modify the integrity of location or the essential physical features or
characteristics of the Historic District. The changes in the Historic District resulting from the LRT Alternative
improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of the resource. The vibration-related effects to
the Raymond Florist Historic District as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant
level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In
summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
4-26
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Driscoll House
Pasadena
2B/1D
Caroline Walkley/Alice &

Robert Wood House
696 S. St. John Ave.
Pasadena
2B/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-27
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Miss Markham House

Pasadena
Page House
Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
2B/1D
2B/1D
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
4-28
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
Tomkins House
Pasadena

Pasadena
2B/1D
2B/1D
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-29
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Glenarm Building and

Electric Fountain
72 E. Glenarm St.
Pasadena
PERC Substation No. 2

1125 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
2S2
5S1
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in the permanent acquisition of land from or TCEs at the
historical resource at 72 E. Glenarm Street. The improvements in the LRT Alternative under this resource may
diminish the integrity of materials and workmanship but would not modify the integrity of location or the
essential physical features or characteristics of the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the Glenarm Building
and Electric Fountain as a result of the BRT Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and
intended uses of the resource. The effects to the Glenarm Building and Electric Fountain as a result of the project
features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions BRT-3
and BRT-5 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative under this resource would not diminish the integrity of
materials and workmanship or modify integrity of location or the essential physical features or characteristics of
the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the Glenarm Building and Electric Fountain as a result of the LRT
Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. In summary, the
LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would require the permanent incorporation of land from and
TCEs for a proposed right-of-way along part of this resource. The project features in this area would not detract
from the essential physical features or characteristics of PERC Substation No. 2 and would not demolish or
materially alter the resource. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
4-30
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Caroline Walkley House

and small apartment
190 W. California Blvd.
Pasadena
2B/1D
Broadway Steam Plant

72 E. Glenarm St. (SE
Corner of Glenarm St. and
I-110)
5S3
Old Pasadena Historic

District
Roughly bounded by S.
Pasadena, S. Fair Oaks and
S. Raymond Aves., Arroyo
Pkwy., E and W. Del Mar
Blvd., and Corson St.
Pasadena
1S
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would require the permanent incorporation of land from and
TCEs to accommodate a reconfigured southbound State off-ramp and a new southbound State Street on ramp.
The amount of land necessary for this improvement would be approximately 9,100 square feet (sf) from the
southeastern part of APN 5317030092, which is contains the Broadway Steam Plant. The land proposed for
acquisition does not contain any buildings, structures, or objects. Therefore the proposed project would not
detract from the essential physical features or characteristics of the Broadway Steam Plant and would not
demolish or materially alter the resource. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative under this resource may diminish the integrity of materials
and workmanship but would not modify the integrity of location or the essential physical features or
characteristics of the Historic District. The changes in views from and to this Historic District would not affect the
occupation and intended uses of any of its contributing elements. The vibration-related effects to the Old
Pasadena Historic District as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with
the incorporation of the Project Conditions BRT-3 and BRT-4 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the
BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource as
4-31
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
Raymond-Summit Historic
District
Roughly bounded by N.
Raymond Ave., E. Villa St.,
Summit Ave., and E.
Maple St.
Pasadena
1S
Markham Place Historic

District
Roughly bounded by W.
California Blvd., S.
Pasadena Ave.,
Bellefontaine St., and S.
Orange Grove Blvd.
Pasadena
1S
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
land from or TCEs at this resource. As currently proposed, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not impact any
of the Districts contributing elements. Excavation, construction, and related activities would occur outside of or
adjacent to the districts eastern boundary along South Pasadena Avenue. Any changes in this historical resource
as a result of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of
this resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than
significant.
land from or TCEs at this resource. There would be no tunneling within 0.4 mile of the District. Therefore, the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not impact any of the districts contributing elements. Excavation, construction,
and related activities would occur outside of the district boundary. Any changes in this historical resource as a
result of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of this
resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significant.
TCEs at this resource. The project features in this area would be minor and would not detract from the essential
physical features or characteristics of the Historic District. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in the permanent use of land from
or TCEs at this resource. The improvements in the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not affect the characteristics
of this property that qualify it as a historical resource under CEQA for the following reasons:
these depths, the tunnel boring-related activity under the districts contributing elements would be virtually
4-32
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
Ambassador West Cultural 2S2

Landscape Historic District
Generally bounded by W.
Green St., S. St. John Ave.,
W. Del Mar Blvd., and S.
Orange Grove Blvd.
Pasadena
Ambassador Auditorium, 2S2/2D
131 S. St. John Ave
Pasadena
Hall of Administration,
300 W Green St
Pasadena
2S2/2D
Ambassador College
Dining Hall, 169 S St. John
Ave.
Pasadena
2S2/2D
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to this historical resource as a result of the Freeway
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: The Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not result in permanent use of land from or
TCEs at this resource. The indirect changes to noise levels and visual effects as a result of increased traffic along
the eastern boundary of this Historic District would not detract from the essential physical features or
characteristics of the District, and would not prevent the continued occupation and intended use of the
contributing elements of this Historic District. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a
the eastern boundary of this historical resource would not detract from the essential physical features or
characteristics of the resource, and would not prevent the continued occupation and intended use of this
historical resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less
than significant.
than significant.
than significant.
4-33
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
270 South Orange Grove

Boulevard
Pasadena
See
Note A
Pasadena Avenue Historic

District
Roughly bounded by S.
Pasadena Ave., Arlington
Dr., Avoca Ave.,
Brookmere Rd., Columbia
St., West Glenarm St.,
Hurlbut St., Madeline Dr.,
W. State St., and Wigmore
Dr.
Pasadena/South Pasadena
1S
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent use of land from or TCEs at this
resource. The indirect changes to noise levels and visual effects as a result of increased traffic along the eastern
boundary of this historical resource would not detract from the essential physical features or characteristics of the
resource, and would not prevent the continued occupation and intended use of this historical resource. In
summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
than significant.
these depths, the tunnel boring-related activity under the districts contributing elements would be virtually
of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to this historical resource as a result of the Freeway
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-34
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
San Marino City Hall and

Fire Station
2200 Huntington Dr.
San Marino
2S2
1010 Hope St.

South Pasadena
5B
Rialto Theatre
1019 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
1S
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
TCEs at this resource. The project features in this area would not detract from the essential physical features or
characteristics of the San Marino City Hall and Fire Station. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not
characteristics of the Rialto Theatre. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse
characteristics of the Rialto Theatre. The changes in views from and to the Rialto Theatre would not affect the
occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing elements of the resource. The vibration-related effects to
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-35
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
the Rialto Theatre as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the
incorporation of the Project Conditions BRT-3 and BRT-4 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the BRT
1037 Grevelia St. (1039 is

also on this resource)
South Pasadena
5S1
characteristics of the resource. The changes in the Rialto Theatre building as a result of the LRT Alternative
improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. The vibration-related effects
to the Rialto Theatre as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the
incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the LRT
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-36
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Blanche Home
1030 Buena Vista St.
South Pasadena
318 Fairview Avenue

South Pasadena
OHP
Code1
2S2
See
Note A
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-37
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
Augusta Raab Home

South Pasadena
David M. Raab Family

Homestead
South Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
2S2
6Y/5S1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
4-38
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts

South Pasadena
Planners Building
(aka Fair Oaks
Professional Group)
1414 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
6Y/3CS
2S2/5S1
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in permanent use of land from or TCEs at this resource. The
project features in this area would be minor and would not detract from the essential physical features or
characteristics of the Community Facilities Planners Building. The changes in views from and to the Community
Facility Planners Building would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing elements
of the resource. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-39
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
South Pasadena Middle

School
1500 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
Fair Hope Building

800 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
2S2/5S1
2S2
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
characteristics of the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the Community Facilities Planners Building as a result
of the LRT Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. The
vibration-related effects to the Community Facilities Planners Building as a result of the project features would be
mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in
Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in
than significant after mitigation.
BRT Alternative: The BRT Alternative would not result in permanent incorporation of land from TCEs at this
features or characteristics of South Pasadena Middle School. The changes in views from and to the South
Pasadena Middle School campus would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing
elements of the resource. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significant.
the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the South Pasadena Middle School as a result of the LRT Alternative
improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. In summary, the LRT
in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
characteristics of the Fair Hope Building. In summary, the TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial
characteristics of the Fair Hope Building. The changes in views from and to the Fair Hope Building would not affect
the occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing elements of the resource. The vibration-related
effects to the Fair Hope Building as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant
level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions BRT-3 and BRT-4 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-40
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
Otake-Nambu House
857 Bank St.
South Pasadena
2S2/5S1
characteristics of the resource. The changes in the vicinity of the Fair Hope Building as a result of the LRT
Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. The vibrationrelated effects to the Fair Hope Building as a result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than
significant level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions LRT-1 and LRT-2 in Section 3.7, Cultural
Resources. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
this historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after
mitigation.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-41
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
East Wyngate
909 Lyndon St.
South Pasadena
1038 Magnolia St.

South Pasadena
OHP
Code1
2S2
5B
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-42
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
J.G. Pierce House

911 Monterey Rd.
South Pasadena
Kenneth M. Joy House

921 Monterey Rd.
South Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
OHP
Code1
2S2
2S2
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
4-43
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
920 Lyndon Street

South Pasadena
Arroyo Seco Parkway

Historic District
Consists primarily of the
Arroyo Seco Parkway (aka
Pasadena Fwy and SR 110)
South Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
3S
1S
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent easements or TCEs at this
resource. The project features in this area would not substantively modify the workmanship, materials, integrity
of location or the essential physical features or characteristics of the Historic District. The proposed improvements
would be within the existing ROW where numerous previous modifications and improvements have occurred
since the 6.2-mi segment of roadway was built in 1938-1940. The Districts National Register significance is
conveyed through its character defining features associated with its design, development, park-like setting, and
engineering qualities.
4-44
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
The existing SB State Street off-ramp was not part of the original 1938-1940 design of this segment of the District.
Modern and historical aerial photographs indicate that the Fair Oaks Avenue Overcrossing was originally designed
and built to accommodate a SB off-ramp. This original off-ramp was decommissioned and closed to the public
between 1948 and 1953 and the existing southbound off-ramp for traffic to access Fair Oaks Avenue via Sate
Street was built and the landscaping and signage altered to accommodate this new element. Although this
alteration occurred within the Districts period of significance (1938-1953), it does not reflect the original design
and configuration of the roadway in this location. Therefore, the proposed change in this area would not
significantly impact the District as a whole because the proposed change would be in an area previously modified
by reconfiguring a non-contributing element to the District.
The new SB State Street on-ramp would alter the landscape at this location. Given the natural impermanent
condition of plants, some degree of landscape restoration has occurred within the District since its construction in
1938-1940. Nonetheless, following construction, a professional landscape architect and biologist would prepare a
vegetation plan using historical information and vegetation patterns in other areas of the District to restore this
character-defining element of the District at this location. Wall surfaces would also feature hanging or clinging
vegetation to screen new construction from views within the District and bolster the Districts historical parkwaylike setting.
As noted in the National Register nomination documentation for Route 66 in California, the following is applicable
to the District as it carried Route 66 for 36 years; Integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are also needed
but are less important to establishing the relationship with U.S. Highway 66. Slight realignment from the original
alignment is not enough to make an otherwise eligible road segment not eligible. Realignment that was
completed during the period of significance can be eligible as it tells a story of the evolution of the route. A road
segment and/or road-related structures retain integrity of setting and feeling if a sense of the automobile travel
experience on U.S. Highway 66 during the period of significance can be understood. The proposed improvements
would not affect the Districts integrity of location. Integrity of feeling and would be diminished by changes to the
setting. However, as alluded to in the above quote, the proposed activity would occur in one area of the District
and would not introduce a collective visual intrusion so jarring and discordant with the Districts historical design
that an adverse effect would result such that this segment of the District/Route 66 would no longer be able to
convey its significance and the experience of automobile travel through the District during the period of
significance would no longer be understood. A typical motorist traveling at highway speeds through the District
would likely notice the proposed improvements. However the entire phenomenon is experienced for a short
duration, lasting no longer than a couple of minutes, rather than a visual intrusion so large, obstructive, or
aesthetically discordant that it would remain in the motorists field of vision for a considerable distance. Given
that the proposed improvements are near the Districts boundary and would be partially screened with clinging or
overhanging vegetation, the proposed improvements would not adversely affect the Districts integrity of feeling,
association, setting, or design.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-45
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
The scale and proportion of the proposed improvements would be similar to historical patterns in this area of the
District. This area already has several visual elements that were added since the roadway was built in 1938-1940.
These include modern traffic signals, signage, roadway barriers, railings, light standards, and ongoing landscaping
improvements to a varying degree. Aerial photographs of the area from the 1950s through the 1970s indicate
several transformations in automobile and pedestrian circulation patterns, including (1) the removal of the Pacific
Electric Railway streetcar system infrastructure located in the Fair Oaks Avenue median; (2) removal of the former
SB off ramp at Fair Oaks Avenue; (3) construction of the current SB off ramp at State Street; and (4) construction
of concrete medians and traffic island installed to direct traffic flows. The proposed turning radius and hook ramp
configuration of the new on-ramp would mimic the aesthetic character of the District. Therefore, the proposed
improvements would not introduce a discordant type of visual obstruction out of scale and proportion of previous
visual obstructions present historically. The potential direct impacts therefore, would not occur. The proposed
improvements that would be constructed by this alternative do not significantly alter the character-defining
features of this historical resource.
According to a 2014 traffic analysis, the proposed improvements at this location would increase road noise along
this stretch of roadway. The closest intersections that were analyzed were Fair Oaks Avenue/SR 110 NB off-ramp
and Fair Oaks Avenue/SR 110 SB on-ramp for anticipated comparative changes in traffic delay times and LOS
between the TSM/TDM and No Build alternatives. The report concluded that visual and associated audible effects
from increased traffic delay times would result under this Alternative; however the Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic
District is not a historic property whose significance derives from being located in a quiet, rural setting. The
increase in traffic volume and associated noise would not introduce a new or discordant type of auditory influence
that was not otherwise present historically.
The proposed improvements at this location will occur entirely within the existing Right of Way (ROW). The
undertaking will have no effect on the historic propertys setting, location, feeling, and association, which are the
most important aspects of integrity. The proposed alterations would alter the Districts integrity of materials,
design, and workmanship, which are the most important aspects of integrity. However the scope, scale, and
nature of the proposed alterations would be limited to one location within the District. Therefore the proposed
improvements would not result in an adverse effect to the Districts character-defining features. In summary, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
resource. Improvements proposed under the LRT Alternative would occur at this one location within the Districts
boundary, underneath the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing. Therefore, the LRT Alternative would have a direct
effect on the historic property. The tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face TBMs that would inherently
lessen ground movement and if necessary additional conditions can be employed to lessen or eliminate ground
movement effects. The use of pressurized-face TBMs typically generates less than 0.12 in/sec PPV of motion when
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-46
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
measured from 25 ft away. A 2001 tunnel excavation in Dublin, Ireland resulted in a maximum TBM-generated
PPV of 0.059 in/sec PPV. Given that noticeable damage to historic properties occurs with 0.08-0.12 in/sec PPV at a
distance of 25 ft, the closest point of excavation activity would be at a point approximately 55 ft underneath the
roadway, it is anticipated that this vibration would be even less and fall below levels to warrant special concern
for the arroyo Seco Parkway roadbed and Fair Oaks Avenue Overcrossings structural condition. The proposed
activity would be contained within a volume 60 ft wide by approximately 230 ft long by 20 ft deep, centered on
the Fair Oaks Avenue Overcrossing and underneath the Arroyo Seco Parkway/SR 110 roadbed, with no
corresponding surface construction activity, this proposed project, would not introduce any visual obstructions.
The proposed undertaking would not alter the setting in a way that affects the Districts historic significance. The
proposed improvements that would be constructed by this alternative do not significantly alter the characterdefining features of this historical resource.
According to a 2014 traffic analysis, the proposed LRT Alternative improvements at this location would increase
road noise along this stretch of roadway The closest intersections that were analyzed were Fair Oaks Avenue/SR
110 NB off-ramp and Fair Oaks Avenue/SR 110 SB on-ramp for anticipated comparative changes in traffic delay
times and LOS between the LRT and No Build alternatives. The report concluded that visual and associated audible
effects from increased traffic delay times would result under this Alternative; however the Arroyo Seco Parkway
Historic District is not a historical resource whose significance derives from being located in a quiet, rural setting.
The increase in traffic volume and associated noise would not introduce a new or discordant type of auditory
influence that was not otherwise present historically.
According to a groundborne noise and vibration impacts technical report prepared in 2014, groundborne noise
and vibration effects were not analyzed within the District. Given the District is an active roadway with associated
road noise and vibration, groundborne noise and vibration would not affect sensitive groups. It is anticipated that
associated operational ground borne noise levels would fall within FTA criteria for operational groundborne noise
and vibration range near this location. This would not exceed FTA criteria for operational groundborne noise and
vibration. Therefore, under the LRT Alternative, no adverse effects from operational groundborne noise and
vibration are anticipated in this area of the District.
The proposed improvements at this location will occur entirely within the existing Right of Way (ROW). The
undertaking will have no effect on this historical resources setting, location, feeling, and association, which are
the most important aspects of integrity under Criterion 1. The proposed alterations would alter the Districts
integrity of materials, design, and workmanship, which are the most important aspects of integrity under Criterion
3. However the scope, scale, and nature of the proposed alterations would be limited to one location within the
District. Therefore the proposed improvements would not result in an adverse effect to the Districts characterdefining features. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significant.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-47
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
Route 66
Segments of Colorado
Blvd., Fair Oaks Ave., SR
110, and Huntington Dr.
Pasadena/South Pasadena
2S2
The depth of activity underneath the district would be approximately 130 ft below the surface. At this depth,
the tunnel boring-related activity under the districts contributing elements would be virtually undetectable
at the surface.
TSM/TDM Alternative: The TSM/TDM Alternative would not result in permanent easements or TCEs at this
resource. The project features in this area would not substantively modify the workmanship, materials, integrity
of location or the essential physical features or characteristics of these segments of Route 66. In summary, the
TSM/TDM Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
features or characteristics of these segments of Route 66. The changes in views from and to these segments of
Route 66 would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the contributing elements of the resource.
In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
materials and workmanship and would not modify the integrity of location or the essential physical features or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-48
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
characteristics of the resource. The changes in these segments of Route 66 as a result of the LRT Alternative
improvements would not affect the long-term occupation and intended uses of the resource. In summary, the LRT
El Cerrito Circle Historic

2S2/3CS
District
Eight properties on both
sides of El Cerrito Circle
and two properties on the
west side of Diamond
Avenue
South Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
The depth of activity underneath the district would occur at three places: EB Huntington Drive at an
approximate depth of 130 ft below the roadbed; WB Huntington Drive at an approximate depth of 270 ft
below the roadbed; and the Arroyo Seco Parkway historic District (SR 110) at a depth of approximately 260
below the roadbed. At these depths, the tunnel boring-related activity under each segment of former Route
66 would be virtually undetectable at the surface.
surface in the vicinity of each segment of former Route 66.
ground control is being achieved prior to passing below each segment of former Route 66.
As a result, a finding of no detectable risk of impact (i.e. damage) to these three discontiguous segments of former
Route 66 would occur as a result of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to the historical
intended uses of each segment of former Route 66. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause
at the surface.
4-49
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
North of Mission Historic

District
Roughly bounded by
Meridian Ave. north of
Mission St. and south of
Grevelia St.
South Pasadena
Oaklawn Historic District

Generally bordered by
SR 110, Columbia St.,
Fremont Ave., and Fair
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
2S2
2S2
at the surface.
characteristics of the Oaklawn Historic District. The changes in views from and to resources within the District
4-50
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
would not affect their occupation and intended uses of these or any other contributing elements of the Historic
District. The vibration-related effects to the Oaklawn Historic District as a result of the project features would be
mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the Project Conditions BRT-3 and BRT-4 in
Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in
than significant after mitigation.
1S/2D2
2S2
Oaklawn Waiting Station,
435 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
War Memorial Building

435 Fair Oaks Ave.
South Pasadena
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Potential Impacts
1S/2D2
2S2
resource. The improvements in the LRT Alternative underground near this resource would not diminish the
integrity of materials and workmanship and would not modify the integrity of location or the essential physical
features or characteristics of the Oaklawn Historic District. The changes to these resources as a result of the LRT
Alternative improvements would not affect the long-term occupation and intended uses of either of these
resources. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
these historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
resource. The improvements in the BRT Alternative under this resource may diminish the integrity of materials
characteristics of the Oaklawn Waiting Station that contribute to the Oaklawn Historic District. The changes in
views from and to this resource would not affect their occupation and intended uses of these or any other
contributing elements of the Historic District. The vibration-related effects to the Oaklawn Waiting Station as a
result of the project features would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the
Project Conditions BRT-3 and BRT-4 in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not
features or characteristics of the Oaklawn Waiting Station that contribute to the Oaklawn Historic District. The
changes to these resources as a result of the LRT Alternative improvements would not affect the long-term
occupation and intended uses of this resource. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial
features or characteristics of the War Memorial Building that contribute to the Oaklawn Historic District. The
changes in views from and to the War Memorial Building would not affect the occupation and intended uses of
4-51
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
any of the contributing elements of the Historic District. In summary, the BRT Alternative would not cause a
South Pasadena Historic

Business District
Roughly bounded by
Mission and Oxley Sts.,
Diamond Ave., Fairview
and Meridian Aves., El
Centro St., and the
railroad tracks
South Pasadena
South of Mission Historic

District
Roughly bounded by
Meridian Ave. and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
1S
2S2
features or characteristics of the War Memorial Building that contribute to the Oaklawn Historic District. The
changes to these resources as a result of the LRT Alternative improvements would not affect the long-term
occupation and intended uses of this resource. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not cause a substantial
at the surface.
4-52
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Glendon Way between

Throop Alley and
Monterey Rd.
South Pasadena
Mission West Historic

District
Roughly bounded by
Mission and Oxley Sts.,
Diamond Ave., Fairview &
Meridian Aves., El Centro
St. and the railroad tracks
South Pasadena
Potential Impacts
at the surface.
5S1
at the surface.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-53
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Raymond Hill Waiting

Station
Southeast corner of Fair
Oaks Ave. and Raymond
Hill Rd.
South Pasadena
2020 Fremont Avenue
South Pasadena
2S2
See
Note A
904 Monterey Road

South Pasadena
See
Note A
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
features or characteristics of the Raymond Hill Waiting Station. The changes in views from and to the Raymond
Hill Waiting Station would not affect the occupation and intended uses of this resource. In summary, the BRT
the resource. The changes in the vicinity of 2020 Fremont Avenue as a result of the LRT Alternative improvements
would not affect the occupation and intended uses of that resource. In summary, the LRT Alternative would not
at the surface.
As a result, a finding of no detectable risk of significant impact (i.e. damage) to this historical resource would occur
as a result of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to the historical resource as a result of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the
contributing elements of the resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-54
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Library Neighborhood
Historic District
Generally bounded by
Diamond Avenue, Oxley
Street, Fremont Avenue,
and Monterey Road
See
Note A
Otsungna Prehistoric
Village Site
See
Note A
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
at the surface.
As a result, a finding of no detectable risk of significant impact (i.e. damage) to this historical resource would occur
as a result of constructing the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The changes to the historical resource as a result of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would not affect the occupation and intended uses of any of the
contributing elements of the resource. In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not cause a substantial
LRT Alternative: Improvements proposed under the LRT Alternative may occur within the boundary of the
Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site. Although it is not likely that the proposed tunnel would result in physical
destruction or damage to this resource, the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining features that
qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. With implementation of Measure CR-4, Post-Review
Discovery and Monitoring Plan, potential effects to this site would be avoided and/or minimized and are
considered less than significant. The Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological
monitoring and data recovery for any work conducted within the construction areas of the LRT Alternative.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: Improvements proposed under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative may occur within the
boundary of the Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site. Although it is not likely that the proposed tunnel would result in
physical destruction or damage to this resource, the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining
features that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. With implementation of Measure CR-4,
Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan, potential effects to this site would be avoided and/or minimized and
are considered less than significant. The Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological
monitoring and data recovery for any work conducted within the construction areas of the Tunnel Freeway
Alternative. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-55
DRAFT

TABLE 4.1:
OHP
Code1
Horatio Rust Prehistoric

Village Site
See
Note A
TSM/
TDM
Build Alternative
Freeway
BRT
LRT
Tunnel
Potential Impacts
LRT Alternative: Improvements proposed under the LRT Alternative may occur within the boundary of the Horatio
Rust Prehistoric Village Site. Although it is not likely that the proposed tunnel would result in physical destruction
or damage to this resource, the potential exists to alter or damage character-defining features that qualify the
property for inclusion in the National Register. With implementation of Measure CR-4, Post-Review Discovery
and Monitoring Plan, potential effects to this site would be avoided and/or minimized and are considered less
than significant. The Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological monitoring and data
recovery for any work conducted within the construction areas of the LRT Alternative. Potential impacts are
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: Improvements proposed under the Freeway Tunnel Alternative may occur within the
boundary of the Horatio Rust Prehistoric Village Site. Although it is not likely that the proposed tunnel would
result in physical destruction or damage to this resource, the potential exists to alter or damage characterdefining features that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. With implementation of Measure
CR-4, Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan, potential effects to this site would be avoided and/or
minimized and are considered less than significant. The Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan will guide
archaeological monitoring and data recovery for any work conducted within the construction areas of the Tunnel
Freeway Alternative. Potential impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation.
Source: Table 6 in the preliminary Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route 710 North Study (2014).
Note A: Considered eligible for the National Register for the purpose of this project.
1
California Historical Resource Status Codes:
1D: Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in the National Register by the Keeper of the National Register
1S: Individual property listed in the National Register by the Keeper of the National Register
1CS: Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historic Resources Commission
2B: Determined eligible for the National Register as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process; listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources
2D: Contributor to a district determined eligible for the National Register by the Keeper of the National Register; listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
2D2: Contributor to a district determined eligible for the National Register by consensus through the Section 106 process; listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
2S: Individual property determined eligible for the National Register by the Keeper of the National Register; listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
2S2: Individual property determined eligible for the National Register by consensus through the Section 106 process; listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
3CS: Appears eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation
3S: Appears eligible for the National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation
5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally
5S2: Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation
5B: Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through
survey evaluation
6Y: Determined ineligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-56
DRAFT

avoided and/or minimized and are considered less than significant. The Post-Review Discovery and
Monitoring Plan will guide archaeological monitoring and data recovery for any work conducted
within the construction areas of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
In addition, there is potential for previously undocumented archaeological materials to be unearthed
during site preparation, grading, or excavation. Because there are no Native American sacred
sites/traditional cultural properties identified in the APE, the construction and operation of the Build
Alternatives would not impact those types of resources. However, as noted in Section 3.7, several
Native American Tribal representatives have indicated the overall study area is sensitive for cultural
resources. As specified in Measure CR-1, if cultural materials are discovered during ground
disturbance and earthmoving, construction activities would halt in the vicinity of the find until a
qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. As specified in Measure CR3, experienced and certified Native American monitors would be on site during all ground-disturbing
and earthmoving activities in areas identified as sensitive for cultural resources.
With implementation of Measures CR-1 through CR-5, impacts to known and unknown
archaeological resources would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
V(c). Paleontological Resources. As discussed in Section 3.11, Paleontology, for the most part, the
TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives involve relatively minor ground disturbance. Most of the area within
the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives has been previously disturbed for the existing roads, sidewalks,
and landscaping and is likely underlain by some amount of Artificial Fill. During excavation and
grading for the TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives, fossils would be able to be recovered.
The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives include bored tunnel sections that would be excavated
using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) that prevents access to the rock face and grinds the rock. The
size of the pieces of rock recovered would vary from cobble size to small particles, depending on the
specific type of boring machine used. During the tunnel boring, the amount of fossil recovery would
depend on the type of equipment used. However, during excavation of the cut-and-cover tunnel,
there would be more opportunity for the complete recovery of larger fossil specimens.
To reduce impacts to paleontological resources that may be present in the areas proposed for
grading and excavation for the Build Alternatives, Measure PAL-1 in Section 3.11, Paleontology,
requires the preparation during final design and implementation during construction of a detailed
Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative or a Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives.
Measure PAL-1 requires monitoring during construction, collection of fossils, documentation and
recording of the fossils, and curation of the fossils in a permanent repository. Measure PAL-1
requires preconstruction training for construction workers.
With implementation of PAL-1, fossils would be able to be recovered and impacts to paleontological
resources from construction of the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would be reduced to a less than
significant level. However, even with implementation of Measure PAL-1, the loss of fossil remains
and the fossil-bearing rocks from the tunnel boring would be a permanent, significant unavoidable
impact of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives based on the scientific significance of formations
in the study area.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-57
DRAFT

V(d). Human Remains. As discussed in Section 3.7, Cultural Resources, there are no documented
locations of human remains in or adjacent to the disturbance limits of the Build Alternatives.
However, as specified in Measure CR-2, if human remains are discovered during construction of the
Build Alternatives, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and
activities will cease in any nearby area suspected to overlie remains and the County Coroner will be
contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to
be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
which will then notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). At that time, the Caltrans District 7
Environmental Branch Chief will be contacted so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful
treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as
applicable. With implementation of Measures CR-2 and CR-5, impacts related to the discovery of
human remains would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
4.2.6 Geology and Soils
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to geology and soils
was assessed in the Geologic Hazard Evaluation to Support Environmental Studies Documentation,
State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study, Los Angeles County, California (2014), and the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report, SR 710 North Study, Los Angeles County, California (2014). The results of these
reports are presented in Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, of this EIR/EIS. The
following discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-58
DRAFT

VI(a)(i) and (ii). Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault and Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. As
discussed in Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives cross the Raymond and San Rafael Faults. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative also crosses
the Eagle Rock Fault. Within the study area, only the Raymond Fault is identified as an active fault
under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, although the Eagle Rock Fault and San Rafael Fault
are considered potentially active faults. Future studies may reveal that the San Rafael and Eagle
Rock faults are inactive. However, for design purposes for the SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives,
all three faults (i.e., the Raymond Fault, Eagle Rock Fault, and San Rafael Fault) are considered
active. Typically, at-grade roadway improvements are not protected against fault-induced ground
rupture. If the roadway is damaged due to fault rupture, the damage is expected to be minor and
easily repaired. For the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the potential fault offset would be
addressed with specific design features that would allow the tunnel lining to accommodate the
anticipated ground displacements. As a result, there is the potential for substantial adverse effects
due to fault rupture.
Moderate to severe seismic shaking may occur in the study area during the life of the improvements
under the Build Alternatives. The potential to experience substantial seismic ground shaking is a
common hazard for every project in Southern California, and the hazard cannot be avoided. In
general, the Build Alternatives can be designed to accommodate the ground accelerations expected
to occur along each Build Alternatives alignment through compliance with the applicable Caltrans,
FHWA, Metro, and/or local jurisdiction seismic design standards for construction and operation of
the Build Alternatives. Measure GEO-1 would further reduce potential impacts related to
liquefaction, seismic shaking, surface fault rupture, slope instability, and erosion, and would apply to
all the Build Alternatives. As a result, the potential for structural damage would be reduced to less
than significant levels. No further mitigation is required.
VI(a)(iii). Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction. As shown on Figure 3.10-2 in
Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, parts of the TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives are located within mapped Liquefaction Hazard Zones. Liquefaction Hazard Zones have
either experienced liquefaction during historical times or are in areas where local geologic
conditions indicate a potential for liquefaction. Therefore, these Build Alternatives may be more
susceptible to seismic-related ground failure than the BRT Alternative. As shown on Figure 3.10-4,
parts of the BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives are located within or adjacent to seismically
induced Landslide Hazard Zones, which have either experienced landslides during historical times, or
are in areas where local geologic conditions indicate a potential for seismically induced landslides.
Therefore, these Build Alternatives are more susceptible to seismically induced landsliding than the
TSM/TDM Alternative. However, similar to control of excessive seismic ground shaking, compliance
with applicable building and seismic design standards, combined with Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2,
would prevent significant impacts related to seismically-induced ground failure. No further
VI(a)(iv). Landslides. As shown on Figure 3.10-2, in Section 3.10, Geology and Soils, segments of the
BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives alignments are within landslide zones. Therefore, there is
a potential for substantial adverse effects related to landslides in areas within or adjacent to these
zones. However, similar to control of excessive seismic ground shaking and ground failure,
compliance with applicable building and seismic design standards, when combined with Measures
GEO-1 and GEO-2, would reduce impacts related to landslides to a less than significant level. No
further mitigation is required.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-59
DRAFT

VI(b). Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil. The surficial soils present along the alignments of the Build
Alternatives have a moderate susceptibility to erosion. The Build Alternatives include additional
pavement and revegetation of unpaved areas during construction. In addition, erosion can be
successfully controlled by implementing engineered designs developed in accordance with Caltrans
design standards, such as standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce storm water flows
and scour. BMPs consistent with regulatory requirements are specified in Measures WQ-3 through
WQ-5, which are described in Section 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff. Therefore, no
significant impacts would occur with compliance with Caltrans design standards and regulatory
requirements. No further mitigation is required.
VI(c) and (d). Unstable Soils or Geologic Unit and Expansive Soils. As discussed in VI(a)(iii) and (iv),
above, and in Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, the TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives are susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading; the BRT, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives are susceptible to landslides; and parts of all Build Alternatives overlie expansive
and collapsible soils. Subsidence is not considered a geologic hazard for the Build Alternatives.
However, similar to control of excessive seismic ground shaking and ground failure, compliance with
applicable building and seismic design standards, when combined with Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2,
would reduce impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units to a less than significant level. No
further mitigation is required.
VI(e). Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems. No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are included in the Build Alternatives, and soil issues related to these
facilities would not be encountered. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts
related to alternative wastewater disposal and soils. No mitigation is required.
4.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate

change is included in the body of environmental document.
While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to
provide the public and decision-makers as much information
as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that
in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information
related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too
speculative to make a significance determination regarding
the projects direct and indirect impact with respect to
climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to
implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects
of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the
environmental document. Caltrans continues to be involved
on the Governors Climate Action Team as the ARB works to
implement EO S-3-05 and EO S-01-07 and help achieve the
targets set forth in AB 32.
Discussion: For a detailed discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, refer to Section 4.3,
Climate Change.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-60
DRAFT

4.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
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 result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to hazardous waste
and hazardous materials was assessed in the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (2014). The results of this
report are presented in Section 3.12, Hazardous Waste/Materials, of this EIR/EIS. The following
discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
VIII(a), (b), and (d). Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Upset or Accident
Conditions, and Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites. As discussed in Section 3.12, Hazardous
Waste/Materials, during construction, there is the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the
soils and existing road materials. The majority of the proposed improvements under the TSM/TDM
and BRT Alternatives do not involve substantial ground-disturbing activities during construction;
therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts would be less than those associated with the LRT
or Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. The Build Alternatives would involve disturbance of soils and
demolition of existing buildings and structures; therefore, hazardous soil contaminants (such as
aerially deposited lead [ADL]) and structural materials (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs],
creosote and other wood-treating chemicals, lead chromate, lead-based paint [LBP], and asbestoscontaining materials [ACMs]) may be encountered during construction. In addition, soil and/or
groundwater impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons, halogenated compounds, or other hazardous
materials could be encountered at the properties that would be partially or fully acquired for the
Build Alternatives. The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives have the potential to be impacted by
methane (CH4) in subsurface soils.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-61
DRAFT

Measures HW-1 through HW-6 and HW-10 include the standard regulatory procedures to be
followed when handling and disposing of hazardous waste found on properties. Measure HW-7
requires additional site investigations for the properties within the alignments of the Build
Alternatives that have a history of hazardous waste, listed pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, or are otherwise a recognized environmental concern. The results of the investigations will
determine the steps to be followed with respect to handling and disposal of hazardous waste on
these properties prior to project disturbance in these areas, consistent with local, State, and federal
regulations. Adherence to regulatory requirements and Measure HW-7 would avoid substantial
impacts related to transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Typical hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., solvents, paints, fuels) would be handled
in accordance with standard procedures. California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and
substances under the authority of the California Health and Safety Code. California law also
addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts
the disposal of wastes and requires the cleanup of wastes that are below hazardous waste
concentrations but that could impact ground and surface water quality. California regulations that
address waste management and prevention and clean up contamination include: Title 22 Division
4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste; Title 23 Waters; and
Title 27 Environmental Protection. These are standard regulations that must be followed with
respect to the use, storage, handling, disposal, and transport of potentially hazardous materials
during construction of any of the Build Alternatives to protect human health and the environment
from upsets or accidents.
Routine maintenance activities during operation would be required to follow applicable regulations
with respect to the use, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous
materials. For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous materials
would be restricted from using the tunnel. Therefore, project operation would not result in
significant impacts related to hazardous waste or materials.
VIII(c). Hazardous Emissions within 0.25 Mile of a School. There are several schools within 0.25 mi
of each of the Build Alternatives. The Build Alternatives are project alternatives for a transportation
project; therefore, they do not involve the potential for release of hazardous emissions or handling
of acutely hazardous materials. It should be noted that vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous
materials would be restricted from using the tunnel under all design variations for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative. No mitigation is required.
VIII(e) and VIII(f). Airport or Airstrip. The closest public airport to the study area is the El Monte
Airport, which is located just over 2 mi from any of the Build Alternative improvements. The closest
private airstrip to the study area is the Goodyear Blimp Base Airport, which is located over 12 mi
away. Because the Build Alternatives are not within the vicinity of an airport, the project would not
pose a safety hazard related to airports to people residing or working in the study area. No
VIII(g). Emergency Response or Evacuation. As discussed in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency
Services, project-related construction activities could result in traffic delays that could affect the
ability of fire and emergency service providers to meet response time goals under all of the Build
Alternatives. Medical emergencies could increase with the presence of construction workers and
heavy machinery during construction. In addition, in the case of emergencies, construction activities
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-62
DRAFT

could potentially limit or block emergency service access. Also, as discussed in Chapter 2, during a
fire, the tunnel ventilation system is designed to remove smoke and harmful gases. This would
maintain a safe environment for the evacuation of motorists and the safe entry into the tunnel by
firefighters. Measure T-1, detailed in Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities, requires development of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). As part of the TMP, all
closures and detours would be coordinated with the affected emergency service providers.
Additionally, an approved Emergency Response Plan for tunnel operations will be prepared in
coordination with the applicable agencies. As a result, emergency response and evacuation impacts
would be less than significant.
VIII(h). Wildland Fires. Based on a review of the General Plan Safety Elements for Los Angeles
County, the Cities of Alhambra, Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, South
Pasadena, San Gabriel, and San Marino, there are areas designated in some of the plans as wildfire
fire hazards, fire hazard zones, and areas of high fire hazard. Within Los Angeles County, a large part
of the SR 710 study area is in an area designated by the County as additional areas of high fire
hazard (shown on the Los Angeles County General Plan Safety Element, Plate 7, Wildland and
Urban Fire Hazards Map). For the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles
County General Plan fire hazards map was used for review.
TSM/TDM Alternative. As shown on the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, Exhibit
D, Selected Wildfire Hazard Areas in the City of Los Angeles Map (April 1996), a segment of the
TSM/TDM Alternative Local Street Improvement L-1 (Figueroa Street from SR 134 to Colorado
Boulevard) is in the Fire Buffer/Mountain Fire District Zones. Intersection Improvements I-1
(West Broadway/Colorado Boulevard) and I-45 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/Colorado Boulevard) are
adjacent to the Fire Buffer Zone adjacent to Colorado Boulevard.
As shown on the City of Pasadenas General Plan Safety Element, Plate P-2, Summary of Hazards
Map (II) (June 2002), Other Road Improvement T-2 (State Route 110 [SR 110]/Fair Oaks Avenue
Hook Ramps, the eastern improvement) is in an area depicted as a moderate fire hazard zone.
BRT Alternative. As shown on the City of Pasadenas General Plan Safety Element, Plate P-2,
Summary of Hazards Map (II), the BRT Alternative alignment (on Fair Oaks Avenue, at the
southern City boundary) is in an area depicted by the City as a moderate fire hazard zone.
As shown on the Los Angeles County General Plan Safety Element, Plate 7 map, the BRT
Alternative alignment on Atlantic Boulevard, from the southern terminus of the alignment south
of Whittier Boulevard to Hellman Avenue, is in an area designated by the County as additional
area of high fire hazard.
LRT Alternative. Within East Los Angeles, the aerial alignment of the LRT Alternative is in an area
designated by the County as additional area of high fire hazard. The tunnel segment of the LRT
Alternative would not be at risk for wildland fires.
Freeway Tunnel Alternative. The at-grade areas at the southern and northern portals (SR 710
stub/Valley Boulevard and the SR 134/SR 710/I-210 interchange, respectively) for the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative are not in areas designated as wildland fire areas. The tunnel segments of the
Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not be at risk for wildland fires.
Because the alignments of the Build Alternatives are in urban and developed areas, wildland
fires are not likely to occur. During the short-term construction activities for the TSM/TDM and
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-63
DRAFT

BRT Alternatives, the Construction Contractor would comply with local City, County, and State
regulations for fire control. Operations of the TSM/TDM Alternative improvements would not
have any fire control requirements. The operation of the BRT Alternative would comply with
Metros safety policies for transit providers.
During construction activities for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the Construction
Contractor would comply with local City jurisdictions and County fire ordinances, permits, or
other regulations. Compliance with the California Uniform Building Code requirements would
also be required. During operation of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, the operator
would also comply with the California Uniform Building Code and with local City, County, and
State regulations and permits for maintaining fire safety equipment at the proper locations for
the LRT aerial and tunnel segments and stations, and at the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
Operations and Maintenance Buildings at the southern and northern portals. Compliance with
fire ordinances, permits, and other local and County required regulations and implementation of
the safety plans for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would ensure that adverse impacts
related to wildland fires would not be significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be 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)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through 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?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-64
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
DRAFT

Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to hydrology and
water quality was assessed in the Water Quality Assessment Report (2014), the Summary Floodplain
Encroachment Report (2014), and the Location Hydraulic Study (2014). The results of these reports
are presented in Sections 3.8, Hydrology and Floodplain, and 3.9, Water Quality and Storm Water
Runoff, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
IX(a) and IX(f). Violation of Water Quality Standards. As discussed in Section 3.9, Water Quality and
Storm Water Runoff, during construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed and there
would be an increased potential for soil erosion and spills compared to existing conditions.
Pollutants of concern during operation of the Build Alternatives include nutrients, pesticides,
suspended solids/sediments, heavy metals, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and
debris. The Build Alternatives would result in a permanent net increase in impervious surface area,
which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which in turn would more effectively
transport pollutants to receiving waters.
The Build Alternatives would be required to comply with applicable National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction and operation to protect the
beneficial uses of waters. In addition, BMPs would be implemented during construction and
operation of the Build Alternatives. Measures WQ-1 through WQ-6, provided in Section 3.9, Water
Quality and Storm Water Runoff, are regulatory requirements that would minimize project impacts
to water quality. No further mitigation is required.
IX(b). Groundwater Supplies. As detailed in the Water Quality Assessment Report (2014), neither
construction nor operational activities for the TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives would require
groundwater dewatering. In addition, because infiltration is very low in existing conditions, replacing
low-infiltrating soils with impervious pavement would not substantially decrease infiltration.
Therefore, no impact to groundwater supplies would occur under the TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives.
No mitigation is required.
Groundwater dewatering may be required during construction/excavation of the LRT Alternative
and the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. During tunnel excavation, groundwater could flow into the
tunnel through the face of the excavation; however, it would be mitigated by the use of a
pressurized-face TBM. The TBM provides face pressure as it excavates to counterbalance earth and
hydrostatic loads so groundwater does not enter the excavation. In addition, as the ground is
excavated, a bolted and double-gasketed (with appropriate cross gasket) segmental lining would be
installed immediately behind the TBM that would prevent any groundwater from entering the
tunnel during the construction phase. Additionally, during excavation, groundwater monitoring
wells would be used to monitor local groundwater levels.
Permanent groundwater dewatering or extraction for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
would not be required. In addition, because infiltration is very low in existing conditions, replacing
low-infiltrating soils with impervious pavement would not substantially decrease infiltration. During
the operational phase of the proposed tunnels, there are two potential ways for the tunnels to
affect the groundwater: (1) infiltration of water into the tunnel, and (2) the flow of water along the
excavated tunnel. The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would have a lining of bolted, doublegasketed (with appropriate cross gasket) precast-concrete segments installed as the final lining. The
segmental lining would be designed for the anticipated ground and hydrostatic loads. Infiltration
along the segmental lining would be negligible, precluding groundwater intrusion into the tunnel so
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-65
DRAFT

as not to cause drawdown of the local groundwater tables. (The rubber gaskets between the tunnel
segments would help prevent water leakage into the tunnel.) If unexpected infiltration occurs,
grouting can be performed to stop the unexpected leakage. Another possible operational effect on
groundwater is water flowing along the tunnel lining. Backfill grouting operations performed during
the construction phase would mitigate potential groundwater migration by filling gaps between the
tunnel lining and the excavated ground around the tunnel that could be used for groundwater
migration. As such, the potential for the LRT Alternative and Freeway Tunnel Alternative to deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge is low. Therefore, impacts related to
groundwater supplies would be less than significant for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives.
IX(c) and IX(d). Erosion or Siltation and Flooding. As detailed in the Water Quality Assessment
Report (2014), the Build Alternatives include BMPs that would provide flow volume and duration
control functions that minimize increases in velocity and volume of runoff, reduce the movement of
sediment to downstream receiving waters, and minimize erosion and flooding. Because the Build
Alternatives would include measures to offset increases in velocity and volume of runoff and to
minimize erosion and flooding, there is a low potential for the BRT Alternative to adversely affect
downstream erosion and accretion patterns or result in flooding. Therefore, with implementation of
Measures WQ-3 through WQ-5, which require implementation of BMPs, impacts related to erosion
or siltation would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
IX(e). Storm Water Facility Capacity. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Alternatives, the Build
Alternatives include modifications to existing storm water drainage facilities, as well as new storm
water management features to accommodate increased storm water flows from the Build
Alternatives. The Build Alternatives also include BMPs that would provide flow volume and duration
control functions to minimize increases in velocity and volume of runoff. Therefore, impacts to
storm water facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
IX(g). Placement of Housing in 100-Year Floodplain. The Build Alternatives do not include housing.
Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No
IX(h). Placement of Structures in 100-Year Floodplain. As discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Floodplain, the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives would not result in impacts to floodplains
because they would not encroach into any floodplains. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore
design variation alignment would encroach into the Laguna Regulating Basin floodplain and
Dorchester Avenue Storm Drain (Dorchester Channel) floodplain. The Freeway Tunnel Alternative
single-bore design variation alignment would encroach into only the Laguna Regulating Basin
floodplain. The encroachment would not increase the water surface elevation in the Laguna
Regulating Basin and would result in only a minor increase in water surface elevation in the
Dorchester Channel. Therefore, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
IX(i). Flooding as a Result of a Levee or Dam. As discussed in Section 3.10, Geology/Soils/Seismic/
Topography, and shown on Figure 3.10-3, parts of the study area are within potential dam
inundation areas. No physical improvement in the BRT Alternative would occur in the dam
inundation zones. TSM/TDM Intersection Improvement I-2 (Eagle Rock Boulevard/York Boulevard)
and parts of the LRT Alternative and Freeway Tunnel Alternative near I-10 would be constructed
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-66
DRAFT

within dam inundation zones. These physical improvements would be exposed to inundation in the
event of a dam failure. Based on compliance with applicable building codes combined with
Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, impacts related to dam inundation would be less than significant. No
All of the Build Alternatives would change the distribution of traffic within the study area and would
potentially shift additional traffic into the dam inundation zones. Although traffic would be
redistributed and some physical improvements would occur within the dam inundation zones, the
Build Alternatives would not increase the chance of inundation from failure of any of the dams. All
the dams are maintained and inspected to ensure their integrity and to ensure that risks are
minimized. Because the Build Alternatives would not increase the risk of dam failure, the impact
related to exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving flooding (including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam) would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
IX(j). Seiche, Tsunamis, and Mudflow. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic
groundshaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities such as reservoirs
and water tanks. Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream
properties. There are no water retention facilities in proximity to the study area. Tsunamis are
generated wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the seafloor associated with
shallow earthquakes, seafloor landslides, rockfalls, or volcanic eruptions. The study area is more
than 18 mi from the ocean shoreline and is not within a tsunami inundation area. Mudslides and
slumps are described as a shallower type of slope failure, usually affecting the upper soil mantle or
weathered bedrock underlying natural slopes and triggered by surface or shallow subsurface
saturation. The study area is within a largely developed area with a low risk for mudflows. The risk
associated with seiche, tsunamis, and mudflow is therefore not considered a potential hazard or a
potentially significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.10 Land Use and Planning

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation

of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to land use was
assessed in the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) (2014). The results of this report are presented
in Section 3.1, Land Use, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where
applicable.
X(a). Division of an Established Community. The Build Alternative improvements would result in
minor changes in access and circulation; however, they would also provide the traveling public with
improvements in mobility and increase the efficiency of the existing circulation system without
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-67
DRAFT

dividing the communities in which they would be located. Therefore, impacts related to dividing an
established community would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
X(b). Conflict with Land Use Plans. As discussed in Section 3.1, Land Use, each Build Alternative
would result in the permanent acquisition and conversion of land currently planned for
nontransportation uses into transportation uses, which would result in inconsistencies with land use
designations in local jurisdictions General Plans. If a Build Alternative is selected for
implementation, those inconsistencies would exist until the applicable local General Plans are
amended to reflect the use of the affected land for transportation improvements in the selected
Build Alternative. Neither Metro nor Caltrans has land use planning authority, and neither has
authority to require local jurisdictions to amend their General Plans. Therefore, it will be the
decision of the affected local jurisdictions on how and when to address the identified General Plan
land use inconsistencies. However, because it is generally desirable that the General Plans be
consistent with existing conditions, Metro and Caltrans will request that the applicable local
jurisdictions amend their General Plans to reflect the permanent use of land for the improvements
included in the selected Build Alternative, as specified in Measure LU-1. However, because Metro
and Caltrans have no authority to require a General Plan amendment, a significant impact would
remain until the General Plans are amended.
X(c). Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans. The study area is within areas that are largely
developed and is not located within an HCP or NCCP. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
conflict with an HCP or an NCCP. No mitigation is required.
4.2.11 Mineral Resources
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES:

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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to impact mineral resources was based on
information in the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County South Half,
Aggregate Resources Only, Plate 1b (Miller 1994).
XI(a)-(b). Mineral Resources. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and
designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to
existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones
(MRZs):
MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates no significant mineral deposits are
present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence
MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates significant mineral deposits are present,
or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence
MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-68
DRAFT

MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ
zone
Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are
underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate significant
measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the Mining and
Geology Board as being regionally significant. Such designations require that a Lead Agencys land
use decisions involving designated areas be made in accordance with its mineral resource
management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or
the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agencys jurisdiction.
The SR 710 North Study project area is located within the San Gabriel Valley ProductionConsumption Region. Prior to 2010, all of the lands within the San Gabriel Valley ProductionConsumption Region were classified by the State of California as containing notable aggregate
resources and designated as MRZ-2. MRZ-2 is defined generally as an area where notable mineral
deposits are or may be present. However, due to urbanization of the region, the California
Geological Survey in 2010 updated the mineral land classification for aggregate in the San Gabriel
Valley Production-Consumption Region and reduced the MRZ-2 designations for the entire
consumption region into smaller sectors. The SR 710 North Study Build Alternatives are located
within the following MRZs, according to the California Geological Survey.
TSM/TDM Alternative: MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3, and MRZ-4
BRT Alternative: MRZ-1 and MRZ-3
LRT Alternative: MRZ-1 and MRZ-3
Freeway Tunnel Alternative: MRZ-1, MRZ-2, and MRZ-3
The study area is largely built out and there are no mineral extraction activities currently occurring
along the alignments of the Build Alternatives. In addition, the improvements for all Build
Alternatives at the location where significant mineral deposits are potentially present would be at or
just below the ground surface and would not affect the availability of a known mineral resource.
In summary, any impacts related to the loss of a known commercially valuable mineral resources
4.2.12
Noise
XII. NOISE:
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-69
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
DRAFT

XII. NOISE:
Would the project result in:
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?
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?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
No impact
No impact
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to noise and
vibration was assessed in the Noise Study Report (NSR) (2014), the Groundborne Noise and Vibration
Impacts Report (2014), and the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (2014). The results of
these reports are presented in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR/EIS. The following
discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
XII(a), XII(c), and XII(d). Exceedance of Noise Level Standards and Increases in Noise Levels.
Construction Impacts. Noise levels during construction of the Build Alternatives may impact
commercial, industrial, and noise-sensitive receptors. Typical construction noise levels may
reach 88 A-weighted decibels (dBA) maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) at a distance of
50 ft from the noise sources. Measures N-1 and N-2, described in detail in Section 3.14.4,
require compliance with the Caltrans Standard Specifications, the County Code, and the city
Municipal Codes as applicable. Implementation of Measures N-1 and N-2 would reduce
construction noise impacts under the Build Alternatives to a less than significant level.
In addition to the construction activities associated with all the Build Alternatives, there would
be a considerable number of haul truck trips associated with exporting materials for the
Freeway Tunnel and LRT Alternatives. (The haul routes are described in detail in Section 2.2.3.4
for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative and Section 2.2.3.3 for the LRT Alternative in Chapter 2.) The
total number of delivery trucks per day is also a very small percentage of the existing daily
volumes on the haul route roadways. Based on the project long-haul truck trip estimate of
360,000 trips for the dual-bore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, the number
of haul trucks calculated during peak activity periods would be approximately 360 trucks per day
or 15 trucks per hour. It is expected that the noise impacts associated with haul routes for
excavation activities for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be less than significant.
Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts. The City of Alhambra Municipal Code, Section 18.02.050,
Noise Standards, specifies that interior noise levels inside residential uses should not exceed 55
dBA with windows and doors closed. To convert the interior noise level to an exterior noise
level, an assumed exterior-to-interior reduction of 15 dBA was added to the interior noise
standard, which results in a 70 dBA exterior noise level standard for residential uses.
The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 12.04 (b), specifies:
Except as to the equipment and operations specifically mentioned and related
elsewhere in this Chapter or for emergency work as that term is defined in Section
111.01(d), and except as to aircraft, tow tractors, aircraft auxiliary power units,
trains and motor vehicles in their respective operations governed by State and
federal regulations, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any machinery,
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-70
DRAFT

equipment, tolls, or other mechanical or electrical device, or engage in any other

activity in such manner as to create any noise which would cause the noise level on
the premises of any other occupied property, or, if a condominium, apartment
house, duplex, or attached business, within any adjoining unit, to exceed the
ambient noise level by more than five (5) decibels.
As part of the LRT Alternative, a maintenance yard would be constructed within the existing
Caltrans ROW and would be bisected by Valley Boulevard. The majority of the activities that
would occur at this facility, including washing the trains, painting the trains, and mechanical
work, would occur inside buildings. The movement of the trains in the maintenance yard would
be the activity most likely to potentially impact nearby noise-sensitive receptors. As a project
feature, a sound wall has been planned around the perimeter of the LRT maintenance yard, as
shown on Figure 4-1.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
(2006) (FTA Manual) provides a source level at 50 ft of 118 dBA Single Event Level (SEL) for train
movements and shops, assuming 20 train movements for peak-hour activity. While it is
expected that this is a conservative number of movements, calculations would be performed
based on this reference level. The reference SEL noise level was then converted to an hourly
equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) for comparison with peak traffic noise levels. The
reference noise level of peak-hour activities in a rail yard at 50 ft is 82.4 dBA.
Table 4.2 presents the ambient noise levels without the proposed LRT Alternative, the LRT
maintenance yard reference noise level, the distance from the center of activities to the sound
wall, the distance from the center of activities to the receptor, noise levels from the
maintenance yard activities without the planned sound wall, sound wall heights, and noise
levels from the maintenance yard activities with the planned sound wall. With the construction
of an 8 ft high sound wall, as shown on Figure 4-1, the noise impacts to the surrounding noisesensitive uses from the LRT maintenance yard would comply with the City of Alhambra and City
of Los Angeles Noise Ordinances and therefore would be less than significant. No further
TABLE 4.2:
LRT Maintenance Yard/Shop Noise Analysis
Peak-Hour
Noise Level
Receptor
Without
Project
(dBA)
Northeast Residential
59.0
Southeast Residential
56.0
Southwest Residential
66.0
1
LSA Associates, Inc. (2014).
ft = foot/feet
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Maintenance
Yard Reference
Noise Level
(dBA)1
82.4
82.4
82.4
Center of
Activities
Distance to
Barrier
(ft)
195
60
130
4-71
Center of
Activities
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
200
175
325
Maintenance
Yard
Unmitigated
Noise Level
(dBA)
70.4
71.5
66.1
Barrier
Height (ft)
LRT Noise
Level With
Barrier
(dBA)
8
8
8
60.4
63.2
54.2
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-72
DRAFT
RA AV
ALHAMB
RD
W MISSION
UP RR
AV
R
AV
M
IN
IS
TE
ON
ILT
W
ES
T
Northeast Residential
T
FRONT S
City of Los
Angeles
LVD
WESTMONT DR
B
EY
AL L
WV
A
O
LL
I
BR
PYRENEES DR
CA
Southeast Residential
VANDALIA AV
LILLYVALE AV
Southwest Residential
STATE ROUTE 710
V
YA
UR
DOBBS ST
TERRACE AV
City of
Alhambra
B
GH
HI
VALLEY BLVD
RWOOD PL
W NO
LEGEND
N
LE
EW
VI
DR
PARKVIEW DR
GLENAVEN AV
FIGURE 4-1
LRT Maintenance Yard Sound Walls - 8 feet tall

LRT Maintenance Yard
Surrounding Residential Areas

0
150
300
FEET
SOURCE: AECOM (2014); LAR-IAC (2010)
I:\CHM1105\GIS\MXD\_EIR_EIS\CEQA_Evaluation\EIR_EIS_LRT_MaintenanceYard_SoundWalls.mxd (10/28/2014)
SR 710 North Study
LRT Maintenance Yard Sound Walls
07-LA-710 (SR 710)

EA 187900
EFIS 0700000191

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-74
DRAFT

Long-Term Transportation Noise Impacts. Some residents in the vicinity of the limits of the
Build Alternative improvements are currently, and would continue to be, exposed to traffic
noise levels approaching or exceeding the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and noise standards
in the respective General Plans. However, because the Build Alternatives would not result in any
substantial increases in noise levels in the study area compared to the existing noise levels as
shown in Table 4.3, no significant noise impact would occur under CEQA. Noise abatement
measures, including noise barriers, have been evaluated to reduce the noise impacts. With
implementation of the noise abatement measures, the noise levels would be further reduced.
Therefore, long-term noise impacts are considered less than significant.
Due to the nature of this project, additional long-term traffic-related noise impacts were
analyzed for the freeways within the study area but not within the limits of physical
improvements. This analysis utilizes the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and was completed to assess
the increase in noise level due to the project only. Tables 4.3 through 4.7 show the noise level
increases at these segments for the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Since
the Build Alternatives would not result in any substantial (perceptible) increases in noise levels
in the study area outside the limits of physical improvement, long-term noise impacts would be
less than significant under CEQA. No mitigation is required.
XII(b). Vibration. As discussed in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, based on the types of
improvements in the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives and the construction methods and equipment
required to construct those improvements, there would be no short-term ground-borne noise or
vibration effects during construction of the TSM/TDM or BRT Alternatives.
Construction activities associated with the Freeway Tunnel and LRT Alternatives (e.g., tunnel boring,
supply and muck train movements, and excavation and construction of the tunnel portals and
underground stations) would result in ground-borne vibration. Measures N-3 through N-5 and N-7,
provided in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, require compliance with FTA and local vibration
regulations, minimization of vibration during tunneling, maintenance of the TBM, ballast mats, and
speed limits for supply and muck trains. In addition, Measure N-6 requires a site-specific evaluation
of potential airborne dust at the Grifols facility due to vibration from construction of the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative. With implementation of Measures N-3 through N-7, vibration impacts from
construction and operation of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would be less than
significant, and no further mitigation is required.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Noise and Vibration, the TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives would not result in excessive ground-borne noise and vibration during operations. No
The LRT Alternative would result in ground-borne noise and vibration effects associated with rail
operations in the tunnel segment of the alignment at 454 residential buildings and 1 commercial
office building. With the implementation of Measure N-5, the ground-borne noise effects would be
minimized during the operation of the LRT Alternative. No mitigation is required.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-75
DRAFT

TABLE 4.3:
TSM/TDM Alternative Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
Existing CNEL,
dBA
Segment Description
2035 No Build
CNEL, dBA
SR 2
I-210 to SR 134 Interchange North Termini
76.8
SR 2
SR 134 Interchange North Termini to SR 134 Interchange South Termini
75.5
SR 2
SR 134 Interchange South Termini to I-5 Interchange North Termini
77.6
SR 2
I-5 Interchange North Termini to I-5 Interchange South Termini
72.5
SR 110 Glenarm Street to S Avenue 52
74.1
SR 110 S Avenue 52 to I-5 Interchange North Termini
75.6
SR 110 I-5 Interchange North Termini to I-5 Interchange South Termini
74.6
SR 134 SR 134 start at I-210/I-710 Interchange to SR 134/I-210/SR 710 Interchange West Termini
77.5
SR 134 SR 134/I-210/SR 710 Interchange West Termini to North Figueroa Street
78.3
SR 134 North Figueroa Street to SR 2 Interchange East Termini
78.2
SR 134 SR 2 Interchange East Termini to SR 2 Interchange West Termini
77.1
I-5
79.4
I-5
SR 2 Interchange South Termini to SR 110 Interchange North Termini
80.4
I-5
79.8
I-5
79.8
I-5
78.2
I-5
I-10 Interchange South Termini to East Cesar Chavez Avenue Ramps
79.8
I-10
I-5 Interchange West Termini to I-5 Interchange East Termini
72.9
I-10
I-5 Interchange East Termini to SR 710 Interchange West Termini
78.2
I-10
SR 710 Interchange East Termini to Rosemead Boulevard
77.9
I-10
Rosemead Boulevard to I-605 Interchange West Termini
77.8
I-210
I-605 Interchange East Termini to I-605 Interchange West Termini
78.1
I-210
I-605 Interchange West Termini to Rosemead Boulevard
79.6
I-210
Rosemead Boulevard to San Gabriel Boulevard
79.1
I-210
San Gabriel Boulevard to I-710 Interchange East Termini
79.4
I-210
I-710 Interchange North Termini to Lincoln Avenue
77.3
I-210
Lincoln Avenue to SR 2
76.9
I-210
SR 2 to La Crescenta Avenue
76.7
I-605
I-210 Interchange South Termini to Los Angeles Street
77.8
I-605
Los Angeles Street to I-10 Interchange North Termini
78.5
Source: Summarized from the Noise Study Report (2014).
Note: CNEL is at 50 feet from nearest travel lane.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
I-605 = Interstate 605
I-5 = Interstate 5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-76
77.3
76.2
78.1
72.8
74.2
75.6
74.7
78.6
79.0
79.1
78.1
80.3
81.3
80.7
80.7
79.2
80.8
73.6
79.1
78.5
78.5
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.5
78.6
78.2
78.0
79.5
80.1
TSM/TDM CNEL,
dBA
77.3
76.0
78.0
72.8
74.2
75.6
74.7
78.5
79.0
79.1
78.0
80.4
81.3
80.7
80.7
79.3
80.9
73.7
78.9
78.5
78.6
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.4
78.7
78.2
77.9
79.5
80.1
Change from
Existing Level,
dBA
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.6
Change from No
Build Level, dBA
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
-0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
DRAFT

TABLE 4.4:
BRT Alternative Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
Segment Description
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-605
I-605
I-5 = Interstate 5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-77
Existing CNEL,
dBA
2035 No Build
CNEL, dBA
BRT CNEL, dBA
76.8
75.5
77.6
72.5
74.1
75.6
74.6
77.5
78.3
78.2
77.1
79.4
80.4
79.8
79.8
78.2
79.8
72.9
78.2
77.9
77.8
78.1
79.6
79.1
79.4
77.3
76.9
76.7
77.8
78.5
77.3
76.2
78.1
72.8
74.2
75.6
74.7
78.6
79.0
79.1
78.1
80.3
81.3
80.7
80.7
79.2
80.8
73.6
79.1
78.5
78.5
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.5
78.6
78.2
78.0
79.5
80.1
77.3
76.1
78.0
72.7
74.2
75.6
74.6
78.6
79.0
79.1
78.0
80.3
81.3
80.6
80.7
79.2
80.8
73.8
79.0
78.5
78.6
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.4
78.7
78.2
78.0
79.6
80.1
Change from
Existing Level,
dBA
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.6
Change from No
Build Level, dBA
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
DRAFT

TABLE 4.5:
LRT Alternative Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
Segment Description
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-210
I-605
I-605
I-5 = Interstate 5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-78
Existing CNEL,
dBA
2035 No Build
CNEL, dBA
LRT CNEL, dBA
76.8
75.5
77.6
72.5
74.1
75.6
74.6
77.5
78.3
78.2
77.1
79.4
80.4
79.8
79.8
78.2
79.8
72.9
78.2
77.9
77.8
78.1
79.6
79.1
79.4
77.3
76.9
76.7
77.8
78.5
77.3
76.2
78.1
72.8
74.2
75.6
74.7
78.6
79.0
79.1
78.1
80.3
81.3
80.7
80.7
79.2
80.8
73.6
79.1
78.5
78.5
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.5
78.6
78.2
78.0
79.5
80.1
77.2
76.0
77.9
72.7
74.2
75.6
74.7
78.5
79.0
79.1
78.1
80.4
81.3
80.7
80.7
79.3
80.8
73.7
79.0
78.6
78.7
79.3
80.7
80.2
80.4
78.6
78.2
77.9
79.5
80.1
Change from
Existing Level,
dBA
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.6
Change from No
Build Level, dBA
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
DRAFT

TABLE 4.6:
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Single-Bore Design Variations Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 110
SR 110
SR 110
SR 134
SR 134
SR 134
SR 134
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-10
Segment Description
I-210 to SR 134 Interchange North
Termini
SR 134 Interchange North Termini to
SR 134 Interchange South Termini
SR 134 Interchange South Termini to
I-5 Interchange North Termini
I-5 Interchange North Termini to I-5
Interchange South Termini
Glenarm Street to S Avenue 52
S Avenue 52 to I-5 Interchange North
Termini
SR 134 start at I-210/I-710
Interchange to SR 134/I-210/SR 710
Interchange West Termini
SR 134/I-210/SR 710 Interchange
West Termini to North Figueroa Street
North Figueroa Street to SR 2
Interchange East Termini
SR 2 Interchange East Termini to SR 2
SR 110 Interchange North Termini
I-10 Interchange South Termini to East
Cesar Chavez Avenue Ramps
I-5 Interchange West Termini to I-5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Existing
CNEL,
dBA
2035
No Build
CNEL,
dBA
Single
Bore V11
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Single
Bore V62
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Single
Bore V73
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level,
dBA
76.8
77.3
76.3
-0.5
-1
76.2
-0.6
-1.1
77
0.2
-0.3
75.5
76.2
74.7
-0.8
-1.5
74.7
-0.8
-1.5
75.5
0.0
-0.7
77.6
78.1
77.2
-0.4
-0.9
77.2
-0.4
-0.9
77.8
0.2
-0.3
72.5
72.8
72.3
-0.2
-0.5
72.3
-0.2
-0.5
72.4
-0.1
-0.4
74.1
74.2
74.1
0.0
-0.1
74.1
0.0
-0.1
74.1
0.0
-0.1
75.6
75.6
75.5
-0.1
-0.1
75.5
-0.1
-0.1
75.5
-0.1
-0.1
74.6
74.7
74.6
0.0
-0.1
74.6
0.0
-0.1
74.6
0.0
-0.1
77.5
78.6
78.6
1.1
78.5
1.0
-0.1
78.6
1.1
0.0
78.3
79.0
79.2
0.9
0.2
79.2
0.9
0.2
79.0
0.7
0.0
78.2
79.1
79.3
1.1
0.2
79.3
1.1
0.2
79.1
0.9
0.0
77.1
78.1
78.4
1.3
0.3
78.4
1.3
0.3
78.1
1.0
0.0
79.4
80.3
80.1
0.7
-0.2
80.1
0.7
-0.2
80.5
1.1
0.2
80.4
81.3
80.8
0.4
-0.5
80.9
0.5
-0.4
81.4
1.0
0.1
79.8
80.7
80.2
0.4
-0.5
80.2
0.4
-0.5
80.7
0.9
0.0
79.8
80.7
80.2
0.4
-0.5
80.2
0.4
-0.5
80.8
1.0
0.1
78.2
79.2
79.1
0.9
-0.1
79.1
0.9
-0.1
79.6
1.4
0.4
79.8
80.8
80.8
1.0
0.0
80.7
0.9
-0.1
81.1
1.3
0.3
72.9
73.6
73.7
0.8
0.1
73.7
0.8
0.1
73.6
0.7
0.0
4-79
DRAFT

TABLE 4.6:
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Single-Bore Design Variations Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
Segment Description
Existing
CNEL,
dBA
2035
No Build
CNEL,
dBA
I-5 Interchange East Termini to SR 710

78.2
79.1
SR 710 Interchange East Termini to
I-10
77.9
78.5
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead Boulevard to I-605
I-10
77.8
78.5
I-605 Interchange East Termini to
I-210
78.1
79.3
I-605 Interchange West Termini
I-605 Interchange West Termini to
I-210
79.6
80.7
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead Boulevard to San Gabriel
I-210
79.1
80.2
Boulevard
San Gabriel Boulevard to I-710
I-210
79.4
80.5
I-710 Interchange North Termini to
I-210
77.3
78.6
Lincoln Avenue
I-210
76.9
78.2
I-210
76.7
78
I-210 Interchange South Termini to
I-605
77.8
79.5
Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles Street to I-10 Interchange
I-605
78.5
80.1
North Termini
1
V1 = Operational Variation with Toll and with Express Bus Lane
2
V6 = Operational Variation with Toll
3
V7 = Operational Variation with Toll and No Trucks
I-5 = Interstate 5
I-10
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Single
Bore V11
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Single
Bore V62
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Single
Bore V73
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level,
dBA
78.5
0.3
-0.6
78.5
0.3
-0.6
78.8
0.6
-0.3
78.5
0.6
0.0
78.5
0.6
0.0
78.5
0.6
0.0
78.6
0.8
0.1
78.6
0.8
0.1
78.6
0.8
0.1
79.3
1.2
0.0
79.3
1.2
0.0
79.3
1.2
0.0
80.6
1.0
-0.1
80.6
1.0
-0.1
80.7
1.1
0.0
80.1
1.0
-0.1
80.1
1.0
-0.1
80.2
1.1
0.0
80.3
0.9
-0.2
80.3
0.9
-0.2
80.4
1.0
-0.1
79.8
2.5
1.2
79.8
2.5
1.2
79.1
1.8
0.5
79.1
78.6
2.2
1.9
0.9
0.6
79.2
78.6
2.3
1.9
1.0
0.6
78.5
78.1
1.6
1.4
0.3
0.1
79.3
1.5
-0.2
79.4
1.6
-0.1
79.5
1.7
0.0
79.9
1.4
-0.2
79.9
1.4
-0.2
80.1
1.6
0.0
4-80
DRAFT

TABLE 4.7:
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Dual-Bore Design Variations Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 2
SR 110
SR 110
SR 110
SR 134
SR 134
SR 134
SR 134
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-5
I-10
Segment Description
I-210 to SR 134 Interchange North
Termini
Glenarm Street to S Avenue 52
S Avenue 52 to I-5 Interchange North
Termini
SR 134 start at I-210/I-710
Interchange to SR 134/I-210/SR 710
SR 134/I-210/SR 710 Interchange
West Termini to North Figueroa
Street
North Figueroa Street to SR 2
SR 2 Interchange East Termini to SR 2
SR 2 Interchange North Termini to SR
2 Interchange South Termini
SR 2 Interchange South Termini to SR
110 Interchange North Termini
I-10 Interchange North Termini to I10 Interchange South Termini
East Cesar Chavez Avenue Ramps
I-5 Interchange West Termini to I-5
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Existing
CNEL,
dBA
2035 No
Build
CNEL,
dBA
Dual
Bore V21
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Dual
Bore V42
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Dual
Bore V53
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build Level,
dBA
76.8
77.3
75.9
-0.9
-1.4
75.1
-1.7
-2.2
76.5
-0.3
-0.8
75.5
76.2
74.1
-1.4
-2.1
73.2
-2.3
-3.0
74.8
-0.7
-1.4
77.6
78.1
76.9
-0.7
-1.2
76.2
-1.4
-1.9
77.4
-0.2
-0.7
72.5
72.8
71.9
-0.6
-0.9
71.7
-0.8
-1.1
72.2
-0.3
-0.6
74.1
74.2
73.8
-0.3
-0.4
73.8
-0.3
-0.4
73.8
-0.3
-0.4
75.6
75.6
75.3
-0.3
-0.3
75.3
-0.3
-0.3
75.3
-0.3
-0.3
74.6
74.7
74.6
0.0
-0.1
74.6
0.0
-0.1
74.6
0.0
-0.1
77.5
78.6
78.4
0.9
-0.2
78.3
0.8
-0.3
78.4
0.9
-0.2
78.3
79.0
79.2
0.9
0.2
79.1
0.8
0.1
79.1
0.8
0.1
78.2
79.1
79.3
1.1
0.2
79.2
1.0
0.1
79.1
0.9
0.0
77.1
78.1
78.3
1.2
0.2
78.3
1.2
0.2
78.1
1.0
0.0
79.4
80.3
80.2
0.8
-0.1
80.0
0.6
-0.3
80.8
1.4
0.5
80.4
81.3
80.9
0.5
-0.4
80.5
0.1
-0.8
81.5
1.1
0.2
79.8
80.7
80.2
0.4
-0.5
79.8
0.0
-0.9
80.9
1.1
0.2
79.8
80.7
80.2
0.4
-0.5
79.8
0.0
-0.9
80.8
1.0
0.1
78.2
79.2
79.3
1.1
0.1
78.9
0.7
-0.3
79.9
1.7
0.7
79.8
80.8
80.9
1.1
0.1
80.6
0.8
-0.2
81.4
1.6
0.6
72.9
73.6
73.8
0.9
0.2
73.9
0.3
73.7
0.8
0.1
4-81
DRAFT

TABLE 4.7:
Freeway Tunnel Alternative Dual-Bore Design Variations Study Area Traffic Noise Analysis
Roadway
Segment Description
Existing
CNEL,
dBA
2035 No
Build
CNEL,
dBA
Dual
Bore V21
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
I-5 Interchange East Termini to

78.2
79.1
78.4
0.2
SR 710 Interchange West Termini
SR 710 Interchange East Termini to
I-10
77.9
78.5
78.5
0.6
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead Boulevard to I-605
I-10
77.8
78.5
78.6
0.8
I-605 Interchange East Termini to II-210
78.1
79.3
79.3
1.2
605 Interchange West Termini
I-605 Interchange West Termini to
I-210
79.6
80.7
80.5
0.9
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead Boulevard to San Gabriel
I-210
79.1
80.2
80.0
0.9
Boulevard
San Gabriel Boulevard to I-710
I-210
79.4
80.5
80.3
0.9
I-710 Interchange North Termini to
I-210
77.3
78.6
79.9
2.6
Lincoln Avenue
I-210
76.9
78.2
79.3
2.4
I-210
76.7
78.0
78.7
2.0
I-605
77.8
79.5
79.3
1.5
Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles Street to I-10
I-605
78.5
80.1
79.9
1.4
Interchange North Termini
1
V2 = Operational Variation with Toll
2
V4 = Operational Variation with No Toll
3
V5 = Operational Variation with No Toll and No Trucks
I-5 = Interstate 5
I-10
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-82
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Dual
Bore V42
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build
Level, dBA
Dual
Bore V53
CNEL,
dBA
Change
from
Existing
Level, dBA
Change
from No
Build Level,
dBA
-0.7
78.3
0.1
-0.8
78.5
0.3
-0.6
78.5
0.6
0.0
78.5
0.6
0.0
0.1
78.6
0.8
0.1
78.6
0.8
0.1
0.0
79.3
1.2
0.0
79.3
1.2
0.0
-0.2
80.5
0.9
-0.2
80.6
1.0
-0.1
-0.2
80
0.9
-0.2
80.1
1.0
-0.1
-0.2
80.2
0.8
-0.3
80.3
0.9
-0.2
1.3
80.3
3.0
1.7
78.7
1.4
0.1
1.1
0.7
79.8
79.2
2.9
2.5
1.6
1.2
78.4
78.1
1.5
1.4
0.2
0.1
-0.2
79.2
1.4
-0.3
79.4
1.6
-0.1
-0.2
79.8
1.3
-0.3
80
1.5
-0.1
DRAFT

XII(e) and XII(f). Airport Noise. The closest airport to the study area is the El Monte Airport, which is
just over 2 mi from any of the Build Alternative improvements. The closest private airstrip to the
study area is the Goodyear Blimp Base Airport, which is over 12 mi away. Because the Build
Alternatives are not located in the vicinity of an airport, the project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to airports. No mitigation is
required.
4.2.13 Population and Housing
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to population and
housing was assessed in the CIA (2014) and in the Draft Relocation Impact Report (DRIR) (2014). The
results of these reports are presented in Sections 3.2, Growth, and 3.3, Community Impacts, of this
EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
XIII(a). Population Growth. As discussed in detail in Section 3.2, Growth, the Build Alternatives
would not attract new development to an area not already proposed for development or modify the
type, location, or timing of development in those areas. Therefore, the Build Alternatives are not
considered to be growth inducing, project impacts related to population growth would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
XIII(b) and XIII(c). Displacement of People and Housing. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, Relocations
and Real Property Acquisition, the Build Alternatives would not require the acquisition of any
residential properties and therefore would not displace residents. As a result, the construction of
replacement housing would not be required, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.14 Public Services

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-83
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
DRAFT

Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to public services was
assessed in the CIA (2014). The results of this report are presented in Sections 3.4, Utilities/
Emergency Services, and 3.2, Growth, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that
XIV(a)(i)-(ii). Fire and Police Protection. As discussed in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services,
during construction of the Build Alternatives, some impairment to the delivery of emergency
services, including fire and police response times, may occur as a result of lane restrictions, ramp
closures, roadway closures, and/or detours. However, Measure T-1, detailed in Section 3.5 (Traffic
and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities), requires development of a TMP. As part of the
TMP, all closures and detours would be coordinated with the affected emergency service providers.
With implementation of Measure T-1, impacts related to fire and police services during construction
would be less than significant, and no further mitigation is required.
After completion of construction, the elements included in the Build Alternatives could help to
reduce congestion in the future and consequently reduce response times of emergency vehicles.
The Build Alternatives would not require the addition of new fire or police stations or the expansion,
consolidation, or relocation of an existing facility to maintain adequate service levels. Therefore,
impacts related to fire and police services during operation would be less than significant, and no
XIV(a)(iii)-(v). Public Facilities. The project is proposed in response to existing and forecast traffic
congestion as a result of past and forecasted growth. As discussed in Section 3.2, Growth, the Build
Alternatives would not result in growth-inducing impacts. In addition, the Build Alternatives do not
include the construction of residential or nonresidential uses that would increase the number of
households in the study area. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not increase the population or
the number of people in the study area that rely on the services provided by public facilities (e.g.,
libraries, schools, and parks). As such, the Build Alternatives would not require the construction of
new or expanded public facilities. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts
related to school services and facilities, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.15 Recreation
XV. RECREATION:
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
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?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to recreational
facilities was assessed in the CIA (2014) and Appendix B, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation and Resources
Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f), of this EIR/EIS. The results of these reports
are presented in Section 3.1, Land Use, of this EIR/EIS. The following discussion is based on that
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-84
DRAFT

XV(a). Increased Use of Parks and Recreational Facilities. The Build Alternatives would provide
improved transportation facilities in the study area, which may contribute to increased use of parks
and recreational facilities in the study area. However, the contribution of the Build Alternatives to
increased use of parks and recreational facilities is anticipated to be small compared to the
contribution of the projected growth in the study area. As a result, the Build Alternatives would
result in a less than significant impact relative to increased use of existing parks and recreational
facilities. No mitigation is required.
XV(b). Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities. As discussed in Section 3.1, Land Use,
the Build Alternatives do not include the construction of any new recreation resources and would
not result in the need to expand any existing recreation resources. The TSM/TDM, LRT, and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives would not require the temporary or permanent use of land from any parks.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to recreational facilities from the TSM/TDM, LRT, and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, and no mitigation is required.
The BRT Alternative would require the temporary occupancy and permanent use of very minor
amounts of land from Cascades Park in the City of Monterey Park. The land that would be
permanently acquired from Cascades Park is protected by the Public Park Preservation Act. As a
result, sufficient compensation or land, or both, must be provided to the City of Monterey Park
during the property acquisition process for the BRT Alternative. Implementation of Measure Park-1
would provide compensation for the acquisition of land from Cascades Park, under the Park
Preservation Act, by the BRT Alternative.
Discussion: The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in impacts related to transportation and
traffic was assessed in the Transportation Technical Report (2014). The results of this report are
presented in Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, of this EIR/EIS.
The following discussion is based on that information, where applicable.
4.2.16 Transportation/Traffic
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
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?
b) 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?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-85
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
DRAFT

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
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?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
No impact
No impact
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
No impact
XVI(a). Conflict with Transportation Plans. As discussed in Sections 3.1, Land Use, and 3.13, Air
Quality, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is included in and is consistent with the scope of the design
concept in the 2012 RTP and 2013 FTIP. Therefore, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RTP or FTIP. No mitigation is required.
As specified in Measure LU-2, which is detailed in Section 3.1, Land Use, should the TSM/TDM
Alternative, LRT Alternative, or BRT Alternative be selected, the RTP and FTIP would have to be
amended. Once amended, the TSM/TDM, LRT, or BRT Alternatives would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the RTP or FTIP. With implementation of Measure LU-2, impacts related
to transportation plan consistency would be less than significant, and no further mitigation is
required.
XVI(b). Conflict with Congestion Management Programs. As discussed in Section 3.5, the Build
Alternatives would result in adverse effects to intersections and freeway segments based on the
following metrics:
If the intersection is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) E under a Build Alternative,
and the increase in delay over the No Build Alternative is 5 seconds or more; or
If the intersection is projected to operate at LOS F under a Build Alternative, and the increase in
delay over the No Build Alternative is 2 seconds or more.
The freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F under a Build Alternative, and the
increase in traffic demand compared to the No Build Alternative is 2 percent or more.
These measures have also been used to identify impacts under CEQA.
The traffic analysis includes operational analysis for 156 intersections and 606 freeway segments in
an extended study area. Detailed analyses were conducted for existing conditions (2012) and
future conditions (i.e., 2020, 2025, and 2035 for the No-Project, TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and six
variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternatives). The operations of the freeway segments and
intersections for the horizon year (2035) Build Alternatives were compared to the existing
conditions (2012).
For existing conditions, 12 of the 156 intersections operate at LOS E in one or both peak periods,
and 6 of the 156 intersections operate at LOS F. On the freeway, 113 of the 606 segments operate
at LOS E, and 165 of the 606 segments operate at LOS F (Transportation Technical Report, 2014).
Table 4.8 is a summary of the number of intersections and freeway segments that meet the metric
described above for the Build Alternatives in the horizon year compared to those that meet the
metric in the existing conditions and the No Build Alternative. For the Existing analysis, the
primary reason that the intersection totals listed in Table 4.8 meet the metric is because the traffic
growth associated with future increases in population and employment results in an increase in
delay between existing conditions and 2035. There is a similar reason for the freeways. The
criterion for freeways (a 2 percent increase in volume), occurs on nearly every freeway segment
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-86
DRAFT

when comparing between 2012 and 2035. There are many more LOS F freeway segments than
intersections, regardless of the scenario. The Future No Build analysis was described in Section
3.5. It is a direct evaluation of project effects because it compares Build and No Build Alternatives
for the same horizon year. Therefore, this comparison of the Build vs. Future No Build is the most
reasonable basis for the determination of impacts and mitigation strategies because it is
independent of background growth.
TABLE 4.8:
Comparison of Build Alternatives to Existing and Horizon Year (2035) No Build Scenarios
Scenario
TSM/TDM Alternative
BRT Alternative
LRT Alternative
SingleBore Operational Variations
-- With Tolls
-- With Tolls and No Trucks
-- With Tolls and Express Bus
DualBore Operational Variations
-- No Tolls
-- No Tolls and No Trucks
-- With Tolls
Number of Intersections
3
4
Existing
Future No Build
30
18
26
13
30
13
Number of Freeway Segments

3
4
Existing
Future No Build
107
8
105
11
126
17
23
19
19
9
8
6
111
105
104
18
18
19
19
17
19
11
9
11
102
98
102
31
30
28
Source: Table 3.5.17 and Transportation Technical Report (2014)

1
There are 156 intersections in the study area.
2
There are 606 freeway segments in the study area.
3
Comparison of 2035 Build Alternative to 2013 Existing Conditions
4
Comparison of 2035 Build Alternative to 2035 No-Build Alternative
As shown in Tables 3.5.12 and 3.5.13 in Section 3.5, the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel
Alternatives would result in impacts to study area intersections and freeway segments.
Improvements were considered to address the potentially significant impacts at the identified
intersections and freeway segments. However, mitigation measures are not proposed at all the
impacted intersections and freeway segments for reasons detailed in Tables 3.5.12 and 3.5.13. As a
result, the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would all result in significant
adverse impacts on study area intersections and freeway segments that cannot be mitigated to
below a level of significance.
XVI(c). Air Traffic Patterns. The closest public airport to the study area is the El Monte Airport,
which is just over 2 mi from any of the Build Alternative improvements. The closest private airstrip
to the study area is the Goodyear Blimp Base Airport, which is over 12 mi away. The Build
Alternatives would not include any elevated structures in designated air space that could interfere
with air traffic patterns. The Build Alternatives would not result in any changes in demand for air
travel or any changes that would result in substantial safety risks associated with air travel.
Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, and no
XVI(d). Increased Hazards Due to Design Features. All the structures and features included in the
Build Alternatives would be designed and constructed in compliance with Caltrans, Metro, local
jurisdiction, and/or FTA standards and other applicable professional, design, and construction
standards. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not include any hazardous design features or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-87
DRAFT

incompatible uses. For the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous
materials would be restricted from using the tunnel. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not
substantially increase traffic or transportation hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
XVI(e). Emergency Access. As discussed in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, during
construction of the Build Alternatives, some impairment to the delivery of emergency services,
including fire and police response times, may occur as a result of lane restrictions, ramp closures,
roadway closures, and/or detours. However, Measure T-1, detailed in Section 3.5, Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, requires development of a TMP. As part of the
TMP, all closures and detours would be coordinated with the affected emergency service providers.
With implementation of Measure T-1, impacts related to emergency access during construction
would be less than significant, and no further mitigation is required.
After completion of construction, the elements included in the Build Alternatives could help to
reduce congestion in the future and consequently reduce response times of emergency vehicles.
The tunnels that are proposed as part of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would include fire
suppression systems to control a fire until emergency responders arrive. In addition, the Freeway
Tunnel Alternative would include emergency evacuation for pedestrians and vehicles, as well as
medians and shoulders that emergency responders could utilize in the event of an emergency.
Therefore, impacts related to emergency access during operation would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is required.
XVI(f). Conflict with Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility Plans. As discussed in Chapter 2.0,
Project Alternatives, the TSM/TDM Alternative, which is included as part of all the Build Alternatives,
includes expanded bus service, bus service improvements, and bicycle facility improvements. These
facilities would be designed consistent with the local General Plan Circulation Elements and will
comply with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements. The project would improve
pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) by replacing the existing ones that would be removed during
construction. Because public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be maintained or
improved, the Build Alternatives would not conflict with adopted plans regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
4.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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
effects?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-88
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
No impact
No impact
No impact
Freeway
Tunnel
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
DRAFT

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to
the providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Less than
significant
impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
Discussion:
XVII(a) Wastewater Treatment Requirements. The Build Alternatives would not generate
wastewater that would be disposed of in the municipal sewer system. As discussed in Chapter 2.0,
Project Alternatives, water in the LRT Alternative and Freeway Tunnel Alternative tunnels (e.g.,
during a fire or to clean a spill) would drain to a low point in the tunnel where a sump would be
located. The water would then be pumped up to a storage tank and hauled away and disposed of as
hazardous waste. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts related to
exceedances of the ability of local wastewater treatment providers to treat wastewater generated in
their service areas. No mitigation is required.
XVII(b). Construction of New or Expanded Water or Wastewater Facilities. The Build Alternatives
would not result in substantial demand for water supplies. Some water may be needed during
project construction and as landscaping is planted to allow the landscaping to become established.
During construction of the Build Alternatives, water would need to be provided for potable use and
for dust control. However, the demand for water during construction of the Build Alternatives would
represent only a very small percentage of total demand for water in the area.
During operation of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, water would be required for fire
suppression in the event of a fire. The fire suppression system for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
would be served by one 92,000-gallon tank that would be filled at the start of operation and then
only intermittently as needed. The fire suppression system for the LRT Alternative would be
connected to two independent water supply connections to ensure adequate water supply is
available to maintain the required pressure and flow rate in case of a fire. However, the demand for
water during construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would be intermittent, would
represent only a very small percentage of total demand for water in the area, and would not exceed
existing entitlements.
As discussed in XVII(a), above, the Build Alternatives would not generate wastewater that would be
disposed of in the municipal sewer system. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in
impacts related to the need for additional water or wastewater treatment capacity and/or facilities.
XVII(c). Construction of New Storm Drain Facilities. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project
Alternatives, the Build Alternatives include modifications to existing storm water drainage facilities
as well as new storm water management features to accommodate increased storm water flows
from the Build Alternatives. Those facilities would not result in substantial impacts related to the
human and natural environments because they would not result in the need for expanded or new
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-89
DRAFT

storm water facilities beyond those that are proposed as part of the Build Alternatives. Therefore,
impacts related to storm drain facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
XVII(d). Water Supplies. As discussed in XVII(b), above, the demand for water during construction
and operation of the Build Alternatives would represent only a very small percentage of total
demand for water in the area and would not exceed existing entitlements. Therefore, impacts
related to water supply would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
XVII(e). Wastewater. As discussed in XVII(a) above, the Build Alternatives would not generate
wastewater that would be disposed of in the municipal sewer system. Therefore, the Build
Alternatives would not result in impacts related to the capacity of local wastewater treatment
providers to treat wastewater generated in their service areas. No mitigation is required.
XVII(f). Landfill Capacity. Waste materials generated during construction of the Build Alternatives
would include materials from demolished structures such as rebar, wood, concrete, and other
similar materials, as well as vegetation removed from construction areas. Waste generated during
operation of the Build Alternatives would be limited to trash picked up along the transportation
facilities and vegetation from landscaping maintenance. All waste materials will be properly
disposed of by the Construction Contractor during construction and by the agency with jurisdiction
during operation (Caltrans, Metro, or the cities), including diversion from area landfills for reduction,
recycling, reuse, and composting (greenwaste). Waste materials generated during construction and
operation of the Build Alternatives that cannot be or are not diverted would be disposed of at the
Puente Hills or Scholl Canyon Landfills. The amount of waste materials generated during
construction and operation of the Build Alternatives that would be disposed of in landfills would
represent only a very small percentage of the total amount of waste generated in the region and
disposed of at the landfills.
As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Alternatives, excavated soil would be disposed of at the
Manning and Olive Pits in the City of Irwindale. These pits are former rock quarries that have been
previously environmentally cleared and licensed to accept clean soil from construction projects. The
Manning Pit has a total capacity of 5,000,000 cubic yards (cy). The Olive Pit has a total capacity of
50,000,000 cy. The total quantity of excavation would be 140,000 cy for the TSM/TDM Alternative,
16,000 cy for the BRT Alternative, 2,600,000 cy for the LRT Alternative, 5,000,000 cy for the singlebore design variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative, and 10,000,00 cy for the dual-bore design
variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative. Based on the total capacity of these two pits, it is
anticipated they have sufficient capacity to accept soil waste generated in the future during
construction of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives. Therefore, impacts related to landfill
capacity would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
XVII(g). Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations. As noted in the response to checklist question
XVII(f), above, waste materials generated during construction and operation of the Build
Alternatives would be properly disposed during construction and operation at landfills, materials
recycling facilities, greenwaste collection stations, and the Manning and Olive Pits. As a result, the
construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts related to
compliance with federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and regulations. No mitigation is
required.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-90
DRAFT

4.2.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Potentially
significant
impact
Freeway
Tunnel
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
impact
Discussion:
XVIII(a). Degradation of the Quality of the Environment. As described earlier in Section 4.2.4,
Biological Resources, the Build Alternatives have the potential to result in adverse impacts on
habitats and natural communities; threatened, endangered, and special-status species; and
protected waters. These potential impacts would be substantially avoided, minimized, or mitigated
to below a level of significance under CEQA based on implementation of the avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures described in Section 4.4 of this CEQA chapter and in detail in
Sections 3.16 through 3.21 of this EIR/EIS.
As discussed in Section 3.11, Paleontology, the sediments in the study area have a high sensitivity
for the presence of paleontological resources. Therefore, the Build Alternatives may impact unique
paleontological resources during construction. During excavation and grading for the TSM/TDM or
BRT Alternatives, fossils would be able to be recovered. During tunnel boring for the LRT and
Freeway Tunnel Alternatives, there would be limited recovery of fossils; however, during excavation
of the cut-and-cover tunnel, fossils would be able to be recovered.
To reduce impacts to paleontological resources that may be present in the areas proposed for
grading and excavation for the Build Alternatives, Measure PAL-1 in Section 3.11, Paleontology,
requires the preparation during final design and implementation during construction of a detailed
PMP for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative or a PRIMP for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives.
Measure PAL-1 requires monitoring during construction, collection of fossils, documentation/
recording of the fossils, and curation of the fossils in a permanent repository.
With implementation of Measure PAL-1, impacts to paleontological resources from construction of
the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, even
with implementation of Measure PAL-1, the loss of fossil remains and the fossil-bearing rocks from
the tunnel boring would be a permanent, significant unavoidable impact of the LRT and Freeway
Tunnel Alternatives based on the scientific significance of formations in the study area.
XVIII(b). Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in detail in Section 3.25, Cumulative Impacts, the
environmental topics for which the Build Alternatives, when combined with other cumulative
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-91
DRAFT

projects, would contribute to adverse impacts that are not fully mitigated or offset and that were
determined to contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts are:
Visual (LRT Alternative onlyvisual impacts from elevated track alignments and stations in the
community of East Los Angeles); and
Animal Species (nesting birds protected under the MBTA).
XVIII(c). Adverse effects on Human Beings. As described above, the short- and long-term direct and
indirect effects of the Build Alternatives, when combined with the effects of other cumulative
projects, would potentially contribute to cumulative impacts for some environmental topics. The
Build Alternatives also have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings,
particularly as a result of the several significant unavoidable adverse impacts described in the
following section.
4.2.19 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects
Even with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, some of the impacts identified
would still remain significant, as summarized below.
4.2.19.1
Cultural Resources
The LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives include bored tunnel sections that would be excavated
using a TBM that prevents access to the rock face and grinds the rock. The sizes of the pieces of
rock recovered will vary from cobble size to small particles, depending on the specific type of TBM
used. During the tunnel boring, the amount of fossil recovery will depend on the type of equipment
used. However, during excavation of the cut-and-cover tunnel, there would be more opportunity for
the complete recovery of larger fossil specimens. To reduce impacts to paleontological resources
that may be present in the areas proposed for grading and excavation for the Build Alternatives,
Measure PAL-1 in Section 3.11, Paleontology, requires the preparation during final design and
implementation during construction of a detailed PMP for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative or a
PRIMP for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives. Measure PAL-1 requires monitoring during
construction, collection of fossils, documentation/recording of the fossils, and curation of the fossils
in a permanent repository.
Although construction would be a short-term activity, even with implementation of Measure PAL-1,
the loss of fossil remains and the fossil-bearing rocks from the tunnel boring would be a permanent,
significant unavoidable impact of the LRT and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives based on the scientific
significance of formations in the study area.
4.2.19.2
Land Use and Planning
Conflict with Land Use Plans
The four Build Alternatives would result in the permanent acquisition and conversion of land
currently planned for nontransportation uses into transportation uses, which would result in
inconsistencies with land use designations in General Plans for local jurisdictions. If a Build
Alternative is selected for implementation, those inconsistencies would exist until the applicable
local General Plans are amended to reflect the use of the affected land for transportation
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-92
DRAFT

improvements in the selected Build Alternative. Neither Metro nor Caltrans has land use planning
authority, and neither has authority to require local jurisdictions to amend their General Plans.
Therefore, it will be the decision of the affected local jurisdictions on how and when to address the
identified General Plan land use inconsistencies. However, because it is generally desirable that the
General Plans be consistent with existing conditions, Metro and Caltrans will request that the
applicable local jurisdictions amend their General Plans to reflect the permanent use of land for the
improvements included in the selected Build Alternative, as specified in Measure LU-1. However,
because Metro and Caltrans have no authority to require a General Plan amendment, a significant
unavoidable impact would remain until the General Plans are amended.
4.2.19.3
Transportation and Traffic
4.2.19.4
Visual/Aesthetics
As shown in Tables 3.5.12 and 3.5.13 in Section 3.5 (Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities), the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives would result in adverse
impacts to study area intersections and freeway segments. Improvements to address those impacts
are not proposed at all the impacted intersections and freeway segments for reasons detailed in
Tables 3.5.17 through 3.5.34. As a result, the TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT, and Freeway Tunnel Alternatives
would all result in significant adverse impacts on study area intersections and freeway segments
that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
As discussed in Section 3.6, Visual/Aesthetics, and as shown on Figure 3.6-12, Key View 9-LRT, in
Appendix M, the I-710 corridor has an open view with vegetation and office buildings to the east
and an undeveloped steep slope to the west. However, under the LRT Alternative, the elevated light
rail line would run diagonally across the freeway at a height of approximately 25 ft above the road.
The proposed visual quality of this view would be reduced because the LRT Alternative facility would
block most of the view to the San Gabriel Mountains in the distance as it crosses over the freeway.
Additionally, Key View 13-LRT (Figure 3.6-16 in Appendix M) would experience a major decrease in
visual quality because a narrow concrete median would be installed to accommodate the concrete
columns for the LRT Alternative overhead. A safety railing would also be built on top of the elevated
track, resulting in the view being dominated by high retaining walls and the LRT Alternative
overpass. The overall visual change would be major. Therefore, the proposed visual quality would
decrease due to the installation of the elevated LRT Alternative facility.
Based on the above discussion, the LRT Alternative, specifically for Key Views 9-LRT and 13-LRT,
would have a significant visual impact.
4.2.19.5
Cumulative Impacts
The Build Alternatives, when combined with other cumulative projects, would contribute to adverse
impacts that are not fully mitigated or offset and that were determined to contribute to unavoidable
significant cumulative adverse impacts to:
Visual (LRT Alternative only): The LRT Alternative and the Eastside Transit Corridor Project
propose elevated track alignments and stations in the community of East Los Angeles, which
would contribute to a cumulative visual impact in the area. Although it is anticipated that, to the
extent feasible, the new features constructed as part of these projects will be visually
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-93
DRAFT

compatible with the surrounding areas, it would still result in a large visual change to the area,
and cumulative visual impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
4.2.20 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Significant irreversible environmental changes are discussed in Section 3.23, Irreversible and
Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would be Involved in the Proposed Project, of this
EIR/EIS.
4.2.21 Growth-Inducing Impacts
As discussed in detail in Section 3.2, Growth, the Build Alternatives are not considered to be growth
inducing.
4.3 Climate Change
Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other
elements of the earth's climate system. An ever increasing body of scientific research attributes
these climatological changes to GHG emissions, particularly those generated from the production
and use of fossil fuels.
While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and the World
Meteorological Organization in 1988 has led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions
reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the
emissions of GHGs generated by human activity including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), fluoroform
(HFC-23), s,s,s,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), and difluoroethane (HFC-152a).
In the United States, the main source of GHG emissions is electricity generation, followed by
transportation. In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) make up the largest source of GHG-emitting sources.
The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, which is mostly from fossil fuel combustion.
There are typically two terms used when discussing the impacts of climate change: Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation and Adaptation. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation is a term for reducing GHG emissions to
reduce or mitigate the impacts of climate change. Adaptation refers to the effort of planning for
and adapting to impacts resulting from climate change (e.g., adjusting transportation design
standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels). 1
There are four primary strategies for reducing GHG emissions from transportation sources:
(1) improving the transportation system and operational efficiencies, (2) reducing travel activity,
(3) transitioning to lower GHG-emitting fuels, and (4) improving vehicle technologies/efficiency. To
be most effective, all four strategies should be pursued cooperatively. 2
1
2
http://climatechange.transportation.org/ghg_mitigation/.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-94
DRAFT

4.3.1 Regulatory Setting

4.3.1.1
State
With the passage of several pieces of legislation, including State Senate and Assembly Bills and
Executive Orders, California launched an innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with GHG
emissions and climate:
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, Pavley, Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill
requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to
reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were
designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009 model year.
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this EO is to reduce Californias GHG
emissions to (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below
the year 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of
AB 32.
AB 32, Nez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 sets the same
overall GHG emissions reduction goals as were outlined in EO S-3-05, while further mandating
that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective
reductions of greenhouse gases.
EO S-20-06 (October 18, 2006): This order establishes the responsibilities and roles of the
Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and State agencies with
regard to climate change.
EO S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order set forth the low carbon fuel standard for California.
Under this EO, the carbon intensity of Californias transportation fuels is to be reduced by at
least 10 percent by 2020.
Senate Bill (SB) 97, Chapter 185, 2007, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: SB 97 required the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March
18, 2010.
SB 375, Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection: This bill requires
the ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets from passenger vehicles. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) for each region must then develop a "Sustainable Communities
Strategy" (SCS) that integrates transportation, land use, and housing policies to plan for the
achievement of the emissions target for their region.
SB 391, Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the States LongRange Transportation Plan (LRTP) to meet Californias climate change goals under AB 32.
4.3.1.2
Federal
Although climate change and GHG reduction are a concern at the federal level, currently no
regulations or legislation have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and
climate change at the project level. Neither the EPA nor the FHWA has issued explicit guidance or
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-95
DRAFT

methods to conduct project-level GHG analysis. 1 The FHWA supports the approach that climate
change considerations should be integrated throughout the transportation decision-making process,
from planning through project development and delivery. Addressing climate change mitigation and
adaptation up front in the planning process will assist in decision-making and improve efficiency at
the program level, and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project-level decisionmaking. Climate change considerations can be integrated into many planning factors (e.g.,
supporting economic vitality and global efficiency, increasing safety and mobility, enhancing the
environment, promoting energy conservation, and improving quality of life).
The four strategies outlined by the FHWA to lessen climate change impacts correlate with efforts
that the State is undertaking to deal with transportation and climate change. These strategies
include improved transportation system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and a reduction in
travel activity.
Climate change and its associated effects are being addressed through various efforts at the federal
level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency, such as the National Clean Car Program and
EO 13514 (October 5, 2009) Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic
Performance. EO 13514 is focused on reducing GHGs internally in federal agency missions, programs
and operations, but also directs federal agencies to participate in the Interagency Climate Change
Adaptation Task Force, which is engaged in developing a national strategy for adaptation to climate
change.
The EPAs authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), in which the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air
pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act (CAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Courts ruling, the
EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence, the
Supreme Court found that six GHGs constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the
Supreme Courts interpretation of the existing CAA and the EPAs assessment of the scientific
evidence that form the basis for EPA regulatory actions. The EPA, in conjunction with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issued the first of a series of GHG emission
standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles in April 2010. 2
The EPA and NHTSA are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of
clean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles and
engines. These next steps include developing the first-ever GHG regulations for heavy-duty engines
and vehicles, as well as additional light-duty vehicle GHG regulations.
The final combined standards that made up the first phase of this national program apply to
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012
through 2016. The standards implemented by this program are expected to reduce GHG emissions
by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles
sold under the program (model years 20122016).
1
2
To date, no national standards have been established regarding mobile source GHGs, nor has the EPA established any
ambient standards, criteria, or thresholds for GHGs resulting from mobile sources.
http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-96
DRAFT

On August 28, 2012, the EPA and NHTSA issued a joint Final Rulemaking to extend the national
program for fuel economy standards to model year 20172025 passenger vehicles. Over the lifetime
of the model year 20172025 standards, this program is projected to save approximately 4 billion
barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions.
The complementary EPA and NHTSA standards that make up the Heavy-Duty National Program
apply to combination tractors (semi-trucks), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational
vehicles (including buses and refuse or utility trucks). Together, these standards will significantly cut
GHG emissions and domestic oil use. This program responds to President Barack Obamas 2010
request to jointly establish GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards for the medium- and heavyduty highway vehicle sector. The agencies estimate that the combined standards will reduce CO2
emissions by about 270 million metric tons and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of
model year 20142018 heavy-duty vehicles.
4.3.2 Project Analysis
An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global
climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may
contribute to a potential impact through its incremental change in emissions when combined with
the contributions of all other sources of GHGs. 1 In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be
determined whether a projects incremental effect is cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130). To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the
project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Gathering
sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects to make this
determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan mandated by AB 32 includes the main strategies California will use to reduce
GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, the ARB released
the GHG inventory for California (forecast last updated October 28, 2010). The forecast (shown in
Figure 4-2) is an estimate of the emissions expected to occur in 2020 if none of the foreseeable
measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. The base year used for forecasting
emissions is the average of statewide emissions in the GHG inventory for 2006, 2007, and 2008.
Caltrans and its parent agency, the California State Transportation Agency, have taken an active role
in addressing GHG emissions reduction and climate change. Recognizing that 98 percent of
Californias GHG emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels and 40 percent of all human-made
GHG emissions are from transportation, Caltrans has created and is implementing the Climate
Action Program at Caltrans that was published in December 2006. 2
This approach is supported by the Association of Environmental Professionals: Recommendations by the Association
of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents
(March 5, 2007), as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (Chapter 6: The CEQA Guide,
April 2011) and the United States Forest Service (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, July
13, 2009).
The Caltrans Climate Action Program is located at the following web address: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/
ogm/key_reports_files/State_Wide_Strategy/Caltrans_Climate_Action_Program.pdf.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-97
DRAFT

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm
Figure 4-2: California Greenhouse Gas Forecast

One of the main strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the Caltrans Climate Action Program is to
make Californias transportation system more efficient. The highest levels of CO2 from mobile
sources (e.g., automobiles) occur at stop-and-go speeds (025 miles per hour [mph]) and speeds
over 55 mph; the most severe emissions, however, occur from 025 mph (shown on Figure 4-3). To
the extent that a project relieves congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times in
high-congestion travel corridors, GHG emissions, particularly CO2, may be reduced.
4.3.3 Project Operational Emissions
The purpose of the proposed action is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and local
north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and east/northeast
Los Angeles. The Build Alternatives would not generate new vehicular traffic trips since new homes
or businesses would not be constructed. However, there is a possibility that some traffic currently
utilizing other routes would be attracted to use the new highway facilities or would shift to the new
transit options, thereby resulting in slight changes in VMT. The impact of GHG emissions is a global
rather than local issue. However, due to lack of global models for project-level analysis, the impact
of the Build Alternatives on GHG emissions was calculated using traffic data for the project region.
The Transportation Technical Report (April 2014) calculated the VMT and vehicle hours traveled
(VHT) for all of the vehicle trips in the project region. These traffic data, in conjunction with the
CT-EMFAC 5.0 emission model, were used to calculate and compare the CO2 emissions for the 2012,
2020, 2025, and 2035 regional conditions.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-98
DRAFT

Figure 4-3: Possible Effect of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On-Road CO2 Emissions 1
The results of the modeling were used to calculate the CO2 emissions listed in Tables 4.9 through
4.11. The CO2 emissions numbers listed in Tables 4.9 through 4.11 are only useful for a comparison
between project alternatives. The numbers are not necessarily an accurate reflection of what the
true CO2 emissions will be because CO2 emissions are dependent on other factors that are not part
of the model, such as the fuel mix, 2 the rate of acceleration, and the aerodynamics and efficiency of
the vehicles. As shown in Tables 4.9 through 4.11, with the exception of the 2035 TSM/TDM and BRT
Alternatives, the Build Alternatives would result in small decreases in CO2 emissions within the
region when compared to No Build conditions. When compared to Existing (2012) conditions, all the
future alternatives (No Build and Build) would result in a net decrease in CO2 emissions.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) included an SCS and adopted a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) as part of its 2012 RTP. Under SB 375, the
primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth that will decrease per capita GHG
emissions from automobiles and light trucks. The PEIR determined that the 2012 RTP would result in
a less than significant impact in relation to GHG. By providing new or improved transit, improved
intersections, and/or new freeway connections, the proposed project alternatives will help achieve
the improved access and mobility goals of SCAGs 2012 RTP/SCS.
The proposed project is included in the 2012 RTP/SCS as follows:
SR-710 North Extension (tunnel) (alignment TBD). 4 toll lanes in each direction in
tunnel.
1
2
Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gases: Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin (TR News 268 MayJune 2010),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews268.pdf.
EMFAC model emission rates are only for direct engine-out CO2 emissions, not the full fuel cycle. Fuel cycle emission
rates can vary dramatically depending on the amount of additives like ethanol and the source of the fuel components.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-99
DRAFT

TABLE 4.9:
2020 Opening Year Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Study Area (metric tons/day)
Alternative
2012 Existing
2020 No Build
TSM/TDM
BRT
CO2
10,156.3
8,992.4
8,965.2
8,955.3

-1,163.9
-1,191.1
-1,201.1

-27.2
-37.1
Source: Air Quality Assessment (2014).

CO2 = carbon dioxide
TABLE 4.10:
2025 Opening Year Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Study Area (metric tons/day)
Alternative
CO2
2012 Existing
2025 No Build
LRT
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls and No Trucks
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls and Express Buses
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel No Tolls
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel No Trucks
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls
10,156.3
8,805.8
8,785.8
8,736.8
8,738.2
8,743.0
8,752.1
8,766.3
8,770.1

Change from
Existing
-1,350.5
-1,370.5
-1,419.6
-1,418.1
-1,413.4
-1,404.2
-1,390.1
-1,386.3
Change from
No Build
-20.0
-69.0
-67.6
-62.9
-53.7
-39.6
-35.7
TABLE 4.11:
2035 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Study Area (metric tons/day)
1
Alternative
CO2
2012 Existing
2035 No Build
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls and No Trucks
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls and Express Buses
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel No Tolls
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel No Trucks
Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel with Tolls
10,156.30
9,077.10
9,078.80
9,078.50
9,075.00
9,027.30
9,028.90
9,023.10
9,051.40
9,062.70
9,052.90

1
CO2 emissions were calculated using CT-EMFAC 5.0.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-100
Change from
Existing
-1,079.20
-1,077.50
-1,077.90
-1,081.40
-1,129.00
-1,127.40
-1,133.30
-1,105.00
-1,093.60
-1,103.50
Change from
No Build
1.7
1.4
-2.2
-49.8
-48.2
-54
-25.7
-14.4
-24.2
DRAFT

The tolled operational variation of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative dual-bore design variation is
consistent with the scope of the RTP listing and associated GHG analysis in the PEIR. In addition,
when compared to the Existing (2012) conditions, all the future alternatives (no build and build)
would result in a net decrease in CO2 emissions. Therefore, all of the project alternatives would be
consistent with the GHG reduction goals of the RTP/SCS and its PEIR.
4.3.4 Construction Emissions
GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during construction
and those during operation. Construction GHG emissions include emissions produced as a result of
material processing, emissions produced by on-site construction equipment, and emissions arising
from traffic delays due to construction. Construction emissions were estimated for the project
alternatives using detailed equipment inventories and project construction scheduling information
provided by CH2M HILL (April 2014) combined with emissions factors from the EMFAC2011 and
OFFROAD models. Short-term off-road construction equipment was calculated using emission rates
based on Tier 2 emission standards. Construction-related emissions for the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT
Alternatives, and the single-bore and dual-bore design variations of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative
are presented in Table 4.12. The emissions presented in Table 4.12 are based on the best
information available at the time of calculations. The emissions listed in Table 4.12 represent the
peak daily construction emissions that would be generated by each alternative.
TABLE 4.12:
Total Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Alternative
TSM/TDM
BRT
LRT
Freeway Tunnel (Single-Bore Design Variation)
Freeway Tunnel (Dual-Bore Design Variation)
Total CO2e (Metric Tons)

1,653.1
209.1
4,933.6
26,345.5
48,490.2

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their
frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by
implementing better traffic management during the construction phase.
In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans,
and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be mitigated to
some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation events. Idling times would
be restricted to 10 minutes in each direction for passenger cars during lane closures and 5 minutes
for construction vehicles. Restricting idling times reduces harmful emissions from passenger cars
and diesel-powered construction vehicles.
4.3.5 CEQA Conclusion
As discussed above, with the exception of the TSM/TDM and BRT Alternatives in 2035, CO2
emissions are projected to decrease when compared to the No Build Alternative. When compared
to existing conditions, all of the future alternatives (No Build and Build) would result in a net
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-101
DRAFT

decrease in CO2 emissions. As also discussed above, there are also limitations with EMFAC and with
assessing what a given CO2 emissions increase means for climate change. Therefore, it is Caltranss
determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG
emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a determination regarding the direct
impact of the proposed project and its contribution on a cumulative scale to climate change.
However, Caltrans and Metro are firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce
energy consumption and GHG emissions throughout the State. These measures are outlined in the
following section.
4.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governors Climate Action Team as the ARB works to
implement EO S-3-05 and EO S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. Many of the
strategies Caltrans is using to help meet the targets in AB 32 come from Former Governor Arnold
Schwarzeneggers Strategic Growth Plan for California. The Strategic Growth Plan targeted a
significant decrease in traffic congestion below 2008 levels and a corresponding reduction in GHG
emissions, while accommodating growth in population and the economy. The Strategic Growth Plan
relies on a complete systems approach to attain CO2 reduction goals: system monitoring and
evaluation, maintenance and preservation, smart land use and demand management, and
operational improvements as shown on Figure 4-4, the Mobility Pyramid.
Figure 4-4: Mobility Pyramid

Caltrans is supporting efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled by planning and implementing smart
land use strategies: job/housing proximity, developing transit-oriented communities, and highdensity housing along transit corridors. Caltrans works closely with local jurisdictions on planning
activities, but does not have local land use planning authority. Caltrans also assists efforts to
improve the energy efficiency of the transportation sector by increasing vehicle fuel economy in
new cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks. Caltrans is doing this by supporting ongoing research
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-102
DRAFT

efforts at universities and legislative efforts to increase fuel economy, and by participating on the
Climate Action Team. It is important to note, however, that control of fuel economy standards is
held by the EPA and ARB.
Caltrans is also working towards enhancing the States transportation planning process to respond
to future challenges. Similar to requirements for RTPs under SB 375 (Steinberg 2008), SB 391(Liu
2009) requires the States LRTP to meet Californias climate change goals under AB 32.
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide LRTP to meet our future mobility needs and
reduce GHG emissions. The CTP defines performance-based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve
our collective vision for Californias future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system.
The purpose of the CTP is to provide a common policy framework that will guide transportation
investments and decisions by all levels of government, the private sector, and other transportation
stakeholders. Through this policy framework, CTP 2040 will identify the statewide transportation
system needed to achieve maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the States
transportation needs.
Table 4.13 summarizes the Caltrans and statewide efforts that are being implemented to reduce
GHG emissions. More detailed information about each strategy is included in the Climate Action
Program at Caltrans (December 2006).
Caltrans Directors Policy 30 (DP-30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a
Caltrans policy that will ensure coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into Caltrans
decisions and activities.
Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April 2013) 1 provides a comprehensive overview of
activities undertaken by Caltrans statewide to reduce GHG emissions resulting from agency
operations.
The following measures will also be included in the project to reduce GHG emissions and potential
climate change impacts from the project:
1. Landscaping reduces surface warming and, through photosynthesis, decreases CO2. Landscaping
would be provided where necessary within the corridor to provide aesthetic treatment,
replacement planting, or mitigation planting for the project. The landscape planting would help
offset any potential CO2 emissions increase.
2. The project would recommend the use of energy-efficient lighting, such as light-emitting diode
(LED) traffic signals. LED bulbsor balls, in the stoplight vernacularcost $60 to $70 apiece but
last 5 to 6 years compared to the 1-year average lifespan of the incandescent bulbs previously
used. The LED balls themselves consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights, which
will also help reduce the projects CO2 emissions.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/climate_change/projects_and_studies.shtml.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-103
DRAFT

TABLE 4.13:
Climate Change/CO2 Reduction Strategies
Strategy
Smart Land Use
Operational
Improvements &
Intelligent
Transportation
System (ITS)
Deployment
Program
Partnership
Lead
Agency
Local
governments
Local and
regional
agencies & other
stakeholders
Intergovernmental
Review (IGR)
Caltrans
Planning Grants
Caltrans
Regional Plans and

Blueprint Planning
Regional
Agencies
Caltrans
Strategic Growth Plan
Caltrans
Regions
Office of Policy
Mainstream
Analysis & Research;
Energy & GHG into
Division of
Plans and Projects
Environmental Analysis
Educational &
Office of Policy
Information
Analysis & Research
Program
Fleet Greening &
Fuel
Division of Equipment
Diversification
Non-vehicular
Energy Conservation
Conservation
Program
Measures
Interdepartmental effort
Interdepartmental, Cal/EPA,
ARB, CEC
Department of General
Services
Method/Process
Review and seek to mitigate
development proposals
Competitive selection
process
Not
Estimated
Not
Estimated
Regional plans and

application process
0.975
7.8
State ITS; Congestion

Management Plan
0.07
2.17
Policy establishment,
guidelines, technical
assistance
Not
Estimated
Not
Estimated
Not
Estimated
Not
Estimated
.0045
0.0065
0.045
0.0225
0.117
0.34
Analytical report, data

collection, publication,
workshops, outreach
Fleet Replacement
B20
B100
Energy Conservation
Opportunities
Green Action Team
Estimated CO2 Savings

Million Metric Tons (MMT)
2010
2020
Not
Not
Estimated
Estimated
2.5% limestone cement mix

1.2
25% fly ash cement mix
> 50% fly ash/slag mix
0.36
Office of Goods
Goods Movement Action
Not
Goods Movement
Cal/EPA, ARB, BT&H, MPOs
Movement
Plan
Estimated
Total
2.72
ARB = California Air Resources Board
CEC = California Energy Commission
BT&H = Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Cal/EPA = California Environmental Protection Agency
GHG = greenhouse gas
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization
Portland Cement
Office of Rigid
Pavement
Cement and Construction

Industries
4.2
3.6
Not
Estimated
18.18
3. According to Caltrans Standard Specification Provisions, idling time for lane closure during
construction is restricted to 10 minutes in each direction. In addition, the Contractor must
comply with Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 2449(d)(3), that was adopted
by the ARB on June 15, 2008. This regulation restricts idling of construction vehicles to no longer
than 5 consecutive minutes. Compliance with this regulation reduces harmful emissions from
diesel-powered construction vehicles.
4.3.7 Adaptation Strategies
Adaptation strategies refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of climate change
on the States transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage.
Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures,
rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and intensity, and the frequency and intensity of
wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-104
DRAFT

damage to roadbeds from longer periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding
and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These effects will vary by location and may, in the
most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. There may also be economic
and strategic ramifications as a result of these types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure.
At the federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released its interagency task force progress report
on October 28, 2011, 1 that outlines the federal government's progress in expanding and
strengthening the Nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme
events and other climate change impacts. The report provides an update on actions in key areas of
federal adaptation, including: building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural
resources such as freshwater, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help
decision-makers manage climate risks.
Climate change adaptation must also involve the natural environment as well. Efforts are underway
on a statewide-level to develop strategies to cope with impacts to habitat and biodiversity through
planning and conservation. The results of these efforts will help California agencies plan and
implement mitigation strategies for programs and projects.
On November 14, 2008, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-13-08, which directed a
number of State agencies to address Californias vulnerability to sea level rise caused by climate
change. This EO set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea level rise.
In addition to addressing projected sea level rise, the California Natural Resources Agency
(Resources Agency) was directed to coordinate with local, regional, State, and federal public and
private entities to develop The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (Dec 2009), 2 which
summarizes the best-known science on climate change impacts to California, assesses California's
vulnerability to the identified impacts and then outlines solutions that can be implemented within
and across State agencies to promote resiliency.
The strategy outline is in direct response to EO S-13-08, which specifically asked the Resources
Agency to identify how State agencies can respond to rising temperatures, changing precipitation
patterns, sea level rise, and extreme natural events. Numerous other State agencies were involved
in the creation of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, including Cal/EPA, the California State
Transportation Agency (previously known as the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency), the
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA). The document is broken down into strategies for different sectors that
include: Public Health, Biodiversity and Habitat, Ocean and Coastal Resources, Water Management,
Agriculture, Forestry, and Transportation and Energy Infrastructure. As data continues to be
developed and collected, the State's adaptation strategy will be updated to reflect current findings.
1
2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009-027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-F.PDF.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-105
DRAFT

The National Academy of Science was directed to prepare a sea level rise assessment report 1 to
recommend how California should plan for future sea level rise. The report was released in June
2012 and included:
Relative sea level rise projections for California, Oregon, and Washington that take into account
coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, El Nio and La Nia events, storm surge, and land
subsidence rates.
The range of uncertainty in selected sea level rise projections.
A synthesis of existing information on projected sea level rise impacts to State infrastructure
(e.g., roads, public facilities, and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems.
A discussion of future research needs regarding sea level rise.
In 2010, interim guidance was released by The Coastal Ocean Climate Action Team (CO-CAT) and
Caltrans as a method to initiate action and discussion of potential risks to the States infrastructure
due to projected sea level rise. Subsequently, CO-CAT updated the Sea Level Rise guidance to
include information presented in the National Academy of Science study.
All State agencies that are planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea level rise
are directed to consider a range of sea level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100 to assess
project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea
level rise. Sea level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information on local uplift
and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, storm surge, and storm
wave data.
All projects that have filed an NOP as of the date of EO S-13-08 and/or are programmed for
construction funding through 2013, or are routine maintenance projects may, but are not required
to, consider these planning guidelines. The NOP for the project was submitted February 28, 2011.
Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016.
EO S-13-08 also directed California State Transportation Agency to prepare a report to assess the
vulnerability of transportation systems to sea level rise that would affect the safety, maintenance,
and operational improvements of the system and the economy of the State. Caltrans continues to
work on assessing the transportation systems vulnerability to climate change, including the effect of
sea level rise.
Currently, Caltrans is working to assess which transportation facilities are at greatest risk from
climate change effects. However, without statewide planning scenarios for relative sea level rise and
other climate change effects, Caltrans has not been able to determine what change, if any, may be
made to its design standards for its transportation facilities. Once statewide planning scenarios
become available, Caltrans will be able to review its current design standards to determine what
changes, if any, may be needed to protect the transportation system from sea level rise.
Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk
management to address transportation system vulnerabilities to increased precipitation and
flooding, the increased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires, rising temperatures, and
1
Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012) is available at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-106
DRAFT

rising sea levels. Caltrans is an active participant in the efforts being conducted in response to
EO S-13-08 and is mobilizing to be able to respond to the National Academy of Science sea level rise
assessment report.
While estimates vary, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the year 2100.
Although these projections are on a global scale, the rate of sea level rise along Californias coast is
relatively consistent with the worldwide average rate observed over the past century. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that changes in worldwide sea level rise will also be experienced along
Californias coast. As the proposed project site is located approximately 800 ft above sea level and
18 mi from the coast, the project area would not be affected by an approximately 39-inch rise in sea
level.
4.4 Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts under

CEQA
Table 4.14 lists the avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation measures included in the
Build Alternatives to address the impacts of those alternatives on the resources as described earlier
in this section. The complete text of each measure is provided in the appropriate sections of Chapter
3.0, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures, and in Appendix E, Environmental Commitments Record.
TABLE 4.14:
Measures for Significant Impacts
Measure
No.
Measure Description
TSM/TDM
Biological Resources
Dredge and Fill Permit, including compensatory mitigation for
nonwetland and other waters.
WET-2 Streambed Alteration Agreement, including restoration,
enhancement, establishment, and/or mitigation for drainages and
habitats
WET-3 Water Quality Certification, including restoration, enhancement,
establishment, and/or mitigation for waters
PS-3
Compliance with local tree ordinances, including compensatory
mitigation.
Traffic and Transportation
Improvements to Intersections and Freeway Segments (Section 3.5.4.2)
Cultural Resources
PAL-1 PMP and PRIMP
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HW-8 Phase II site investigations
Land Use and Planning
LU-1
Amendment of local jurisdictions General Plans and other local
plans
PARKS-1 Compliance with the Public Park Preservation Act and
compensatory mitigation for impacts to Cascades Park
BRT
Alternative
LRT
Freeway Tunnel
WET-1
= Measure applies to this alternative.

PMP = Paleontological Mitigation Plan
PRIMP = Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-107
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
4-108
DRAFT
5. Comments and Coordination

5.1 Introduction
Early and continuing coordination with the general public and public agencies is an essential part of
the environmental process. It helps planners determine the necessary scope of environmental
documentation and the level of analysis required, and to identify potential impacts and avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation measures, and related environmental requirements. Agency
consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of
formal and informal methods, including interagency coordination meetings, Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), and Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee (SOAC) meetings. This chapter
summarizes the results of the efforts of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to fully identify,
address, and resolve project-related issues through early and continuing coordination.
5.2 Scoping Process
5.2.1 Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent
The scoping process for the State Route 710 (SR 710) North Study was initiated with the preparation
and distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in
the Federal Register. The formal scoping process period was initiated on March 3, 2011, and ended
on April 14, 2011.
The NOP was posted at the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 1982092310) and was circulated to public
agencies and other interested parties in compliance with Section 15082 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines on March 3, 2011. The NOP notified the public of the
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) being prepared, the
scoping meeting dates, times, and locations, and how to provide comments on the project.
The NOI was published on March 3, 2011, in the Federal Register in compliance with Federal
Regulation 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.28. The NOI included the background of the
project, the project purpose and need, a brief description of the proposed alternatives, information
regarding the scoping meeting locations, and how to provide comments on the project.
Copies of the NOP and NOI are provided in Appendix I, Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent.
5.2.2 Scoping Meetings
In addition to the NOP/NOI, eight scoping meetings were held as part of the scoping process. The
meetings were held as follows:
March 15, 2011, at Jefferson Middle School in San Gabriel
March 16, 2011, at the Civic Center Library in Alhambra
March 22, 2011, at Glendale Community College in Glendale
March 23, 2011, at South Pasadena High School in South Pasadena
March 29, 2011, at Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church in El Sereno
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-1
DRAFT

CHAPTER 5. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
March 30, 2011, at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena
April 5, 2011, at La Caada High School in La Caada Flintridge
April 6, 2011, at Ramona Hall Community Center in Highland
5.2.3 Comments Received During Scoping
A total of 100 written comment letters and 29 comment cards were received from federal, State,
and regional/county agencies, elected officials, community groups, members of the general public,
and other interested parties via letters, emails, comment cards, and recorded scoping meeting
comments. Key issues noted in the comments included, but were not limited to:
Alternatives;
Traffic management and pedestrian safety;
Air quality and public health impacts;
Land use, population, and housing effects;
Biological resources;
Water quality;
Noise;
Hazards;
Traffic impacts;
Recreation; and
Environmental justice;
Construction mitigation.
Aesthetic, social, and economic impacts;
The Scoping Summary Report (2011) documented the scoping process and contains the following
documents and more detailed information regarding the scoping process:
Copies of the NOP and NOI
Summary of the comments received in response to the NOP and NOI
Formal scoping letters
Public outreach, including the summary of the public scoping notices
Summary of public meetings
Summary of scoping comments
5.3 Consultation and Coordination with Agencies
5.3.1 Consultation and Coordination with Cooperating and Participating

Agencies
The Efficient Environmental Review Coordination Plan for State Route 710 North Study for the
project documents the coordination of public and agency participation and comments received
during the environmental review process. It is the responsibility of the lead agencies to develop the
coordination plan to facilitate and document the interaction among the lead agencies, the
participating and cooperating agencies, and the public.
As of October 1, 2012, MAP-21 made further amendments to the efficient environmental review process
added by SAFETEA-LU and is codified at 23 United States Code (USC) Section 139. For this process,
Caltrans sent letters inviting agencies to be Cooperating and/or Participating Agencies in the
environmental process for the SR 710 North Study on February 15, 2012. (A sample of the Caltrans
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-2
DRAFT

invitation letter is provided following the last page of tables in this chapter.) Participating Agencies
are federal, State, regional, or local agencies that may have an interest in the project. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) declined to be a Participating Agency for the project. (Copies of the
acceptance letters and the declining email for participating agencies are provided as attachments to
this chapter.) The following agencies agreed to become Participating Agencies for the project:
Metro
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
County of Los Angeles
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
City of Alhambra
City of Glendale
City of La Caada Flintridge
City of Monterey Park
City of Pasadena
City of San Marino
Cooperating Agencies are federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative.
Cooperating Agencies are also Participating Agencies. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to be both
Cooperating and Participating Agencies for the project.
A Coordination Plan under USC Section 139 was prepared and provided to the cooperating and
participating agencies in a meeting on December 7, 2012. Handouts for that meeting included the
Coordination Plan, a draft purpose and need statement for the project, and a draft summary of the
project alternatives. Coordination with the cooperating and participating agencies for the SR 710
North Study is ongoing.
Caltrans, as the Lead Agency, specifically requested the Participating and Cooperating Agencies to
provide comments and input on the following topics:
Project purpose and need
Proposed range of alternatives
Caltrans also requested that these agencies participate in coordination meetings and joint field
reviews, as appropriate, and review and comment on early project information to reflect the views
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-3
DRAFT

and concerns of each agency regarding the proposed environmental documentation, alternatives
considered, and the anticipated project impacts and mitigation.
5.3.2 Consultation and Coordination with Public Agencies
This section describes consultation and coordination with public agencies, including some of the
Cooperating and Participating Agencies described above.
5.3.2.1
Biological Resources Consultation
The USFWS was consulted regarding plant and animal species, and threatened and endangered
species potentially present in the project study area. A list of species was supplied by the USFWS
and is provided in Appendix K, USFWS Species List.
A letter requesting a list of special-status species potentially occurring within the BSA was sent to
the USFWS on September 16, 2013. A response to the request was received on October 28, 2013. A
request for an updated species list from USFWS was sent on October 24, 2014. An updated species
list was received from USFWS on October 27, 2014.
Agency coordination regarding jurisdictional water features took place with USACE and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Coordination with USACE was initiated on August 12, 2013.
Coordination with CDFW was initiated on January 27, 2014.
5.3.2.2
Section 4(f) Consultation
Impacts to parks and parkland are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.4, Parks and Recreational
Facilities and Section 4(f) Resources. Caltrans has initiated consultation with the City of Monterey
Park regarding the temporary and permanent effects of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative on
Cascades Park, a Section 4(f) resource. An initial meeting with the City of Monterey Park was held on
November 12, 2014 at the City of Monterey Park. The meeting attendees included:
Amy Ho, Program Management Analyst, City of Monterey Park
Samantha Tewasart, Senior Planner, City of Monterey Park
Ray Alfonso, Assistant City Engineer, City of Monterey Park
Cesar Vega, Associate Engineer, City of Monterey Park
Jason Roach, Environmental, Caltrans
Michelle Smith, Project Manager, Metro
Aziz Elattar, Executive Officer-Highway Programs, Metro
Yoga Chandran, CH2M Hill, consultant to Caltrans and Metro
Lilly Acuna, Project Assistant, CH2M Hill, consultant to Caltrans and Metro
Deborah Pracilio, Environmental Studies, LSA Associates, Inc., consultant to Caltrans and Metro
The purpose of the meeting was to confirm the boundaries of Cascades Park and Heritage Falls Park
with the City and to discuss the potential effects of the proposed BRT Alternative on those
resources. The resource boundaries confirmed by the City are shown on the figures provided in
Chapter 2 in Appendix B, Draft Section 4(f).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-4
DRAFT

5.3.2.3
SHPO Consultation
Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office was conducted regarding the HPSR.
Concurrence on the eligibility of cultural properties evaluated in the HPSR by the SHPO was provided
in a letter dated February 26, 2015. A copy of that letter is provided in the correspondence section
following the last page in this Chapter. In that letter, SHPO indicated they had no objection to the
following determinations and assumptions of eligibility:
Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.6 of the Programmatic Agreement (PA), concurrence that the 440
properties listed in Attachment 1, Table 2 of the Caltrans letter dated February 20, 2015 are not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)
Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.6 of the PA, concurrence that the 22 properties listed in
Attachment 1, Table 3 in the Caltrans letter dated February 20, 2015 are eligible for the National
Register
Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.4, Caltrans is assuming National Register eligibility for the purposes
of the undertaking for the following properties: 318 Fairview Avenue, South Pasadena; 2020
Fremont Street, South Pasadena; US Highway 66; Horatio Rush Prehistoric Village Site; and
Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site.
In addition, based on additional correspondence (email and phone) on February 26, 2015,
Caltrans will also, pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.4 of the PA, assume the following properties are
National Register eligible for the purposes of the project (these properties were listed as not
eligible in Attachment 1, Table 2 in the Caltrans letter dated February 20, 2015): Library
Neighborhood Historic District; 904 Monterey Road, South Pasadena; and 270 S Orange Grove
Boulevard, Pasadena.
In a letter to SHPO dated February 26, 2015, Caltrans initiated a phased approach of the Application
of Criteria of Adverse Effects and consultation regarding the Preliminary Finding of No Adverse
Effect for the project. That February 26, 2015 letter is also provided in the correspondence section
at the end of this Chapter.
5.3.2.4
Consultation with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Meetings were held on January 22, 2013 and April 3, 2014 with the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District to discuss the SR 710 Study alternatives including the alternatives for Dorchester
Channel and Laguna Regulating Basin and solicit feedback from Los Angeles County Flood Control
District.
5.3.3 Community Outreach and Information Meetings
The engineering and environmental studies for the SR 710 North Study include an extensive ongoing
community outreach program. Table 5.1 lists the community outreach meetings held for the SR 710
North Study starting in 2011. Please note that the tables cited in this chapter are provided following
the last page of text in this chapter. Unless otherwise noted, some or all of the following parties
from the SR 710 North Study planning and engineering teams conducted and/or attended each of
these meetings:
Metro planning, engineering, and community relations/media staff

Caltrans engineering and environmental planning staff
Engineering, environmental, and public outreach consultants
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-5
DRAFT

Those meetings and the primary participants in those meetings are described below:
SR 710 Conversation Series Meetings: This series of meetings held in early 2011 were intended
to provide broad overviews of key steps in the project process. Each meeting was offered in a
number of cities and communities in the overall study area. Attendance at these meetings was
open to members of the general public and other interested parties. The first series of meetings
provided the public with a broad overview of the history of the SR 710 North Study. The second
series of meetings provided the public with information on the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and CEQA, and how NEPA and CEQA apply to the project. The third and final series of
meetings served as the formal scoping meetings for the project.
SOAC Meetings: The SOAC is composed of elected or appointed officials from the jurisdictions in
the study area. The SOAC meetings were held approximately quarterly and are intended to
provide updated information on the project engineering, the progress of the technical studies,
and the public outreach activities. Typically, the SOAC meetings were held one day after TAC
meetings with the same agendas and information updates. The SOAC members provide updates
to their respective jurisdictions on the progress of the project.
TAC Meetings: The TAC is composed of representatives from public works, engineering, and
planning departments in the cities and public resource/regulatory agencies in the study area.
These meetings were typically held quarterly and are intended to provide updated information
on the project engineering and environmental planning tasks, the project schedule, and to
discuss issues and concerns.
All Communities Convening (ACC) Information Sessions and Open House Meetings: The ACC is
composed of interested members of the general public. The ACC Information Sessions and Open
House meetings were held periodically and intended to provide updated information on the
project engineering and environmental planning tasks, and the project schedule.
Community Liaison Council (CLC) Meetings: The CLCs consisted of representation from each
community in the Study area to reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity amongst communities as
well as the diversity of interests of residents, local business, major employers, community
leadership, etc. The role of this council was to keep the project team informed on the
effectiveness of outreach, and provide recommendations for outreach. The following cities,
communities and neighborhoods were represented by community stakeholders: Alhambra,
Altadena, Arcadia, Atwater Village, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Burbank, Cypress Park,
Duarte, East Los Angeles, El Monte, El Sereno, Glassell Park, Glendale, Highland Park, Irwindale,
La Caada Flintridge, La Crescenta-Montrose, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Mt. Washington,
Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena,
and Temple City. Meetings were held with the CLC from April 2012 to August 2013.
Information Sessions: Information meeting and open houses were held in communities
throughout the study area. The purpose of the meetings were to provide general information
related to the Build Alternatives under consideration, alternatives withdrawn from
consideration, topics to be evaluated in the EIR/EIS. Attendees were provided the opportunity
to provide verbal and written comments at the meetings.
Scoping under CEQA and NEPA: The scoping process for the EIR/EIS was initiated on March 4,
2011, and the scoping period ended on April 14, 2011. During that period, a number of public
meetings and public information/comment opportunities were offered to members of the
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-6
DRAFT

general public, other interested parties, and public agencies to describe the project and the
environmental process, and to solicit comments on issues related to the project and the
environmental process.
Other Sources of Information Regarding the Project: In addition to the meetings and public
information/comment opportunities described above, Metro used Facebook, Twitter, and a
project-specific page on their website for the SR 710 North Study to provide updated project
information to all interested parties. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been provided on
the website for subjects such as: the environmental review process, alternative concepts and
truck/goods movement. These electronic information sources are updated as appropriate to
ensure that current project-related information is available.
5.4 Interagency Coordination Regarding Air Quality

(Transportation Conformity Working Group)
As discussed in Section 3.13, Air Quality a PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot form (May 2014) was
submitted to and reviewed by the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) on May 27,
2014 and additional requested information was provided to the TCWG in June 2014. The primary
TCWG members are EPA, FHWA, and Caltrans Headquarters. On October 28, 2014, the TCWG
determined that the TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives are not Projects of Air Quality Concern
(POAQC) and that the Freeway Tunnel Alternative single- and dual-bore design variations are
POAQC. If the Freeway Tunnel Alternative with either the single- or dual-bore design variation is
identified as the preferred alternative, a quantitative PM hot-spot analysis will be conducted to
demonstrate that the project would not delay attainment of or worsen existing violation of or cause
an exceedance of the PM2.5 or PM10 national ambient air quality standards and meets the
conformity requirement.
5.5 Native American Consultation and Coordination
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on June 14, 2013 and was
specifically requested to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search for the project area. The NAHC
responded on June 18, 2013, to state that the SLF did not indicate the presence of Native American
cultural resources in the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) based on the coordinates defined in
the request. However, the NAHC response did note that adjacent areas in the Cities of Azusa and
Pasadena include Native American cultural resources and that this historic area of the Tongva is
known to be culturally sensitive. The NAHC recommended that 10 Native American individuals
representing the Gabrielino and Gabrielino Tongva groups be contacted for information regarding
cultural resources that could be impacted by the project. Table 5.2 lists the Native American
individuals consulted for the project and the results of that consultation. The first contact was a
certified letter dated June 26, 2013, which was sent to all 10 individuals to notify them of the
proposed SR 710 North Study Project. As shown in Table 5.2, two responses to that letter were
received. Two rounds of follow-up communication (telephone calls and emails) were conducted
between July 19, 2013, and July 26, 2013, and three additional responses were received as shown in
Table 5.2. As shown in Table 5.2, no response was received from Ron Andrade, Los Angeles
City/County Native American Indian Commission; Cindi M. Alvitre, TiAt Society/Inter-Tribal Council
of Pimu; Bernie Acuna, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Linda Candelaria, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; or
Conrad Acuna, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-7
DRAFT

Subsequent to the consultation conducted in June 2013, additional historical research for the
project identified two cultural resource sites that were recorded in the APE. The two archaeological
sites are the Horatio Rust and the Otsungna prehistoric village sites. An additional consultation letter
was sent to Tribal representatives and interested parties on December 8, 2014, informing the
representatives of the sites and requesting comments or discussions about the sites. Table 5.3
summarizes the consultation for the two archaeological sites and the input provided by the Tribal
representatives.
5.6 Documentation of Consultation
The consultation letters and correspondence described in this section are provided following the last
page of text in this chapter.
5.6.1 Participating Agencies
Concurrence letters from the following agencies who agreed to become Participating Agencies for
the project are provided:
USFWS
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
City of Alhambra
City of Glendale
City of Pasadena
City of San Marino
5.6.2 Cooperating Agencies
Concurrence letters from USACE and EPA, who agreed to become Cooperating Agencies for the
project, are provided at the end of this Chapter. In compliance with 23 USC 139, the Administrative
Draft EIR/EIS for the SR 710 North Study (dated January 2015) was submitted to the Cooperating
Agencies, as requested, on January 22, 2015 for review.
5.6.3 City of Monterey Park
Prior to the Final EIR/EIS, the City of Monterey Park will be formally requested to provide its
concurrence with the temporary and permanent impacts of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative
on El Encanto/Cascades Park and the preliminary De Minimis Finding for those effects as described
in detail in Appendix B, Draft Section 4(F) De Minimis Finding and Resources Evaluated Relative to
the Requirements of Section 4(f). That consultation process will be documented in the Final EIR/EIS.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-8
DRAFT

5.6.4 Native American Consultation
Written documentation regarding the consultation with Native American representatives is provided
in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (2014).
5.6.5 Correspondence
The following correspondence regarding the project is provided following the last page of the tables
in this section:
Determination of Eligibility for the SR 710 North Study Project from SHPO (February 26, 2015,
two pages)
Phased Approach of the Application of Criteria of the Adverse Effects and Preliminary Finding of
No Adverse Effect for the Proposed 710 North Project from Caltrans to SHPO (February 26,
2015, two pages)
Sample Caltrans Invitation to Become Participating Agency and Cooperating Agency on the
State Route 710 Study (two pages)
Cooperating Agency response letters from:
United States Army Corps of Engineers (February 28, 2012, two pages)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (March 21, 2012, two pages)
Participating Agency acceptance and declining responses from:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (March 19, 2012, one page)
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (March 19, 2012, two pages)
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (February 23, 2012, on page)
City of Alhambra (March 16, 2012, one page)
City of Glendale (February 23, 2012, two pages)
City of La Canada Flintridge (March 15, 2012, one page)
City of Monterey Park (February 21, 2012, one page)
City of Pasadena (February 28, 2012, one page)
City of San Marino (February 22, 2012, one page)
City of South Pasadena (April 5, 2012, two pages)
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (February 23, 2012, one page)
Caltrans email (November 3, 2014) and FTA email (November 18, 2014, one page)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-9
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Summary of SR 710 North Study Community Outreach Meetings
Meeting Date
02/15/11
02/16/11
02/19/11
02/23/11
02/24/11
02/26/11
03/01/11
03/02/11
03/03/11
03/08/11
03/09/11
03/17/11
03/15/11
03/16/11
03/22/11
03/23/11
03/29/11
03/30/11
04/05/11
04/06/11
04/06/11
Meeting and Location

SR 710 Conversations, Series 1
Description
SR 710 Conversation Series Meetings
Presentation and discussion regarding Transportation Where have we
been? Where are we going?
Participants
Members of the general public and other
interested parties at six locations in six
communities: Alhambra, El Sereno,
Glendale, Pasadena, San Gabriel, and
South Pasadena.
Presentation and discussion regarding Understanding the Environmental

Process CEQA/NEPA

interested parties at six locations in six
communities: Alhambra, El Sereno,
Glendale, Pasadena, San Gabriel, and
South Pasadena.
Presentation and discussion regarding Scoping Going on the Record

interested parties at eight locations in
eight communities: Alhambra, El Sereno,
Glendale, Highland Park, La Caada
Flintridge, Pasadena, San Gabriel, and
South Pasadena.
One virtual Scoping Meeting hosted through the SR 710 North Study
Website
Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee (SOAC) Meetings
(refer also to the list of TAC meetings for discussion of SOAC Meeting Nos. 511, which were based on the same presentations as the TAC meetings)
05/11/12
SOAC Meeting No. 1
Presentation and discussion: project scoping process and topics of the
SOAC members, Metro and Caltrans
Metro Headquarters
comments provided at the Scoping Meetings, the community outreach
representatives, and consultants
One Gateway Plaza
structure, dates of the Open House meetings in May 2012, the
Los Angeles
alternatives analyses process, the four elements of need, the preliminary
project purpose, the initial evaluation of alternative concepts, and the
recommended alternative concepts for conceptual engineering.
07/20/12
SOAC Meeting No. 2
Presentation and discussion: preliminary alternatives analysis,
Metro Headquarters
transportation analysis for the Build and No Build Alternatives, initial
One Gateway Plaza
environmental assessment, and status of conceptual engineering.
Los Angeles
8/30/12
SOAC Meeting No. 3
Presentation and discussion: public outreach and community involvement SOAC members, Metro and Caltrans
update, update on technical work in support of the alternatives analyses.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-10
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
11/15/12
For SOAC Meeting
Nos. 511, refer to
the information
provided for TAC
Meetings 915 below
01/18/12
02/08/12
03/07/12
04/05/12
05/09/12
07/11/12
08/29/12
08/30/12
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

SOAC Meeting No. 4
--
TAC Meeting No. 1

Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 2
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 3
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 4
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 5
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 6
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles
TAC Meeting No. 7 (first date)
SOAC Meeting (second date)
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Description
Presentation and discussion: public outreach and community involvement
update, initial discussion on goods movement, fact checks, and
refinement of alternatives.
--
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings and SOAC Meetings

Presentation and discussion: scoping process and comments, and
preliminary project need.
Participants
--
TAC members, Metro and Caltrans

Presentation and discussion: roles and responsibilities of the members of

the TAC, Metro, Caltrans, the engineering team and consultants, SR 710
decision-making flow chart, discussion topics from TAC Meeting No. 1,
Transportation System Analysis, review of the Project Need statement,
the alternatives evaluation framework, and discussion of goals and
objectives.
Presentation and discussion: overview of alternatives analysis; project
purpose; objectives, criteria, and performance measures; alternatives
development methodology; and initial set of alternatives.

Presentation and discussion: initial alternatives, results of initial

evaluation, and identification of alternatives for conceptual engineering.

Presentation and discussion: alternative concepts for preliminary

engineering, conceptual design approach, performance measures for
screening, and forecasting methodology and assumptions.

Presentation and discussion: Public outreach and community involvement

update, update on Part 1 Alternatives Analyses Technical Work, open
discussion/new business and meeting adjournment.
Presentation and discussion: updates on public outreach, community
involvement, and alternatives analysis; and open discussion.

5-11


DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
11/14/12
02/13/13
02/14/13
04/24/13
04/25/13
07/10/13
07/11/13
09/11/13
09/12/13
11/13/13
11/14/13
2/19/14
2/20/14
5/14/14
5/15/14
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

TAC Meeting No. 8
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
SOAC Meeting No. 5 (second date)
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Metro Headquarters
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Description
Presentation and discussion: updates on public outreach activities and
alternatives analysis; goods movement; fact checks; refinement of
alternatives; and next steps.
Participants
Presentation and discussion: updates on public outreach activities,

Project Report and environmental studies; recap of the alternatives
analysis; and next steps.
TAC and SOAC members, Metro and

Caltrans representatives, and consultants

Project Report, environmental studies, and the Build Alternatives; and
next steps.


preliminary engineering, and environmental technical studies; and next
steps.


preliminary engineering, environmental technical studies, and the Value
Analysis Study; and next steps.

Presentation and discussion: review of public outreach activities; and

updates on the status of the Project Report, preliminary engineering,
environmental technical studies, and the Value Analysis Study.

Presentation and discussion: review of public outreach activities; and

status of the Project Report, preliminary engineering, environmental
technical studies documentation, and a recap of the TAC Meeting No. 13
and SOAC Meeting No. 9.

Presentation and discussion: review of public outreach activities; status of

the Project Report and the environmental studies documentation; recap
of the TAC No. 14 and SOAC No.10 Meetings; and update of the
preliminary engineering and the technical studies.

5-12
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
8/13/14
8/14/14

Description
Presentation and discussion: review of public outreach activities; status of
the Project Report and the environmental studies documentation; and
Metro Headquarters
update of the preliminary engineering and the technical studies.
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles
Presentation and discussion: status of the Project Report and the
environmental studies documentation, and overview of the Draft
Metro Headquarters
Environmental Impact Report and Environment Impact Statement
One Gateway Plaza
(EIR/EIS).
Los Angeles
All Communities Convening (ACC) Information Sessions and Open House Meetings
ACC Convening Meetings in Highland
Presentation and open house with the following information/discussion
Park
stations:
ACC Convening Meeting in East LA
Station 1: Sign-in
Station 2: Project Overview
Station 3: Environmental Process
Station 4: Community Outreach
Station 5: Community Liaison Councils
Station 6: Comments
Open House meeting in El Sereno
The purpose of the meeting was to: provide a study overview, share the
study history, provide information on the environmental and alternative
Open House meeting in Eagle Rock
development processes, and describe the multi-modal alternatives. The
Open House meeting in La Caada
meeting was an open house format with the following
Flintridge
information/discussion stations:
Open House meeting in El Monte
Open House meeting in South
Station 1: Welcome
Pasadena
Station 2: What is the State Route 710 Study?
Open House meeting in Alhambra
Station 3: The Environmental Study Process and Timeline
Open House meeting in Pasadena
Station 4: Alternatives Evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis Report
Participants
01/23/13
Open House Meeting at Maranatha

High School in Pasadena

interested parties
01/24/13
Open House Meeting at San Marino

Community Church in San Marino
01/26/13
Open House Meeting at California

State University, Los Angeles in Los
Angeles
11/19/14
11/20/14
03/01/12
03/03/12
05/14/12
05/17/12
05/19/12
05/22/12
05/23/12
05/24/12
05/30/12
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Station 5: Five Alternatives to be Further Analyzed

Station 6: SR 710 Study E-Tool
Open house with the following information/discussion boards:
Board 1: Welcome
Board 2: Study Overview
Board 3: Environmental Study
Board 4: Scoping Process
Board 5: Alternative Concepts
Board 6: Tell Us What You Think
5-13


interested parties in area communities

interested parties
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
07/18/13
07/20/13
07/23/13
08/26/13
10/10/13
ACC Information Session

Los Angeles Presbyterian Church
2241 N. Eastern Avenue
El Sereno
Blair High School
1201 S. Marengo Avenue
Pasadena
Langley Senior Center
400 W. Emerson Avenue
Monterey Park
East LA Community Specific
Information Session
Centro Maravilla
Los Angeles
Alhambra Community Specific
Information Session
Emery Park Community Center
2709 Mimosa St. Alhambra
10/16/13
East LA Community Specific

Information Session
Hilda Solis Learning Academy
319 N. Humphreys Avenue
East Los Angeles
04/12/12
Meeting for San Marino and Arcadia

San Marino Center
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Description
Board 7: Next Steps
Board 8: Provide Your Feedback
Participants
Presented updated information about the five alternatives that will be

carried forward for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS.
Community groups

Community groups

Community groups

carried forward for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS. For some
residents this update was an introduction to the SR 710 North Study.
Community Groups

Emery Park Residents
The meeting was organized by Alhambra Councilman Luis Avala. Metro

made a small presentation and answered questions.
Community Liaison Council (CLC) Meetings
Presented an overview of the participation process, the opportunities for
participation, the environmental review process and the process of
developing the initial set of project alternatives.
5-14
Community groups

interested parties in the CLC
communities
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
04/16/12
04/17/12
04/18/12
04/18/12
04/19/12
04/19/12
4/23/12
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

Meeting for Crescenta Valley,
Burbank, Glendale, and Montrose
La Crescenta Library Community
Room
2809 Foothill Boulevard
La Crescenta
Meeting for El Monte, South El
Monte, Irwindale, Baldwin Park, and
Temple City
El Monte Community Center
3130 N. Taylor Avenue
El Monte
Meeting for Alhambra and Monterey
Park
Alhambra Civic Center Library
101 South 1st Street
Alhambra
Meeting for Lincoln Heights and El
Sereno
El Sereno Senior Center
4818 Klamath Place
Los Angeles
Meeting for Arroyo Seco, Eagle Rock,
Highland Park, and Mt. Washington
4580 North Figueroa Street
Los Angeles
Meeting for Sierra Madre, Monrovia,
Duarte, Azusa, and Bradbury
Monrovia Library Community Room
321 S. Myrtle Avenue
Monrovia
Meeting for Altadena and Pasadena
Chefs Center of California
45 N. San Gabriel Boulevard
Pasadena
Description
Participants


communities
5-15
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
04/24/12
04/24/12
04/25/12
04/26/12
04/30/12
08/06/12
08/08/12
08/08/12
08/09/12
08/09/12
08/09/12
08/13/12
SR 710 NORTH STUDY

Meeting for Rosemead and San
Gabriel
Garvey Community Center
9108 Garvey Avenue
Rosemead
Meeting for Boyle Heights, East Los
Angeles, and City Terrace
Mothers of East LA
3354 E. Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles
Meeting for South Pasadena
Garfield Youth House
625 Stratford Avenue
South Pasadena
Meeting for Atwater Village, Cypress
Park, and Highland Park
3750 Verdugo Road
Glassell Park
Meeting for La Caada-Flintridge
La Caada High School Resource
Information Center
4463 Oak Grove Drive
La Caada
Meeting for the Northeast Los
Angeles CLC in Highland Park
Meeting for the Pasadena CLC
Meeting for the San Gabriel CLC in
Alhambra
Meeting for the South Pasadena CLC
Meeting for the East Los Angeles CLC
in El Sereno
Meeting for the San Gabriel CLC in
Monrovia
Meeting for the La Caada Flintridge
CLC
Description
Participants


communities
Presentation and discussion to review the 12 alternative concepts

communities
5-16
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
08/26/13
10/16/13
03/15/11
03/16/11
03/22/11
03/23/11
03/29/11
03/30/11
04/05/11
04/06/11
03/21/1104/14/11
03/14/11
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Description
Open House and Community Meetings
East Los Angeles Community Meeting

Centro Maravilla Service Center
East Los Angeles
East Los Angeles Community Meeting Discussion of previous meeting and presented information based on
Hilda Solis Learning Academy
comments from previous meeting.
Gymnasium
319 North Humphreys Avenue
East Los Angeles
Scoping Under CEQA and NEPA (March 4, 2011 to April 14, 2011)
Formal scoping meetings held at:
The formal scoping meetings included a project overview presentation
Jefferson Middle School, 1372 East
followed by public comments, which were transcribed by a court
reporter. Spanish, Chinese, and Armenian translators were available.
Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel
Alhambra Civic Center Library, 101
South 1st Street, Alhambra
Glendale Community College, 1500
N. Verdugo Road, Glendale
South Pasadena High School, 1401
Fremont Avenue, South Pasadena
Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian
Church, 2241 N. Eastern Avenue, El
Sereno
Lake Avenue Church, 393 N. Lake
Avenue, Pasadena
La Caada High School, 4463 Oak
Grove Drive, La Caada Flintridge
Ramona Hall Community Center,
4580 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles
Virtual Scoping Meeting at
Presentation and discussion of the effects of the SR 710 freeway gap, the
metro.net/sr710conversations
scoping process and meeting date, the role of the public in the scoping
process, map of the project study area, preliminary project purpose and
need statement, project alternatives, project milestones, the type of
environmental document to be prepared, and contact information for
providing comments about the presentation and the project.
Agency scoping meeting
An overview of the project and the possible alternatives were provided,
concerns regarding the project were addressed, and other questions were
answered.
5-17
Participants
Community groups and members of the
general public
Community groups and members of the
general public

interested parties

interested parties
Representatives from public agencies
DRAFT

TABLE 5.1:
Meeting Date
Ongoing
facebook.com/sr710study
Description
Other Sources of Information Regarding the Project
Regular updates and status reports
Ongoing
twitter.com/sr710study
Ongoing
metro.net/sr710study
Ongoing
sr710study@metro.net
Ongoing
instagram.com/710destinations
Behind the scenes photos and study related information
Ongoing
Youtube.com/sr710study
Study overview and tutorials
Participants
interested parties
interested parties
interested parties
interested parties
interested parties
interested parties
Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, SR 710 North Study, http://www.metro.net/projects/sr-710-conversations/, accessed December 31, 2013.
ACC = All Communities Convening
CLC = Community Liaison Council
EIR = Environmental Impact Report
EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-18
DRAFT

TABLE 5.2:
Summary of Consultation with Native American Tribes and their Representatives in June 2013
Native American Contact
Ron Andrade, Director, Los Angeles
City/County Native American Indian
Commission
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director,
Gabrielino Tongva Nation
Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman-Manisar,

TiAt Society/Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu
Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural
Resources, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Administrator,
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation
Bernie Acuna, Co-Chairperson, GabrielinoTongva Tribe

Anthony Morales, Chairperson,
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
Responses to the June 26, 2013 Letters

--
--
Mr. Dunlap responded by email on July 29, 2013 to say the project
is within the traditional tribal territory of the Gabrielino Tongva
Nation and that there is a possibility for the project to impact the
cultural resources of their tribal group. It was requested that an
archaeologist and a Native American monitor be present during all
subsurface construction activities.
--
-Mr. Dorame responded in a telephone call on July 8, 2013, in

which he stated this project will impact areas known to be
culturally sensitive to his group and that Native American monitors
need to be present. He would like to be involved in consultation
for the duration of the project.
In an email on June 26, 2013, Mr. Rosas stated his concerns by
referencing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in their
endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People (UNDRIP) and encouraged all agencies and nonagencies to become familiar with the UNDRIP.
--
--
--
Mr. Morales called to discuss the project on August 22, 2013. He

indicated he believes the area to be sensitive for cultural
resources. He requested diligence by the agencies when dealing
with cultural resources and that Native American monitoring of
ground disturbance be done by a member from his group.
--
Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson,

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Andrew Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians
--
Conrad Acuna, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
--
Source: Historic Property Survey Report (2014).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Responses to Follow-up Emails and Phone Calls
--
--
--
--
Mr. Salas responded by email on July 21, 2013, and stated that the
project is within highly culturally sensitive areas, and as a measure
to protect their resources, they are requesting one of their
experienced and certified Native American monitors be on site
during all ground disturbances.
--
5-19
DRAFT

TABLE 5.3:
Summary of Consultation with Native American Tribes and their Representatives and Other Interested Parties in December 2014
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director
Gabrielino/Tongva
Date of Letter to
Tribes/Interested Parties
12-08-2014
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council

Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources
Gabrielino Tongva
12-08-2014
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians

Anthony Morales, Chairperson
Gabrielino/Tongva
12-08-2014
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians

Andrew Salas, Chairperson
Gabrielino
12-08-2014

John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin.
Gabrielino
TiAt Society/Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu
Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman-Manisar
Gabrielino
Bernie Acuna, Co-Chairperson
Gabrielino
Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson
Gabrielino
12-08-14
(via email)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
Responses
On 12-08-14: Mr. Dunlap was informed that the letter had been sent to him that
described the known archaeological resources within the APE. He was also informed
that Caltrans had authorized Native American monitoring in sensitive areas of the
APE. No additional response was received from Mr. Dunlap.
On 12-08-14: A voicemail was left for Mr. Dorame.
On 12-09-14: Mr. Dorame left a voicemail.
On 12-10-14: Mr. Dorame was informed that the letter had been sent to him that
APE. Mr. Dorame stated that he would like his group to monitor and has monitors
available. He will respond again if he has any comments once he receives the letter.
No additional response was received from Mr. Dorame.
On 12-08-14: Mr. Morales was informed that the letter had been sent to him that
APE.
On 01-21-15: Mr. Morales called to say that he recommends archaeological and
Native American monitoring for any sensitive areas where native soil is present. He is
aware that there are cultural resources in the area, particularly on the east and west
sides of the southbound lanes.
On 12-08-14: Mr. Salas was informed that the letter had been sent to him that
APE. No additional response was received from Mr. Salas.
On 12-08-14: Mr. Rosas responded by email to confirm he received the letter.
12-08-2014
On 01-09-15: The letter was returned as return to sender unable to forward.
12-08-2014
On 01-01-15: The letter was returned as unclaimed.
12-08-2014
5-20
DRAFT

TABLE 5.3:
Summary of Consultation with Native American Tribes and their Representatives and Other Interested Parties in December 2014
Conrad Acuna
Gabrielino
LA City/County Native American Indian Commission
Ron Andrade, Director
Date of Letter to
Tribes/Interested Parties
12-08-2014
12-08-2014
Responses

No response received.
Source: Historic Property Survey Report (2015).
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-21
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-22
DRAFT

Correspondence
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-23
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-24
DRAFT

Determinations of Eligibility for the SR 710 North Study Project, Los Angeles County, CA
(February 26, 2015)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-25
DRAFT

Determinations of Eligibility for the SR 710 North Study Project, Los Angeles County, CA
(February 26, 2015)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-26
DRAFT

Re: Phased Approach of the Application of Criteria of Adverse Effects and Preliminary Finding of No
Adverse Effect for the Proposed 710 North Project
(February 26, 2015)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-27
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-28
DRAFT

Sample Caltrans Invitation to Become Participating Agency and Cooperating Agency on the State
Route 710 Study
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-29
DRAFT

Sample Caltrans Invitation to Become Participating Agency and Cooperating Agency on the State
Route 710 Study
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-30
DRAFT

Cooperating Agency response letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (February 28,
2012)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-31
DRAFT

Cooperating Agency response letter from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (February 28,
2012)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-32
DRAFT

Cooperating Agency response letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(March 21, 2012)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-33
DRAFT

Cooperating Agency response letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(March 21, 2012)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-34
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from United States Fish and Wildlife Service (March 19, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-35
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-36
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
(March 19, 2012)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-37
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
(March 19, 2012)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-38
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
(February 23, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-39
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-40
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Alhambra (March 16, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-41
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-42
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Glendale (February 23, 2012)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-43
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Glendale (February 23, 2012)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-44
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of La Canada Flintridge (March 15, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-45
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-46
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Monterey Park (February 21, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-47
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-48
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of Pasadena (February 28, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-49
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-50
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of San Marino (February 22, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-51
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-52
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of South Pasadena (April 5, 2012)
(Page 1 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-53
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the City of South Pasadena (April 5, 2012)
(Page 2 of 2)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-54
DRAFT

Participating Agency response letter from the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
(February 23, 2012)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-55
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-56
DRAFT

Caltrans Email (November 3, 2014) and FTA Email (November 18, 2014)
(Page 1 of 1)
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-57
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
5-58
DRAFT
6. List of Preparers
This chapter lists the State, Federal, and Local Agency personnel, including consultants, who were
primarily responsible for preparing this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the SR 710 North Study.
6.1 Lead Agency
6.1.1 California Department of Transportation, District 7

Ron Kosinski, Deputy District Director, Division of Environmental Planning
John Lee, Project Manager
Paul Caron, Senior District Biologist
Garrett Damrath, Chief Environmental Planner
Claudia Harbert, Associate Environmental Planner, Principal Architectural Historian
Derek Higa, Senior Transportation Engineer, Design
Alex Kirkish, District Archaeologist
Jin S. Lee, P.E., PMP, Branch Chief, Noise & Vibration Branch
Allison Morrow, Senior Environmental Planner
Jason Roach, Associate Environmental Planner
Andrew Yoon, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer, Air Quality Branch
6.2 Project Participating Agency
6.2.1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Michelle Smith, P.E., Project Manager, Highway Program
Cleavon Govan, Senior Environmental Specialist, Highway Program

Aziz Elattar, Executive Officer, Highway Program
Vincent Gonzalez, Community Relations Manager
Helen Ortiz-Gilstrap, Community Relations/Media Manager
Luis Vizcaino, Director, Community Relations
Ann Kerman, Deputy Executive Officer, Community Relations
Emmanuel Liban, P. E., Deputy Executive Officer, Environmental Compliance Services
Martha Butler, Director, Countywide Planning and Development
Thomas Eng, Director, Safety Certification & Operations Management
Wyman Jones, Director Project Engineering
Stewart Chesler, Transportation Planning Manager, Service Planning & Schedule
Brandon Farley, Transportation Planning Manager, Rail Operations
Robert Farley, Transportation Planning Manager, Systems Analysis and Research
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-1
DRAFT

CHAPTER 6. LIST OF PREPARERS
6.3 Consultants to the Lead Agency

6.3.1 CH2M HILL
Yoga Chandran, Ph.D., Project Manager

Lilly Acuna, Project Administrator
Jim Bednar, NEPA Documentation Review
Tim Bevan, Multi-modal Analysis Lead
Loren Bloomberg, Transportation Lead
Susan Chau, Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Engineer
George Hsu, Location Hydraulic Study, Drainage Report Task Manager
Wilfred Hsu, Location Hydraulic Study
Tom Ionta, Preliminary Engineering Task Manager
Ryan Meza, Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative
Task Manager
Ryan Mitry, Freeway Tunnel Alternative Task Manager
Carlos Montez, Environmental Director
Ravee Raveendra, Preliminary Geotechnical Report Task Manager
Elisabeth Suh, Senior Environmental Planner
Hong Zhuang, Health Risk Assessment Task Manager
Dave Golles, Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Task Manager
Jose Herrera, Transportation Engineer
6.3.2 LSA Associates, Inc.
Rob McCann, Principal, Environmental Studies and Documentation Manager

Deborah Pracilio, Principal, Environmental Task Manager
Jane Dillon, Environmental Planner, Assistant Project Manager, CIA and Section 4(f) reports, EIR/EIS
documentation
Nicole West, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP, Associate, Assistant Project Manager, Water Quality Assessment
and Summary Floodplain Encroachment, EIR/EIS documentation
Elisa Bechtel, Cultural and Historical Resources
Jennette Bosseler, Technical Editor/Word Processor
Ronald Brugger, Senior Air Quality Specialist, Energy Analysis Task Manager, PM Analysis
Ryan Bensley, Senior Environmental Planner, Community Impact Assessment Task Manager, EIR/EIS
documentation
Maryanne Cronin, Assistant Environmental Planner, Cultural Resources and EIR/EIS documentation
Meredith Canterbury, GIS Specialist
Tony Chung, Principal, Air Quality, Noise and Energy Group
Jade Dean, Assistant GIS Specialist
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-2
DRAFT

Gary Dow, Associate, Graphics

Richard Erickson, Associate, Biologist
Tom Flahive, Senior GIS Specialist
Logan Freeman, Noise Study Report
Terri Fulton, Senior Cultural Resources Manager, Native American Consultation
Art Homrighausen, Principal, Biological Resource Task Reviewer
Jayna Harris, Senior Environmental Planner, Cumulative Impact Assessment Task Manager, EIR/EIS
documentation
Hillary Haskell, Assistant Environmental Planner, Community Impact Assessment, Cultural Resources
and EIR/EIS documentation
Eugene Heck, Cultural and Historical Resources
Christine Huard-Spencer, Senior Environmental Planner, Section 4(f) Task Manager, EIR/EIS
documentation
Beverly Inloes, Lead Technical Editor/Word Processor
Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
Corey Knips, Noise Study Report
Keith Lay, Air Quality Analysis and PM Analysis Task Manager
Danette Lebron, Word Processor
Bridget Lillis, Assistant Environmental Planner, Water Quality Assessment and EIR/EIS
documentation
Jason Lui, Senior Noise Specialist, Noise Study Report
Debbie McLean, Cultural Resources Task Lead
Matt Philips, Graphics Technician
Pam Reading, Senior Environmental Planner, Water Quality Assessment and Summary Floodplain
Encroachment, EIR/EIS documentation
Adam Remmel, Noise Study Report
Justin Roos, Associate, Senior GIS Specialist
Sarah Rieboldt, Paleontological Evaluation Report/Impact Report Task Lead
Mario Scalzo, Assistant Environmental Planner, EIR/EIS documentation
J.T. Stephens, Senior Noise Specialist, Noise Study Report Task Manager
Casey Tibbet, Cultural and Historical Resources
Chantik Virgil, Word Processor
6.3.3 AECOM
Steve Greene, Alternatives Analysis Task Manager

Michael Arizabal, Parking Impact Analysis
William Anderson, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Task Manager
Lance Harris, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-3
DRAFT

Christine Safriet, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis

Ryan Winn, Project Assistant
Joel Ulloa, GIS/Graphics
Jamal Al-Mashat, LRT Preliminary Engineering Task Manager
6.3.4 Barrio Planners, Inc.

William Villalobos, Project Manager
Korajack Srivongse, Visual Resources

Luis Vzquez, Visual Resources
6.3.5 DLeon Consulting Engineers Corporation

Domingo Leon, Project Manager
Paul Spiteri, Utility Research and Relocation
6.3.6 Dean Ryan Consultants and Designers

Bill Stracker, Engineer
6.3.7 Earth Consultants International
Eldon Gath, Project Manager, Geology, Fault Rupture Evaluation
6.3.8 Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Jim Overcamp, Project Manager
B.J. Swanner, Relocation Impact Report, Right of Way Data Sheets

Ron Wicks, Relocation Impact Statement, Right of Way Data Sheets Task Manager
6.3.9 ILF Consulting Engineers

Jim Morrison, Task Manager
6.3.10 Jacobs Associates
Steve Dubnewych, Tunnel Design Task Manager

Steve Klein, Tunnel Design
Michael Torsiello, Tunnel Design
6.3.11 JMDiaz Inc.

Juan Diaz, Engineer
6.3.12 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

Marie Campbell, Project Manager
Karl Holland, Archaeological Study Report Task Lead

Rachel Nixon, Archaeological Study Report
Joseph Platt, Natural Environment Study and Jurisdictional Delineation Reports
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-4
DRAFT

Pauline Roberts, PhD., Natural Environment Study and Jurisdictional Delineation Reports Task
Manager (no longer with Sapphos Environmental, Inc.)
Roberta Thomas, Archaeological Study Report
Ryan Villanueva, Natural Environment Study and Jurisdictional Delineation Reports
6.3.13 Tatsumi and Partners
David Tatsumi, Project Manager, Visual Resources Impact Report

Gregg Hudspeth, Visual Resources Impact Report
Abby Jones, Visual Resources Impact Report
Karen Shiba, Visual Resources Impact Report
6.3.14 Wilson, Ihrig and Associates
Richard Carman, Project Manager, Groundborne Noise and Vibration Report Task Manager
Patrick Farner, Groundborne Noise and Vibration Report
Deborah Jue, Groundborne Noise and Vibration Report
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-5
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
6-6
DRAFT
7. Distribution List
7.1 Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mark Cohen
Regulatory Division
Los Angeles District, Regulatory Branch
915 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 980
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Stephanie Hall
Environmental Protection Specialist/
TAC Member
Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 930
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3409

Attention: CESPL-CO-R
Los Angeles District
911 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
U.S. Department of Energy

Director, Office of Environmental
Management
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Services
Area 4
Area Conservationist
4500 Glenwood Drive, Building B
Riverside, CA 92501
U.S Department of Housing and Urban

Development
Environmental Clearance Officer
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Connell Dunning
Transportation Team Supervisor
Environmental Review Section
USEPA Region 9, Pacific Southwest
75 Hawthorne Street, (ENF-4-2)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

600 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 1460
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Ste. 101
Carlsbad, CA 92011
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sally Brown
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Ste. 101
Carlsbad, CA 92011
U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services
Director, Office of Environmental Affairs
200 Independence Ave., SW, Rm. 537 F
U.S. Department of the Interior

Patricia Port
Regional Environmental Officer
Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance, Oakland Region
1111 Jackson St., Ste. 520
Oakland, CA 94607
U.S. Department of the Interior

Director,
Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance
Main Interior Building, MS 2462
1849 "C" Street, NW
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Federal Emergency Management

Reid Nelson
Agency
Director
Alessandro Amaglio
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Environmental Officer
Washington, D.C. 20001-2637
1111 Broadway, Ste. 1200
Oakland, CA 94607
Federal Transit Administration

Leslie T. Rogers
Regional Administrator
Region IX
201 Mission Street, Suite 1650
Federal Transit Administration

Ray Telles
Team Leader
FTA/FHWA LA Metropolitan Office
888 S. Figueroa Street, Ste. 2170
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-1
National Park Service

Christine Lehnertz
Regional Director
Pacific West Region
333 Bush Street, Suite 500
DRAFT

CHAPTER 7. DISTRIBUTION LIST
7.2 Tribal Governments

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
Andrew Salas
Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California

Tribal Council
Robert Dorame
Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA 90707
Gabrieleno/Tongva Council
Sam Dunlap
Cultural Resources Director
P.O. Box 86908
Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council of

San Gabriel
Anthony Morales
Tribal Chairperson
PO Box 693
San Gabriel, CA 91778
Bernie Acuna
Co-Chairperson
P.O. Box 180
Bonsall, CA 92003
Linda Candelaria
Co-Chairperson
P.O. Box 180
Bonsall, CA 92003
Conrad Acuna
P.O. Box 180
Bonsall, CA 92003
Los Angeles City/County Native

American Indian Community
Ron Andrade
Director
3175 W. 6th St., Rm. 403
Ti'At Society
Cindi Alvitre
6515 E. Seaside Walk, Unit C
Long Beach, CA 90803
Ti'At Society
Cindi Alvitre
Chairwoman-Manisar
3094 Mace Acenue, Apartment B
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

John Tommy Rosas
Tribal Administrator
Email address: tattnlaw@gmail.com
7.3 State Agencies

State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Air Resources Board

California Department of Conservation
Linda Murchison
Derek Chernov
Chief
Acting Director
Planning and Technical Support Division 801 K St., MS 24-01
1001 I Street
California Department of Fish and

Wildlife
Ed Pert
Regional Manager
South Coast Region
4949 View Ridge Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
California Department of Parks and

Recreation
Milford Wayne Donaldson
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd St., Ste 100
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-2
California Department of Water

Resources
Mark Cowin
Director
1416 9th Street
DRAFT

California Department of Resources

Recycling and Recovery
801 K St., MS 19-01
California Department of Toxic

Substances Control
Chatsworth Regional Office
9211 Oakdale Ave.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
California Emergency Management

Agency
Mike Dayton
Acting Secretary
3650 Schriever Ave.
Mather, CA 95655
California Environmental Protection

Agency
Linda S. Adams
Secretary
1001 I Street
California Highway Patrol

Southern Division
411 N. Central Ave., Ste. 410
Glendale, CA 91203
California Native American Heritage

Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Rm. 364
California Natural Resources Agency

John Laird
Secretary
1416 Ninth St., Ste. 1311
California Public Infrastructure Advisory

Commission
Business, Transportation, and Housing
Agency
980 9th St., Ste. 2450
California Public Utilities Commission

Michael R. Peevey
President
505 Van Ness Ave.
California Transportation Commission

Commission Chair
1120 N St., Rm. 2221, MS 52
California Water Resources Control

Board
Felicia Marcus
Chair
1001 I Street
Native American Heritage Commission

915 Capitol Mall Room 364
Headquarters Division of Environmental

Analysis (for CTC Submission)
1120 N Street, MS 27
Native American Tribal Councils

Inter-Tribal Council of California
3425 Arden Way
7.4 Regional Agencies and Districts

Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
Susan Chapman
CEQA Review Coordination
One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-23-2
Regional Water Quality Control Board

Region 4
320 W. 4th St., Ste. 200
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles

Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Belinda Faustinos
Executive Director
100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Rd.
Azusa, CA 91702
San Gabriel Valley Council of

Governments
Mary Ann Lutz
President
1000 S. Fremont Ave., Unit 42
Alhambra, CA 91803

Governments
Andrea Miller
Executive Director
1000 S. Fremont Ave., Unit 42
Alhambra, CA 91803
South Coast Air Quality Management

District
Barry R. Wallerstein
Executive Officer
21865 Copley Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-3
DRAFT

Southern California Association of

Governments
Philip Law
Corridors Program Manager
818 W. 7th St., 12th Fl.
7.5 County Agencies

Los Angeles County Office of Emergency
Management
1275 N. Eastern Ave.
Los Angeles County Department of

433 S. Vermont Ave.

Public Health
313 N. Figueroa St., Rm. 806
Los Angeles County Department of Public

Works
John Walker/TAC Member
Assistant Deputy Director
900 S. Fremont Ave.
Alhambra, CA 91803

Regional Planning
320 W. Temple St.
Hall of Records Rm. 1360
Los Angeles County Fire Department

1320 N. Eastern Ave.
Los Angeles County Health Services

Office of Planning
313 N. Figueroa St., Rm. 704
Los Angeles County Sanitation

Districts
1955 Workman Mill Rd.
Whittier, CA 90601
Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department
Headquarters Bureau
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
7.6 County and City Libraries

Alhambra Civic Center Library
101 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Altadena Main Library

600 East Mariposa St.
Altadena, CA 91001
Arcadia Public Library

20 W. Duarte Rd.
Arcadia, CA 91007
Azusa Public Library

729 N. Dalton Ave.
Azusa, CA 91702
Cal State University Los Angeles

JFK Memorial Library
5151 State University Dr.
East Los Angeles College

Helen Miller Bailey Library
1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez
Glendale Central Library

222 East Harvard St.
Glendale, CA 91205
Irwindale Public Library

5050 N. Irwindale Ave.
Irwindale, CA 91706
Los Angeles City Library

Arroyo Seco Regional Branch
6145 N. Figueroa St.

Chinatown Neighborhood Branch
639 N. Hill Street

Cypress Park Neighborhood Branch
1150 Cypress Avenue

Eagle Rock Neighborhood Branch
5027 Caspar Ave.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-4
DRAFT


El Sereno Neighborhood Branch
5226 Huntington Dr. South

Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Branch
2530 Workman St.

Malabar Neighborhood Branch
2801 Wabash Ave.

Robert Louis Stevenson Branch
803 Spence Street
Los Angeles County Library

Anthony Quinn Library
3965 Cesar E. Chavez Ave.

Baldwin Park Library
4181 Baldwin Park Blvd,
Baldwin Park, CA 91706

City Terrace Library
4025 E. City Terrace Dr.

Duarte Library
Duarte, CA 91010

East LA Library
4837 E. 3rd St.

El Monte Library
3224 N. Tyler Ave.
El Monte, CA 91731

La Caada Flintridge Library
4545 N. Oakwood Ave.
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011

Live Oak Library
4153-55 Live Oak Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006

Norwood Library
4550 N. Peck Rd.
El Monte, CA 91732

Rosemead Library
8800 Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
San Gabriel Public Library

San Gabriel Library
500 S. Del Mar Avenue

South El Monte Public Library
1430 North Central Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733

Temple City Library
5939 Golden West Ave.
Temple City, CA 91780
Monrovia Public Library

321 S. Myrtle Ave.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Monterey Park Public Library

Bruggemeyer Library
318 S. Ramona Ave.
Pasadena City College

Shatford Library
1570 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91106
Pasadena Public Library

Central Library
285 E. Walnut St.
Pasadena, CA 91101

Hastings Branch
3325 East Orange Grove
Pasadena, CA 91107

Hill Avenue Branch
55 South Hill Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91106

Lamanda Park Branch
140 S. Altadena Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91107

La Pintoresca Branch
1355 N. Raymond Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91103

Linda Vista Branch
1281 Bryant St.
Pasadena, CA 91103

San Rafael Branch
1240 Nithsdale Rd.
Pasadena, CA 91105

Villa Parke Community Center Library
363 E. Villa St.
Pasadena, CA 91101
San Marino Public Library

Crowell Library
1890 Huntington Dr.
San Marino, CA 91108
Sierra Madre Public Library

440 W. Sierra Madre Blvd.
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
South Pasadena Public Library

1100 Oxley St.
South Pasadena, CA 91030
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-5
DRAFT

7.7 School Districts and Educational Institutions

Arcadia Unified School District
David Vannasdall
Superintendent
150 S. Third Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
Alhambra Unified School District

Laura Tellez-Gagliano, E.D
Superintendent
1515 W. Mission Rd.
Alhambra, CA 91803
Azusa Unified School District

Dr. Linda Kaminski
Superintendent
546 S. Citrus Ave.
Azusa, CA 91702
Baldwin Park Unified School District

Dr. Dr. Paul Sevillano
Superintendent
3699 N. Holly Ave.
California State University, Los Angeles

Warren Jacobs
Associate Vice President for Facilities,
Planning, Design and Construction
5151 State University Drive
Duarte Unified School District

Dr. Terry Nichols
Superintendent
1620 Huntington Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
East Los Angeles College

Marvin Martinez
College President
1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez
Montgomery Park, CA 91754
El Monte City School District

Dr. Maribel Garcia
Superintendent
3540 N. Lexington Ave.
El Monte, CA 91731
Fremont Elementary School

Ignacio Muniz Ed.D
Principal
2001 S Elm Street
Alhambra, CA 91803
La Canada Unified School District

Wendy Sinnette
Superintendent
4490 Cornishon Ave.
La Canada, CA 91011
Los Angeles Unified School District

Ramon Cortines
Interim Superintendent
Office of the Superintendent
333 S. Beaudry Ave.
Monrovia Unified School District

Dr. Katherine Thorossian
Superintendent
325 E. Huntington Dr.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Pasadena City College

Area 5
Dr. Robert Miller
Interim Superintendent/President
1570 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91106
Pasadena Unified School District

Dr. Brian McDonald
Superintendent
351 S. Hudson Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91109
Rosemead School District

Dr. Amy Enomoto-Perez
Superintendent
3907 Rosemead Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
San Gabriel Unified School District

Dr. David Yoshihara
Superintendent
408 Junipero Serra Dr.
San Marino Unified School District

David Vannasdall
Superintendent
1665 West Dr.
Sequoya School
Josh Brody
Director of School
535 S. Pasadena Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
South Pasadena Unified School District

Dr. Dr. Geoff Yantz
Superintendent
1020 El Centro St.
St Frances High School

Fr. Tony Marti
President
2005 Foothill Blvd
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011-3798
Temple City Unified School District

Kathy Perini
Superintendent
9700 Las Tunas Dr.
The Waverly School

Heidi Johnson
Head of School
67 W Bellevue Dr
Pasadena, CA 91105
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-6
DRAFT

7.8 Local Agencies

Mary Swink
City Manager
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Dominic Lazzaretto
City Manager
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
Troy Butzlaff
City Manager
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Shannon Yauchzee
Chief Executive Officer
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Ave.
Michelle Keith
City Manager
City of Bradbury
600 Winston Ave.
Bradbury, CA 91008
Darrell George
City Manager/TAC member
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
Raul Godinez II
City Manager
City of El Monte
City Hall East
11333 Valley Blvd.
El Monte, CA 91731
Scott Ochoa
City Manager
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Fred Zohrehvan
Assistant Traffic & Transportation
Administrator
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
John Davidson
City Manager
City of Irwindale
Irwindale, CA 91706
Mark R. Alexander
City Manager
City of La Canada Flintridge
1327 Foothill Blvd.
Ken Husting
Senior Transportation Engineer
City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
100 South Main Street, 9th Floor
Jim Doty
Env. Supervisor II
City of Los Angeles Public Works
1149 S. Broadway, 6th Fl.
Oliver Chi
Interim City Manager
City of Monrovia
415 S. Ivy Ave.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Paul Talbot
City Manager
320 W. Newmark Ave.
Amy Ho
Principal Management Analyst
320 W. Newmark Ave.
Michael J. Beck
City Manager
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91109
Jeff Allred
City Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Steven A. Preston
City Manager/TAC Member
City of San Gabriel
425 S. Mission Dr.
John Schaefer
City Manager/TAC Member
City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Dr., 2nd Fl.
Elaine Aguilar
City Manager
City of Sierra Madre
Anthony Ybarra
City Manager
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
Sergio Gonzalez
City Manager
1414 Mission St.
Bryan Cook
City Manager
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-7
DRAFT

7.9 Federal and State Elected Officials

The Honorable Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator
312 N. Spring St., Ste. 1748
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

U.S. Senator
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 915
The Honorable Judy Chu

U.S. Representative
District 27
527 S. Lake Ave, Suite 106
Pasadena, CA 91101
The Honorable Adam Schiff

U.S. Representative
District 28
245 East Olive Ave, #200
Burbank, CA 91502
The Honorable Grace Napolitano

U.S. Representative
District 32
4401 Santa Anita Ave, Suite 201
El Monte, CA 91731
The Honorable Xavier Becerra

U.S. Representative
District 34
350 South Bixel Street, Suite 120
The Honorable Chris Holden

California State Assemblymember
District 41
600 N. Rosemead Blvd, Suite 117
Pasadena, CA 91107
The Honorable Mike Gatto

District 43
300 E. Magnolia Blvd., Ste. 504
Burbank, CA 91502
The Honorable Ed Chau

District 49
1255 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 306
The Honorable Jimmy Gomez

District 51
1910 W. Sunset Boulevard, Suite 810
The Honorable Ian C. Calderon

District 57
1381 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite
160
City of Industry, CA 91746
The Honorable Ed Hernandez

California State Senator
District 22
100 S. Vincent Avenue., Ste 401
West Covina, CA 91790
The Honorable Kevin de Leon

District 24
1808 W. Sunset Boulevard
The Honorable Carol Liu

District 25
100 North Central Avenue, Ste. 240
Glendale, CA 91202
7.10 County Elected Officials

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis
LA County Supervisor
1st District
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 W. Temple St., Room 856
The Honorable Mark Ridley-Thomas

2nd District
The Honorable Don Knabe

4th District
500 W. Temple St., 822
The Honorable Michael D. Antonovich

5th District
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-8
The Honorable Sheila Kuehl

3rd District
DRAFT

7.11 Local Elected Officials

The Honorable Gary S. Yamauchi
Mayor
Alhambra City Council
District 3
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Diane Marcussen
Chair
Altadena Town Council
730 East Altadena Drive
Altadena, CA 91001
The Honorable John Wuo

Mayor
City of Arcadia
Arcadia, CA 91007
Valerie Harrigan
President
Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council
P.O. Box 42254
The Honorable Joseph R. Rocha

Mayor
City of Azusa
213 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
The Honorable Manuel Lozano

Mayor
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Ave.
The Honorable Richard G. Barakat

Mayor
Bradbury City Council
District 3
600 Winston Ave.
Bradbury, CA 91008
Robbyn Battles
President
Crescenta Valley Town Council
P.O. Box 8676
La Crescenta, CA 91214-0676
The Honorable Tzeitel Paras-Caracci

Mayor
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
The Honorable John Fasana

Councilmember/Metro Board Member
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
The Honorable Andre Quintero

Mayor
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Blvd.
El Monte, CA 91731
Molly Lynn Taylor

Chair
Glassell Park Neighborhood Council
3750 N. Verdugo Road
The Honorable Zareh Sinayan

Mayor
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway. Ste. 200
Glendale, CA 91206
The Honorable Ara Najarian

City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway. Ste. 200
Glendale, CA 91206
Monica Alcaraz
President
Highland Park Neighborhood Council
P.O. Box 50791
The Honorable James Butts

Mayor/Metro Board Member
City of Inglewood
One Manchester Boulevard
Inglewood, CA 90301
The Honorable Mark A. Breceda

Mayor
City of Irwindale
Irwindale, CA 91706
The Honorable Michael T. Davitt

Mayor
1327 Foothill Blvd.
The Honorable Diane DuBois

City of Lakewood
5050 Clark Avenue
Lakewood, CA 90712
The Honorable Eric Garcetti

Mayor
City of Los Angeles
200 N. Spring St.
The Honorable Gil Cedillo

LA City Council
District 1
200 N. Spring St., Rm. 470
The Honorable Paul Krekorian

LA City Council
District 2
The Honorable Michael Bonin

LA City Council
District 11
The Honorable Mitch O'Farrell

LA City Council
District 13
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-9
DRAFT

The Honorable Jose Huizar

LA City Council
District 14
The Honorable Jacquelyn DupontWalker

Metro Board Member/City of LA
Appointee
One Gateway Plaza
Marleen Fonseca
President
LA 32 Neigborhood Council
4927 N Huntington Drive, Suite 111
The Honorable Mary Ann Lutz

Mayor
City of Monrovia
415 S. Ivy Ave.
Monrovia, CA 91016
The Honorable Hans Liang

Mayor
320 W. Newmark Ave.
The Honorable Bill Bogaard

Mayor
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Ave., Room S228
Pasadena, CA 91109
The Honorable Bill Alarcon

Mayor
City of Rosemead
Rosemead, CA 91770
The Honorable John R. Harrington

Mayor
425 S. Mission Dr.
City of San Gabriel
The Honorable Eugene Sun

Mayor
City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Dr.
The Honorable John Harabedian

Mayor
The Honorable Luis "Louie"A. Aguinaga

Mayor
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
The Honorable Robert S. Joe

Mayor
1414 Mission St.
The Honorable Carl Blum

Mayor
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
7.12 Community-Based Organizations

California Native Plant Society
2707 K Street, Suite 1
California Wildlife Federation

1012 J Street
El Sereno Organizing Committee

Hugo Garcia
President
5302 Borland Road
Empower LA Departmen tof

Neighborhood Empowerment
200 N. Spring Street
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology

3101 Valley Life Sciences Building
Berkeley, CA 94720
No 710 Action Coalition Committee

Joann Nuckols/SOAC Member
P.O. Box 51124
Pasadena, CA 91115
No 710 Action Coalition Committee

Claire Bogaard
P.O. Box 51124
Pasadena, CA 91115
Pasadena Heritage
Sue Mossman
Executive Director
651 S. St. John Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
710 Freeway Coalition

100 E. Corson St., Ste 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-10
DRAFT

South Pasadena Preservation

Foundation
Glen Duncan
Boardmember
913 Meridien Avenue
7.13 Interested Parties

American Institute of Architects Pasadena and Foothill Chapter
555 S Oak Knoll Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Arlington Garden
295 Arlington Drive
Pasadena, CA 91105
Greg Rich
CEO
Grifols Inc.
2410 Lillyvale Avenue
Willie Zuniga
President
Grifols Biologicals Inc.
2410 Lillyvale Avenue
Stephen A. Ralph
President/CEO
Huntington Memorial Hospital
100 W California Blvd
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dimitri Papanastassiou
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive M/S 183-335
Pasadena, CA 91109
Damon Nagami
Staff Attorney
NRDC
1314 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Mark Vallianatos
James and Constance Haddal
Occidental College
Storrier Stearns Japanese Garden
Urban and Environmental Policy Insititute270 Arlington Drive
1600 Campus Road MS M-1
Pasadena, CA 91105
Christina Morris
Susan Bolan
National Trust for Historic Preservation 3528 Prospect Avenue
Los Angeles Field Director
700 South Flower Street, Suite 1100
Robert Change
204 S. Elm Street
Alhambra, CA 91803
Trisha Gossett
1842 Phillps Way
Stephanie Johnson
1920 Los Robles Avenue
Elise Kalfayan
155 N Pacific Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
Wayne Kato
1036 Hope Street
Harry and Clarice Knapp

417 El Centro Street
Sharon A. Lilly
659 Oleander Drive
Peter A. Orona
5472 Allan Street
Mary Ann Parada

1710 Ramona Avenue
South Pasadena, CA 91030-4426
Joe Potts
806 Meridian Avenue
Stephanie Ryan/Peter Rowan

4806 Glenwood Avenue
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Delaine Shane
402 El Centro Street #12
Jan Soohoo
1339 El Vago Street
James Stoker
4555 Encinas Drive
Carol Teutsch M.D

841 Moon Avenue
Daniel and Lucia Walker

7416 West 82nd Street
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-11
DRAFT

Robert Westcott
2100 Westmont Drive
Alhambra, CA 91803
7.14 Railroads
Southern California Regional Rail

Authority (Metrolink)
Rod Diaz
Interim Chief Planning and Project
Delivery Officer
One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor
7.15 Utilities
Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California
Jeffrey Kightlinger
General Manager
700 N Alameda Street
CT Williams
4117 Barrett Road
Alameda Corridor Transportation

Authority
John T. Doherty
CEQ
3760 Kilroy Way, Ste 200
Union Pacific Railroad

Lupe Valdez
Director of Public Policy & Community
Affairs/TAC Member
13181 Crossroads Parkway North,
RMm.500
Industry, CA 91746
Southern California Edison

Attn: Environmental Review
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Pasadena Water and Power

Joe Awad
Asst General Manager
150 S. Las Robles Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
7.16 TAC Members

LaDonna DiCamillo
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Company
One World Trade Center, Suite 1680
Mary Chavez
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Lee Dolley
TAC Member
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Jessica Keating
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Linda Hui
City of Arcadia
Arcadia, CA 91066
Frank Senteno
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Blvd.
El Monte, CA 91731
Steven John
US Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region 9
600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460
Shea Ecclestone
Public Works Manager
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Sate 209
Glendale, CA 91206
Ann Wilson
Sr. Management Analyst
1327 Foothill Blvd.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-12
DRAFT

Erik Zandvliet
1327 Foothill Blvd.
Carlos Rios
Transportation Engineer
Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
100 S. Main Street, 9th Floor
Larisa Bolotsky
Transportation Engineering Associate
Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
1149 S. Broadway, 9th Floor
Michael Brown
Division Engineer Manager
Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering
1149 S. Broadway, Suite 700
Marie Martin
1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600
Catalina Hernandez
Environmental Specialist
1149 S Broadway, Suite 600
Steven Sizemore
Director, Community Development
City of Monrovia
415 S. Ivy Ave.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Amy Ho
320 W. Newmark Ave.
Fred Dock
Director Department of Transportation
City of Pasadena
Pasadena, CA 91109
Bahman Janka
Transportation Administrator
City of Pasadena
Pasadena, CA 91109
Sean Sullivan
Acting Public Works Director
City of Rosemead
Rosemead, CA 91770
Mark Gallatin
Planning Manager
425 S. Mission Dr.
City of San Gabriel

Daren Grilley
City Engineer
425 S. Mission Dr.
Jack Wong
City of San Gabriel
425 S. Mission Dr.
Lucy Garcia
Assistant City Manager
City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Dr.
Bruce Inman
Public Works Director
Margaret Lin
1414 Mission St.
William Sherman M.D.

320 Grand Avenue
Wendy Chung
City Manager
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
Tracey Hause
Administrative Services Director
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
Josue Yambo
Sr. Transportation Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
888 S. Figueroa Street
Bella Hernandez
Public Works
900 S. Fremont Ave.
Alhambra, CA 91803
James Yang
Project Manager
Public Works
900 S. Fremont Ave.
Alhambra, CA 91803
Marisa Creter
Asst. to Executive Director
Governments
1000 S. Fremont Ave., Ste 10-210,
Unit #42
Alhambra, CA 91803
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-13
DRAFT

Vickere Murphy
Field Representative
Senator Carol Liu
501 N. Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203
Jillian Baker Ph.D.

Program Supervisor
South Coast Air Qualtiy Management
District
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Naresh Amatya
Transportation Planning Manager
Governments
818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor
Ryan Kuo
Program Manager, Transportation
Planning
Governments
818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor
Ron Mathieu
Sr. Public Project Specialist
279 E. Arroyo Highway, Suite A
San Dimas, CA 91773
Neresh Patel
Asst. Director, Stds and Design
279 E. Arroyo Highway, Suite A
San Dimas, CA 91773
Samuel Unger
Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Qualtiy
Control Board
320 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Veronica Chan
Phil Serpa
Environmental Protection
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Specialist/Project Manager
Los Angeles District
Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division 915 Wilshire Blvd.
915 Wilshire Blvd.
7.17 SOAC Members

Dr. Steve Kasper
Past President, Planning Commission
City of Alhambra
1560 East Chevy Chase
Glendale, CA 91206
Steve Placido
Vice Mayor
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
Lynn Harris
Principal, Harris-Carlisle Assoc.
City of Alhambra
111 S. First St.
Alhambra, CA 91801
William Baerg
Planning Commissioner
City of Arcadia
Arcadia, CA 91066
Douglas Drake
Chair, Planning Board
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
William Lawrence
Chair, Planning Committee
City of Duarte
1600 Huntington Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
Sheryl Lefmann
City of Duarte
2794 Hacienda
Duarte, CA 91010
Cesar Peralta
City of El Monte
3129 Lexington Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
Matt August
City of El Monte
3129 Lexington Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
Bill Weisman
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Sate 209
Glendale, CA 91206
Donald R. Voss
City Councilmember
1327 Foothill Blvd.
Laura Olhasso
City Councilmember
1327 Foothill Blvd.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-14
DRAFT

Frank Acevedo
Central Area Planning Commission
City of Los Angeles
2404 Wilshire Blvd.
Teresa Real Sebastian

City Councilmember
320 West Newmark Ave.
Larry Sullivan
Planning Commissioner, Chair
320 West Newmark Ave.
Vince Change
Environmental Commissioner
2401 W. Valley Blvd.
Alhambra, CA 91803
Julie Gutierrez
Assistant City Manager
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Avenue, Suite S228
Pasadena, CA 91109
Mic Hansen
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91109
Brian Lewin
Former Transportation Commissioner
City of Rosemead
9501 E. Ralph St.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Carol Ojeda Kimbrough

City of San Gabriel
110 North Cresta Ave.
Marcos Velayos
City of San Marino
2335 Brentford Rd.
Howard Brody
City of San Marino
1725 Banning Way
Bill Farley
City of San Marino
1400 Lorrain Rd.
Josh Moran
232 W. Sierra madre blvd.
Patrick Horton
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
John Cordes
City of Temple City
9702 Las Tunas Dr.
Dennis Van Bremen

P.O. Box 8676
La Crecenta, CA 91214-0676
Frank Beyt
P.O. Box 8676
La Crecenta, CA 91214-0676
Cheryl Davis
4816 Rosemont Ave.
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Sandra Thomas
SOAC Member
Altadena Town Council
730 East Altadena Drive
Altadena, CA 91001
Marina Khubesrian
Councilmember
1414 Mission St.
Diane Mahmud
Mayor Pro Tem
1415 Mission St.
Michael Cacciotti
Councilmember
1416 Mission St.
SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-15
DRAFT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY
7-16
DRAFT

SR 710 No. Study Draft EIR - EIS Vol I RPT - Part2 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SR 710 No. Study Draft EIR - EIS Vol I RPT - Part2 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

According to a groundborne noise and vibration impacts technical report prepared in

South Pasadena Middle School

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

In summary, the LRT Alternative improvements, as currently proposed, would result in No

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

National Register by a consensus

Raymond Hill Waiting Station

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2020 Fremont Avenue

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Arroyo Seco Parkway Historic District

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4777 East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue

CHR Status Code: 2S2 (Individual

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Otsungna Prehistoric Village Site

In summary, the LRT Alternative improvements, as currently proposed, may have an

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Ambassador Auditorium Building, 131 South St. John Avenue

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Norton Simon Museum

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Herkimer Arms Apartment House

In summary, the Freeway Tunnel Alternative improvements would have No Adverse

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Old Pasadena Historic District

CHR Status Code: 1S (Individual

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Horatio Rust Prehistoric Village Site

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SR 710 NORTH STUDY

Unincorporated Los Angeles County

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

banks of a stream (Arroyo Rosa de