RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_02_07_C_Border_Issues_Status_ReportCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER(ij)
DATE:FEBRUARY 7,2012
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORTr:.n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Senior Administrative Analyst @)
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• A brief report on the most-recent meeting of the San Pedro Facility Restoration
Advisory Board (RAB)for the Navy's Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP)on North
Gaffey Street in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A brief update on the scheduled release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)for the Ponte Vista project in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
•An update on the proposed California Water Service Company pipeline project in
Rolling Hills Estates;
• A report on the status of the San Pedro Community Plan update in Los Angeles
(San Pedro);
• A report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (DEIS/EIR)for the Berths 302-306 (American Presidents'Line)
container terminal project in the Port of Los Angeles;
• A report on the latest community relations meeting for the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);and,
•An update on Marymount College's plans for its new campuses in Los Angeles (San
Pedro).
C-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various “Border Issues”
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City’s website at:
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/border_issues/2012/20120207_BorderIssues_StatusRpt.cfm
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
San Pedro Facility Restoration Advisory Board, US Navy/Los Angeles (San Pedro)
The San Pedro Facility Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) held its most recent meeting on
December 19, 2011. The RAB now deals only with environmental remediation at the active
Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San Pedro, not the former Navy housing sites.
Discussion at the most recent meeting again focused primarily on the remediation plans for
so-called “Site 32,” which is located in the southeasterly portion of the facility near North
Gaffey Street. Planning for the remediation of so-called “Site 31”—which is located in the
northwesterly portion of the facility, closer to Western Avenue and the City’s Peninsula
Verde neighborhood and Green Hills Memorial Park—may begin sometime later this year.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On December 13, 2011, Staff was alerted by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council (NWSPNC) that the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the 1,135-unit Ponte Vista project is anticipated for next month (see attached e-mail). If so,
Staff expects to have a more detailed report on the DEIR as a part of the April 2012 Border
Issues report.
CalWater Palos Verdes Pipeline Project, Rolling Hills Estates/Los Angeles County/Rancho
Palos Verdes
Previously, Staff has monitored and reported on this project under the title “Joint CalWater-
West Basin MWD-Edison Infrastructure Project.” That project—as originally envisioned in
2004 and 2005—would have involved a joint proposal to place underground potable water,
reclaimed water and electrical lines within the right-of-way of Palos Verdes Drive North
along most of its length through the City of Rolling Hills Estates. This proposal generated
substantial community concern due to the proposal for extended closures and disruptions
of portions of Palos Verdes Drive North over an expected construction period of more than
a year. However, it has recently come to Staff’s attention that the scope of the project has
C-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 3
changed in that it has reduced the amount of construction activity within Palos Verdes Drive
North, and no longer involves reclaimed water or electrical lines.
The primary purposes of the CalWater Palos Verdes Pipeline Project are to “increase water
system reliability, improve fire-fighting capability, and reduce the risk of property loss or
damage on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.” The two-phase project proposes to replace an
existing pipeline that currently traverses multiple private properties within the City of Rolling
Hills Estates with two (2) new pipelines to be located primarily within street and bridle trail
rights-of-way. One of the new pipelines (the so-called “Crenshaw/Ridge Supply Project”)
would extend southward along Crenshaw Boulevard (mainly through unincorporated
County territory) to a new reservoir and pump station to be constructed at the northwest
corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Silver Spur Road in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
This pipeline would then continue southward along Crenshaw Boulevard through the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes to tie into an existing pipeline in Crest Road that supplies CalWater’s
reservoir near the intersection of Crest and Highridge roads.
CalWater is currently conducting engineering and technical studies to identify the
environmental impacts of the proposed project, as required pursuant to CEQA. Public
Works Staff is aware of this proposal and will be working with CalWater on those portions of
the project that are located within our jurisdiction. Staff will also continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.
San Pedro Community Plan Update, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On December 8, 2011, Staff of the City of Los Angeles Planning Department met jointly
with the Planning and Land Use committees of the Northwest, Central and Costal San
Pedro neighborhood councils to present a status report on the San Pedro Community Plan
Update. We had previously commented upon this project in February 2008, requesting
that:
• The community plan update should include focused attention on the Western
Avenue commercial corridor shared by Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles;
• The community plan update should include the “annexation” of the Ponte Vista site
and three (3) adjacent condominium projects from the Wilmington/Harbor City
Community Plan Area; and,
• The community plan update could provide an opportunity to correct certain
“anomalies” in the city boundary between Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles.
As presented at the December 8, 2011, meeting, the City of Los Angeles is proposing
changes to a variety of existing zoning and land use regulations throughout San Pedro. In
the areas that immediately abut Rancho Palos Verdes, most of these are proposed
nomenclature changes, meaning that the names of the zones and land use areas would
change, but the existing development standards and permitted uses would not change. At
C-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 4
a couple of locations along Western Avenue (i.e., the Garden Village shopping center and
the condominiums next to the Harbor Cove shopping center), existing inconsistencies
between the actual land use and the designated zoning would be resolved by making the
zoning consistent with the existing development at each location. Staff does not anticipate
that these nomenclature changes or the resolution of land use/zoning inconsistencies will
have an adverse effect upon Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents.
Some of the proposed changes to the community plan include the designation of so-called
“opportunity areas,” which are generally seen as “under-utilized” areas of the San Pedro
community that may deserve special, focused attention. One of these opportunity areas is
identified as the commercial district surrounding the intersection of Western Avenue and
West 25th Street, which is located along a major path of travel for residents and visitors
entering and leaving Rancho Palos Verdes. As currently envisioned, the development
standards in this area would be revised to increase both the density/intensity of
development and the maximum height of buildings to create a sub-regional commercial and
residential center for the southwesterly portion of San Pedro. Staff has some initial
concerns about this proposal and will continue to monitor it in future iterations of the
community plan update. We also note that the City of Los Angeles does not intend to
“shift” the Ponte Vista site into the San Pedro Community Plan Area, even though most
people seem to associate that property much more with San Pedro than with Wilmington or
Harbor City.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Berths 302-306 (APL) Container Terminal, Port of Los Angeles
On December 16, 2011, the Port of Los Angeles released the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Berth 302-306 (APL) Container
Terminal project in the Port of Los Angeles. We had previously commented on the scope
of the DEIS/EIR for this project in August 2009, noting that:
• The proposed doubling of the number of existing gantry cranes on the project site
might have aesthetic impacts upon the views from residences on the east side of the
City;
• The assessment of air quality, noise and transportation/traffic impacts should be
expanded to include areas to the west of the Harbor Freeway and Gaffey Streets;
and,
• The project alternative should include an additional alternative that incorporated both
a reduced project scope and on-dock rail service.
In reviewing the DEIS/EIR, Staff believes that the Port has adequately responded to our
scoping comments in the document. As such, Staff does not intend to offer further City
C-4
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 5
comments on the DEIS/EIR. It should be noted, however, that the public comment period
on the DEIS/EIR is open until February 17, 2012.
Staff will remove this project from future Border Issues reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On January 9, 2012, Staff received an invitation from Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to attend
the latest regular community relations meeting regarding the Rancho LPG facility. The
invitation to attend this meeting was extended to elected and appointed community
representatives, mostly from San Pedro and its neighborhood councils (Northwest, Central
and Coastal).
On January 25, 2012, Staff attended Rancho LPG’s community relations meeting in San
Pedro. At that meeting, representatives of Rancho LPG provided updates on a number of
topics related to the facility for the 2011 calendar year, including:
• Facility security continues to be enhanced with upgraded fencing, anti-vehicle
measures and security personnel;
• The facility operators continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on counter-terrorism issues
and training;
• Facility operations continue to be upgraded by the addition of personnel, the
implementation of system automation and upgrades to the on-site rail spurs;
• Facility personnel completed a total of two hundred one (201) hours of safety
training; and,
• The facility passed fourteen (14) audits by various oversight agencies, with no
“Notices of Violation” issued.
It was noted that, during 2011, the facility received third-party validation of its regulatory
and CEQA compliance from the Los Angeles City Attorney and the State Attorney General,
as well as third-party validation of the Quest risk analysis by Michigan Tech under the
direction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Also, the facility operator recently
launched a new website (http://www.RanchoLPG.com) to provide information about the
facility to the general public. During the question-and-answer session at the end of the
presentation, however, it was clear that concerned members of the nearby community
remain opposed to the presence of the facility on the site due to its proximity to homes,
schools and businesses, regardless of how safely it may be operated by Rancho LPG.
Rancho LPG has not yet scheduled its next community relations meeting. However, Staff
will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
C-5
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 6
Marymount College San Pedro Campus Master Plan, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On January 12, 2012, the Daily Breeze reported on the grand opening of Marymount
College’s new downtown San Pedro “Waterfront Campus” (see attachments). The
Waterfront Campus is located in space on West 6th Street that was formerly occupied by
Northrop Grumman.
On January 26, 2012, Marymount College representatives met again with the Planning and
Land Use Committee of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC) to
present the draft supplemental traffic impact study for the project (see attachments). This
supplemental analysis included five (5) signalized Western Avenue intersections that were
not included in the previous study:
• Green Hills Memorial Park entry
• Avenida Aprenda
• Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive
• Toscanini Drive
• Caddington Drive
The supplemental analysis also included the assessment of mid-afternoon PM peak-hour
impacts (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) and late-afternoon PM peak-hour impacts (4:00 PM to
6:00 PM) in order to account for the large number of public and private schools within the
general vicinity of the Western Avenue corridor. The supplemental analysis concluded that,
based upon our City’s significance thresholds, there would be no significant project-related
traffic impacts at any of these additional intersections in Rancho Palos Verdes.
The NWSPNC Planning and Land Use Committee made a motion for forward a
recommendation of support for the proposed project to the full Neighborhood Council at its
next general stakeholders’ meeting on February 13, 2012. At this time, Staff awaits the
release of the environmental analysis of the San Pedro Campus Master Plan by the City of
Los Angeles. Marymount College President Dr. Michael Brophy stated that he is hopeful
that the City of Los Angeles will issue a “negative declaration” for the project. Staff will
continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
• San Pedro Facility RAB cover letter and agenda (dated 12/6/11)
• E-mail from NWSPNC President Diana Nave regarding release of Ponte Vista DEIR
(dated 12/13/11)
C-6
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 7, 2012
Page 7
Attachments (cont’d):
• CalWater Palos Verdes Pipeline Project update, maps and information (received
12/12/11)
• NWSPNC agenda and handouts regarding San Pedro Community Plan Update
(dated 12/8/11)
• Berths 302-306 (APL) Container Terminal Project DEIS/EIR cover letter and
reader’s guide (dated 12/16/11)
• Invitation letter for Rancho LPG community relations meeting (received 1/9/12)
• Daily Breeze article regarding the grand opening of Marymount College’s Waterfront
Campus (published 1/12/12)
• NWSPNC agenda and handouts regarding Marymount College’s San Pedro
Campus traffic study (dated 1/26/12)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20120207_BorderIssues_StaffRpt.doc
C-7
San Pedro Facility RAB cover letter and agenda
C-8
.~DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL FACIUlIES ENGINEEfING COMMANO SOtI11IWI!ST
1220 PAClFlC HIGHWAY
8AN DIEGO.OA 12132-51110
5090
Ser JE30.GG/2033
December 6,2011
Restoration Advisor Board (RAB)
community Members
SUBJECT:2011 SAN PEDRO FACILITY RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD
(RAB)MEETING
Ladies and Gentlemen:
'The Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP)San Pedro will be
holding a RAB meeting on December 19,2011,from 5:00 to 6:00
p.m.,at the DFSP San Pedro Facility,Building 100.The
enclosed agenda lists the proposed topics to be discussed and
the location and address of the RAB meeting.
Please note that the San Pedro Facility RAB meets to review
on-going environmental work on the non-BRAe San Pedro sites.
The RAE concerning the BRAe portion of the San Pedro Facility
has been adjourned.
If you have any questions,you may contact me at (619)532-
2296 or grady.gordon@navy.mil
G GORDO
Environmental Project Manager
By direction of the
Commanding Officer
Enclosures:1.Pedro Facility RAB Meeting Agenda
2.Notice of 2011 San Pedro Facility
Distribution List:
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)Members
Community Members
C-9
5:00PM
5:15PM
5:25PM
5:40PM
6:00PM
SAN PEDRO FACILITY
RESORATION ADVISORY BOARD (RAB)MEETING
3171 North Gaffey Street,Building 100
San Pedro,California
Monday,December 19,2011
5:00 pm to 6:00 pm
AGENDA
Welcome and Introductions
Navy Co-Chair:Mr.Grady Gordon
Community Co-Chair:Mr.Gilbert Alberio
Installation Restoration (IR)Program Status
Mr.Grady Gordon,Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
IR Site 32 Remedial Investigation
Mr.Grady Gordon
Open Forum for RAB Members and Members of the Audience
Meeting Adjourned
C-10
E-mail from NWSPNC President Diana Nave
regarding release of Ponte Vista DEIR
C-11
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
From:diana nave [diananave@earthlink.net]
Sent:Tuesday,December 13,2011 2:08 PM
To:george thompson;Kristina Smith;laureen vivian;Pat Nave;gabriel rivas;jUlia parker; pete burmeister;
chuck hart;Irene Mendoza;Barbara schach;Phil Nicolay;Mark-Anthony Shoats;katie marrie;Anna
Hill;irene almeida;John Stammreich;sheri bliss;david rivera;CYNTHIA Gonyea;John Greenwood;
tim mcosker;craig goldfarb;john mavar;Scott Allman;gordon teuber;Kit Fox;jim krause;erin strelich;
Anise Goldfarb;bob bryant;charles eldred;Molly Abbatiello;dan dixon;Grieg Asher;Carolyn Grayson;
Jennifer Zivkovic;tim golden;John Greenwood;Jim Maclellan;glenn Cornell;mary hamlin
Subject:Fwd:Ponte Vista Update
Begin forwarded message:
From:ana dragin <ana.dragin@lacity.org>
Date:December 13,2011 2:00:46 PM PST
To:Linda Alexander <Ialex@cox.net>,diana nave
<diananave@earthlink.net>,June Burlingame-Smith
<burling102@aol.com>
Subject:Ponte Vista Update
Anticipate an Draft EIR to be released in March 2012 on a plan for 1135 units.
•The EIR will evaluate other options including a reduced unit count (under
1000),a strictly single-family home development,and a no-build option.
•Currently,a screen check EIR has been submitted to City Planning for review
•Once Planning provides comments,the applicant will make the changes-
anticipate mid-January/early February
•With changes complete,the City will release the DEIR for a 45 day review of
the project
•We expect the community to provide comments on the DEIR,as well as the
new Councilmember weighing in on the project
•Best guess is that the Planning Commission will hear the project in the
summer of 2012,and final Council approval in late fall/early winter 2012.
Ana Dragin,MPA
Community Advocate
15th District,City of Los Angeles
638 S.Beacon Street,Suite 552
12/13/2011 C-12
San Pedro,CA 90731
(310)732-4515
(310)732-4500 fax
E-mail:ana.dragin@lacity.org
12/13/2011
Page 2 of2
C-13
CalWater Palos Verdes Pipeline Project update, maps and information
C-14
PV Pipeline Project Update
Project Overview
Cal Water is proposing an
infrastructure project that will
greatly enhance water system
reliability and fire protection for
the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Currently, a single 55-year-old
pipeline transports water to 90%
of the hill, and a second 60-year-
old pipeline supports the
remaining 10%. If either of these
pipelines were to leak or break
due to age, earthquake, or other
catastrophe, residents of the
peninsula would face lengthy
water outages. The system is
also vulnerable to extended
power outages that can be
caused by fire or other
catastrophes, because electricity
is required to pump water to
various elevations on the hill.
The Palos Verdes Pipeline
Project addresses these risks
and is vitally important to
increase water system reliability,
improve fire-fighting capability,
and reduce the risk of property
loss or damage on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula.
Dear Andy,
As you may know, California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is
proposing an important infrastructure improvement project on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula: The Palos Verdes Pipeline Project. The
Project is vitally important to increase the safety and reliability of the
water utility system on the Peninsula.
In order to minimize the impact of the Project on traffic congestion,
we are proposing to construct a portion of the new transmission
pipelines under the horse trails that run parallel to and about 1,000
feet north of Palos Verdes Drive North. Utilizing these trails will
eliminate the need to close one lane of traffic in the section of Palos
Verdes Drive North where there is only one lane of traffic in each
direction. It is because Cal Water is committed to minimizing the
inconvenience of the Project on our customers that we have selected
the horse trails as part of the preferred alignment for the Project.
So that we can ensure that the Project does not negatively impact
the environment or any pre-historical archaeological sites, Cal Water
has been conducting various investigations along the horse trails.
One of the final phases of those efforts will be taking place on
Thursday, December 15 and Friday, December 16, 2011. On
those days our contractor, PCR Services Corporation, will be
conducting ground-penetrating radar tests along the horse trail
between Buckskin Lane and the western border of the Nature
Conservancy. These tests will help us determine if there are any
historical artifacts buried under the horse trail.
Unfortunately, it will be necessary to close this portion of the
horse trail during the tests. However, a short detour is available
and will be clearly marked. The testing will be taking place between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Please know that no
construction or digging will be taking place during this phase of the
investigation which will minimize any noise or dust created by the
tests.
You can download an aerial overview of the area where we will be
conducting the tests by clicking here.
Depending on the findings of our investigation, it may be necessary
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/ren...7IF7g-00G_j3n7VtSwK6MOzWAC1_e8qD53lEHg5w%3D (1 of 2) [12/23/2011 10:21:33 AM]
PALOS VERDES PIPELINE PROJECT UPDATE
California Water 5 ,rvice Company
ReduceImproveUpgfode
I
C-15
PV Pipeline Project Update
Questions & Comments
Your feedback is important.
Please feel free to email us about
the PV Pipeline Project at
PVPipelineinfo@calwater.com.
You can also learn more about the
PV Pipeline Project by visiting us on
the web at
www.calwater.com/pv.
to conduct some limited excavations along the horse trails. Any
excavations, however, will not take place for several weeks after the
initial investigation and not until after we notify our customers.
We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this trail closure may
cause. If you would like additional information about the Project,
please visit our dedicated web page for the Project at www.calwater.
com/pv or email us any questions you may have at
PVPipelineinfo@calwater.com. You can also submit any comments
or questions about the Palos Verdes Pipeline Project through
our web based customer feedback form.
We truly appreciate your understanding and patience as we work to
ensure the safety and reliability of the water utility system on the
Peninsula.
Respectfully,
Justin Skarb
Government & Community Relations Manager
California Water Service Company
Forward email
This email was sent to andyw@rpv.com by pvpipelineinfo@calwater.com |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
California Water Service Group Political Action Committee | 1720 North First Street | San Jose | CA | 91122
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/ren...7IF7g-00G_j3n7VtSwK6MOzWAC1_e8qD53lEHg5w%3D (2 of 2) [12/23/2011 10:21:33 AM]
rsI'sa1"eUr15lul~uiib
Improve
'Y it today.
C-16
C
-
1
7
500 PRESSURE:
--ZOfro,tPlPElINE
'SO PREsso«E
ZONE F'tPElINc
14~PRESSURE
--ZONE PIPELINE
- - -EXiST PIPE
C
-
1
8
Palos Verdes Pipeline
Project Information
California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is proposing a two-part infrastructure
project that will greatly enhance water system reliability and fire protection for the Palos
Verdes Peninsula.
Currently, a single 55-year-old pipeline transports water to 90% of the hill, and a second
60-year-old pipeline supports the remaining 10%. If either of these pipelines were to
leak or break due to age, earthquake, or other catastrophe, residents of the peninsula
would face lengthy water outages. The system is also vulnerable to extended power
outages that can be caused by fire or other catastrophes, because electricity is required
to pump water through these pipelines to various elevations.
The Palos Verdes Pipeline Project addresses these risks and is vitally important to
increase water system reliability, improve fire-fighting capability, and reduce the risk of
property loss or damage on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
The first part of the project, the "Crenshaw/Ridge Supply Project," will provide a second
supply line to serve 90% of the peninsula and includes:
• 18,000 linear-feet (LF) of 30" pipeline from the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive
North and Palos Verdes Drive East, along Palos Verdes Drive North to
Dapplegray Lane, from Dapplegray Lane to Buckskin Lane, from Buckskin Lane
to the Bridle Trail, along the Chandler, Palomino Ranchos and Botanical Gardens
Trails, to Crenshaw Boulevard, from Crenshaw Boulevard to Silver Spur Road.
• An additional 3 million-gallon underground storage tank and pump station in a
mission-style building at the northwest corner of Silver Spur Road and Crenshaw
Boulevard.
• 5,000 LF of 24" pipeline from the new pump station to an existing water main in
Crest Road.
The second part of the project, the "D-500 Distribution Project," will replace the second
critical pipeline, which is currently located so close to homes that it poses a threat to
private property and is extremely difficult to access for repairs and maintenance. It
includes:
• 13,000 LF of 24" pipeline in Montecillo Drive from existing Pump Station 15 to
Palos Verdes Drive North, from Palos Verdes Drive North to Dapplegray Lane,
from Dapplegray Lane to Buckskin Lane, from Buckskin Lane to the Bridle Trail,
along the Chandler, Palomino Ranchos, and Botanical Gardens Trails to
Crenshaw Boulevard.
C-19
For a more detailed view of where construction will take place, see the project maps.
The project cost is estimated at $46 million. If approved by the California Public Utilities
Commission, the costs would be reflected in water rates in 2015 or later. For the
average residential customer on the peninsula, the water bill would increase $22 per
month, or 73 cents per day.
To be successful, the project will require community support and Public Utilities
Commission approval. Construction is expected to begin in early 2013 and finish in
early 2015. It will be broken into phases to minimize traffic impacts and inconvenience
to area residents.
If you have any concerns, questions, or issues, please send them to us through the PV
feedback form. You can also use the form to sign up for periodic project updates.
Updates will also be posted on the project update page. In the meantime, we thank you
for your patience as we complete this critical water system improvement.
Sincerely,
Henry Wind
District Manager
(Source: http://www.calwater.com/your_district/pv_pipeline/info.php - Accessed 12/12/2011)
C-20
Palos Verdes Pipeline Project FAQ
How will this benefit me?
This project will increase the overall reliability of the water system on the peninsula in
the event of a natural disaster or major power outage. It also relocates a key water line,
which will improve access for repairs and lessen the risk of damage to private property.
Where will the construction be?
Two pipelines will be laid side-by-side from our existing pump station on Montecillo
Drive to Palos Verdes Drive North, from Palos Verdes Drive North to Dapplegray Lane,
from Dapplegray Lane to Buckskin Lane, from Buckskin Lane to the Bridle trail, along
the Chandler, Rancho Palomino and Botanical Gardens Bridle Trails, to Crenshaw
Boulevard, where one of the pipelines will be connected to the existing system. The
second line will continue south on Crenshaw Boulevard to Silver Spur Road, where it
will tie into a new 3.0 million-gallon underground storage tank and pump station. It will
then continue south on Crenshaw Boulevard to Crest Road, where it will be connected
to the existing system.
For a more detailed view of where construction will take place, see the project maps.
When will the project be finished?
With the public's support and California Public Utilities Commission approval, Cal Water
plans to begin construction in early 2013 and complete the project in early 2015. The
project will be broken into phases to minimize inconvenience as much as possible.
Why does this need to happen now?
This project has been in the study and design phase for nearly 10 years, and until it is
completed, the peninsula is at risk from serious water service interruptions. The project
is vitally important to increase the reliability of the water system, improve fire protection,
and lessen the risk of property loss or damage.
What would happen if there were a natural disaster?
If either of the two key pipelines were damaged by an earthquake or other natural
disaster, when stored supplies were depleted, peninsula residents would be without
water until repairs could be made.
C-21
What would happen if there were a power outage?
Cal Water requires electricity to pump water to various elevations on the peninsula, and
power outages seriously hinder our ability to provide water. This project will not only
increase the storage capacity of the water system on the peninsula, but will also, most
likely, utilize a separate power grid to service its proposed pump station to minimize the
effect of a power outage on the water system.
How much will it cost?
Current estimates show that, from design to completion, the project will cost
approximately $46 million.
How will it impact my water rates?
The project will not impact water rates until 2015 or later. If current estimates are
accurate, the average residential customer on the peninsula would see a monthly water
bill increase of $22 per month, or 73 cents per day, as a result of the project, assuming
the project and increase are approved by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), an independent agency responsible for setting rates.
How do we know this is the best approach?
Cal Water has been working with professional engineering consultants on this project
for nearly 10 years. A multitude of options were evaluated, and this one was chosen
because it was the absolute best alternative for improving water system reliability.
Why has the project changed since 2004?
The project was initially proposed as a pipeline installation primarily on Palos Verdes
Drive North, which would have seriously impacted traffic and necessitated the removal
of pepper trees. In response to public feedback, we redesigned the project and located
it away from heavily-traveled roads.
Why are you putting pipes under the bridle trail and
will the trail be open during construction?
Burying pipes under the bridle trail will allow us to minimize traffic interruptions; Cal
Water will devise alternate routes so that the trails can be used during construction.
C-22
Will the bridle trail be restored to its original condition
when construction is complete?
Cal Water is committed to making improvements to leave the bridle trail even better
than it was before the project started.
What about my horses?
Cal Water will work with individual horse-owners and local equestrian groups to ensure
that all horses are safe during construction. If it is necessary to relocate horses
temporarily for their comfort and safety, Cal Water will bear the costs of doing so.
Who will be doing the construction?
Cal Water will seek bids on the project and choose a contractor based on price and
qualifications. Regardless of which contractor is chosen for the project, Cal Water will
supervise the project closely and require the contractor to meet certain performance
standards, such as minimizing noise and dust.
What if I have a concern during construction?
Cal Water will have a dedicated web page, email address, and phone number for
customers to use to communicate any concerns or problems they have during
construction. Our mission is to provide each of our customers with excellent service,
and we will work diligently to resolve any concerns or issues that may arise during
construction
Will there be water outages during construction?
Water outages will be minimal. If it is necessary to interrupt your water service, we will
make every effort to notify you in advance.
What about my landscaping and fences?
Cal Water is committed to leaving each property in the same or better condition than it
was before the project started. We will work closely with individual property owners, as
the need arises, to make sure each is satisfied.
C-23
Will the project hinder delivery of emergency
services?
Cal Water is working closely with each of the emergency service providers (police, fire,
and ambulance) to ensure that emergency services are not hindered by construction.
Where can I get more information?
Cal Water will hold numerous public meetings throughout the course of the project,
which will be announced via water bill inserts.
Where can I get updates on the project?
Updates on the project will be posted on the project update page; customers may also
sign up to receive regular e-mail updates through the feedback form. (E-mail addresses
will be kept confidential and will not be provided to any third party.) At Cal Water, we are
committed to being a good neighbor, and we will work hard to address any concerns
you may have. If you have any concerns, please send them to us through the feedback
form.
(Source: http://www.calwater.com/your_district/pv_pipeline/faq.php - Accessed 12/12/2011)
C-24
Renderings of Proposed Reservoir and Pump Station
Northwest Corner of Crenshaw Blvd. & Silver Spur Rd.
View from South
View from Southeast
View from East
C-25
NWSPNC agenda and handouts regarding
San Pedro Community Plan Update
C-26
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Planning and Land Use Committee Agenda
JOINT MEETING WITH CENTRAL AND COASTAL
PLANNING AND LAND USE COMMITTEES
Thursday, December 8, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
San Pedro City Hall, Room 452
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Discussion of San Pedro Community Plan Update
4. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
5. Adjourn – Next Meeting, 6:30 p.m. January 26, 2012
Note: Anything on this Agenda Could Result in a Motion
To Contact us: www.nwsanpedro.org, board@nwsanpedro.org, or 310-732-4522
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles
does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request will provide reasonable
accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language
interpreters, assisted listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided
upon request. To ensure availability of services please make your request at least 3 business
days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by contacting the Department of Neighborhood
Empowerment at 213-485-1360.
C-27
SAN PEDRO COMMUNI1Y PLAN
UPDATE MEETING WITH NC LU SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS 12.08.11
AGENDA
•What has happened since 2008?
•Current Efforts
•Presentation -Types of Recommendations
•Discussion and Next Steps
C-28
I North San Pedro Industrial Districts
Primary Land Use:Light industrial uses
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide for businesses that contribute to the local port-related employment and economic base
in area for "industrial services"(i.e.,ship repair companies, customs house brokers).
Retain industrial land for job base -prohibit stand alone commercial and limit its size to prevent
large-scale retail center development
Accommodate clean manufacturing and emerging green technologies by offering incentive of
increased height and FAR
Prohibit incompatible uses by retaining eXisting "0"conditions
Improve aesthetics with design regulations and buffers
Address transitions for industrial uses with neighboring residential through height limitations
I Neighborhood Commercial Districts
Primary Land Use:Neighborhood local-serving uses,mixed use commercial &residential
•Enhance and protect neighborhood serving uses and encourage small-scaled,local businesses
that provide goods and services to the adjacent neighborhoods
•Focus on pedestrian orientation and activity;potentially add PED zone suffix to promote urban
design and walkable communities in multiple zones,with regulations pertaining to transparency,
pedestrian entrances and other pedestrian features
•Add design guidelines to preserve neighborhood character and improve aesthetics
•Prohibit stand alone residential in order to preserve neighborhood commercial businesses for
serving neighborhood needs and providing jobs
•Restrict auto related uses to protect neighborhood character
•Keep height at 30 to 45 feet and retain FAR of 1.5 to retain small-scaled local nature of area
•Replace "Q"conditions along Pacific to allow for more streamlined regulations
1 San Pedro Community Plan -12/08/11 DRAFT
C-29
I Community Commercial Districts
Primary Land Use:Medium-scale Community businesses that serve larger community,such as
lodging,small offices,cultural and en tertainmen tfacilities,and schools and libraries uses,mixed
use commercial &residential
•
•
•
•
•
Enhance and protect community serving uses and encourage medium-scale businesses that
provide goods and services to a broader community than neighborhood uses
Prohibit stand alone residential in order to preserve community serving businesses for serving
community needs and providing jobs;potentially add GFC (Ground Floor Commercial)designation
for regulations,requiring the ground level street frontage of buildings to contain commercial uses.
Restrict auto related uses to protect neighborhood character
Currently unlimited height in some areas,set maximum height at 75 feet and retain FAR of 1.5
Consider Transfer of Development Rights (TFAR)to protect existing historic structures at current
heights and apply development increase to identified historic sites
Opportunity Areas
•Downtown -Regional Commercial,civic and employment center
•Harbor "Gateway"-Beacon Street
•25 th Street and Western -Community Commercial center increase height to 75 feet with
transition buffer adjacent to Rl
•i h Street downtown -Hybrid Industrial,with Regulations to promote artists,galleries,adaptive
re-use
•Allow highest buildings downtown in Regional Center,(currently unlimited height)(CRA)
2 San Pedro Community Plan -12/08/11 DRAFT
C-30
l\Jorth San Pedro Industrial Districts
Sub-area and Land Use Zoning Recommendation Reason for
Location Designation Recommendation
10 Heavy (0)M2-1VL -Retain "0"conditions to prohibit incompatible uses -Light industrial uses
N.Gaffey east Industrial [OJ M3-1VL -No change in FAR -1.5 -Preserve job base
side -Prohibit stand alone commercial,and limit to less than 50,000 square feet -Improve aesthetics
No change -Add design guidelines ®ulations,require landscaped buffer along Gaffey -Restrict incompatible uses
20 Light Industrial [0]M2-1VL -Incentive for green &clean technology uses allows for increase in height -Lightindust~aluses
N.Gaffey east from 45'to 55'height &FAR from 1.5 to 3.0 -Preserve job base
side [0]M2-2D -Prohibit stand alone commercial and limit to less than 50,000 sq ft -Community amenity
incentive -Add design guidelines ®ulations,require landscaped buffer along Gaffey -Zone change consistency
30 Limited 0]MI-1VL -Incentive for green &clean technology uses allows for increase in height -Preserve Business park use,
N.Gaffey west Industrial from 45'to 55'height &FAR from 1.5 to 3.0 provide job base
side [0]Ml-2D -Limit height to 3D'within lOa'for Rl zone -Improve aesthetics
Incentive -Prohibit stand alone commercial and limit to less than 50,000 sq ft -Neighborhood compatibility
-Add design guidelines ®ulations,require landscaped buffer along Gaffey
40 Limited [O)CM-IVL,[Q)CM--Increase height from 45 to 55'height and FAR from 1.5 to 3 for green/clean -Industrial services focus
N,Gaffey -west Industrial lXL,[T][Q)Ml-1VL,technology uses only,other uses 45"and 1.5 FAR;-improve aesthetics
and east side Ml-1VL -Limit height to 30'within 100'for Rl zone -Preserve job base
-Prohibit stand alone commercial and limit to less than 50,000 sq ft
[0]Ml-2D -Add design guidelines ®ulations,require landscaped buffer along Gaffey
Incentive
45 Limited [O)MI-1VL -Add design guidelines ®ulations;prohibit incompatible uses -Improve aesthetics
Front 5t.Industrial no change -FAR remains at 1.5
55 Limited [Q)MI-IVL -Design gUidelines and regulations for visible frontage -Improve aesthetics
South of Knoll Industrial no change -FAR remains at 1.5
Dr,Pacific to
Front
60 Limited [Q]MRI-1VL -Design guidelines and regulations for visible frontage -Improve aesthetics
Pacific and Oliver Industrial No change -FAR remains at 1.5
Recommended San Pedro Community Plan Areas for Change ---12/08/11 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
C
-
3
1
I Gaffey Street Commercial Corridor
Sub-area and land Use Zoning Recommendation Reason for
Location Designation Recommendation
70 Residential,[O]C2-1VL,(O]C2--Add design gUidelines -Improve aesthetics
Gaffey -Oliver to General 1XL,[O]C2-1,and -Prohibit stand alone residential -Job opportunities
5th St Commercial OP1 -FAR remains at 1.5,Height 45'-Address transitions
-Ground Floor Commercial (GFC)-Provide housing
To To
Community 0]C2-1VL-GFC
Commercial
80 Neighborhood [OJC2-1XL,(TJ[O]C2--Add design guidelines ®ulations or extend CDO -Provide housing
Gaffey -5th to Commercial lXL,(2-1,C2-1VL -FAR remains at 1.5 -Improve aesthetics
13th 5t,and 9th -Encourage pedestrian use
from Pacific to To -P reserve character
Meyler [Q]C2-1VL-CDO-GFC
90 Neighborhood [Q]R3-1,C2-1,[O]C2--3D'height limit no change -Improve aesthetics
Gaffey -13th to Commercial 1VL,(O]C2-1XL,-FAR remains at 1.5 -Encourage pedestrian use
19th 5t (T)[O]CR-1,[Q]P-1XL -Add design guidelines,consider Pedestrian (PED)-Preserve character
To
[Q]C2-1XL-PED
I
Recommended San Pedro Community Plan Areas for Change ---12/08/11 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
C
-
3
2
I Pacific Avenue Commercial Corridor
Sub-area and Land Use Zoning Recommendation Reason for
Location Designation Recommendation
g
100 Community C2-1,(T)[O]C2-20 -75'height limit (currently unlimited)-Improve aesthetics
Grand -5th to Commercial -Extend coo -Provide housing
8th To -Consider additional FAR if Mixed Use -Preserve character
[O]C2-20 -coo -Improve pedestrian activity
-Provide jobs
120 Neighborhood RD1.5-1XL,[Q]C2--45'height limit -Limit height within 30'of R2 zone or more restrictive zone -Improve aesthetics
Pacific Avenue -Commercial 1XL,lVL to 30 feet -Serve neighborhood needs
Oliver to 3rd -Prohibit stand-alone residential
To -Restrict auto related uses
[0]C2-1VL -FAR remains at 1.5
130 Community Varies -75'height limit (currently 30'to unlimited)-Provide housing
Pacific Avenue -Commercial -Extend COO from 4th to 3'd -Maintain character
3rd to 10th -Prohibit auto related uses -Encourage pedestrian use
To -Consider TFAR,FAR 1.5-6 to 4.5 -Provide jobs
[Q](2-20 COO
145 Community [O]C2-1XL -45'height limit -Provide housing
Pacific Avenue-Commercial -Add design gUidelines,consider PED or GFC -Maintain character
lOin to 13th To -FAR remains at 1.5 -Encourage pedestrian use
C2-1VL-GFC-PED (San Pedro Specific Plan)-Provide jobs
150 Neighborhood R01.5-1XL,[Q]C2--30'height limit -Provide housing
Pacific Avenue Commercial 1XL,P-IXl -Add design guidelines,consider PED or GFC -Preserve character
13th to Hamilton -FAR remains at 1.5 -Improve pedestrian activity
To (San Pedro Specific Plan)-Preserve job base
C2-1Xl-GFC-PED -Serve neighborhood needs
Recommended San Pedro Community Plan Areas for Change ---12/08/11 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
C
-
3
3
[Opportunity Areas
Sub-area and Land Use Zoning Recommendation Reason for
Location Designation Recommendation
135 Regional [Q]C2-2D-CDO -Allow highest buildings,currently unlimited -Provide housing
Downtown Commercial -FAR from 6.0 to 4.5 to 6.0 -Improve pedestrian activity
-Add additional design regulations for preserving views -Employment/civic center
140 Commercial [Q]CM-2D-CDO -75'height limit (currently unlimited)-Retain existing uses
7th St.between Manufacturing -Studying FAR change from 6.0 to 4.5-6 ~Encourage artists and
Mesa and Palos Limited -Regulations to promote artists,galleries,adaptive re-use and more attractive artisan uses
Verdes Manufacturing development -Preserve character
To
Hybrid
Industrial
170 Limited M1-1VL-CDO -7S'height limit/potentially higher for portion -Provide housing
Harbor Manufacturing -FAR from 1.5 to 4.0 -Improve aesthetics
Boulevard To -Prohibit stand alone residential -Improve pedestrian activity
Gateway -To [Q]C2-2D COO -Add policies for streetscape and gateway improvements -Provide job opportunities
Beacon St Community
Commercial
175 Umited [T][Q]RAS 3 -ll,_75'height limit -Provide housing
Harbor Manufacturing RD1.5-1Xl,[Q]C2--FAR from 3.0 to 4.0 -Improve aesthetics
Boulevard lXL,MR2-1Vl -Prohibit stand-alone residential;retain site "Q"S -Improve pedestrian activity
Gateway -To -Add policies for streetscape and gateway improvements
Beacon St east Community To -Extend COO
side Commercial [Q]C2-2D-CDO
260 Neighborhood [Q]C2-1Xl _75'height limit w/transition buffer adjacent to Rl -Serve neighborhood needs
Western and Commercial -Restore R4 density -Provide housing
25th To -FAR remains at 1.5 -Provide job opportunities
To [Q]C2-1l -Prohibit stand alone residential
Community
Commercial .
Recommended San Pedro Community Plan Areas for Change ---12/08/11 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
C
-
3
4
I Other Areas
I Sub-area and land Use Zoning Recommendation Reason for
Location Designation Recomm end ation
I
50 Open Space Rl-1Xl,Ml-1VL to -Knoll Hill -Provide public amenities
Knoll Hill Rl-1XL,OS-IXL -Zone change except for Rl-1XL parcel -Zone change consistency
-FAR remains at 1.5
155 Community (T)(QJ RAS3-1L,C2.--Proposed for HPOZ -Preserve historical character
Vinegar Hill Commercial,lXl,R2-1XL,R3-1Xl,-FAR remains at 3.0 -I mprove aesthetics
HPOZ proposed Low Med I,RD1.S-1XL,(Q]C2-1,-Retain existing uses
expansion area low Med II,(Q]C2-1XL
Medium,
Neigh borho od
Commercial
I
165 Limited (QlMR1-1Xl -30'height limit;FAR remains at 1.5 -Improve aesthetics
Mesa St.Industrial -Restrict outdoor storage;-Serve neighborhood needs
between 20th No change -Add design gUidelines ®ulations
and 22nd St.
220 Public PF-1Xl,Ai-l,OS-lXL -Zone change to Public Facilities -Preserve character
White Point Facilities -Add policies for future development -Provide housing
Reservation-To -FAR remains at 1.5 -Provide community amenity
Forth MacArthur
PF-1XL
Recommended San Pedro Community Plan Areas for Change ---12/08/11 WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
C
-
3
5
I 0f10
•,
••
-.•
••,,
•••••,,
,---••-.
,
.'-
..I ·8
'"
-••
Legend
_zo"e.Helgnlll'''~
_OMig"Regut.boN
_lncoMltenclel
San Pedro Community Plan
Recommendations
DRAFT
1210712011
C-36
•A
.~~_~o~~._~~'_••--~-----
San Pedro Community Plan
Subarea Map
DRAFT
12(1112011
C-37
Berths 302-306 (APL) Container Terminal Project
DEIS/EIR cover letter and reader’s guide
C-38
<125 S.Polos Wi/Ides Slresl Post Office Box 151 SOn »e(lro.CA 90733-0151 TEl/rOD 310 SEA·PORT WWW,Doclofiosongeles,org
Anlonlo R,VUlorolgoso MayO',Cjly 01 Lo~Angeles
Boord or Harbor Cindy Mlscikowskl David Arion Robin M.Kromer Douglo~P.~rQIJse Sung Won Sohn,Ph.D.
Commissioners President Vice Presidafll
Geraldine Knob.,Ph.D.Executive Director
December 16,2011
SUBJECT:DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EISJElR)FOR THE BERTHS 302-306 [APL]CONTAINER
TERMINAL PROJECT
The U.S.Army Corps 01 Engineers,Los Angeles District (Corps)and the Los Angeles Harbor
Department (Port)have prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (EIS/EIR)for the following project in the Port of Los Angeles:
Berths 302-306 [APL]Container TermInal Project
The Draft EIS/EIR is included for your review,in accordance with current City of Los Angeles
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)of 1970,
Article f;the State CEQA Guidelines,Article 7,Sections 15086-15087;and the California Public
Resources Code Section 21153.
Avai lab iIity:
The Draft EIS/EIR is available for review at:L.A.Public Library,Central Branch,630 West 5th
Street,Los Angeles Califomia;L.A Public Library,San Pedro Branch,921 South GaNey Street,
San Pedro,California;LA Public Library,Wilmington Branch,1300 North Avalon.Wilmington,
California;and the Los Angeles Harbor Department,425 South Palos Verdes Street,San
Pedro,California.
The pUblic notice is available online at the Corps website:
www.spl.usace.army.miVregulatory/POLA.htm and the entire document is available at the Pan
of Los Angeles web site:http://www.portofJosangeles.org.Alimited number of hard copies of
the Draft EIS/EIR are also available at the Environmental Management Division offices to
purchase.The Draft EIRIEIS is available on CD for no charge.
PUblic Meeting:
The Corps and the Port will jointly conduct a public meeting to receive public comment on the
Draft EIS/EIR for this project on January 19.2012 in the Board Room of the Harbor
Administrative BUilding,425 S.Palos Verdes Street,San Pedro,CA at 6:00 p.m.Participation
in the public meeting by federal,state and local agencies and other interested organizations and
people is encouraged.This meeting Will be conducted in English with simultaneous
English/Spanish translation selVices available.
C-39
DEI R BERTH 302-306 APL
Comments:
Page 2
Written comments on the Draft EIS/EJR will be received until February 17,2012 and should be
sent to both:
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District
Regulatory Division
ATTN:Theresa Stevens,Ph.D.
2151 Alessandro Drive,Suite 110
Ventura,California 93001
and
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Christopher Cannon,Director
Environmental Management Division
425 South Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro,California 90731
Comments may also be sent by email to:ceqacomrTlents@..aPrtJaJljg and
ther!.sSc,-sta.;,vens@usace.armY4J1il Remember to:
•Send your comments in letter format as an attachment to the e-mail;
•Include a mailing address in the comment letter;and
•Type UAPL Terminal Projeer'in the e-mail subject line.
For additional information,please contact the Corps'Public Affairs Office at (213)452·3920 or
Jan Green Rebstock,Environmental Project Manager at the Port of Los Angeles at (310)732-
3949.
CH STOPHER CANNON
Director of Environmental Management
CC:JGR:myd
ADP No.:081203·131
C-40
ADP No:081203·131 SCH No:2009071021
BERTHS 302-306 [APL]CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT
Draft EIS/EIR Reader's Guide
December 2011
Prepared by:
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Environmental Management Division
425 S.Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro,CA 90731
With assistance from:
THE PORT
OF 1.05 ANGiLES
.1"11,
"1 '1
US Army Corps
of Englne-ers
C-41
BERTHS 302-306 [APL]CONTAINER TERMINAL PRO,-IECT
Draft EIS/EIR Reader's Guide
December 2011
Release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)I
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD)and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)have
released the Draft Environmental Jmpact Statement!Draft Enviromnental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR)
for the Berths 302 -306 American President Lines (APL)Container Terminal Project ("proposed
Project").The purpose of this document is to inform the public of the proposed Project.alternatives
considered,any potential environmental impacts,key community concerns,and the environmental review
process.While this document summarizes the Draft EIS/EIR,is not an official part of the Draft EIS/EIR,
which was prepared to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requirements.
C-42
Los Angeles Harbor Departmenl
Table of Contents
Reader's Guide
Background Information aboul General Terminal Operations ..
Project Purpose and Objectives .
Project Location .
.'"'"'I
...J
.5
Existing Setting ,5
Proposed Project ..
41-acre Backland Development and Operation .
What are NEP/l andCEQA?.
.7
..10
.14
How are Impacts Determined?..16
Summary ofProposed Project Impacts .
Project Mitigation ,"'feasures .
Alternatives /lnalyzed in this Draft ElSIEIR .
Alternative /-No Project .
Alternative 2 -No Federal Action .
../7
.19
.JI
..22
Alternative 3 -Reduced Project:Four New Cranes ..
Alternative .J -Reduced Project:No New Whwf..
.....2-/
.25
Alternative 5 -Reduced Project:No Space Assignment ..26
Alternative 6 -Proposed Project with Expanded On-Dock Radyard 28
Key Community Issue:Air Quality .
Key Community Issue'Ground Transportation .
Key Community Issue:Economic Benefits .
Public Participation Guide .
Berths 302-306 [APLj Container Terminal Project
December 2011
.30
43
.44
..46
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-43
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Background Information about General Terminal Operations
Reader's GUide
Key Definitions
Intermodal Transport =The
ability to move the same
container between ships,trucks,
and rail.
Goods Movement Chain =A
complex intemational system that
moves goods from their points of
production to consumers by
different modes of transportation
(ship,rail,and truck).
The proposed Project is part of the goods movement chain,which is a complex international system that
moves goods from their poi nts of production to consumers by d[fferent modes of transportation (ship,rail,
and truck).As it relates to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach ("Ports",also referred to as the San
Pedro Bay Port Complex),the points of production generally are in foreign countries,while consumers
are located in the United States.]The goods movement chain is a coordinated process that includes
shippers,shipping lines,third-party logistics providers,stevedoring
companies,port cargo terminal operators,Jabor,truckers,railroads,
and distribution centers.Manufacturers,retailers,or third-party
logistics firms often contract with shipping lines to move goods
from origin to destination.Shipping lines own and lease container
equipment,and typically enter into agreements with trucking
companies and railroads for the transport of international cargo
between the manufacturers and retailers and the marine terminals.
The ability to move the same container between ships,trucks,and
Tail is called intermodal transport and is accomplished through the
use of standardized containers that can be easily moved between
modes.Figure 1 illustrates the flow of containers through the
various stages of the goods movement chain.The majority of
goods coming into the Ports are imported,arriving in shipping
containers transported on container ships.Figure 2 shows the
general layout of the APL Terminal and container terminal
operations with the containers arriving by ship (at the berth)and leaving by truck and rail.For export
cargo,this movement of the containers is reversed as containers are brought to the terminal by truck and
rail to be placed on ships leaving the Port.The movement of cargo via containers in and out of the
terminal occurs simultaneously throughout any given time.
1 Los Angeles is a major gateway for imports,with inbound shipments accounling for 86 percent of the value of the Freight it handled
in 2008.
Berths 302-306 (APLJ Container Terminal Project
December 2011
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-44
Reader's GUIde Los Angeles Harbor Departmen(
rI 10'l.rr·...·1 ~I~
JIO~L.
'I'6 \OCA~
t.lU-.:..r.
I,;,
LtC;',0
"'--,fo ",--
I ll(j I ...·IIJ ~l I'
~.,
....'
_/•..-~(,,\,.•Otllof~-I~....
r
IJ
...g..-
l J i:'7(7.r
l\.I II,
Figure 1:Goods Movement Chain:Transportation Distribution
AOP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 2
8erths 302-306 [APLJ Conla,ner Tel'JT1inal Project
December 2011
C-45
Containers leave the facllty
via rail (reglona I)or
by truck (local or delive ry to
off·dock railyardj
Containers
loaded/unloaded
to train cars al
on-dock ra Ilya rd
Slacked containers
stored in backlands
A·frame cr3not;lransfer
contai ns ($be twee n
ship an (l ya rd ltacto rs
(or tra ns po rt to b ackla ods
or on-dock rallyard
Port 01 Los Angeles
Berths 302 •306 {APLj
COf/la/nSf Terminal Project
Gene,al Container TermInal Ope,allons
Figure 2
C
-
4
6
Reader's Guide
Project Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the proposed Project is to optimize
and expand the cargo-handling capacity at the APL
Terminal to provide a portion of the faci Iities needed to
accommodate the long-term growth in the volume of
containerized cargo through the Port and at the APL
Terminal while implementing the Port's green growth
strategy.This purpose would be addressed through
expansion and improvement of the existing Berths 302-305
marine terminal from the current 291 acres to approximately
347 acres,including extension of the existing wharf by
1.250 feet (creating Berth 306),to accommodate an annual
throughput of up to approximately 3.2 million twenty foot
equivalent units (TEUs)by 2027.
Project objectives include:
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Key Definitions
Berth =Dock for ship:a place,usually
alongside a quay or dock.where a boat
ties up or anchors.
TEU =Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit =
One 20-foot-long x 8-foot-wide x 8-
foot-6-inch-high shipping container.
Presently,most maritime containers are
40 feet long or two TEUs
•Optimize the use of existing land at Berths 302-305.behind the proposed Berth 306.and associated
waterways in a manner that is consistent with the LAHD's public trust obligations;
•Improve the container terminal at Berths 302-306 to more efficiently work larger ships and to ensure
the terminal's ability to accommodate increased numbers and sizes of container ships;
•Increase accommodations for container ship berthing,and provide sufficient backland area and
associated improvements for optimized container terminal operations.at Berths 302-306:
•Incorporate modern backland design efficiencies into improvements to the existing vacant landfill
area at Berth 306;and
•Improve the access into and out of the terminal and internal terminal circulation,at Berths 302-306 to
reduce the time for gate turns and to increase terminal efficiency.
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 4
Berths 302-306 [APLI Container Terminal Project
December 2011
C-47
""-----
Project Location
Tho ~f'roie<l "Ie "I",..ed witIlio tho Port of I.e<""Ple'por<ion oftho Sao Pod'"lI>y,whO<h
""PJ"W_'y 1\l on,'""""'"of"""""",,""'"A"",.,("'l""")).11><"""ofl.e<A0i''''i'
odja<m''0 tho <Om""""'"''of San _Wilmi"P"'-W<hUI tho I'oo'l of La<A.pl".tho P"'i«'
,,""on T"."..,1.1 ....('_y >do "land in hurt of"'"Port.rout btOJa:"pte'OoX
w~><uI ...,-.J";1 O«<'l'to Tl'"'"oolls'1i-onI tl><iol ·tho Vi,.,...Thorn ..RnCc<,....S<huylu
f><i.,8ml$<.,0<G<..tO 0.,_B,>d.c<.and tho ~A.._R..1rood ....~B~.
ExIsting Seltlng
Tho "i"io$APL T_itI.>I i',,","ed on P...WO.H e«upOos '''''''''''''''''''1 291"",....i""Ndo'
<,000 foe<of"""r",.,r__Io<l 0."",(BM'"JOllbwcI>.lOll...on-doek tail,w llIOl ,..
"',••••"0'.'"""..'"r,....pr"r"""_·""k "'~...(oqWy~""to ""..Iy tin</WI ".."',....
4odkoted Ie'""il ""h willi fleJ<ibI.--.:<i"'"poi""off'o<"Vo ...'Ii""w·OhJ.th<Alom«lo
eorri6or,•"""1000;"1 ""'"'1'""""pie>to...;",,,,,,",'"i"",_"'0"",1 lO"""'t5 .._.....
I ""'""""'ll""",_le..,.t"'l'f ..."".~,we -=0..110."",600 ",lnJ""'",,,,,,.in«pruv:•
,,"'''''''....r",ili<y fo<"fr",,"ed """.."""",,,(>00 kro"",..··...r..-.j.M """"and "'........."•
...."PO"r..""",",...."'''1 of.'hoW'."""(_""i"'''''1)0,00I>_,""'J ....."""",,SIIop
(~.i .....ly 2l,OOO ",_f"',£,0","1".'''''''''ond f><,Ii"'"""tho ~o p~,'it<
....'....,12 A.f,,,,,.'00 foo<.p"i<,ra"",.k>n,l ...."'""·f",'OI:"......-..,.~wilh '"00;",,"pm<",
o=d '"I000<Io """".......
...........p;I\J==...._..",_..",..,11""""',."..,
C-48
Fe L
I f
I I
~
I
fi
C-49
los Aogeles Harbol Department Readers GUIde
Current cargo handling equipment consists of approximately 36 forklifts,7 side picks,19 lop handlers,8
Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG)cranes,10 Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG)cranes.and 195 yard tractors.Figure
4 shows key features of the existing container terminal.
RMG at the existing on-dock railyard
Proposed Project
The proposed Project would expand and redevelop the existing APL Terminal at Berths 302-305 (the
expansion would extend to Berth 306)located on Pier 300 of Terminal Island.During the period of July
2008 to June 2009,the APL Terminal handled approximately 1,128,080 TEUs.At full capacity,expected
to occur by 2027,the APL Terminal would support an annual throughput capacity of approximately
3,206,000 (or 3.2)TEUs.The proposed Project encompasses approximately 347 acres and includes
improvements to the existing 29l-acre APL Tenninal and an expanded area of 56 acres.The following
summarizes the improvements that would occur within each area.Please refer to Figure 5 for a visual
representation of the major elements of the proposed Project.
Proposed improvements to the existing terminal would:Key DeCillitions
Throughput.,The number of
containers that pass through a
terminal over a given time.
Roadability Facility"A facility
where loaded trucks are inspected
to check their operational condition
prior (0 leaving the leoninal
Modify the Main Gate (convert existing outbound lanes to
inbound lanes);
Modify the terminal entrance lanes;
Modify the Earle Street gate;
Instal I up to 4 new cranes at Berths 302-305;
Convert a portion of the existing dry container storage unit
area to a storage area equipped with plug-in electric power
for reefer unit storage;
Demolish and re-construct the Roadability facility;
Expand the Power Shop facilities by constructing and operating a separate two-story Power Shop
Annex building (just north of the existing Power Shop),which would include tractor maintenance
bays (first floor)and Marine Offices (second floor);and
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•lnstall utility infrastructure at various areas in the back lands (including the removal and
installation of new light poles,uti Irtres for a new "Meet and Greet"booth on back lands behind
Berth 30 1,etc).
Berths 302-306 jAPlJ Con{.:lIner Te"mnal PfOjeC1
December 201 j 7
ADPf 081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-50
I 8'od0__--.'.-
---------.--"""------------------
C-51
!~
N
CONI
~New 41 acres New 2 acres
~New 4 acres ~New 2 acres
~New 7 acres ~Existing Terminal
500 250 0
Feel
500
Port of Los Angeles
B~rlhs 302 -306 [APL]
Container Terminal Project
Proposed Project
Figure 5C-52
Reader's Guide
Proposed expansion-area project elements would:
•Construct approximately 1,250 linear feet (4 acres)of
concrete wharf to create Berth 306;
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Key Definitions
•
•
lnstall up to 8 new cranes on the new wharf of Berth 306;
Install Altemative Maritime Power (AMP)along the new
wharf at Berth 306;
AMP (Alternative Maritime
Power)=A method of
providing power to a ship from
an external source.
I Dredging =An operation (0
excavate material from the bottom
ofa shallow sea
or freshwater area,disposing of
the material at a different
location.
•
•
•
Dredging at Berth 306;the dredged material (approximately
20,000 cubic yards)would be beneficially reused (as fill),or
disposed of at an approved confined disposal facility site.If
these options are unavailable or impracticable,an existing
ocean disposal site could be considered;
Improve approximately 41 acres of already constructed fill as
container terminal back land with infrastructure for traditional
as well as potential future automated operations at Berth 306;
Redevelop approximately 2 acres of the former LAXT conveyor right of way and approximately
7 acres of fomler LAXT backland behind Berth 30 1 into container terminal backland;and
•
Key Definitions
Traditional operations""A manual
operated handling system.
Automated operations'"An
automated container handling system.
Develop approximately 2 acres of existing land northeast of the current main gate for a new out
gate location.
In addition,within the existing back lands behind Berths 302-305,the proposed Project includes the
installation of a new Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)industrial station (adjacent
to the existing industrial station and new AMP substation,which is located near the existing Roadability
Canopy/Genset Building),as well as various substations to support either traditional or electric-powered
automated operations 011 the 41 acres of back lands adjacent to proposed Berth 306.If the new Berth 306
backlands are used to support an automated operation in the future,an area approximately 12 acres in size
within the existing backland area adjacent to the new backlands would need to be converted to a Landside
Transfer Area (a delineated area where drivers and trucks wait fOJ containers held within the Berth 306
backlands).
41-acre Backland Development and Operation
Development of the backlands on the 41-acres of undeveloped fi II adjacent to the existing terminal and
proposed Berth 306 would include grading,paving and striping,underground electrical (ines;water lines;
light poles;conduits to support electrical,data and phone connections;sewers~gas lines;and drainage
infrastructure.The infrastructure would be adequate to support either traditional or automated (electric-
powered)operations.
Automated Backlands
The existing APL Terminal operates using "traditional"
methods for container terminal operations.Under the
traditional operations,1 to 10 cranes operating sirnldtaneously
unload or load one ship.Once containers have been off-loaded
from the ship or received through the gates on trucks and
trains,the containers are stored and moved around the
back lands area of the terminal using cargo handling equipment.
All of the unloading/Joading and handling equipment used in
the traditional backlaod operations is performed and operated by workers.A majority of the equipment
llsed in traditional operations is diesel-powered.
AOP#081203-t31
SCH#2009071021 10
Berths 302-306 (APLJ Container Terminal Proieci
December 201 t
C-53
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's GUIde
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have developed a road map for moving forward with the
identification,evaluation,and integration of zero emission technologies for goods movement.It is
foreseeable that a technology change could result in replacement of some of the traditional backland
operations at the APL Terminal through the use of an automated container handling system on the
proposed 41-acre backland area adjacent to the proposed Berth 306.If installed,such a system would
involve the use of semi-automatic dual hoist electric shore side gantry cranes,Automated Guided
Vehicles (AGVs),electric ASCs,and semi-automated electric Landside Transfer Cranes (L TCs),Figures
6 and 7 show a preliminary conceptual design associated with the potential automated container
operations.
Once the vessel arrives at the berth,the cranes would begin unloading containers from the vessel.The
crane would lift the container from the vessel to a platform on the crane and then lift the container from
the platform to an AGV that is positioned directly to the rear of the crane.The AGV would receive
wireless i nstructiol1s and proceed through the use of sensors below the ground surface to a pre-assigned
location in the backlands area.Once the AGV arrives at the correct location,an ASC would lift the
container from the AGV and place it in the appropriate location.
Import and export containers will be processed in the Landside Transfer Area,which wi II be located
adjacent to the backlands area.To move a container from the backlands to a waiting truck,an AGV is
guided to the location of the container and an ASC lifts the container onto the AGV.The AGV then
proceeds to the stall where the truck is parked on the Landside Transfer Area and an LTC lifts the
container from the AGV onto the truck chassis.The process for handling and loading export containers
would be the same but in the reverse direction.With the exception of the operator of the A-frame/shore
side gantry crane,operation of the automated backlands would be unmanned and fully automated.The
automated system would be operated from a remote facility (such as the remodeled/expanded Power
Shop).With the exception of the diesel/electric AGVs,all or part of the equipment used would be
electric.
While infrastructure to support electric and automated equipment would be installed as part of the initial
proposed Project improvements by 2013,the timing of the installation,integration,and operation of the
automated equipment on the 4 I-acre backlands area would depend largely on market demand and cost.lf
automated operations occur in the 41-acre back land area adjacent to the proposed Berth 306,the TEU
volumes for the APL Terminal in 2027 would be the same as they would be under traditional container
terminal operations.There are a number of factors which constrain the overall capacity of the 41-acre
backland as well as the operation of the 4l-acres with the existing APL Terminal.These constraints
including limits on berth capacity,container yard capacity and landside transfer capacity.Therefore,
automation of the back land would not increase the overall cargo throughput of the tenninal.
If EMS determines that automated operations are feasible and cost effective for the Berth 306 backlands,
additional infrastructure specific to the automated operation would need to be installed.Future
installation of the automated equipment would be less complex than installation of the supporting
infrastructure that has been included in the initial construction plans for the backland area.This
additional work would include some asphalt grinding to flatten the finished grade and to expose the
concrete beams,installation of steel rails,and instal ration ofreefer racks (foundations with plug-in
electric power)along the edge of the 4]-acre area (these racks would allow refrigerated container units to
be stored).Improvements to delineate and support operation of the Landside Transfer Area would also be
installed adjacent to the Berth 306 backlands,including some excavation and installation of concrete rail
beams to support the LTCs,pavement striping,waiting booths for drivers,and concrete curbing.
A Ithough no date is certain,for this environmental analysis,the construction effects of the installation of
additional infrastructure and eq uipment necessary for automated operations on the 41-acre are assumed to
occur around 2020.However,it is unknown whether installation and use of such equipment would be
cost-effective in 2020 or at any other time.
Berths 302-306 [APLJ Container Terminal Project
December 2011 11
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-54
1\\\~O'
•1,0-\,:s.O'~
'---
11"""'----
""·I.~.0(\':,'..,~-
l.'l~(t IIYloj l);J)·n.o,,·t'....',IJ,\!tllX....:I\:r.•~:~'~.Jot.'j
,I II
".-.-
1,•
-I
I"l I n 1,
I I I
,I ,I :'~:---''.I ,.;l ,
I ~,>I ,I ,1 •1 •:
'I 1 "I I I,
1
" I
,I nnnn I I ICJOO t .r:;::::::::::J •
_'f'••I I
,I I ~"'...-"
-lbl ---.!.---'"I '!H-'Ii'~"-l.L~"~\I ~
\1.,:/..»,0.0 ...\."':0 '.".~~~),)f"i ..~
,.'::,:1 \~.."I~S /'olI.".....".10.'1 \,an «2
r;;;:;:;;J c:::J :J
""'~r-~~It I
~L
@I ~I',~l ~,,j;l9j;lg ~~~gR R r 1 ~"ll ..J/A
I \7.0,117.0'\:4.0'1 1~.O'k3,O'13.0'1 I II I
a~,G'I~~I '.
95'!\lO.S·lOS /\~~1 !\I,"I ./
Storage yard cross section Waterside transfer and transport area
Source:APL/Moffat &Nickel,2011
NQte:Thes~elemen(s and their si~e and arragement are (or diSCClIsion purposes only
Automated 41·Acre Backland
Port of Los Angeles
Berths 302 -306 [APL]
Container Terminal Project
Proposed Layout·Sections
Figur 6
C
-
5
5
71.0'
32.0'\~20
'iS3140!I,.Tl
I I I
I 'JJI I .'.II.....
53.0'
Landside transfer crane
AGV transfer lanes
. I
-!
'Ja
...
Container buffer
AGV transfer lanes
Source:APUMoffat &Nickel.2011
Nole-These elemenlS ancllheir size and arragemenl are for clisccusion purposes only
Automated 41-Acre Backland
Port of Los Angeles
Berths 302 -306 [APLj
Container Terminal Project
Landside Transfer Area
Figure 7
C
-
5
6
Reader's Guide Los Angeles Harbor Department
Key Definitions
Lead Agency -=The Public
Agency that has the primmy
responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project that may have
a significant effect all the
environment.
The potential environmental impacts associated with the operations of the Berth 306 backlands as a
traditional container terminal are quantified under each environmental resource area.This is the most
conservative approach for estimating the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project
operations.Where impacts associated with automated operations could differ from impacts associated
with traditional operations,the impacts of automated operations at the backland area adjacent to Berth
306 also are addressed at full build-out in 2027,based on the information available from the conceptual
designs.
What are NEPA and CEQA?
NEPA was enacted by Congress in ]969 and requires federal agency decision-makers to document and
consider the environmental consequences of their actions or decisions on the quality of the human
environment.NEPA applies only to activities proposed by the federal government,or where a local
project,whether public or private,involves federal funding,loan guarantees or approval.NEPA requires
preparation of an ErS only for proposals for legislation and other
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.CEQA was enacted by the state legislature
in 1970 and was patterned after NEPA.CEQA requires public
agency decision makers to document and consider the
environmental impl ications of their actions.CEQA applies to all
government agencies at all levels in California,including local
agencies,regional agencies,and state agencies,boards and
commissions.
The USACE is the federal lead agency responsible for preparation of the EIS for this Project.The LAHD
is the state lead agency responsible for preparation of the E1R for this Project and is the project applicant.
Both agencies have determined that there is the potential for significant environmental impacts and;
therefore,ajoint EIS/E1R has been prepared to avoid duplication of effort.Several other agencies have
special roles with respect to the proposed Project and will use this EISIEIR as the basis for their decisions
to issue any approvals and/or permits that might be required.This environmental review process includes
the preparation of the following documents (More details on the EIS/EIR process are provided in Figure
8):
•An Initial Study,which is a preliminary analysis prepared by the CEQA Lead Agency to
determine whether an EIR or Negative Declaration must be prepared and,if necessary,
identitY the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR.The NEPA Lead
Agency prepares an Environmental Assessment (EA)that provides sufficient evidence
and analysis to determine whether an EIS is required.
• A Notice oflntentINotice of Preparationl (NOI/NOP),which is a brief notice sent to
interested parties requesting input on establishing the scope (environmental issues
addressed)of an environmental document.It is the first step in the EISIEJR process.
• A Draft EIR,which fully analyzes the proposed Project,project alternatives,and
environmental impacts.The Draft EIS analysis is limited to the scope of the federal
project (Le.the parts of the project that could not be built without a federal permit).Upon
completion,the Draft EIS/EIR is made available for public review.
• A Final EIS/EIR is prepared after comments on the draft are received and reviewed.The
Final ErSlElR must contain the lead agency's response to all comments reviewed and must
discuss any opposing views on the issues raised.The USACE prepares a Record of
Decision (ROD)to support approval for federal permits for the project.
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 14
Berths 302-306 [APLJ Container Terminal Project
December 2011
C-57
Los Ang el es Ha'Oo ( 0 ella rtI11 etll
I
I J-~
I monlb
I
I
I
I
T
J()~12
monThs
Notice of jntent (NOI}/Notice of
Preparation (NOP)of the EIS/EIR filed
Public Comment Period on NOI/NOP
Including Public Seoping Iseting
Draft E1SIEJR preparation
File Draft EIS EPA and file Notice of
Completion (NOC)for Df'8ft EIR
Readefs Gu.de
45-60 Day
Review Period
EISIEIR
Preparation:
18~24 Months ~I
I
I
I
I
I
3-6
monlh
I
I 2-3
I month
I
+
PubliC Comment Penod on Draft EIS/EIR
including PubliC Comment Meeting
Final EIS/EIR preparation.Responses
sent to commenting panres.
Board of Harbor Commissioners Public
Hearing on Final E1SJEIR and decision on
whether 10 certify and approve project.
If project IS approved,Notice of
Determination flied with City and County
Clerks and Record of Decision is issued
by the USACE
45-60 Day
Review Period
Public Hearing
Figure 8:EIS/EIR Timeline
Berths 302-306 IAPL)Conlaine,Terminal P'O/CCI
Oece mix>1 2011 15
AOPIJ 061203·131
SCH#2009071021
C-58
Reader's Guide Los Angeles Harbor Department
During the Draft EIS/EIR,the Port will gather comments from the public and other agencies about the
analysis and content of environmental impacts as a result of the construction and operations of the
proposed Project.
The Draft EIS/E1R will undergo a 60-day comment period from December 16,20 II through February 17,
2012.During this time,the LAHD/USACE wj[J accept written comments and will host a public meeting
on January 19,2012 to present its findings and provide opportunity for public comment.The public
meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m.in the Board Room of the Harbor Administration Building.425 S.Palos
Verdes Street.San Pedro,CA 90731.All comments will be responded to in the Final EIS/EIR.
The public may request a free electronic copy or hard copy version (for a fee)of the Draft EISIEIR by
calling (310)732-3675.
A copy of the Draft EIS/EIR may also be downloaded at www.portofJosangeles.org or hard copies may be
viewed at the following locations:
•L.A.Public Library,Central Branch.630 West 5th Street,Los Angeles California;
•L.A.Public Library,San Pedro Branch,92 1 South Gaffey Street,San Pedro.California;
•L.A.Public Library,Wilmington Branch,1300 North Avalon.Wilmington.California;or
•LAHD,425 South Palos Verdes Street,San Pedro.California.
How are Impacts Determined?
The purpose of the environmental review process is to:
Key Definitions
Statement of Overriding
Considerations =A statement
that specifies specific reasons why
the Lead Agency found that the
project's benefits outweigh its
unavoidable adverse impacts
environmental effects.
Inform government officials and the public of the
environmental impacts of a proposed project
Identify impacts of a proposed project on the
environment
•
•
•
•
Review a range of reasonable alternatives that would
avoid or lessen any significant environmental
impacts
Indicate ways to avoid or mitigate,if possible,
significant impacts
In instances where significant impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels,the
project could still be approved if there are economic,legal.social,technological,or other benefits that
olltweigh unavoidable significant environmental effects (referred to as overriding considerations).
In EISIEIRs,environmental impacts are determined in a step-wise process:
1.Analyze the environmental conditions when the review began (called baseline conditions).
Normally,baseline conditions are the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity ofa
project that exist at the time of the NOIINOP is provided to the public.The NOIINOP for the
proposed Project was released in July 10,2009.
2.Analyze the environmental conditions over the life of a proposed Project.The proposed Project
operates at full build-out and optimal capacity by 2027.
AOP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 16
Berths 302-306 [APL]Container Terminal Project
December 2011
C-59
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's Guide
3.Compare baseline and Project conditions.The difference between baseline and Project
conditions (the delta)is compared to thresholds.The Port uses the City of Los Angeles CEQA
Thresholds Guide (L.A.CEQA Thresholds Guide).
4.If the difference between the Project and baseline conditions exceeds the threshold,the impact is
considered significant.If the difference does not exceed the threshold,the impact is considered
less than significant.
If the analysis finds that there are significant impacts,feasible mitigation measures,if available,are
applied to reduce the impacts.Ifmitigation is not able to reduce impacts below the threshold,the impacts
are defined as significant and unavoidable.The following is a summary of the environmental impacts
that would be created by the construction and operation of the proposed Project.
Summary of Proposed Project Impacts
Less-than-Significant ImpactsUnavoidableSignificantImpacts
Air Quality,Meteorology and Greenhouse
Gases
•Biological Resources
Less-than-Significant Impacts after Mitigation
•Ground Transportation
•Noise
Project Mitigation Measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Cu Itural Resources
Geology
Groundwater and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use
Marine Transportation
Recreation
Public Services and Utilities
Water Quality,Sediments and
Oceanography
CEQA requires public agencies to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
that have been adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public ResoW"ces
Code Section 21081.6).The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP)must be adopted by
the public agency at the time findings are made regarding the project.These mitigation measures (MM)
described are supplemental to those standard conditions of approval (SC)and lease measures (LM)that
will be included in the MMRP and are as follows:
Berths 302·306 (APLj Container Terminal Project
December 2011 17
ADP#081203·131
SCH#2009071021
C-60
Reader's Gu ide Los Angeles Harbor Department
Air Quality,Meteorology,and Greenhouse
Gases
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MM AQ-l:Harbor Craft Used During
Construction
MM AQ-2:Cargo Ships
MM AQ-3:Fleet Modernization for On-
Road Trucks
MM AQ-4:Fleet Modernization for
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-S:Best Management Practices
MM AQ-6:Additional Fugitive Dust
Controls
MM AQ-7:General Mitigation Measw-e
MM AQ-8:Special Precautions Near
Sensitive Sites
MM AQ-9:Alternative Maritime Power
(AMP)
MM AQ-IO:Vessel Speed Reduction
Program
MM AQ-ll:Cleaner Ocean-going
Vessels (OGV)Engines
MM AQ-12:OGV Engine Emissions
Reduction Technology Improvements
MM AQ-13:Yard Tractors at Berths 302-
306 Terminal
MM AQ-14:Yard Equipment at Berths
302-306 Railyard
MM AQ-15:Yard Equipment at Berths
302-306 Tenninal
MM AQ-16:Truck Idling Reduction
Measure
MM AQ-17:Compact Fluorescent Light
Bulbs
MM AQ-18:Energy Audit
MM AQ-19:Recycling
MM AQ-20:Tree Planting
•LM AQ-l:Periodic Review of New
Technology and Regulations
•LM AQ-2:Substitution of New
Technology
Biology
•MM BIO-I:Conduct nesting bird
surveys.
•SC BIO-I:Avoid marine mammals.
Cultural Resources
•SC CR-l:Stop work in area if prehistoric
and/or archaeological resources are
encountered,
Geology
•LM GEO-I:Emergency Response
Planning Lease Requirement
Ground Transportation
•MM TRANS-I:Navy Way and Reeves
Avenue
Groundwater and Soils
•LM GW-l:Site Remediation
•LM GW-2:Contamination Contingency
Plan
Noise
•MM NOI-l:Noise Reduction during Pile
Driving,
•MM NOI-2:Erect Temporary Noise
Attenuation Barriers Adjacent to Pile
Driving Equipment,Where Necessary and
Feasible
Public Service and Utilities
•SC P5-1:Recycling of Construction
Material
•SC PS-2:Use of Materials with Recycled
Content
AOP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 18
Berths 302-306 [APll Conlainer Terminal Project
Oecember 2011
C-61
los Angeles Harbor Department
Alternatives Considered
Reader's Guide
This Draft EIS/EJR must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project.A total of23
alternatives were considered during preparation of this Draft ElSIEIR,which included alternative terminal
configurations,alternative uses,and alternative locations for the terminal and various Project components.
Six of these alternatives (in addition to the proposed Project)with the potentiaJ to meet most of the
proposed Project objectives have been carried forward for detailed analysis (See Chapter 3 ofthe Draft
EIS/EIRfor more information)
The following section includes description of the six alternatives carried forward for further detail
analysis.For more analysis on these alternatives and the alternatives that were considered but eliminated
from further evaluation can be found in Chapter 2,Project Description,ofthe Draft EIS/EIR.
Alternatives Analyzed in this Draft EIS/EIR
The six alternatives to the proposed Project that are considered in this Draft EISIEIR are:
1)Alternative I -No Project
2)Alternative 2 -No Federal Action
3)Alternative 3 -Reduced Project:Four New Cranes
4)Alternative 4 -Reduced Project:No New Wharf
5)Alternative 5 -Reduced Project:No Space Assignment
6)Alternative 6-Proposed Project with Expanded On-Dock Railyard
Each alternative includes an illustration that details the particular elements of the alternative that are
evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR and Table 1 provides a summary of the differences in the construction and
operation of the proposed Project and each of those alternatives at build-out (2027).Chapter 2 ofthe
Draft EIS/EIR contains a more detailed discussion ofthe Project alternatives.
Berths 302-306 [APlj Container Terminal Project
December 2011 19
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-62
Readers Guide
Table 1:Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives at Full Build-out (2027}
los Angeles Harbor Department
Tcnni1l31 Acres Annual Ship Calls
Annual TEUs
(ill millions)Cranes
Total Dredging in
Waters of the U.S.New Wharves Other*
Proposed Project 347 390 3,206,000 12 new cranes
12 existing cranes
24lotal
20,000 cubic yards (cy)Berth 306 (1,250
(along Berth 306)linear feet,or 4
acres)
Reefer area &Berth 306 AMP
+41 acres
Upland Improvements
12 cxisling cranes No dredging
'CEQA Basclimc
,Alternative I -No
Project
Alternative 2 -No
Federal Action
NEPA Baseline
291
291
291
247
286
286
1,128,080
2,153,000
2,153,000
12 ex isting cranes
12 existing c
cranes
No dredging
No dredging
No new wharf
No new wharf
No new wharf •Reefer area
Alternative 3 -
Reduced Project:Four
New Cranes
AlIcrnativc4 -
Reduced Project:No
New Wharf
A ltemalive 5-
Reduced Projeet:No
Space Assignment
Allernahve 6 -
Proposed Project with
Expanded On-Dock
Railyard
291
302
317
347
\
338
338
390
390
2,583,000
2,783,000
3,206,000
3,2%,000
4 new cranes No dredging
12 existing cranes
16 total
6 new cranes No dredging
12 exisling crane-~
1810lal
12 new cranes 20,000 cy (along Bel1h
12 exisling cranes 306)
24lolal
12 new cranes 20,000 cy (along Berth
12 existing cranes 306)
24 total
No new wharf
No new wharf
Berth 306 (1,250
linear feel,or 4
acres)
Berth 306 (1,250
linear feel,or 4
acres)
•Reefer area
•Reefer area
•+41 acres
I
".-30 acres
Upland Improvements except
for Main Gale modifications and 9
acres behind Berth 301
•Reefer area &Berth 306 AMP
•+41 acres
• .30 acre,
•Upland Improvements
•Reefer area &Berth 306 AMP
•+41 acres
•Upland Improvements
•On-dock rail (expanded)
Berths 302-306 [APLJ Conlainer Terminal Projecl
Oecember 2011 20
ADP#081203·131
SCHfi.2009071021
C
-
6
3
Los Angele3 Hatbor Departmenl Reader's Guide
Alternative 1 -No Project
---
\\
------
--
Under the No Project Alternative,the
existing APL Tennillal would
continue to operate as an
approximately 291-acre container
terminal.Based on the throughput
projections,Alternative 1 would
handle approximately 2.J 5 milJion
TEUs by 2027,which would result in
286 annual ship calls at Berths 302-
305.In addition,this alternative
would result in up to 7,273 peak daily
one-way truck trips
(1,922,497 annual),and up to
2,336 annual one-way rail trip
movements.Under Alternative I,
cargo ships that currently berth and
load/unload at the Berths 302-305
terminal would continue to do so.
Under Alternative I,no further Port --
action or federal action would occur.__-
The Port would not construct
additional backlands,wharves,or /
terminal improvements.No new --'
cranes would be added,no gate or backland improvements would occur,and no new infrastructure would
be provided.This alternative would not include any dredging,new wharf construction.or new cranes.
The No Project Alternative would not include development of any additional backlands because the
existing terminal is berth-constrained and additional backlands would not improve its efficiency.
The No Project Altematjve would not preclude future improvements to the APL Terminal;however,any
change in future use with the potential to significantly impact the environment or improvement would
need to be analyzed in a separate environmental document.
When compared against the CEQA baseline (see Table 1),the No Project Alternative would result in
fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project at the final out-year because its operational
capacity and level of capital development would be lower.However,Alternative I would result in one
significant unavoidable ground transportation impact at the intersection of Navy Way and Reeves Avenue
that would not occur under the proposed Project Although it would generate less traffic than the
proposed Project,Alternative I would have a significant and unavoidable impact at the intersection
because mitigation cannot be applied as there would be no discretionary action subject to CEQA,
The No Project Alternative is not the same as the CEQA Baseline.The existing terminal is not operating
at its optimal capacity,meaning it could accommodate certain levels of increasing throughput demand.
resulting in higher impacts compared to the CEQA Baseline period of July 2008 through June 2009.
When compared against the NEPA baseline,the No Project Alternative similarly would result in fewer
environmental impacts than thost experienced under the proposed Project.This result occurs because the
NEPA baseline would assume a small amount of construction activity on the existing terminal would
occur.As a note,the No Project Alternative is not evaluated under NEPA because NEPA requires an
evaluation of the No Federal Action alternative.
8erths 302-305 (APt)ContaIner Terminal Project
December 2011
ADPII 081203-131
SCHIi 2009071021
C-64
--eoo _
AIll'lOt ....Jeplly.-..d F'<>rt_w,,"C""P ""'_"""........rr e!>ooI<'""..".,.''"pOt're<,
_14 to<w ....to '"~'-"""''',.~"""tIk 1 ~ly w'_""Olf <'-I",«1'''''''wi'"....
""'"ofon mdl.MluI """,atl"k w<>uId 'Pf'l,.Tho><C"A"....ud to<,,,,,,,,,,,..,,.0 th<ooi.h •~...<fH><!ir"""'"""ti1'1"'""',.....abo.<Md "'"1,
Summary of Alternative 1 Impacts (NEPA nol applicable)
t:.'<old>bl<sIc.jllt ••,'mp,,"
Ai.Qui"",....rt=rolosl-mol G~
C_
B;,loi~"~""""'..
G_T,~t;on
....~tb..,s;J.m...' ,.....".ft".";~'io.
NoI ....b<obI.
Lu.."••·S;p;II..., I ".
A<>lh<t",...,d v,R,,,,,,,,,,,
Colt","Retou.,.,
~~
G""""""...,and Sooh_.....,H......."""""i,l,
Land ~'"
MIfi".T,,,,,_i,,,,
""""Roc","'...,
Publi<Sof'ol«......U'll";"
""ot"Quoilly,S«Iim<m,....
~-.,.,
Altemal;vR 2_No Federal Action
Th._""""Iud«only th<",ti"",,and ;mf«"1"01,to 0«...~f..,....u!o.<.n -..
.pprovollM<oo;I i",,_
""pro"""""<hat,~•""ol
","""fo<,...'l">""_."'"
'~'""'ti..in<h><I<,oo'y "'"r"''''''"'1 Proj<ct<-'wTI",.
_1:1 "'",ff«'"",~
'>PO<~
n,.,"...""",,,of.port"",.r
me ory ,_i...""'oe<"""
...to _.Ior '""""'ti",,,,'
200-"';,",,1ft...,•.....,...,.,_.1ec<,~.1
"&o~_t~
I",toll",,,,,of ",i 1;1)'
..r..."""on ..
.."'"bodJ <{<"..Joe""."of lit~pol."""
.1",,",,,,r........,'i"'"to
I«omm<>olo ..lh<"."MOl...r.,.....,)
T1'M',I""""'.""",''''''10 ""......,'"_"",,",-,,,Iy 291-0<..,"""'".,-
,..".1".1 wher<"""tine«...._
on unloodod !roo>V<U<I~....""""""I[y -..on ""'"....~,m wOn<,on'......,...."""....«i
"'r""",,,,,k>"""II "n.B=<00 'M ,""'"',..,."'*'tion<""No .oOOoJ Arn,,"AI"..."..
w __'\00 '"oppro .....""l.ll million TfU,by 10:11.wb~h ,"",,10 ...."It i"It<;...-....I !hip
"
....._......e_!_...-_.."
C-65
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's Guide
calls at Berths 302-305.In addition,this alternative would result in up to 7.273 peak daily truck trips
(1,922,497 annual),and up to 2,336 annual one-way rail trip movements.Cargo ships that currently berth
and load/unload at the Berths 302-305 terminal would continue to do so.
The No Federal Action Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed
Project at the final out-year because its operational capacity and level of capital development would be
lower.The reduced environmental impacts relative to the proposed Project would include fewer aesthetic
impacts (no new cranes),less air quality impacts (no construction of a new berth and less operational
emissions),less impact to biological or water resources (no wharf construction or dredging and fewer
vesse[calls),less impacts from ground traffic (lower throughput)and lower noise impacts (related to
reduced truck trips and reduced construction).
The NEPA baseline and the No Federal Action Alternative are equiva[ent in this case,and represent
project site conditions without federa[action.Therefore,the impacts under the No Federal Action
Alternative would be the same as the NEPA baseline scenario in every case,and this Alternative would
result in no new impacts under NEPA.
Any future legally enacted Port-wide CAAP measure,such as a tariff change or emissions impact fee,
would be appl ied to this a[ternative,although genera]]y applicable tariff changes that conflict with the
terms ofan individual operating lease would not apply.Those CAAP measures that would be
implemented through a lease modification or mitigation measure also wou[d not apply.
Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts (No impacts under NEPA)
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
•Air Quality,Meteorology and Greenhouse
Gases
Biological Resources
Less-than-Significant Impacts after Mitigation
•Ground Transportation
Berths 302-306 [APLJ Container Terminal Project
December 2011 23
Less-than-Significant Impacts
•Aesthetics and Visual Resources
•Cultural Resources
•Geology
•Groundwater and Soils
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Land Use
•Marine Transportation
•Noise
•Recreation
•Public Services and Utilities
•Water Quality,Sediments,and
Oceanography
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-66
_.-
Alternative 3 -Reduced Project:FOil.New Cranes
'M_......_
,
,,
u""",,AI",OOl;""J.fOOl''''',......,~""'J be odd«l '"'''''''''''1 ~n..f 01_8<"h.:lO:l·m .....<he
roO""';1\1 1<,m;no!"""",•..".,,,""'"Id be nIade
•Tho ,....."''''''.r.p<J<1ioo 0r'ne Jt}'"'M;"",""..«Uta...'"__1<r",..,oddih_llQO.
"";\=f<>....,...,."od_.'«In<or ',f,."""""".
'.....Ilotio>0,..,101)'..r"""""..........x....I,Iht botU"nd"('.1.",100 ...,..01'j,V>'poi<,
......1«ltic••ICrie ",,"""""to >e<""'MOd the «>n>...t<I ",,1«"''')
U_Allemoti",J.tI,."".1 """''''''
,j",_kl "'''''0''""""",,,,,,,I,
19,"'e>.....~h ~.""'"be I..,t"""
th<P'""",""I'r<,«t ...W<f_....
•bow>i"""",_th".n,"""i ..
"",,1<1 no<,"'_tb<odd""",'"
;.,proy.m,Ol of 1>oc,l>Dd fa<d;""•...,,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,of ••".~_.or
II><"lo<>tion ...,i~.,"_of
'1,;0",PO"and "".."""lone.
B...d ....&t~pp'"f"'Ji«t"'"
...I«~1"mMi..J woold be l.«
rhan ....propo>od f'rojOCl,..i,h ~
_'"""-!"{K'l QI """""Lmtfly
1.11 milh""TEl!>by 1017.Th,
woukl u ...I...in«>3)1 ..."""III..,,:0,..a'''''>lt);'.>Ol,"_hon,
"'",,«mateo,_ld "'.....in ..to
1.121 pt"O>iJy rN<'Iti",
O.J06._......,),or4""to l,s.<'
.......ont-""'~,,;I ~;""""',,,,...,,
C""~I"";ooor all ""'"~Oo
,.",.i..l<Qmpon<nt>_'"to<.....~.I '"tho -";"i .."",,;noI.
........t~'lJ""'I<l ""C~Q~boo ..1...,~h.m.."'''J woukl "''''';"f<w<"m,irorn<1 ""pot,,
tN"tno 1""""'"1'<0;0"bo<......1M .It."."i ..·•""""""'"<>potity _old be "'-II>.....,01<><>ita!_Iopon""""",,,,be ,"",Tho ,"""'Ed ..,i,,,,,,,,,,,,aI 1o>""",.......Jd ;",,"'"r __
..""",(16 ".....""",pa.ed '"14 r",Il>t ~.'OJ<<'),f<_>it ~""ny ,"''''''..(1<>,"""",UIaI""",,",,,,).r.",,,1>...."..'""....'""""'""",,,(no ~·....r,"",,~""l.nd f ......",..l .aI~).
r......lroI>'Id 1I.ffi<..part,(I.""""'.~,,..).It",,,_;"''*'''(..I",;,_IN<l trip'Ion<!
no piI<dojy;~,
Rot"l"to ""~~PA _i""A'_,,,,J -..'"",lUIt in ",-,,nY"",""<n<oi I",,,,",,,"""<ho><
p<ojo<k<l k<tIlE ~f'toj«l.n..doc,....d .,,.i,,,,.,,.,,,..fmpO<l>_lei =ut,f"""«<MEd
.""""""""..,,,",,~!hi>0(,.",,,,,,'""""''''""'"in ...,Wi<onII on,)....'",""",,<0 _"""",I ..Uvily
._Ioled ",ju,,I><kro",TEU ~ood """'''''''''''''''"""'",hi,._l,..l ,,,I rm,""",_
A"""''',,,J ;",plo",o,H._or ,,~t"'1I1on<!r.......lepl'Y ..~,ired "'"",~..II><
;"'~'''i""01 ~Mr _"'ed ,nfr..""'.....in ro",,,H_.,,",CARS ,.,..,mIl CA~P
"'<aRr<>"""",,""""'".rtho fftOd,fkd ,....!hot ""'-"d ott""',,"",th;,",<mot"•.•""",,,,Ih "'"
""l'~'""",...",I'I'J"~...te.CEQ"..l NEP"
"~"""'''''''='-'''''''''_.."
C-67
..._._-
Summary 01 Allcmlltlve 3 Impacts
U...oi<I.bl<S~ilk'"Imp""
A~QoJolity,M."oroIoo "'"G".-..
~.
•O;,N0II",I R.......ceo
......-"••-5,1.;0...,'''P''''.ft••Mi';~''''
G.""",T,-r><"t""'"
u •..-,b ...J;I,.In".,lm,..,"
A<>lhtli""""V_R"o••,,,,
Cul ....,R..........
'"""G<OlNw.",l.">d Soil,
H02Md,....~M...,;.I•
~~
M.';..T""_,,hOll-Roet<""'"
put>!..\.tn".....U"I,,'"
W .."QoJoII'y,Sedi,oenl>,"""
()<''''''S,",,'u'
Altllrnativ&4 -Raduced Project:No New Whart
._-.-.-
f
uro..~I"""';",<,II><_I ....~.orbKU.n,j,......"'~.Ituntt".woo<1d b<301 ",""wilKO"
I..,,lion ,1>0 f""P'>"<'d Pru)t<'-0...0 on ,be 'Io~prul'''<OII~tho lEU tloo<d>,.._ld b<b,
'lion ....Jl"Ol'O"4 ""'ie<,will...npt<""~I ol "I'I"",i.,,,,"y Z,lI .,;Woo TEU>II)':IOn
1,",_.,,,,,,,,.",""'J11 ~-----l
......,...p""il'.._J01·)01 ...__to
In oddlhoo.AIIet'no<'"•would .,_
..,ulli."l'"''.""1"'-',.,,1,
Inrl:"I '"(1.<11.010 "'....,).4nd
op to Z,56J ......1""".w.y ,til tri~j
-'~linda ,,",.~.mtTi..,""___
<n<>n ~"I><odo<ed to tho
n,-,,"'lI ...-mi"'"4nd "".,-.'"
r.I ....>oIj....,to 'Il<AI'!.
T'<m''''''~""t"I><""..,""'"..
'''''''','''')..d ••<l,ltn;Io,I""''''',....J~",.,orbK~I"""
<urr<ntly undo,._.""l""'"''
'&"""""",,,,.1"be ",Ii~""'d
Th<....."'"orton.!beo"",U..-tk
].0\'","",~""""t\"'"""..
pie _ld "'"I><_,"....
I....,(""fop"ion or ..<><he,
Iud,,,,.''''''"''"._,.,."",(;....
Main GO\<""~UJ would
be _iotJ to tho P'<'P"""!'r<>I«t
~·o d.'dl:"'c would Oft"'oM "".......wk ..r w,,"ld be ,"",_"Elerto >Oli,
Rtl"i.."'t\<C[Q~_line,Alit,,,,,,;,,,•_Id '....n i.r.w...".-Iron.<><"'"irnpo<b 'h ....
",_"hop'1><,.....1""1"""""""__;ty tnd I<vd .r ,,,,,,,,""..lopm<nt """'"I><I 1'1'001<
""""'"",.,_"",1 h""""1"'1....r.w"..""",-"""P"'''III ''''''''',""'_I.24 r..rh<
f«'PO'Od 1'roJe<"t.w"Ii,quality impa<"(I'"."...,Oontl .mi""",,'r.w ..~"",",.t '"~._
C-68
Reader's Guide Los Angeles Harbor Department
resource impacts (no wharf construction and fewer vessel cal1s),fewer ground traffic impacts (fewer truck
trips),and fewer noise impacts (related to fewer truck trips and no pile diving).
When compared against the NEPA baseline,Alternative 4 would result in fewer environmental impacts
than those experienced under the proposed Project.The decreased environmental impacts would occur
from fewer construction activities (e.g ..no new wharf at Berth 306);reduced operational activity
associated with the lower TEU throughput;and direct ship,truck,and rail emissions.These reduced
environmental impacts include fewer aesthetic impacts (18 cranes compared to 24 for the proposed
Project),fewer air quality impacts (less operational emissions),fewer biological or water resource
impacts (no wharf construction),fewer ground traffic impacts (fewer truck trips),and fewer noise impacts
(related to fewer truck trips).
Alternative 4 assumes implementation of existing and future legally required measures,such as the
installation of AMP and associated infrastructure in compliance with CARE requirements,CAAP
measures under the terms of the modified lease that would accompany this alternative,as well as any
mitigation measure legally imposed under CEQA and NEPA.Under this alternative.mitigation measures
wou(d be applied to reduce emissions from ships,trucks.rail,yard tractors.and yard equipment.
Summary of Alternative 4 Impacts
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
•Air Quality,Meteorology and Greenhouse
Gases
•Biological Resources
Less-than-Significant Impacts after Mitigation
•Ground Transportation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
•Aesthetics and Visual Resources
•Cultural Resources
•Geology
•Groundwater and Soils
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Land Use
•Marine Transportation
•Noise
•Recreation
•Public Services and Uti Iities
•Water Quality,Sediments,and
Oceanography
Alternative 5 -Reduced Project:No Space Assignment
Under Alternative 5,the gross terminal acreage of backlands under this alternative would be 317 acres,
which is less than the proposed Project.TEU throughput would be the same as the proposed Project,with
an expected throughput of approximately 3.2 million TEUs by 2027.This would translate into 390 annual
ship calls at Berths 302-305 In addition,this alternative would result in up to 11,361 peak daily truck
trips (3,003,157 annual)including drayage,and up to 2,953 annual one-way rail trip movements.
Configuration of all other landside terminal components would be identical to the existing terminal.
Alternative 5 would improve the existing terminal,construct a new wharf (l ,250 linear feet)creating
Berth 306.add 12 new cranes to Berths 302-306,add 56 acres for backlands,wharfs,and gates
improvements,construct electrification infrastructure in the backlands behind Berths 305-306,and
relinquish the current 30 acres on space assignment.As with the proposed Project,the 4 J-acre backlands
and Berth 306 under Alterative 5 would utilize traditional container operations initially and then over time
phase into use of an automated container handling system.Dredging of the Pier 300 Channel along the
new wharf at Berth 306 (approximately 20,000 cy)would occur.with the dredged material beneficially
ADP#081203-131
SC H#2009071021 26
Berths 302-306 [APLj Container Terminal Project
December 2011
C-69
'M __"'_--
",-.l.>fIdI",""posed or ..'"_v<d d;,poo.l ,it<(""".,,1..CDf ..Borth<14J_1H ,..,;,I",
C ....,,'"""'low ....\<1 hobi,",1 01',"..-.di,posed 01"'"0<...t1i'JlQJOl "'.I'",.u.·:n
----f -...-------_......._----_.,-----,,
R.to!l".to ""CI::QA ....Ii,..,
AI'...".....S .....I<I "",It ""mil..-
."'''oo,~.,,.\..1 i""""~to ""p",posed
I'rop""""",,,,..""",,,Jonal '_i'J'
,,_be <tJ<""'".0',"""",_~"""'",""il...
""'""",m"","I"""""fo<AI_i..S00><1 ""rroPO"'l p"",on.
"mil......'l"Ili1)'impoet>(.........._"""I """'ch <m""""').
,'.."..-l>ioI",",~~,""..,."...,.
,m","(~m,t."""Ino!foo<rrin<""
.........tllrooJc"""),~..ilat ~
..o/f~,..p..,,(,i..lt.""",,'onar_'
tn",)...-.l "..il""";,.1.._"(,,,,,,1,,
'n><'"il").
Wf><""""pornj ....""th<~8'A
b»<"",.~,,,,,..,.;,,,5 _Id "''''~"'
1I'I'N"1 ",y ..........'""'i!'<lybP""..,..ntoJ i.,_,..""",
''''''-'''''''''"""",I><~Pro"","
",1<0 _inIl .".,.._"oold '",im,'"Tho,....1"","",'"'mpo<"'",,'ud<~",jl ...0«1l><t~'m ..."a'"fur ~""...,..S """
,ho ",op=d f'ru,«'I.,~'tI><ly ~."quol.".""pot"(",II!«!to nlrh<',...olW<><km.__
U'Id ""eI<";PO <kd '".ffI,ieotly """'"11<0 l!rooII"'''').,i",I'..bioloV.1 "'"....."""""''''iO\p"<"("..,....,""',f""''''i"'....""......""-"....),.Iigtly h'J!1«1"""1'I u.ffi<ioopa<l<(hiJh<r "umb<,
of wornn.<q"pm<n!."""''''''..ip<".w"",1!y 0''''''''',I><~).....","liar"';,.;....."
(~..i1"_.~,p<00<l """",,,,,,,,,,)
.....""'1 ..l ..,"""...pI ........"'"of"'''''100><1 ........'<pl"reqw,"""",U,."""~..""
,....~"''''''0(...MP and """"a«d ",I,"""",,,,,,in """pl.-.""k CARB """",,,n<",,,C P
.....om u_,'""toI,0("'1 ",odln"",l,,.'"'ho I '_l<I ..."",~y <hio ~",,,,.,,,.,,II
..""..;01""'"""'..........'ly i ..p"''''""'"C,;Q nd Nl;PA,u-.."'".."""ti m'"V"on
""",u••,,_Id bo "",,1«<l1O ml"",..,,~_from .0",,__k ••,.;1.,onl ..._,pm.'"
..........."""=,-......_..""
_..,....",«--"',
C-70
--..._--
Summary of Altornatlve 5 Impacts
U•••OOl,blr sq.,",..,I......'.
Ai,Quojity.M<I<O<OIOI:I >n<!G_nho""
~-B"'loco<>lR<soo.c.o
........'...~'"".,ll<••,I..F"''''~''M'tlp'iQo
Ground T_"..,'--
l ..o-.....S;piOO'oI 1m,..'"
M,tl>eti<s "'"V....I ~.>O\n ..
Culouol R.",,,,",,
~""GNoond"'''''I<>d Soil,
Ha<_.",j If....so..,Mol.,..,•
~".
M",...Tro''l'''f\Mion•R,,_..,
PuWo<s...i<n ond Utel"",
W",.Q\l.<lily,Sdl",."t>,"""
0<"."",,..,1<,
Altornative 6-Proposed Project with Expanded On-Dock Railyard
--l--~-'--\--'~--,
A""""",,~........imp«>...."ti""
_'001.de.."",the ...<tin&41 .....
fill ......baclland"",n,,_
.1"""fKOboo ;"1,,,,,,,,,<ft ;"the
bock'''''''bebi,.,j _JU~·J06.a<Id
1.2$0 U"..,I...of",..,,"",f.P<rth
Joe,I<>d ~,...P....1OO C"*,,,,I
'!ooi:B,n~.lO6 (UI'"'20.000 ,oM<
)'YO>;".,...,oold be _~od).U""'"
,~~A~.."""".11 ......"""""",old
be 1Idd ...1O the ~_'''''&B.rth.
>02-)06,roc.>«01 oil",..,."A,
~iLn the propos<d l'roJO<C the <1-><:«
1>o<".."I>.m 8<""J06 .»det
"'''''''"6 ,""'_";n«,""'h."...r<.",...,..""",Ili_.,I<,~k ..tomo!<d<>per"'_'"•,,,,,,l>itIot;o,,of the '''''
0 ...........lmdlini of the Pi<>m
ChoImoI.~Berth 306 _Id ."o.
(........<>f _...i""""t m,ooo '1 .r
,"•.m>l~~,,",no,d«<lp ....rri.ol
be<.<r,,"lIy _.......dispo«Jol
"'"""W""od ~>it<(sock .."..CPF",a..,,,,14)."$.....or Cal;<i1lo """ow ....or """"ot)or.
If _dod.dl.".,...t of ...."""..dl.".,..I""(L •..'-"_1)
TlIi.11_,,,,,w'''''Ol to<lilt ............propooo:l Prole<"how"",lJ'lfD "'ooOl ,eJe><lop IItId <>.pood
Iht ,,~t"<>'Hlocl."dywd.TO.<em.,,"0"""I~.,j ,on o<'om_...<0 6cl r..._plot _
_~"'~rall<""("l",.'!<oU <0 """""I,,..lull ~...,)aM """,,,.or,.."of _'rado.
M .."""",~'1pI<;t}.,,,,..,,,tr..I"""t}~<s!I....ro to .._""""""1.<14 ,.,H""fEll•
...,ytot TIt<_,ion of""'",,-.do<l.1",11<"."""'"A!Itnu,;y<6 woold .....,...rht Oddi,,,,,,or,'x,,"
...01 _tr",~~II>d ••",t>l "'~__t".~«po<ily I~~._.I)I Il ",in..,
TE\J>""y...-.Undo<"~"'''''"'''''.--"",..-Iy 10 "''''of ,,,,,bnd,"""""be ,....,...l "om
"
_"Aiii'KI=1..-0;;;;«-_.
C-71
Los Angeles Harbor Oeparbnent Read er's Guide
container storage for the railyard expansion.Under Alternative 6,the total gross terminal acreage would
be 347 acres and the TEU throughput would be the same as the proposed Project.
Based on the throughput projections,TEU throughput would be the same as the proposed Project.with an
expected throughput of approximately 3.2 mi Ilion TEUs by 2027.This would translate into 390 annual
ship calls at Berths 302-306.In addition,Alternative 6 would result in up to 10,830 peak daily truck trips
(2,862,760 annual),and up to 2,953 annual rail trip movements.Configuration of all other landside
terminal components would be identical to the existing terminal.
Relative to the CEQA baseline,Alternative 6 would result in similar or slightly less environmental
impacts to the proposed Project because its operational capacity would be the same.These environmental
impacts include similar aesthetic impacts (24 cranes for Alternative 6 and the proposed Project),similar
but sl ightly less air quality impacts (due to increased use of on-dock rail facilities and less truck trips for
drayage),equal biological or water resource impacts,and similar but slightly reduced ground traffic
impacts (slightty less operational truck trips).
When compared against the NEPA baseline,Alternative 6 would result in approximately the same
environmental impacts as those experienced under the proposed Project.as the tetminal operations would
be similar.These environmental impacts include similar aesthetic impacts (24 cranes for Alternative 6
and the proposed Project),similar but slightly less air quality impacts (from fewer truck trips associated
with drayage due to increased on-dock rail usages),the same biological or water resource impacts,and
similar but slightly fewer ground traffic impacts (slightly less operational truck trips).
Alternative 6 assumes implementation of existing and future legally required measures,such as the
installation of AMP and associated infrastructure in compliance with CARB requirements,CAAP
measures under the terms of any modification to the lease that would accompany this alternative as well
as any mitigation measure legally imposed under CEQA and NEPA.Under this alternative,mitigation
measures would be applied to reduce emissions from ships,trucks,rail,yard tractors,and yard equipment.
Summary of Alternative 6 Impacts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less-than-Significant Impacts
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology
Groundwater and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use
Marine Transportation
Recreation
Public Services and Utilities
Water Quality,Sediments,and
Oceanography
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Air Quality,Meteorology and Greenhouse
Gases
•Biological Resources
Less-than-Significant Impacts after Mitigation
•Ground Transportation
•Noise
The following key issues have been identified as potential areas of interest or concern to the local
community based on previous Port activities.The issues covered are:
•Air Quality
Ground Transportation
Economic Benefits
Berths 302-306 [APLJ Container Terminal Project
December 2011 29
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-72
Reader's Guide
Key Community Issue:Air Quality
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Key Definitions
PM 2 .;=particulate matter of
less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in aerodynamic
PMJo ;;-particulate matter of
less than or equal to 10
micrometers in aerodynamic
diameter
The criteria pollutants 2 of greatest concern in the air quality assessment
are ozone (03),carbon monoxide (CO),nitrogen dioxide (NOz),sulfur
dioxide (S02),respirable particulate matter (PM ,O ),and fine particulate
matter (PM zs ).Nitrogen oxides (NOx)and sulfur oxides (SOx)are the
generic terms for NO z and S02,respectively,because NO z and S02 are
naturally highly reactive and may change composition when exposed to
oxygen,other pollutants.and/or sunlight in the atmosphere.These
oxides are produced during combustion.
The Port uses the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD)thresholds to detennine significance.For the air quality
analysis,the CEQA baseline (July L 2008 to June 31,2009)is
subtracted from the project emissions at different years and the difference is compared to the SCAQMD
thresholds for emissions.Table 2 shows the thresholds applied to determine CEQA and NEPA
significance for construction emissions and operational emissions.
Also shown are the thresholds used to determine significant cancer,acute non-cancer.and chronic non-
cancer health risk impacts from toxic air contaminant (TAC)emissions of concern,which are components
of VOC and PM 10 emissions.Hea(th risk assessments were completed for each alternative to estimate if
cunent or future exposures to T ACs could result in health risks to a broad population.The calculated risk
levels were then compared to the risk levels provided in Table 2 to determine the health risk impacts.
Tabfe 2:Construction and Operationaf Emissions Thresholds
Cancer Acute Chronic
VOC NOx SOx PMJO PM Z•5 CO Risk Non-Non-
Cancer Cancer
55lbs/day 55 150 150 55 550
Operation 10 lbs/day lbs/day Ibslday Ibs/day Ibs/day
tons/year 10 in a La l.O751bs/day ]00 150 150 55 550 million
I Construction 10 Ibs/day Ibs/day Ibs/day lbs/day lbs/day
tons/year
Baseline Emissions
The CEQA baseline includes emissions from sources that were operating in the baseline year of July I,
2008 to June 31,2009.During the baseline period,the proposed Project area included a container
throughput of 1,128,080 TEUs and 247 annual ship calls that occurred on the 291-acre APL Terminal.
Emission sources during the baseline period include ships and tugboats,locomotives,trucks.cargo-
handling equipment,and worker commute trips.
The NEPA baseline includes the full range of construction and operational activities the applicant could
implement and is likely to implement absent a federal action,in this case the issuance of a USACE
permit.The NEPA baseline includes minor terminal improvements in the upland area,operation of the
291-acre APL terminal,and assumes that by 2027,the terminal handles up to approximately 2.15 million
TEUs annually and accommodates 286 annual ships calls and up to 572 associated tug boat trips.
Because the NEPA baseline is dynamic,it includes different levels of terminal operations without the
Project at each study year (20 J 2,20 J5,2020,2025,and 2027).
2 These poJlulanls are called "criteria pollutants"by the USEPA because they are regulaled by human health-based and/or
environmenlally-based crijena (science-based gUidelines).
AD?#061203-131
SCH#2009071021 30
Berths 30Z-306lAPLJ Container Terminal ?ro]ec\
December 2011
C-73
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's Gu,(le
Construction-Related Em iss ions
Unmitigated Project
Cons1rllction-related emissions are assumed to begin in 2012 and continue for two years.Figure 9
presents the maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions associated with.construction of the proposed
Project without mitigation.As shown below,the proposed Project unmitigated peak daily emissions
minus the CEQA baseline would be above CEQA thresholds and thus significant under CEQA and NEPA
for VOC,CO,NOx,PM 10 and PM 2S during the 2012 peak year of construction.as well as during 2013.
2,SOO
2,000
;;;.1,500
"'"..<-...
'"-::0
"'"~1,000
500
o
voe co
CEQA Construction Tmpacl Obs/day)-NEPA Construction Impact (lbs/day)
SCAQ1'vfD ConSlruction Threshold (lbs/day)
Fig ure 9:Peak Oa i Iy Construction Em issions:Unm itigated Project.
Mitigated Project
The mitigation measures included for construction and operations were based on Port-recommended
measures.the Port of Los Angeles Sustainable Construction Guidelines,and the San Pedro Bay Ports
Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP).The mitigation measures briefly described below would reduce criteria
pollutant emissions associated with Project construction.These mitigation measures would apply to all
construction activities (See Section 3.2.4 in Section 3.2,Air Quality,Meteorology,and Greenhouse
Gases,ofthe Draft EIS/EJR,jor afull analysis.).
Berlhs 302·306 [AJ>L)Container Terminal Project
Decembel2011 31
AOPJ/oa~203-1 31
SCHII2009071021
C-74
Reader's Guide Los Angeles Harbor Depar1ment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MM AQ-l Harbor Craft Used during Construction.As of January 1,2011.all harborcraft
with USEPA designated Category I (C [)or Category 2 (C2)marine engines must utilize a
USEPA Tier 3 engine,or cleaner;however a few exceptions may apply to this mitigation.
MM AQ-2 Cargo Ships Used During Construction.All ships and barges used primary to
deliver construction-related materials to a LAHD-contractor construction site sha1l comply with
the expanded Vessel Speed Reduction Program (YSRP)of 12 knots between 40 nautical miles
(nm)from Point Fermin and the Precautionary Area.
MM AQ-3 Fleet Modernization for On-Road Trucks Using During Construction.Trucks
hauling materials such as debris or any fill material will be fu1ly covered while operating off Port
property,idling will be restricted to a maximum of5 minute when not in use.and the trucks shall
follow an acceleration of the USEPA emission standards.
MM AQ-4 Fleet Modernization for Construction Equipment (except Vessels,Harbor
Craft and On-Road Trucks).Construction equipment will incorporate,where feasible,
emissions-saving technology such as hybrid drives and specific fuel economy standards;idling
wi1l be restricted to a maximum of 5 minutes when not in use;and,equipment must meet specific
engine specifications.
MM AQ-5 Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).BMPs would be
implemented to reduce air emissions from construction activities.
MM AQ-6 Additional Fugitive Dust Controls.Applicable Rule 403 measureslBMPs to
reduce dust should be included in the contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan,at a minimum.
MM AQ-7 General Mitigation Measure.For any of the above mitigation measure (MM
AQ-1 through MM AQ-6),if a CARB-certified teclmo[ogy becomes available and is shown to be
as good as or better in terms of emission perfonnance than the existing measure,the technology
would replace the existing measure pending approval by the Port.Measures will be set at the time
a specific construction contract is advertised for bids.
•MM AQ-8 Special Precautions near Sensitive Sites.All construction activities located
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (defined as schools.playgrounds,daycares.and hospitals)
shall notifY each of these sites in writing at least 30 days before construction activities begin.
After application of mitigation,construction emissions under both CEQA and NEPA would continue to
exceed the thresholds for YOC,CO,NOx,and PM 2 5;construction emissions would continue to be
significant for PM lO under NEPA.After application of mitigation,the proposed Project would continue to
exceed the VOC threshold for operational emissions in 2025 and 2027 under CEQA.From a NEPA
perspective,the proposed Project peak daily emissions after mitigation would remain significant and
unavoidable for VOc.CO,NOx,and PM2 5 in 2015.2020,2025,and 2027 and PM 10 in 2025 and 2027.
Figure 10 ill ustrates the mitigated criteria po[]utant emissions associated with the construction of the
proposed Project.Please see the discussion in Section 3.2 oJthe Draft ElSIE/RJor a complete discussion
ojcriteria pollutants.
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 32
Berths 302-306 (APLI Container Terminal Projecl
December 2011
C-75
los Angeles Harbor Oepar1menl
2,500
2,000
Reader's Guide
~J,SOO
":>
Zc:.
~<:
~1,000
500
o
voe co NOx SOx PMIO PM2.5
8 CEQA Construction Impact (Ibs/day)SNEPA Construction Impacl (Ibs/day)
•SCAQMD Construction Threshold (Ibs/day)
Figure 10:Pea k Da i Iy Construction Em iss ions:Mitigated Project.
The proposed Project construction would overlap with operational activities during study year 2012.
Therefore,the unmitigated combined total of operational and construction emissions for 2012,during
which construction and operational activities would occur simultaneously,were evaluated in the air
quality analysis.For the year 2012,the combined total of construction and operalional proposed Project
unmitigated impacts is expected to be less than significant for all pollutants under C£QA,and significant
underNEPA for VOC,CO,NOx,PM IO and PM 15 .
Operatio nal-Related Em iss ions
Unmitigated Project
OperationaJ emissions are assessed in 2012,2015, 2020, 2025,and 2027.The proposed Project
operational unmitigated peak daily emissions minus the C£QA baseline would be significant for NOx in
study years 2015,2025 and 2027 and VOC in 2027.From a NEPA perspective,the unmitigated air
quality impacts associated with proposed Project operations would be significant for VOC.CO,NOx,
PM lo and PM 1 S in 2015,2020,2025,and 2027 and for SOx in 2025 and 2027.Figure 1J illustrates the
unmitigated CEQA and NEPA impacts for proposed Project operations.
Berlhs 302-306 [APLJ Contllne,Terminal Project
December 2011 .n
AOP#OB1203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-76
Reade(s Guide Los Angeln Harbor Depanmenl
8,000
=ao
6,000
(4,1)00)+-----------------
~
;::::J
(6.000)-'--1-----------------....._
(2,000)+-----------------------1!~t---------------~
:>.
~2,000 .---·--------------F=l;;;;;j-------------------
~
""
8CEQA Operational Impact (lbs/day)8NEPA Operational Impact (Ibs/day)
•SCAQMD Operational Threshold (lbs/day)
voc co SOx PMIO P.\-12.5
J
Noles:Negative CEQA or NEPA impacts ocwr when [he CEQA or NEPA baseline emissions are grealer than the proposed Projecl.
Figure 11:Peak Daily Operational Emissions:Unmitigated Project.
Mitigated Project
The following mitigation measures would reduce criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed
Project operations.These mitigation measures would be implemented by the responsible parties
identified in Section 3.2.5 ofOle Draft EIS/EJR.
•MM AQ-9 Alternative Maritime Power (AMP).APL ships calling at Berths 302-306 must
use AMP for 70 percent of total ship calls in 2017 and 95 percent oftolal ship calls in 2026 while
hoteling in the Port.
•MM AQ-IO Vessel Speed Redllction Program (VSRP).By 2014 and thereafter,95 percent of
all ships calling at Berths 302-306 shall comply with the expanded VSRP of 12 knots between 40
nm from Point Fermin and the Precautionary Area.
•
•
•
MM AQ-ll Cleaner Ocean-Going Vessel (OGV)Engines.The Tenant shall seek to
maximize the number of vessels calling at the Berths 302-306 terminal that meet the International
Maritime Organization ([MO)NOx limit of 3.4 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr).
MM AQ-12 OGV Engine Emissions Reduction Technology Improvements.When using or
retrofitting existing ships bound for the Port of Los Angeles,the Tenant shalJ detennine the
feasibility of incorporating a))emission reduction technology and/or design options.
MM AQ-13 Yard Tractors at Berths 302-306 Terminal.By the end of20 13,all yard tractors
operated at the terminal shall meet USEPA Tier 4 non-road or 2007 on-road emission standards.
AD?//.081203-131
SCH#2009071021 34
Berths 302-306 (Af'Lj COI\(ainer Terminal Project
December 2011
C-77
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's Guide
•
•
MM AQ-14 Yard Equipment at Berths 302-306 Rai~vard.All diesel-powered equipment
operated at the Berths 302-306 terminal railyard shall implement the requirements discussed
below in MM AQ-15.
MM AQ-15 Yard Equipment at Bertlts 302-306 Terminal.By the end of20 12,all terminal
equipment equipped with Tier 1 and 2 engines less than 750 horsepower (hp)must meet 2010 on-
road or Tier 4 standards,and the highest available Verified Diesel Emissions Controls (VDECs)
shall be installed on all Tier 3 equipment.By the end of2015,all terminal equipment equipped
with Tier 3 engines shall meet USEPA Tier 4 non-road engine standards.
MM AQ-16 Truck Idling Reduction Measures.Within six months of the effective date and
thereafter for the remaining term of the Permit and any holdover,the terminal operator shall
ensure that truck idling is reduced to less than 30 minutes in total or 10 minutes at any time while
on the terminal.
The following Air Quality,Meteorology,and Greenhouse Gases lease measures would be required by the
Port for the proposed Project and Alternatives 2 through 6:
•LM AQ-l Periodic Review ofNew Technology and Regulations.The Port shall require
the Berths 302-306 tenant to review,in terms offeasibility and benefits,any Port-identified or
other new emissions-reduction technology.and report to the Port.Such technology feasibility
reviews shall take place at the time of the Port's consideration of any lease amendment or facility
modification for the proposed Project site.If the technology is determined by the Port to be
feasible in terms of cost,technical and operational feasibility,the tenant shall work with the Port
to implement such technology.
Potential technologies that may further reduce emission and/or result in cost-savings benefits for
the tenant may be identified through future work on the CAAP,Technology Advancement
Program,Zero Emissions Technology Program,and terminal automation.Over the course of the
lease,the tenant and the Port shall work together to identify potential new technologies.Such
technology shall be studied for feasibility,in terms of cost,technical and operational feasibility,
and emissions reduction benefits.
As partial consideration for the P0I1 agreement to issue the permit to the tenant,the tenant shall
implement not less frequently than once every 7 years following the effective date of the permit
new air quality technological advancements,subject to mutual agreement on operational
feasibility and cost sharing,which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The effectiveness of this measure depends on the advancement of new technologies and the
outcome of future feasibility or pilot studies.As discussed in Section 3.2.4.1,if the tenant
requests future Project changes that would require environmental clearance and a lease
amendment,future CAAP mitigation measures would be incorporated into the new lease at that
time.
Berths 302-306 (APL)Container TermInal Projec1
December 2011 35
ADP#081203-131
SC H#2009071021
C-78
Reader'i Guide Los Angeles Harbor Depar1ment
•LM AQ-2:Substitution ofNew Technology.If any kind of technology becomes available
and is shown to be as good or as better in terms of emissions reduction performance than the
existing measure,the technology could replace the existing measure pending approval by the Port
of Los Angeles.The technology's emissions reductions must be verifiable through USEPA,
CARB,or other reputable certification and/or demonstration studies to the Port's satisfaction.
After appl ication of mitigation and lease measures,the proposed Project would continue to exceed the
VOC threshold for operational emissions in 2027 under CEQA.From a NEPA perspective,the proposed
Project peak daily emissions after mitigation would remain significant and unavoidable for voe,CO,
NOx,and PM 2 $in 2015, 2020, 2025,and 2027 and PM 10 in 2012, 2020,20:25 and 2027.Pigure 12
illustrates the mitigated CEQA and NEPA impacts for proposed Project operations.
PM2,5P:\HOSOxNOx
+----------------F=t---------------------
8)000
6,000
d,OOO
...or 2.000"C..
'"Co
'""'"c
'"00eo.
(2,OOO)
(4.000)----_.
(6,GOO)I
voc CO
CEQA Operational Impacl (lbs/d:1Y)8NEPA Operational Impact (lbs/day)
•SCAQMD Operational Threshold (lbs/day)
Notes:Negalive CECA or NEPA impacts occur when the CEQA or NEPA baseline emissions ate greater than the proposed Project.
Figure 12:Peak Daily Operational Emissions:Mitigated Project.
ADJ>#081203-131
SCHiI'2009071021 36
Benhs 302·306 !APLj Contamer Terminal Project
December 2011
C-79
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reade(s Guide
Health Risk Impacts
Health risk assessments (HRAs)discuss average risks over time from all types of environmental pollution
and lifestyle choices.An HRA is a quantitative analysis ofTAC emission levels as compared to accepted
thresholds for health risk impacts by pollutant.For example.emissions of a specific pollutant would need
to exceed certain published emission levels before emissions would be found to have a negative health
effect.The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)assists with the
scientific evaluation of risk and publishes the thresholds and guidelines for completing HRAs.HRAs are
tools used by regulators to predict the risk related to a certain level of exposure and base decisions,often
land use planning and consumption advisories,on the estimated risk.
HRAs are not diagnosis studies and they will not determine whether a current health problem or symptom
was caused by exposure to a polJutant.Epidemiological studies look at past exposure and try to link that
exposure,often in a population,to a disease.HRAs estimate jf current or future exposures wi II result in
health risks to a broad population.HRAs commonly report cancer risk as some additional risk in a large
population.For example,risk expressed as I in a million means that there is a chance of one in a
1,000,000 people of an event occurring.Regulators set acceptable risk values for T ACs.These risk
numbers are derived from conservative assumptions meant to protect the most vulnerable of a
community's citizens.For example,to estimate a residential receptor's risk from air contaminants,the
standard model assumes the resident (person)is exposed to the air contaminants while breathing at the
80 th percentile3 breathing rate for 24 hours a day,350 days a year,over a 70 year period.
The Port of Los Angeles has adopted the threshold of less than lOin a mill ion as being an acceptable
increased cancer risk level for new projects.HRAs also examine the risks from acute and chronic non-
cancer exposure.For acute and chronic non-cancer exposure,we use the reference exposure levels
(RELs)developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessments (OEHHA).A
REL is the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for specific
exposure duration.A Hazard Index (HI)of 1.0 or less indicated that the exposure would present an
acceptable or insignificant health risk (i.e.,no adverse health impact).
Baseline
The SCAQMD published the third Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MA rES-Ill)in September 2008.
MATES 1II characterizes the ambient air concentrations (i.e.,air concentrations present in the immediate
surroundings.or the background)and potential human exposures in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
MATES-III developed an updated TAC inventory and conducted air dispersion modeling to estimate
ambient levels and the potential health risks of TACs.The study identi fied the area covering the two
ports,including the proposed Project site,were predicted to have cancer risk values ranging from I,I 00 to
2.900 in a million.The highest modeled risk in the SCAB was at the POItS.
Unmitigated Project
Table 3 shows that the maximum CEQA cancer risk increments for residential and occupational receptors
would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.The locations identified for the peak residential
impact are at the Iiveaboards (people who live on boats)for boats docked west of Terrninal lsland
Freeway at Anchorage Road.The cancer risk increment would also exceed the significance threshold at
the liveaboards docked in Fish Harbor west of the Project site.However,residential incremental cancer
risk would not exceed the significance threshold at any residential areas on the mainland.
The maximum NEPA cancer risk increments for all receptors are less than the significance thresholds for
aJi receptor types.The peak impact location is the same as for the CEQA increment -the liveaboards
anchored just west of Terminal Island Freeway at Anchorage Road.The major source of diesel
particulate matter emissions which determines cancer risk are container trucks traveling on the roadways
3 A percentile is the value or a variable at which a certain percentage of observations fall.For example.the 80 th percenlile breathing
rale means (hal 80 percent of the populaUon is expec1ed to have a certain breathing rale.
Berths 302-306 [APLj Container Terminal Project
December 2011 37
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-80
Reade(s Guide Los Angeles Harbor Deparlment
to and from the terminal.The unmitigated risk impacts take into account the emission reductions
associated with Federal and state regulations and parts of the CAAP cUlTently being implemented such as
the Clean Truck Program (CTP);which wi II improve emissions in future study years.
As shown in Table 3,chronic risk increments associated with the unmitigated proposed Project are
predicted to be less than the CEQA baseline.In addition,the NEPA incremental chronic risks would be
below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.
The acute risk under both CEQA and NEPA is driven mainly by construction activity.Construction
activity has higher emissions on a sholt-term basis than proposed Project operations.Therefore, because
the construction emissions under NEPA are minimal (the No Federal Action construction includes only
minor terminal improvements),the CEQA and NEPA acute risk impacts are approximately the same.
The acute risk therefore under both CEQA and NEPA associated with residential and occupational
receptors would exceed the SCAQMD significance criterion hazard index of 1.0.The maximum
residential impacts occur near the Federal prison to the west of the proposed Project boundary.The
maximum occupational impact occurs on Pier 400 approximately 400 meters (1,300 feet)south of the
proposed Project boundary.
Mitigated Project
The mitigated proposed Project HRA results are shown in Table 4 for those risks that were significant in
the unmitigated scenario.The mitigation measures would reduce the maximum CEQA cancer risk
increments associated with the proposed Project;however,the incremental cancer risks at the maximum
exposed residential and occupational receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.The maximum
acute risk at residential receptors would be reduced to less than significant levels.The maximum acute
risk at occupational receptors remains significant and unavoidable.Please refer to Appendix E3,Health
Risk Assessment,for a more detailed discussion.
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 38
Berlhs 302-306 [APLj Container Terminal Project
December 2011
C-81
Los Angeles Harb()(Department Reader's Guide
Table 3:Maximum Health Impacts Associated With The Proposed Project Without
Mitigation,2012 -2081
Health Receptor Maximum Predicted Tmpact",d Significance
Impact Type CEQA Incrementb,e NEP A IncrementO"Threshold
ResidentiaJ<2S x 10.6 (25 in a million)7 X 10""(7 in a million)
Occupational 16 x 10.6 (16 in a million)7 x ]0.6 (7 in a million)
Cancer Sensitive 7 x 10'6 (7 in a million)2x 10'"(2 in a million)10 x 10.6
Risk r lain a million
Student 0.2 x 10-<>(0.2 in a million)0.2 x 10.6 (0.2 in a million)
,
Recreational 3 x 10'(,(3 in a million)0.9 x 10.6 (0.9 in a million)
Residential <Os 0.1
Occupational <Os 0.2
Chronic Sensitive <Os 0.0Hazard 1.0
Index Student <as 0.0
Recreational <og 0.0
Residential 1.2 1.2
Acute Occupational 1.8 1.8
Hazard Sensitive 0.4 0.4 1.0
Index Student 0.4 0.4
Recreational 0.5 0.5
Notes:
a)Exceedances of the significance criteria are I'n bold.The significance lhresholds apply 10 lhe CEQA and
NEPA increments only.
b)The maximum increments might not necessarily OCI;l!r al the same receplor localions as (he maximum
impacts.This means that the inClemen(s cannol nel;essarily be determined by simply subtracling the
baseline impacts from the Project impact.The example given in lhe teXl.before Ihe CEQA Impact
Determination,illustrates how the increments are calculated.
c)The CEQA increment represents Project minus CEQA baseline.The NEPA increment represents Proiect
minus NEPA baseline ..
d)Data represent the receptor locations wilh the maximum impacts or increments.The impacts or increments
al all other receptors would be less than these values.
e)The I;ancer risk values reported in 1his table for the residential receptor are based on the 80(h percentile
breathing rate.
I)Construction emissions were modeled with the operational emissions for lhe determination of cancer risk.
g)When the predicted impact is less than zero.the Project risk is less than the respective baseline.
eerths 302·306 (APlj Container Terminal Project
December 2011 39
AOP#081203·131
SCH#2009071021
C-82
Re~de"s Guide los Angeles Harbor Oepartment
Table 4:Maximum Health Impacts Associated With The Proposed Project With
Mitigation,2012 -2081
Health Receptor Maximum Predicted TmpactQ,d
Significance
Impact Type CEQA Incrementb.<NEPA Incrementb .<Threshold
Residential 23 x 10-6 (23 in a million)6 x 10-6 (6 in a million)
lOx 10'"Cancer
Risk f
11 :<10.6 (11 in a million)
10 in a millioll
Occupational 6 x 10-6 (6 in a million)
Acute Residential 0.9 0.9
Hazard 1.0
Index Occupational 1.1 Ll
Notes:
a)Exceedances of the significance criteria are in bold.lhe significance thresholds apply 1o lhe CEQA and
NEPA incremenls only.
b)The maximum increments might not necessarily occur at the same receptor locations as the maximum
impacts.This means that the increments cannot necessarily be detenrnined by simply subtracting (he
baseline impacts from the proposed Project impacl.The example given in the texi.before the CEOA
Impact Determination.illustrates how lhe increments are calculated.
C)The CEQA increment represents proposed Project minus CEQA baseline.The NEPA increment represents
proposed Project minus NEPA baseline.
dl Data represenlthe receptor locations wHh the maximum impacts or increments.The impacts or increments
al all other receplors would be less than these values.
e)The cancer risk values reported in this table for the residen1ial receptor are based on the 80lh percentile
breathing rale.
f)Construction emissions were modeled with Ihe operational emissions for the determination of cancer risk.
9)When the predicted impact is less than zero.lhe Project risk is less than the respective baseline.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The air quality analysis for the proposed Project and alternatives includes estimates of greenhouse gas
(OHO)emissions.The emission sources for which baseline OHG emissions were calculated include
ships and tugboats,locomotives,cargo-handling equipment (CHE),trucks,worker vehicles,on-terminal
electricity usage,and on-terminal refrigerant usage.The proposed Project includes emissions from
electricity usage from AMP.Construction and operational GHO emissions would exceed the baseline;
therefore.emissions of the Project-related to GHGs would be significant.Figure 13 illustrates the various
construction activities associated with the proposed Project and the percentage of GHG emissions
associated with each phase.Please refer /0 Section 3.2.4.3 in Section 3.2.Air Quality.Meteorology,and
Greenhouse Gas,ofthe Draft EIRJor a more detailed discussion of/he GHG impact analysis.
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021 40
Berths 302-306 [APl)Conlaine<Terminal Projecl
December 2011
C-83
Los Aflgeles Harbor Department
Modify Earle Sireel GDle \
3%
Crane S 1nSlaJl<lll on -.....
1%'Ulllity (nfraSiruClurc ----;'~
3%Reder Area Expansion
3%
Demoll(lon ....
1%
AMP fllSlIdlalion
(Berth J06}
3%
Reader's GUide
Figure 13:Total GHG Emissions from Berths 302-306 Terminal Construction Activities-
Proposed Project.
Mitigated Project
The following mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project
operations.
•MM AQ-17 Compact Fluoresce11!Light Bulbs.A11 interior buildings on the premises shall
exclusively use fluorescent light bulbs,compact fluorescent light bulbs,or a technology with
similar energy-saving capabilities.for ambient lighting within all terminal buildings.The tenant
shall also maintain and replace any Port-supplied compact tluorescent light bulbs.
•MM AQ-18 Energy Audit.The tenant shall conduct an energy audit by a third party of its
choice every 5 years and install innovative power saving technology (I)where it is feasible,and
(2)where the amount of savings would be reasonably sufficient to cover the costs of
implementation.
•MM AQ-l9 Recycling.The tenant shall ensure a minimum of 40 percent of all waste
generated in all terminal buildings is recycled by 2014 and 60 percent of all waste generated in all
terminal buildings is recycled by 2016.
MM AQ-20 Tree Planting.The applicant shall plant shade trees around the main terminal
building,and the tenant shall maintain all trees through the life of the lease.
After appl ication of mitigation,the proposed Project would continue to exceed the baseline GHG
emissions and would be significant and unavoidable.Figure 14 illustrates the unmitigated and mitigated
impacts for proposed Project operations,
8ertl'\$302-306 (APLI Conlalne(Terminal Project
Decembel2011 41
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-84
Reader'~GUJde
200,000
180,000
;;160,000
QJ>-
~1.40,000
0-
M 120,000o
~100,000
l:;
~80,000
'C 60,000..,
GJ
~40,000
20,000
o
Los Angeles Harbor Deparlment
_.
.A
s
/T
/'.l1
/
/~
/
/
../-2010 2012.2016 2018 :1.020 2022 2024 2026
Year
~Unmitigated CEQA Operational Impact
_Unmitigated NEPA Operational Impact
Figure 14:Maximum Annual Operational Emissions:Unmitigated and Mitigated Project.
UJtrafine Particles
Research is being done on ultrafine particles (UFPs),particles classified as less than 0.1 micron in
diameter.UFPs are fonned usually by a com bustion cycle,independent of fuel type.UFPs are emitted
directly from the tailpipe as solid particles (soot-elemental carbon and metal oxides)and semivolatile
particles (sulfates and hydrocarbons)that coagulate to form palticles.
The research regarding UFPs suggests the UFPs might be more dangerous to human health than the larger
PM 10 and PM 2 s particles (tenned fine particles)due to size and shape.Because of the smaller size,UFPs
are able to travel more deeply into the lung (the alveoli)and are deposited in the deep lung regions more
efficiently than fine particles,Recent studies have found that UF.Ps may also pose a risk to cardiovascular
health,particular in at-risk individuals,and may be a risk·factor for heart arrhythmias.
CARB is currently measuring and studying UFPs at the Port Complex.The University of Cal ifornia,in
collaboration with CARB and CalIEPA,reI eased a study in April 20 II investigating UFP concentrations
within communities in Los Angeles,including the port area of San Pedro and Long Beach (USC,201]).
The study found that UFP concentrations vary significantly near the Ports (a major UFP source)and
therefore substantiated concerns about the applicability of using centrally-located UfP concentrations for
estimati ng popu Iati on expos lire,
Current UFP research primarily involves roadway exposure.Preliminary studies suggest that over 50
percent of an individual's daily exposure is from driving on highways.Levels appear to drop off rapidly
as one moves away from major roadways.Work is being done on filter technology,including filters for
ships.which appears promising.The Port began collecting UFP data at its four air quality monitoring
stations in late 2007 and early 2008.In addition,the Port actively participates in the CARE testing at the
Port and will comply with all future regulations regarding UFPs.Measures included in the CAAP aim to
reduce all emissions Port-wide.Please refer to Section 3,2 ofthe Draft EIS/EJRfor a more detailed
discussion on Ullrafine Particles.
AOPII-081203-131
SCHII-2009071021 42
Berths 302-306 [APL!COl\!tliner Terminal Projecl
December 2011
C-85
Los Angeles Harbor Department
Key Community Issue:Ground Transportation
Reader's Guide
Key Definitions
Level of Service =A grading system
used to measure the average delay
motorists experience at an interested,
which is measured in seconds.
A transportation analysis was conducted to determine if current infrastructure surrounding the proposed
Project is suitable and can accommodate the increased volume of vehicular traffic anticipated by the
proposed Project.The transpo11ation analysis included 5 freeway/roadway segments and 15 key
intersections that would be used by trucks and automobiles for access to and from the proposed Project
site.To meet CEQA and NEPA requirements,the transportation analysis must review all potential traffic
impacts of the proposed Project at expected budd-out and optimal full capacity by 2027.Currently there
are no intersections operating at a failing Level of Service (LOS)in the Project area;however.there are a
number of freeway monitoring stations operating at a failing LOS.Please refer to Section 3.6 ofthe
Draft ElSIE/Rfor a more detailed discussion on ground transportation.
CEQA 1m pacts
Under the CEQA baseline,the proposed Project is not expected to cause any significant traffic impacts
from construction activities.However,the proposed Project would adversely impact one intersection
based on comparison to the CEQ A baseline.The Navy Way and Reeves Avenue intersection will be
significantly impacted during AM and mid-day peak hours in 2020,2025,and 2027.Therefore,the
proposed Project would create a significant traffic impact under CEQA.Also,based on the 2027 train
projections,there would not be significant delays of vehicular traffic at any impacted grade crossing.
NEPA Impacts
The proposed Project is not expected to cause any significant traffic impacts under NEPA from
construction activities.However,the proposed Project would
adversely impact one intersection based on comparison to
the NEPA baseline.The Navy Way and Reeves Avenue
intersection will be significantly impacted during AM and
mid-day peak.hours in 2020, 2025,and 2027.Therefore,the
proposed Proj ect wou ld create a significant traffic impact
underNEPA.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation would be implemented to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed
Project on Navy Way and Reeves A venue intersection to a less than significant level:
•MM TRANS-I:Navy Way and Reeves Avenue.Re-stripe the southbound (and eastbound
approach to accommodate the southbound dual right-turns)to provide a right-turn lane,a shared
through/right turn lane,and a through lane on the southbound approach.
This mitigation would only be constructed when the intersection operates at LOS E or worse.As such.
the Port would monitor LOS after the project is completed.No mitigation is recommend until LOS E or
F as LOS D or better is an acceptable traffic operating condition locally.
Berths 302-306 [APL]Container Terminal Project
December 2011 43
ADP#081203-131
SCH#2009071021
C-86
Readers Guide Los Angeles Hart:lOI Oepartment
Key Community Issue:Economic Benefits
The economic contributions from the Port of Los Angeles to the regional and national economy are
substantial.The Port creates tens ofbillions of dollars in industry sales each year in the southern
California region.These sales translate into jobs,wages and salaries,and state and local taxes.The
Trade Impact Study prepared for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority estimated that the Port
supports,directly and indirectly,1,100,997 full-and part-time jobs throughout California and 3,300,000
jobs nationwide.
Marine terminals generate a number of jobs such as:trucking,freight forwarderslcustoms house brokers.
warehousing,steamship agents,chandlers,surveyors,etc.In 2006,the Port of Los Angeles supported
1,075,176 jobs in the State of California.Of these jobs,43,398 jobs are directly generated by activities at
the marine terminals.Please rejer to Chapter 7 o/the Draft EISIE/Rjor a more detailed discussion on
socioeconomics.
Changes to the Local Employment or Labor
Force
As shown in Table 5,construction of the proposed Project
would generate approximately 1,169 direct jobs and 1,601
secondary (i.e.,indirect and induced)jobs over the two-
year construction period.With the ramp-up and ramp-
down and the completion of different tasks at different
times,the construction workforce at anyone time would
vary.The construction workforce would primarily come
from people already living in the Los Angeles Basin,
given the large existing construction industry workforce
and the highly integrated nature of the southern California
economy,as well as the prevalence of cross-county and
inter-community commuting by workers between their
places of work and places of residence.Therefore,the
proposed Project is not anticipated to result in either in-
migration Or relocation of construction employees to
satisfy the need for increased temporary,construction-
related employment.
Key Definitions
•Direct Jobs::Jobs that would nOI exist
if activity at Port were to stop.
•Secondary jobs::A combination of
indirect and induced jobs:
o Indirect jobs::Jobs created
throughout the region as the result of
purchases for goods and services by
the firms directly impacted by the
Port>s cargo activity.
o Indu<'ed jobs =Jobs created in the
region by the purchases of goods and
services by those individuals directly
employed by Ihe Port's cargo activity.
Table 5:Proposed Project -Direct and Secondary
Construction Employment Over the Two-Year Construction
Period
Employment (Number of Jobs)
Direct 1,]69
Secondary 1,601
Total 3,370
AOPg 06120'J-131
SCHtl2009071021 44
Berths ~02·306IAPL)Conlainer Terminal Project
December 2011
C-87
Los Angeles Harbor Department Reader's Guide
The proposed Project would generate permanent direct and secondary jobs.As shown in Table 6,the
proposed Project is estimated to create 2.756 net permanent direct jobs attributable to operations in 2015,
and increase to 3,885 direct jobs in 2027.Most of the direct jobs generated by operations at the terminal
would be in the lr3nspol1ation and public utilities industrial sector of the regional economy.Secondary
jobs,however,would occur in all industrial sectors.The proposed Project would provide new job
opportunities to support the local economy;however,when compared to the overall regional economy,
the proposed Project would not cause substantial change in the local employment or labor force.As with
the construction jobs,given the large labor pool in the region,it is anticipated that the majority of new
positions would be filled by people already living in the Los Angetes Basin.Consequently,no
measurable change in population distribution would occur,and the proposed Project is not expected to
change residential property trends or property values in the area.
Table 6.Proposed Project -Net Direct and Secondary Long Term
Operations Employment
Employment (Number of Jobs)
2012 2015 Z020 2025 2{}27
I Direct -2,756 3,226 3,697 3,885
I
Secondary -2.914 3.412 3,910 4,l08
Total -5,670 6,638 7,607 7,993
Similarly,the proposed Project would result in an increase in wages,income,and state and local la-xes,
which would provide a benefit to local business and government agencies by increasing revues.
However,as one component of large regional economy,it would not represent substantial change in
revenue for local businesses or government.
8erths 302·306 (APLI Container Terminal Project
December 2011 4S
ADPII 081203·131
SCHII2009071021
C-88
Readers Guide
Public Participation Guide
Los Angeles Harbor Depanment
During the Draft EJS/EIR review phase,we urge you to take advantage of the many opportunities to
participate.
A public meeting on the Draft EISIEIR will be held to provide input
and learn more about the APL Terminal Project.Comments made at
the public meeting will be addressed in the Final ErS/EIR.
Attend a Public Meeting Thursday,January 19,2012
6:00 p.m.
Harbor Administration Building -Board Room
425 S.Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro,CA 90731
Comments sent by mail must be postmarked by February 17,2012 and
should be senl to both of the following address:
Mr.Christopher Cannon
Director of Environmental Management
Los Angeles Harbor Department
425 S.Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro,CA 90731
Submit Comments via Mail
And
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District
Regulatory Division,Ventura Field Office
ATTN:Theresa Slevens,Ph.D.
2151 Alessandro Drive,Suite)10
Ventura,California 93001
Comments sent bye-mail should be sent by February 17,20 12 to:
ccaacOffllnents@BQrtLll.Ofi:l.and theresa.stevens@usace.army.mil
Submit Comments via E-mail ·Send your comments in letter format as an attachment to the e-mail.
·Include a mailing address in the comment letter.
·Type "APL Terminal Project"in the e-mail subject line.
Visit our website Project information provided by the Port of Los Angeles can be found
at:www.portoflosangeles.org
For questions on the APL Terminal Project.please contact the
Call with Questions following:
•U.S.Army Corps'Public Affairs Office at (213)452-3920
•Port of Los Angeles.Jan Green Rebstock at (3]0)732-3949
ADP#081203-1J1
SCH#2009071021 46
Berths J02-JOI;(APLj Con18iner Terminal Project
Oecember 2011
C-89
Invitation letter for Rancho LPG community relations meeting
C-90
Mr.Kit Fox
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275·5391
January 05,2012
Dear Mr.Fox,
Since May 2009 Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC (Rancho)has held a number of regular meetings with
community and neighborhood leaders in an effort to maintain an open dialogue regarding our Gaffey
Street LPG facility.Rancho remains committed to continue meeting with the community to keep the
channels of communication open.This letter is an invitation for you to attend our next meeting
scheduled for 6:00pm on Wednesday January 25,2012 at the Crown Plaza Hotel at 601 South Palos
Verdes Street,San Pedro.
Rancho wishes to limit the meeting to no more than four representatives from each neighborhood
council,community group,or public agency/office.The meeting is by invitation only.Please RSVP by
phone,e-mail,or letter.Invitees are asked to check in at the door prior to the meeting to confirm
contact information for any follow-up letters that may be sent out as a result of the meeting;Rancho
will in turn provide contact information for the meeting presenters.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Please RSVP to Isabel Viramontes at iviramontes@rancholpg.com or 310-833-5275.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Ron Conrow
Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC
C-91
Daily Breeze article regarding the grand opening
of Marymount College’s Waterfront Campus
C-92
Marymount opens San
Pedro campus
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/11/2012 06:53:25 PM PST
Updated: 01/11/2012 10:03:12 PM PST
Congresswoman Janice Hahn, speaks to a crowd
gathered for the grand opening of the Marymount
College Waterfront Campus in San Pedro. (Brittany
Murray / Staff Photographer)
San Pedro leaders on Wednesday called the port-
side, working-class community something it has
never before been called - a "college town."
Marymount College celebrated the opening of its
Waterfront Campus with tours of its new
classrooms, conference rooms and offices on the
first floor of the 11-story Pacific Place office
building. The floor was most recently occupied by
Northrop Grumman offices.
San Pedro leaders heralded the campus arrival as
evidence that the city is on the upswing.
"It doesn't get any better than being a college
town," said San Pedro Chamber of Commerce
President Betsy Cheek.
Peter Rothe, cofounder of San Pedro Arts &
Academic Alliance, acknowledged the
community's blue-collar roots and its struggle to
enhance the downtown area.
"I'm sure there remain detractors and doubters
to this marriage between Marymount College
and San Pedro," Rothe said. "They think this
relationship between an uptown girl and
downtown boy can never last. But we wish them
prosperity and a long life."
This is the small Catholic liberal arts college's
first new campus since it opened in Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1968. In 2010, it was accredited to
expand from a two-year to a four-year degree
program. That caused a jump in enrollment from
561 students in the fall of 2009 to more than 900
today, college officials said.
The new San Pedro campus provides classroom
space and offices to accommodate upper division
business
majors and students majoring in global studies,
college officials said.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S.
Rep. Janice Hahn, D-San Pedro, attended the
grand opening celebration outside the newly
renovated floor, at 222 W. Sixth Street.
advertisement
Page 1 of 3
1/12/2012http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1326382690494
C-93
"This new waterfront campus will add to the
vitality of San Pedro's historic waterfront
district," Villaraigosa said. "The extension of this
learning community will enrich its culture."
The building is about a block away from
Hahn's newly opened district office. It also is
within earshot of the busy Port of Los Angeles,
and will be just down the street from the USS
Iowa when it arrives in March or April. The 900-
foot-long Navy battleship that once carried
President Franklin D. Roosevelt across the
Atlantic Ocean will be docked and toured as a
museum.
College spokeswoman Kelly Curtis said the
institution is next focused on expanding its
Rancho Palos Verdes campus with additional
parking, and new and renovated facilities. Also
in the works is an application for a conditional-
use permit to build classrooms at its student
housing facility in San Pedro. Those residences,
which are converted town houses formerly used
for Navy housing, are at 1600 Palos Verdes Drive
North.
"This would allow them to live and attend classes
at the same location," Curtis said. "The Central
San Pedro Neighborhood Council has asked for
additional traffic studies, and we're continuing to
get community feedback and input."
Hahn offered her support to Marymount College
expansion projects, and lauded the new campus.
"This is so much about how great San Pedro is
and how it will be in the future," Hahn said. "To
have this campus here is just a great sign and
message to everyone that this is a place to open.
This is one of the most charming oceanfront
communities in California."
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
Follow Sandy Mazza on Twitter at http://twitter.
com/sandymazza
advertisement
Community members tour the facility at the grand opening
of the Marymount College Waterfront Campus in San
Pedro. (Brittany Murray / Staff Photographer)
Page 2 of 3
1/12/2012http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1326382690494
C-94
NWSPNC agenda and handouts regarding
Marymount College’s San Pedro Campus traffic study
C-95
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Planning and Land Use Committee Agenda
Thursday, January 26, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
San Pedro City Hall, Room 452
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Review of Marymount College Supplemental Traffic Study
4. Report from the Council office
5. Western Avenue Traffic Grant
6. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
7. Adjourn – Next Meeting, 6:30 pm February 23, 2012
Note: Anything on this Agenda Could Result in a Motion
To Contact us: www.nwsanpedro.org, board@nwsanpedro.org, or 310-732-4522
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles
does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request will provide reasonable
accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language
interpreters, assisted listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided
upon request. To ensure availability of services please make your request at least 3 business
days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by contacting the Department of Neighborhood
Empowerment at 213-485-1360.
C-96
1100 Corporate Center Dr., Suite 201
Monterey Park, CA 91754
t: 323-260-4703 f: 323-260-4705
www.koacorporation.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jim Krause
Non-Profit Ventures
4007 Coogan Circle
Culver City, CA 90232-3704
From: Mr. Jonathan Louie
Date: December 14, 2011
Subject: Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
[KOA Job Number JB11045]
INTRODUCTION
KOA Corporation prepared a Traffic Impact Study dated October 25th, 2011 for the proposed Marymount
College San Pedro Campus Project located at 1600 Palos Verdes Drive North in the City of Los Angeles. That
traffic study analyzed project traffic impacts at 17 study intersections. The San Pedro Northwest Neighborhood
Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘Neighborhood Council’) has reviewed the traffic study for this project and has
requested a supplemental analysis be prepared that evaluates traffic impacts at additional study intersections
located to the south of the project site. In particular, the Neighborhood Council noted that eight additional
signalized intersections located along Western Avenue and Gaffey Street should be analyzed for the weekday mid-
afternoon and p.m. peak periods. KOA has prepared this technical memorandum summarizing the results and
findings of the traffic impacts associated with the project at the eight additional intersections.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Marymount College is proposing to construct a sustainable private expanded undergraduate/graduate campus at
the San Pedro Campus site. The proposed campus would accommodate 1,500 students, 800 of whom would be
residents living on campus including eight (8) faculty apartments. The project site currently has 86 dwelling units
that serve as off-campus housing for students matriculating at the Marymount College Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV)
campus.
The San Pedro Campus will be a multi-phased project with a build out conditioned upon updated traffic studies to
coincide with major phases of the build out. For the purpose of analyzing traffic impacts for this project, a 20-year
build out horizon (Year 2031) is assumed.
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The intersections included as part of this supplemental analysis are:
1. Green Hills Drive and Western Avenue
2. Avenida Aprenda and Western Avenue
KOA CORPORATION
4 PLANNING &ENGINEERING
LOS ANGELES ONTARIO ORANGE SAN DIEGO SOUTH BAYC-97
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 2
3. Westmont Drive/Delasonde Drive and Western Avenue
4. Toscanini Drive and Western Avenue
5. Caddington Drive and Western Avenue
6. Westmont Drive and Gaffey Street
7. Capitol Drive and Gaffey Street
8. Channel Street and Gaffey Street
The study intersections located on Western Avenue (#1 through #5) are located in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Intersections #6 through #8 are located in the City of Los Angeles.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The traffic impact analysis at the eight intersections was conducted for the following scenarios:
• Existing 2011
• Existing Plus Project
• Future 2031 Without Project
• Future 2031 With Project
The analysis methodology that was used in the original project traffic study was also used to analyze the eight
study intersections. The Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) methodology was used to analyze intersections
located in the City of Los Angeles. The intersections located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were analyzed
using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology.
According to LADOT, the three study intersections located within the City of Los Angeles are currently
operating with ATSAC/ATCS. As such, a 0.10 reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio was assumed at these
locations per LADOT traffic study policies and procedures.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOA conducted traffic counts at the study intersections on Tuesday, November 15th, 2011. The traffic counts
were collected from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (mid-afternoon peak period) and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
intersection traffic count sheets are included in Attachment A. The counts were utilized to determine existing
mid-afternoon and p.m. peak-hour traffic conditions. The existing intersection turn volumes are shown in Figure
1 for the mid-afternoon peak hour and in Figure 2 for the p.m. peak hour.
In addition, KOA conducted fieldwork at each of the study intersections to identify their roadway characteristics
including traffic control, approach lane configuration, parking restrictions and bus stop locations. The existing
intersection lane configurations are shown in Attachment B.
The existing level of service conditions were calculated based on the traffic count levels and intersection
geometrics and signal phasing characteristics. The level of service calculation worksheets are in Attachment E. As
shown in Table 1, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during both the mid-
afternoon and p.m. peak hours, except for the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which is
currently operating at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
C-98
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 3
Table 1 – Existing Intersection Level of Service
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Western Ave & Green Hills Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.602 B 0.667 B
2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.617 B 0.711 C
3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.828 D 0.843 D
4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.686 B 0.757 C
5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.777 C 0.907 E
6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles 0.486 A 0.703 C
7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles 0.529 A 0.678 B
8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles 0.509 A 0.661 B
Existing (2011)
Study Intersections City
Midday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Project Trip Generation
The project's trip generation for the p.m. peak hour is discussed in detail in the October 25th, 2011 traffic study
that was prepared for this project. Similar to the p.m. peak hour, the project trip generation for the mid-
afternoon peak hour was also based on empirical trip rates derived from surveys conducted at the Marymount
College RPV Campus and at the existing Palos Verdes Drive North residential facility site (proposed San Pedro
Campus site), as well as trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition
book. In addition, trip generation reductions were applied to take into account trip discounts due to students
living on campus and other trip reducing measures that will be implemented by the project. Table 2 shows the trip
generation rates that were utilized, and the trip generation for the project. The empirical trip rates and trip
generation discounts are discussed in the footnotes at the bottom of Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the project upon build out is estimated to generate about 244 mid-afternoon peak hour
trips (118 inbound trips and 126 outbound trips) and 279 p.m. peak hour trips (99 inbound trips and 180
outbound trips). The project site currently generates about 41 trips (21 inbound trips and 20 outbound trips)
during the mid-afternoon peak hour and 48 trips (25 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips) during the p.m. peak
hour. The project would generate an increase of 203 net trips (97 inbound trips and 106 outbound trips) during
the mid-afternoon peak hour, and 231 net trips (74 inbound trips and 157 outbound trips) during the p.m. peak-
hour.
C-99
Existing(2011)Mid-AfternoonPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure1MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
87
1306
57
0
0
2
67
1312
65
27
0
4
2
17
1376
1194
41
85
55
3
35
1189
150
268
40
195
144
1015
29
21
24
39
4
73
1223
58
53
7
27
45
1366
43
34
7
66
5
112
1214
3
49
0
36
39
1314
127
113
2
86
6
262
487
77
121
8
45
17
556
104
132
17
280
7
391
857
1043
84
117
232
8
180
886
185
81
88
298
435
741
20
39
210
99
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-100
Existing(2011)PMPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure2MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
6
1224
0
0
0
1
0
1710
6
32
0
11
2
22
1200
1613
39
74
56
3
46
1005
174
280
69
165
196
1372
39
39
35
49
4
60
1162
68
48
19
28
48
1612
53
33
10
67
5
148
1138
1
47
3
28
40
1548
157
147
3
94
6
397
469
89
222
21
79
29
734
125
97
13
296
7
539
996
1278
151
98
242
8
301
1111
316
120
178
405
508
996
28
46
260
184
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-101
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 6
Table 2 - Project Trip Generation
Total In Out Total In Out
Trip Rates
College [1]- Student 0.22 47% 53% 0.24 25% 75%
Off-Campus Housing [2]- Student 0.29 51% 49% 0.35 52% 48%
Apartment [3]-DU 0.62 65% 35% 0.62 65% 35%
Trip Generation
Proposed Project
College 1,500 Student 330 155 175 360 90 270
Internal Trip Reduction [4]53%-176 -83 -93 -192 -48 -144
Subtotal 154 72 82 168 42 126
Resident Student Trip Reduction (75% AM) [5]0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Non-Residential College Trips 154 72 82 168 42 126
Residence Halls for Students 800 Student 232 118 114 280 146 134
'Limited Cars for Residents' Trip Reduction (56%) [6]-130 -66 -64 -157 -82 -75
Subtotal 102 52 50 123 64 59
Internal Trip Reduction (64% Mid-afternoon, 62% PM) [7][8]-65 -33 -32 -76 -40 -36
Total Non-RPV Campus Trips 371918472423
Trips to/from RPV Campus [9]400 Student 116 59 57 140 73 67
'Limited Cars for Residents' Trip Reduction (56%) [6]-65 -33 -32 -78 -41 -37
Total Trips to/from RPV Campus 51 26 25 62 32 30
Faculty Apartments 8 DU 532532
Internal Trip Reduction (64% Mid-afternoon, 62% PM) [7]-3 -2 -1 -3 -2 -1
Total Faculty Apartment Trips 2 1 1 2 1 1
Total Trip Generation (Proposed Project Uses)244 118 126 279 99 180
Existing Uses
Housing Facility [10]86 DU 41 21 20 48 25 23
Net Total Trip Generation 203 97 106 231 74 157
[1] Trip generation rates are based on trip surveys conducted at the Marymount College RPV Campus on March 22 and 30, 2011.
[2]
[3]Trip generation rates are from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]The internal trip reduction for the PM was assumed for daily.
[9]
[10]
About 44% of the 800 San Pedro Campus residents would have a vehicle on campus based on a limited lottery system. The remaining 56% of
residents would not have a vehicle on campus and therefore would not generate vehicle trips.
Land Use Intensity Unit
The mid-afternoon and PM peak hour trip rates are based on trip generation surveys conducted at the Palos Verdes Drive North residential
facility on November 15 and March 24, 2011, respectively.
Based on percentage of students who will be living on the San Pedro Campus (800 resident students/1,500 total students).
Based on internal trip capture empirical rates for the apartment dormitory component per the Marymount College Facilities Expansion
Project Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, July 31, 2007. The empirical data showed that 64% of the vehicles during the mid-afternoon
peak and 62% of the vehicles during the PM peak are traveling to/from the RPV campus.
The mid-afternoon and PM peak hour trips are based on raw trip generation survey data conducted at the Palos Verdes Drive North Facility
on November 15 and March 24, 2011, respectively.
Based on information provided by Marymount College representative, about 400 of the 800 residents would take classes at the Marymount
College RPV Campus on a typical weekday.
Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Marymount College would schedule the morning peak period classes on the San Pedro Campus exclusively for resident students. A trip
reduction of 75% is assumed for the AM peak hour as commuter students are not expected to generate vehicle trips during this period.
Resident student trip reduction is not assumed for the mid-afternoon and PM peak hour periods.
C-102
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 7
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is the process of assigning the directions from which traffic will access a project site. Trip
distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the project and the general locations of other land
uses to which project trips would originate or terminate. The project trip distribution was developed based on
our knowledge of development trends in the area, local and sub-regional traffic routes, regional traffic flows, and
license plate survey data. In addition, the project trip distribution was based on existing student and faculty/staff
zip code information that was provided by Marymount College. Two trip distribution patterns were determined.
The first distribution is for trips generated by the project but excludes those trips generated by resident students
going to/from the RPV Campus. The second distribution is for trips generated by the resident students traveling
to/from the RPV Campus. The trip distribution assumptions that were used in the October 25th, 2011 traffic study
was also used for the analysis of the eight study intersections.
The project trips were assigned based on the trip distributions that were determined for the project. Attachment
C illustrates the net project trips for the weekday mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hours.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The estimated net project trips shown in Attachment C were superimposed onto the existing traffic volumes to
estimate the existing plus project traffic volumes. Figures 3 and 4 show the existing plus project traffic volumes
for the mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The existing plus project level of service analysis results
are summarized in Table 3. As shown in this table, the eight study intersections are projected to continue to
operate at the same level of services during the mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hour periods as compared to the
existing conditions. All of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the
mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hours, except for the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which
is projected to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The level of service calculation worksheets are in
Attachment E.
Table 3 – Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Western Ave & Green Hills Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.606 B 0.673 B
2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.622 B 0.718 C
3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.833 D 0.848 D
4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes 0.691 B 0.763 C
5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.781 C 0.914 E
6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles 0.488 A 0.705 C
7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles 0.530 A 0.680 B
8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles 0.511 A 0.662 B
Existing Plus Project
Study Intersections City
Midday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
C-103
ExistingPlusProjectMid-AfternoonPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure3MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
87
1321
57
0
0
2
67
1327
65
27
0
4
2
17
1391
1209
41
85
55
3
35
1204
150
268
40
195
144
1030
29
21
24
39
4
73
1238
58
53
7
27
45
1381
43
34
7
66
5
112
1229
3
49
0
36
39
1329
127
113
2
86
6
262
491
77
121
8
45
17
560
104
132
17
280
7
391
861
1047
84
117
232
8
180
890
185
81
88
298
435
745
20
39
210
99
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-104
ExistingPlusProjectPMPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure4MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
6
1239
0
0
0
1
0
1731
6
32
0
11
2
22
1215
1634
39
74
56
3
46
1020
174
280
69
165
196
1393
39
39
35
49
4
60
1177
68
48
19
28
48
1633
53
33
10
67
5
148
1153
1
47
3
28
40
1569
157
147
3
94
6
397
471
89
222
21
79
29
740
125
97
13
296
7
539
998
1284
151
98
242
8
301
1113
316
120
178
405
508
1002
28
46
260
184
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-105
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 10
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Ambient Growth
For the analysis of background traffic for year 2031, a traffic growth factor of 7.1% for the 20-year period was
utilized to provide for increases in traffic from the existing traffic volumes. This growth rate is based on the 2010
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) traffic growth projections for the study area and
was also used for the October 25th, 2011 traffic study.
Area/Related Projects Growth
Based on discussions with staff from the cities of Los Angeles, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and
Lomita, 77 area/related projects were identified for this analysis. These area/related projects were considered to
potentially contribute measurable traffic volumes to the study intersections during the future analysis periods. A
description of the related projects and the trip generation of each are summarized in Attachment D.
It should be noted that the trip generation for the p.m. peak hour were obtained from LADOT and other traffic
studies as well as based on trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition book. The trip generation
for the mid-afternoon peak hour was not available from LADOT and other traffic studies. Also, the ITE Trip
Generation book generally does not have trip rates for the mid-afternoon peak hour. Thus, the p.m. peak hour trip
generation was assumed for the mid-afternoon peak hour, except for school projects in which the trip rate for
the p.m. peak hour of generator from ITE Trip Generation was used. Attachment D illustrates the related project
trip assignments at the study intersections during the mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hours.
Future Without Project Conditions
The future without project traffic volumes were determined by applying an overall ambient growth factor of 7.1%
to the existing peak hour volumes and adding the area/related project traffic. The future without project traffic
volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hour periods, respectively. The future
without project level of service analysis was conducted for the study intersections using the traffic volumes shown
in Figures 5 and 6. The results are summarized in Table 4 and the level of service calculation worksheets are
contained in Attachment E.
As shown in Table 4, the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the mid-
afternoon and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde
Drive/Westmont Drive and Western Avenue/Caddington Drive, which are projected to operate at LOS E or F
during both study periods.
C-106
FutureWithoutProjectMid-AfternoonPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure5MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
97
1701
75
7
0
26
118
1854
74
37
0
12
2
18
1769
24
13
0
16
31
1541
44
91
0
59
3
37
1492
161
288
43
309
207
1309
31
22
26
42
4
78
1529
62
57
7
29
48
1685
46
36
7
71
5
138
1509
3
52
0
39
42
1613
152
131
2
109
6
335
703
83
130
9
48
18
791
113
142
18
329
7
433
1128
1295
137
152
257
8
193
1202
199
87
94
320
467
991
33
55
225
106
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-107
FutureWithoutProjectPMPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure6MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
10
1600
14
7
0
25
46
2268
10
42
0
20
2
24
1566
24
13
0
16
31
1977
42
79
0
60
3
49
1282
186
301
74
277
263
1679
42
42
37
52
4
64
1451
73
51
20
30
51
1936
57
35
11
72
5
177
1419
1
50
3
30
43
1857
179
162
3
118
6
480
637
96
238
23
85
31
959
135
104
14
346
7
592
1231
1524
209
131
268
8
323
1405
339
129
191
435
545
1249
35
55
279
198
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-108
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 13
Table 4 – Future Without Project Intersection Level of Service
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Western Ave & Green Hills Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.807 D 0.865 D
2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.781 C 0.841 D
3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.982 E 0.994 E
4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.797 C 0.869 D
5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.922 E 1.055 F
6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.650 B 0.873 D
7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.676 B 0.829 D
8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.642 B 0.793 C
Note:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method
PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City Analysis
Methodology
Midday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The estimated project trips were superimposed onto the future without project traffic forecasts to estimate the
future with project traffic volumes. Figures 7 and 8 show the future with project traffic volumes for the mid-
afternoon and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The future with project level of service analysis results are
summarized in Table 5. The level of service calculation worksheets are contained in Attachment E.
Table 5 – Future With Project Intersection Level of Service
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Western Ave & Green Hills Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.812 D 0.871 D
2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.786 C 0.847 D
3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.987 E 0.998 E
4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.802 D 0.875 D
5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.927 E 1.062 F
6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.875 D
7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.678 B 0.831 D
8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.644 B 0.793 C
Note:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method
PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City Analysis
Methodology
Midday
Afternoon
Peak Hour
As shown in Table 5, the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both study
periods with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive and
Western Avenue/Caddington Drive, which are projected to operate at LOS E or F during both study periods.
C-109
FutureWithProjectMid-AfternoonPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure7MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
97
1716
75
7
0
26
118
1869
74
37
0
12
2
18
1783
24
13
0
16
31
1556
44
91
0
59
3
37
1507
161
288
43
309
207
1324
31
22
26
42
4
78
1544
62
57
7
29
48
1701
46
36
7
71
5
138
1524
3
52
0
39
42
1629
152
131
2
109
6
335
707
83
130
9
48
18
795
113
142
18
329
7
433
1132
1299
137
152
257
8
193
1206
199
87
94
320
467
995
33
55
225
106
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-110
FutureWithProjectPMPeakHourIntersectionVolumes
Figure8MarymountCollegeSanPedroCampus-Supplemental TrafficStudy
N
NottoScale
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
StudyIntersections
Intersection TurnVolumeXXX
X
Avenida
Aprenda
ToscaniniDr
DelasondeDr
Capito
l
D
r
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Trudie
D
r
Palos
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
An
a
h
e
i
m
S
t
WestmontDr
ChannelSt
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
Green
Hills
D
r
Cad
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
Ve
r
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
110
1
10
1614
14
7
0
25
46
2288
10
42
0
20
2
24
1581
24
13
0
16
31
1998
42
79
0
60
3
49
1296
186
301
74
277
263
1699
42
42
37
52
4
64
1465
73
51
20
30
51
1957
57
35
11
72
5
177
1434
1
50
3
30
43
1878
179
162
3
118
6
480
639
96
238
23
85
31
965
135
104
14
346
7
592
1233
1530
209
131
268
8
323
1407
339
129
191
435
545
1255
35
55
279
198
KOA CORPORATION
•PLANNING &ENGINEERING C-111
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 16
PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT
City of Los Angeles Significant Impact Criteria
LADOT has established specific thresholds for project traffic-related increases in the volume-to-capacity ratio
(V/C) of a study intersection. The following increases in the peak-hour V/C ratio are considered “significant”
impacts:
Level of Service Final V/C* Project Related V/C Increase
C < 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040
D < 0.800– 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020
E and F 0.901 or more Equal to or greater than 0.010
* Final V/C is the V/C ratio at an intersection, considering impacts from the project, ambient growth and related projects growth, and
without proposed traffic impact mitigations.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The County of Los Angeles thresholds of significance criteria was used to determine the project related traffic
impact for the signalized study intersections in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The following increases in peak-
hour V/C ratios are considered “significant” impacts:
Level of Service Pre-Project V/C Project Related V/C Increase
C < 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040
D < 0.800– 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020
E and F 0.901 or more Equal to or greater than 0.010
Based on the results of the analysis and the established significant threshold criteria, the proposed project would
not create a significant traffic impact at any of the eight study intersections under the ‘Existing Plus Project’ and
‘Future With Project’ scenarios, as summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
C-112
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
Ma
r
y
m
o
u
n
t
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
a
n
P
e
d
r
o
C
a
m
p
u
s
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
4
,
2
0
1
1
Pa
g
e
1
7
Ta
b
l
e
6
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
–
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
Mi
d
-
Af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
G
r
e
e
n
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
IC
U
0
.
6
0
2
B
0
.
6
6
7
B
0
.
6
0
6
B
0
.
6
7
3
B
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
6
N
o
2
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
A
p
r
e
n
d
a
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
IC
U
0
.
6
1
7
B
0
.
7
1
1
C
0
.
6
2
2
B
0
.
7
1
8
C
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
7
N
o
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
D
e
l
a
s
o
n
d
e
D
r
/
W
e
s
t
m
o
n
t
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
8
2
8
D
0.
8
4
3
D
0.
8
3
3
D
0.
8
4
8
D
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
5
N
o
4
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
T
o
s
c
a
n
i
n
i
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
6
8
6
B
0.
7
5
7
C
0.
6
9
1
B
0.
7
6
3
C
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
N
o
5
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
C
a
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
7
7
7
C
0.
9
0
7
E
0.
7
8
1
C
0.
9
1
4
E
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
7
N
o
6
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
W
e
s
t
m
o
n
t
D
r
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
4
8
6
A
0.
7
0
3
C
0.
4
8
8
A
0.
7
0
5
C
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
N
o
7
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
D
r
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
5
2
9
A
0.
6
7
8
B
0.
5
3
0
A
0.
6
8
0
B
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
N
o
8
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
S
t
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
5
0
9
A
0.
6
6
1
B
0.
5
1
1
A
0.
6
6
2
B
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
1
N
o
No
t
e
:
IC
U
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
od
;
C
M
A
-
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
V
/
C
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
?
Mi
d
d
a
y
Af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Mi
d
d
a
y
Af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
1
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
St
u
d
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ci
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
KO
A
CO
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
•
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
C-113
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
Ma
r
y
m
o
u
n
t
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
a
n
P
e
d
r
o
C
a
m
p
u
s
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
4
,
2
0
1
1
Pa
g
e
1
8
Ta
b
l
e
7
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
–
F
u
t
u
r
e
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
V
/
C
L
O
S
MD
A
f
t
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
1
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
G
r
e
e
n
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
IC
U
0
.
8
0
7
D
0
.
8
6
5
D
0
.
8
1
2
D
0
.
8
7
1
D
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
No
2
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
A
p
r
e
n
d
a
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
IC
U
0
.
7
8
1
C
0
.
8
4
1
D
0
.
7
8
6
C
0
.
8
4
7
D
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
6
N
o
3
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
D
e
l
a
s
o
n
d
e
D
r
/
W
e
s
t
m
o
n
t
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
9
8
2
E
0.
9
9
4
E
0.
9
8
7
E
0.
9
9
8
E
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
4
N
o
4
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
T
o
s
c
a
n
i
n
i
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
7
9
7
C
0.
8
6
9
D
0.
8
0
2
D
0.
8
7
5
D
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
N
o
5
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
&
C
a
d
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
Ra
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
I
C
U
0.
9
2
2
E
1.
0
5
5
F
0.
9
2
7
E
1.
0
6
2
F
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
7
N
o
6
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
W
e
s
t
m
o
n
t
D
r
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
6
5
0
B
0.
8
7
3
D
0.
6
5
1
B
0.
8
7
5
D
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
N
o
7
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
D
r
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
6
7
6
B
0.
8
2
9
D
0.
6
7
8
B
0.
8
3
1
D
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
N
o
8
Ga
f
f
e
y
S
t
&
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
S
t
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
CM
A
0.
6
4
2
B
0.
7
9
3
C
0.
6
4
4
B
0.
7
9
3
C
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
0
N
o
No
t
e
:
IC
U
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
,
C
M
A
-
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
V
/
C
Mi
d
d
a
y
Af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Mi
d
d
a
y
Af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
St
u
d
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
?
Ci
t
y
Fu
t
u
r
e
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
KO
A
CO
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
•
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
C-114
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14, 2011
Page 19
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• For existing conditions, all of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both the
weekday mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hour periods with the exception of the intersection of Western
Avenue and Caddington Drive which is operating at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
• The proposed project is estimated to generate about 203 net trips (97 inbound trips and 106 outbound
trips) during the mid-afternoon peak hour and 231 net trips (74 inbound trips and 157 outbound trips)
during the p.m. peak-hour.
• For the Existing Plus Project conditions, all of the study intersections are also projected to operate at
LOS D or better during both the weekday mid-afternoon and p.m. peak hour periods with the exception
of the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which is operating at LOS E during the p.m.
peak hour.
• For the future (2031) conditions without and with development of the project, all of the study
intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the mid-afternoon and p.m. peak
hours with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive and
Western Avenue/Caddington Drive, which are projected to operate at LOS E or F during both study
periods.
• The proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact at any of the eight study intersections.
C-115