Environmental Impact Report

E
& B Oil Drilling & Production Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
Prepared By:
Marine Research Specialists
Public Draft EIR February 2014 SCH# 2013071038
Prepared For: City of Hermosa Beach
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 The Environmental Impact Report Process ......................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report .............. 1-4 1.2.2 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ....................................................... 1-7 1.2.3 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant................................................. 1-7 1.3 Proposed Project Approvals ................................................................................ 1-8 1.4 EIR Contents and Guide for the Reader ............................................................ 1-10 1.4.1 EIR Contents............................................................................................ 1-10 1.4.2 Significance Criteria ................................................................................. 1-12 1.5 Final EIR Preparation and Certification Process ............................................... 1-13 1.6 CEQA Findings for Proposed Project Approval ................................................. 1-14 1.7 Mitigation Monitoring ......................................................................................... 1-14 1.8 Background....................................................................................................... 1-15 1.8.1 Project History .......................................................................................... 1-15 1.8.2 Lawsuits and Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 1-15 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Proposed Project Objectives ............................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Historical and Current Operations ....................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Proposed Oil Project Phases ............................................................................ 2-10 2.4.1 Phase 1 Site Preparation ......................................................................... 2-10 2.4.1.1 Phase 1 Construction Activities .......................................................... 2-10 2.4.1.2 Phase 1 Site Preparation Detailed Schedule ...................................... 2-18 2.4.1.3 Phase 1 Site Preparation Personnel and Equipment Requirements ... 2-19 2.4.1.4 Phase 1 Truck Routes ........................................................................ 2-19 2.4.2 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing .................................................................... 2-20 2.4.2.1 Phase 2 Site Geology and Drilling Objectives ..................................... 2-20 2.4.2.2 Phase 2 Construction and Drilling Activities........................................ 2-22 2.4.2.3 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Schedule ............................................... 2-38 2.4.2.4 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Personnel & Equipment Requirements .. 2-38 2.4.3 Phase 3 Final Design and Construction ................................................... 2-40 2.4.3.1 Phase 3 Onsite Construction .............................................................. 2-40 2.4.3.2 Phase 3 Offsite Pipeline Construction ................................................ 2-46 2.4.3.3 Phase 3 Hazardous Materials............................................................. 2-55 2.4.3.4 Phase 3 Schedule .............................................................................. 2-55 2.4.3.5 Phase 3 Personnel and Equipment Requirements ............................. 2-56 2.4.4 Phase 4 Development and Operations ..................................................... 2-56 2.4.4.1 Phase 4 Drilling .................................................................................. 2-56 2.4.5 Drill Remaining Wells ............................................................................... 2-59 2.4.5.1 Phase 4 Processing and Operations .................................................. 2-60 2.4.5.2 Phase 4 Schedule .............................................................................. 2-68 2.4.5.3 Phase 4 Vehicle Requirements .......................................................... 2-69 2.4.6 Parking Requirements .............................................................................. 2-69 2.4.7 Project Life and Decommissioning ........................................................... 2-73 2.5 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project .......................................................... 2-75
2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Table of Contents
2.5.1 Construction Phases ................................................................................ 2-76 2.5.2 Phase 2 Unsuccessful .............................................................................. 2-76 2.5.3 Temporary City Maintenance Yard ........................................................... 2-76 2.5.4 Permanent City Maintenance Yard ........................................................... 2-77 2.5.4.1 Parking Option.................................................................................... 2-77 2.5.4.2 No Added Parking Option ................................................................... 2-81 2.6 Agency Use of the Document ........................................................................... 2-81 2.6.1 Local and Regional .................................................................................. 2-82 2.6.2 State ........................................................................................................ 2-82 2.6.3 Federal..................................................................................................... 2-83 2.7 Potential Project Permits ................................................................................... 2-83 2.7.1 Discretionary Permits and Approvals........................................................ 2-83 3.0 Cumulative Projects ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Description of Cumulative Projects ..................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 City of Hermosa Beach .............................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 City of Redondo Beach .............................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 City of Torrance.......................................................................................... 3-3 Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting ............................................... 4.0-1 4.0.1 Assessment Methodology ................................................................................ 4.0-1 4.0.2 Oil Project Impact Analysis .............................................................................. 4.0-2 4.0.3 Formulation of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program .......... 4.0-3 4.0.4 Cumulative Projects Impact Analysis ............................................................... 4.0-4 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.1.1 Methodology .................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1.1 Assessing Existing Visual Environment ................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1.2 Evaluating Project Impacts ...................................................................... 4.1-2 4.1.1.3 Assessment of Key Observation Points ................................................... 4.1-4 4.1.1.4 Lighting and Glare Methodology.............................................................. 4.1-6 4.1.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.1-7 4.1.2.1 Local Setting ........................................................................................... 4.1-7 4.1.2.2 Light and Glare ..................................................................................... 4.1-12 4.1.3 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................... 4.1-13 4.1.3.1 California Coastal Act ............................................................................ 4.1-13 4.1.3.2 Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code ............. 4.1-13 4.1.3.3 City of Hermosa Beach ......................................................................... 4.1-14 4.1.3.4 City of Redondo Beach ......................................................................... 4.1-15 4.1.3.5 City of Torrance..................................................................................... 4.1-16 4.1.4 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.1-17 4.1.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.1-17 4.1.5.1 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Design Features .............................. 4.1-17 4.1.5.2 Dimensions of Major Visible CMY Project Components ........................ 4.1-27 4.1.5.3 Dimensions of Major Visible Proposed Oil Project Components ............ 4.1-28 4.1.5.4 Proposed Oil Project Viewshed Mapping .............................................. 4.1-29 4.1.5.5 Key Observation Points View Simulations ............................................. 4.1-32 4.1.5.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts ................................................................ 4.1-90 4.1.5.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts............................... 4.1-102 4.1.6 Comparison to Applicant Studies ................................................................. 4.1-105 4.1.7 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts.............................................. 4.1-106
ii Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.0
4.1
Table of Contents
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 4.1-106 4.1.9 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................................................................ 4.1-107 4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1.1 Meteorological Conditions ....................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1.2 Existing Air Quality Criteria Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants ......... 4.2-3 4.2.1.3 Existing Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................... 4.2-12 4.2.1.4 Existing Site Emissions ......................................................................... 4.2-20 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.2-20 4.2.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Regulatory Setting .................................................... 4.2-20 4.2.2.2 GHG Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 4.2-22 4.2.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.2-31 4.2.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.2-33 4.2.4.1 Design Features .................................................................................... 4.2-33 4.2.4.2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements ........................................ 4.2-34 4.2.4.3 Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................. 4.2-34 4.2.4.4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................... 4.2-42 4.2.4.5 Potential Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 4.2-53 4.2.4.6 Compliance with Area Air Quality Management Plans ........................... 4.2-62 4.2.4.7 Valve Box Options................................................................................. 4.2-67 4.2.4.8 Pipeline Route Options.......................................................................... 4.2-67 4.2.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options ................................ 4.2-67 4.2.5 Comparison to Applicant Studies ................................................................... 4.2-67 4.2.6 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.2-68 4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.2-68 4.2.8 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.2-69 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1.1 Onshore Resources ................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.1.2 Offshore Resources ................................................................................ 4.3-3 4.3.1.3 Rare, Endangered, and Special Status Species ...................................... 4.3-7 4.3.1.4 Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................. 4.3-13 4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.3-13 4.3.2.1 Federal Regulations .............................................................................. 4.3-13 4.3.2.2 State Resource Regulations .................................................................. 4.3-14 4.3.2.3 Local Regulations.................................................................................. 4.3-17 4.3.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.3-17 4.3.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.3-17 4.3.6. Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts ....................................... 4.3-25 4.3.7. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.3-25 4.3.8. Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.3-26 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.2 Records and Literature Search ........................................................................ 4.4-5 4.4.3 Paleontological Records Search ...................................................................... 4.4-6 4.4.4 Cultural Resources Survey .............................................................................. 4.4-8 4.4.5 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.4-11 4.4.6 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.4-12
iii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
4.3
4.4
Table of Contents
4.4.7 4.4.8 4.4.9 4.4.10 4.5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................... 4.4-13 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.4-21 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.4-21 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.4-24
Energy and Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 4.5-1 4.5.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.1.1 Electricity................................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.5.1.2 Natural Gas ............................................................................................. 4.5-2 4.5.1.3 Transportation Fuels ............................................................................... 4.5-2 4.5.1.4 Minerals .................................................................................................. 4.5-3 4.5.1.5 Energy Conservation and Alternative Energy Sources ............................ 4.5-3 4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.5-6 4.5.2.1 Federal.................................................................................................... 4.5-6 4.5.2.2 State ....................................................................................................... 4.5-7 4.5.3 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................... 4.5-9 4.5.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.5-10 4.5.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.5-12 4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.5-12 4.5.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.5-12 Fire Protection and Emergency Response .............................................................. 4.6-1 4.6.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.1.1 Response Capabilities............................................................................. 4.6-1 4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.6-5 4.6.2.1 Codes and Standards ............................................................................. 4.6-5 4.6.2.2 Federal and State Regulations ................................................................ 4.6-9 4.6.2.3 Equipment Spacing ............................................................................... 4.6-11 4.6.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.6-14 4.6.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.6-15 4.6.4.1 CUP Requirements ............................................................................... 4.6-15 4.6.4.2 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Impacts............................................ 4.6-16 4.6.4.3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts................................. 4.6-21 4.6.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.6-22 4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.6-23 4.6.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.6-23 Geological Resources/Soils ..................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.1.1 Regional Geology.................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.1.2 Local Geology ......................................................................................... 4.7-3 4.7.1.3 Geologic Hazards.................................................................................... 4.7-4 4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.7-9 4.7.1.4 California Building Code (CBC) ............................................................... 4.7-9 4.7.1.5 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 .............................. 4.7-10 4.7.1.6 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 .................................................. 4.7-10 4.7.1.7 California Coastal Act ............................................................................ 4.7-10 4.7.1.8 California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources ................... 4.7-11 4.7.1.9 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element............. 4.7-11 4.7.2 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.7-11 4.7.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.7-12
iv Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.6
4.7
Table of Contents
4.7.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4.7-12 4.7.3.2 Proposed Project Design Features ........................................................ 4.7-13 4.7.3.3 Applicant Prepared Studies ................................................................... 4.7-17 4.7.3.4 Impacts ................................................................................................. 4.7-17 4.7.4 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.7-30 4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.7-30 4.7.6 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.7-31 4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards .......................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.1.1 Study Area and Scope ............................................................................ 4.8-2 4.8.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology ............................................................... 4.8-3 4.8.1.3 Existing Site Hazards ............................................................................ 4.8-32 4.8.1.4 Existing Site Contamination .................................................................. 4.8-32 4.8.1.5 Existing Site Spill Potential .................................................................... 4.8-36 4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.8-38 4.8.2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations .............................................................. 4.8-38 4.8.2.2 California Laws and Regulations ........................................................... 4.8-43 4.8.2.3 Local Laws and Regulations ................................................................. 4.8-50 4.8.2.4 Other Applicable Guidelines, National Codes, and Standards ............... 4.8-52 4.8.2.5 Regulatory Oversight ............................................................................ 4.8-53 4.8.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.8-53 4.8.4 Proposed Project Impacts .............................................................................. 4.8-56 4.8.4.1 Design Features .................................................................................... 4.8-56 4.8.4.2 CUP Requirements ............................................................................... 4.8-56 4.8.4.3 Characteristics of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Odorant ........................ 4.8-58 4.8.4.4 Release Scenarios at the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipeline Route 4.8-61 4.8.4.5 Frequency Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines ...... 4.8-67 4.8.4.6 Consequence Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines . 4.8-69 4.8.4.7 Risk Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines ................ 4.8-72 4.8.4.8 Proposed Project Impacts ..................................................................... 4.8-77 4.8.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Risks .................................... 4.8-87 4.8.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.8-87 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.8-88 4.8.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.8-89 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.1.1 Proposed Oil Project Site Topography and Drainage .............................. 4.9-1 4.9.1.2 Existing City Maintenance Yard Topography and Drainage..................... 4.9-1 4.9.1.3 Pipeline Route Topography and Drainage ............................................... 4.9-1 4.9.1.4 Surface Water and Hydrology ................................................................. 4.9-2 4.9.1.5 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 4.9-4 4.9.1.6 Water Quality .......................................................................................... 4.9-5 4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.9-5 4.9.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies ............................................................ 4.9-5 4.9.2.2 State Policies and Regulations ................................................................ 4.9-6 4.9.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations................................................................ 4.9-8 4.9.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.9-10 4.9.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.9-10 4.9.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4.9-10
4.9
Table of Contents
4.9.4.2 Proposed Project Design Features ........................................................ 4.9-11 4.9.4.3 Applicant Prepared Studies ................................................................... 4.9-11 4.9.4.4 Impacts ................................................................................................. 4.9-11 4.9.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts................................................ 4.9-19 4.9.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.9-19 4.9.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.9-20 4.10 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis .............................................. 4.10-1 4.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1.1 Land Use............................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1.2 Recreation............................................................................................. 4.10-5 4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10.2.1 Federal.................................................................................................. 4.10-6 4.10.2.2 State ..................................................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10.2.3 Local ..................................................................................................... 4.10-8 4.10.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................................... 4.10-12 4.10.4 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 4.10-12 4.10.4.1 Land Use............................................................................................. 4.10-12 4.10.4.2 Recreation........................................................................................... 4.10-21 4.10.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts.............................................. 4.10-22 4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.10-23 4.10.7 Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis......................................................... 4.10-23 4.10.7.1 Hermosa Beach General Plan ............................................................. 4.10-23 4.10.7.2 City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code .............................................. 4.10-34 4.10.7.3 City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan ......................................... 4.10-35 4.10.7.4 Coastal Act.......................................................................................... 4.10-38 4.10.7.5 Redondo Beach .................................................................................. 4.10-40 4.10.7.6 Torrance ............................................................................................. 4.10-41 4.10.8 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................................................................ 4.10-41 4.11 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................. 4.11-1 4.11.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.11-1 4.11.1.1 Characteristics of Noise ........................................................................ 4.11-1 4.11.1.2 Characteristics of Vibration ................................................................... 4.11-5 4.11.1.3 Project Area - Existing Noise and Vibration Environment ...................... 4.11-7 4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.11-17 4.11.2.1 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards ............................................ 4.11-17 4.11.2.2 City of Redondo Beach Noise Standards ............................................ 4.11-22 4.11.2.3 City of Torrance Noise Standards ....................................................... 4.11-25 4.11.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................................... 4.11-28 4.11.3.1 Oil Production Site .............................................................................. 4.11-29 4.11.3.2 Pipeline Construction and Trucking Routes ......................................... 4.11-29 4.11.3.3 Relocated City Yard ............................................................................ 4.11-30 4.11.3.4 Significance Criteria Rationale ............................................................ 4.11-30 4.11.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 4.11-32 4.11.4.1 Proposed Oil Project Noise Impacts & Mitigation................................. 4.11-32 4.11.4.2 Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................................................... 4.11-90 4.11.4.3 Vibration Impact Analysis .................................................................... 4.11-94 4.11.4.4 Relocation of the City Yard .................................................................. 4.11-95 4.11.4.5 Temporary City Maintenance Yard .................................................... 4.11-118 4.11.4.6 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options ............................ 4.11-126
vi
Table of Contents
4.11.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts............................................ 4.11-126 4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 4.11-126 4.11.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .......................................................................... 4.11-127 4.12 Public Services and Utilities ................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.12-3 4.12.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.12-4 4.12.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.12-5 4.12.5 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.12-6 4.13 Transportation and Traffic ...................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.1 Summary of Project-Specific Traffic Studies .................................................. 4.13-1 4.13.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.13.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.13-4 4.13.3.1 Roadway Network ................................................................................. 4.13-4 4.13.3.2 Existing Levels of Service ................................................................... 4.13-11 4.13.4 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.13-24 4.13.4.1 State ................................................................................................... 4.13-24 4.13.4.2 Regional/Local .................................................................................... 4.13-24 4.13.5 Significance Criteria ..................................................................................... 4.13-30 4.13.5.1 City of Hermosa Beach ....................................................................... 4.13-30 4.13.5.2 City of Redondo Beach ....................................................................... 4.13-30 4.13.5.3 City of Torrance................................................................................... 4.13-30 4.13.5.4 Caltrans and Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program 4.13-30 4.13.5.5 Roadway/Freeway Segments.............................................................. 4.13-31 4.13.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................... 4.13-31 4.13.6.1 Design Features, Operational Practices, & Conditions of Approval ..... 4.13-31 4.13.6.2 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................... 4.13-36 4.13.6.3 Project Parking .................................................................................... 4.13-40 4.13.6.4 Project Traffic Conditions Roadways ................................................... 4.13-40 4.13.6.5 Project Traffic Conditions Intersections ............................................... 4.13-40 4.13.6.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts .............................................................. 4.13-41 4.13.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project ..................................................... 4.13-49 4.13.8 Impacts of Other Issue Area Mitigation Measures ........................................ 4.13-52 4.13.9 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 4.13-52 4.13.10 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ......................................................................... 4.13-108 4.14 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.14-1 4.14.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.14-1 4.14.1.1 Sanitary Sewer Wastewater .................................................................. 4.14-1 4.14.1.2 Water Supply ........................................................................................ 4.14-1 4.14.1.3 Surface Runoff ...................................................................................... 4.14-2 4.14.1.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 4.14-3 4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.14-3 4.14.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies .......................................................... 4.14-3 4.14.2.2 State Policies and Regulations .............................................................. 4.14-4 4.14.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations.............................................................. 4.14-5 4.14.3 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.14-6 4.14.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.14-6 4.14.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4.14-6
Draft Environmental Impact Report vii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Table of Contents
4.14.4.2 Proposed Project Design Features ........................................................ 4.14-7 4.14.4.3 Impacts ................................................................................................. 4.14-8 4.14.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts.............................................. 4.14-16 4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 4.14-16 4.14.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................................................................ 4.14-17 4.15 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 4.15-1 4.15.1 Background.................................................................................................... 4.15-1 4.15.2 California State Lands Commission ............................................................... 4.15-2 4.15.3 Approach ....................................................................................................... 4.15-2 4.15.4 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.15-3 4.15.5 Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 4.15-4 4.15.6 Policy Impacts................................................................................................ 4.15-5 5.0 5.1 Alternatives Screening................................................................................................. 5-1 Description of Alternatives and Screening Analysis ................................................. 5-2 5.1.1 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................... 5-3 5.1.2 Alternative Drilling and Production Locations ...................................................... 5-4 5.1.2.1 Rosecrans Alternative Location .................................................................. 5-7 5.1.2.2 Exxon/Mobil Oil Torrance Refinery Alternative Location ............................. 5-9 5.1.2.3 AES Power Generating Station Alternative Location ................................ 5-11 5.1.2.4 Other Alternative Locations ...................................................................... 5-14 5.1.3 Alternative Facility Equipment or Production Arrangements .............................. 5-16 5.1.3.1 Reduced Equipment Alternative ............................................................... 5-16 5.1.3.2 Reduced Wells Alternative ....................................................................... 5-17 5.1.3.3 Reduced Timeframe Alternative ............................................................... 5-18 5.1.4 Alternative Transportation Arrangements .......................................................... 5-18 5.1.4.1 Use of Existing Pipelines .......................................................................... 5-19 5.1.4.2 Trucking of Crude Oil ............................................................................... 5-19 5.1.4.3 Greenbelt to the North Pipeline Route ...................................................... 5-20 5.1.4.4 Greenbelt to the South Pipeline Route ..................................................... 5-20 5.1.5 Alternative City Maintenance Yard Arrangements/Locations ............................. 5-21 5.1.5.1 Other Locations for the City Maintenance Yard Alternative ...................... 5-21 5.1.5.2 Alternative Locations for the Temporary Maintenance Yard ..................... 5-23 5.1.5.3 Split Location for the Maintenance Yard Alternative ................................. 5-23 5.1.5.4 Phase 1 Construction of Permanent Yard ................................................ 5-24 5.1.6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................. 5-24 5.1.6.1 No Project Alternative and Project Objectives .......................................... 5-24 5.1.6.2 AES Site Alternative and Project Objectives............................................. 5-25 5.1.6.3 Oil Development with Reduced Wells and Project Objectives .................. 5-25 5.1.6.4 Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe and Project Objectives .......... 5-25 5.1.6.5 Use of Existing Pipelines and Project Objectives...................................... 5-25 5.1.6.6 Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction and Project Objectives ................ 5-26 Impacts and Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Impacts of Alternatives ........................................................................................ 6-2 6.1.1 No Project Alternative ................................................................................ 6-2 6.1.2 AES Site Alternative ................................................................................... 6-3 6.1.3 Reduced Wells Alternative ....................................................................... 6-15 6.1.4 Existing Pipelines Alternative ................................................................... 6-23 6.1.5 Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction .......................................... 6-27
viii Draft Environmental Impact Report
6.0
Table of Contents
6.2
Proposed Project Options and Scenarios .......................................................... 6-30 6.2.1 Valve Box Options.................................................................................... 6-30 6.2.2 Pipeline Scenarios ................................................................................... 6-30 6.2.3 City Maintenance Yard No Added Parking/Parking Option ....................... 6-30 6.2.4 Phase 2 Unsuccessful Scenario ............................................................... 6-31 6.3 Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives ............................................ 6-32 6.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative Analysis ......................................... 6-32 No Project Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project ................................ 6-34 AES Site Alternative Compared to Proposed Project ........................................ 6-34 Reduced Wells Alternative Compared to Proposed Project............................... 6-37 Reduced Timeframe Alternative Compared to Proposed Project ...................... 6-38 Existing Pipelines Alternative Compared to Proposed Project........................... 6-38 Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Compared to Proposed Project.. 6-39 6.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................ 6-39
7.0
Other CEQA-Mandated Sections ................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects ............................................................. 7-1 7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts .................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth ........................................................ 7-2 7.2.2 Economic Growth ....................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.3 Precedent-Setting Action............................................................................ 7-3 7.2.4 Development of Open Space ..................................................................... 7-3 7.3 Known Areas of Controversy or Unresolved Issues ............................................ 7-3 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan ........................... 8-1 8.1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Monitoring Authority and Enforcement Responsibility ......................................... 8-1 8.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsibility .................................................................. 8-2 8.4 General Monitoring Procedures .......................................................................... 8-2 8.5 Mitigation Monitoring Table ................................................................................. 8-3 List of Preparers and Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation ..... 9-1
8.0
9.0
10.0 References .................................................................................................................. 10-1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................. 10-1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases .............................................................................. 10-1 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 10-4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 10-6 Energy and Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 10-8 Fire Protection and Emergency Response ................................................................... 10-9 Geological Resources/Soils .......................................................................................... 10-9 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards ............................................................................ 10-10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 10-13 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis ..................................................... 10-14 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................... 10-14 Public Services and Utilities ....................................................................................... 10-15 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................... 10-15 Water Resources........................................................................................................ 10-16 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................ 10-17
ix
Table of Contents
Appendices (on the CD)

Appendix A- Project Description Design Data Appendix B - Air Emission Calculations Appendix C - Risk Assessment Calculations Appendix D - Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix E - Noise Impact Analysis Appendix F Settlement Agreement and Other Entitlements Appendix G Cultural Resources Technical Study Appendix H Notice of Preparation, Scoping Document, Comments, and Responses Appendix I Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation Appendix K Public Notification List Appendix L 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632) Appendix M Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B Appendix N Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March 2, 2012. Appendix O Aesthetics - Visual Simulations. Appendix P Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan policies regulating oil and gas recovery.
Table of Contents
Tables
Table 1.1 Project Planning Information ................................................................................... 1-2 Table 2.1Proposed Project Schedule Summary ...................................................................... 2-4 Table 2.2Proposed Oil Project Design Parameters ............................................................... 2-11 Table 2.3Phase 1 Project Schedule ...................................................................................... 2-19 Table 2.4Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Summary .............................................................................. 2-21 Table 2.5Phase 2 Drilling Chemicals ..................................................................................... 2-32 Table 2.6Phase 2 Testing Chemicals .................................................................................... 2-37 Table 2.7Phase 2 Project Schedule ...................................................................................... 2-39 Table 2.8Phase 2 Vehicle Trip Summary .............................................................................. 2-39 Table 2.9Phase 3 and 4 Processing Equipment Listing......................................................... 2-45 Table 2.10Phase 3 Project Schedule .................................................................................... 2-57 Table 2.11Phase 3 Vehicle Trip Summary ............................................................................ 2-58 Table 2.12Phase 4 Drilling Chemicals ................................................................................... 2-68 Table 2.13Phase 4 Project Schedule .................................................................................... 2-69 Table 2.14Phase 4 Vehicle Trip Summary ............................................................................ 2-70 Table 2.15Proposed Oil Project Parking Requirements......................................................... 2-71 Table 2.15E&B Oil Development Project Permits/Approvals ................................................. 2-83 Table 2.16Relocation of City Maintenance Yard Project Permits/Approvals .......................... 2-85 Table 4.2-1Historical Meteorological Data ............................................................................ 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................. 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3SCAQMD Air Quality Data for Southwest Coastal LA County Sub-Region (Project Area) ..................................................................................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-4Global Warming Potential of Various Gases..................................................... 4.2-14 Table 4.2-5Electricity Generation Resource Mix and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............. 4.2-15 Table 4.2-6SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................. 4.2-32 Table 4.2-7Construction Criteria Emissions ....................................................................... 4.2-36 Table 4.2-8Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated ....................................................... 4.2-39 Table 4.2-9Operational Criteria Emissions ......................................................................... 4.2-44 Table 4.2-10Operational Criteria Emissions: Mitigated ....................................................... 4.2-46 Table 4.2-11Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter .......... 4.2-48 Table 4.2-12Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter: Mitigated .... ................................................................................................................... 4.2-49 Table 4.2-13GHG Emissions.............................................................................................. 4.2-58 Table 4.2-14Phase 4 Equipment Toxic Air Contaminants .................................................. 4.2-60 Table 4.2-15Health Risk Assessment Results: Unmitigated ............................................... 4.2-61 Table 4.2-16Health Risk Assessment Results: Mitigated ................................................... 4.2-62 Table 4.3-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area ............. 4.3-8 Table 4.4-1Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 4.4-24 Table 4.5-1California Energy Sources and Annual Consumption ......................................... 4.5-1 Table 4.5-2Energy Consumption in California by Sector and by Form ................................. 4.5-3 Table 4.6-1Fire Stations Available to Respond to an Emergency at the Project Site ............ 4.6-2
xi
Table of Contents
Table 4.6-2Applicable Codes, Standards, and Guidelines .................................................... 4.6-5 Table 4.6-3 Applicable IRI, CCPS, NFPA, and API Equipment Spacing Requirements ...... 4.6-11 Table 4.7-1General Stratigraphic Section for Hermosa Beach Oil field Area ........................ 4.7-3 Table 4.8-1Frequencies for Common Events ....................................................................... 4.8-8 Table 4.8-2Frequencies for Fatality Events ........................................................................ 4.8-11 Table 4.8-3DOT National Gas Transmission Pipelines Incident Causes ............................ 4.8-12 Table 4.8-4Thermal Radiation Serious Injury and Impacts ................................................. 4.8-22 Table 4.8-5Overpressure Damage ..................................................................................... 4.8-23 Table 4.8-6Toxicological Effects of H2S ............................................................................. 4.8-25 Table 4.8-7Fatality and Serious Injury Rates ...................................................................... 4.8-27 Table 4.8-8Event Tree Probabilities ................................................................................... 4.8-30 Table 4.8-9Regulatory Oversight Responsibilities .............................................................. 4.8-54 Table 4.8-10Facility Release Scenarios ............................................................................. 4.8-63 Table 4.8-11Blowout and Loss of Well Control Frequencies .............................................. 4.8-67 Table 4.8-12Scenario Failure Rates ................................................................................... 4.8-68 Table 4.8-13Population Information ................................................................................... 4.8-73 Table 4.8-14Potential Proposed Oil Project Pipeline Spill Volumes .................................... 4.8-83 Table 4.10-1Proposed Project General Land Use Plan Conflicts ..................................... 4.10-13 Table 4.10-2Proposed City Maintenance Yard General Land Use Plan Conflicts ............. 4.10-18 Table 4.11-1Common Environmental Noise Levels ............................................................ 4.11-2 Table 4.11-2Noise Control Metrics ..................................................................................... 4.11-5 Table 4.11-3Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration ...................................................... 4.11-6 Table 4.11-4Summary of Existing Ambient Leq Noise Levels Around the Project Site ....... 4.11-9 Table 4.11-5Summary of Existing Ambient L50 Noise Levels Around the Project Site ..... 4.11-10 Table 4.11-6Existing Ambient Noise Levels Around the Project Site - Additional Statistics .......... ................................................................................................................. 4.11-10 Table 4.11-7Comparison of Noise Monitoring Results from the Truck and Pipeline Routes ......... ................................................................................................................. 4.11-11 Table 4.11-8Truck and Pipeline Route Ambient Noise Measurement Summary* ............. 4.11-14 Table 4.11-9Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation Site ... ................................................................................................................. 4.11-16 Table 4.11-10Recalculated Daytime Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation Site ................................................................................................................. 4.11-16 Table 4.11-11Baseline Vibration Levels (2013) ................................................................ 4.11-17 Table 4.11-12Baseline Vibration Levels (2012) ................................................................ 4.11-17 Table 4.11-13Phase 1 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data.............. 4.11-34 Table 4.11-14Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact............................................. 4.11-36 Table 4.11-15Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact ......................................... 4.11-36 Table 4.11-16Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation ..... 4.11-42 Table 4.11-17Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation.. 4.11-42 Table 4.11-18Phase 2 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data.............. 4.11-48 Table 4.11-19Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact ..................... 4.11-52 Table 4.11-20Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code .......................... 4.11-52 Table 4.11-21Phase 2 - Predicted Test Production (Only) Noise Impact .......................... 4.11-53 Table 4.11-22Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact with Mitigation .......... ................................................................................................................. 4.11-56
xii
Table of Contents
Table 4.11-23Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) ............ ................................................................................................................. 4.11-57 Table 4.11-24Phase 3 Site Construction Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ................................................................................................................. 4.11-61 Table 4.11-25Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact .................................. 4.11-61 Table 4.11-26Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation....... ................................................................................................................. 4.11-64 Table 4.11-27Phase 3 Pipeline Construction Noise Models Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ................................................................................................................. 4.11-68 Table 4.11-28Phase 3 - Predicted Pipeline Construction Noise Impact ............................ 4.11-76 Table 4.11-29Phase 4 Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ............... 4.11-78 Table 4.11-30Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact ............................. 4.11-79 Table 4.11-31Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code .......................... 4.11-79 Table 4.11-32Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact with Mitigation ...... 4.11-85 Table 4.11-33Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) 4.11-85 Table 4.11-34Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact................................... 4.11-86 Table 4.11-35Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact with mitigation ........... 4.11-89 Table 4.11-36Calculated Traffic CNEL Noise Level Increases on Valley Drive ................ 4.11-93 Table 4.11-37Demolition & Construction Equipment Ground Vibration Levels ................. 4.11-94 Table 4.11-38City Maintenance Yard Relocation Demolition & Construction Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ....................................................................................................... 4.11-97 Table 4.11-39Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact .........................4.11-102 Table 4.11-40Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact ......................4.11-103 Table 4.11-41Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Mitigation ..4.11-105 Table 4.11-42Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact With Additional Noise Mitigation ................................................................................................................4.11-110 Table 4.11-43Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact........................4.11-111 Table 4.11-44Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation ............. ................................................................................................................4.11-112 Table 4.11-45Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact ......................4.11-119 Table 4.11-46Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation ............ ................................................................................................................4.11-120 Table 4.14-1Level of Service Definitions Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ........ 4.14-11 Table 4.14-3Level of Service Descriptions ....................................................................... 4.14-13 Table 4.14-4Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) .... ................................................................................................................. 4.14-15 Table 4.14-5Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersection) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-18 Table 4.14-6Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary ................. 4.14-20 Table 4.14-7Proposed Oil Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................................... 4.14-38 Table 4.13-8City Maintenance Yard Relocation with Proposed Oil Project Intersection LOS Comparison ................................................................................................................. 4.14-49 Table 4.13-9Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU - Signalized Intersections) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-63 Table 4.13-10Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections .............................................................................................. 4.14-67 Table 4.13-11Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-69 Table 4.13-12Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections .............................................................................................. 4.14-73
xiii
Table of Contents
Table 4.13-13Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-75 Table 4.13-14Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) .................................................................................................... 4.14-79 Table 4.13-15Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersection) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-81 Table 4.13-16Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) ............................................................................................. 4.14-85 Table 4.13-17Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) .................................................................................................. 4.14-87 Table 4.13-18Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) ............................................................................... 4.14-91 Table 4.13-19Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis ......................................................... 4.14-93 Table 4.13-20Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis ......................................................... 4.14-98 Table 4.13-21Phase 3 Roadway Segment Analysis ........................................................4.14-103 Table 4.13-22Phase 4 Roadway Segment Analysis ........................................................4.14-108 Table 4.13-23Operations Roadway Segment Analysis....................................................4.14-113 Table 5.1Summary Results of the Alternatives Screening Analysis ......................................... 5-3 Table 6.1 Proposed Project Options - Impact Comparison .............................................. 6-31 Table 6.2 Proposed Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary ........................ 6-34 Table 6.3 Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only 6-36 Table 6.4 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only .................................................................................................... 6-37 Table 8-1 Table 8-2 Table 8-3 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 Table 8-6 Table 8-7 Table 8-8 Table 8-9 Table 8-10 Table 8-11 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ....................................................................... 8-4 Air Quality and GHGs...................................................................................... 8-10 Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 8-16 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 8-18 Fire Protection and Emergency Response ....................................................... 8-21 Geological Resources/Soils ............................................................................. 8-24 Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards .................................................................. 8-29 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 8-31 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 8-33 Transportation and Circulation ......................................................................... 8-39 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 8-41
xiv
Table of Contents
List of Figures Figure 2.1Proposed Project Location ...................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.2Historical Wells Drilled in the Los Angeles Basin ..................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.3Existing Site Conditions........................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2.4Project Site and Area Land Uses (Zoning Map) ...................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.5Project Site and Pipeline/Electrical Connections ................................................... 2-12 Figure 2.6Proposed Oil Project Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan ............................................. 2-15 Figure 2.7Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas ........................................................................ 2-24 Figure 2.8Applicant Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas Cross Section .................................. 2-26 Figure 2.9Proposed Conceptual Site Plan - Project Phase 2................................................. 2-27 Figure 2.10Typical Well Bore and Casing ............................................................................. 2-30 Figure 2.12Phase 2 Process Flow Diagram .......................................................................... 2-34 Figure 2.12Truck Routes from Highway 405 to Project Site .................................................. 2-35 Figure 2.13Truck Routes to Highway 405 from the Project Site ............................................ 2-35 Figure 2.14Phase 3 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................. 2-43 Figure 2.15Proposed Pipeline Routes ................................................................................... 2-49 Figure 2.16Typical Pipeline Construction Spread .................................................................. 2-52 Figure 2.18Phase 4 Process Flow Diagram .......................................................................... 2-60 Figure 2.17Phase 4 Site Plan with Drilling Rig ...................................................................... 2-63 Figure 2-18Cypress Parking Area ........................................................................................ 2-74 Figure 2.19Estimated Production Levels ............................................................................... 2-75 Figure 2.20City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Temporary Location ........................ 2-78 Figure 2.21City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility Parking Option .. 2-79 Figure 2.22City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility No Added Parking Option ...................................................................................................................... 2-80 Figure 4.1-1Viewshed Analysis- Electric Drill Rig (Areas where the Drill Rig Can Be Seen) 4.1-30 Figure 4.1-2Viewshed Analysis- Workover Rig (Areas where the Rig Can Be Seen) ......... 4.1-31 Figure 4.1-3View Location Map .......................................................................................... 4.1-37 Figure 4.1-4aKOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ...... ................................................................................................................... 4.1-38 Figure 4.1-4bKOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option . ................................................................................................................... 4.1-39 Figure 4.1-5aKOP 2: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ........ ................................................................................................................... 4.1-40 Figure 4.1-5bKOP 2: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option .. ................................................................................................................... 4.1-41 Figure 4.1-6aKOP 3: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ........ ................................................................................................................... 4.1-42 Figure 4.1-6bKOP 3: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option .. ................................................................................................................... 4.1-43 Figure 4.1-7aKOP 4: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ........ ................................................................................................................... 4.1-44 Figure 4.1-7bKOP 4: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option .. ................................................................................................................... 4.1-45 Figure 4.1-8aKOP 5: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ........ ................................................................................................................... 4.1-46 Figure 4.1-8bKOP 5: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option .. ................................................................................................................... 4.1-47
xv
Table of Contents
Figure 4.1-9KOP 6: During Phase 2 and Phase 4 with Drill Rig ......................................... 4.1-48 Figure 4.1-10KOP 7: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig .................................................. 4.1-49 Figure 4.1-11KOP 10: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig ................................................ 4.1-50 Figure 4.1-12KOP 10: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34 ........... 4.1-51 Figure 4.1-13KOP 11: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................... 4.1-52 Figure 4.1-14KOP 11: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34 ........... 4.1-53 Figure 4.1-15KOP 11: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-54 Figure 4.1-16KOP 12: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................... 4.1-55 Figure 4.1-17KOP 12: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 2 ............. 4.1-56 Figure 4.1-18KOP 13: Completion of Phase 1 Improvements ............................................ 4.1-57 Figure 4.1-19KOP 13: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................... 4.1-58 Figure 4.1-20KOP 13: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 2 ............ 4.1-59 Figure 4.1-21KOP 13: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-60 Figure 4.1-22aKOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1.......................................... 4.1-61 Figure 4.1-22bKOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1 WIDE ANGLE................... 4.1-62 Figure 4.1-23aKOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 .......................................... 4.1-63 Figure 4.1-23bKOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE ................... 4.1-64 Figure 4.1-24aKOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 ............ 4.1-65 Figure 4.1-24b .... KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE ................................................................................................................... 4.1-66 Figure 4.1-25KOP 14: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-67 Figure 4.1-26KOP 15: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4............................................ 4.1-68 Figure 4.1-27KOP 15: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17 ......................................... 4.1-69 Figure 4.1-28KOP 15: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 17 ............ 4.1-70 Figure 4.1-29KOP 15: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-71 Figure 4.1-30KOP 17: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17 .......................................... 4.1-72 Figure 4.1-31KOP 17: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 17 ............ 4.1-73 Figure 4.1-32KOP 17: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-74 Figure 4.1-33KOP 18: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4............................................ 4.1-75 Figure 4.1-34KOP 18: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 18 .......................................... 4.1-76 Figure 4.1-35KOP 18: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 18 ............ 4.1-77 Figure 4.1-36KOP 18: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-78 Figure 4.1-37KOP 19: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 2 (rig not visible) .................... 4.1-79 Figure 4.1-38aKOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 ........................................ 4.1-80 Figure 4.1-38bKOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 WIDE ANGLE ................. 4.1-81 Figure 4.1-39KOP 19: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 34 ............ 4.1-82 Figure 4.1-39KOP 19: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 34: WIDE ANGLE ................................................................................................................... 4.1-83 Figure 4.1-41aKOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................. 4.1-85 Figure 4.1-41bKOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig: WIDE ANGLE ......................... 4.1-86 Figure 4.1-42aKOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2 ............ 4.1-87 Figure 4.1-42bKOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2: WIDE ANGLE ................................................................................................................... 4.1-88 Figure 4.1-43KOP 20: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations .............................................. 4.1-89 Figure 4.2-1Wind Rose for King Harbor Meteorological Station ........................................... 4.2-3 Figure 4.2-2PM2.5 Annual Compliance Status - 2011 .......................................................... 4.2-10 Figure 4.2-3Ozone Annual Compliance Status - 2011........................................................ 4.2-11 Figure 4.2-4California GHG Emissions 2000-2011............................................................. 4.2-17 Figure 4.2-5Acute Impacts Health Index ............................................................................ 4.2-63 Figure 4.2-6Chronic Impacts Health Impacts ..................................................................... 4.2-64
xvi
Table of Contents
Figure 4.2-7Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Unmitigated ................................................... 4.2-65 Figure 4.2-8Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Mitigated ....................................................... 4.2-66 Figure 4.7-1Regional Fault Map ........................................................................................... 4.7-2 Figure 4.7-2Liquefaction and Landslides Map ...................................................................... 4.7-8 Figure 4.8-1Steps Involved in Developing a Quantitative Risk Assessment ......................... 4.8-5 Figure 4.8-2Existing Maintenance Facility Risk Profiles: Fatalities and Injuries .................. 4.8-34 Figure 4.8-3Storm Drain System in the Facility Vicinity ...................................................... 4.8-37 Figure 4.8-4Storm Drain System Pictures .......................................................................... 4.8-38 Figure 4.8-5Consequence Analysis Results: Fatality and Serious Injury ............................ 4.8-70 Figure 4.8-6Areas That Could Be Potentially Exposed ....................................................... 4.8-71 Figure 4.8-7Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Gas Pipeline: Fatalities ....................... 4.8-75 Figure 4.8-8Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Pipeline: Injuries.................................. 4.8-76 Figure 4.8-9Pipeline Profile ................................................................................................ 4.8-82 Figure 4.9-1Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Proposed Project Area..................... 4.9-3 Figure 4.9-2Location of Barrier Injection Wells in the Proposed Project Area ....................... 4.9-4 Figure 4.10-1Proposed Project Location ............................................................................ 4.10-4 Figure 4.10-2Project Site and Area Land Uses ................................................................ 4.10-11 Figure 4.11-1Noise Monitoring Locations around the Project Site ...................................... 4.11-8 Figure 4.11-2Typical Noise Monitor Installation .................................................................. 4.11-9 Figure 4.11-4Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study) 4.11-12 Figure 4.11-5Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study) 4.11-12 Figure 4.11-6Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study) 4.11-13 Figure 4.11-7Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study) 4.11-13 Figure 4.11-8Noise Monitoring Locations around the City Yard Relocation Site ............... 4.11-15 Figure 4.11-9Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ................................................................................................................. 4.11-37 Figure 4.11-10Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ..................................................................................................... 4.11-38 Figure 4.11-11Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................... 4.11-39 Figure 4.11-12Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................... 4.11-40 Figure 4.11-13Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ............................................................................. 4.11-42 Figure 4.11-14Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ............................................................................. 4.11-43 Figure 4.11-15Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ........................................................................... 4.11-44 Figure 4.11-16Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ........................................................................... 4.11-45 Figure 4.11-17Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ..................................................................................................... 4.11-49 Figure 4.11-18Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................... 4.11-50 Figure 4.11-19Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ..................................................................................................... 4.11-53
xvii
Table of Contents
Figure 4.11-20Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................... 4.11-54 Figure 4.11-21Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ............................................................................. 4.11-57 Figure 4.11-22Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ........................................................................... 4.11-58 Figure 4.11-23Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ................................................................................................................. 4.11-61 Figure 4.11-24Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................................. 4.11-62 Figure 4.11-25Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .................................................................................................. 4.11-66 Figure 4.11-26Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................ 4.11-67 Figure 4.11-27Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet.................................................................................. 4.11-70 Figure 4.11-28Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet................................................................................ 4.11-70 Figure 4.11-29Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ............................................................... 4.11-71 Figure 4.11-30Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet ............................................................. 4.11-71 Figure 4.11-31Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................................ 4.11-72 Figure 4.11-32Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................. 4.11-72 Figure 4.11-33Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................ 4.11-73 Figure 4.11-34Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................................... 4.11-73 Figure 4.11-35Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ............................................................... 4.11-74 Figure 4.11-36Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................................ 4.11-74 Figure 4.11-37Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Torrance Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet .................................................................... 4.11-75 Figure 4.11-38Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .................................................................................................. 4.11-80 Figure 4.11-39Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................ 4.11-81 Figure 4.11-40Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ...................................................................... 4.11-83 Figure 4.11-41Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft .................................................................... 4.11-84 Figure 4.11-42Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ................................................................................................................. 4.11-87 Figure 4.11-43Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ................................................................................................................. 4.11-88 Figure 4.11-44Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ............................................................................................. 4.11-91
xviii
Table of Contents
Figure 4.11-45Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ........................................................................................... 4.11-92 Figure 4.11-46Relocated City Maintenance Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON for a Receiver Height of 5-feet............................................................................................... 4.11-99 Figure 4.11-47Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................................................................4.11-100 Figure 4.11-48Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON for a Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................................................................4.11-101 Figure 4.11-49Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ..............................................................................................4.11-102 Figure 4.11-50Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet..............................................................................................4.11-107 Figure 4.11-51Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................................4.11-108 Figure 4.11-52Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet............................................................................................4.11-109 Figure 4.11-53Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ......................................................................4.11-110 Figure 4.11-54Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS For a Receiver Height of 5-feet ...............................................................................................................4.11-114 Figure 4.11-55Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................................................................4.11-115 Figure 4.11-56 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................................................4.11-116 Figure 4.11-57Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ......................................................................................4.11-117 Figure 4.11-58Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ...............................................................................................................4.11-122 Figure 4.11-59Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................................................................4.11-123 Figure 4.11-60Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................................................4.11-124 Figure 4.11-61Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ......................................................................................4.11-125 Figure 4.13-1Traffic Study Intersections Locations............................................................. 4.13-5 Figure 4.13-2Location of Roadway Segments Studied ....................................................... 4.13-6 Figure 4.13-3Existing and Proposed Bike Paths in Hermosa Beach ................................ 4.13-10 Figure 4.13-4Safe Routes to School ................................................................................ 4.13-12 Figure 4.13-5Alternative Heavy Truck Traffic Routes ....................................................... 4.13-48 Figure 5-1Percent of Crude Recovery and Alternative Locations ............................................ 5-6 Figure 5-2Rosecrans Alternative Location Detail..................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3Exxon/Mobil Refinery Alternative Location Detail .................................................. 5-10 Figure 5-4AES Site Location Detail ....................................................................................... 5-13 Figure 6-1Simulated View of Drilling Rig at AES Site .............................................................. 6-5
xix
Table of Contents
Acronyms F AB ANSI APEHA API AQMP bbl BOP BOP bpd CAL FIRE Cal/EPA Cal-ARP CalISO CARB CCAA CCPS CDFG CDMG CEC CEQA CESA CFR CFR CGS CNDDB CNPS CO CPUC CRR CSFM CSR CUP D/C dBA DOGGR DPM DPR eGRID EIR EPA degrees Fahrenheit Assembly Bill American National Standards Institute Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazards Act American Petroleum Institute Air Quality Management Plans barrels blow out prevention blowout prevention barrels per day California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention California Environmental Protection Agency California Accidental Release Program California Independent System Operator California Air Resources Board California Clean Air Act Center for Chemical Process Safety California Department of Fish and Game California Division of Mines and Geology California Energy Commission California Environmental Quality Act California Endangered Species Act Code of Federal Regulations Code of Federal Regulations California Geological Survey California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database California Native Plant Society carbon monoxide California Public Utilities Commission Cyclic Resistance Ratio California State Fire Marshal Cyclic Stress Ratio conditional use permit demand to capacity ratio A-weighted decibel Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources diesel particulate matter Department of Parks and Recreation Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database Environmental Impact Report Environmental Protection Agency
xx
Table of Contents
Acronyms ERME fc FERC FESA FMZ Fs ft3 g/cc GHG GIS gpm h2s HARP HCM HHMD HRA ICU IRI ITE km kV kW LACoFD LACSD Ldn Leq LNG LOS LPG LTs m/s m3 MATES MBTA mmscfd MMTCE mph MRZ N2O NAAQS NFPA No. NO2 NOx NPDES O3 OCR OEHHA Environmental Resource Management Element footcandles Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Endangered Species Act fuel modification zone factor of safety cubic feet grams per cubic centimeter greenhouse gas geographical information system gallons per minutes hydrogen sulfide Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Highway Capacity Manual Health Hazardous Materials Division health risk assessment Intersection Capacity Utilization Industrial Risk Insurers Institute of Traffic Engineers kilometers kilovolt kilowatt County of Los Angeles Fire Department Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County day-night noise level equivalent sound level natural gas liquids level of service liquefied petroleum gases low temperature separation meters per second cubic meters Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study Migratory Bird Treaty Act million standard cubic feet per day million metric tons of carbon equivalent miles per hour Mineral Resources Zone nitrous oxide national ambient air quality standards National Fire Protection Association number nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program ozone overconsolidation ratio Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
xxi
Table of Contents
Acronyms OS PCE PM10 PM2.5 ppm PRC psia psig QRA RMP RWQCB SCAQMD SCCIC SCE SCGC SIP SO2 SRA SWRCB TNT UFC URBEMIS USACE USFWS V/C VOC vpd vph yd3 g/m3 open space Passenger Car Equivalent particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter parts per million Public Resources Code pounds per square inch, absolute pounds per square inch, gauge Quantitative Risk Analysis Resource Management Plan Regional Water Quality Control Board South Coast Air Quality Management District South Central Coastal Information Center Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company State Implementation Plan sulfur dioxide source receptor area State Water Resources Control Board Trinitrotoluene Uniform Fire Code Urban Emissions Software US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Vehicles to capacity ratio volatile organic compounds Vehicles per day Vehicles per hour cubic yards micrograms per cubic meter
xxii
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines to assess potential significant environmental impacts of a Proposed Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach is the public agency with principal responsibility for review of the Proposed Project and is therefore the lead agency for preparation of the DEIR. The decision to approve or deny E&Bs Project and the Amendments associated with Oil Development will be made by the voters in Hermosa Beach, in accordance with a Settlement Agreement entered into by the City, the Applicant and Macpherson Oil Company. Decisions on relocation and design of the City Maintenance Yard will not be part of the ballot measure and will be considered by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Council, as necessary.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Wilmington-Torrance Oil Field was discovered in the Los Angeles Basin at the turn of the century. In 1919, the State of California granted to the City of Hermosa Beach, in trust, the tidelands within the Torrance Oil Field. Oil drilling increased in the Los Angeles Basin into the 1930s. The resulting issues related to the oil drilling practices of that time period caused the voters in several cities to pass ordinances banning oil drilling. In the City of Hermosa Beach, where many oil wells had been drilled (including Stinnett Oil Well No. 1 at the City Maintenance Yard), a citywide oil and gas drilling prohibition was passed in 1932. In 1984, Ballot Measures P and Q were passed by the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach, granting exceptions to the drilling ban that authorized oil development on two City-owned parcels, the City Maintenance Yard and the South School site. Subsequently in 1985, the City adopted the Oil Code within the Citys Zoning Ordinance (a component of the Citys Municipal Code) that established terms and conditions governing oil drilling and development in the City, including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for oil and gas production on the City-owned parcels. In 1986, the City selected the Macpherson Oil Company (Macpherson) to develop an oil production facility to recover oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons from the City Maintenance Yard. Also in 1986, Macpherson and the City entered into a lease that provided Macpherson with the right to conduct oil and gas operations within the City. The original 1986 Lease was amended many times, with a 1992 amended Lease between Macpherson and the City setting forth the agreement under which the development of the project was slated to proceed (Oil and Gas Lease No. 2). Under the provisions of the Lease, the City applied to the California State Lands Commission to allow drilling for oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons in the tidelands area and for approval of the Lease which occurred in 1993. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Macpherson project that was certified on May 9, 1990 along with the Citys Statement of Overriding Considerations. On that same date, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to make oil drilling a
ES-1
Executive Summary
permitted use with a CUP in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone and to allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit requirement in the M-1 zone for a temporary period during drilling operations. In 1995, Hermosa Beach voters approved Proposition E, which restored the ban on oil drilling in the City. The applicability of Proposition E to Macphersons project was subsequently challenged in court and in 1998, the City Council voted to stop the oil project based on safety concerns. E&Bs proposed Oil Development Project is the result of a 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City, E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (Applicant), and Macpherson Oil Company (for itself and Windward Associates) (Macpherson) to resolve a lawsuit by Macpherson Oil Company against the City regarding oil drilling at the site of the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Macpherson was seeking in excess of $750 million in damages against the City for breach of its lease. The Settlement Agreement provided for the dismissal of the lawsuit, limited the Citys potential liability, and provided the Applicant (Macpherson sold its interests to E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation) with the potential opportunity to proceed with the oil drilling project conducted from an urban drill site.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B), the Applicant, is proposing the E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project (Proposed Oil Project) on a 1.3 acre site located in the City of Hermosa Beach (City). The site for the Proposed Oil Project (Project Site), as shown in Figure ES.1, would be located at 555 6th Street, bounded on the east by Valley Drive and on the south by 6th Street, approximately seven blocks east of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. Oil and gas pipelines constructed and used by the Project would extend from the Project Site to area refineries. The Project Site is owned by the City and is currently used as the City (Public Works) Maintenance Yard. The Applicant has leased the Project Site from the City for the implementation of the Proposed Oil Project. The Proposed Project is composed of two parts: 1) the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard (Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project); and 2) the development of an oil and gas facility on the current City Maintenance Yard site. In order to clear the current City Maintenance Yard site for the construction of the proposed oil and gas facility, the City Maintenance Yard would be temporarily relocated. If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would be economically viable, construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be completed.
Proposed Oil Project
The Applicant proposes the development of an onshore drilling and production facility site that would utilize directional drilling of 34 wells (30 oil, 4 for water injection) to access the oil and gas reserves in the tidelands (pursuant to a lease granted by the State of California to the City)
ES-2
Ex ecutive Summary xe
Figure ES S.1
Propo osed Project Location
HermosaBeach
Source: Project P Applica ation, Amendments and Appendices
Draft Environmental Im mpact Report
ES-3
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project P
Executive Summary
and in an onshore area known as the uplands. Both of these areas are located within the Torrance Oil Field within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, the Proposed Project would result in the installation of offsite underground pipelines for the transportation of the processed crude oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers, extending through the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. The Applicant proposes a laydown site for heavy equipment and supply staging/storage within the industrial building at 601 Cypress Avenue during the construction phases. The Applicant also proposes to construct a parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue for use by some of its construction employees/contractors on weekdays and by the public at other times. The Proposed Oil Project would occur in the following four phases: Phase 1: Site Preparation, including relocation of the City Maintenance Yard to the temporary facility; Phase 2: Drilling 4 test wells and Testing; Phase 3: Final Design and Construction of both the oil and gas facility and the permanent City Maintenance Yard; and Phase 4: Development and Operations, including drilling of the remaining wells.
The Applicant proposes a facility designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil and 2.5 million standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of produced gas at completion of the drilling stage of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4. Prior to the initiation of each phase of the Proposed Oil Project, it would be required that plans be submitted by the Applicant to the City and other permitting authorities for review and approval. These would include coastal development permits, oil and gas well permits, demolition plans, grading plans, utility and electrical plans, cement/foundation plans, landscaping plans, street and ROW improvement/modification plans, and construction plans, amongst others.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
The City Maintenance Yard is proposed to be relocated to a temporary facility to be established on the rear (westerly) portion of the City Hall site (1315 Valley Drive) prior to and during the initial phase of the Proposed Oil Project so that the maintenance operations could continue when the existing City Maintenance Yard is demolished as part of Proposed Oil Project activities. The construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be undertaken on the site now occupied by Hermosa Self-Storage (552 11th Place) after the Applicant completes the exploration phase of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 2. The permanent City Maintenance Yard and the oil and gas facility on the Project Site would be constructed at the same time. The permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options: a Parking Option, which would add a net 97 parking spaces with a below grade parking garage, and a No Added Parking Option, which would neither add nor subtract from the amount of parking that is currently available.
ES-4
Executive Summary
Timeframe
It is estimated that it will take approximately 3.25 years from the commencement of the Proposed Project until the commencement of Phase 4, when the permanent oil and gas facility would be operational. Phase 1 would occur for approximately six months. Prior to Phase 1 activities, the temporary City Maintenance Yard would be installed. Phase 2 would occur for approximately 12 months. The drill rig would operate continuously for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for each well has been reached. It is estimated it would take 120 days for drilling activities, 24 hours a day, which is approximately 30 days per well for four wells. If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would be economically viable, the Applicant would begin Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project and Phase 3 would occur for a period of approximately 14 months. Phase 4 would occur for a period of approximately 30 to 35 years, the first 30 months of which would include the drilling of the remaining wells. A 35-year period allowing for drilling into the tidelands and production is provided for under the existing Lease (Oil and Gas Lease No. 2). Table ES.1 shows the overall project timeline.
Table ES.1 Phase Proposed Project Schedule Summary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Temporary City Yard Oil Project Phase 1 Oil Project Drill Phase 2 Test Permanent City Yard Oil Project Phase 3* Oil Project Drill Continuously for 30+ years Phase 4* Operate Note: * If the Test phase is determined to be successful, Phases 3 and 4 would occur. For construction only. Does not include permitting timeframe.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the description of the Proposed Project is to contain a clearly written statement of objectives that would aid the lead agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid decision makers in preparing findings and, if necessary, a statement of overriding considerations. The City is the lead agency which is preparing the EIR, and in this case the decision makers are the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach
ES-5
Executive Summary
As part of the Project Application, the Applicant provided its stated objectives for the Proposed Oil Project, which consist of the following: Develop the Proposed Oil Project consistent with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, with the utilization of directional drilling techniques from the Project Site, which is the current City Maintenance Yard; Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the Citys jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to the City; Provide an oil and gas development project on the Project Site that utilizes the latest technology and operational advancements related to safety and production efficiency in order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet the applicable environmental requirements; Conduct construction and drilling activities on the Project Site incorporating technological advancements, operational practices, and design features related to air quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potential impacts on the adjacent community and the environment; Provide landscaping, hardscape, signage, lighting, and other design features to minimize the visual effects of the Proposed Oil Project on the adjacent community; and Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safe vehicular ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project.
Pursuant to the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach, E&B, and Macpherson Oil Co., the Citys primary objective is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and place on the ballot a measure allowing the City of Hermosa Beach electorate to decide whether or not to approve the Applicants Proposed Oil Project and a Development Agreement to vest the Project so that, if approved, the Project cannot later be invalidated by a vote of the people. In the event that voters approve the Proposed Oil Project, the City would need to relocate the City Maintenance Yard. Under those conditions, the City's objectives for relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be to: Provide City Maintenance Yard facilities that support provision of high-quality City services in an integrated and cost-efficient manner; Consolidate City facilities and functions for maximum efficiency and flexibility; Minimize disruption of City functions during relocation of the City Maintenance Yard; Ensure the relocated City Maintenance Yard is compatible with surrounding uses; and Ensure there is no net loss of public and employee parking spaces as a result of both the Proposed Oil Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission.
ES-6
Executive Summary
PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The Proposed Project would generate potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in the following areas: Aesthetics Air Quality Biology Hydrology Land Use Noise Recreation Safety and Risk of Upset
Each of these is briefly summarized below and is shown in Table ES.2.

Table ES.2 Proposed Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary Significant Unavoidable Impact?
Construction, Drilling Re-drilling Operations
Impact
views of the drilling/workover rig Yes No* night lighting of the rig Yes No Air Quality: odors Yes Yes Biology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes No No Cultural No No Energy No No Environmental Justice No No Fire Protection and Emergency Response No No Geology Hydrology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes Land use: incompatibility to adjacent uses Yes Yes noise impacts during drilling Yes No Noise: noise impacts during construction Yes No No No Public Services Recreation: oil spill impacts on recreational areas Yes Yes Safety and Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Yes No No No Transportation Number of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 10 5 Notes: a Yes with shading = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts classified as less than significant or less than significant with mitigation are discussed within the main EIR document. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics. Aesthetics:
ES-7
Executive Summary
Aesthetics
An 87-foot electric drill rig with three-sided acoustical shield would be installed at the Project Site at the beginning of Phase 2. The rig would introduce, primarily into the foreground and middleground environments, a visually dominant vertical feature which is distinct in form, mass, height, material and character from structures in the viewshed of locations which are considered to have high sensitivity. The effects of light, shade and shadow would produce contrasting geometric vertical planes and would project into a typically uniform (or otherwise naturally varied) sky backdrop. Night views of the open (illuminated) side of the drill rig, with the pattern and scale of this illuminated feature, would be out of character with existing nighttime views. Similar to day time impacts, this vertical feature would project above the horizontal plane of the existing illuminated environment and would become a focal element. The duration of exposure, number of sensitive viewers, and nature of the visual change would result in impacts that would be significant. During periods of Phase 4, the 110-foot workover rig could be present on site for up to 90 days per year. The open truss structure of the workover drill rig introduces a focal element of industrial character into viewsheds of primarily residential and light industrial character. The workover rig would not operate at night (after 6 pm). Mitigation measures include the selection of materials and lighting to minimize glare and reflectivity and the installation of a permanent 32-foot wall. Some of the impacts would be mitigable, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts when the drill rig or workover rig are not present would be less than significant with mitigation.
Air Quality
Due to the close proximity of the site to neighbors, businesses and the public (within 100 feet of businesses, 160 feet of residences, 55 feet of the Greenbelt and 20 feet of the public sidewalks), numerous scenarios could cause odors offsite. These could include various maintenance activities, small spills and leaks from valves or other process components. Because odor thresholds for certain compounds found in the oil and gas industry are very low, in the parts per billion range, release of these compounds can cause odor impacts at considerable distances. Therefore, due to the close proximity of neighbors, odor impacts associated with accidental releases, such as tank pressure relief device releases or minor releases from the oil or gas equipment, could impact surrounding areas and would be a significant impact. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce the frequency of odor events include the implementation of systems that direct odor-causing releases to flare-type systems, the implementation of systems to notify operators when releases could or do occur, and the use of odor masking materials. Increased vigilance associated with SCAQMD Rule 1173 (related to controlling "leaker" components) can also reduce emissions from fugitive components, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
ES-8
Executive Summary
Impacts related to construction and operational emissions, health risk and GHG would be less than significant with mitigation.
Biology
Spills and ruptures from the installed pipelines could result due to geologic hazards, mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error during operations. A spill of crude oil could spread through storm drains to the beach and potentially to the numerous sensitive habitats and species present in the Pacific Ocean. Spills and cleanup activities would potentially result in impacts to biological resources. Direct impacts on wildlife from oil spills include physical contact with the oil, ingestion of oil, and loss of food and critical nesting and foraging habitats. Implementing the proposed mitigation measures, including developing emergency response plans with specific criteria, implementing infrastructure preventative maintenance, and conducting structural integrity tests and routine inspections, would reduce the likelihood and severity of potential spill and exposure impacts to sensitive biological resources, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The fully enclosed drain systems proposed by the Applicant would retain any spills at the Project Site on-site, therefore, potential spills at the Project site would not produce a significant impact.
Hydrology
As described under Biology, a release from the pipeline between the Project Site and Prospect Avenue, near the corner of Herondo Street and Valley Drive, could produce a spill of 4,800 gallons that could drain directly into subsurface soils and/or to the ocean through storm drains. Mitigation measures, in addition to those listed for Biology, include spill training, the required spill control equipment, the installation of a check valve into the crude oil pipeline at Herondo Street and the installation of an oil separator in storm drain systems of Herondo Street. These mitigation measures would reduce the frequency or severity of a spill reaching the ocean, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
The drilling, construction, and potential future operations would be in close proximity to land uses zoned as open space and residential. Proposed Oil Project activities during all phases may generate significant noise, odor and visual impacts that would be incompatible with these adjacent land uses. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these impacts in the respective issue areas, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
The predicted noise impact of demolition and construction activities in Phase 1 and 3 of the Proposed Oil Project is significant at many of the neighboring sensitive uses. The most significant impacts occur during the construction phase, when Project-related noise is expected
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Executive Summary
to result in an increase in daytime noise levels of as much as 12.7 dBA over existing noise levels at the homes to the northwest and west of the Project Site. Predicted noise impacts during the Phase 2 and Phase 4 drilling stages are significant along the entire perimeter of the Project Site and in many cases also exceed the 45 dBA limit imposed by the Hermosa Beach Oil Code. Mitigation measures include increasing the height of walls (where allowable by code) and adding additional noise protection, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise levels when drilling is not occurring during Phase 2 and 4 would be less than significant. Noise levels during the construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard, both the temporary and permanent sites, would also exceed the noise thresholds. Noise mitigation includes the use of noise barriers, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise levels during the operations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be less than significant with mitigation.
Recreation
During a rain event, a potential oil spill from the oil pipeline along Valley Drive or at the intersection of Valley Drive and Herondo Street could drain directly into storm drains and flow to the ocean. Even without rains, the capacity of the storm drains is such that a spill could still reach the ocean, depending on the arrangement of sand at the mouth of the ocean discharge. A spill along the coastline could affect beach areas, leading to beach closures and boating restrictions in contaminated areas during and potentially after cleanup. Public perception of the recreational quality of the Citys beaches could also be affected, causing a reduction in beach recreational activities for a substantial period of time. Mitigation measures previously discussed under Hydrology and Biology would further reduce the frequency and severity of a spill reaching the ocean, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Safety and Risk of Upset
The potential for a blowout resulting from drilling into potentially pressurized areas within drilled reservoirs presents a significant offsite risk. Although it is not known at this time which reservoir areas, if any, are pressurized to the extent that pressures could produce a blowout, historical data from drilling in Redondo Beach indicates that such potential does exist. Pressurization would last for only a short period of time (estimated at 30 days based on the Redondo Beach wells), but could still result in a blowout during drilling. The Applicant indicated in their Application that wells would be pressurized for a short period after drilling. Mitigation includes the installation of back-flow prevent devices on the gas pipeline, minimization of the ability of equipment to ignite a spill of crude oil at the Project Site, and timely and thorough audits. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
ES-10
Executive Summary
Impacts when drilling is not occurring would be less than significant with mitigation.
ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR identify feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project and the other alternatives. It should be noted that assumptions made regarding the alternatives descriptions could differ from actual proposals, and the alternatives analyses are not presented to a project-level of detail. The alternatives considered for evaluation in this EIR include: No Project Alternative; Drilling from the AES Site; Oil Development with Reduced Wells; Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe; Use of Existing Pipelines; and Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction.
Each of these is summarized below.

No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be built, and the City Maintenance Yard would remain in its existing location without development of a new maintenance yard. Therefore, impacts associated with the Proposed Project construction and development would not occur, and the area would remain in its current condition. No impacts from the Proposed Project would occur.
Drilling from the AES Site
Under this alternative, the drilling and processing facilities would be located at the AES site located in north-western Redondo Beach on the site of the existing power generating facility. The facility could potentially utilize existing pipelines, or new pipelines could be installed, similarly to the Proposed Project. Pipeline connections along Valley Drive would no longer need to be installed.
Reduced Wells Alternative
Under this alternative, fewer wells would be drilled, and less crude oil and gas would be produced. Drilling would be limited to approximately 1 year only.
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Executive Summary
Reduced Timeframe Alternative
Under this alternative, the same number of wells would be drilled and the same rate of crude oil and gas would be produced as under the Proposed Oil Project, but only over an allowed 10 year timefame. At the conclusion of the 10 year period, all equipment would be removed from the site, and the site would be restored.
Existing Pipelines Alternative
Under this alternative, existing pipelines along 190th Street would be utilized instead of installing new pipelines. Pipelines would still need to be constructed along Valley Drive. Construction and operations at the Project Site would remain the same as under the Proposed Project.
Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction
Under this alternative, the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be constructed prior to Phase 1 at the location currently in use by the Beach Cities Self Storage facility. The temporary maintenance yard located adjacent to the Beach Cities Self Storage facility and City Hall would not be constructed.
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Under the No Project Alternative, no development of the oil and gas resources would occur. There would be no drilling and no construction at the Project Site or along Pipeline routes. The City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated and rebuilt. None of the impacts associated with the Proposed Project would occur. No new impacts would occur under the No Project Alternative. Tables ES.2 and ES.3 summarize the comparison. The AES Site Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would be farther from residential and commercial/light industrial locations. This reduces the severity of impact to aesthetics, air quality, noise and safety and risk of upset. This alternative would eliminate the following significant and unavoidable impacts: Aesthetics: views of the drilling rig; Aesthetics: glare from the drilling rig and operational facilities; Noise: noise impacts from drilling activities; and Safety and Risk of Upset: drilling releases and impacts from drilling releases.
In addition, the severity of some Class I impacts would be reduced, including those to air quality, hydrology, land use and recreation. The Reduced Wells Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity of impact in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset due
ES-12
Executive Summary
to the reduced amount of time that drilling would occur. This alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts. The Reduced Timeframe Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity of impact in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset due to the reduced amount of time that impacts would occur. This alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts. The Existing Pipelines Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project because it would reduce the need to construct pipelines along area streets or within the SCE ROW. This would reduce traffic and circulation impacts and would reduce air emissions resulting from construction activities. However, neither of these impacts is significant and unavoidable, and this alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts. This alternative would, however, increase the spill frequency along the pipeline from Valley Drive eastward, where it would tie into the existing pipeline, because older pipelines have a higher failure rate. This would increase the severity of impact to hydrology and biology due to oil spills, which is currently a significant and unavoidable Class I impact under the Proposed Project. The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative has advantages over the Proposed Project, as it would reduce the need to construct a temporary City Maintenance Yard. This would reduce severity of impacts to air quality, transportation and traffic, cultural resources, fire protection, hydrology and water impacts during the temporary site construction activities. However, none of these impacts are significant and unavoidable. The construction of a permanent City Maintenance Yard before Phase 1 would decrease the severity of construction noise impacts by decreasing the duration of construction activities around the Beach Cities Self Storage site and City Hall by 9 months. These noise impacts are significant and unavoidable Class I impacts. It would also eliminate the operational noise impacts on City Hall and residences to the west of the temporary City Maintenance Yard site.
ES-13
Executive Summary
Table ES.2
Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only Proposed Project Impact
AES Site Alternative


Reduced Timing Alternative

1.
Aesthetics: views of the drilling/workover rig 2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the rig 3. Air Quality: odors 4. Biology: oil spills into the marine environment 5. Hydrology: oil spills into the environment 6. Land use: incompatibility to adjacent uses 7. Noise: noise impacts during drilling 8. Noise: noise impacts during construction 9. Recreation: spill impacts on recreational areas 10. Safety and Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Number of Significant Impacts
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y
Zero
10
10
Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. indicates significant and unavoidable but less severity, indicates significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics
E&B Oil Development Project
ES-14
Executive Summary
Table ES.3 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only City Maintenance Yard Phase 1
Construction , Drilling Re-drilling Operations
Proposed Project Impact

Existing Pipeline
1.
Aesthetics: views of the Y * Y * Y * drilling/workover rig 2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the Y Y Y rig 3. Air Quality: odors Y Y Y Y Y Y 4. Biology: oil spills into the marine Y Y Y Y Y Y environment 5. Hydrology: oil spills into the Y Y Y Y Y Y environment 6. Land use: incompatibility to Y Y Y Y Y Y adjacent uses 7. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y drilling 8. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y construction 9. Recreation: spill impacts on Y Y Y Y Y Y recreational areas 10. Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Y Y Y 10 10 5 Number of Significant Impacts 10 5 5 Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. indicates significant and unavoidable but less severity, indicates significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The Proposed Project has been designed by the Applicant in an effort to minimize the number and significance of impacts and still meet the objectives of the Project. Alternatives include options for an alternative site, operations, pipeline, and phasing, allowing for a selection of different Project components and, consequently, a different mix of impacts. The AES Site Alternative reduces the greatest number of the Proposed Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the AES Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Use of the AES site, however, presents a number of potential issues related to City of Redondo Beach Charter Article 27 and would most likely require a vote of the people of Redondo Beach and a re-zoning in order to move forward. However, these barriers are similar to those under the Proposed Project and are therefore not considered to pose greater challenges where the proponent cannot reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. The AES Site Alternative would achieve most of the Applicant's objectives in regard to maximizing oil and gas production, utilizing the latest technologies and technological advances,
ES-15
Executive Summary
minimizing visual effects and providing safe vehicular ingress and egress. As the 1993 CUP and the Settlement Agreement are both associated with the specific Project Site within the City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, the objective to develop a project that is consistent with the CUP and Settlement Agreement would not be specifically met under this alternative. The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative is advantageous over the use of a temporary City Maintenance Yard, primarily because it would reduce the significance of impacts to noise and air quality. The elimination of a temporary City Maintenance Yard would eliminate a potentially significant and unavoidable impact to noise. Therefore, the Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard construction alternative would be environmentally superior over the Proposed Project. Under the AES Site Alternative, the City Maintenance Yard would not need to be moved, as the drilling site would be located at the AES site.
KNOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES
According to Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. All proposals related to the development and transportation of oil and gas reserves in urban areas generate controversy and receive a high level of public scrutiny. For this Project, controversy is due to the sensitive nature of coastal resources, the potential for safety impacts to the local population, and the fact that oil and gas development in the City does not currently exist. The Proposed Project would introduce oil drilling and oil and gas production and transportation to an area that does not currently have this type of development. Some people in local communities do not want the Project to move forward, as exemplified by organizations opposing the Project such as Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, Heal the Bay, and other environmental groups. The Project has generated a high level of public interest and controversy (see Appendix H, Notice of Preparation and Comments). Areas of controversy highlighted in comments on the Notice of Preparation include: The development of oil and gas in the City is not allowed by the current land use plans and zoning ordinance; Safety and risk of upset and the impacts on nearby residences and businesses; Noise, odor, and air quality issues from oil and gas development proximate to residential areas; Aesthetics and views of the drilling rig; Geology and subsidence; Climate change and the use of fossil fuels; Oil spills and the effects on biology; Noise from the Project; Settlement agreement costs; Potential impacts to coastal and recreational resources; and Potential impacts to tourism as a main economic resource to the City.
ES-16
Executive Summary
Table Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project and Alternatives
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Project I II III IV = = = = Significant adverse impact that remains significant after mitigation. Significant adverse impact that can be eliminated or reduced below an issues significance criteria. Adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issues significance criteria. Beneficial impact.
Impact Class
Impact Impact Impact Recommended Mitigation Measures No. Class Section 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources AE.1 I The Proposed Oil AE-1a Material choice of electrical drill rig acoustical shroud shall be of neutral sky color which is Project during the selected for its ability to reduce visual impact, in coordination with and approval by the City drilling phases or Community Development Director. with a workover rig AE-1b The sound attenuation wall shall be replaced by a permanent wall with design features present has the installed at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to provide stability of views and opportunities for potential to cause a positive visual elements that partially mitigate the visual presence of the walls from the Hermosa substantial Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be degradation to the allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16-foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be character and adjusted to respond to faade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained. quality of the The permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and approval existing site and its of the City Community Development Director. surroundings, including designated scenic highways and vistas. AE.2 II The Proposed Oil AE-2a Design of the sound attenuation wall exterior faade shall be required to include design Project when no rig articulations that are complementary to the character, scale, and quality of the surrounding is present has the environment. The intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the Hermosa Greenbelt potential to cause a and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity. The following measures of success substantial shall be met: 1) Articulations of faade decrease scale and proportion of mass into smaller degradation to the increments that more closely resemble those of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and character and material use are varied to a level consistent with existing visual environment. quality of the AE-2b Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and growth existing site and its of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of debris and construction surroundings. waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet within all planted areas. Wall footings shall be designed to limit encroachment into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be
ES-17
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures conducted by a certified soil scientist. Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of this mitigation measure; and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they shall be amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette selected. AE-2c Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be self-attaching or structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a density to achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be required on the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking facility. AE-2d All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20 in height at installation and meet the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species alternate is proposed, it shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the Project Application in the following characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56. AE-3a Pipeline alignments and valve box locations shall be designed to avoid the removal or modification of trees, hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to the extent feasible. AE-3b If landscaped areas, streetscapes, plazas and/or parklands are required to be temporarily disturbed, they shall be restored to their previous condition following completion of construction. Avoidance of disturbance shall be the preferred option, especially where landscape elements act to screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or where they act as community gateways (Redondo Beach at Hwy-1). AE-3c Block color/s selection and pattern (if applicable) shall be complementary to adjacent buildings. A buffer of shrubs and vines shall be planted to match the existing character and quality of the adjacent properties. AE-4a Final acoustical cover material selection shall be required to be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare. AE-4b Colors and finishes of equipment and surfaces within the soundwall (including the interior face of the soundwall, the interior face of the drill rig acoustical cover, and the physical structure of the drill rig within the acoustical shield) shall have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower. AE-4c All proposed site lighting fixtures associated with the drilling activities shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. AE-5a Colors and finishes of surfaces within the facility, including the interior face of the soundwall, ground materials (darker or asphalt), wall paints and equipment paints to the extent feasible shall have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower to reduce the potential for glow. AE-5b Final sound wall material/s selection/s (including gates) shall be fully opaque. Fully opaque
AE.3
The Pipeline project has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings.
II
AE.4
The Proposed Oil Project with the drill rig has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. The Proposed Oil Project area lighting has the potential to create a new source
AE.5
II
ES-18
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare. AE-5c All proposed site lighting, including fixtures outside the wall, shall be fully shielded. Fully shielded shall be defined as: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaires lowest light-emitting part (IES/IDA, 2011). AE-5d The LZ-2 parameters of the Model Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) shall be used to demonstrate that maximum vertical illuminance for the site are not exceeded. For site lighting inside the wall, Table B allowances shall be used. Lighting outside the wall at site entrances shall not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a maximum of 1 footcandle. For the purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the plane of the property line shall be extended to an elevation equal to the height of the electric drilling rig. AE-5e All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. AE-6a Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. AE-6b Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for security and safety.
AE.6
AE.7
The Pipeline Project has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
II
II
AE-7a The materials, colors and finishes at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality, character and level of architectural detail to those of adjacent structures. AE-7b The landscape design at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality and character to that of the surrounding visual environment. Incorporation of evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are recommended for their ability to provide additional screening capacity of operations areas. AE-7c The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be required to have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where building masses do not otherwise define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas shall be employed through either increased screen wall height and/or landscape design.
ES-19
Executive Summary
The Proposed Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Section 4.2 Air Quality and GHGs AQ.1 II Construction activities would generate NOx and PM emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
Impact No. AE.8
Impact
Impact Class II
Recommended Mitigation Measures AE-8a All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. AE-8b Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall not exceed that which is needed for security. AE-8c All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
AQ-1a The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): - Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction). - Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). - Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits. - All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). - Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). - Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). - Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation. AQ-1b The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): - All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications.
ES-20
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures - Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. - All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100-horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. - Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. - A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided to the City and SCAQMD when each piece of equipment is mobilized. None
AQ.2
AQ.3
Construction activities would generate emissions from contaminated soil excavation. Regional Impacts: Operational activities would generate emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District VOC and NOx regional thresholds.
III
II
AQ.4
AQ.5
Local Impacts: Operational activities would generate PM emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District local thresholds. Operational activities would generate emissions that produce offsite
II
AQ-3a The Applicant shall limit flaring to a total of 5 hours per day at the full flaring capacity (or equivalent) during all emergency or routine flaring events in order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the thresholds. Lower NOx emission combustors or other equivalent measures can also be used to satisfy the requirement. AQ-3b The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least 90 percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control (either through carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing units routed to vapor control systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor immediately above the muds exit point from the wellbore and at other areas above the mud pits where muds may be exposed to the atmosphere in order to ensure that hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90 percent. AQ-4 The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce emissions to below the localized thresholds.
AQ-5a The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable flare at the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas encountered during drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas that is flared. The operator shall report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD.
ES-21
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact odor impacts.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures AQ-5b The Applicant shall install a detection system that will monitor vapor space on all crude oil tanks. The detection system shall be capable of monitoring pressure in the vapor space of the tanks and notifying the Operator via an alarm when the pressure in the tanks gets within 10 percent of the tank relief pressure. If the tank pressure exceeds the relief pressure, the Operator shall report the incident to the SCAQMD as a breakdown pursuant to Rule 430, and submit a report of the breakdown to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD, which shall detail the corrective actions the Operator shall take to avoid exceeding the tank relief pressure. AQ-5c The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to and approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall address potential sources of odors from all site equipment, including wells and drilling operations, temporary operations such as truck loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these odors (e.g., containment, design modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues such as facility information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints, the protocol for handling odor complaints and odor event investigations and methods instituted to prevent a re-occurrence. AQ-5d The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors at all perimeter locations of the facility. At all times during operations, drilling, redrilling and workover operations, the Operator shall maintain monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible or visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm points shall be set at a maximum of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down of drilling or plant operations and notification to appropriate agencies, including the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station to monitor wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall be installed at the site. AQ-5e The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables, and shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are not equipped with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for example; the mud baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be detected at the closest receptor. AQ-5f The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action level of 100ppm and the installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or smaller) to ensure that leaking components are minimized at the facility. AQ-6 The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the
AQ.6
Potential operations and drilling at the
II
ES-22
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact Project Site would increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented to achieve the required reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications on the protocol, vintage, and registry for any offsite mitigation. The following mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD approval: 1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program; 4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII; 5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American Carbon Registry. In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon registries that follow specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to review and prior approval by the City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for acceptable credits include: Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project yielding quantifiable and verifiable reductions or removals. Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or other requirement. Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are reliable, based on applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate documentation. Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is sufficient evidence to show that the reduction occurred and was quantified correctly. Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the reduction project is implemented correctly. Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the expected life of the reduction project. Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be quantified and reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions reporting will follow the same reporting format and procedures as required by the Mandatory Reporting Rule. AQ-7a All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate catalyst to reduce Diesel PM emissions. All workover rigs shall utilize electric drive/sources and shall not utilize diesel generators or engines. AQ-7b Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of fugitive emissions. BIO-1: To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done outside the breeding season (breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15
Potential operations and drilling at the Project Site would emit toxic air contaminants. Section 4.3 Biological Resources BIO.1 Pipeline installation near potential avian breeding habitat has the potential to
AQ.7
II
II
ES-23
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact impact non-listed sensitive species including avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A rupture or leak from oil Pipelines has the potential to result in a substantial adverse effect on native species and habitats, sensitive species, and biologically important habitats associated with the Pacific Ocean.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures through August 31 for all non- raptor species). If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed during this period, then surveys for nesting birds must be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If nesting birds are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and maintained for the duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings fledge from the nest. BIO-2: The Applicant shall submit for City approval and shall implement an Emergency Response Plan that would address protection of biological resources and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Plan shall, at a minimum, include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and animal species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment and cleanup within 1,000 feet downstream of the Pipeline. The plan shall contain: Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, and duties of all entities involved in oil removal operations; Procedures for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines and facilities; Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge; A description of the necessary onsite equipment and details on the placement of the material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil; Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following a discharge; Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge; Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Action Plan shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of site-specific habitat restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate for mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to restore native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and egress points, staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat areas shall be identified. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall include species- and site-specific procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of oiled wildlife. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing any construction activities. CR-1 Prior to beginning demolition of the existing City Maintenance Yard Building, guidelines shall be developed for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace.
BIO.2
Section 4.4 Cultural Resources CR.1 The Project has the potential to cause a
II
ES-24
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, such as the furnace remnant due to building demolition.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures Once exposed, detailed documentation of the furnace shall be undertaken. Documentation shall be guided by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This documentation shall include production of high quality 35-mm photographs and plan drawings of building elements exposed, including but not limited to, a floor plan, any character-defining building features, and elevation drawings. All work carried out pursuant to the recordation of the furnace building shall be conducted by, or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994) as an architectural historian. A written report detailing the HAER-like documentation shall be provided to the City upon completion the work. This report shall be produced on archivally stable materials and filed with the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. CR-2a The design of the New City Maintenance Yard Building shall be compatible in design, styling, material, and massing of the adjacent City Hall complex. The building design should not attempt to replicate the New Formalist style, but it shall not conflict or contrast with the existing building style. The buildings constructed in the New City Maintenance Yard shall be no more than two stories high. They shall not overpower or overshadow the existing building complex. CR-2b The landscaping associated with the proposed New City Maintenance Yard shall replicate the planting types surrounding the City Civic buildings, to the extent possible, in order to blend the new construction into the existing Complex. The final design of both the new building and landscape should be developed in consultation with an historic architect or architectural historian who meets Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994).
CR.2
CR.3
The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource through indirect impacts to the Hermosa Beach City Hall Complex (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, such as dump deposits, due to ground disturbance and over excavation.
II
II
CR-3a Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or building removal within the Proposed Project sites, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist with provision for review and input by concerned Native Americans and approval by the City. The Plan is to include provisions for archaeological and Native American monitoring, detailed documentation of all early twentieth-century artifact-bearing deposits exposed during ground-disturbing site work, and development of a clear collection policy for both prehistoric and historic artifacts, subsequent artifact analysis, reporting of findings, and disposition and/or curation of any significant artifacts recovered. All reports of findings shall be filed with to SCCIC. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) CR-3b Any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the area of the previous City of Hermosa Beach Dump following over-excavation at the Proposed Oil Development Project site must be protected in place. Stabilization and covering of these archaeological deposits shall be monitored
ES-25
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures by a qualified historical archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994). CR-4 Should Project-related excavations be designed to exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or depths greater than 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise be shown to have the potential to impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits as described above, a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) shall be developed by a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City and implemented prior to or during Project-related ground disturbing activities. CR-5 Ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or redirected. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the site to allow for further examination and treatment of the find. A City representative shall immediately notify the Los Angeles County Coroners office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD.
CR.4
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature.
II
II The Project could have a substantial impact if it results in the disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Section 4.5 Energy and Mineral Resources
CR.5
No Impacts Identified Section 4.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Response FP.1 II Oil development FP-1a The Applicant shall ensure adequate (3,000-5,000 gpm) water supplies are available from activities at the site the reclaimed water pipeline, the existing hydrant system, or some other source for water supplies could be deficient in that provides sufficient water supply rates, pressure and duration to comply with codes and the water supplies, LACFD. Installation of a fire pump, or installation of a piping connection to area water mains that detection systems, can supply the flows, may be required to ensure the appropriate water flow and pressure access or requirements. The Applicant shall ensure that all area hydrants and water supplies are tested emergency annually as required by NFPA standards for water flows and pressures, and shall ensure that the response. results are reported to the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. FP-1b The Applicant shall implement a community alert notification system to automatically notify area residences and businesses in the event of an emergency at the oil field that would require residents to take shelter or take other protective actions. FP-1c The Applicant shall fund an additional FTE position at the HBFD, or equivalent, for personnel with specific capabilities in inspection and code compliance associated with oil and gas production facilities. This arrangement shall be to the satisfaction of the HBFD.
ES-26
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures FP-1d The Applicant shall develop emergency response plans addressing the facility's fire-fighting capabilities pursuant to the most recent NFPA requirements, Los Angeles County Fire Code, LACFD, California Code of Regulation, and API requirements, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the LACFD and the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, fire monitor placement, water capabilities, fire detection capabilities, fire foam requirements, facility condition relating to fire-fighting ease and prevention, and measures to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The plan should also address coordination with local emergency responders and area schools and daycare facilities. FP-1e The Applicant shall ensure that the emergency response planning includes development and testing of evacuation plans of neighbors for an emergency scenario at the facility, and the Applicant shall implement programs to ensure that all immediate neighbors are included in the notification system. FP-1f The Applicant shall ensure and make funding available to 1) upgrade the dispatch system and procedures within Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo to implement a CAD-to-CAD system to improve dispatch times; and 2) extend the mutual aide agreements between the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and the Torrance Fire Department to include the Torrance HAZMAT unit, or provide for funding to provide additional equipment and to train a sufficient number of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach Emergency Response personnel to provide first response HAZMAT capabilities. FP-2a The Applicant shall ensure that design and construction comply with applicable codes and standards for equipment spacing, particularly those related to flare location and distances to public areas and distances from well drilling equipment to buildings. If this cannot be achieved, additional requirements shall include the construction of thermal radiation barriers or insulation on the crude oil tanks, installation of thermal barriers/walls around the flare stack, increasing the height of the flare stack during drilling, relocation of the flare stack, providing thermal radiation modeling to estimate the impacts of equipment on the crude tanks and process piping and public areas. Fire rated barriers shall be established, as per LACFD requirements, to ensure that all buildings within 100 feet of well drilling would be protected from thermal radiation. The design and construction compliance status shall be verified by third-party audits under the direction of the City. FP-2b Fire protection measures specific to the crude oil containment system shall be provided, including the installation of automatic fire foam systems along the perimeter of the crude oil containment system and wellhead area and immediately adjacent to combustion or spark producing equipment within or immediately adjacent to the crude oil containment area that would be automatically and remotely activated in the event of a crude oil spill. The highest level electrical classification achievable shall be designated for all equipment located within the crude oil containment area. FP-3 The City Public Works Department shall coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that
FP.2
Oil development activities at the site could be deficient in equipment spacing pursuant to applicable codes and standards.
II
FP.3
The temporary City
II
ES-27
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures fire trucks have adequate access to and from the fire station, and that the temporary City Maintenance Yard does not inhibit the ability of the Fire Department to respond to emergencies. This may require the elimination of some parking along Bard Street to ensure adequate room for fire truck turn-arounds, or other measures. Public Works shall incorporate the potential loss of parking into their parking plan.
Maintenance Yard Facilities could interfere with the Fire Department response activities. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Section 4.7 Geological Resources/Soils GEO.1 II The Proposed Project would potentially expose people and structures to seismically induced ground shaking.
GEO-1a In coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory, the Applicant shall install an accelerometer at the Project Site to determine site-specific ground accelerations as a result of any seismic event in the region (Los Angeles/Orange County and offshore waters of the Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Channel). The drilling operator shall cease operations and inspect all onsite oil field-related pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure following any seismic event that exceeds a ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13 percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling operator shall not reinstitute operations at the Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be determined that all oil field infrastructure is structurally sound. GEO-1b All seismic related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: Drilled-in-place piles or cast-in-drilled-hole piles shall be constructed for foundations in the landfill area, i.e., northeast Project Site, to reduce seismically induced settlement. Ground improvement techniques, including high pressure grout injection, i.e., compaction grouting, shall be used in areas outside the landfill area to reduce seismically induced settlement and allow construction of conventional shallow foundations. Seismic design criteria for horizontal and vertical accelerations, identified in Tables 10 and 11 of the geotechnical report, shall be used during Proposed Project design. The upper 2 to 4 feet of soil over the majority of the Project Site shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Approximately 15 feet of soil shall be removed in the former landfill area and replaced with a minimum of 8 feet of compacted fill. Asphalt pavement and underlying subgrade soils shall be designed to accommodate the proposed drill rig. Positive surface drainage shall be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and toward suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water on structural pads shall not be allowed. GEO-1c A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a
ES-28
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures geotechnical investigation specific to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) GEO-2a Injection pressures associated with secondary recovery operations (i.e., water flooding) shall not exceed reservoir fracture pressures as specified in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Section 1724.10, and as approved by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. GEO-2b The seismicity monitoring program shall be completed in coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory. GEO-2c In the event that monitoring indicates that Proposed Oil Project-induced seismicity is occurring, water flood operations shall be adjusted to alleviate such seismicity. The drilling operator shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased or decreased levels in water flood operations. GEO-3 All slope stability related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. Temporary excavations shall be stabilized per the latest edition of Cal/OSHA requirements for loose sands, including shoring or laying back of trench walls. Shoring along the northern perimeter of the Project Site shall be designed by an experienced structural engineer due to the proximity to existing buildings that must be protected from potential settlement and lateral movements.
GEO.2
Wastewater injection would potentially induce seismicity in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
II
GEO.3
GEO.4
The Proposed Project is not located in an area at risk of landslides/mudflows; defined as areas with slopes greater than 10 percent. The Proposed Oil Project would potentially result in ground subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal.
II
II
GEO-4a Prior to approval of the first drilling permit, the Applicant shall have submitted and the City of Hermosa Beach, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shall have approved a Subsidence Monitoring and Avoidance Program. The Subsidence Monitoring Program shall include: Ground elevation survey methodologies with high vertical resolution; A network of survey or subsidence monitoring locations, including continuous GPS stations and GPS benchmarks, positioned within and outside the City that are sufficiently spaced to draw conclusions about subsidence within the City; Use of InSAR imagery technology to evaluate regional subsidence patterns both within and beyond the proposed oil field; Sufficient monitoring frequency to establish trends in subsidence in order to distinguish background ground movement from any subsidence caused by proposed oil field operations; Reservoir monitoring, including documentation of produced fluid volume (oil, gas and water) and
ES-29
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures reservoir pressures at similar frequency to ground elevation measurements; Reporting requirements; and Action levels. Subsidence monitoring reports shall be completed annually. Surveying for both vertical and horizontal ground movement shall be completed along the perimeter and throughout the interior of the oil field, utilizing Global Positioning System technology in combination with a network of ground stations. The continuous monitoring GPS stations shall include: Hermosa Beach Pier. The pier will serve as the furthest offshore point in the monitoring program, and the closest to where the center of the subsidence bowl would be expected to occur. Longfellow Outfall. This Outfall is larger and more structurally stable than some of the other outfalls along the Citys coast. King Harbor Jetty. This location was selected to achieve a distribution of continuous monitoring points along the coast of Hermosa Beach. This will help provide a limited regional picture of the subsidence between survey events. The results shall be forwarded to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Hermosa Beach for review. GEO-4b In the event that the Global Position System monitoring indicates that subsidence is occurring in and/or around the Proposed Project area, wastewater or water reinjection operations shall be increased to alleviate such subsidence. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased levels of wastewater reinjection operations. The Applicant will also coordinate with the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department, to verify that subsidence has been mitigated sufficiently.
GEO.5
GEO.6
GEO.7
Site grading could increase erosion and impact water quality offsite. Expansive soils could be present at Proposed Project Sites. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Corrosion could potentially damage
III
II
GEO-6 A Registered Civil Engineer shall analyze surficial and near-surface soils at the Project Site subsequent to grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of non-expansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer. GEO-7a Proposed Oil Project design must conform to the recommendations of HDR Schiff (2012), included within Appendix C in NMG Geotechnical (2012), or as per the City Engineer, and
II
ES-30
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact the structural components and pipelines which would result in a pipe burst and subsequent oil spill.
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures
should occur prior to completion of the final Project design. GEO-7b All buried metal pipelines shall be coated and placed under impressed cathodic protection. To monitor for internal corrosion, corrosion coupons or equivalent measures can be utilized. GEO-7c External pipe inspections shall be conducted for the exposed pipeline sections to ensure atmospheric coatings are in good conditions. All external inspections shall be documented and reviewed by the operations management and repairs documented, when necessary. GEO-7d In accordance with California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources pipeline regulations (Public Resources Code Sections 3013 and 3782), a pipeline management plan shall be implemented. Mechanical testing, including ultrasonic and hydrostatic testing, shall be completed in coordination with the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff. GEO-7e All concrete in contact with the high sulfate or corrosive soils shall be Type V concrete in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. Section 4.8 4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards SR.1 I Operational and SR-1a The Applicant shall cause to be prepared an independent third-party audit, under the drilling activities direction and supervision of the City, of the gas and crude oil plants and pipelines, once would generate constructed, including the well pads, to ensure compliance with Fire Code, applicable API and offsite risks that NFPA codes, EPA RMP, OSHA PSM, and SPCC and emergency response plans requirements. exceed the The review shall include a seismic assessment of equipment to withstand earthquakes prepared by thresholds. a seismic engineer in compliance with Local Emergency Planning Committee Region 1 CalARP guidance. All audit items shall be implemented in a timely fashion, and the audit shall be updated annually, as directed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Departments. SR-1b The Applicant shall ensure that no spark producing equipment is located within the crude oil spill containment areas, or that spark producing equipment is sufficiently isolated from the crude oil containment area, in order to reduce the potential for crude oil fires. SR-1c The Applicant shall ensure that all crude-oil truck haulers are trained in HAZMAT (to the HAZWOPER technician level at least) spill response and that each truck carries a spill response kit. SR-1d The Applicant shall install automatic valves on the gas pipeline that will automatically shut down under a low pressure scenario at the Processing Facility Area for all pipelines leaving the processing plant, and shall install a backflow prevention device at the main gas pipeline tie-in location, to prevent the release of gas from the main transmission pipeline in the event of a rupture in the gas pipeline. The second, return pipeline shall remain isolated from the main gas pipeline during normal operations. SR-1e The Applicant shall ensure that warning tape is installed above the pipelines within the pipeline trench to warn third parties that pipelines are located below the warning tape and that the pipelines are capable of utilizing a smartpig.
ES-31
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures SR-1f The odorant system shall have its own, smaller containment area around it limiting the spilled pool size to the minimum size attainable, in order to prevent any offsite impacts. Transfer of odorant shall utilize carbon canisters and a canister change-out/maintenance program to ensure that filling of odorant tanks do not cause offsite impacts. SR-1g Produced gas shall be continuously monitored for hydrogen sulfide and, if H2S levels exceed 100 ppm, the well shall be shut in and abandoned as per DOGGR requirements. SR-2 The Applicant shall sample soil during Phase 1 grading to ensure that soil lead contamination levels are below 9,500 mg/kg. If soils are encountered above these levels, then those soils shall be removed from the site and transported to a disposal site. This may necessitate implementing the RAP during Phase 1 if substantial amounts of contamination are encountered.
SR.2
Grading at the site could mobilize soil contamination.
II
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality HWQ.1 New III No mitigation required. grading, construction,and soil remediation could degrade surface water quality HWQ.2 A rupture or leak I HWQ-2a The Applicant shall properly maintain the associated crude oil pipelines, storage during oil drilling tanks, and processing facilities within and outside the Project Site, including smart-pigging operations, from according to State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal requirements and the standards pipelines, or from outlined by the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and the Los Angeles Regional other infrastructure Water Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall inspect storage tank and processing equipment could substantially at least daily and pipeline inspections on a weekly basis. degrade surface HWQ-2b The Applicant shall install a leak detection system for crude pipelines to the Torrance water and Refinery. The system shall include pressure and flow meters, flow balancing, supervisor control groundwater quality and data acquisition system, and a computer alarm system in the event of a suspected leak. Temperature, pressure, and flow shall be monitored at each pipeline entry and exit. If any variable deviates by more than 10 percent of the normal operating range, the system shall trigger both audible and visual alarms. Flow balancing shall be conducted every 5 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours with the accuracy defined once the system is established and tested. HWQ-2c Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces and shall be included in a spill trailer maintained onsite. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations. HWQ-2d Oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the thencurrent California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. HWQ-2e A response manual and Oil Spill Contingency Plan, approved by the City of Hermosa
ES-32
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Beach Fire Department, shall be implemented to outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The Plan shall be completed prior to Phase 2. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan. HWQ-2f The well cellars shall be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent oil-based substances from seeping into groundwater supplies. All drilling muds storage shall be contained within Baker-type enclosed tanks, which shall be sized to accommodate high intensity rainfall events without overtopping. HWQ-2g The Applicant shall install a check valve in the crude oil pipeline at the Herondo and Valley drive intersection, where the crude oil pipeline turns eastward and starts uphill. HWQ-2h The Applicant shall fund and install, under the direction of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, an oil/grit separators or oil/water separator located along Herondo Street, downstream of Valley Drive, in order to capture small to medium sized spills before they reach the ocean. Installation and maintenance costs shall be provided by the Applicant and the devices shall be inspected by the Applicant to ensure that the "trap" is operational before any storm events. Section 4.10 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency LUPR.1 The II Proposed Project conflicts with established land use plans, policies, and land use maps. LUPR.2 Potential I noise, odors, and visual impacts generated from the Proposed Project could be incompatible with adjacent land uses. LUPR.3 The II Proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard conflicts with established land use plans, policies, and land use maps LUPR.4 Accidental I oil release and
ES-33
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
potential cleanup from operation of the oil pipeline would conflict with current and projected recreational users. LUPR.5 Potential noise, odors, and visual impacts generated from the Proposed Project could create a nuisance to recreational area users. Section 4.11 Noise and Vibration NV.1 Demolition and construction machinery would increase noise levels.
III
NV.2
Drilling + Production activities would increase noise levels.
NV-1a Increase the height of the noise barriers on the west and north sides of the site to 35-feet and upgrade the sound insulation performance of the barrier material from STC-25 to STC-32. NV-1b Increase the height of the noise barriers on the south and east sides of the site to 22-feet. The sound insulation performance of the barrier material in these locations may remain at STC-25. NV-1c The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. NV-1d All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-2a Increase the height of the noise barriers on all sides of the site from 32-feet to 35-feet (35feet is the maximum height allowed). Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. NV-2b The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. NV-2c All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-2d Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck,
ES-34
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise. NV-3a Provide continuous, 35-foot high noise barriers along the west and north sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. NV-3b Provide continuous 25-foot high noise barriers along the east and south sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25. The gates on the east and south sides of the site should be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. NV-3c All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. None
NV.3
Site construction machinery would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
NV.4
NV.5
Pipeline construction machinery would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Drilling-plusproduction activity on the site would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
NV.6
Long term production activity on the site would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise
II
NV-5a Provide a continuous, 35-foot high noise barrier around the entire perimeter of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. NV-5b Provide solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal gates for the east and south designed to deliver a minimum STC of 32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-32 noise barrier in all locations. NV-5c All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-5d Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck, pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise. NV-6a Increase the height of the masonry walls on the north and west sides of the site to a minimum of 27-feet. NV-6b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to all available surfaces of the north and west walls that face the production operations above a height of 10-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of production noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the east and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption
ES-35
Executive Summary
Impact No. levels. NV.7
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72. NV-7a Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier along the north, west and south boundaries of the City Yard site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. NV-7b Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25. NV-7c Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier. NV-7d All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-8a Increase the height of the masonry wall on the west side of the Yard (the wall that spans between the office and shop building) from 6-feet to 12-feet. NV-8b No noise-producing activity allowed in the City Yard before 8AM or after 7PM on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies. NV-8c For the Parking Option, there shall be no openings in the parking structure enclosure except for the vehicular entrance/exit opening on the north side. The entrance/exit should be located as far to the east as possible, to maximize its distance from the homes on Cypress Avenue. Garage exhaust fans shall be enclosed and fitted with duct silencers on the discharge and intake sides as necessary to limit noise emissions to less than significant levels at the nearby sensitive receivers. NV-9a Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier on the north, west and south sides of the site and along those parts of the site boundary adjacent to City Hall. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. If visual and light concerns preclude a 25foot high noise control barrier close to City Hall - because of visual and light concerns - the noise barrier here should be as tall as possible. NV-9b Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-25. NV-9c Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier
Demolition construction equipment increase levels.
and would noise
(Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
NV.8
Operational noise from the relocated City Maintenance Yard would increase noise levels. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Demolition and construction equipment would increase noise levels. (Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
II
NV.9
ES-36
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier. NV-9d All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-10a Increase the height of the concrete block Yard wall along the west and south sides of City Hall from 8-feet to 16-feet. NV-10b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to the extended wall surfaces facing the Yard above a height of 8-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of operational noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the west and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72. NV-10c No noise-producing activity allowed in the temporary City Yard before 8 A.M. or after 7 P.M. on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies.
NV.10
Operational noise from the temporary City Yard would increase noise levels.
II
(Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Section 4.12 Public Services Section 4.13 Transportation and Traffic TR.1 II Trucks activity along Valley Drive would cause impacts to pedestrians or other vehicles
No Impacts Identified TR-1a For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall fund, through and in consultation with the School District and Safe Routes to School, an afternoon crossing guard to be stationed at the Project Site area to ensure pedestrians passing nearby the Project Site have assistance in crossing the streets and the entrances/exit of the Project Site. Alternately, the Applicant shall ensure that trucks do not travel to and from the Project Site unless school is in session (i.e. truck travel prohibited on Valley Drive after 2:48 p.m., on Wednesdays after 1:45 p.m. or on school minimum days after 12:45 p.m.). The Applicant shall consult with the School District to ensure timing is current. TR-1b For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall install, subject to the approval of the City Public Works Department, warning signs and blinking yellow lights one block north and south (if applicable with possible one-way on Valley Drive) of the Project Site warning vehicle traffic that trucks may be entering and exiting the roadway. Blinking lights shall only operate when trucks are utilizing the roadway (not 24 hours per day). TR-1c The Applicant shall ensure that all trucks accessing the Project Site and utilizing the Pier Avenue/Valley Drive intersection are less than 65 feet long to prevent safety hazards at the double intersection on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. TR-1d For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall, with the approval and coordination of the City Public Works Department, restripe Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue to be a southerly directed one-way street. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Valley Drive between 6th Street and 8th Street to
ES-37
Executive Summary
Impact No. TR.2
Impact Construction of the pipelines along area streets could cause significant traffic circulation/hazard impacts.
Impact Class II
Recommended Mitigation Measures allow for sufficient line of sight for trucks entering and exiting the Project Site. TR-2a Pipeline construction activities within the Pipeline right-of-way shall be limited to weekday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., unless the applicable municipality approves a specific exception to the time limit for periods of limited duration, subject to measures required by the municipality to protect the public health and safety. TR-2b The applicant shall implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) during Pipeline construction that includes the following pursuant to the procedures and subject to approval of the applicable municipality: 1) Require the Pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow street construction permits in the affected areas (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities - PCH and Hawthorne Boulevard); 2) Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected Citys standard roadway plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); 3) Revise Pipeline construction schedules to minimize access impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and 4) Ensure that all affected residences and business have adequate emergency access during all times and phases of construction. TR-3a The applicant shall be prohibited from routing Proposed Oil Project-related heavy truck exceeding 20,000 pounds on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH, except during Pipeline construction. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the applicable city. TR-3b The applicant shall route inbound and outbound heavy (>20,000 pounds) truck traffic along PCH and Artesia Boulevard, which are designated truck routes. TR-4a The City shall design the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard so that it does not enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive. TR-4b If the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project affects the sidewalk, then the design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to separate the pedestrians from the street.
TR.3
Routing of Proposed Oil Project truck traffic could violate local prohibitions. The City Maintenance Yard could introduce an impact to safety or Bicycle/pedestrian safety.
II
TR.4
II
(Applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) Section 4.14 Water Resources WR.1 The Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City
II
WR-1 Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for
ES-38
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact Maintenance Yard Project would generate sanitary sewer wastewater that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB; exceed the existing capacity of downstream sewer and wastewater treatment facilities; or adversely affect the existing wastewater service provider or the existing wastewater facilities by exceeding current and future demands and capacity. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) The Proposed Oil Project would generate wastewater that could impact surface water quality and the Pacific Ocean. The Proposed Oil Project would
Impact Class
Recommended Mitigation Measures the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department and the Districts for review and approval. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary.
WR.2
II
WR-2
Implement MM HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d.
WR.3
III
ES-39
Executive Summary
Impact No.
Impact
Impact Class
generate wastewater that could impact groundwater quality through injection of produced water. WR.4 III The Proposed Oil Project would require new offsite water supply, but would not substantially deplete water supplies or require new or expanded water entitlements. Section 4.15 Environmental Justice No Impacts Identified
ES-40
Section 1: Introduction
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines to assess potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach is the public agency with principal responsibility for review of the Proposed Project and is therefore the lead agency for preparation of the DEIR. The Project Applicant is E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B or Applicant). As a consequence of E&Bs Project, if approved, the City of Hermosa Beachs Public Works Maintenance Yard (City Maintenance Yard) would be relocated to another site. Various amendments to the Citys land use codes and plans are necessary for implementation of E&Bs Project and the City Maintenance Yard relocation. These various components collectively referred to as the Proposed Project are addressed in this DEIR: 1. E&Bs Oil Development Project (Proposed Oil Project) 2. City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Maintenance Yard relocation (City Maintenance Yard) 3. Code and Plan Amendments (listed in Section 1.3) (Amendments) E&Bs Proposed Project is the development of a 1.3-acre site located at 555 6th Street, currently used as the City Of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, for onshore drilling and production using directional drilling to access oil and gas reserves in both the tidelands (offshore) and the uplands (onshore) within the Torrance Oil Field. As proposed, the fully-developed Project would consist of 30 production wells, four water injection wells, liquid and gas separating equipment, a gas processing unit, and oil and gas pipelines. Drilling and production facilities would be located at the 1.3-acre site with oil and gas pipelines extending southward offsite within the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance to the Torrance Refinery. During construction, a building located at 601 Cypress Street would be temporarily utilized as a laydown site to store construction materials and vehicles. A lot immediately west of the Project Site at 636 Cypress Street would be developed to provide 20 spaces serving E&B employees on weekdays and providing 15 free remote coastal public parking spaces on weekends and two on-street parking spaces to replace spaces eliminated by the Project. During the peak construction phase, additional employees would park at an offsite location(s) to be determined and shuttled to the Project Site. If approved, the Proposed Oil Development Project would necessitate relocation of the Citys Maintenance Yard and its functions to another site. The City has identified two primary options for Yard Relocation involving the Civic Center property located at 1315 Valley Drive/552 11th Place. The options evaluated in this DEIR are: (a) development of a new Permanent City Maintenance Yard (including sub-options with added parking of approximately 129 spaces and no parking.) located on that portion of the site occupied by a self-storage business, south of City Hall; and alternatively (b) a Temporary City Maintenance Yard may first be developed and utilized through the exploration phases of E&Bs Project, with a the permanent facility
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
developed only if E&B fully develops the permanent drill site. The Temporary Yard would be primarily located at 1315 Valley Drive in the areas west and immediately south of City Hall now occupied by several City buildings, parking for City vehicles, City employee parking, free remote coastal public parking, and Bard Street which would be closed to public traffic. A portion of the city employee and city vehicle parking and free remote coastal public parking would be relocated to a strip of city-owned property on the west side of Valley Drive south of 8th Street, a portion of the city employee parking would be relocated to the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue during work hours (Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and occupy spaces that are allocated as free coastal public parking, and a portion of the free remote coastal public parking would be located on the north side of Herondo Street. Various amendments to City of Hermosa Beach land use codes and land use plans listed in Section 1.3 are also required in order for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard to proceed. Section 2.0 (Project Description) provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project and its various components and features. The decision to approve or deny E&Bs Project and the Amendments associated with Oil Development will be made by the voters in Hermosa Beach, in accordance with a Settlement Agreement entered into by the City, the Applicant and Macpherson Oil Company (see Background, Section 1.8). Decisions on relocation and design of the City Maintenance Yard will not be part of the ballot measure and will be considered by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Council, as necessary. Details of the Proposed Project are provided below in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Project Planning Information Project Information Project Title Case Number Lead Agency Contact Person E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project Development Agreement 12-1, Municipal Code Text Amendment 12-2, General Plan Amendment 12-1, Zoning Map Amendment 12-1. City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Ken Robertson, City of Hermosa Beach, Community Development Department, (310) 318-0242 oilproject@hermosabch.org E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation, 1600 Norris Road, Bakersfield, California 93308 E&Bs Project Site/Laydown site/Accessory parking: Industrial City Maintenance Yard relocation: Temporary Industrial (IND), Open Space (OS), General Commercial (GC); Permanent Industrial (IND), Open Space (OS) E&Bs Project site: Open Space; Laydown site/Temporary parking lot: Industrial City Maintenance Yard relocation site: Temporary Open Space Government; Residential Medium Density; Permanent - Open Space Government E&Bs Project site/Laydown site/Accessory parking: M-1 Light Manufacturing City Maintenance Yard relocation site: Temporary- M-1 Light Manufacturing, O-S Open Space, C-2 Restricted Commercial; Permanent- M-1 Light Manufacturing, O-S Open Space
Applicant General Plan Designation
Coastal Land Use Plan Designation Zoning Designation
1-2
Table 1.1
Project Planning Information Project Information
Site Size
Project Location
Assessors Numbers
Parcel
Access
Latitude Longitude
and
E&Bs Project site: Oil and gas drilling and production site is proposed to be located on a 1.3-acre City owned property (existing City Maintenance Yard). Accessory parking site: 636 Cypress Street. Laydown site: 601 Cypress Street. Electrical and pipeline interconnections would be made to the Southern California Edison grid, the Southern California Gas Company pipeline, the California Water Service Company system, and the West Basin Municipal Water District system. Oil and gas pipeline connections of approximately 3.55 miles and 0.43 miles, respectively, would be constructed to transport the processed oil to a valve box location in the City of Torrance and the processed gas to a tie-in with the Southern California Gas Company gas line in the City of Redondo Beach. Relocated City Maintenance Yard: Permanent - approximately 0.79 of 2.5 acre Civic Center (existing Hermosa Self Storage building location and parking lot). Temporary approx. 1.0 acre of 2.5 acre Civic Center site and Bard Street right-of-way. City employee parking at Civic Center to be replaced at Community Center and on a strip of land west of Valley Drive south of 8th Street, and free remote coastal public parking potentially to be replaced along north side of Herondo Street and a strip of land west of Valley Drive south of 8th Street. E&Bs Project: Project oil and gas drilling and production facilities would be located at 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach. Temporary laydown site would be located at 601 Cypress Street. Temporary parking would be located at 636 Cypress Street. Other temporary employee parking would be located offsite at undetermined location(s). Oil pipeline would be constructed in the Southern California Edison Utility Corridor and/or the public right-of-way of Valley Drive, and Herondo/Anita/190th Street in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. Gas pipeline would be constructed in the public right-of-way of Valley Drive/North Francesca Avenue, extending beneath Valley Drive to a Southern California Gas Company line east of North Francesca Avenue in Redondo Beach. Relocated City Maintenance Yard would be located at 1315 Valley Drive/552 11th Place, Hermosa Beach. Replacement parking may be located at the Community Center, 710 Pier Avenue and north side of Herondo Street, and on a strip of land on the west side of Valley Drive south of 8th Street (portion of APN 4187-031-900), Hermosa Beach. E&Bs Project site: 4187-031-900; Laydown site: 4187-030-037; Temporary Parking lot: 4187-031-22. Pipelines: (R.O.W. Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance) Relocated City Maintenance Yard site(s): Permanent: 4187-020-907 and 904; Temporary: 4187-020-904 through 907 E&Bs Project Site (555 6th Street): Existing and relocated driveways onto Valley Drive and 6th Street. Temporary Parking lot: Driveway at 636 Cypress Street. Laydown site: Existing access to building at 601 Cypress Street. Relocated City Maintenance Yard: Existing and/or relocated driveways onto Valley Drive and Bard Street. Bard Street to be closed in conjunction with Temporary City Maintenance Yard. E&Bs Project Site: 335132.10 N and 1182341.09W Relocated City Maintenance Yard: 335147.19N and 1182343.97W
1-3
1.2 1.2.1
The Environmental Impact Report Process Purpose and Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public informational document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of a proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid significant effects, and to describe reasonable alternatives to a project. An EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing impacts, effects not found to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As an informational document (see Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines) the EIR is intended to inform the City, other public agencies with discretionary authority over aspects of the project, the general public, the local community and Hermosa Beach voters, and other organizations, entities and interested persons of the projects scope, significant environmental effects, feasible measures to avoid or minimize the significant effects, and a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects. The environmentally superior alternative is selected as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (e) (2), state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives. While identification and disclosure of the environmentally superior alternative is required by CEQA, the lead agency is not required to approve the environmentally superior alternative. Before any action may be taken on the Proposed Project, the City of Hermosa Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, must certify that it has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR (consisting of the Draft EIR, comments submitted during the Draft EIR public review period and responses to all comments) that it has exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Certification of the Final EIR by the lead agency does not approve or deny the Proposed Project. The City of Hermosa Beach will consider the information in the Final EIR (FEIR) prior to deciding whether to place a measure on the ballot asking the voters to approve or disapprove the Project. The decision to approve or deny E&Bs Project will then be made by Hermosa Beach voters (see Project History, Section 1.8.1, below). The conclusions of the EIR will also serve to inform the voters in their role as decision-makers for the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to reduce impacts will be incorporated into the Project (essentially providing conditions which must be met if the Project is approved) and identified for voters on the ballot measure.
1-4
In addition to approval by Hermosa Beach voters, the ability to develop E&Bs Project requires discretionary actions by multiple public agencies. Discretionary actions by the City of Hermosa Beach (should the Project be approved by voters and Coastal Commission) and potential permits and approvals required from other regulatory agencies are described below and in Table 2-15 and Table 2-16 of the Project Description. If the voters approve the Oil Development Project, the Hermosa Beach City Council will make the ultimate decision about City Maintenance Yard Relocation. City Maintenance Yard Relocation requires discretionary action by the Coastal Commission. Permits and approvals required from other regulatory agencies are described below and in Table 2-15 and Table 2-16 of the Project Description.
1.2.1.1 Local and Regional Agencies
The Los Angeles County Fire Department is a California Environmental Protection Agency Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the entire County, including the City of Hermosa Beach. The CUPA oversees all programs associated with hazardous materials. This includes the Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, California Accidental Release Program, Risk Management Prevention Program and Uniform fire Code (UFC). Inclusive in these programs is the reporting of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, within Proposition 65 requirements. The County Fire Department is a Responsible Agency that may use the EIR to obtain information on the Oil Development Project for changes in the Hazardous Waste Generator and Business Plan. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 4, is responsible for establishing wastewater discharge requirements and issue storm water pollution prevention plan permits. The Los Angeles RWQCB is expected to use the EIR in its review of the Proposed Project. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for issuance of a Permit to Construct (PTC) and a Permit to Operate (PTO), both of which will be required for the Proposed Project if it is approved. To fulfill its obligations as a Responsible Agency, the SCAQMD will rely on information contained in this EIR as part of the PTO permitting process. The Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance will use the EIR in their reviews of construction permits and/or franchise agreements related to pipelines proposed within rights-of-way of streets within these two cities. The City of Redondo Beach will use the EIR in its consideration of a Coastal Development Permit for installation of pipelines within the Coastal Zone.
1.2.1.2 State Agencies
The California Coastal Commission is a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project and will use the EIR to consider the following:
1-5
Oil Development Project Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map designation from Open Space to Industrial; Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies to regulate oil and gas recovery as proposed in Appendix P; Amend the Citys Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236); Adopt a Development Agreement for the Project; Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the Project.
City Maintenance Yard Relocation Permanent City Maintenance Yard Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government (applies to portion of site west of the extension of Bard Street encompassed by a portion of APN 4187-020-904 and 907; may also include APN 4187-020-905 and 906 as a clean-up consistent with existing Civic Center site); Approve a Coastal Development Permit for demolition and removal of facilities at the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street; Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the permanent City Maintenance Yard; Amend the Citys Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236).
Temporary City Maintenance Yard Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government (applies to portion of site west of Bard Street and its extension encompassed by APN 4187-020-905 and 906 and a portion of 904 and 907); Approve a Coastal Development Permit for demolition and removal of facilities at the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street; Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the temporary City Maintenance Yard; Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236).
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the agency responsible for issuance of well permits for production and injection wells and tanks and facilities per DOGGR regulation AB 1960. DOGGR is expected to use the EIR in its permitting review of the Oil Development Project.
1-6
1.2.1.3 Federal Agencies
The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the federal Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for inspecting hazardous pipelines during construction to ensure they comply with all DOT regulations. Their inspections would include both the pipelines and the odorant facilities. The OPS may use the EIR to obtain additional information on the Oil Development Proposed Project.
1.2.2 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation filed an application with the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department for its Proposed Project on November 12, 2012. The City deemed the application complete on April 18, 2013 and determined that an EIR should be prepared. The Citys decision to prepare an EIR is documented in an Initial Study included in Appendix H of this DEIR. The Initial Study, which consists of a checklist of possible effects on a range of environmental topics, found that the Project may have significant environmental impacts related to several topics and that the detailed analysis of an EIR is needed to further assess potential effects. The Initial Study defined the preliminary scope of the EIRs analysis, suggesting which environmental topics should be addressed. On July 11, 2013, the City, as the Lead Agency, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform the general public and agencies that an EIR would be prepared for the Proposed Project and to solicit comments on environmental issues to be addressed in the document. On July 24, 2013, the City hosted an open scoping meeting for public agencies in the afternoon and a second scoping meeting for the general public in the evening. The public scoping comment period closed on August 12, 2013. Comments received in response to the NOP were used to further refine the scope of the analysis and the technical studies in this EIR. Written comments and transcriptions of oral comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix H with an indication of specific EIR sections where topics related to individual comments are addressed.
1.2.3 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
Based on the findings of the Initial Study and the NOP Scoping Process, the following environmental topics are excluded from analysis in this DEIR because the Proposed Project is believed to have no potential for environmental effects related to these issues. Agricultural Resources: The Proposed Project is expected to have no impact because there are no agricultural resources on or in the vicinity of the project sites (including proposed pipeline alignments). Population & Housing: The Proposed Project is expected to have no impact because the Proposed Project will not induce growth, either directly or indirectly. It does not propose housing (or infrastructure that facilitates growth or housing development). The Project and its construction activities will generate employment opportunities (temporary and long-term), but the number of employment opportunities is not great enough to induce substantial growth. City Maintenance Yard Relocation will generate employment opportunities but cumulatively
1-7
employment generated by the Proposed Project will not be great enough to induce substantial growth. The proposed uses will not displace existing housing or substantial numbers of people.
1.3 Proposed Project Approvals
Oil Development Project E&B states its Project has been designed to conform to the parameters established within the following existing entitlements and agreements (all documents are included as Appendices L, M and N): 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632) for Oil Development at the City Maintenance Yard and Construction of an Oil Pipeline. Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B (assigned from Macpherson Oil Co.), dated January 14, 1992 and approved by the State Lands Commission on April 28, 1993. Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March 2, 2012 setting forth certain responsibilities of the City, E&B, and Macpherson Oil Company.
The ballot measure submitted for consideration by the City of Hermosa Beach electorate will encompass most or all of the approvals listed below. The specific content of the ballot measure will be determined prior to ballot publication. The environmental impacts of these actions are addressed in this EIR. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to delete Chapter 5.56 (Oil Wells) to lift the ban on oil drilling, which had been imposed with Proposition E in 1995, and allow oil drilling in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone in Chapter 17.28 subject to a development agreement at the Project site located at 555 6th Street. (E&B proposes to utilize the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and the conditions of approval from the Permit will be included in the development agreement.) Deletion of Chapter 5.56 will also eliminate the requirement that all funds the City derives from Hydrocarbons Recovery go into the Citys Park and Recreation Facilities Fund except the first $500 of Business License Fees and any funds regulated by the State Lands Commission, approved with Proposition L in 1987, to allow oil and gas royalties to be used for other purposes. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the designation of the Project Site located at 555 6th Street from Open Space to Industrial consistent with the current use as the City Maintenance Yard and the proposed use as defined for the Proposed Project. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies regulating oil and gas recovery, as proposed in Appendix P. Adopt a Development Agreement to provide for the orderly development of the Oil Development Project, and to provide the Applicant with a vested right to proceed with the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation Measures in the certified EIR, conditions of approval from the 1993 CUP, any benefits and commitments to the City that may be proposed by the Applicant, and other provisions agreed to by E&B and the City will be incorporated into the Development Agreement.
1-8
Approve a Franchise to allow the proposed oil and gas pipelines within the City of Hermosa Beach. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, including the Oil Production Code (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 21-A), to amend the prohibition on process operations to allow oil and gas processing and treatment activities. Oil and gas processing shall be defined as treatment activities that involve the chemical separation of oil and gas constituents and the removal of impurities. Processing activities would include oil stripping; hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal systems; depropanizers, debutanizers, or other types of fractionation; sulfur recovery plants; wastewater treatment plants; and separation and dehydration of oil/gas/water. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to modify the definition of grade (adjacent ground elevation) to allow for a perimeter wall height of 35 feet. Grade shall be defined as the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface level of the ground, paving or sidewalk, excluding excavations for well cellars and storage tanks, within the enclosed area of the privacy wall, to also include the privacy wall (i.e., the perimeter wall around the Oil Project Site). Other permits and entitlements that may be required, but that will not be on the ballot, are listed in Tables 2-15 and 2-16.
City Maintenance Yard Relocation The following discretionary approvals or permits are also proposed to allow for relocation of the City Maintenance Yard at the Civic Center properties. These actions will not be placed on the ballot but are part of the total scope of the Proposed Project and are thus evaluated in this EIR: City Maintenance Yard Relocation - Permanent Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from Industrial (I) to Open Space (O-S). Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to Open Space (O-S). Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government. Approve a Planned Development permit to develop a City Maintenance Yard in the Open Space zone. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and removal of facilities at the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236).
City Maintenance Yard Temporary: Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from General Commercial (GC) to Open Space (O-S).
1-9
Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Restricted Commercial (C-2) to Open Space (O-S) zone. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government. Approve a Planned Development permit to develop a City Maintenance Yard in the Open Space (O-S) zone. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and removal of facilities at the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the temporary relocation project; Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236). If the Oil Development Project is approved by the electorate, both the proposed Oil Development Project and the Yard Relocation would require other permits and approvals as detailed in Section 2.0 of this DEIR. This would include the California Coastal Commission review of the amendments to the City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, the Development Agreement, and Coastal Development Permits for the Proposed Project.
EIR Contents and Guide for the Reader EIR Contents
1.4 1.4.1
E&Bs Planning Application to the Citys Community Development Department on December 15, 2012 initiated the application process and included a detailed project description and technical reports. The Application was supplemented by the submittal of responses to comments from City staff during the review of the Application. Section 2.0 of this EIR provides details of the Project as proposed by E&B, with clarifications and explanations added by the EIR consultant in order to provide sufficient information for the analysis of potential impacts. Section 2.0, Project Description, was reviewed by the Applicant to ensure clarifications and explanations added by the EIR consultant were accurate prior to completion of subsequent sections of the EIR, thereby providing the basis for the analysis in Section 4.0, Analysis of Environmental Issues. In addition, numerous assumptions and design aspects of the Project as proposed by the Applicant are assessed and verified by this EIR in Section 4.0. The complete Planning Application is available for review on the City of Hermosa Beachs website at http://www.hermosabch.org, and at the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, 310-318-0242. The EIR in Section 2.0 also provides details of the relocation and development of the City Maintenance Yard as proposed by the City of Hermosa Beach that would be necessary as a consequence of E&Bs Oil Development Project, and evaluates the impacts of that activity in Section 4.0. The EIR is divided into the following chapters:
1-10
Executive Summary Provides an overview of the Proposed Project, a summary of the significant impacts and associated mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project. Impact Summary Table Provides a summary of the identified impacts for the Proposed Project. The table also provides a summary of identified mitigation measures for each impact. Section 1: Introduction Provides an overview of the Proposed Project evaluated in the EIR. The section also discusses agency use of the document, and provides a summary of the contents of the EIR. Section 2: Project Description Provides objectives stated by E&B for its Oil Development Project, and a detailed description of the Project including remediation, restoration, and area development. As a consequence of E&Bs Project, if approved by the voters, the City Maintenance Yard would need to be relocated. The Citys stated objectives that should be satisfied when relocating the City Yard are also provided, along with a detailed description of the City Maintenance Yard relocation. Section 3: Cumulative Projects Description Provides a description of the projects that have been included in the cumulative projects analysis. The cumulative analysis contained in this document covers the cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects located in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Section 4: Analysis of Environmental Issues Describes the existing conditions found in the Proposed Project area and vicinity, and assesses the potential environmental impacts that could occur if the Proposed Project were implemented. These potential impacts are compared to various Thresholds of Significance (or significance criteria) to determine the severity of the impacts. Mitigation measures intended to reduce significant impacts are identified where feasible. Section 5: Description of Alternatives/Screening Analysis Provides descriptions of the proposed alternatives that were considered and rejected for further analysis, and the Project alternatives selected to be evaluated in this document. Section 6: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives/Conclusions Provides an analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project that could lessen any identified significant impacts while still achieving most of the basic Project objectives. It also includes the impact analysis for the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. Finally, it summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives compared to the Proposed Project, and it identifies the environmentally superior alternative. Section 7: Other CEQA-Mandated Sections Discusses the significant irreversible environmental changes which would be caused by the Proposed Project should it be implemented. The section also discusses the growth inducing impacts that may result from the Proposed Project and known areas of controversy. Section 8: Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program Contains a listing of all identified mitigation measures that should be included as conditions of Project approval for E&Bs Oil Development Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. In order for each component to be implemented, their implementation requirements, verification schedules, and parties responsible for implementation and verification are also included.
1-11
Section 9: List of EIR Preparers, Agencies and Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation Identifies and presents the qualifications of those who prepared the document. Lists reference materials used and persons contacted to prepare the document. Section 10: References Includes all the references used in the document.
The EIR also contains a number of appendices that support the EIR and its analysis: Appendix A- Project Description Design Data Appendix B - Air Emission Calculations Appendix C - Risk Assessment Calculations Appendix D - Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix E - Noise Impact Analysis Appendix F Settlement Agreement and Other Entitlements Appendix G Cultural Resources Technical Study Appendix H Notice of Preparation, Scoping Document, Comments, and Responses Appendix I Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation Appendix K Public Notification List Appendix L 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632) Appendix M Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B Appendix N Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March 2, 2012. Appendix O Aesthetics - Visual Simulations. Appendix P Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan policies regulating oil and gas recovery.
These appendices are available in electronic format on the CD attached to the inside front cover of the paper copy of the EIR notebook. All information is also available at the locations listed in Section 1.5.
1.4.2 Significance Criteria
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the EIR base its determination of whether or not a project impact is significant on adopted policies and standards, which serve as significance thresholds. The policies and standards applied by the EIR to serve as significance thresholds are derived for the most part from City policies (primarily in the Citys adopted General Plan) and other adopted standards such as the Municipal Code. For some environmental issues, the EIR applies standards established by other regulatory agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (in the case of water pollution standards) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (in the case of air pollutant standards). For impacts related to certain public safety hazards associated with oil production and transport, this EIR uses the wellestablished significance criteria adopted by the County of Santa Barbara. These criteria have been found to be acceptable and utilized by the California Coastal Commission in particular. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a list of generic questions intended to guide lead agencies in determining what level of CEQA documentation is appropriate for a given project (e.g., a negative declaration or EIR). (These questions were used in the Initial Study presented in Appendix H.) The EIR follows the Citys practice of using those questions as a
1-12
framework for addressing project impacts in more detail with careful consideration given to specific pertinent policies adopted by the City or other relevant agencies. Each analytic section of the EIR identifies the significance thresholds used to assess impacts related to the specific environmental issue under consideration. The same significance thresholds are used again when the EIR evaluates the effectiveness of any mitigation measures or Project Alternatives to reduce or avoid potential impacts.
1.5 Final EIR Preparation and Certification Process
This DEIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 60 days (15 days beyond the 45day public review period required by CEQA). Public agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR. The DEIR (paper copy form) as well as the Final EIR will be available to the general public for review at these locations: City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Hermosa Beach Public Library, 550 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. City of Torrance, 3301 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503. City of Redondo Beach, 303 North Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
CD and paper copies of the DEIR may be obtained (free of charge) at the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department. The DEIR is also available on the City of Hermosa Beachs website at http://www.hermosabch.org, under Spotlight select Proposed Oil Production Project. All comments on the DEIR must be received no later than April 14, 2014 and should be directed to: Ken Robertson Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 oilproject@hermosabch.org 310-318-0242 Upon completion of the 60-day review period, the City will review and prepare written responses to each comment as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. A Final EIR (FEIR) will then be prepared, incorporating all of the comments received, written responses to received comments, and the DEIR, along with any changes to the DEIR that result from the comments received. The FEIR will then be provided to the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the City of Hermosa Beach City Council regarding its adequacy and then presented to the City Council for public hearing and certification. The FEIR will be available to the public and agencies at least 10 days prior to a public hearing by the Planning
Commission. All public agencies and persons who submit comments on the DEIR during the 60-day public review period will receive written responses to their comments and be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings concerning certification of the FEIR at least 10 days prior to the public hearings. The Planning Commission will consider the findings required by CEQA for certification of the FEIR and the FEIR must be certified by the City Council (as lead agency) prior to placing the Proposed Project on the ballot.
1.6 CEQA Findings for Proposed Project Approval
As part of certifying the FEIR, the City Council will issue findings that comply with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and with Public Resources Code Section 21081. Accordingly, the Hermosa Beach City Council will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the significant impacts identified in the FEIR. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. While the voters will determine whether to approve E&Bs Project, findings must still be made prior to placing the measure on the ballot. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
1.7 Mitigation Monitoring
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (see above). The MMRP is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted following the preparation of an EIR. This DEIR includes a Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program (Section 8). An updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be prepared as part of the FEIR to reflect any changes to mitigation measures as a result of the DEIR public review process. For this Project the mitigation measures identified will be part of the Development Agreement between the City and E&B.
1-14
Regarding relocation of the City Maintenance Yard, if the voters approve E&Bs Project, the HB Planning Commission will need to consider a Planned Development permit through a public hearing process. Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would be incorporated as conditions of approval of the Planned Development permit for the City Maintenance Yard.
1.8 1.8.1 Background Project History
The Wilmington-Torrance Oil Field was discovered in the Los Angeles Basin at the turn of the century. In 1919, the State of California granted to the City of Hermosa Beach, in trust, the tidelands within the Torrance Oil Field. Oil drilling increased in the Los Angeles Basin into the 1930s. The resulting issues related to the oil drilling practices of that time period caused the voters in several cities to pass ordinances banning oil drilling. In the City of Hermosa Beach, where many oil wells had been drilled (including Stinnett Oil Well No. 1 at the City Maintenance Yard), a citywide oil and gas drilling prohibition was passed in 1932. In 1984, Ballot Measures P and Q were passed by the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach, granting exceptions to the drilling ban that authorized oil development on two City-owned parcels, the City Maintenance Yard and the South School site. Subsequently in 1985, the City adopted the Oil Code within the Citys Zoning Ordinance (a component of the Citys Municipal Code) that established terms and conditions governing oil drilling and development in the City, including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for oil and gas production on the City-owned parcels. In 1986, the City selected the Macpherson Oil Company (Macpherson) to develop an oil production facility to recover oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons from the City Maintenance Yard. Also in 1986, Macpherson and the City entered into a lease that provided Macpherson with the right to conduct oil and gas operations within the City. The original 1986 Lease was amended many times, with an amendment in 1992 becoming the Lease between Macpherson and the City under which the development of the project was slated to proceed (Oil and Gas Lease No. 2).Under the provisions of the Lease, the City applied to the California State Lands Commission to allow drilling for oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons in the tidelands area and for approval of the Lease which occurred in 1993. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Macpherson project that was certified on May 9, 1990 along with the Citys Statement of Overriding Considerations. On that same date, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to make oil drilling a permitted use with a CUP in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone and to allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit requirement in the M-1 zone for a temporary period during drilling operations.
1.8.2 Lawsuits and Settlement Agreement
E&Bs proposed Oil Development Project is the result of a 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City, E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (Applicant), and Macpherson Oil Company (for itself and Windward Associates)(Macpherson) to resolve a lawsuit by
1-15
Macpherson Oil Company against the City regarding oil drilling at the site of the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Macpherson was seeking in excess of $750 million in damages against the City for breach of its lease. As described below, the Settlement Agreement provided for the dismissal of the lawsuit, limited the Citys potential liability, and provided the Applicant (Macpherson sold its interests to E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation) with the potential opportunity to proceed with the oil drilling project conducted from an urban drill site. The Settlement Agreement was entered into by the City on March 2, 2012 to allow the city voters to make a decision on whether the Project should move forward or not. As described above, the Project has a long history. In 1984 the voters, through initiatives, approved a measure lifting the ban on oil and gas production. Subsequently, in 1992 the City approved a Lease to allow Macpherson to slant drill at an angle from an onshore site so it could tap into underwater oil reserves off Hermosa Beachs shores. Similar to the current Project, the Project at the time called for up to 30 oil wells and production facilities on 1.3 acres at the Citys Maintenance Yard located proximate to the Greenbelt, businesses and residences. In 1995, Hermosa Beach voters approved Proposition E to restore the oil-drilling ban in the city. The City Council, however, proceeded with the Macpherson Project under its agreement with the oil company entered into prior to the Proposition E vote. In 1998, a report presented at a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider approval of a coastal development permit for the Macpherson Project raised additional safety concerns regarding the Macpherson Project. In response, an independent expert hired by the City conducted an integrated risk analysis and found risks to the City from the Project. The Council voted to halt the Project, and Macpherson Oil Company sued the City. Through a series of rulings over a number of years, the trial and appellate courts decided that Macpherson could pursue breach of contract remedies against the City and that Macpherson could be entitled to damages for a breach of the Lease. The trial on the issue of potential damages was scheduled for April 2012, with Macpherson seeking $750 million in damages from the City. After the trial court ruled on several evidentiary pre-trial motions, the discussions between Macpherson, the Applicant, and the City commenced in an attempt to settle the lawsuit. The City Council voted to settle the lawsuit resulting in the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, E&B filed an Application for the Proposed Project. Under the Settlement Agreement, the City is to place on the ballot, in a manner that complies with all applicable laws, a measure that asks voters whether or not to lift the ban on oil development in the City to allow E&Bs proposed Oil Development Project on the site at 555 6th Street to proceed. The Settlement Agreement also provided that Macpherson assigns the Project to E&B. E&B will pay Macpherson $30 million for those rights, including Macphersons existing Conditional Use Permit and Lease. E&B also will be entitled to payment from the City up of to $17.5 million depending on the results of a future election. At that election, Hermosa Beach voters will review a ballot measure and decide if they wish to repeal the existing ban on oil drilling in the City limits and enter into a development agreement to allow E&B to develop an oil drilling project at the Citys Maintenance Yard.
1-16
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, if the voters reject the ballot measure, the City will owe E&B $17.5 million. If the voters approve the ballot measure and E&B secures all the necessary permits to drill, the City will owe the company $3.5 million. Should the electorate vote to allow the Proposed Project to go forward, and if the Project produces oil, the City would collect royalty payments on the gross sales of the oil produced by the Project and would use a portion of its royalties to pay the $3.5 million it would owe E&B under the Settlement Agreement. The Hermosa Beach City School District would also collect revenues from the Project if it is approved and produces oil. If the voters approve the Project, E&B will pursue additional permits and approvals from different state and regional agencies. The agencies are the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District and state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. Other permits or approvals would also have to be obtained from various jurisdictions, including the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance, which would be traversed by the proposed oil and gas pipelines.
1-17
1-18
Section 2: Project Description
2.0 Project Description
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B), the Applicant, is proposing the E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project (Proposed Oil Project) on a 1.3-acre site located in the City of Hermosa Beach (City). The site for the Proposed Oil Project (Project Site), as shown in Figure 2.1, would be located at 555 6th Street, bounded on the east by Valley Drive and on the south by 6th Street, approximately seven blocks east of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. Oil and gas pipelines constructed and used by the Project would extend from the Project Site to area refineries. The Project Site is owned by the City and is currently used as the City (Public Works) Maintenance Yard. The Applicant has leased the Project Site from the City for the implementation of the Proposed Oil Project. The Proposed Project is composed of two parts: 1) the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard (called the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project); and 2) the development of an oil and gas facility on the current City Maintenance Yard site (called the Proposed Oil Project). In order to clear the current City Maintenance Yard site (called the Project Site) for the construction of the proposed oil and gas facility, the City Maintenance Yard would be temporarily relocated during Phase 1 of the Proposed Project . If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would be economically viable (Phase 2 of the Proposed Project), construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be completed once Phase 3 of the Proposed Project begins. The permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options: a Parking Option, which would add a net 97 parking spaces with a below grade parking garage, and a No Added Parking Option, which would have the same amount of parking as is currently available. This Project Description reflects information contained in the Project Application submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach by the Applicant, along with supporting information provided in conjunction with the Project Application (E&B Natural Resources, Planning Application and Appendices, Volumes 1 3, November 14, 2012; Response to Directional Drilling Planning Application Completeness Review, April 11, 2013; Drilling wells at Response to Requested Clarifications, June 24, 2013; Quantitative 1 multiple angles to Risk Analysis, July 3, 2013; Errata, July 22, 2013). Information related to the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard and better reach and construction and operation of the Proposed City Maintenance produce oil and gas Yard is derived from information provided by the City of reserves. Directional Hermosa Beach Public Works Department. The description of the drilling allows for Proposed Project incorporates the essential elements of the Project multiple wells from as it is proposed, including all phases and major components as the same drilling well as the locations of all proposed offsite activities (in addition to those occurring on the Project Site). More detailed information location. related to some aspects of the Proposed Project (including proposed operational parameters and design features) may be
1
Information submitted by the Project Applicant is available for public review at the City of Hermosa Beach website, www.hermosabch.org (under Oil Production Project) and at the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department.
found within individual sections of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), where considered relevant to the discussion of specific environmental issues and/or effects. In addition, a description of the environmental setting and current conditions related to the environmental issues is presented in the Environmental Setting subsection of the individual sections of this EIR. This section discusses the Project objectives, historical operations on the Proposed Project Sites, the four phases of the Proposed Oil Project, scheduling, vehicle trip and employee requirements, and necessary permitting associated with the Proposed Project. A number of technical drawings related to the Proposed Project design and layout are included in Appendix A to this Draft EIR.
2.1 Project Overview
The Applicant proposes the development of an onshore drilling and production facility site that would utilize directional drilling of 34 wells (30 oil, 4 four water injection) to access the oil and gas reserves in the tidelands (pursuant to a lease granted by the State of California to the City) and in an onshore area known as the uplands. Both of these areas are located within the Torrance Oil Field within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, the Proposed Project would result in the installation of offsite underground pipelines for the transportation of the processed crude oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers, extending through the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. The Applicant proposes a laydown site for heavy equipment and supply staging/storage within the industrial building at 601 Cypress Avenue during the construction phases. The Applicant also proposes to construct a parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue for use by some of its construction employees/contractors on weekdays and by the public at other times. The City Maintenance Yard is proposed to be relocated to a temporary facility to be established on the rear (westerly) portion of the City Hall site (1315 Valley Drive) prior to and during the initial phase of the Proposed Oil Project so that the maintenance operations could be moved when the existing City Maintenance Yard is demolished as part of Proposed Oil Project activities. The construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be undertaken on the site now occupied by the Hermosa Self-Storage (552 11th Place) after the Applicant completes the exploration phase of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 2. As indicated below, the permanent City Maintenance Yard and the oil and gas facility on the Project Site would be constructed at the same time. The timeframe from commencement of the Proposed Project until the permanent oil and gas facility would be operational is estimated to be approximately 3.25 years. The existing lease (Oil and Gas Lease No. 2) allowing drilling into the tidelands provides for a 35-year period. Table 2.1 summarizes events in the Proposed Project timeline. Specifics of each of the Proposed Project components are described in the following sections.
2-2
Figure 2.1
Proposed Project Location
Hermosa Beach
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
2-3
Table 2.1 Phase
Proposed Project Schedule Summary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Year 5 Year 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Temporary City Yard Oil Project Phase 1 Oil Project Drill Phase 2 Test Permanent City Yard Oil Project Phase 3* Oil Project Drill Continuously for 30+ years Phase 4* Operate Note: * If the test phase is determined to be successful, Phase 3 and 4 would occur. For construction only. Does not include permitting timeframe.
2.2
Proposed Project Objectives
Pursuant to Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the description of the Proposed Project is to contain a clearly written statement of objectives that would aid the lead agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid decision makers in preparing findings and, if necessary, a statement of overriding considerations. The City is the lead agency which is preparing the EIR, and in this case the decision makers are the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach As part of the Project Application, the Applicant provided its stated objectives for the Proposed Oil Project, which consist of the following: 1. Develop the Proposed Oil Project consistent with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, with the utilization of directional drilling techniques from the Project Site, which is the current City Maintenance Yard; 2. Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the Citys jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to the City; 3. Provide an oil and gas development project on the Project Site that utilizes the latest technology and operational advancements related to safety and production efficiency in order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet the applicable environmental requirements; 4. Conduct construction and drilling activities on the Project Site incorporating technological advancements, operational practices, and design features related to air quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potential impacts on the adjacent community and the environment; 5. Provide landscaping, hardscape, signage, lighting, and other design features to minimize the visual effects of the Proposed Oil Project on the adjacent community; and 6. Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safe vehicular ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project.
2-4
Pursuant to the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach, E&B, and Macpherson Oil Co., the Citys primary objective is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and place on the ballot a measure allowing the City of Hermosa Beach electorate to decide whether or not to approve the Applicants Proposed Oil Project and a Development Agreement to vest the Project so that, if approved, the Project cannot later be invalidated by a vote of the people. In the event that voters approve the Proposed Oil Project, the City would need to relocate the City Maintenance Yard. Under those conditions, the City's objectives for relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be to: 1. Provide City Yard Maintenance facilities that support provision of high-quality City services in an integrated and cost-efficient manner; 2. Consolidate City facilities and functions for maximum efficiency and flexibility; 3. Minimize disruption of City functions during relocation of the City Maintenance Yard; 4. Ensure the relocated City Maintenance Yard is compatible with surrounding uses; and 5. Ensure there is no net loss of public and employee parking spaces as a result of both the Proposed Oil Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission.
2.3 Historical and Current Operations
Oil drilling and production in the Los Angeles Basin has a long history. According to the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) database, almost 30,000 oil wells have been drilled in the Los Angeles Basin in the last 100 to 150 years. Figure 2.2 shows the location of these wells. The Proposed Oil Project would drill into the western edge of the Torrance Oil Field (see Figure 2.2). Most of the production from the Torrance Oil Field has been generated from wells drilled in the City of Torrance, with some drilling in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. There have been approximately 1,500 wells drilled in the Torrance Oil Field historically. Although the Project Site is relatively flat, it is underlain by windblown sand dunes that previously covered the region, resulting in uneven ground due to natural conditions. In the 1920s and 1930s, the northeastern portion of the Project Site had a large depression that was mined for sand. Around 1927, the Citys dump and refuse burner were located on the Project Site, and, by 1947, the depression was filled. The resulting former landfill is approximately 45 feet deep and is filled with glass, porcelain, and ceramic towards the bottom and soils containing miscellaneous metals, wires, glass, and other materials toward the top (i.e., closer to the ground surface). Between the depths of 3 feet and 25 feet below ground surface (bgs), the former landfill contains some soil with lead at concentrations above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening levels. In addition, soils impacted with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were found at depths of 25 to 44 feet bgs within the central portion of the landfill. For a detailed discussion of the soil conditions on the Project Site, refer to the Geological Resources section.
2-5
Figure 2.2
Historical Wells Drilled in the Los Angeles Basin
Source: DOGGR
In 1930, an oil well (Stinnett Oil Well No. 1) was drilled in the western portion of the Project Site. The oil well was abandoned in 2005, consistent with the then-current standards of the DOGGR. During the mid-1940s, the first building was constructed on the Project Site for City maintenance uses, with the last building constructed in the 1980s. Since the 1990s, with the exception of the addition of trailers, storage containers, and sheds, the Project Site has generally remained unchanged. The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard, and the Proposed Oil Project would require the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. As indicated in Figure 2.3, existing development on the Project Site consists of three buildings, two trailers, storage
2-6
containers, sheds, trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing, and masonry walls. In addition, within the boundaries of the Project Site, there is an asphalt parking area to the south of the City Maintenance Yard that provides 15 parking spaces for employees (Monday through Thursday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and for the public after hours (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and on weekends and holidays. Existing site contamination from historical site uses is also shown in Figure 2.3. According to an Environmental Site Assessment prepared in 2012 (Brycon 2012), 10 of the 73 soil samples taken exceeded Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines for total petroleum hydrocarbons, all within the mid range hydrocarbons (C13-C22). Volatile organic carbons were not present in any of the samples at concentrations above the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels. Six of the samples exceeded the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels for lead. In addition, a series of groundwater borings conducted in 2013 (Brycon 2013) found the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, barium, and arsenic in the groundwater below the City Maintenance Yard that exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established for drinking water by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The immediately adjoining properties were sparsely developed into the 1940s, with a few residential units located to the northwest of the Project Site. Post 1940s, significant development occurred with industrial buildings being constructed to the south and west of the Project Site by 1953 and to the north of the Project Site by the 1960s. By 1960, the buildings to the west of the Project Site were identified as containing a building material warehouse, a boat repair shop, and a contractors storage yard. By 1960, the building to the south was being utilized as a planter mix manufacturing site. Since the 1960s, the various adjoining buildings have been utilized for multiple small businesses as industrial/commercial uses. To the east, from the late 1800s, there was a railroad right-of-way (ROW) that was utilized by the Santa Fe Railway. During the 1960s, the railroad ROW was converted to a greenbelt/park (Veterans Parkway - Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (Greenbelt)), followed by a Council initiative in 1987 directing the City of Hermosa Beach to acquire the Railroad ROW for public use as parkland and open space in perpetuity; the property is zoned O-S-1 Restricted Open Space. Currently, other land uses adjacent to the Project Site (on the same block between 8th and 6th Street and Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive) are commercial/industrial (Cypress Auto Body, A&B Heating, JB Plumbing, McGivern Surfboard Manufacturing, and other various small commercial/industrial businesses), with some residential uses along 8th Street to the north. Adjacent blocks include residential uses located 150 feet to the north of the Project Site, 250 feet to the west and 180 feet to the east (east of the Greenbelt), with small commercial/industrial uses and the Beach Cities Self Storage facility located to the immediate south across 6th Street with its required parking lot abutting the southwest corner of the Project Site. Figure 2.4 shows the southern area of the City of Hermosa Beach along with land uses.
2-7
Figure 2.3
Existing Site Conditions
Source: Applicant Project Application, DOGGR well database, Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments
2-8
Figure 2.4
Project Site and Area Land Uses (Zoning Map)
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map, November 2013
2-9
2.4
Proposed Oil Project Phases
The Proposed Oil Project would occur in the following four phases: Phase 1: Site Preparation; Phase 2: Drilling and Testing; Phase 3: Final Design and Construction; and Phase 4: Development and Operations.
Each phase is discussed in the following sections. The Applicant proposes a facility designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil and 2.5 million standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of produced gas at completion of the drilling stage of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4. The operational parameters of the Proposed Oil Project are summarized in Table 2.2. Prior to the initiation of each phase of the Proposed Oil Project, it would be required that plans be submitted by the Applicant to the City and other permitting authorities for review and approval. These would include coastal development permits, oil and gas well permits, demolition plans, grading plans, utility and electrical plans, cement/foundation plans, landscaping plans, street and ROW improvement/modification plans, and construction plans, amongst others. Figure 2.5 shows the Project Site along with the electrical and pipeline connections and the Cypress Avenue parking lot.
2.4.1 Phase 1 Site Preparation
The purpose of Phase 1 would be to prepare the Project Site for drilling and testing as well as for the subsequent phases of the Proposed Oil Project. It is anticipated that Phase 1 would occur for approximately six months. Prior to Phase 1 activities, the temporary City Maintenance Yard would be installed. See section 2.5.
2.4.1.1 Phase 1 Construction Activities
PHASE 1 Site Preparation 6-7 Months
Phase 1 would consist of the following construction activities: Underground existing overhead utilities; Construction of modifications to intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive; Relocation of City Maintenance Yard to the temporary site; Clearance of Project Site; Construction of retaining walls and rough grading; Installation of perimeter fencing; Construction of well cellar; Installation of offsite electrical conduit and onsite electrical equipment; Completion of onsite surface and entrance/exit;
2-10
Installation of temporary landscaping; and Installation of 32-foot sound attenuation wall.

Proposed Oil Project Design Parameters Parameter Value Phase 2: Up to 800 bpd Phase 4: Up to 8,000 bpd 18 API Phase 2: Up to 250,000 scfd Phase 4: Up to 2.5 million scfd Phase 2: Up to 1,600 bpd Phase 4: Up to 16,000 bpd Phase 2: 4 wells (3 production, 1 water injection) Phase 4: 34 total (30 production, 4 water injection/disposal) Up to 1 bpd mixed with crude oil Approx. 0.43 miles + 1.4 miles Approx. 3.55 miles Approx. 2,000 gallons per day during grading and earthwork Approx. 10,000 gallons per day during pipeline installation Approx. 20,000 gallons per month during facility construction 130,000 gallons per well reclaimed water (Approx. 4,500 gallons per day) 1,300 gallons per day (1,000 gallons per day for landscaping) (300 gallons per day for domestic use) 4.5 megawatts (including drill rig) 0.3 megawatts 7.0 megawatts (including drill rig) 3.0 megawatts during normal ongoing operations Onsite electrical generation of 1 MW 90 days/year Up to 5 per year, up to 30 redrills for the life of the Project
Table 2.2
Crude oil production Crude oil properties Natural gas production Produced water injection Maximum number of wells NGL production Pipeline length and tie-in, gas Pipeline length and tie-in, crude
Water use, during construction
Water use, during drilling Water use, during operations and maintenance (Landscaping- Reclaimed Water) (Domestic- Potable Water) Electrical use, Phase 2 Electrical use, Phase 3 Electrical use, Phase 4 Well workovers, annually Well re-drills (full sized drilling rig, peak annually
Notes: bpd = barrels per day; kW = kilowatts; scfd = standard cubic feet per day; NGL = natural gas liquids; API = American Petroleum Institute; estimated peak values and maximums shown Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices.
2-11
Figure 2.5
Project Site and Pipeline/Electrical Connections
Source: E&B Supplemental Application materials, January 2014
2-12
Each of these activities is discussed in the following subsections. Figure 2.6 shows the proposed arrangement of the Project Site under Phase 1. Appendix A provides the conceptual grading plan, site plan, elevations, and landscape concept plan for the Proposed Oil Project at the completion of Phase 1. The laydown area (equipment and supply storage/staging) for the Proposed Oil Project would be in the basement of the building located at 601 Cypress Street on the northwest corner of Cypress Street/6th Street (See Figure 2.3).
Underground Existing Overhead Utilities
There are currently overhead power lines and communication lines on poles that run overhead through the existing trees along Valley Drive. These existing lines would be removed along the Project frontage and relocated underground adjacent to the Project Site in a location determined by the utility companies and the City. Appendix A provides drawings showing the general location where the utility lines would be placed underground.
Construction of Modifications to Intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive
The Proposed Oil Project would include the construction of modifications to the intersection of 6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for Project-related trucks. Appendix A provides drawings showing the conceptual design of the proposed intersection modifications. These modifications would result in: Removal of a portion of the landscaped area and entry driveway to the Beach Cities Self Storage facility; Redesign of the sidewalk on the southwest corner of the intersection; Relocation of the stop sign and striping for the northbound lanes on Valley Drive to address the redesign of the southwest corner; Removal of a utility pole and underground utilities on the southwest corner of the intersection; Removal of a utility pole and underground the utilities on 6th Street; and The removal of two on-street parking spaces on 6th Street.
As a part of the intersection modifications, the stop sign and striping for the southbound lanes on Valley Drive would be relocated to improve the line of sight to and from the intersection with 6th Street. This modification would be made concurrently with the addition of the perimeter fencing on the Project Site (See Figure 2.6). In addition, the curb on the northwest corner along 6th Street adjacent to the Project Site would be temporarily provided as a rolled asphalt curb for Phases 1 and 2. The two on-street parking spaces removed from 6th Street would be provided as part of the Projects overall parking replacement program discussed further below.
Relocation of the City Maintenance Yard
Prior to Phase 1, a temporary City Maintenance Yard would be built at the New City Maintenance Yard location to the rear of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive. At this point, the
2-13
maintenance operations would be moved into the temporary City Maintenance Yard. Please see section 2.5 for a discussion of the City Maintenance Yard Project.
Clearance of the Project Site
Prior to the initiation of the site clearance activities, temporary 16-foot sound attenuation walls would be erected at the Project Site to reduce noise impacts related to construction. These sound walls would be designed to be movable and would be relocated within the Project Site as needed to attenuate noise associated with Phase 1 demolition and construction activities. The temporary sound walls would be removed from the Project Site after the onsite construction activities in Phase 1 are completed. Following the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard (see Section 2.5, Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, for a description of the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard), the Project Site would be cleared. The site clearance activities would include the removal of three existing buildings (one of which would be moved to the temporary site), two trailers, storage containers, sheds, trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing and masonry walls. In addition, the asphalt parking area to the west of the City Maintenance Yard would be removed, resulting in the removal of 15 parking spaces. The building located at 636 Cypress Avenue would also be demolished at this time (see Section 2.4.5) Prior to the demolition of the older building on the eastern portion of the Project Site, building materials would be assessed for asbestos content and presence of lead based paint, consistent with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). If asbestos containing materials or lead based paint are detected, the appropriate abatement process would be implemented. The building materials removed from the Project Site would be transported by truck to the recycling facility at Southern California Disposal in Santa Monica, the recycling facilities at Hanson Aggregates in Long Beach, or another certified facility for recycling or disposal. The Proposed Oil Project would include an overall parking replacement program that meets the intent of the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit requirements. Section 2.4.5 discusses the parking plan for the Proposed Oil Project. Three of the four existing mature trees along the frontage of the Project Site on Valley Drive would be retained to help screen construction activities. The Applicant has concluded that the fourth tree should be removed because it is in poor health, and it would limit access to the Project Site (See Figure 2.6). The three remaining trees would be trimmed to keep branches from hanging over onsite equipment and to help prevent trespassing.
Construction of Retaining Walls and Rough Grading
Water Injection Pumping water back down the well hole into the oil reservoir from which it was originally extracted.
Once the Project Site is cleared, retaining walls would be constructed along the western boundary of the Project Site and set back 10 feet along the western portion of the southern property boundary (See Figure 2.6).
2-14
Section 2: Project Description Figure 2.6 Proposed Oil Project Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Applicant application
2-15
This page intentionally left blank.
2-16
Rough grading would occur to allow for: The construction of a well cellar for three test oil wells and a water injection well; Surface drainage towards a temporary retention basin, which would contain a 100-year flood event; A level area for the set up and movement of the drill rig; and The installation of temporary production equipment.
It is anticipated that the rough grading would not require the import or export of fill material. Appendix A provides the conceptual grading plan that indicates the retaining wall locations and rough grading at the completion of Phase 1.
Installation of Perimeter Fencing
Following the rough grading, the Project Site would be enclosed by a six-foot temporary perimeter chain link fence covered with green fabric. The fence would include secured gates for the entrance off Valley Drive and the exit to 6th Street. The Applicant proposes to include the appropriate signage consistent with the requirements of the City. Figure 2.6 shows the location of the fencing and gates at the completion of Phase 1, and Appendix A shows an elevation of the fencing.
Construction of Well Cellar
A cement well cellar approximately 8 feet wide by 40 feet long by 12 feet deep would be constructed for three test wells and one water injection well to allow for the drilling of the wells in Phase 2. The well cellar would provide containment of any potential oil spillage during Phase 2. Figure 2.6 shows the location of the well cellar.
Installation of Offsite Electrical Conduit and Onsite Electrical Equipment
Electrical service for the Proposed Oil Project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The electrical conduit and onsite electrical equipment for all phases of the Proposed Oil Project would be installed in Phase 1. The electrical load during Phase 2 and Phase 3 would be 4.5 Megawatts (MW) and 0.3 MW, respectively. During Phase 4, the electrical load during drilling would be 7.0 MW and during ongoing operations would be 3.0 MW. According to the Applicant, SCE has determined that the existing 16 kilovolt (kV) circuit running along 8th Street to the north of the Project Site has the necessary capacity to serve the Proposed Oil Project. To receive electrical service from SCE, the Proposed Oil Project would provide for the installation of an underground conduit for a linear distance of 280 feet under Valley Drive from 8th Street to the northeast corner of the Project Site (see Figure 2.6) Electrical equipment consisting of step down transformer(s), switchgear, and variable frequency drive units would be installed in the northeast corner of the Project Site designated as the New SCE Yard in Figure 2.6. The electricity would be used to provide power for well pumps, the temporary production equipment, the temporary construction trailer, safety system controls, onsite lighting, and the drill rig used in Phase 2 and Phase 4. An uninterruptable power supply would be installed for critical systems such as the temporary production equipment safety systems and security lights. An emergency generator would be installed to provide power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation in the event of a loss of power from SCE.
2-17
Appendix A provides the general location of the offsite underground conduit.

Completion of Onsite Surface and Entrance/Exit
The surface of the Project Site would be covered with crushed aggregate base material to serve as a dust inhibitor and driving surface. Temporary berms would be constructed around the areas where the drill rig and associated equipment would be set up and the temporary production equipment installed to provide secondary containment. In addition, a temporary berm would be provided around the well cellar to avoid surface flows from entering the well cellar. The existing driveway access from Valley Drive and 6th Street would be used. On both sides of the driveway on 6th Street, a rolled asphalt curb would be provided.
Installation of Temporary Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site to provide a visual buffer. The plant materials and irrigation would be consistent with the requirements of the City. The trees and other plant materials would be planted in a manner that allows for their replanting as a part of the permanent landscaping provided in Phase 3. Reclaimed water supplied by West Basin Municipal Water District would be used for irrigation. The reclaimed water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive would be tapped and extended to the Project Site. Appendix A includes a conceptual landscape plan and plant materials for the temporary landscaping provided at the completion of Phase 1.
Installation of 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
At the completion of the improvements provided with Phase 1, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be erected inside the chain link construction fence in order to attenuate noise generated during Phase 2 drilling and testing. The 32-foot sound wall would stay installed through the duration of Phase 2.
2.4.1.2 Phase 1 Site Preparation Detailed Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 1 would occur for a period of approximately six months as indicated in the schedule provided in Table 2.3. As required by the previous Conditional Use Permit and as proposed by the Applicant, the construction activities on the Project Site, including the operation of earthmoving equipment, would be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (except holidays) and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Offsite construction activities within the public ROW would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday in the City of Hermosa Beach. Truck deliveries to the Project Site would be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except in the case of an emergency and with the prior approval of the Director of Public Works. The Project-related truck trips would be limited to 18 round trips per day and limited to the designated truck routes.
2-18
2.4.1.3 Phase 1 Site Preparation Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 1 are provided in the detailed listing in Appendix A. Vehicle trips are summarized in Table 2.4. The Project-related personnel would utilize parking spaces in an offsite parking area provided consistent with the proposed parking plan described in detail in attachments of this Draft EIR.
Table 2.3 Phase 1 Project Schedule Activity Construction of Temporary City Yard Underground overhead utilities th 6 Street & Valley intersection Relocation of Yard Remove buildings Remove other site structures Construct retaining walls Grade, well cellar, aggregate Construct chain link fence Construct well cellar Install electrical service Install landscaping Install 32-foot sound wall Note: relocation of Yard would only include moving of shop materials and equipment. The Temporary City Maintenance Yard would be construction prior to the start of Phase 1 and would take approximately 9 months. See section 2.5. Schedule (Weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
2.4.1.4 Phase 1 Truck Routes
Truck trips would be required in order to deliver and remove construction-related materials and equipment to and from, respectively, the Project Site. Trucks would utilize roads designated as truck routes by the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance. Truck routes are shown in Figures 2.13 and 2.14. The routes identified by the Applicant as those utilized for all phases of the Project are as follows: Inbound Trucks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inbound trucks from westbound Artesia Boulevard Left on to southbound Pacific Coast Highway Right on to westbound Pier Avenue Left on southbound Valley Drive Right into the Project driveway on Valley Drive
2-19
Or 6. Inbound trucks from westbound 190th Street (which becomes Anita Street) 7. Right on northbound Pacific Coast Highway 8. Left on to westbound Pier Avenue 9. Left on to southbound Valley Drive 10. Right into the Project driveway on Valley Drive Outbound Trucks 11. Outbound trucks on to eastbound 6th Street 12. Right on to southbound Valley Drive 13. Left on to eastbound Herondo Street 14. Continue onto Anita Street, then 190th Street to the Interstate 405 (I-405)/ Crenshaw interchange Or 15. Outbound trucks on to eastbound 6th Street 16. Right on to southbound Valley Drive 17. Left on to eastbound Herondo Street 18. Left on to northbound Pacific Coast Highway 19. Right on to Artesia Blvd.
2.4.2 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing
The purpose of Phase 2 would be to conduct the drilling and testing of wells in order to determine the potential productivity and economic viability of the Proposed Oil Project. During this phase, up to three test wells and one water disposal/injection well (a total of four wells) would be drilled. These wells would be drilled utilizing directional drilling technology, which enables the wells to be drilled laterally for long distances, so that the bottomhole locations may be located several thousand feet from the surface location of each wellhead on the Project Site (see Figure 2.7 and 2.8).
2.4.2.1 Phase 2 Site Geology and Drilling Objectives
PHASE 2 Drilling and Testing: Drilling for 3-4 Months Testing for 7-9 Months More
The Proposed Oil Project would utilize directional drilling techniques to access the crude oil and gas reserves in the tidelands (offshore) and uplands (offshore) in the portions of the Torrance Oil Field within the Citys jurisdiction. The Project Application states that "no hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) of wells will occur because the geologic zones for the Proposed Project are permeable and capable of yielding oil and gas without hydraulic fracture stimulation."
2-20
Table 2.4
Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Summary Activity
Trucks, Maximum Autos/PU, Total, Maximum RT/day* Maximum RT/day RT/day Underground overhead utilities 4 10 14 th Construct 6 & Valley intersection 3 8 11 Remove buildings 10 8 18 Remove other existing site structures 15 6 21 Construct retaining walls 5 14 19 Grade, well cellar and aggregate 15 10 25 Construct chain link fence 1 4 5 Construct well cellar 4 8 12 Install electrical service 6 15 22 Install landscaping 1 2 3 Install 32-foot sound attenuation wall 3 12 14 Greatest number of trips in one day 18 31 43 (during week 9) (during week 12) (during week 10) Notes: * According to the 1993 CUP, which is valid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency. Trucks are 3+ axle or greater or trucks with trailers. Autos are automobiles or pickups/trucks with 2 axles. Trips are round trips. Maximum truck activity occurs during week 9 with the installation of electrical service and the removal of existing structures. Maximum auto activity occurs during week 12 with the installation of electrical service and construction of the retaining wall. Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occur during week 10. Truck maximum and auto/PU maximum do not necessarily occur on the same day, so the total maximum is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix. See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment for each week. Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
The approximate extent of the Citys jurisdiction within the Torrance Oil Field is provided in Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8 provides a typical well cross section illustrating how wells can reach the oil reserves, within the tidelands, from the Project Site. The Project Application states the primary target zones are the Upper Main, Lower Main, and Del Amo Zones with some production potential within the Schist Conglomerate. These are all part of the Puente Formation. As shown in Figure 2.8, the Upper Main Zone is the uppermost part of the Puente Formation. The Project Application states that it is expected to be the shallowest oil productive zone in the City. Of the three known producing horizons in the Torrance Oil Field, the Upper Main Zone is the most prolific. The Upper Main Zone beneath the Hermosa Beach tidelands and uplands is expected to be 300 feet thick and composed of inter-bedded thin sands and shales. The shales are currently fractured and provide both fractured porosity and permeability. The fractures are critical to the performance of the reservoir in the area due to the fine-grained and thin-bedded nature of the sands. The Lower Main Zone lies below the Upper Main Zone in the Puente Formation. The Project Application states that similar to the Upper Main Zone, the shales of the
2-21
Lower Main Zone are currently fractured and important for oil production. However, the Lower Main Zone has fewer interbedded fine-grained sands and is over 500 feet thick. The Del Amo Zone lies beneath the Lower Main Zone. It contains the least amount of thinbedded sandstone in the Puente Formation. The Project Application states that similar to the other two zones, the shales of the Del Amo Zone are currently fractured and important for oil production. The Del Amo Zone varies the most in thickness and could be from 200 feet up to 700 feet thick. The Schist Conglomerate underlies the Del Amo Zone and is resting on metamorphic basement rock (Catalina Schist). The Schist Conglomerate could be as much as 400 feet thick and is composed of reworked fragments derived from erosion of the underlying Catalina Schist. The Project Application states that although it is unknown if the Schist Conglomerate is productive beneath the City, it is still a viable exploration target. The production test wells would target areas to the south-west, the north-west and the north areas of the lease (see Figure 2.7). The wells for the Proposed Oil Project would be at a true vertical depth of approximately 3,000 feet and a measured depth of approximately 9,000 feet. The actual well depth would vary depending on the area targeted. The Applicant indicates that the wellhead pressures anticipated during and immediately after drilling would be 0.0 pounds per square inch (psi) and that the wells are not anticipated to be free-flowing.
2.4.2.2 Phase 2 Construction and Drilling Activities
Phase 2 construction and drilling would consist of the following activities and improvements: Installation of Temporary Construction Trailer Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig Installation of Temporary Production Equipment Drilling of Wells Testing and Operational Systems
These activities are discussed in the following subsections.

Phase 2 Installation of Temporary Construction Trailer
A temporary construction trailer would be installed in the northeast portion of the Project Site (see Figure 2.9). In addition, the associated utilities, including potable water and sewer, would be extended from the existing lines currently located along 6th Street that serve the City Maintenance Yard. Water and sewer service would be provided by the California Water Service Company and the City, respectively. Electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) as discussed above under Phase 1 construction activities.
2-22
Phase 2 Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig
An electric drilling rig and its associated equipment would be brought to the Project Site on large trucks with trailers to be permitted by the City and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The drilling rig would be an "automated drill rig" (ADR), which means that many of the drill rig procedures (loading pipe, etc,) would be done by mechanical means automatically. The approximately 87foot high drill rig would be powered by electricity. A large crane with a 150-foot boom would be used to erect the drill rig. Support equipment for the drill rig would include pipe racks, mud and cutting system, pumps, hydraulic equipment, and an accumulator. In the event of a loss of power from SCE, a generator, which would be a non-road portable diesel-fuel generator certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), would provide power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation.
Phase 2 Installation of Temporary Production Equipment
Automated Drilling Rig
Temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment would be installed on the Project Site. This temporary equipment would include a well test station, an induced gas flotation/filter skid, a gas combustor (enclosed ground flare), fluid handling tanks, piping, vapor recovery unit, pumps, and vessels. The production equipment would be delivered by trucks to the Project Site. The temporary production equipment would be installed in the eastern portion of the Project Site within an area enclosed by a containment berm as shown in Figure 2.9.
Ground Flare
Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project would be designed as a closed-loop system, with pressure relief valves venting to a flare and tanks venting to a vapor recovery system. The control system would be computerized and would monitor the closed-loop system, providing warnings, corrective actions, and shutdowns, if necessary. Corrective actions could be closing valves, sounding alarms, shutting down wells or other process related functions. In addition, according to the Applicant, redundancy would be built into the system to provide an extra level of protection, ensuring there would be a backup for each safety device. All safety devices would be tested on a regular basis as per applicable codes and standards.
Figure 2.7 Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas
2-23
Source: Project Application
Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor all aspects of the Proposed Oil Projects production process.
Phase 2 Drilling of Wells
Once the drill rig and associated equipment set up is complete, up to three test wells would be drilled utilizing directional drilling technology. This would enable the wells to be drilled
2-24
laterally for long distances so that the bottom-hole locations may be located horizontally several thousand feet from the surface location of the well head on the Project Site. All wells would be permitted, drilled and cemented in accordance with the State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regulations. Drilling would proceed in the following manner: Installation of conductor casing; Drilling of wells; Placement of casing and cementing of wells (in stages at various depths); and Completion of the well, including installation of down-hole pumps and tubing.
Installation of Conductor Casing
The conductor casing is the initial hole drilled into the ground with a large diameter pipe installed to maintain integrity. The subsequent drilling of the well would take place through the conductor casing. Conductor casing would be installed with a small drilling rig, referred to as a dry-hole digger, which would be used to set the conductor casing for all of the intended wells in the Project Site. A large diameter hole, about 18 inches in diameter, would be drilled to an approximately 80-foot depth. This type of drilling is similar to boring a hole with an auger. Usually, no drilling fluid is needed to drill the hole, hence the name dry-hole digger. A large diameter casing, commonly referred to as conductor pipe, typically 13-3/8 inches in diameter, is lowered to the bottom of the hole and is cemented in place with construction concrete. This forms the first seal of the near-surface formations and also serves as a steel conduit to allow the drilling fluid used in the next stage of the well drilling to be circulated to the surface without washing away the shallow near-surface dirt. All conductors necessary to develop the Proposed Oil Project test phase would be set at this time and the dry-hole digger moved off before the drilling rig would be mobilized and brought to the Project Site.
Drilling, Casing and Completion of Wells
The components of the drill rig and all necessary equipment would then be moved onto the Project Site with large specially equipped trucks. The drill rig height would be 87 feet. The drilling setup would include three main parts; the drilling structure (i.e., mast, substructure,
2-25
Figure 2.8
Applicant Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas Cross Section
Source: Project Application. Representative figure not to scale or reflective of the exact geology of the region.
2-26
Figure 2.9
Proposed Conceptual Site Plan - Project Phase 2
2-27
2-28
catwalk, silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) house, top drive, back-up generator, crown block, traveling block, iron rough neck, drill pipe, control cabin), the blow out preventer (BOP) system (i.e., BOP Stack, Shear Ram, BOP Controller, and Accumulator), and the mud system (i.e., mud tanks, mud shakers, mud pumps, mud return line). The drilling rig would also require other equipment such as a spare parts house, other tanks, and storage areas as needed to support the drilling operation. The substructure of the drill rig would be located over the first well conductor casing, the mast would be raised, and the other equipment would be aligned and connected. The drill pipe would be laid out on racks convenient to the rig floor so they may be used when needed. Water tanks would be filled, and drilling fluid additives would be stored on site. The drill rig for the Proposed Oil Project would be run on electric utility power, so an electrical hookup would be made at this time. Drilling operations would then begin. The initial mobilization and rigging up operation is expected to last about seven to ten working days. Spudding in is the term used to begin drilling operations. A large (12 -inch diameter) drill bit is attached to the first joint of drill pipe (usually 30 feet long) and lowered into the conductor casing. As the first length of pipe is completely lowered in, another length of pipe is attached to the end, thereby increasing the length of the drill string. When the drill string reaches the bottom of the conductor casing at a depth of 80 feet, the drilling begins. In order to drill downwards through soil and rock, the drill bit requires rotation and downward force, which is provided by the weight of thick-walled pipe on top of the drill bit. A single, 30-foot long drill pipe for a larger diameter drill bit weighs approximately three tons. As the drill bit drills deeper, more drill pipe is placed on top, thereby increasing the downward force; this is collectively known as the drill string. The drill bit turns clockwise as the weight of the drill pipe column forces it downward. Drilling fluid, called mud, is pumped down the inside of the hollow drill pipe, through a hole in the drill bit, and flushes the drilled rock cuttings away from the bit and up the space between the wall of the borehole and the outside of the drill pipe, which is referred to as the annulus. When the mud reaches the surface, it circulates to a mud tank where the rock cuttings are separated out of the fluid by using a shaker, and the clean mud is pumped back down the hole in a continuous circuit, constantly circulating the drilled rock cuttings up and away from the drill bit as it penetrates deeper into the earth. The cuttings are analyzed, stored in 20 cubic yard bins, and then hauled offsite. Initially, a large diameter bit is used to drill to a predetermined depth. When the specified depth is reached, drilling is stopped, the drilling string is removed and a large diameter pipe (a casing string) is assembled in 40-foot lengths and lowered to the bottom of the well bore. Cement is then pumped down the inside of the casing, around the bottom of the hole, and up the annulus between the casing and the well bore. When the cement hardens, it ensures that the entire casing and well bore are encased in cement, protecting the fresh water aquifers and surrounding subsurface areas from the production fluids inside of the casing. See Figure 2.10 for a schematic of the well bore and casing.
2-29
Figure 2.10
Typical Well Bore and Casing
Source: Project Application
Next, a piece of equipment known as a blowout preventer (BOP) is attached to the well head. The BOP is a safety system used during drilling operations in oil and gas fields to prevent the uncontrolled release of reservoir fluids and to immediately shut off the flow in the event that abnormal pressure is encountered in the well bore that cannot be controlled by the hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid when drilling resumes beneath the surface casing. If the subsurface pressure begins to cause the well to flow, the BOP is activated, closing in the well and trapping the pressure until it can be bled off safely and drilling can continue. A BOP would be placed on each wellhead during the drilling and removed after the well is completed. A BOP utilizing Blind Shear Rams would be utilized. Blind Shear Rams are a type of BOP common in the offshore environment that allow for the shutting off of flow through the well even if drill pipe is in the wellbore. Pursuant to the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulation on Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (30 CFR part 250), the Applicant indicates that the BOP would be certified that the shear rams can actually shear the drill pipe prior to drilling. The surface casing serves three primary functions: It isolates fresh water formations from contact with any fluids coming from deeper in the earth; It serves as a mounting place for the blowout preventer; and It serves as the support for the production casing that would be placed in the well if oil is found.
Once the surface casing is cemented in, drilling operations resume with a smaller drill bit. This smaller hole is drilled to the total depth decided upon by the Applicants geologic and engineering staff. Usually, the only interruptions to drilling operations would be to remove the drill pipe (also known as tripping pipe) from the well to replace a dull drill bit, and then lowering the pipe back to the bottom of the well.
2-30
In order to achieve the directional aspect of the drill hole, the well bore is bent. The act of bending a well out of the vertical axis typically begins after vertical drilling has progressed several hundred feet beneath the surface. Although the specifics of each well proposed for this Project have not been established, it is not uncommon to begin to deviate from vertical at a depth of about 600 feet and still reach a target formation located at a depth of 4,000 feet, but also almost 4,000 to 6,000 feet sideways from the surface spot location. This system would be used on virtually all of the wells drilled for the Proposed Oil Project. When the well reaches total depth (TD), drilling operations are halted and the drill pipe is removed from the well leaving mud in the hole to contain any potential production fluids located at the reservoir depth. A logging tool is then lowered into the hole to record petrophysical data of the formations through which the rig has drilled. If the well looks like it would produce oil, production casing is installed in a similar fashion to the installation of the surface casing. Production casing for the Proposed Oil Project is planned to be 7 inches in diameter. Production casing would be cemented similarly to how the surface casing is cemented, as previously described. Once the cement has been allowed to fully harden, another electric logging tool, called a cement bond log, is lowered to the bottom of the well to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of the cement on the outside of the production casing. The well is then completed, which is a series of activities that allow for the production fluids to flow into the well bore inside the casing and to the surface. Appendix A provides additional details on this process. Table 2.5 shows a list of chemicals that would be used during drilling operations. The amounts listed are the estimated quantities consumed per well drilled. These materials are packaged by the manufacturer for shipping and would be delivered to the job site by conventional delivery or flatbed trucks. Drilling each well would require approximately 130,000 gallons (or 0.4 acre-feet) of water. The water would be reclaimed water provided by the West Basin Municipal Water District from an existing reclaimed water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. The West Basin Municipal Water District has provided the Applicant with a will serve letter. The drilling process requires the use of drilling mud to circulate drilled rock cuttings out of the well hole, retain the integrity of the well hole, and control reservoir pressure. The drilling mud would be collected onsite in Baker tanks (enclosed tanks that are approximately 12 feet tall by 40 feet long and hold up to 500 barrels each). Although most of the mud would be reused on subsequent wells, some mud would be removed from the Project Site and disposed of each day by truck at an approved disposal site at Anterras Oxnard Licensed Class 2 Disposal Facility or a similar facility. In addition, all other waste generated by the test drilling would be transported by truck to the appropriate disposal site at Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill, or a similar facility if closer to the Project Site.
2-31
Table 2.5
Phase 2 Drilling Chemicals Use Container 100-pound sack 50-pound sack 2-pound sack 25-pound sack 50-pound sack 50-pound sack 50-pound sack Amount per Well 525 sacks 82 sacks 75 sacks 40 sacks 380 gallons 600 gallons 40 sacks 11 sacks 48 sacks
Common/Trade Name Gel Wyoming Bentonite
Used to enhance mud viscosity DMA Sodium Polyacrylate Water absorbent mud additive Benex Anionic Acrylamide Mud additive GEOZan Xanthan Gum Mud viscosifier Omniopol Sodium Water absorbent mud Polyacrylate Liquid additive CFR Fatty Acid Liquid Mud additive to enhance lubricity Bicarb Sodium Bicarbonate Mud additive for pH control Citric Acid Mud additive for pH control Walnut Hulls Filter medium, used to reduce torque and drag of drill pipe and for plugging of fractures and high porosity formations Cement Bulk-Truck Used for well sealing Biotreat 8415 Treatment of water before injection into the oil reservoir Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
3 bulk trucks
The Proposed Oil Project would comply with the 1993 CUP conditions of approval, proposed operational practices, and proposed design features. The noise reduction methods would include the following: An electric drill rig would be utilized, reducing the need for diesel engines; The drill rig would have no draw works or cables resulting in less noise; A 32-foot-high acoustical barrier wall would be erected around the perimeter of the Project Site during all drilling activities. The wall would have a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 32; The air inlets and vents of the hydraulic power unit would be fitted with silencers; An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of the rig mast to reduce the top drive noise (if applicable); The mud pumps would be enclosed with acoustical barriers having a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 25; An 8-foot high acoustical barrier with an STC rating of at least 25 would be installed around the shaker tables; Drilling Quiet Mode Plan would be implemented at the drill site between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., a plan which would provide for the following: disablement of all audible mobile equipment and truck backup alarms; minimization of pipe handling; cessation of
2-32
cementing operations, maintenance, and tripping pipe; and limits within the delivery schedule; and An automated and remotely managed system to connect/disconnect pipe (Iron Roughneck) would be used, which would reduce pipe handling;
No processing of gas would occur during Phase 2. The gas separated from the oil and water would be directed to a gas combustor (enclosed ground flare), where disposal of it would occur through burning. The Applicant indicates that low levels of potential native hydrogen sulfide (H2S), in the order of 0.0 to 6.0 parts per million (ppm), may be encountered in the gas produced from the underlying oil reservoir. Because the produced fluids may contain some H2S, fixed H2S detection systems would be installed around the drilling site and continuous monitoring would be present during all drilling, workover, and well servicing operations. Sensors would be located in areas that are frequently used by personnel, selected drilling area locations, areas where H2S may accumulate, and any other areas determined by hazard analysis to pose a potential risk. Personnel would also carry personal H2S monitors attached to their clothing for immediate H2S detection during drilling.
Phase 2 Testing and Operational Systems
After the completion of the first test well and the water injection well, the extracted oil would go through production and testing. The temporary production equipment on the Project Site would be used to process the production fluid. The oil would be processed to a standard that would be suitable for sale. The produced water would be processed and re-injected back into the oilproducing reservoir below the oil water contact. Disposal of the gas produced during Phase 2 would occur through burning in the enclosed ground gas flare. Figure 2.11 shows the steps involved in processing the oil, water, and gas produced from the test wells in Phase 2.
Processing of Production Fluids
During Phase 2, the Proposed Oil Project is designed to handle up to 800 barrels of oil per day and up to 250,000 standard cubic feet of gas per day. After the oil is processed, it would be trucked from the Project Site to an offsite oil receiving facility at 2650 Lomita Boulevard in Torrance. Figures 2.11 and 2.12 provide an outline of the Citys designated truck route through the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance.
2-33
Figure 2.12
Phase 2 Process Flow Diagram
The produced fluids would be sent from the wells to a three-phase separator, which would separate the fluid into gas, oil and water streams. The gas exits the top of the separator, the oil exits the middle, and the water exits the bottom of the separator. Each one of these fluids enters a specific system of treatment as follows.
Oil Treatment System
The produced oil would enter a series of stock tanks after leaving the three-phase separator. The stock tanks would be used if the oil needs to be further processed to remove excess water. The water removed from the oil and water mixture would be sent back to the three-phase separator through a drain system. Once the oil is processed to a standard suitable for sale, the oil from the stock tank would be loaded into a tanker truck and transported to the purchaser.
Gas Treatment System
The produced gas would be sent directly to a compressor and then to the gas flare for combustion after leaving the three-phase separator. A vapor recovery system attached to the temporary Baker tanks would be utilized to capture vapors and to direct them to a vapor recovery compressor and to the gas system and flare. The vapor recovery, tank and flare system would be subject to Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit requirements.
2-34
Figure 2.12
Truck Routes from Highway 405 to Project Site
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices Figure 2.13 Truck Routes to Highway 405 from the Project Site
The Proposed Project provides for the injection of treated stormwater runoff and produced water from the drilling and production process back into the oil reservoir using water injection wells. The injection of untreated water can result in the creation of H2S concentrations in the oil reservoir above preexisting levels (referred to as the native condition). Prior to the injection of produced water from the oil extraction process, or the injection of surface runoff from precipitation that collects on the Project Site, the water would be treated by a biocide to eliminate sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Once wells begin production, the extracted water would be tested for SRBs to determine if treatment is needed. In addition, the surface runoff water and any other injected water, would be tested. SRBs are an assemblage of specialized bacteria that
2-35
thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by oxidation of organic nutrients, with sulfate being reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). SRBs are treated by the use of a biocide and this treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment. There are numerous antibacterial agents available on the market that could be used for this specific treatment if it is determined to be needed.
Facility Storm Drain System
The Proposed Oil Project Site is designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the perimeter fence or wall for a 100-year storm event. All rainwater falling on the site would be collected and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. In addition, any spills on the site would also be contained, both within process system walls/berms around equipment and site walls/berms around the site. Process walls/berms would be designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel plus the precipitation generated by a 100-year storm event.
Safety Systems
Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor the Proposed Oil Projects production process during Phase 2. A fire protection system as required by Federal, State, and local codes, ordinances and regulations would be installed by the Applicant prior to the drilling and testing activities on the Project Site. The Fire Protection Plan for Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project would be provided to the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department for review and approval prior to the initiation of Phase 2. The design and operation of the Proposed Oil Project would be required to meet provisions within the California Fire Code (CFC) and standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), including the requirements for the storage of hazardous materials, the installation and use of fire protection systems and devices, and the implementation of safety measures for employees and emergency responders. Onsite personnel and a site security program, including a closed circuit television system, a gate access system, and an intrusion and motion detection system, would control all access to and from the Project Site during Phase 2. In addition, temporary lighting would be provided. The lighting would be shielded/hooded and directed downward, as is consistent with City requirements. All tanks would have containment equal or greater in capacity than at least 110 percent of the largest vessel plus the precipitation generated by a 100-year storm event.
Water Treatment System
The produced water would be pumped into a treatment system, including a gas flotation unit and a filter unit, to remove excess oil after leaving the three-phase separator. The primary objective of both units would be to clean the water of oil and solids such as sand. The water would then enter a water surge tank after leaving the filter unit and would be sent to the water injection pumps for injection into the oil-producing reservoir through the injection well. If determined to
2-36
be needed, before it enters the water surge tank, the water would be injected with a biocide to eliminate any bacteria that may be in the produced water.
Electrical Requirements
Approximately 75 kilo-watt hours of electricity would be required to drill each well.

Chemicals
Project operations would require the use of chemicals. These chemicals would be documented in a required Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Typical chemicals utilized in the temporary production facility are shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Phase 2 Testing Chemicals Maximum Quantity (Gallons) 60 40 50 400 165 55 120
Common/Trade Name Emulsion Breaker/Phasetreat 6378 Water Clarifier/Floctreat 7991 Emulsion Breaker/Waxtreat 3610 Corrosion Inhibiter/Cor 7182 Surface Cleaner/4U Scale Dissolver/Techni Solve 1780
Use Help separate oil and water Water additive Help separate oil and wax Additive to reduce corrosion General purpose cleaner General purpose scale remover Scale Inhibitor/Techni Hib 7621 Additive to reduce scaling Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
Noise Abatement
The Proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval. In addition, the applicant proposes to incorporate several operational practices and design features intended to abate noise. The conditions of approval, operational practices and design features that would be incorporated into the production operations include the following: Heavy/large reciprocating equipment would be mounted on vibration isolators; Pipe tripping would be restricted to daylight hours only; Loudspeaker paging systems would be prohibited; Well workover rigs or any other workover-type rig (not the main drilling rig) that is used would be operated only between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm during daytime weekday hours only, excluding holidays, except in an emergency as defined in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement. The exhaust and intake of the diesel engine (if used on the workover rig) would be muffled to reduce noise to an acceptable limit. The operator would use whatever means necessary, including, but not limited to, enclosing the diesel engine and rig in acoustic blankets or housing;
2-37
All oil maintenance equipment, vehicles and non-electrical motors would be equipped with manufacturer approved mufflers or housed in a sound-proofing device; Noise monitoring would be conducted under the supervision of an independent certified acoustical engineer; Each well pump would produce a sound power level no greater than 83 dBA. This may be achieved by fitting sound attenuating enclosures that provide an insertion loss of at least 15 dB; The produced oil pumps, produced water pumps, water booster pumps and variable frequency drive electrical (VFD) cabinets would produce a sound power level no greater than 77 dBA; The water injection pumps would produce a sound power level no greater than 83 dBA. The vapor recovery compressors would produce a sound power level no greater than 83 dBA; and The cooler for the compressors would produce a sound power level no greater than 85 dBA.
Decision not to Proceed - Abandonment
If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would not be economically viable, the Applicant would remove the sound attenuation walls, the temporary production equipment, and the temporary construction trailer and abandon the three test wells and the water injection well in accordance with the requirements of DOGGR. The Project Site would be left as a graded site with site improvements including the retaining walls, the perimeter chain link fence, and the perimeter landscaping. As the temporary City Maintenance Yard would already be constructed under the Proposed Project, the current City Maintenance Yard Site would be empty and would be available for development within the M-1 Light Manufacturing zoned area of Hermosa Beach. The site would then be available for City or other development proposals, or for the temporary City Maintenance Yard to be relocated back to this site.
2.4.2.3 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 2 would occur for approximately 12 months as indicated in the schedule provided in Table 2.7. The drill rig would operate continuously for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for each well has been reached. It is estimated it would take 120 days for drilling activities, 24 hours a day, which is approximately 30 days per well for four wells. After the drilling of the three oil wells and one water injection well is complete, the drill rig would be removed from the Project Site. As each well is drilled, the produced fluids from that well would go thorough production and testing, as described above
2.4.2.4 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 2 are provided in detail in Appendix A. A summary of the vehicles trips is shown in Table 2.8. Parking for the employees
2-38
would be provided in an adjacent parking area as previously discussed for Phase 1. Since Phase 1 prepares the Project Site for Phase 2, the conceptual landscape plan and elevations provided above for Phase 1 would also be applicable to Phase 2.
Table 2.7 Phase 2 Project Schedule Activity Schedule (Weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 thru 54
Install trailer and associated utilities Deliver and set up drill rig/equipment Install oil, water, and gas equipment Drill 3 test wells and water well Testing of wells Remove drill rig and equipment Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
Table 2.8
Phase 2 Vehicle Trip Summary
3-axle Trucks, 2-axle trucks, Total, Maximum Maximum Autos, Maximum RT/day RT/day* RT/day Install trailer and associated utilities 2 5 7 Deliver and set up drill rig/equipment 7 20 27 Install oil, water, and gas equipment 6 15 21 Drill 3 test wells and water well 9 10 19 Testing of wells 13 5 18 Remove drill rig and equipment 5 20 25 Greatest number of trips in one day 18 25 37 (during weeks 15, (during weeks 7(during week 7) 17, 19, 21-24) 12 ) Notes: * According to the 1993 CUP, which is valid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency. Trucks are 3+ axle or greater or trucks with trailers. Autos are automobiles or pickups/trucks with 2 axles. Trips are round trips. Maximum truck activity occurs during drilling and testing of wells. Maximum auto activity occurs during weeks 7-12 with the installation of oil, water and gas equipment and the drilling of wells. Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occurs during week 7. Truck maximum and auto/PU maximum do not necessarily occur on the same day, so the total maximum is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix. See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment for each week. Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices Activity
2-39
2.4.3
Phase 3 Final Design and Construction
If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would be economically viable, the Applicant would begin Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project. The purpose of Phase 3 would be to utilize the production information from Phase 2 to prepare the final design of the facility, prepare the onsite area for facility installation, install the permanent oil and gas production facilities, and construct offsite pipelines.
2.4.3.1 Phase 3 Onsite Construction
PHASE 3 Final Design and Construction: 16 Months
Phase 3 onsite activities would involve the following construction activities: Preparation of final engineering design; Removal of temporary production equipment; Removal of three remaining trees; Removal of 32-foot sound attenuation wall and perimeter fencing; Installation of 16-foot sound attenuation wall; Implementation of remedial action plan; Construction of remaining retaining walls and final grading; Completion of construction of well cellars; Construction of 16-foot split-face block wall; Removal of 16-foot sound attenuation wall; Construction of small office building; Installation of permanent production equipment; Construction of final site improvements; Construction of final street improvements along Project frontage; Installation of final landscaping; Installation of 32-foot sound attenuation wall; Setting of conductor pipe; and Installation of lighting systems.
Each of these activities is detailed in the discussion that follows. A site plan for Phase 3 is shown in Figure 2.14. The conceptual grading plan, site plan, elevations (with the 32-foot sound attenuation wall), and conceptual landscape plan for the Proposed Oil Project at the completion of Phase 3 are shown in Appendix A.
Prepare Final Engineering Design
The final design of the permanent oil and gas production facilities, to be implemented during the first few months of Phase 3, would be based on the oil and gas analysis and production results from Phase 2 activities. Final design would include the sizing and development of the exact specifications for the oil, gas, and water separation production equipment and the detailed engineering to prepare the required final construction drawings.
2-40
Remove Temporary Production Equipment
The temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment installed on the Project Site during Phase 2 would be removed. The wells drilled during Phase 2 would be shut in, and steel plating would be placed on top of the well cellar.
Remove Remaining Trees
The three remaining mature trees along the frontage of the Project Site along Valley Drive would be removed to allow for the construction of final site improvements including a perimeter wall and the installation of permanent landscaping.
Remove 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall and Perimeter Fencing
The 32-foot sound attenuation wall and the 6-foot perimeter chain link fencing would be removed from the Project Site.
Install 16-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
Prior to the initiation of earthmoving activities, a temporary 16-foot sound attenuation wall would be brought to the Project Site. The sound walls would be designed to be movable and would be relocated within the Project Site as needed to attenuate noise and dust associated with the earthmoving activities needed for the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan and the final grading of the Project Site. The temporary sound walls would be removed from the Project Site after the onsite earthmoving and grading activities are completed.
Implementation of Remedial Action Plan
The Remedial Action Plan would be implemented to address lead, barium, arsenic and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil and groundwater within and beneath the former landfill area in the northeastern portion of the Project Site. It is anticipated that approximately 9,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan and hauled to a Class 1 landfill at the Kettleman Hills Facility, approximately 190 miles from the Project Site. The TPH contaminated soil (approximately 4,500 cubic yards located deeper than 25 feet) would be treated onsite via vapor extraction. For a detailed discussion of the soil remediation that would occur prior to final grading of the Project Site, refer to the Remedial Action Plan provided in Appendix A. Groundwater contamination attributed to historic use of the site has been documented (Brycon 2013). The DTSC and the RWQCB have indicated that the contamination is below the levels of concern for the area and that groundwater remediation would not be necessary for the site.
Construction of Remaining Retaining Walls and Final Grading
Retaining walls (up to 6 feet high) would be constructed 10 feet back from the Valley Drive and 6th Street property lines, along the eastern boundary of the Project Site and along the eastern portion of the southern boundary of the Project Site (see Figure 2.14). In addition, retaining walls would be constructed within the Project Site for the containment area associated with the production equipment. After the completion of the retaining walls, the Project Site would be graded to allow for the installation of Project equipment and to allow for proper site drainage. The final grading of the Project Site would not require the import or export of fill material.
2-41
Appendix A provides the conceptual grading plan that indicates the location of the retaining wall locations and the final grading of the Project Site.
Complete Construction of Well Cellars
The cement well cellar constructed in Phase 2 would be extended, and a second well cellar would be constructed to allow for the drilling of the remaining wells in Phase 4. At completion, the well cellars would be approximately 8 feet wide by 120 feet long by 12 feet deep, with stairs at each end and covered with expanded metal grating. The well cellars would be equipped with storm water collection sumps and pumps to direct the storm water to the drain sump. From the drain sump, water would be directed into the processing system and injected, by the water injection wells drilled in Phase 4, into the oil-producing reservoir below the oil water contact. Figure 2.14 shows the location of the well cellars.
Construction of 16-Foot Split-Face Block Wall
A 16-foot split-face block wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the Project Site. The wall would be set back 10 feet from the Valley Drive and 6th Street property lines to allow for a landscape area. The wall would have a gated entrance off Valley Drive (set back 70 feet from the sidewalk) and a gated exit to 6th Street. The gates would be metal and motor operated. The appropriate signage would be provided, as is consistent with City requirements.
Remove 16-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
After the completion of the Remedial Action Plan, final site grading, and construction of the well cellars and perimeter wall, the 16-foot temporary sound attenuation wall would be removed from the Project Site.
Construction of Small Office Building
A small office building approximately 650 square feet in size would be constructed in the northeast portion of the Project Site to house employee offices and control and monitoring equipment. The building would have a restroom and break room. The improvements extended to the Project Site in Phase 1 would provide for associated utilities, including water, sewer, natural gas, and telephone. The California Water Service Company and the City would provide water and sewer service, respectively. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) would provide natural gas, and electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Verizon would provide telephone service. Office related solid waste services would be provided by Athens Services or a future city franchisee.
2-42
Figure 2.14
Phase 3 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
2-43
2-44
Installation of Permanent Production Equipment
Permanent oil, water, and gas production equipment would be installed on the Project Site. The permanent oil production facilities would include tanks, vessels, piping, pumps, filters, and supporting metering equipment. These are listed in Table 2.9. A retaining wall around all of the vessels, tanks and other equipment containing oil would provide secondary containment. The design capacity of the secondary containment would exceed the fluid capacity of the largest tank by 110 percent plus the precipitation from a 100-year storm event. In Phase 4, the oil production facility would be used to separate gas, water, and solids from the oil, after which the oil would be stored in tanks prior to transport via pipeline from the Project Site. The separated water would be accumulated in tanks, filtered, and then injected into the oilbearing reservoir by the four water injection wells. Gas from each well would be treated on the Project Site and then sold to the SCGC. The permanent gas production facilities would have compressors, vessels, a H2S and carbon dioxide (CO2) removal system, a moisture removal system, and an odorizing system. The use of this equipment is discussed in Section 2.4.4, Phase 4 Development and Operations.
Table 2.9 Phase 3 and 4 Processing Equipment Listing
Equipment Size and Number Oil Shipping Tanks 40 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 2900 BBLS, 2 tanks Water Clarifier 40 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 2900 BBLS, 1 tank Water Surge 30 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 1120 BBLS, 2 tanks Gas compressors 30 foot by 40 foot - 3 compressors DEA Skid (acid gas removal) 12 foot by 40 foot, 1 skid Low Temperature Separation 12 foot by 40 foot, 1 skid (LTS) skid (propane refrigerant) Flare/Gas Combustor 10 foot diameter by 22 feet high Vapor Recovery Compressor 17 foot by 28 foot IGF Skid 18 foot by 8 foot, 1 skid Filter Skid 25 foot by 18 foot, 1 skid Micro Turbines (five turbines) 200 kw each, 30 foot by 40 foot 3-Phase Separator 7 foot diameter by 35 feet long Lease Automatic Custody 5 foot by 12 foot Transfer (LACT) Skid Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices. BBLS=barrels (42 gallons), skid=a prefabricated unit.
Construction of Final Site Improvements
In addition to the areas where the concrete well cellar, the containment area, and the oil and gas production equipment have been constructed, the ground surface of the Project Site would be paved with concrete or asphaltic concrete and designed so that no fluids, including rain water up to a 100-year storm event, would leave the Project Site. Liquids, including rainwater, would be
2-45
captured in the containment areas or in the well cellars, processed through the production facility, and injected into the oil-bearing reservoir via four water injection wells.
Construction of Final Street Improvements Along Project Frontage
The Proposed Oil Project would include the construction of street improvements along the frontage of the Project Site on 6th Street and Valley Drive. The improvements would include the installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Installation of Final Landscaping
Permanent landscaping would be provided along the perimeter of the Project. To the extent feasible, plant materials used in the temporary landscape plan installed in Phase 1 would be reused in the permanent landscaping. Reclaimed water supplied by the West Basin Municipal Water District would be used for irrigation. Appendix A provides the conceptual landscape plan and plant materials for the permanent landscaping that would be provided at the completion of Phase 3.
Installation of 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
At the completion of the improvements in Phase 3, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be erected inside the 16-foot block wall to provide for noise attenuation during Phase 4 drilling. Appendix A provides the elevations of the Project Site, including the sound attenuation walls with the block walls, from Valley Drive and 6th Street at the completion of Phase 3.
Set Conductor Pipe
Prior to drilling in Phase 4, a dry-hole digger/auger would be used to set the conductor casing in the well cellars for all of the intended wells on the Project Site in a manner similar to the setting of the conductor pipe in Phase 2. A hole approximately 18 inches in diameter would be drilled to a depth of approximately 80 feet. A conductor pipe would be lowered to the bottom of the hole and cemented in place. This would form the seal of the near-surface formation and serve as a steel conduit to allow the drilling fluid used in the next stage of the well to be circulated to the surface without washing away the shallow near-surface dirt. All conductors necessary to develop the Proposed Oil Project would be set, and the dry hole digger/auger would be moved off the Project Site.
Lighting Systems
The permanent lighting for the Proposed Oil Project would be installed as a part of Phase 3. The lighting, as proposed in the Applicants Lighting Plan, would be designed to be directed downward and shielded in order to avoid obtrusive light spillage beyond the Project Site, reflective glare, and illumination of the nighttime sky.
2.4.3.2 Phase 3 Offsite Pipeline Construction
During Phase 3, offsite pipelines for oil and gas would be constructed to transport the oil and gas to markets. Each route is discussed in the following subsections.
2-46
Gas Pipeline Route
As it leaves the Project Site, the offsite underground pipeline for the transport of gas would be constructed for a distance of 0.43 miles in the ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is a one way street south of 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to a tie-in to a SCG gas line in the Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Corridor east of N. Francisca Avenue in the City of Redondo Beach. See Figure 2.15 for the proposed pipeline routes. Appendix A contains detailed drawings of the route and valve box options. This portion of the gas pipeline would consist of two parallel pipelines, 4 inches in diameter, and located at a depth of approximately 3.5 to 4 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the road ROW until it ties into the SCG line at a proposed metering station immediately to the east of N. Francisca Avenue. The pipeline would be a loop system that allows for the gas to be returned to the Project Site for further treatment in the event that the produced gas does not meet SCG standards. The metering station site, which would be provided as a part of the Proposed Oil Project and is owned by SCG, would be approximately 40 by 60 feet in size and surrounded by an 8-foot high block wall. As shown in Figure 2.15, this first portion of the gas pipeline is bounded to the east by the Greenbelt and Ardmore Park and, further to the east, by Ardmore Avenue and residential development in the City of Hermosa Beach; to the west by the Beach Cities Self Storage facility, light manufacturing land uses, South Park, and residential development in the City of Hermosa Beach; and to the west in the City of Redondo Beach by facilities associated with the AES Power Plant. The gas line is designed for a maximum operating pressure of 465 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), but would typically operate at approximately 225 psig of pressure. Once the proposed gas pipeline from the Project Site ties into the SCG point of receipt at the proposed metering station, SCG would construct a six-inch gas pipeline that extends northeast for approximately 1.4 miles to connect to an existing SCG pipeline transmission facility (Line 1170) located on the south side of 190th Street near its intersection with Green Lane, between Flagler Lane and Beryl Street, in the City of Redondo Beach. After the first portion of the new six-inch gas pipeline leaves the proposed metering station and continues northeast, it would be located in an existing SCG easement within the SCE Utility Corridor between N. Francisca Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The new pipeline would exit the SCE Utility Corridor on the south side of the intersection of Herondo Street/Anita Street with Pacific Coast Highway, extend across Pacific Coast Highway, and continue northeast within the ROW of Anita Street/190th Street to its point of connection with the existing SCG pipeline transmission facility (Line 1170). If for some reason the first portion of the new pipeline could not be located within the existing SCG easement within the SCE Utility Corridor between N. Francisca Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, it would leave the proposed metering station and continue for a short distance north within the ROW of N. Francisca Avenue and turn northeast at Herondo Street within the ROW until it reaches the intersection of Herondo Street/Anita Street with Pacific Coast Highway. At that point it would continue to the northeast as described previously. Although SCG would obtain the necessary permits and construct the new gas pipeline, the Applicant would pay for the associated costs of construction. The proposed gas line from the proposed metering station to the existing SCG pipeline transmission facility is bounded to the north by commercial land uses and residential
development in the City of Redondo Beach and to the south by commercial land uses, residential development, and public facilities including Dominguez Park and Redondo Beach Dog Park in the City of Redondo Beach.
Oil Pipeline Route
The offsite underground pipeline for the transport of oil to an area refinery via a connection to a valve location in the City of Torrance would be constructed for a distance of approximately 3.55 miles in one of three potential pipeline scenarios that would follow a route through the Cities of Hermosa Pigging Beach and Redondo Beach and terminate in Torrance. Passing a device through a The selection of the pipeline route would occur after pipeline that cleans or Project approval. Appendix A shows the pipeline inspects the pipeline. A pig route scenarios in detail. The pipeline would be 8 inches or less in diameter, located at a depth of approximately 3.5 to 4 feet bgs depending on the grade. At one of four potential valve box locations, the pipeline would tie-in to an existing pipeline that transports oil to a refinery. Appendix A provides the proposed alignments of the three oil pipeline scenarios, the respective jurisdictional boundaries, and the adjacent land uses. Appendix A provides the four valve box location options that the pipeline could tie into. More details are included in Appendix A.
is usually a small rubber device slightly smaller in diameter than the pipeline. The pig is forced through it by product flow. Usually cylindrical or spherical, pigs sweep the line by scraping the sides of the pipeline and pushing debris ahead
The oil line would be designed for a maximum operating pressure of approximately 500 psig, but would typically operate at approximately 100 to 200 psig of pressure. The pipeline would include pigging stations to send and receive maintenance pigs into and from the pipelines to clean or inspect the pipelines during ongoing operations. This would occur for the lifetime of the Proposed Oil Project. Pigging refers to the practice of using pipeline inspection gauges or 'pigs' to perform various maintenance operations on a pipeline without stopping the flow of the product in the pipeline (refer to sidebar for more information).
2-48
Figure 2.15
Proposed Pipeline Routes
2-49
As shown in Figure 2.15, the oil pipeline would be constructed for a distance of 0.39 miles in the ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is one-way starting at 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to the corner of Valley Drive/N. Francisca Avenue and Herondo Street in the City of Redondo Beach. At this point, the oil pipeline would turn to the east along one of the following three pipeline scenarios (see Appendix A): Scenario 1 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the ROW of Herondo Street, Anita Street, and 190th Street in the City of Redondo Beach to the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance. At this point, Scenario 1 would continue to one of the four valve box options presented later in this discussion; Scenario 2 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the ROW of Herondo Street and Anita Street in the City of Redondo Beach and the ROW of 190th Street in the City of Torrance to the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard. At this point, Scenario 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options presented later in this discussion; and Scenario 3 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the SCE Utility Corridor in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. When the oil pipeline meets Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance, Scenario 3 would continue to one of the four valve box options presented later in this discussion.
The function of the valve box is to house the valve on the new oil pipeline to isolate it from the main oil transmission line and allow for inspection, operation, and maintenance of the valve and line to be performed as required by Federal and State regulations. The site requirement for a valve box for the Proposed Oil Project would be approximately six feet wide by eight feet long by six feet high. The valve box would be a precast concrete box with walls that are typically eight to ten inches thick. The valve box would be located below grade and designed to State of California Highway traffic-rated standards to allow for vehicle travel over it. A standard 36-inch or 42-inch manhole cover would provide access down into the valve box from grade. The manhole cover, the weight of which takes two people to remove and replace, would be bolted into place with special tools, providing security for the valve box. The oil pipeline would end at one of the following valve box locations: Valve Option 1 For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would continue from the Hawthorne Boulevard/190th Street intersection down 190th Street to the Exxon Mobil Refinery, where it would connect with a valve box location within the refinery site. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard and east in 190th Street to the refinery site; Valve Option 2 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would turn south in Hawthorne Boulevard to the SCE Utility Corridor where it would turn east to the valve box location. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would continue east in the SCE Utility Corridor across Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location; Valve Option 3 For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location adjacent to the Santa Fe Rail Road line; and
2-50
Valve Option 4 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location northeast of the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard.
The oil pipeline would be equipped with a supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA), which would monitor pipeline pressure and flow and, if a leak is suspected, would notify the operators. The percentage that is set in the SCADA system would notify the operator of potential oil leak. The detection timeframes set by the Applicant would vary depending on the crude oil flow rate in the pipeline. When the flow rate is at the maximum anticipated production rate of 8,000 barrels per day, flowing on a continuous basis, the flow rate would be 5.5 barrels per minute, and the following would apply: 15 minute time interval 5 % or 4.1 barrels 1 hour time interval 2 % or 6.7 barrels 24 hour time interval 1 % or 80 barrels
If oil production is considerably less than the 8,000 barrels per day, the percentages would be adjusted upward to maintain essentially the same volume of oil previously noted based on the reduced flow rate in the pipe.
Pipeline Construction Methods
The gas and oil pipelines would be installed utilizing conventional trenching methods within either one trench or two separate trenches within the roadway ROW. The construction and installation process would occur in stages consisting of approximately 237 feet in length each. Two stages would be constructed per day (a segment of 237 feet would be new construction, and another 237 feet would be the completion of the construction from the previous day). With the addition of approximately 126 feet for lane transitions and safety cones, a total of approximately 600 linear feet of roadway would be affected per day. A construction spread would be used to accomplish most aspects of the gas and oil pipeline construction along the alignments previously discussed. A construction spread is a clustering of construction equipment that moves along the pipeline route, sequentially removing asphalt roadway, trenching, laying pipe, filling, re-paving, and cleaning up. A pipeline construction spread consisting of several units would be organized to proceed in the following order: Pre-construction activities Asphalt removal and ditching or ROW grubbing and ditching Pipe handling/welding Pipe coating Pipe lowering, backfilling, and street repair Pipe testing and inspection Metering, pigging, odorant station installation
If the oil pipeline can be laid within the SCE Utility Corridor (Scenario 3 pipeline route), a construction spread similar in arrangement, but smaller, would be used since the alignment would not have asphalt. In addition, if it is determined that existing sleeves under streets crossing the SCE Utility Easement exist, trenching across some streets may not need to occur.
2-51
The following describes the activities that would occur for the construction of the pipelines and Figure 2.16 depicts a typical pipeline construction spread.
Pre-Construction Activity
The pipeline alignment ROW would include roadways and/or land in existing paved streets and other property, potentially including private property. Approval to construct and operate a pipeline would be obtained from or authorized by franchise agreements or permits from the agency with jurisdiction over the roadways and, if needed, from affected property owners. The construction requirements in the municipal codes and ordinances of the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance allow for the construction on major roadways during the following weekday hours: Hermosa Beach: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction on Sundays and holidays; Redondo Beach: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays. No construction on weekends and holidays; and Torrance: 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. No construction on weekends and holidays.
Typical Pipeline Construction Spread
Figure 2.16
Note: All activities may not occur simultaneously.
The pipeline construction activities would occur on weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., a time frame which is after morning peak commute hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and before evening peak commute hours (i.e.: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on the affected roadways. The Applicant proposes no construction activities during weekends and holidays.
2-52
The Applicant would prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) that would include the following: Require the pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow Street Construction Permits in the affected Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities (Pacific Coast Highway and Hawthorne Boulevard); Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected Citys Standard Roadway Plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); Revise pipeline construction segments to minimize access conflicts to adjacent residents and businesses; Develop truck route plans to reduce traffic on the street network during peak traffic commute hours; Avoid construction-related traffic to occur during peak travel periods; and Implementation of staggered construction worker shifts to minimize Project traffic during the peak hours.
Underground Service Alert would notify service providers of construction to avoid conflicts with existing utilities and disruptions of service to utility customers. Because construction would occur in either paved streets or an existing utility corridor, extensive grading is not proposed.
Asphalt Removal and Ditching
Once traffic control measures are in place, trenching operations would begin. Typically, a fivefoot deep and 18- to 24-inch wide ditch (single pipe) or 36-inch wide ditch (double pipes) would be excavated (varying depths, depending on the conditions encountered). Backhoes and track hoes would excavate the ditch. However, hand digging would be necessary to locate buried utilities, such as other pipelines, cables, water mains, and sewers. Fugitive dust emissions at the construction site during earthmoving operations would be controlled by water trucks equipped with fine-spray nozzles. Spoils from cuts, including cuts in the streets, would be saved for backfill or would be removed, and the ditch would be backfilled with slurry material as approved by the local jurisdictional agency. Effort would be made to minimize the amount of excess material. Material unsuitable for backfill and not economically useful for other purposes at the pipeline location would be disposed of at a landfill according to local jurisdictional guidelines. When used for backfill, the spoils from the trenches would be hauled to previously disturbed sites, as determined by the construction contractor.
Pipe Handling
Special trucks would transport the pipe in 40- to 80-foot lengths from the shipment point or storage yard to the pipeline installation point. Where sufficient room exists, trucks would carry the pipe along the roadway, and sideboom tractors would unload the joints of pipe from the stringing trucks and lay them end to end beside the ditch-line for future line-up and welding. A portable bending machine would bend the pipe to fit the ditch contour both vertically and horizontally. Construction ROW conditions could occasionally require pipe bends that are not able to be accomplished in the field. In these cases, manufactured or shop-made bends would be used, and pipe would be bent prior to the application of coating. While the line-up crew lays the
2-53
pipe, line-up clamps would hold the pipe sections in position until approximately 50 percent of the first welding pass is completed. The welding crew would then apply the remaining weld passes to comply with API 1104, ASME B31.4, or ASME 31.8. 2 All pipeline welds would be radiographically inspected.
Pipe Coating
Protecting the pipe from moisture and air helps prevent corrosion, thereby preventing cracks, breaks, and leaks in the pipe. The steel pipeline would be coated externally with fusion-bond epoxy or a corrosion resistant tape wrap system. Pipeline coating would be applied at the mill before delivery to the construction site. However, field coating would be necessary on all field weld joints to provide a continuous coating along the pipeline. After the pipe has been welded and radiographically inspected, one of the following would be applied: two-part epoxy, heatshrink polyethylene sleeves or polyethylene tape and tape primer.
Pipe Lowering, Backfilling, and Street Repair
The pipe would be lifted and lowered into the ditch by one or two sideboom tractors spaced so that the weight of unsupported pipe would not cause mechanical damage. Cradles with rubber rollers or padded slings would allow the tractors to lower the pipe without damage as they travel along the ditch line. Additional welds could be required in instances where the ditch line is obstructed by other utilities crossing the pipe ditch. These welds would typically be made in the ditch at the final elevation. In addition to normal welding and weld inspection, each weld would require pipe handling for line-up, cutting to exact length, coating, and backfilling. Backfill material in roadways would most likely be slurry material or could be ditch spoils, according to local agency requirements. Slurry material would be delivered by concrete trucks and consist of sand and cement. Concrete trucks would be trucks from local commercial sources. The area would be repaved if it was previously an existing paved street. In areas where the pipeline would be in previously unpaved areas, the backfill would include topsoil preserved from the excavation for re-vegetation where needed. At the time of backfilling, a colored warning tape would be buried approximately 12 to 18 inches above the pipeline to indicate the presence of a buried pipeline to third-party excavators. The backfilled earth would be compacted using a roller or hydraulic tamper. The trench would be filled with slurry where approved or required by local regulations. Steel plates would cover any open trench at the end of each workday.
Pipe Testing and Inspection
All field welding would be performed by qualified welders that meet the Applicants specifications and in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, including API 1104, the Standard for Welding Pipe Lines and Related Facilities, and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation found in the Code of Federal Regulations.
ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers; API American Petroleum Institute

2-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report
All welds would be visually and radiographically inspected. All rejected welds would be repaired or replaced as necessary and radiographically inspected again. The radiographic reports and a record of the location of welds would be maintained for the life of the pipeline. In addition to standard testing of all pipe and fittings at the mill, hydrostatic testing would be performed after construction and prior to startup. Federal regulations mandate hydrostatic testing of new, cathodically protected pipelines prior to placing the line into operation. This test involves filling a test section of the pipeline with fresh water and increasing pressure to a predetermined level. Such tests are designed to prove that the pipe, fittings, and weld sections would maintain mechanical integrity under pressure without failure or leakage. Cathodic protection controls the corrosion of a metal surface by making it work as a cathode of an electrochemical cell. This is achieved by placing the cell in contact with the metal surface and another more easily corroded metal to act as the anode of the electrochemical cell. The cathodic protection system consists of power sources called rectifiers, buried anodes (either sacrificial or impressed current), and test stations along the pipelines.
Metering and Pigging Station Installation
A gas-metering station would be required at the custody transfer location where the Applicants proposed gas pipeline interconnects with the existing SCG pipeline. The metering station would measure and record gas volumes, gas quality, and gas characteristics and provide custody transfer of the gas to SCG. The metering station would be located adjacent to N. Francisca Avenue, southeast of the intersection of Herondo Street and N. Francisca Avenue. SCG would then construct a new six-inch pipeline to a tie-in location with the existing SCG pipeline transmission facility (Line 1170) as previously discussed in Section 2.3.3.2, Phase 3 Offsite Pipeline Construction. In addition to the metering station, a pigging station would be installed at the metering station and Project Site for the gas pipeline, as required by SCG, and at the tie-in point for the oil pipeline. An odorant station would be installed at the Project Site consisting of a 500 gallon odorant tank that would be filled approximately annually. The gas would be odorized before it leaves the site.
2.4.3.3 Phase 3 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials used as part of Phase 3 would be associated with construction activities, including diesel fuels, lubricating oils, pipe coatings, solvents, etc. No storage of hazardous materials beyond standard consumer quantities (a few gallons) is anticipated in this phase.
2.4.3.4 Phase 3 Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 3 would occur for a period of approximately 14 months as indicated in the schedule provided in Table 2.10.
2-55
2.4.3.5 Phase 3 Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 3 are provided in Table 2.11. The vehicle trips required to transport employees and equipment for Phase 2 are also provided in Table 2.11.
2.4.4 Phase 4 Development and Operations
PHASE 4
The purpose of Phase 4 would be to maximize oil and gas Development and recovery from the reservoirs by drilling additional wells and operating the permanent facility. To accomplish this, Operations: Phase 4 would involve the drilling of wells; the operation 2.5 years drilling of the permanent oil production equipment; the transport program. Operations of the oil and gas by pipeline to their respective ongoing destinations; and the ongoing maintenance of the Proposed Oil Project. The Proposed Oil Project would be designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels of oil per day and 2.5 million cubic feet of gas per day. Figure 2.17 provides the conceptual site plan for Phase 4. Elevations and the conceptual landscape plan for the Proposed Oil Project during Phase 4 are included in Appendix A.
2.4.4.1 Phase 4 Drilling
Phase 4 drilling would involve delivery and setup of the drilling rig and the drilling of the remaining wells.
Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig
The drilling rig and its associated equipment would be brought to the Project Site by trucks with trailers permitted by the City and the California Highway Patrol. The approximately 87-foot high drill rig would be powered by electricity. A large crane with a 150-foot boom would be used to erect the drill rig. The crane would be removed from the Project Site after the drill rig and supporting equipment have been set in place. Support equipment for the drill rig would include pipe racks, mud and cutting system, pumps, hydraulic equipment, and an accumulator. In the event of a loss of power from SCE, the generator, which would be a non-road portable diesel-fuel generators certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), would provide power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation. The drill rig and its associated equipment would require the same setup as described under Section 2.4.2, Phase 2 Drilling and Testing.
2-56
Table 2.10
Phase 3 Project Schedule Activity Schedule (Weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28- 39- 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 38 53
Remove temporary equipmen Remove trees along Valley Remove 32-foot sound wall Implement RAP Construct retaining walls Final grading Construct well cellars Construct 16-foot block wall Remove 16-foot sound wall Construct/install facilities Construct street improvements Install landscaping Construct offsite pipelines Start-up of equipment Install 32-foot sound wall Set conductor Note: Days are weekdays Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
2-57
Table 2.11
Phase 3 Vehicle Trip Summary Activity 3-axle Trucks, 2-axle Trucks, Autos, Total, Maximum Maximum RT/day Maximum RT/day RT/day 6 15 21 2 4 6 6 8 14 18 8 28 3 20 24 4 6 10 9 15 25 5 20 25 5 5 10 18 40 47 11 9 20 1 7 7 18 22 54 0 7 7 6 9 16 2 5 7 18 62 78
(during weeks 6-13, 23, 54) (during weeks 39-53) (during week 39-53)
Remove production equipment Remove trees along Valley Drive Install 16-foot noise wall Implement Remedial Action Plan Construct retaining walls Final grading (balanced) Construct well cellars Construct 16-foot perimeter wall Remove 16-foot noise wall Construct/install onsite facilities Construct street improvements Install landscaping Construct pipeline Start-up production equipment Install 32-foot sound wall Set conductor Greatest number of trips in one day
Notes: * According to the 1993 CUP, which is valid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency. Trucks are 3+ axle or greater or trucks with trailers. Autos are automobiles or pickups/trucks with 2 axles. Trips are round trips (RT). Maximum truck activity occurs during week 6-13 with RAP activities, week 23 with construct well cellars, perimeter wall and onsite facilities and week 54 with construction of onsite facilities, pipeline construction and conductor setting. However, the majority of the pipeline construction traffic would occur away from the Project Site except during the installation of the sections of the pipeline located very close to the Project facility. Maximum auto activity occurs during weeks 39-53 with the facilities construction. Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occurs during weeks 39-53, however, the majority of the vehicles for the pipeline construction would be parked at the contractors facilities or near the pipeline alignment. Truck maximum and auto/PU maximum do not necessarily occur on the same day, so the total maximum is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix. See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment for each week. Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
2-58
2.4.5
Drill Remaining Wells
The drilling of the remaining oil wells and water injection wells, up to a total of 30 oil wells and four water injection wells, would involve the same activities as described for Phase 2. As previously discussed regarding Phase 2, once the drilling of a well is complete, the cemented casing would be run from the surface to the bottom of the wellbore where the well penetrates the oil-producing reservoir. The well would be plumbed into the temporary production equipment and pump system that had been installed. The pump system, installed below ground, would bring the oil, gas, and water to the surface for processing. In addition, up to three additional water injection wells (in addition to the single water injection well drilled during Phase 2) would be drilled to allow for the injection of processed produced water back into the oil-producing reservoir. The drill rig would operate continuously for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for each well has been reached. It is estimated it would take approximately 30 days to drill each well. After the drilling of the wells is complete, the drill rig would be removed from the Project Site. Including set up for each well and removal from the Project Site, the total drilling time for Phase 4 would be about 30 months (2 years). Drilling each well would require approximately 130,000 gallons (or 0.4 acre-feet) of water. The water would be reclaimed water provided by the West Basin Municipal Water District conveyed via extension of an existing waterline serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. The West Basin Municipal Water District has provided the Applicant with a will serve letter. The drilling process requires the use of drilling mud to circulate drilled rock cuttings out of the well hole, retain the integrity of the well hole, and control reservoir pressure. The drilling mud would be collected onsite in tanks. Although most of the mud would be reused on subsequent wells, some mud would be removed from the Project Site and disposed at Anterras Oxnard Licensed Class 2 Disposal Facility or a similar facility. All other waste generated by the test drilling would be transported by truck to Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill or a similar facility closer to the Project Site. Noise abatement would be incorporated into the drilling process in the same manner as described for Phase 2, including a 32-foot high sound attenuation wall. After the drilling of the wells is completed, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be removed from the Project Site.
Re-Drilling of Wells
Re-drilling of a well occurs if production from a well declines substantially or if problems exist with the well, affecting the wells efficiency or viability. The same activities would be required for re-drills as for initial drilling, except that conductor piping would not have to be installed again, as the same conductor piping would be used for the re-drill. Although the Applicant indicates no anticipation for the re-drilling of wells, the activity may be required under extraordinary circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, a workover rig might be able to be used to complete a re-drill. However, for the purpose of providing a worstcase analysis, the Applicant estimates that up to 30 re-drills could occur over the life of the Proposed Oil Project, with up to five re-drills occurring during any given year. In the event that
2-59
a re-drill would occur, noise attenuation design features, including the use of a 32-foot sound attenuation wall and acoustical covers, would be implemented on the Project Site.
2.4.5.1 Phase 4 Processing and Operations
During the drilling of the remaining oil wells and water injection wells, the production of the extracted oil would occur. Figure 2.18 shows the steps involved in processing the oil, water, and gas produced from the wells during Phase 4. The permanent production equipment on the Project Site would be used to process the oil and gas to a standard that would be suitable for sale. The produced water would be processed and injected into the oil-producing reservoir. The gas produced would be processed and sold to the gas company. The oil and gas produced would be transported offsite via pipelines constructed during Phase 3.
Figure 2.18 Phase 4 Process Flow Diagram
Noise abatement would be incorporated into operational practices and permanent production equipment. The anticipated personnel on the Project Site would be four personnel for a 12-hour daytime shift, two personnel for an 8-hour graveyard shift, and two personnel for an 8-hour swing shift. Therefore, personnel would be present 24 hours per day on the Project Site.
2-60
During the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project, active wells would require periodic routine service. These activities could include the replacement of down-hole pumps, piping, and cleaning. These maintenance activities would typically be accomplished by utilizing a service rig, or workover rig, approximately 110 feet high. The workover rig would be operated on the Project Site a maximum of 90 days per year. The workover rig would be operated between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays only (excluding holidays). In addition, there would be an occasional need for other services such as facilities repair and solid and liquid waste pick-up. Preventative maintenance would be performed on a routine basis to ensure the integrity of the operating equipment. The pipelines would be periodically inspected to ensure their continued integrity. The permanent production facility would be utilized to separate and treat produced oil, gas and water. The separation and treatment of these fluids allows for the oil and gas to be sold and subsequently transported via pipeline and for the water to be injected into the oil-producing reservoir below the oil water contact line. Figure 2.18 provides a simplified flow diagram of the flow of fluids through the permanent production facility. The following describes the steps of production and operational characteristics in Phase 4.
Fluids Piped from the Wellhead to the Production Facility
After a well has been drilled and completed (final down-hole equipment installed), the extracted fluids would be piped to the permanent production facility on site. The combination of fluids (i.e., oil, gas, and water mixture) is referred to as an emulsion. This emulsion would be sent via pipes to a production header, where it is commingled with the emulsion from all the wells in a gross line before entering a three-phase separator. There is also a test header that allows the diversion of emulsions from a single well through a well test station before the three-phase separator. The well test station allows for the testing of each well quality and flow characteristics. After the emulsion passes through the well test station, it would be directed back to the gross line where it would be commingled back with the emulsion from the production header and then enter the three-phase separator. The three-phase separator separates the oil, gas, and water. The gas exits the top, the oil exits the middle, and the water exits the bottom of the separator. Each of these fluids enters a specific system of treatment, as is discussed in the following subsections.
Oil Treatment System
After the produced oil leaves the three-phase separator, it would enter a stock tank, where it may need to be heated depending on the quality of the crude oil. This heating would allow excess water to drop from the oil. Heating, if necessary, would be provided by the microturbine exhaust waste heat recovery system. From the stock tank, the oil would be measured using a Lease Automated Custody Transfer Unit (LACT) and transported via pipeline to the purchaser. Any water that drops out of the oil would be routed to the water treatment system. Vapors would be directed to the gas processing systems through the vapor recovery unit.
Gas Treatment System
During this phase, gas would be treated, sold, and subsequently transported via pipeline to the SCGC. Treatment of the gas would be required to meet gas pipeline specifications. After the
2-61
gas leaves the three-phase separator, it would be sent to the first stage compressor. The first stage compressor would increase the pressure of the gas for treatment. The first stage of gas treatment is removal of H2S from the gas utilizing triazine using the SulfaScrub system. SulfaScrub is a non-regenerative batch process that requires replacement of the SulfaScrub materials periodically. The SulfaScrub process is a scavenging process, meaning it is used to remove H2S in process gas at low concentrations (up to concentrations of approximately 200 ppm). After leaving the SulfaScrub system, the gas would be sent through the amine system. This amine system removes CO2 from the gas. After leaving the amine system, the gas would pass through the second stage compressor, where pressure is increased prior to the gas entry into the low temperature separation system. The low temperature separation system removes any remaining moisture (mostly water) and gas liquids from the gas prior to sale. Propane would be utilized as a refrigerant in the low temperature separation system. Before the gas leaves the Project Site, it would be odorized using an odorizing substance (mercaptan or equivalent) as required by law. The gas would then be sent via pipeline through a metering station to a SCG pipeline constructed in Phase 3 located near the corner of Herondo Avenue and N. Francisca Drive to the south of the Project Site.
Water Treatment System
After the water leaves the three-phase separator, it would be sent to the clarifier tank. This tank would allow solids in the water to drop out. From the clarifier tank, the water would then enter the induced gas flotation unit for the removal of suspended matter, such as oil or solids. The induced gas flotation unit removes oil by injecting gas bubbles into the water. The bubbles adhere to the suspended matter, causing the suspended matter to float to the surface and form a froth layer, which is then removed by a skimmer. From the induced gas flotation unit, the water would then pass through a filter unit. The filter unit would be used to clean the water of any remaining oil and solids, such as sand. After the water has left the filter unit, it would enter the water surge tanks for storage before injection. From the water surge tank, the water would then flow through pumps and be sent to the injection wells for injection into the oil producing reservoir.
2-62
Figure 2.17
Phase 4 Site Plan with Drilling Rig
2-63
2-64
Vapor Recovery System
Gas from all tanks and vessels not part of the gas processing system (the oil and water processing tanks and vessels), as well as pressure relief valves, would be gathered through pipes into a closed-system and directed to a vapor recovery compressor unit. The vapor recovery compressor would compress the gas and then add it to the gas in the gas processing system (from the threephase separator, etc), where it would be processed and sent via pipeline to the metering station and the SCG system.
Process Drain System
All equipment would be connected to a drain system that would be directed to a drain tank. Liquids from the drain tank would be sent back to the three-phase separator for reprocessing. Solids from the drain system may periodically be removed to an offsite approved disposal facility.
Electrical Generation System
The facility would utilize a Microturbine system, which would consist of five 200 kw Capstone turbines configured as a single 1,000 kw package. Anticipated NOx emissions would be 4 ppm. Gas produced on the Project Site would be utilized as fuel for the turbines.
Facility Storm Drainage System
The Proposed Oil Project Site is designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the perimeter fence or wall for a 100-year storm event. All rainwater falling on the site would be collected and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. In addition, any spills on the site would also be contained, both within process system walls/berms around equipment and site walls/berms around the Project Site. Process walls/berms would be designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel plus the precipitation from a 100year storm event.
Waste
Waste would be generated as part of the facility operations and the production process. Regular waste would include typical municipal trash such as paper, trash bags, food, and cups. Process waste would include generic oil field waste such as sandy oil (from the tank bottoms), spent H2S scavenger, spent filters, oily cloths (i.e., rags), gloves and Tyvek suits. Intermittently the facility could generate hazardous waste. These wastes could include empty drums, rinse water, painting supplies, spilled chemicals, spent media, and hydraulic fluids. The Applicant indicates that the Project Site would have an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Identification Number.
Phase 4 Safety and Security Systems
The Fire Protection Plan for Phase 4 would be provided by the Applicant for review and approval by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department (Fire Department) and incorporated into the Phase 4 Site Safety Plan. Emergency access would be incorporated into the design of the Proposed Oil Project. An additional fire hydrant would be provided adjacent to the Project Site as a component of the Proposed Oil Project. The location of the hydrant would be
2-65
determined by the Fire Department, and installation would occur as a part of the construction completed in Phase 3. A fire suppression system for the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4 would be installed during Phase 3. The fire suppression systems would include a foam injection system and automated detection and annunciation systems. Automated alarm systems would be installed for the detection of chemicals and fire hazards to notify onsite personnel that an emergency situation is potentially occurring. If it is determined that a chemical fire or fire emergency exists, the onsite operator would activate the emergency shutdown system and notify the Fire Department. The Fire Department and their allied agencies would respond as indicated in their mutual and automatic aid agreement contracts. The onsite personnel for the Proposed Oil Project would not be trained as first responders to a fire or spill emergency and would rely on the Fire Department for response activities. The fire detection system would consist of thermal fire detection and optical surveillance systems that would monitor potential fire zones and activate warning indicators. The Applicant proposes Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Programs to detect subsidence as a result of drilling activities. This would ensure that subsidence would not be tolerated to the degree that it could endanger the facility, offsite structures, and the shoreline. Also, an Induced Seismicity Monitoring Program would be designed to detect seismic activity that might result from drilling activities. The security system for the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4 would be installed and initiated during Phase 3. Security on the Project Site would be provided by onsite personnel and a site security program that would include a Closed Circuit Television System, a gate access system, and an intrusion and motion detection system. The security system would control all access to and from the Project Site. During the final design of the Proposed Project and submission of plans to the appropriate agencies for permits, the following plans and programs would be developed by the Applicant as part of the facility drilling and operations phases (Phase 2 and Phase 4 activities): Odor Minimization Plan; Air Monitoring Plan; Fire Protection Plan; Safety and Environmental Management Program; Mechanical Integrity Program; Hazardous Materials Business Plan; Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Programs; Noise Monitoring Plan; Quiet Mode Drilling Plan; and Various plans related to grading, equipment design, electrical design, landscaping, etc.
Safety devices would be installed within the piping, vessels, and tanks in the processing system. Safety devices would provide early warning, corrective action, or shut down of a specific
2-66
segment of the system or the entire facility, if necessary. A number of safety devices are required or recommended by codes, standards and regulations, including: High level warning systems; High pressure warning systems; Automatic shutdown valves; Vessel and pipe design requirements; Vapor recovery and component leakage limits; and Fuel contaminant limits.
Detailed piping and instrument diagrams would be provided by the Applicant during the detailed permitting stages, and reviews of the final design would be undertaken at that time. Specific measures to reduce the risk of hazardous material releases are addressed in Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards.
Phase 4 Hazardous Materials
The operation would require the use of hazardous chemicals. The chemicals would be stored onsite with secondary containment. The chemicals would be documented in a required Hazardous Materials Business Plan and submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and the Hermosa beach Fire Department. Typical chemicals utilized in the permanent production facility and the maximum quantities that would be onsite at any time are listed in Table 2.12.
Hydrogen Sulfide
The Applicant indicates that low levels of potential native H2S, in the order of 0.0 to 6.0 parts per million (ppm), may be encountered in the gas produced from the underlying oil reservoir. In order to have the capability to treat higher levels, the Proposed Oil Project has been planned to treat H2S levels of 15 ppm and has a maximum design capacity to treat H2S levels of up to 100 ppm. After treatment with the SulfaScrub system, the H2S levels of the gas would be reduced to less than 4.0 ppm. SCGs specifications limit the H2S concentrations in gas delivered to the meter from a producer to less than 4.0 ppm. The Proposed Project provides for the injection of treated produced water from the drilling and production process back into the oil reservoir using water injection wells. Untreated produced water can result in the creation of H2S concentrations in the reservoir above the existing levels in the oil reservoir (referred to as the native condition). Prior to the injection of produced water from the oil extraction process, surface runoff from precipitation that collects on the Project Site, or any additional injected water, the water would be treated by a biocide to eliminate sulfatereducing bacteria (SRB). Once wells begin production, the extracted water would be tested for SRBs to determine if treatment is needed. In addition, the surface runoff and additional water would be tested. SRBs are an assemblage of specialized bacteria that thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by oxidation of organic nutrients, with sulfate being reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). SRBs are treated by the use of a biocide and this treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment. There are numerous antibacterial agents available on the market that could be used for this specific treatment if it is determined to be needed.
2-67
Table 2.12
Phase 4 Drilling Chemicals Use Odorize the sales gas Gas treatment for H2S Maximum Quantity Onsite (Gallons) 500 9,000 60 40 50 400 165 55 120 55 110 55 55
Common/Trade Name Odorant/Mercaptan H2S Scavenger/Pertrosweet HSE700 Emulsion Breaker/Phasetreat 6378 Water Clarifier/Floctreat 7991 Emulsion Breaker/Waxtreat 3610 Corrosion Inhibiter Cor7182 Surface Cleaner/4U Scale Dissolver/Techni Solve 1780
Help separate oil and water Water additive Help separate oil and wax Additive to reduce corrosion General purpose cleaner General purpose scale remover Scale Inhibitor/Techni Hib 7621 Additive to reduce scaling Glycol/TEG Gas treatment for water removal Amine/DEA Gas Treatment for H2S removal Methanol For oil treatment Biotreat 8415 Water treatment prior to reinjection Note: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
2.4.5.2 Phase 4 Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 4 would occur for a period of approximately 30 to 35 years, as indicated in the schedule provided in Table 2.13. The drilling of the remaining wells would occur during the first 30 months of Phase 4. The permanent production equipment would operate 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The Project Site would be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days per week.
2-68
Table 2.13
Phase 4 Project Schedule Activity Schedule (Weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 through 131 132 133 134 135 Life of Project
Deliver and Set up drill rig Drill remaining 30 wells Remove drill rig Remove 32-foot noise wall Facility operations and maintenance Re-drills Well workovers
Continuous Periodically Max 90 days per year
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices. To re-drill a well, a drilling rig similar to the one initially used to drill the wells would be used with the same setup, drilling and removal procedures. Workovers would use an 110-foot tall truck mounted drilling rig and would be conducted a maximum of 90 days per year.
2.4.5.3 Phase 4 Vehicle Requirements
The number of vehicles estimated by the Applicant to be necessary for Phase 4 operations are provided in Table 2.14. During drilling, parking for Project employees would be provided as previously described under Section 2.4.1.1, Phase 1 Construction Activities, under the subsection Clearance of the Project Site. Parking for Project employees would be provided on the Project Site after the drilling of all the wells is completed and the drill rig has been removed from the Project Site.
2.4.6 Parking Requirements
The Proposed Project construction and operation activities would result in increased parking demand. The elimination of existing parking would also make necessary the replacement of spaces lost. Parking requirements addressed in this DEIR include the following: Temporary parking for a maximum of 40 Project employee vehicles, varying between approximately 20 and 40 employee vehicles during construction and/or drilling activities in Phases 1-4, excluding ongoing production in Phase 4; Long-term parking for four Project employees during the ongoing operation of the Proposed Project and four additional spaces for maintenance workers in Phase 4;
Replacement of 15 parking spaces currently located at the City Maintenance Yard that supply free remote public parking on weekends under the Citys Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission. These spaces are used by:
2-69
Maintenance Yard employees during working hours (i.e., Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. excluding holidays) and by the public at other times; and Replacement of two on-street public parking spaces that would be eliminated by improvements to the southwest corner of 6th Street and Valley Drive. These spaces are not part of the Citys Preferential Parking Program.
Phase 4 Vehicle Trip Summary
Table 2.14
2-axle Trucks, 3-axle Trucks, Total, Maximum Autos, Maximum Maximum RT/day RT/day RT/day Deliver and Set up drill rig 6 20 26 Drill remaining 30 wells 12 11 23 Remove drill rig 5 20 25 Remove 32-foot sound wall 4 8 12 Facility operations and maintenance 5 13 18 Well workovers/Major Maintenance 4 14 18 Greatest number of trips in one day 17 34 44 (during drilling ) (during drilling) (during drilling) Notes: * According to the 1993 CUP, which is valid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency. Trucks are 3+ axle or greater or trucks with trailers. Autos are automobiles or pickups/trucks with 2 axles. Trips are round trips. Maximum activity occurs during drilling of wells with facility operations and maintenance. Truck maximum and auto/PU maximum do not necessarily occur on the same day, so the total maximum is not necessarily a simple addition of the two. See Appendix A. Re-drilling would produce the same level of traffic as traffic produced during drilling activities. See Appendix A for details regarding vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment necessary for Project operations each week. Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices Activity
In order to comply with the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit requirements and be consistent with the Citys Coastal Land Use Plan (titled Local Coastal Plan) policies,, 17 public parking spaces would have to be generated under the Proposed Oil Project to replace the 15 parking spaces removed at the current City Maintenance Yard and the 2 on-street public parking spaces removed from 6th Street, Table 2.15 provides the Applicants assessment of parking demand for each phase of the Proposed Oil Project and the Applicants proposal for the development of the required parking as a component of the Proposed Oil Project. As indicated in Table 2.15, Phases 1, 2, and 3 and the drilling portion of Phase 4 would require temporary offsite parking.
2-70
Table 2.15
Proposed Oil Project Parking Requirements Peak Number of Employees 27 Number of Offsite Parking Spaces Needed 20
Phase and Peak Activities
Comments
Phase 1: construct fence, wells cellar and install electrical service
Phase 2: Install equipment and drill test wells. Phase 3: Construct wall, remove soundwall, construct onsite facilities
22
12
30-60
40
Phase 4: Drilling and Operations
10
Phase 4: Operations Only Source: Applicant submittals January 2014
2-4
Some employees would park onsite and others would use temporary parking lot. Two 5 person shifts for drilling, some carpooling assumed. Peak employees occurs for constructing onsite facilities. Assumes some carpooling. 5 persons per shift with 2 shifts per day. Carpooling is assumed. No offsite parking needed.
The following information summarizes E&Bs proposal in the Project Application to meet parking demands. Cypress Parking Lot: Parking for 20 employees during temporary construction and drilling activities during Phases 1, 2, 3, and the drilling portion of Phase 4 would be provided in an offsite temporary parking lot to be developed at 636 Cypress Avenue adjacent to the western Project boundary (referred to as the temporary parking lot). The Applicant states it has entered into an agreement with the current owner of the subject property at 636 Cypress Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 4187-031-22) for this use. Access to the parcel is provided from Cypress Avenue. While adjoining the Project Site at 555 6th Street, the temporary parking lot will not be accessible from the Project Site due to an elevation difference between the properties and the need for secured points of entry onto the Project Site. The 6,000-square foot parcel at 636 Cypress Avenue is a relatively level property. It is currently developed with a single-story building that occupies approximately 75 percent of the parcel and a parking lot with approximately 6 parking spaces. The development of the parcel would comply with all City requirements. Development would require demolition of the existing building, removal of the current asphalt parking area, and minimal grading. The Cypress Parking Lot would be completed before the commencement of construction activities to occur under Phase 1 Site Preparation of the Proposed Project. Improvements that would be made to the new 60-foot by 100-foot parking lot with 20 parking spaces would include drainage, landscaping with irrigation, lighting, a trash container, and other elements to comply with the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Details of the redeveloped parcel are shown in Figure 2-18.
The Applicant has requested that the City supply the required 17 replacement spaces as part of the City Maintenance Yard relocation. If the No Added Parking option is constructed, then the 17 spaces would be provided on a permanent basis at the proposed temporary parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue (see section 2.4.5). The City has not agreed to supply any replacement spaces regardless whether the Parking option or No Added Parking option were to be constructed Additional 20 Temporary Parking Spaces (Phase 3): During peak construction activities in Phase 3, parking for a maximum of 20 temporary parking spaces, in addition to the 20 temporary parking spaces provided at the Cypress Parking Lot, would be provided at one or more sites, not yet identified, that would be leased or rented by the Applicant. Employees would walk to or be shuttled to the Project Site. The Applicant proposes to ensure to the City, through the submittal of any required documentation, that the parking spaces would be available during the temporary construction and drilling activities for the Proposed Project. If spaces are remote, located farther than 5 to 8 blocks from the Project Site as defined by the Applicant, a van pool shuttle service from the remote parking spaces would be provided to the Project Site by the Applicant. The Applicant proposes to obtain all required approvals and entitlements from the City and to make any required modifications to conform with City codes, identified as mitigation measures in the certified EIR, and any other requirements that may be imposed as a result of the Development Agreement or ballot measure. Construction Vehicle Parking (Phases 1-4 excluding permanent operations): The Applicant indicates that it has an agreement to utilize the below-ground parking area at 601 Cypress Street for non-hazardous equipment storage and parking. Parking for construction vehicles and staging would be provided both at the Project Site at 555 6th Street and within the building at 602 Cypress Street during Phases 1-4. Parking for Ongoing Operations in (Phase 4): The long-term parking for a maximum of four Project employee vehicles during ongoing operations and maintenance will be supplied by four marked parking spaces on the Project Site at 555 6th Street. Additional parking required for maintenance activities for ongoing operations would also be accommodated onsite along the perimeter wall as indicated in Figure 2-18. No additional offsite parking would be required for long-term Project operations. Replacement of Spaces Eliminated by the Project: Fifteen parking spaces at the Project Site at 555 6th Street are used by City Maintenance Yard employees during working hours of Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. excluding holidays. These spaces also supply free remote public parking on weekends under the Citys Preferential Parking Program, approved by the Coastal Commission, and are otherwise used by the public when available. The Application proposes to replace 15 spaces for free remote public parking in the offsite temporary parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue and as indicated below. The City would be responsible to supply parking for its Maintenance Yard employees as part of its City Maintenance Yard relocation plan. Two on-street public parking spaces would also be eliminated by Project improvements to the southwest corner of 6th and Valley Drive; these spaces are not part of the Citys Preferential
2-72
Parking Program. The Application proposes to replace these two spaces in the offsite temporary parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue. The Application indicates potential overlap with onsite employee scheduling during the drilling portion of Phase 4, requiring four parking spaces at 636 Cypress Avenue to be vacant as one shift arrives and another shift is leaving. This results in the availability of 16, rather than 17, parking spaces for a period of approximately one hour. The Application indicates that relocation of the 17 public parking spaces requires a coordinated approach between the Applicant and the City and proposes that this relocation be governed by the Lease Agreement (Section 13). The Applicant proposes the relocated City Maintenance Yard be developed in a manner which could supply the permanent public parking spaces on weekends and at night, similar to the way in which the existing parking spaces at the current City Maintenance Yard are utilized. If the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard does not become the location for the permanent public parking spaces, then the Applicant proposes to provide 15 replacement public parking spaces as well as the additional 2 public parking spaces, prior to the commencement of Project operations, at the offsite temporary parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue or to provide other suitable public parking spaces consistent with requirements of the Citys Preferential Parking Program, the California Coastal Act, and a framework proposed by the Applicant.
2.4.7 Project Life and Decommissioning
Under the Proposed Oil Project, the oil and gas resources would be developed until they are depleted and developing them is no longer economically viable, for up to 35 years. Currently, the amount of crude oil that could be produced from the field is unknown, and future crude prices are difficult to assess. According to the Lease Agreement, the Proposed Oil Project could operate for up to 35 years. Figure 2.19 shows the estimated crude oil, gas and water production for the life of the Proposed Oil Project. If during Phase 2 the Applicant does not consider the level of production from the Project Site to be economically feasible, then decommissioning of the installed equipment would commence. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the drilling and temporary testing equipment and would include abandonment of wells according to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) requirements. The Project Site would be left as a graded site with site improvements including the retaining walls, the perimeter chain link fence, and the perimeter landscaping. At the end of the Proposed Oil Project, when the owner applies to DOGGR and to the City to abandon the facility, a separate permit process and CEQA environmental review would be required to evaluate decommissioning of the entire Project Site. Since the timing of the decommissioning is unknown, the Applicant has not submitted a detailed decommissioning plan, and therefore any assessment of decommissioning activities would be speculative at this time.
2-73
Figure 2-18
Cypress Parking Area
Source: E&B Updated Parking Plan 1/8/2014
2-74
Figure 2.19
Estimated Production Levels
Source: Based on Applicant submitted estimates
2.5
The current use on the Project Site, the City Maintenance Yard, would be relocated to the City owned properties located west of Valley Drive occupied by City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive and by the Hermosa Self-Storage Facility at 522 11th Place. The temporary City Maintenance Yard would be located at the rear of the City Hall site primarily utilizing the locations occupied by reserved employee parking and storage buildings utilized by the Police and Fire Department and Friends of the Library, as well as a small parking lot used by City vehicles and onstreet city and public parking spaces along 11th Place and Bard Street. Some of these parking spaces are a portion of the Citys inventory under the Citys Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission. Traffic circulation on Bard Street and 11th Place would also be modified during the temporary relocation as Bard Street would be closed to through traffic during the temporary relocation.
2-75
The permanent City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing with a portion zoned OS Open Space. The permanent City Maintenance Yard would be located adjacent to and south of Hermosa Beach City Hall on the site currently occupied by the Hermosa Self-Storage Facility, which is on a month to month lease, along with 32 parking spaces. The adjacent land uses are residential uses to the south and west, the Greenbelt to the east, and the Civic Center (City Hall, Library, and Fire Station) and commercial uses to the north. The 32 parking spaces are reserved for City employees between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday (i.e., work hours) and used by the public at other times without charge. These 32 spaces are a portion of the Citys inventory under the Citys Preferential Parking Program. The proposed temporary City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing with a portion zoned O-S Open Space. The proposed permanent City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned O-S Open Space. The adjacent land uses are residential uses to the south and west, the Greenbelt to the east, and the Civic Center (City Hall, Library, and Fire Station) and commercial uses to the north.
2.5.1 Construction Phases
The construction of the City Maintenance Yard and the onsite parking spaces would occur in two phases: the construction of a temporary yard and the construction of the permanent facility. The temporary yard would be constructed prior to the initiation of any Proposed Oil Project Phase 1 site clearance at the current City Maintenance Yard in order to allow for the maintenance activities to retain their functionality during the Proposed Project. The permanent yard would be constructed at the start of Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project.
2.5.2 Phase 2 Unsuccessful
If Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project is not successful, the yard would be constructed after Phase 2 is completed. It could be constructed at either the Proposed City Maintenance Yard site or at the current City Maintenance Yard site, that would be vacated by the unsuccessful Oil Project.
2.5.3 Temporary City Maintenance Yard
For the temporary City Maintenance Yard, the existing storage building would be removed, and two temporary metal buildings would be constructed, possibly utilizing one of the metal buildings on the existing City Maintenance Yard site. Various accessory facilities would be provided to accommodate the maintenance functions. Construction of temporary buildings would take place immediately adjacent to the existing storage building (see Figure 2.20). Demolition and construction of the temporary yard is estimated to take nine months. The temporary facility at 1315 Valley Drive would displace 30 parking spaces reserved exclusively for city employees and city vehicles at all times, currently within the rear lot (22 spaces), southerly parking lot (6 spaces) and along Bard Street (12 spaces). Also, 12 on-street spaces along 11th Place and Bard Street that are part of the Citys Preferential Parking Program would be lost. The City proposes to address this issue in several ways: (1) participate in a street improvement program with Redondo Beach which would reconfigure parallel spaces along the
2-76
north side of Herondo Street into diagonal spaces thereby yielding a net increase of 9 public parking spaces that would be available for coastal public parking; (2) create 15 new diagonal spaces with 15 spaces reserved exclusively for city employee and city vehicles at all times and with 3 spaces available for coastal public parking on a paved 150 foot by 35 foot strip of cityowned property abutting Valley Drive (located north of the current City Maintenance yard); and (3) allocate 18 spaces for city employees on Monday Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the parking lot at the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Because the spaces at the Community Center are currently part of the Citys Preferential Parking Program, utilization of these spaces for employee parking on Monday to Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would reduce the required number of public spaces at these time for the duration of the temporary City Maintenance Yard. The City would continue to explore other options for city employee parking so as to not impinge on these Preferential Parking Program. These temporary changes to the Citys Preferential Parking Program would require approval of the Coastal Commission.
2.5.4 Permanent City Maintenance Yard
Two options for the permanent facility were assessed: one with an additional 97 parking spaces (Parking Option) and one that minimizes the footprint of the facility by not providing any additional parking (No Added Parking Option). Construction would take 20 months for the Parking Option and 17 months for the No Added Parking Option with a design and permitting lead time of 12 months for either options (including Coastal Commission approval). See Figures 2.21 and 2.22.
2.5.4.1 Parking Option
The Parking Option takes advantage of the fact that the majority of the site is already depressed, by providing a lower level parking area with a structured deck above it to accommodate the relocated City Yard. The lower level would have parking for a total of 129 vehicles. The Parking Option would include the 32 parking spaces that would be eliminated (currently next to City Hall in front of the Hermosa Self-Storage site that are reserved for City employees during work hours and the public during non-city-work hours under the Citys coastal Preferential Parking Program). Therefore, while a portion of the 129 parking spaces under the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard with Parking Option would replace existing parking spaces, the remainder would be available to serve parking needs as determined by the City Council. Access to the parking level for the Parking Option is designed to be separated from City Yard traffic, as the entry would be located on the north side of the facility where it can be reached from 11th Place and Bard Street. Vehicular access to the City Yard level from Valley Drive has been incorporated into the design of both the Parking Option and the No Added Parking option. Facilities in the Yard area have been designed to be constructed along the perimeter to maintain a clear space in the center, creating efficient and safe traffic flow.
2-77
Figure 2.20
City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Temporary Location
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
2-78
Figure 2.21
City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility Parking Option
Source: City of Hermosa Beach City Yard Relocation Study Memo Dated 19 July 2013 to Public Works Department from RNL
2-79
Figure 2.22
City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility No Added Parking Option
Source: RNL for the City of Hermosa Beach, Oct 2012
2-80
Construction for the Parking Option would consist of building a two level structure to accommodate the City Maintenance Yard on the upper deck and parking for 129 cars on the lower deck. The overall gross floor area of the deck is approximately 48,000 gross square feet. Figure 2.21 shows a proposed layout of the Parking Option. The yard's enclosed facilities would be set along the southern side of the deck, sharing its southern border with neighboring residences. The Vehicle Maintenance facility would be placed in the south-west corner of the City Maintenance Yard past the line of workshops, in front of which impediments to traffic flow would tend to emanate. These impediments would arise from the ingress and egress of vehicles being repaired and from parked vehicles waiting for service. Therefore, placement of the Vehicle Maintenance facility in this location is pertinent to efficient traffic flow within the City Maintenance Yard. The City Maintenance Yard offices, restrooms, lockers and kitchen break room would be situated in a separate structure at the north-west corner of the deck to provide for some distance from City Maintenance Yard activities. This structure would also accommodate flexible space on two levels for public use. While the facility would accommodate uses for both the City Maintenance Yard and the public, each function would exist separately from one another, and each would have its own entry, with the former's from the deck and the latters from grade at Bard Street. Appendix A shows a conceptual design of the facility, as presented to the Public Works Department, along with three dimensional simulated views. The height of the facility varies from 1/2 level above grade at the 11th Place and Valley Drive edges of the deck structure to approximately 2 stories at the south-west corner of the Yard.
2.5.4.2 No Added Parking Option
The No Added Parking Option is virtually the same as the Parking Option except that under the No Added Parking Option, the entire facility would be a single story, with the City Maintenance Yard functions and facilities (vehicle maintenance, offices, restrooms, lockers and kitchen break room, etc) occupying a reduced 30-40,000 ft2 acreage shared with the retained 32 parking spaces located along the north and east side of the facility. The building heights of the No Added Parking Option would be similar to the Parking Option, as the parking garage under the Parking Option would be below grade. See Figure 2-22. The additional 97 parking spaces would not be a part of the No Added Parking Option.
2.6 Agency Use of the Document
Section 15124(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR. This statement includes identifying the ways in which the Lead Agency and any responsible agencies would use this document in their approval or permitting processes.
2-81
2.6.1
Local and Regional
The City is the Lead Agency for this EIR, which will be used, among other purposes, to provide information to the voters in determining whether or not to lift the ban on oil production and approve other specified legislation for the Proposed Oil Project. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR that is applicable to E&Bs Proposed Oil would be adopted and incorporated into the Project (which would include a Development Agreement) or made conditions of Project approval, as appropriate before the ballot measure is presented to the voters. The adopted mitigation measures will also apply to subsequent Project approvals, including ministerial permits, if the voters approve the Project. The City would also use the EIR for permitting related to relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. The Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance are Responsible Agencies that would use the EIR for decision-making regarding approval of the portion of the Pipeline proposed within their respective jurisdictions. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the Project. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is a California Environmental Protection Agency Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the entire County, including the City of Hermosa Beach. The CUPA oversees all programs associated with hazardous materials. This includes the Business Plan Program and the Hazardous Waste Generator Program; Underground Storage Tank Program; the California Accidental Release Program and Risk Management Prevention Program; Uniform Fire Code (UFC); and Aboveground Storage Tank Program. The Fire-Hazardous Materials Unit also oversees the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank and Site Mitigation Unit Programs, which ensure appropriate assessment and remediation of all hazardous materials releases. Included in these programs is the reporting of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, within the Proposition 65 requirements. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is a Responsible Agency that may use the EIR to obtain additional information on the Proposed Oil Project for changes in the Hazardous Waste Generator and Business Plan. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 4, is responsible for establishing wastewater discharge requirements and issuing storm water pollution prevention plan permits. The Los Angeles RWQCB is a Responsible Agency that is expected to use the EIR in its review of the Project. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for issuance of a Permit to Construct (PTC) and a Permit to Operate (PTO), both of which would be required for the Proposed Project. To fulfill its obligations as a Responsible Agency, the SCAQMD would rely on information contained in this EIR as part of the PTO permitting process.
2.6.2 State
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the agency responsible for issuance of well permits for production and injection wells. DOGGR is expected to use the EIR in its permitting review of the Project. The California Coastal Commission would utilize the EIR for its permitting purposes and consistency review. This would include the California Coastal Commission review of the
2-82
amendments to the City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and a Coastal Development Permits for the Proposed Project.
2.6.3 Federal
The Office of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which is part of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for inspecting hazardous pipelines during construction to ensure they comply with all DOT regulations. Their inspections would include both the Pipelines and the odorant facilities. The PHMSA may use the EIR to obtain additional information on the Proposed Oil Project. The US Environmental Protection Agency may issue requirements for the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCC) and may use the EIR to obtain additional information on the Proposed Oil Project.
2.7 Potential Project Permits
Various permitting requirements must be met prior to implementation of the Proposed Project. The following section, DiscretionaryPermits and Approvals, summarizes local, state, and federal permits that may be required for the Project.
2.7.1 Discretionary Permits and Approvals
The Proposed Project would require discretionary permits and approvals prior to implementation. These are listed in Table 2.15. Agencies that may use this EIR are listed in Table 2.16.
Table 2.15 E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project Permits/Approvals Agency Local Agencies City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department Development Agreement by Ballot Measure Municipal Code Text Amendment by Ballot Measure Coastal Land Use Plan (text and Map) Amendment by Ballot Measure General Plan Amendment Pipeline Franchise Agreement by Ballot Measure Building Permits Grading and Excavation Permits Demolition Permits Oil Well Permit Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement Compliance Applicable Permit/Clearance
2-83
Table 2.15
E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project Permits/Approvals Applicable Permit/Clearance Business Plan Approval Compliance with NFPA Requirements Hot Work Permits Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Encroachment Permits for work in the public ROW Oversized/overweight loads to be transported on City streets Authority to Construct Permit to Operate Remedial Action Plan Community Action Emergency Response Plan Franchise Agreement; Encroachment Permit for Oil and Gas Pipelines and Valve Box; and Building Permit for Gas Metering Station. Construction Traffic Management Plan Department of Public Works Permits related to Grading Permits, any pipelines in the public rights of way, and oversized/overweight loads to be transported on City streets. Pipeline Franchise Agreement. Department of Public Works Permits related to Grading Permits, any pipelines in the public rights of way, and oversized/overweight loads to be transported on City streets. Permits to Drill Permit to Conduct Well Operations Class II Underground Injection Control Permit Oil Spill Contingency Plan Operations and Management Plan. Integrity Management Plan. Emergency Response Plan, Spill Response Plan. Hazardous Materials Management Plan Encroachment Permit Lease Agreement Wastewater Discharge Requirements
Agency City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department
City of Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works
South Coast Air Quality Management District Los Angeles County Fire Department Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Services City of Redondo Beach
City of Torrance
State Agencies Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, OSPR California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall (CSFM)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Department of Transportation California State Lands Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board
2-84
Table 2.15
E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project Permits/Approvals Agency Applicable Permit/Clearance Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Coastal Development Permit Coastal Land Use Plan (Map and Text) amendments Spill Prevention, Control Countermeasure (SPCC Rule) Water Injection Plan Approval. Operations and Maintenance Plan Pipeline Structure Permit and
California Coastal Commission
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Transportation
Table 2.16
Relocation of City Maintenance Yard Project Permits/Approvals Responsible Agency Applicable Permit/Clearance Relocation of City Maintenance Yard Local Agencies
City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department
Discretionary approvals necessary to relocate the City Maintenance Yard (Amendments to General Plan Land Use Map, Coastal Land Use Plan Map and Text, and Municipal Code Zoning Map and Text; Planned Development City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Non-discretionary permits to demolish Department the existing building and prepare, construct and occupy the new facility State or Federal Agencies California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit
2-85
2-86
Section 3: Cumulative Projects
3.0 Cumulative Projects
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in section 15065(c). Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are either considerable or compound other environmental impacts. A typical project specific cumulative analysis examines changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of a proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects that have not been included in the environmental setting. For example, the air quality impacts of two projects in close proximity may be insignificant when project emissions are analyzed separately, but could be significant when these emissions are combined and analyzed together. While these projects may be unrelated, their combined (i.e., cumulative) air quality impacts would be significant. The goal of the cumulative project analysis is to identify those reasonably foreseeable projects that could have spatial and temporal overlaps with the Proposed Project. These projects could have a potential for a significant cumulative environmental impact. Projects with temporal overlaps include those that are planned to occur during the same timeframe as the Proposed Project. Projects with spatial overlaps are those which would have impacts in the same geographic area or on the same resources as the Proposed Project (e.g., emissions that could affect the same air basin). The following discussion identifies future projects near the location of the Proposed Project, including E&Bs Project and the City Maintenance Yard relocation, and alternatives with a potential for significant cumulative environmental impact. Cumulative projects are those that, in conjunction with the Proposed Project, can potentially cause cumulatively significant adverse environmental impacts. The area within which cumulative impacts could occur depends upon the project activity and type of impact. The cumulative impact study area is the area surrounding the Project facilities where other projects could be proposed, including offshore areas. For this Proposed Project, the cumulative impact study area includes the immediate vicinity surrounding the Oil Project Site and the proposed crude and gas pipelines in the City of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance as well as the area around the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have cumulative impacts well beyond the region, and this analysis will consider Project-related GHG emissions relative to those on both a regional and statewide scale. Under risk of upset conditions and for impacts involving biological resources, geology, air quality, noise, traffic, and recreation, the cumulative impact study area would also encompass the communities of the City of Hermosa Beach, the City of Redondo Beach and Torrance (see Figure 2-1).
3-1
3.1
Description of Cumulative Projects
The Project Site is within property owned by the City of Hermosa Beach, as shown in Figure 21, located at the western edge of Los Angeles County, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west. The oil and gas production and processing facilities will be physically located at a single site at the current City Maintenance Yard. The Maintenance Yard would be demolished and moved to a location currently occupied by a self-storage facility in Hermosa Beach on City-owned property adjacent to City Hall.
3.1.1 City of Hermosa Beach
The City of Hermosa Beach currently has no cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts.
3.1.2 City of Redondo Beach
The City of Redondo Beach currently has three cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts. These cumulative projects are: Redondo Beach Energy Project; Anita Traffic Lane Modification Project; Harbor Development Project;
The Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP) is proposed by AES Southland, LLC to construct and operate a power generation facility located at 1100 North Harbor Drive in the City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County. The proposed RBEP site is southeast of and adjacent to the North Harbor Drive and Herondo Street intersection and would utilize 10.5 acres of the existing approximately 20 acre site. The RBEP is a proposed natural-gas fired, combined-cycle, air-cooled electrical generating facility with a net generating capacity of 496 megawatts (MW), which will replace, and be constructed on the site of, the existing AES Redondo Beach Generating Station. The existing power generation facility currently located on the Generating Station site would be removed. The project is currently under review by the California Energy Commission. The Anita Traffic Lane Modification Project would involve removing a traffic lane on Anita between Pacific Coast Highway and Hermosa Avenue and adding parking with a "back in" approach. The project would reduce Anita to one lane in each direction and would add 9 parking spaces in Hermosa Beach. It is planned for implementation in the summer of 2014. Under the Harbor Development Project, a commercial center would be built on approximately 15 acres adjacent to the harbor in the City of Redondo Beach. The commercial center would be comprised of 400,000 square feet total, with 200,000 square feet of commercial and 200,000 square feet of hotel and office space. The project is estimated to be implemented in the 20152016 timeframe.
3-2
3.1.3
City of Torrance
The City of Torrance currently has no cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts.
3-3
3-4
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting
4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting
This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Each issue area analyzed in this chapter provides background information and describes the environmental setting (baseline conditions) to help the reader understand the underlying conditions against which an impact is evaluated. In addition, each section describes how an impact on those underlying conditions is determined significant or less than significant. Finally, the individual sections recommend mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. Throughout this chapter, impacts are identified with a letter-number designation (e.g., impact BIO.1, impact AE.3). Corresponding mitigation measures are connected numerically to their impacts (e.g., BIO-1a and AE-3a). This environmental impact report (EIR) includes many references that have been abbreviated to acronyms. A list of acronyms is included following the Table of Contents.
4.0.1 Assessment Methodology
The analysis of each issue area begins with an examination of the existing physical setting (baseline conditions as determined pursuant to Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) that may be affected by the Proposed Project. The effects of the Proposed Project are defined as changes to the environmental setting attributable to Proposed Project components or operation. Significance criteria are identified for each environmental issue area. The significance criteria serve as benchmarks for determining if a component action will result in a significant adverse environmental impact when evaluated against the baseline. According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the EIR base its determination of whether or not a project impact is significant on adopted policies and standards, which serve as significance thresholds. The policies and standards applied by the EIR to serve as significance thresholds are derived for the most part from City policies (primarily in the Citys adopted General Plan) and other adopted standards such as the Municipal Code. For some environmental issues, the EIR applies standards established by other regulatory agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (in the case of water pollution standards) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (in the case of air pollutant standards). For impacts related to certain public safety hazards associated with oil production and transport, this EIR uses the wellestablished significance criteria adopted by the County of Santa Barbara. These criteria have been found to be acceptable and utilized by the California Coastal Commission in particular. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provide a list of generic questions intended to guide lead agencies in determining what level of CEQA documentation is appropriate for a given project (e.g., a negative declaration or EIR). (These questions were used in the Initial Study
4-1
presented in Appendix H.) The EIR follows the Citys practice of using those questions as a framework for addressing project impacts in more detail with careful consideration given to specific pertinent policies adopted by the City or other relevant agencies. Each analytic section of the EIR identifies the significance thresholds used to assess impacts related to the specific environmental issue under consideration. The same significance thresholds are used again when the EIR evaluates the effectiveness of any mitigation measures or Project Alternatives to reduce or avoid potential impacts.
4.0.2 Oil Project Impact Analysis
Based upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping comments, 15 issue/resource areas were identified where potentially significant impacts could occur from the Proposed Project. The impact analysis for each of these issue areas is provided in the following subsections of Chapter 4. The analysis of each issue area has defined the study area for purposes of the impact analysis. In most cases, the study area is the region that is in the vicinity of the Project. For each identified impact, the following framework was used: Impact Discussion; Mitigation Measures; and Residual Impacts
The residual impact is the impact classification after any mitigation has been applied. If an impact is found to be less than significant then the residual impact would remain less than significant with or without mitigation. All residual impacts identified in this document have been classified according to the following criteria: Class I - Significant and Unavoidable: Significant adverse impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated. No measures can be taken to avoid or reduce these adverse effects to insignificant or negligible levels. Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation: These impacts are potentially similar in significance to those of Class I impacts, but can be eliminated or reduced below an issue areas significance criteria threshold by the implementation of mitigation measures. Class III Less Than Significant: An adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issues significance criteria threshold. Generally, no mitigation measures are required for such impacts, although they may still be recommended should the lead or responsible agency deem it appropriate to reduce the impact to the maximum extent feasible. Class IV - Beneficial: Effects are beneficial to the environment. If the impact remains at or above the pertinent significance criteria after mitigation is applied, it is deemed to be significant and unavoidable, Class I. If a significant impact is reduced, based on compliance with mitigation, to a level below the pertinent significance criteria, it is determined to no longer have a significant effect on the environment (i.e., to be less than significant with mitigation, Class II). If an action creates an adverse impact above the baseline
4-2
condition, but such impact does not meet or exceed the pertinent significance criteria, it is determined to be less than significant, Class III. An action that provides an improvement to an environmental issue area in comparison to the baseline information is recognized as a beneficial impact, Class IV.
4.0.3 Formulation of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program
When significant impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures are formulated to eliminate or reduce the severity of the impacts and focus on the protection of sensitive resources. The effectiveness of a mitigation measure is subsequently determined by evaluating the impact remaining after its application. The impacts remaining after mitigation are considered residual impacts. The residual impacts can be either significant or less than significant. Implementation of more than one mitigation measure may be needed to reduce an impact below a level of significance. The mitigation measures recommended in this document are identified in the impact sections and presented in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, provided in Chapter 8 of the EIR. Measures that have been incorporated as part of an Applicants Project design are considered design features and are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. If they eliminate or reduce a potentially significant impact to a level below the significance criteria, they eliminate the potential for that significant impact since the measure is a component of the action. However, if the Project is approved, the Applicant-proposed measures would be part of the conditions of approval. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 establishes two distinct requirements for agencies involved in the CEQA process. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the section relate to mitigation monitoring and reporting, and the obligation to mitigate significant effects where possible. Pursuant to subdivision (a), whenever a public agency completes an EIR and makes a finding pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code taking responsibility for mitigation identified in the EIR, the agency must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will ensure that mitigation measures are complied with during implementation of an approved project. The City of Hermosa Beach will be responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures adopted pursuant to this EIR. One important step in monitoring is defining the responsibility of the Applicant to support this process. Mitigation Measure EM-1 defines this process, and is required to support all other mitigation measures and Applicant-proposed measures defined in this EIR. The agencies referred to in the mitigation measure include the City of Redondo Beach and City of Torrance and the California Coastal Commission, as appropriate. EM-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading and/or construction permits, the Applicant shall enter into agreements with the City to provide funding for the implementation and administration of an environmental monitoring program, including an environmental monitor, to ensure compliance with each Agencys environmental Conditions of Approval. The monitor shall assist the Agencies in condition compliance and mitigation monitoring for all applicable construction and operational stages of the Oil Project, as specified in a scope of work, as approved by the Agencies.
4-3
The monitoring program shall include a postconstruction program to monitor measures that extend beyond the construction period (e.g., success of landscaping, etc.), as well as monitor certain mitigation measures required during the operational phase. The monitor will prepare a working monitoring plan that reflects the Agencies approved environmental mitigation measures/conditions of approval. This plan will include: 1. Goals, responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for verifying compliance with environmental mitigations; 2. Lines of communication and reporting methods; 3. Daily and weekly reporting of compliance; 4. Construction crew training regarding environmental sensitivities; 5. Authority to stop work; and 6. Action to be taken in the event of noncompliance. The environmental monitor shall be under contract to the Agencies. Costs of the monitor, monitoring program, and any Agency administrative fees, shall be paid by the Applicant. The Applicant shall also be responsible for funding work required by permit conditions requiring use of individuals with special expertise (e.g., geologist, noise engineer, etc.). The Agencies environmental monitor will coordinate the monitoring efforts of the specialist, including communication with the Agencies, reporting and availability (at appropriate times: prior to issuance of construction permits, or during construction, as required by applicable permit conditions).
4.0.4 Cumulative Projects Impact Analysis
Each issue area in this chapter includes a cumulative impact analysis, which identifies the potential impacts of the Proposed Project that might not be significant when considered alone, but that might contribute to a significant impact in conjunction with the other cumulative projects. The list and description of cumulative projects is included in Chapter 3.0, Cumulative Projects.
4-4
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
4.1
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The issue of Aesthetics is relevant to all three major components of The Project: (1) The Proposed Oil Project (all phases), (2) Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, and (3) The Pipelines. Each of these components has the potential to significantly alter the existing character and quality of the visual environment into which they are planned. The aesthetics and visual resources chapter of this EIR discusses the environmental setting, regulatory framework, potential Project impacts on the visual environment in the area, and mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these potential impacts. The character of the existing visual environment and potential sensitive aesthetic resources are described to set the baseline against which impacts may be evaluated. Section 4.1.1 describes the methodology used to evaluate the potential impacts that may result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures are proposed to lessen these impacts. Information used to prepare this draft section was obtained through aerial photography, publically-available ground-level photography, digital terrain models, GIS mapping software, a three-dimensional city massing model, site visits, review of the regulatory and planning documents which govern the Project area (See Section 4.1.3), and Project-specific materials submitted as part of the application process. The Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would each have the potential for impacts on aesthetics. As the Proposed Oil Project and the Pipelines would operate together during the operational phases, these have been discussed in the same subsection. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has been discussed in a separate impacts sub-section.
4.1.1 Methodology
Evaluation of aesthetic and visual resource impacts can be subjective in nature, and therefore requires that an objective methodology be established. The process used in this EIR was adapted from the guidelines used by the Federal Highway Administration for assessment of visual impacts (USDOT, 1981). Impact intensity was established based on evaluating the baseline environmental setting and visual conditions against those depicted in the photo simulations. See section 4.1.4 for significance criteria under CEQA. The principal steps used to define and discuss visual impacts in this EIR are described in the following sections.
4.1.1.1 Assessing Existing Visual Environment
The existing daytime visual environment is evaluated in terms of its visual character and quality. The existing night time visual environment for lighting is also inventoried. The character, intactness, and unity of the night time visual environment are set as the baseline condition. Numerous terms are used to assess visual impacts. These are discussed below.
4.1-1
Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative which means it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad. It includes descriptive language related to land form, land cover and land use. The character of the existing visual environment is inventoried for pattern elements and pattern character: Pattern Elements: o Form: the mass of shape of an object. This is the strongest pattern element. o Line: Geometrically, a point that has been extended, or the intersection of two planes. e.g., a silhouette or a boundary between patterns in the landscape. This is the second strongest of the visual pattern elements. o Color: The hue (e.g. red or blue) and value (light or dark) of the light reflected or emitted by an object. This is the third strongest of the visual pattern elements. o Texture: The visual or tactile surface characteristic of various elements in the landscape. This is often the least dominant of the four visual pattern elements. Pattern Character: o Dominance: The degree of visual presence because of prominence of positioning, contrast, extent or importance of pattern elements. o Scale: The apparent size relationship between landscape components or features and their surroundings. o Diversity: The number of pattern elements as well as the variety among them, and edge relationships between them. o Continuity: The uninterrupted flow of pattern elements, maintenance of visual relationships between immediately connected or related landscape components or features. Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness, and unity present in the viewshed. o Vividness is the memorability or visual impression received from contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual pattern. o Intactness is the visual integrity of visual order in the natural and man-built landscape and the extent to which the landscape is free from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. o Unity the degree to which the visual resources of a landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity refers to the compositional harmony or inter-compatibility between landscape elements. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.
4.1.1.2 Evaluating Project Impacts
The visual impacts of the Proposed Project and its alternatives are determined by assessing the visual resource change (from a change in access or quality) due to the project and predicting viewer response to that change. The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the level of resource change with the degree to which users are likely to support or oppose the change. For the Proposed Project, evaluations of potential visual impacts were based on information provided in the project planning application and expected impacts resulting from the
4.1-2
implementation of those plans. These impacts are documented in Section 4.1.5, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual character and change in visual quality. o The first step in determining visual resource change is to assess the compatibility of the Proposed Project within the visual character of the existing landscape. Compatibility is assessed by comparing pattern elements and pattern character before and after the project. o The second step is to compare the visual quality of the existing resources with the anticipated visual quality after the project is constructed. This includes evaluating changes to the vividness, intactness and unity of the Project viewshed. Viewer response is the sum of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to the project. o Viewer exposure is assessed by evaluating the potential viewshed, viewing groups and numbers, view location, distance and positions, and the duration and frequency of the view. High viewer exposure heightens the importance of early consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing the visual resource effects of a project. Viewshed: Areas from which a critical object or viewpoint is seen. This analysis is done through evaluation of topography and built form. The screening effects of intermediate vegetation are also considered during analysis, though it was not included in the mapping process. Viewing groups and numbers: The two basic user groups are users with a view of the project and users with a view of the surrounding area of the Project. Consideration is given to the number of residents as well as visitors. View location, distance and position: the viewers physical location as it relates to the area/s of impact is evaluated in terms of distance zones (foreground, middleground and background), position (superior/above, normal/level, inferior/below) and direction of view (north, east, south, west). View duration and frequency: As duration and frequency increase, exposure increases. Consideration is given to whether the viewers are stationary or moving. In general, impacts less than one year are considered temporary, though significant impacts can still occur in timeframes less than one year where sensitivity levels are high. Impacts occurring over the course of one to five years are considered short-term. Impacts lasting greater than 5 years are considered long-term. o Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers concern for visual quality and the viewers response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. The viewers activity and awareness, local values, and cultural significance affect sensitivity level. Activity and Awareness: A viewers current activity and past experience with a landscape can heighten or decrease the ability to perceive the landscape and its detail. Awareness or receptivity to the visual character of the landscape can be affected by elements and relationships in the
4.1-3
landscape setting itself, or by expectations about the setting. Areas considered to have high sensitivity include: public views from road ROWs that serve to directly access residential or recreational areas, designated parks and open spaces, culturally and historically significant sites, and areas in which aesthetic values are protected in laws and public planning documents. Local Values: Through review of the goals and policies relating to visual resources in local planning documents, sensitivity levels can be evaluated. The CUP for the Project and public scoping meeting comments are also indicators of public values. Cultural Significance: Visual resources may have sensitivity due to history, scientific or recreational resources, or uniqueness.
4.1.1.3 Assessment of Key Observation Points
As part of the process to assess the Projects potential impacts on visual resources, identification was made of representative public view locations called Key Observation Points (KOPs). KOPs from public locations were selected where viewer exposure and sensitivity are both high, are listed in planning documents or where prominent ocean views may be compromised. Although there are conflicting judicial interpretations, the CEQA Guidelines do not limit consideration to public views. CEQA cases have stated that both public and private views are properly studied in an Environmental Impact Report to assess the impacts of a project (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004)), however, the lead agency can decide to address private views and establish the significance criteria as they see fit. While specific private KOP simulations were not included, the Project Site would be a small area so that impacts to public views would be the same or similar to impacts from private views. The number and range of views from public areas was sufficient to allow a determination of significance. For each KOP, photo documentation and simulation was conducted to serve as a basis for evaluating the Proposed Projects potential effects. A summary of the process and methodology used to prepare the photo simulations is included below. Key Observation Points selected were as follows (see KOP Map in Section 4.1.5 for locations). Views from/near public roads which serve as a primary or secondary access to residential subdivision areas and/or recreation areas: Pacific Coast Hwy 1 (Primary); KOP 12; Hermosa Ave (Primary); KOP 9; Pier Ave (Primary); KOPs 3 and 4; Valley Drive (Primary); KOP 5, 15, 16; 6th Street (Secondary); KOPs 10, 13, 14 and 19; 8th Street (Secondary); KOP 16, 17, and 18;
Views from Recreation Areas:
4.1-4
Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (Veterans Parkway); KOPs 2, 15 and 20 Ardmore Park; KOP 20 Civic Center; KOP 5 Community Center (Tennis Court Access); KOP 1 South Park; KOP 11 The Strand; KOP 8 Hermosa Beach; KOP 7 Hermosa Beach Pier; KOP 6
Photo Simulation
Photo simulations of the Proposed Oil Project (KOPs 6-20) were produced by E&B consultant Focus 360. The photo simulations in the Planning Application were updated at the request of the EIR consultant to use a 50mm lens, show the rig in a worst-case scenario drilling location for each view and adjust landscape size depictions per the supplemental landscape information provided after the original simulations were produced. Additional locations were requested by the EIR consultant at Hermosa Beach and Hermosa Beach Pier. As discussed in the project documents, the rig location is variable and could occur at any one of the first four well locations in Phase 2, or any well locations in Phase 4. The rig is expected to move approximately once per month during drilling operations. Photo simulations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 1-5) were produced by the EIR consultant in coordination with City Staff and the architect working with the City on the project (RNL). The process for producing the simulations is summarized below.
Photography for Photo Simulation
The camera used was a full-sized CCD (charge-coupled device) digital camera with a fixed 50mm lens. A full-sized CCD camera was used because it records the entire frame of view the same way the visualization software recreates the image. A 50mm lens is used in photo simulations because it most closely reproduces the way a human eye sees the world and therefore provides the most "fair" visual representation of the distance and magnitude of Project impacts. The fixed 50mm lens is used in the simulations to ensure that the focal length does not change from image to image. Limitations in photography at this focal length do not always allow all project elements to be fully captured in a single frame, especially in close proximity to large elements of great vertical scale. The fact that these elements do not fit within a single frame is an indication of their potential for dominance within the viewsheds. Therefore, for views where the drilling rig extend above the frame, simulations at 28mm lens simulation (wide angle) was also included. A 28mm lens causes the feature of interest (the drill rig) to appear smaller and is therefore not ideal, but due to the dominance of the drill rig at foreground locations, a 28mm lens simulation was included. Camera location and direction of view for each KOP were recorded using a handheld GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. The camera was adjusted to the eye level of the photographer for each KOP.
4.1-5
Modeling for Photo Simulation
The process used for modeling the Proposed Oil Project was included in the supplemental planning information submitted by the Applicant. This information was reviewed during the EIR process, and where necessary updates and clarifications were made. At the outset of the study, pertinent Project information was provided: surveyed topographic information, civil and Project design files, and details. Through the use of computer simulation software, this information was combined together to create a three-dimensional model of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Oil Project was built in the computer. Potentially visible production equipment, drill and workover rigs, walls, fences, and landscaping were created and placed according to the civil and site design plans. Information and modeling related to the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project is still in the preliminary planning stages. A preliminary massing model was provided to the EIR consultant by the Citys architectural consultant for the Project (RNL). In consultation with the Architect working with the City, preliminary architectural details, materials, and landscaping were added by the EIR consultant to the base massing model that was provided.
Composite Imaging of Photo Simulation
Within the three-dimensional model, a virtual camera is then placed at the selected viewpoints using the field data collected at the time of photography (horizontal and vertical geographic position). The visible elements of the model are exported using the time of day and location of the original photo to produce shade and shadow conditions consistent with the image. Adjustments are made to allow the two images to blend together (foreground elements, such as trees, shrubs and buildings are adjusted to appear in front of Proposed Project elements). The resulting image is the completed photo simulation.
Viewshed Mapping
Viewshed mapping for the Proposed Oil Project was done to approximate the extents of potential visibility of major project components including the 87-foot electric drill rig and 110-foot workover rig (See Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2). This mapping was produced using geographic information software, digital terrain modeling, and 3D representations of built forms in the project area. The terrain and three-dimensional buildings of the City were provided by CyberCity 3D. The model included building massings and roof heights/pitches accurate to within six inches. The E&B City model was produced based on the built form of the city as of 2006 (CyberCity3D, 2013). Using this analysis tool, potential visibility from public road rights of way, parks and open spaces was established. It is important to note that the model does not include the ability of existing vegetation to provide visual screening, nor does it represent built forms that have been constructed since the model was built.
4.1.1.4 Lighting and Glare Methodology
The level of light that is projected into the environment by the current operations during the nighttime hours, and the additional light that will be generated by the Proposed Project, are important in determining the Projects impacts. If an area is relatively dark, with minimal night lighting, then the addition of even a single strong light could produce impacts on receptors,
4.1-6
particularly if those receptors are a residential area. However, if the area already has substantial lighting, and some additional lighting is added, then the impacts would be considered minimal. Light is generally measured in lumens, which is the total amount of light energy produced by a given light source. Light levels, or luminance, are measured in terms of the amount of light falling on a unit area. The measurement is in footcandles (fc) or lux, which is defined as the amount of lumens per square foot or square meter, respectively. Light measured by the amount of lumens given off in a defined angle is called a candela. The light levels of a starry night without a moon in a rural area is less than 0.001 fc, a mooonlit night 0.1 fc, a parking lot 1-10 fc and a bright sunny day 10,000 fc. Reflectance is the ratio of the amount of light leaving a surface to the amount of light incident on it. Reflectance can be expressed as a percentage or a fraction, and is affected by factors such as color, finish, and surface texture. Materials are measured by their Light Reflectance Value (LRV). LRV values are between 1 and 0, with a theoretical perfect white achieving a value of 1, reflecting 100% of visible light, and a theoretical perfect black achieving a value of 0, absorbing 100%. In practice LRVs will not reach the theoretical limits with white surfaces achieving values up to 0.85. For example, the reflectance (expressed as a fraction) of concrete ranges from 0.34-0.67.
4.1.2 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting section describes the existing visual resources in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. The character and quality of these existing visual resources is established here as the baseline against which project impacts are later measured (see section 4.1.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures). The visual resources in the vicinity of each major project component are evaluated in terms of different landscape types/units. A landscape type/unit is an area of landform plus land cover forming a distinct, homogenous component of a landscape, differentiated from other areas by its degree of slope and pattern of land cover (USDOT, 1981). The two landscape units for this project are developed/roaded and open space/park. Further detail on how the existing visual environment is evaluated and described in this EIR can be found in section 4.1.1 Methodology. Existing lighting and glare are also discussed.
4.1.2.1 Local Setting
Below is a description of the existing visual environment surrounding each of the major Project component sites/alignments. The Key Observation points in Section 4.1.5 include existing site photos which depict many of the viewsheds described below.
Proposed Oil Project Site
The Proposed Oil Project Site is located in a densely developed area. The parcel is immediately surrounded by light manufacturing and open space land uses. One- and Two-family residential and open space land uses border the light manufacturing district (See Figure 2.4, Project Description). The built environment is comprised of primarily one to three-story masses with a relatively high degree of architectural variety and character. Development of individual parcels
4.1-7
has typically been maximized making built form the dominant physical/visual feature on most parcels. Planted landscape features have been integrated where feasible to complement and enhance the built environment. City streets, parks, the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt), and public beach provide the public network that links and provides physical and visual access to the built environment. The Project Site sits within a slight depression along Valley Drive between Loma Drive and PCH, which provide some reduction in views from the beach area, but provides for an elevated viewing location as the viewer moves east to PCH and beyond.
Views of the Proposed Oil Project Site
The Project Site is in a light manufacturing area within a densely developed area within a mostly single-family residential region of the City of Hermosa Beach approximately 0.31 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The Project Site is located within an approximately 6.2-acre region made up of light manufacturing uses that contain a variety of small commercial/manufacturing businesses. The form and scale of these uses are generally of the same size as the surrounding residential buildings, though their character and quality is of a light manufacturing district. Beach Cities Self Storage is the largest built mass in the immediate project vicinity. The structure is set back from Valley Drive approximately 20 feet and a small parking lot sets the mass back from the corner of Valley and 6th Street. The height of the structure varies with changes in grade, but generally ranges between 20-25 feet tall. The character and quality of the structure is consistent with the adjacent light manufacturing land uses. The building incorporates architectural faade enhancements to break down the scale of its mass. Additionally it includes landscape treatments along Valley Drive to reduce its mass and provide visual screening. The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard. The Maintenance Yard would be relocated for development of the Proposed Oil Project. The most prominent architectural masses at the City Maintenance Yard consist of two single story rectangular-shaped storage buildings. The largest building is located along the northern Project Site boundary oriented in the east-west orientation and measures approximately 145 feet by 50 feet, and is 1620 feet tall. The building is light industrial in character with a uniform standing seam metal panel exterior, shallow hip roof, several large vehicular openings with rolling doors and few windows. The second largest building is located in the southeast corner of the Project Site oriented in the north-south direction and measures approximately 95 feet by 44 feet and is approximately 10-12 feet in height. This building also has a light industrial character but is less uniform in terms of architectural finishes and forms. It also has several large vehicular openings but with swinging wooden doors, exposed utility connections and a flat roof form. Architectural masses occupy approximately 15-20 percent of the Project Site. Asphalt, gravel, and sand storage areas are located in the northwest corner of the Project Site; a row of storage containers line the middle of the western boundary (see Figure 2.3). A 15-stall surface parking lot for City employees is located in the southwest corner of the Project Site. The maintenance yard includes trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt surfacing. Property edge visual screening features include masonry walls with sections of screened chain link fencing along the south, west, and northern boundary. A 6-8 foot chain-link fence with privacy inserts and security wire borders Valley Drive to the east. The fence is partially covered with a dense deciduous flowering vine which provides additional privacy screening during
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project 4.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report
months it is in-leaf. A row of approximately 40-foot tall evergreen fig trees line Valley Drive at the Project boundary. The yard is moderately to highly visually accessible in its immediate vicinity and has low levels of intactness, vividness and unity.
Views Surrounding the Proposed Oil Project Site
The City Maintenance Yard is located on land zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing and is surrounded by zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing uses to the immediate north, south, and west. OS-1 Restricted Open Space occurs to the immediate east. The majority of land immediately surrounding the City Maintenance Yard is developed with the exception of the land zoned OS-1 Restricted Open Space (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail). Other properties in the vicinity of the Project Site are zoned R-2 Two Family Residential and R-3 Multiple Family Residential. Viewshed components surrounding the Project Site generally include a variety of architectural masses of light industrial and residential character and an approximately 100-foot wide linear greenbelt. A general viewshed inventory in each direction surrounding the project is as follows (see Figure 2.5): To the north is a row of single-story light manufacturing uses and beyond that R-3 multifamily residence one- to three-stories in height. Built masses of residential character, overhead utility lines, and the canopy of few mature trees populate the viewshed. To the east are Valley Drive and the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt). The Greenbelt is an approximately 100-foot wide linear greenbelt trail planted with evergreen groundcover (iceplant) and low-lying shrubs and trees which typically range from 10-30 feet in height. Further east, beyond the Greenbelt are views of residential development with a mix of one- to three-story homes with ocean views (due to the elevated terrain). Few large mature tree canopies and some overhead utilities are also components of this viewshed. To the south are 6th Street and a two-story light manufacturing building (Beach Cities Self Storage), which takes up a large portion of the block and limits distant views surrounding the Project Site in this direction. The building is of a light commercial character with large architectural masses, faade enhancements, and few windows or doors. From the southeast corner of the Project Site, there are distant views farther to the south where the Veterans Parkway, a community park (South Park) and zoned R-2 TwoFamily Residential development with attached garages that stand at one- to three- stories are visible. To the west, viewshed components include a row of light one and two-story manufacturing buildings, Cypress Avenue, and residential development further west. These architectural masses combined with a soft topographic ridge generally parallel with Loma Drive limits views toward the Pacific Ocean immediately surrounding the Project Site.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site
Relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would occur to a densely developed area of multifamily residential, Open Space, and restricted open space area in the City of Hermosa Beach (See Figure 2.4, Project Description). The temporary City Maintenance Yard would be located
4.1-9
immediately adjacent to the City Hall along bard Street and 11th Place. Both are adjacent to residential and open space land uses.
Views of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site
The proposed site for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard currently houses large single-story Hermosa Self Storage Facility, along with a surface parking lot on the east side of the lot. The building footprint is approximately 140 feet by 200 feet and ranges in height from 17-20 feet. It occupies approximately sixty-five percent of the lot. The building is light commercial in character with concrete block construction, few windows or doors, little architectural detail or faade enhancements, and an expansive mostly flat roof. The building is set below perimeter grade conditions by an approximate range of 2-8 feet, with the most significant grade differential on the west property boundary. The City Maintenance Yard Project Site perimeter includes a landscape strip with low iceplant groundcover to the north, an approximately 4-6-foot (height varies) masonry wall with landscaping along the east boundary, and combination concrete wall and wood fencing along the south and west boundaries.
Views Surrounding the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site
The City Maintenance Yard Project Site is surrounded by a mix of land uses including City Hall, a fire station, a public library, a community theater, residential areas and a public greenbelt for open space/recreation. A general viewshed inventory in each direction surrounding the project is as follows: To the north are the three-story City Hall, large surface parking areas, single story Public Library, and the one to three-story police and fire stations, which also include a five-story concrete tower. These structures are civic in architectural character and quality with a generally high degree of faade articulation and detail. The concrete tower bears the city name and by virtue of its location and relative vertical scale is one of the more visible architectural elements in the community. The tower is approximately 12x16 and is approximately 60 feet tall. To the east, Valley Drive and Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail) are lined with a variety of hedges and trees ranging from 10-40 feet in height. Further to the east are six tennis courts and The Hermosa Beach Community Center. To the south and west are two- to three-story multi-family residential structures of varying architectural styles and forms. Few large mature tree canopies and overhead utilities are also components of this viewshed.
The Pipelines (Includes Valve Boxes and Metering Station)
The proposed crude oil pipeline alignment scenarios would traverse the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, within existing street and utility rights of way (ROW).
Views of the Pipeline Route, Valve Boxes and Metering Station
The views are consistent with those of a large roadway and include expansive areas of pavement, areas of streetscape enhancement, landscaping, street lighting and traffic signals. The utility ROW includes large transmission towers, areas of undeveloped grassland (Metering Station site),
an entry monument for the City of Redondo Beach, a container plant nursery and a dog park (Dominguez Park).
Views Surrounding the Pipeline Route, Valve Boxes and Metering Station
The oil pipeline would be constructed underground for a distance of 0.39 miles in the ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is one-way starting at 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to the corner of Valley Drive/N. Francisca Avenue and Herondo Street in the City of Redondo Beach. One- to three-story residential buildings line Valley Drive to the west and Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail) and more one- to three- story residences are located to the immediate east. At this point, the oil pipeline would be constructed underground for a distance of approximately 3.55 miles to its valve box locations. From Valley Drive it would turn to the east and follow the alignment of Herondo Street and Anita Street before connecting with 190th Street. The north side of Herondo Street is lined with a mix of residence, commercial and residential-professional uses ranging in height from two- to three- stories. The south side of Herondo Street is lined with designated right-of-way which supports a high-powered transmission line with transmission towers that are approximately 90-feet in height. These towers span a commercial plant nursery which operates in the ROW. The transmission line and commercial nursery continue along the south side of Anita Street at its connection with 190th Street and take up and area that is approximately 180-feet wide along its path. The following pipeline alignment scenarios could occur once the pipeline enters 190th Street: Scenario 1 and 2 consist of construction of the pipeline alignment within 190th Street to the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance or the City of Redondo Beach. This area is in a high density built out condition. At this point, Scenario 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options discussed below. The area around 190th Street between Anita Street and Hawthorne is characterized by residential uses ranging from one- to twostories high on the north side of the street mixed with a small number of industrial and commercial uses approximately at the midpoint of the proposed pipeline alignment. The south side of 190th Street from Anita Street includes a dog park, called Dominguez Park (24 acres); a mix of three-story medium high residential uses (i.e., apartments) followed by a few blocks of big box commercial developments, then single family residences one- to three-stories high, more commercial uses and light and heavy industrial uses up to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard. Scenario 1 and 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options discussed below. Scenario 3 consists of construction of the pipeline alignment within the approximately 190-foot wide SCE utility corridor consisting of a high-powered transmission line with transmission towers that are approximately 90-feet in height that runs through a commercial container plant nursery in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. This area is in a medium-density built-out condition. The SCE utility corridor is located parallel to and approximately 300 feet south of 190th Street behind the land uses along the south side of 190th Street: a mix of three-story medium high residential uses (i.e., apartments) east to a few blocks of big box commercial developments, single family residences one- to three stories high, more commercial uses and light and heavy
4.1-11 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
industrial uses up to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard. South of the utility corridor are low density single family homes. Some existing mature trees occur within or immediately adjacent the ROW, such as North Prospect Ave, parallel with Agate street (between Harkness and Flagler), in Dominguez Park, and where residential properties are adjacent. When the oil pipeline meets Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance, Scenario 3 would continue to one of the four valve box options discussed below. The oil Pipeline would end at one of the valve box locations discussed below: o Valve Box Option 1 For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would continue from the Hawthorne Boulevard/190th Street intersection down 190th Street to the Exxon Mobil Refinery, where it would connect with a valve box location within the refinery site. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard and east in 190th Street to the refinery site. This area is dominated by heavy industry uses associated with the Refinery tanks and facilities. o Valve Box Option 2 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would turn south in Hawthorne Boulevard to the SCE Utility Corridor where it would turn east to the valve box location. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would continue east in the SCE Utility Corridor across Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location; o Valve Box Option 3 For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location adjacent to the Santa Fe Rail Road line; and o Valve Box Option 4 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location northeast of the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard.
4.1.2.2 Light and Glare
The Project area is located within a dense residential area with some commercial and industrial uses, characterized by low to medium ambient nighttime artificial light levels. During nighttime hours, the surrounding residential as well as commercial and industrial areas typically utilize moderate levels of interior and exterior lighting for nighttime activities, security, parking, and signage. The majority of these light sources are shielded and directed towards the ground so as to minimize impacts on surrounding uses. Other exterior lighting sources include pole-mounted street lighting along adjacent streets. The most significant night time lighting observed in the Project area was from Clark Stadium where light levels exceeded 35 footcandles (as measured at the tennis courts adjacent to Valley Drive). Lighting near or exceeding this level is evenly distributed across the active use areas of the park site. South Park light levels were considerably lower with only occasional low-level light fixtures along the main path and parking area. The Hermosa Greenbelt adjacent the Project Site is not lit at night. Interior lighting spill-over from windows and porches of the residential uses contribute to the ambient nighttime levels. With the exception of Clark Stadium (when in night time use) the character, intactness and unity of the lit environment is fairly uniform and consistent with a Lighting Zone 2 (LZ-2) (IES/IDA, 2011). Lower light levels are located on undeveloped parcels, non-active-use parks and open spaces.
4.1-12
Light levels generated within the Project Site are low to moderate. Light sources include exterior security lighting on building facades and light poles located in the surface of parking areas. The buildings and tanks on the Project Site have painted metal finishes and do not contain large glare-producing windows. Existing fixtures are not full cut-off and some light spill into the night sky was observed. Light levels generated at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site are low to moderate. Light sources include exterior security lighting on building facades and light poles located in the surface of parking areas on the east third of the site. Existing fixtures are not full cut-off and some light spill into the night sky was observed.
4.1.3 Regulatory Framework
Various plans and policy documents set forth regulations and guidelines for aesthetics, visual resources, vistas, light and glare that relate to the development of the Proposed Project. These include the California Coastal Act, City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, City of Redondo Beach General Plan, City of Torrance General Plan, and local planning and zoning ordinances. Objectives, goals, and policies from these documents that are pertinent to the Proposed Project are listed below.
4.1.3.1 California Coastal Act Chapter 3 Article 6 Section 30251 Scenic and Visual Qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
4.1.3.2 Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code
Chapter 5 Nonresidential Mandatory Measures 5.106.8 Light Pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed and installed to comply with the following: 1. The minimum requirements in the California Energy Code for Lighting Zones 1-4 as defined in Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code; 2. Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) ratings as defined in IESNA TM-15-11; and 3. Allowable BUG ratings not exceeding those shown in Table 5.106.8.
4.1-13
The Proposed Oil Project Site and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site have been determined to be in Lighting Zone 2.
4.1.3.3 City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach General Plan
City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Urban Design Element outlines policies and objectives to preserve the scale of the community. It maintains that: introduction of massive land uses such as large buildings or new transportation corridors should be carefully evaluated. It is concerned with abrupt changes in scale and form resulting in a land use overwhelming another. But it suggests that this visual shock can be lessened by generous landscaping and limiting the apparent size of buildings and parking lots near the boundary. To encourage development that coincides with the Citys urban design goals of scale and form, it offers: Policy 1 - Maintain the present scale of the City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable. Program 1 - Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values.
The General Plan's urban design policies and programs include the following objectives that must be addressed when design decisions are made: Preserve Hermosa Beach as a creative environment where people can live and work. Identify and maintain the smaller scale visual features that give character to Hermosa Beach and its neighborhoods. Retain the uniqueness and diversity of Hermosa Beach's neighborhoods.
City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 17.28 (M-1 Light Manufacturing Zone) of the Municipal Code sets forth the following requirements for building height and landscaping, which effect visual quality of the Project Site and surrounding area: 17.28.010.E. Ensure that the appearance and effects of manufacturing and commercial buildings in the M-1 zone are harmonious with the character of the area which they are located. 17.28.030.D. Building Height - Any building may have a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height and have a maximum of two stories. Oil and gas operations may exceed this height for a temporary period of time and to a height as set forth in an approved conditional use permit pursuant to Ordinance No. 85-803. 17.28.030.H. Landscaping Adjacent to Residential Zones - The required rear and/or side yard area shall be landscaped and provided with an automatic watering system. Size, quantity and type of landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the planning director. Landscaping shall be appropriately maintained, trimmed and void of weeds (Prior code Appx. A, 9-3).
4.1-14
Chapter 17.30 (O-S Open Space) of the Municipal Code sets forth the following requirements for building height, landscaping, and lot coverage, which affect visual quality of the Project Site and surrounding area: 17.30.040 Height - No building shall exceed a height of two stories or twenty-five (25) feet above the existing or finished grade, whichever is less (Prior code Appx. A, 9.5-3). 17.30.080 Landscaping - All yard or open areas shall be attractively landscaped with the possible exception of where such areas are used for court games, buildings or parking. All landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated (Prior code Appx. A, 9.5-7). 7.30.030 Lot coverage - Maximum building coverage of land area in the O-S zone shall not exceed ten percent (Prior code Appx. A, 9.5-2).
Local Coastal Plan
In 1972, the people of California passed the Coastal Act which provided the establishment of the California Coastal Commission and required local coastal communities to develop plans for the preservation, enhancement and access to the coastal zone areas within each community. The City of Hermosa Beach completed its Coastal Land Use Plan (called the Local Coastal Plan) in 1981. Policies related to aesthetics are addressed under section VI and in the Coastal Land Use Plan Appendix G and include goals and policies "To preserve and enhance coastal overviews and key view point areas (section VI.B.2)." Applicable policies include "that the City should restrict building height to protect overview and viewshed qualities and to preserve the City's' existing low-rise profile". Appendix J to the Coastal Land Use Plan includes a map designating a "Scenic Highways Plan" (dated 1972, and as Amendment 9 to the Hermosa Beach General Plan dated 2/25/75). The Scenic Highways Plan designates Valley Drive from Gould Avenue south to about 2nd Street as a Scenic Corridor. This would include the Proposed Oil Project Site and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site. Appendix G to the Coastal Land Use Plan also contains a Viewshed and landscape map, Figure XXII.
4.1.3.4 City of Redondo Beach City of Redondo Beach General Plan
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan Land Use Element establishes goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new development will occur and existing uses with light manufacturing be conserved in the City of Redondo Beach. Implementation Program - I1.18 Formulate Architecture, Site, and Landscape Design Guidelines and Standards promotes the establishment of architecture, site, and landscape design guidelines for development throughout the City. It encourages development of salient design characteristics (i.e., for the height, massing, scale, articulation, and setbacks of structures) which are necessary to ensure that new development and renovation of existing structures attains the high quality which is desired in the City and does not adversely impact the character of existing districts which exhibit special design qualities. Policy 1.57.2 of the City of Redondo Beach Land Use Element maintains that the onsite lighting of commercial and industrial uses be unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only
4.1-15
the intended area is illuminated, offsite glare is minimized, and adequate safety is provided (I1.1, I1.7, I1.18).
4.1.3.5 City of Torrance City of Torrance General Plan
City of Torrance General Plan Community Resources Element describes Torrance as a community of high aesthetic quality. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element are aimed to focus on the enhancement of community qualities that distinguish Torrance, including open space resources, community facilities and activities, educational and cultural facilities, and historic resources. Maintaining, preserving, and enhancing these resources are a priority for the City and the General Plan. The Community Resources Element combines three elements that were included as separate elements in the previous General Plan: the Conservation, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation Elements. With respect to aesthetic qualities, the Community Resources Element establishes the following objectives and policies: Objective CR.18: To preserve significant stands of trees and to establish a comprehensive plan to protect and enhance the urban forest o Policy CR.18.1 Preserve specimen trees whether they occur on public or private property, and promote the planting of new trees. o Policy CR.18.2 Provide, maintain, and encourage appropriate street trees along all sidewalks and property frontages. o Policy CR.18.3 - Develop and implement a comprehensive citywide street tree program that includes sidewalk-appropriate, drought-tolerant, and native species. Objective CR.19: To preserve scenic vistas wherever possible o Policy CR.19.1 - Make the preservation of scenic vistas an integral factor in land development decisions. o Policy CR.19.2 - Look for opportunities to create public open space areas with scenic vistas that all can enjoy. o Policy CR.19.3 - Coordinate with Southern California Edison and other utilities to underground utility lines in new developments and to systematically replace overhead lines with underground facilities, with a priority placed along major roadways, key commercial areas, and within viewsheds of the beach. Objective CR.20: To minimize sources and adverse effects of light pollution. o Policy CR.20.1 - Establish regulations for private lighting that minimize or eliminate light pollution, light trespass, and glare (obtrusive light). o Policy CR.20.2 - Require that nonresidential uses adjacent or near residential neighborhoods provide shielding or other protections from outdoor lighting and lighted signage.
City of Torrance Municipal Code
The City of Torrance Municipal Code contains standards addressing the reduction of glare throughout its design policies related to: building surfaces; lighting in residential areas, the Citys historic districts, public spaces, pedestrian areas, and recreational open space; sign policies; and screening and buffering of commercial corridors and industrial areas.
4.1-16
4.1.4
Significance Criteria
Visual impacts are considered significant under CEQA if one or a combination of the following apply: A substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista; Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway; Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.1.5
Included below are general discussions of visual impacts under CEQA (1-4, above). These impacts have been divided by major project element: Proposed Oil Project Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and; The Pipeline, (includes Valve Boxes and Metering Station)
The impacts at the Proposed Oil Project Site were found to be dependent on whether or not the drill rig/s were (1) present onsite or (2) were not present onsite. Accordingly, impact discussions at the Proposed Oil Project Site have been sub-divided into these two groups.
4.1.5.1 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Design Features Phase 1 Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 1 of the Proposed Project, there would be demolition and construction activities with various combinations of construction equipment working on the Project Site. Phase 1 demolition and construction activities, as proposed by the Applicant and assumed in this analysis, would incorporate the following operational practices related to aesthetics: Prior to the initiation of Project Site clearance activities, temporary 16-foot high sound attenuation walls (acoustical barrier) would be erected around the perimeter of the Project Site, thereby reducing the views of the onsite demolition and construction activities. The walls are designed to be moveable depending on the location of the onsite activities. Demolition or construction activities would occur on the Project Site between the hours of 8 AM to 6 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 5PM on Saturdays consistent with the requirements of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be provided on the Project Site. The perimeter of the Project Site would be illuminated by the existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street.
4.1-17
The Proposed Project would underground the existing overhead power lines and communication lines on poles that run through the existing trees along Valley Drive. The lines would be located underground adjacent to the Project Site at a location determined by the utility companies and the City. The electrical service for the Proposed Project would require the installation of underground conduit in Valley Drive from 8th Street to the northeast corner of the Project Site. The location of the underground conduit would be determined by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the City. The areas disturbed would be returned to their existing condition to the satisfaction of the City. Reclaimed water for use in irrigation of the landscape areas and drilling would be extended from an existing reclaimed waterline in the Veterans Parkway via a six-inch lateral water line brought across Valley Drive to a location south of the project entrance driveway to be constructed in Phase 3. The areas disturbed would be returned to their existing condition to the satisfaction of the City. Three of the four existing mature trees along the Project frontage on Valley Drive would be retained to help screen construction activities. The three remaining trees would be trimmed to keep branches from hanging over the onsite equipment and avoid trespass activities. After the completion of clearance, construction of retaining walls, and rough grading, the Project Site would be enclosed with a six-foot temporary perimeter chain link fence covered in green fabric material. The fence would include secured gates for the entrance off Valley Drive and the exit to 6th Street. The appropriate signage would be provided consistent with the requirements of the City. Phase 1 would include the construction of a well cellar for the first three oil wells and the first water injection well. The cement well cellar would be eight feet wide and 12 feet deep. The below ground well cellar would have stairs at one end that lead down into the cellar and the top of the well cellar would be covered by metal grating. The surface of the Project Site would be covered with crushed aggregate base material to serve as a dust inhibitor and driving surface. Temporary landscaping, including three large trees along 6th Street, would be provided along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site within the 10-foot landscape area. A rolled asphalt curb would line the landscape area on 6th Street. The plant materials and irrigation would be consistent with the requirements of the City. The Proposed Project would include the construction of improvements to the intersection of 6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for the project-related trucks turning southbound on Valley Drive from 6th Street. As a part of the intersection improvements, the overhead power lines and utility poles on the corner of 6th Street and Valley Drive would be located underground at a location determined by the utility companies and the City. The landscape area would be redesigned to allow for the improvements. At the completion of the improvements in Phase 1, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be erected inside the chain link construction fence.
4.1-18
1993 Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
The demolition and construction activities for Phase 1 of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the following conditions of approval: Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the operation shall be monitored for all conditions of the approval of which the City has responsibility, which includes (but is not limited to) noise monitoring and inspection of the Project Site for proper maintenance (CUP Section 1. General, Condition 6). The Project Site shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete wall with solid gates during all operations, protecting both against public entry, observation and attraction. A chain link fence to provide security is acceptable only through the exploratory phase (CUP Section 3. Public Services, Condition 1). The entire drilling operation shall be equipped with acoustical treatment for noise to be within the standards set forth in the Citys Oil Ordinance. A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the perimeter of Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP Section 8. Noise/Vibration, Condition 1). A Detailed Landscape Plan for Phase I (exploratory and testing) and Phase II, indicating the type, size and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval, and it shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan reviewed by the Planning Commission, and shall comply with Section 21A-2.9 of the Oil Code (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 1). During Phase I, test facility, landscaping consisting of 24 box, or larger size trees may be installed without permanent planting (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 2). Minimum 24 boxed trees for Phase I and II shall be adequate in size to create a buffer effect to obscure visibility of oil production activity. Permanent trees planted around the perimeter of the Project Site for Phase II shall be a minimum sixteen (16) feet high at planting. (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 3). Trees along the lot perimeter shall be provided to create a dense landscape buffer to the satisfaction and field review of the Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 4). Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 6). A complete automatic sprinkler system shall be provided prior to commencement of Phase II (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 7). All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward of the Project Site (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 4). Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and intensities necessary for safety and security purposes (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 5). Certain activities which might involve unshielded lighting (i.e., Project Site preparation and restoration) activities shall be limited to daylight hours and thus not require nighttime lighting (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 6). A split-face block wall maintained graffiti free of a minimum of 12 feet in height shall be provided; wall materials shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Director. During
4.1-19
test drilling minimum 6 high fencing shall be provided (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 7). Onsite signs shall be limited to those needed for public health and safety (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 12). Graded surfaces shall be paved or landscaped per approved plan (CUP Section 12. Grading/Storm Water/Site Runoff, Condition 3).
Phase 2 Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 2 of the Proposed Project, four wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig and temporary production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil, gas, and water. The processed oil would be removed from the Project Site by truck and delivered to an offsite location for sale. Phase 2 of the Proposed Project would incorporate the following design features and operational practices related to aesthetics during drilling activities and temporary production: For the entire duration of Phase 2, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall along the perimeter of the Project Site and the temporary landscaping along 6th Street and Valley Drive installed in Phase 1, along with the three existing mature trees, would be in place. The drilling of the wells would be conducted by an electric automated drill rig with an approximately 87-foot high rig mast. An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of the drill rig mast. The shroud would be a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings. The color would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. After the drilling of the wells for Phase 2, the drill rig would immediately be removed from the Project Site. The temporary construction trailer, temporary production equipment, and storage tanks brought to the Project Site would not be visible above the surrounding 32-foot noise attenuation wall. The Proposed Project would provide temporary nighttime lighting to address Project Site security and worker safety consistent with the requirements of the City. This would include the following: o To address Project Site security, light fixtures would be placed at the entrance and exit to the Project Site to provide temporary lighting. The light fixtures would be pole-mounted at a height of approximately 10 feet. The fixtures would have low energy lights that would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not create light spill or glare beyond the property line. o To address Project Site security, lighting would be provided for the temporary construction trailer. The light would consist of two approximately 150-watt light fixtures at each end of the trailer. The fixtures would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not create light spill or glare. In addition, the lights on the temporary construction trailer would be located behind the 32-foot sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spill or glare from leaving the Project Site. o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig. The drill rig would have pole-mounted lights on the rig platform (approximately 15 feet
4.1-20
above the ground surface) and on the drill rig mast (starting at a height of approximately 19 feet above the ground surface and up to the top of the mast at a height of approximately 87 feet). The drill rig mast would be enclosed within an acoustical cover on three sides. Within the acoustical cover, there would be LED lights that run along one side of the mast structure at intervals of approximately 4 feet and on the other side there would be two lights, one located on the top of the mast and the other where the drill rig function would be occurring. These LED lights, which face towards the inside of the acoustical cover, are for the purpose of creating an ambient glow within the acoustical cover to provide visibility for the safety of the workers. Since the lights would be facing inward within the acoustical cover, the light bulbs would not be visible and no light spill or glare would be created. In addition, the lights on the rig platform at the base of the drill rig mast would be shielded/hooded and downcast. The lights on the rig platform and the lower portion of the drill rig mast would be located behind the 32-foot sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving the Project Site. o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig equipment, the temporary production equipment, and the shipping tanks. The drill rig equipment would have pole-mounted lights along a walk platform approximately 19 feet above the ground surface. These lights would be facing downward towards the drill rig equipment. The lighting for the temporary production equipment and shipping tanks would consist of an approximately 150-watt hooded and downward cast flood lights hung where needed to provide visibility for the safety of workers. The lights for the drill rig equipment, the temporary production equipment, and the shipping tanks would be located behind the 32-foot sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving the Project Site.
The drilling activities and operations in Phase 2 of the Proposed Project would comply with the following conditions of approval: Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the operation shall be monitored for all conditions of the approval of which the City has responsibility which includes (but not limited to) noise monitoring and inspection of the Project Site for proper maintenance (CUP Section 1. General, Condition 6). Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height from grade as defined by the Oil Code (CUP Section 2. Land Use Development, Condition 5). The entire drilling operation shall be equipped with acoustical treatment for noise to be within the standards set forth in the Citys Oil Ordinance. o A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the perimeter of Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP Section 8. Noise/Vibration, Condition 1). Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 6).
4.1-21
The use of architectural lighting beyond safety and security requirements shall be prohibited (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 2). All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward of the Project Site (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 4). Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and intensities necessary for safety and security purposes (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 5). Onsite signs shall be limited to those needed for public health and safety (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 12). All derricks hereafter erected for drilling, re-drilling or remedial operations or for use in production operations shall be removed within 45 days after completion of the work unless otherwise ordered by the Division of Oil and Gas of the state (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 13).
During Phase 3 of the Proposed Project, there would be construction activities resulting in various vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, including trucks used in the export of soil during the implementation of the remedial action plan for the Proposed Project. In addition, there would be construction activities associated with the installation of offsite pipelines resulting in short-term road closures in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Phase 3 construction activities would incorporate the following design features and operational practices related to aesthetics: The 32-foot sound attenuation wall and the six-foot temporary perimeter chain link fence would be removed and 16-foot sound attenuation walls (acoustical barrier) would be used on the Project Site during soil remediation, grading, and construction activities. The walls are designed to be movable depending on the location of the onsite activity. Grading and construction activities would occur on the Project Site between the hours of 8 AM to 6 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 5PM on Saturdays consistent with the requirements of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be provided on the Project Site. The perimeter of the Project Site would be illuminated by the existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street. The temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment installed on the Project Site during Phase 2 would be removed from the Project Site. In addition, the three remaining mature trees along Valley Drive and the temporary landscaping installed in Phase 2 would be removed from the Project Site. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be implemented to remove the contaminated soil within the former landfill area on the northeastern portion of the Project Site. It is anticipated that approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site and hauled to a Class 1 landfill. In addition, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil would be treated onsite via vapor extraction. The vapor extraction would be conducted by two to four extraction wells on the northern portion of the Project Site. The only visible indication that the wells are present would be a grade level metal cover on the ground.
4.1-22
Following the completion of the RAP, the construction of the remaining retaining walls and the final grading of the Project Site would occur. The final grading would not require the import and export of fill material. Phase 3 would include the completion of the first well cellar and the construction of a second well cellar for the remaining oil wells and water injection wells. The cement well cellars would be eight feet wide and 12 feet deep. The below ground well cellar would have stairs at both ends that lead down into the cellar and the top of the well cellar would be covered by metal grating. A 16-foot split-faced block wall would be installed around the perimeter of Project Site. The wall would be set back 10 feet from the Valley Drive and 6th Street property lines to allow for a permanent landscape area. The wall would have a gated entrance off of Valley Drive and a gated exit to 6th Street. The gates would be metal and motor operated. The wall and gate colors would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The appropriate signage would be provided consistent with the requirements of the City. After the completion of the RAP, final grading, and construction of the well cellars and perimeter wall, the 16-foot temporary sound attenuation wall would be removed from the Project Site. A small office building consisting of approximately 650 square feet would be constructed on the northeast portion of the Project Site. The building would be a neutral color to blend with the surroundings. The permanent oil, gas, and water production equipment would be installed on the eastern portion of the Project Site. This would include storage tanks with a maximum height of 16 feet. The area on the Project Site with the tanks would have a finished grade of 6 to 7 feet below the ground surface and be surrounded by a 6 to 7-foot retaining wall in the interior of the Project Site and the 16-foot split-face block wall around the perimeter of the Project Site. The storage tanks and any piping for the vapor recovery system would be below the height of the 16-foot perimeter wall. The ground surface of the Project Site would be paved with concrete or asphaltic concrete. In addition, the construction of final street improvements along the frontage of the Project Site along 6th Street and Valley Drive would occur. This would include the installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The permanent landscaping, including nine large trees, would be provided within the 10foot landscape area along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site. In addition, landscaping consisting of vines would be provided on the visible portion of the western-facing perimeter wall. The plant materials and irrigation would be consistent with the requirements of the City. To the extent feasible, the landscaping from Phase 2 would be reused. A 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be installed behind the 16-foot split-faced block wall to encompass the Project Site. During Phase 3, offsite gas and oil pipelines would be constructed to transport product for sale. The pipelines would be constructed underground within road right-of-ways and/or within the SCE utility corridor within the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Temporary portable acoustical barriers would be positioned on either side of the pavers and trenchers, blocking the line-of-sight of the construction area
4.1-23
from the nearest sensitive locations. The barriers would be moved alongside the equipment as it progresses along the pipeline route.
The construction activities that would occur in Phase 3 of the Proposed Project would comply with the following conditions of approval: Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the operation shall be monitored for all conditions of the approval of which the City has responsibility which includes (but not limited to) noise monitoring and inspection of the Project Site for proper maintenance (CUP Section 1. General, Condition 6). The maximum size for any storage tank of any type shall be forty feet in diameter and sixteen feet in height, appurtenances not included (CUP Section 2. Land Use Development, Condition 1). The entire drilling operation shall be equipped with acoustical treatment for noise to be within the standards set forth in the Citys Oil Ordinance. o A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the perimeter of the Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP Section 8. Noise/Vibration, Condition 1). A Detailed Landscape Plan for Phase I (exploratory and testing) and Phase II, indicating the type, size and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval, and it shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan reviewed by the Planning Commission, and shall comply with Section 21A-2.9 of the Oil Code (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 1). Minimum 24 boxed trees for Phase I and II shall be adequate in size to create a buffer effect to obscure visibility of oil production activity. Permanent trees planted around the perimeter of the Project Site for Phase II shall be a minimum sixteen (16) feet high at planting (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 3). Trees along the lot perimeter shall be provided to create a dense landscape buffer to the satisfaction and field review of the Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 4). The aesthetic impact of the exposed masonry walls on the west and northern sides shall be soften with the planting of climbing vines to the satisfaction and field review of the Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 5). Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 6). The tanks, acoustical wrap and wall, and production facility shall be painted a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings; color shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 1). The use of architectural lighting beyond safety and security requirements shall be prohibited (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 2). The location for drilling equipment and the storage facilities shall be depressed in combination with walls so that the visual impact is minimized (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 3). All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward of the Project Site (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 4).
4.1-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and intensities necessary for safety and security purposes (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 5). Certain activities which might involve unshielded lighting (i.e., Project Site preparation and restoration) activities shall be limited to daylight hours and thus not require nighttime lighting (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 6). A spilt-face block wall maintained graffiti free of a minimum of 12 feet in height shall be provided; wall materials shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Director. During test drilling minimum 6 high fencing shall be provided (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 7). The height of the Project Sites perimeter wall shall be increased to at least 16 feet if beam pumping units taller than 12 feet are installed, or if perimeter trees, when planted for Phase II, are not a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in height when installed (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 8). Tanks shall be submerged 6 to 8 feet or more below grade and will be adjacent to the 12foot high privacy wall (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 9). All production equipment and structures shall be painted to blend with the surrounding environment with review and approval by the Planning Director (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 11). Onsite signs shall be limited to those needed for public health and safety (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 12). Graded surfaces shall be paved or landscaped per approved plan (CUP Section 12. Grading/Storm Water/Site Runoff, Condition 3). In order to reduce visual impacts and possible safety hazards [during pipeline construction], storage of pipes and other materials, as well as construction equipment, shall not be permitted on any street during non-construction hours (CUP Section 13. Pipeline Construction 11).
During Phase 4 of the Proposed Project, remaining wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig and production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil, gas, and water. Phase 4 of the Proposed Project has been designed to incorporate the following design features and operational practices to address aesthetics: During the drilling activities in Phase 4, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall installed in Phase 3 would be along the perimeter of the Project Site. In addition, during all of Phase 4, the 16-foot block wall and landscaping installed in Phase 3 would remain in place. The drilling of the wells would be conducted by an electric automated drill rig with an approximately 87-foot high rig mast. An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of the drill rig mast. The shroud would be a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings. The color would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. After the drilling of the wells for Phase 4, the drill rig would immediately be removed from the Project Site.
4.1-25
The Proposed Project would provide nighttime lighting to address Project Site security and worker safety consistent with the requirements of the City. This would include the following: o To address Project Site security, light fixtures would be placed at the Project Site entrance and exit. The lights would consist of an approximately 150-watt light fixture adjacent to the gate that would be mounted on the perimeter wall at a height of approximately 15 feet. The light fixtures would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that they would not create light spill or glare beyond the property line. o To address Project Site security, lighting would be provided for the small office building. The light would consist of an approximately 150-watt light fixture wallmounted at a height of approximately 10 feet at the building entrance. The fixture would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not create light spill or glare. In addition, the light on the office building would be located behind the 16foot split-faced block wall, which would block any light spill or glare from leaving the Project Site. o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig and drill rig platform as discussed above for Phase 2. The lights on the rig platform and the lower portion of the drill rig mast would be located behind the 32-foot sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving the Project Site. o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for along the interior of the 16-foot perimeter split-faced block wall and incorporated into the pipe rack and equipment design. The lighting would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not create light spill or glare. In addition, this lighting would be located behind the 16-foot split-faced block wall, which would block any light spill or glare from leaving the Project Site. o The maintenance activities on the Project Site that would require the use of a workover rig would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be required.
The drilling and ongoing operations that would occur in Phase 4 of the Proposed Project would comply with the following conditions of approval: Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the operation shall be monitored for all conditions of the approval of which the City has responsibility, which includes (but is not limited to) noise monitoring and inspection of the Project Site for proper maintenance (CUP Section 1. General, Condition 6). Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height from grade as defined by the Oil Code (CUP Section 2. Land Use Development, Condition 5). The Project Site shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete wall with solid gates during all operations, protecting both against public entry, observation and attraction. A chain link fence to provide security is acceptable only through the exploratory phase (CUP Section 3. Public Services, Condition 1).
4.1-26
The entire drilling operation shall be equipped with acoustical treatment for noise to be within the standards set forth in the Citys Oil Ordinance. o A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the perimeter of Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP Section 8. Noise/Vibration, Condition 1). Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 6). The tanks, acoustical wrap and wall, and production facility shall be painted a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings; color shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 1). The use of architectural lighting beyond safety and security requirements shall be prohibited (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 2). All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward of the Project Site (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 4). Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and intensities necessary for safety and security purposes (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 5). If the drill derrick remains idle for more than one year, review and approval by the City Planning Commission or City Council shall be required, or the derrick with review and approval by the Planning Director (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 10). Onsite signs shall be limited to those needed for public health and safety (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 12). All derricks hereafter erected for drilling, re-drilling or remedial operations or for use in production operations shall be removed within 45 days after completion of the work unless otherwise ordered by the Division of Oil and Gas of the state (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 13). The operator shall diligently and continuously pursue drilling operations until all 30 oil wells and all five (5) water disposal wells are completed or abandoned to the satisfaction of the Division of Oil and Gas of the states and upon completion or abandonment shall remove all drilling equipment from the drill site within 45 days following ordered by the Division of Oil and Gas (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 14).
4.1.5.2 Dimensions of Major Visible City Maintenance Yard Project Components Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Temporary Facility
New Fleet Maintenance Building: o Height: 17 feet o Length: North-South: 30 feet East-West: 75 feet Main Building: o Height: 17 feet o Length: North-South: 150 feet East-West: 50 feet Perimeter Block Wall:
4.1-27
o Height: 8 feet
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Parking Option (See also, Appendix A)
Main Building o Height: 15-20 feet o Length: North-South: East end: 50 feet West end: 60 feet East-West: North End: 230 feet South End: 230 feet Flex Building o Height: 20 o Length: 60 feet by 60 feet Perimeter Block Wall Height: Varies, 6 feet to 8 feet
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project No Added Parking Option (See Appendix A)
Main Building o Height: 20 feet o Length: North-South: East end: 50 feet West end: 144 East-West: North End: 60 South End: 210 Perimeter Block Wall Height: Varies, 6 feet to 10 feet
4.1.5.3 Dimensions of Major Visible Proposed Oil Project Components
The dimensions of the primary components of the Proposed Oil Project are listed below and were used in the analysis. Electric Drill Rig: o Height: 87 feet o Mass (with Acoustical Cover) Top 7.5-foot by 8-foot Mid-rig 11-foot by 12-foot Base 14-foot by 15-foot Workover Rig: o Height: 110 feet o Mass (Extents of open truss): 3-foot by 6-foot Phase 1 Sound Attenuation Wall: o Height: 32 feet
o Length: North: 263 feet East: 232 feet South: 197 feet West faade: 222 feet Phase 3 Sound Attenuation Wall: o Height: 32 feet o Mass: similar to Phase 1, except the northernmost 50 linear feet of the east edge is set back approximately 65 feet. Phase 4 Perimeter Block Wall Height: o Height: 16 feet
4.1.5.4 Proposed Oil Project Viewshed Mapping
Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 depict the potential for visibility of the 87-foot electric drill rig and 110foot workover rig (respectively) from public viewing areas. The general intent of the viewshed analysis is to approximate the extent of locations from which the drill rigs may be visible. As mentioned in the methodology portion of this section, this viewshed map was generated using a digital terrain model and three-dimensional representations of the buildings only, therefore it has inherent limitations which are important to recognize. First, it does not take into account the potential for vegetation to screen views. The screening potential of vegetation in the Greenbelt and some parks in particular is significant and would reduce the visibility of the rig. Second, these maps also do not factor in statements of significance and/or assign a level of impact. These criteria are driven by a number of factors including viewing distance, viewer position and presence of elements of competing interest. These discussions can be found below in the Key Observation Points section and individual impact statements. Also, the map does not indicate how much of the rig would be visible, so areas that may see a small portion of the rigs are not distinguished from areas that may see a large portion. . Based on the analysis conducted during the EIR process, the viewsheds from the foreground and middleground distances have a higher probably of significant visual impacts versus the background distance zone. Many of the background distance zone viewsheds would not actually have visibility because of vegetative screening. The rigs also have a lower potential for dominance in this distance zone due to a higher potential for dominance of other foreground and middleground elements. The ability of visual effects such as distance and patterning of the built environment also have greater potential to moderate impact significance in the background distance zone. Discussions of Key Observation Points are separated into distance zones below and include further evaluation of potential impacts.
4.1-29
Figure 4.1-1
Viewshed Analysis- Electric Drill Rig (Areas where the Drill Rig Can Be Seen)
Source: Stantec, 2014
4.1-30
Figure 4.1-2
Viewshed Analysis- Workover Rig (Areas where the Rig Can Be Seen)
Source: Stantec, 2014
4.1-31
4.1.5.5 Key Observation Points View Simulations
Discussion of the selection of Key Observation Points is included in Section 4.1.1, Methodology. KOP views are presented in this document at the locations in Figure 4.1-3. One before and after figure was produced for each KOP location for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. Six before and after figures were produced for each KOP location for the Proposed Oil Project to adequately depict the varying built conditions that the Proposed Oil Project Site would undergo over its 30+ year lifespan. Each figure is labeled to display which phase of the Project it represents. Phase Four has three visual conditions. Based on the distance viewed, potential for common visual impacts of the Proposed Oil Project became apparent, therefore the KOPs are discussed by distance zone. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site has very limited potential for visibility outside the foreground distance zone therefore impacts were evaluated from this distance zone only. Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 01-05); Background: (greater than 900): KOPs (6, 7, 8, 9 and 12); Middleground: (300-900): KOPs (10, 11, 13, 16, and 17); Foreground: (0-300): KOPs (14, 15, 18, 19, and 20);
The following sections summarize the existing visual setting and impact potential within each zone above. See Section 4.1.2.1 Local Setting for additional descriptions of existing visual environment of the Project. See individual impact discussions AE.1 - AE.5 for detailed evaluation of Project impacts. Numerous photo simulations were developed for the Proposed Project, including many that provide views that do not show any Project components in order to provide views from each KOP for each Phase and sub-Phase of the Proposed Project. All views are included in Appendix O. Only the most important view simulations are shown in this section.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 1 through 5) Existing Visual Setting
Temporary Location: The temporary City Maintenance Yard Project Site is immediately north of the permanent facility site. The site is primarily paved with asphalt and concrete. Seven mature trees are located within the area that is anticipated to be affected. These trees range in height from 15-50 feet. They contribute to the character of the existing site through their capacity to screen and soften views of continuous paved surfaces. By nature of proximity, other viewshed components are similar to the permanent facility site discussed below. Permanent Location Options: Viewshed components include a variety of architectural masses of public/commercial and residential buildings with diverse mass/color and character. The Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail is heavily planted with trees and shrubs that create a dense visual buffer from the Hermosa Beach Community Center tennis courts to the east. The large mature street trees along Valley Drive helps reduce the scale of the existing structures, cast long shadows and add vertical dominance with the utility poles. Except along Valley Drive,
4.1-32
surrounding landscaping and trees in the public streets and parking lots are limited but do have capacity to screen and soften some views. In the foreground, several additional elements that contribute to the existing visual character and views include overhead utility pole and lines, street signage, satellite dishes, light standards, and vehicles traveling and parked.
Impacts: Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Temporary Location The temporary yard would have visibility from the adjacent roadways (Valley Drive, Pier Avenue, Bard Street and 11th Place), The Greenbelt the Civic Center and nearby residences. Views from the east (Greenbelt, Civic Center and Valley Drive) would be altered by the removal of 7 mature trees and the introduction of walls, gates, trash bins and staging areas adjacent to the Civic Center. 11th Place would terminate into the Main Gate East of the facility. Views from the north (Pier Avenue and Bard Street) would be altered by the removal of 4 trees and the removal/replacement of the building at the New Fleet Maintenance Building location. Bard Street would terminate into the Main Gate North of the facility. Construction is expected to last 9 months and the facility would be in operation until the completion of the permanent facility in Phase 3 (approximately 2.5 years). Following completion of the Permanent Yard, it is assumed that the site would be restored to its previous configuration and function, including the removal of walls, gates, buildings and the restoration of parking and traffic flow on Bard Street and 11th Place. Demolition and reconstruction of the site to its previous configuration is anticipated last an additional 3 months. The overall duration of impact at the temporary location is estimated at 3.5 years. The temporary location was not photo simulated. Permanent Location Options The permanent yard options would have visibility from the adjacent roadways (Valley Drive, Pier Avenue, Bard Street and 11th Place), The Greenbelt, the Civic Center and nearby residences. Views from the east are largely obscured by existing Greenbelt vegetation, though some select filtered views would be available (See KOPs 1 and 2). The scale and overall mass of the building at the site would appear to increase since the overall height of the building on the site would increase and the perimeter wall/deck would be closer to the public rights of way than the walls of the existing structure (See KOPs 4, 5 and 6). Unobstructed views of the site from immediately adjacent to the Project Site would experience significant visual changes. The public spaces are considered to have high sensitivity due to the civic nature of the land use as the City Hall. Demolition and construction of the permanent yard is expected to last 20 months for the Parking Option and 17 months for the No Added Parking Option.
Proposed Oil Project Background (KOPs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12)
Not all KOP are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
Existing Visual Setting
The viewshed components in the background viewing distance group primarily include residential development to the east, north and south. Distant views to the Project Site are typically limited by the presence of buildings. Where these views exist, they are typically along
4.1-33
roadway corridors or from locations that lack significant built form, such as the Beach, the Pier, or large parking lots. KOP 6 represents views from the Pier, which are unique in that it presents expansive city views. The pier, ocean, beach and beachfront property facades are the primary visual elements that compose these views. The pattern and character of the Citys built environment are uniform and consistent. The skyline is defined primarily by taller vegetation such as palm trees and other large mature trees, as well as structures situated along the east boundary of the City. To the southeast, the transmission towers leading to the AES Facility break the skyline and become distant focal elements of the view. KOP 7 is representative of the views along the beachfront looking inland toward the City and Proposed Oil Project Site. In these views the sand and beachfront building facades are the primary visual elements that compose the view. In these viewsheds, the skyline is defined by the built forms in the foreground of the views. KOPs 8, 9 (see Appendix O) and 12 are representative of views from City streets in this distance zone. Built elements, signage, cars parked and in motion, and the roadway in the immediate foreground are the primary visual elements that compose these views. In these viewsheds, the skyline is defined by the buildings in close proximity to the viewer as well as whatever overhead utilities, powerpoles, street lights, and/or taller vegetation project above these buildings.
Impacts: Background Distance Zone
Rigs Present: the 32-foot sound wall has a very low potential to be visible from the distance zone and would not be dominant in these views. The rigs have a moderate potential to be visible, but have a low potential to become dominant due to viewing distance, and a high potential for partial screening by vegetation, structures, and other vertical elements in close proximity to the viewer (signs, power poles, etc). Where visible, the rigs become elements of the background in most views, but may still be out of character and/or become distant focal elements at select locations. Rigs Not Present: Impacts have a low potential to be visible. See Impacts AE.3 and AE.5 for discussion of impacts and mitigation measures at the Proposed Oil Project Site when rigs are not present.
Proposed Oil Project Middleground (10, 11, 13, 16, and 17)
Not all KOP are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
These KOP views are representative of views from City streets and parks in this distance zone (300-900 from the Project Site). The viewshed components in the middleground distance zone include primarily residential and light commercial buildings, Greenbelt vegetation, and parks/open space features. Public views to the Project Site in this distance zone are limited in many locations by buildings and Greenbelt vegetation. Where these views do exist, they are typically along roadway corridors or from locations that have large areas free of buildings or significant vegetation, such as South Park, Clark Stadium, or parking areas.
4.1-34
Similar to KOPs 8, 9 through 12 of the background distance zone, the primary visual elements that compose these views are buildings, signage, cars parked and in motion, and the roadway in the immediate foreground. In park/open space areas, vegetation plays a more dominant role in the viewsheds. Also similarly to KOPs 8, 9, and12, the skyline is typically defined by the buildings in close proximity to the viewer as well as whatever overhead utilities, powerpoles, streetlights and/or taller vegetation project above these buildings.
Impacts: Middleground Distance Zone
Rigs Present: the 32-foot wall has a moderate potential to be visible but is less likely to be dominant than in the foreground distance zone because of the visual presence of additional viewshed elements such as other buildings with mass, street and ballfield lighting poles, utility poles and lines, and significant street trees. The rigs have a higher potential to be more visible and become dominant than the background distance zone views due to decreased viewing distance, and lower potential for partial screening by vegetation and structures. As isolated elements of significant vertical scale, the rigs (where visible) in this distance zone become dominant focal elements of the viewshed. They are uncharacteristic in form, line, scale, and material with the surrounding viewshed. Measures can be taken to select materials that have a lower potential for contrast against sky conditions, however material choice cannot account for the complexities of sunlight and shadow, as well as variations in atmospheric conditions (cloud cover, sky color, etc) throughout the days and seasons. Rigs Not Present: Impacts have a moderate potential to be visible. Impacts during construction would be temporary and screened by the movable 16-foot sound wall (Phase 1) and/or permanent 16-foot sound wall (Phase 3).
Proposed Oil Project Foreground (14, 15, 18, 19, 20)
Not all KOPs are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
These KOP views are representative of views from City streets and parks in this distance zone (0-300 from the Project Site). The viewshed components in the foreground distance zone include primarily residential and light commercial, buildings, and Greenbelt vegetation. Public views to the Project Site in this distance zone are in close proximity with fewer obstructions than in other distance zones since the Greenbelt and public rights of way provide larger areas of open (unbuilt) viewshed. The visual conditions at the existing City Maintenance Yard are more visible from the south and east. Buildings obstruct most direct views from the north and west.
Impacts: Foreground Distance Zone
Rigs Present: The 32-foot wall and the rigs have a high potential to be dominant due to proximity, scale and viewing distance. The potential for screening by topography, buildings and landscape components is lowest in this zone. The proposed landscaping would enhance the visual quality but the drill rigs and walls would not be in character with the surrounding visual environment at this viewing distance. The 32-foot sound wall would become a dominant feature since its scale and mass are significantly larger than any adjacent structures. Its uniformity in line, form and materiality are also uncharacteristic of the surrounding visual environment. The
4.1-35
rigs would become the dominant visual element in the viewshed. They are uncharacteristic in form, line, scale, and material with the surrounding viewshed. Rigs Not Present: When the 16-foot wall is present with addition landscape, the visual character would be enhanced from its current character and wall scale similar to the existing surrounding massings. The landscaping is the most dominant at this visual distance and does not diminish the existing visual character. Impacts have a moderate to high potential to be visible but are less likely to be dominant or out of character or produce substantial degradation.
4.1-36
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Figure 4.1-3 View Location Map
Note: Only selected simulations are shown in this section, Please see Appendix O for all simulations. Source: Stantec, Google Earth aerial dated March 7, 2011
4.1-37
Figure 4.1-4a
KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option
Source: Stantec 2014
4.1-38
Figure 4.1-4b KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option
4.1-39
Figure 4.1-5a
4.1-40
4.1-41
Figure 4.1-6a
4.1-42
4.1-43
Figure 4.1-7a
4.1-44
4.1-45
Figure 4.1-8a
4.1-46
4.1-47
Figure 4.1-9
KOP 6: During Phase 2 and Phase 4 with Drill Rig
Source: Focus 360, 2014
4.1-48
Figure 4.1-10
KOP 7: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig
4.1-49
Figure 4.1-11
KOP 10: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig
4.1-50
Figure 4.1-12
KOP 10: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34
4.1-51
Figure 4.1-13
KOP 11: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig
4.1-52
Figure 4.1-14
4.1-53
Figure 4.1-15
KOP 11: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations
4.1-54
Figure 4.1-16
4.1-55
Figure 4.1-17
4.1-56
Figure 4.1-18
KOP 13: Completion of Phase 1 Improvements
4.1-57
Figure 4.1-19
4.1-58
Figure 4.1-20
4.1-59
Figure 4.1-21
4.1-60
Figure 4.1-22a KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1
Source: Focus 360, 2014,
4.1-61
Figure 4.1-22b KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1 WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure
4.1-62
Figure 4.1-23a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3
4.1-63
Figure 4.1-23b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE
4.1-64
Figure 4.1-24a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3
4.1-65
Figure 4.1-24b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE
4.1-66
Figure 4.1-25
4.1-67
Figure 4.1-26
KOP 15: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4
4.1-68
Figure 4.1-27
KOP 15: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17
4.1-69
Figure 4.1-28
KOP 15: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 17
4.1-70
Figure 4.1-29
4.1-71
Figure 4.1-30
4.1-72
Figure 4.1-31
4.1-73
Figure 4.1-32
4.1-74
Figure 4.1-33
KOP 18: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4
4.1-75
Figure 4.1-34
4.1-76
Figure 4.1-35
4.1-77
Figure 4.1-36
4.1-78
Figure 4.1-37
KOP 19: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 2 (rig not visible)
4.1-79
Figure 4.1-38a KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34
4.1-80
Figure 4.1-38b KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.
4.1-81
Figure 4.1-39
4.1-82
Figure 4.1-39
KOP 19: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 34: WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.
4.1-83
Figure 4.1-40
4.1-84
Figure 4.1-41a KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig
4.1-85
Figure 4.1-41b KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig: WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013: This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.
4.1-86
Figure 4.1-42a KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2
4.1-87
Figure 4.1-42b KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2: WIDE ANGLE
4.1-88
Figure 4.1-43
4.1-89
4.1.5.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts
The Proposed Oil Project components would create impacts to aesthetic resources in the community. These impacts are discussed below.
Impact # Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project during the drilling phases or with a workover rig present has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings, including designated scenic highways and vistas. Phase Phases 2 and 4, when rigs are present on site. Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
AE.1
Impacts on Designated Scenic Vistas and Designated Scenic Resources
The City of Hermosa Beach has a designated Scenic Highways and viewpoints in their LCP. For purposes of this analysis, representative views from Hermosa Beach/Strand and Hermosa Beach Pier were also recommended for further analysis as key observation points (See KOP 15 and KOP 16), though they are not considered scenic viewpoints in the LCP. The Proposed Oil Project when there is a drill rig present would degrade designated scenic viewpoints and highways and would be a significant impact (see discussion below). No designated State Scenic Highways occur in the Project vicinity (Cal Trans, 2013). Although Hwy 1 is not designated as State Scenic Highway in this segment, a photo simulated view from Highway 1 was completed as a representative view for sensitive public views in this general vicinity (See KOP 5).
Impacts On The Existing Visual Character Or Quality Phase 2 Drilling and Testing
During Phase 2, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall and temporary landscaping installed at the end of Phase 1 would stay on site through the beginning of Phase 3. The 87-foot electric drill rig with three-sided acoustical shield would be installed at the Project Site at the beginning of Phase 2. The installation would take approximately two weeks and include a large crane with 150-foot boom. The presence of the rig on-site during this phase is expected to last approximately 5months (4 months drilling with 2-week setup and 2-week take down). The rig location would vary slightly as the four wells are drilled. The rig would introduce a visually dominant vertical feature primarily into the foreground and middleground environments which is distinct in form, mass, height, material and character from structures in the viewshed of locations which are considered to have high sensitivity. For the 5-months that it is up during this phase, the rig would break the skyline and become a dominant focal point. The effects of light, shade and shadow would produce contrasting geometric vertical planes which would project into a typically uniform (or otherwise naturally varied) sky backdrop. Removal of the rig would take an additional two weeks and also includes the use of a large crane with 150-foot boom. Impacts with the drill rig present would be a significant impact.
4.1-90
Phase 4 Development and Operations with Drill Rig On-site:
The 32-foot sound wall constructed at the end of Phase 3 is proposed to remain on site during the first 2.5 years of Phase 4. The intensity and screening capacity of the landscape design is increased on the west and south boundaries during Phase 4, but temporarily reduced on the east boundary (due to the removal of the mature trees). The presence of the block wall would help to divide the mass of the sound attenuation wall, however the overall form, scale and lack of visual articulation would be uncharacteristic of the surrounding environment (see Phase 1 discussion of 32-foot soundwall impacts below). Over time the landscape would mature and its capacity to soften the impact of the block retaining wall would increase. At the conclusion of drilling, the 32-foot sound wall and electric drilling rig are proposed to be removed from the site. Impacts associated with the electrical drill rig are discussed in Phase 2 and are similar for this Phase, with an increase in duration to 2.5 years. The period with the drill rig onsite would produce substantial degradation of the existing visual character and would be a significant impact.
Phase 4 Development and Operations with the Workover Drill Rig
During periods of Phase 4, the 110-foot workover rig could be present on site for up to 90 days per year. The open truss structure of the workover drill rig introduces a focal element of industrial character into viewsheds of primarily residential and light industrial character. This visual element would diverge from the overall visual character to the point of distraction from viewing areas of high sensitivity, especially those where the rig is an element of the foreground or middleground of the view (KOPs in Foreground and Middleground zones). The Project Application indicates the potential for the workover rig to be delivered to the site up to 15 times per year. Since the workover rig operations have the potential to occur periodically throughout the year, this introduces the possibility for collective recurring visual impacts (see discussion below), particularly when the potential for re-drills is considered (see discussion below) over the 30-35 year length of Phase 4. This would be a significant impact.
Phase 4 Re-drills:
The potential for up to 30 re-drills (average of one annually) over the life of the Project (30-35 years) is identified in the Project Description for purposes of worst-case scenario analysis. Each re-drill would include the re-installation of the 32-foot sound wall and the 87-foot electrical drill rig. The Applicant has stated that Phase 4 well re-drills may occur in groups of up to 5, which would introduce less frequent re-drills, but for longer durations, or could occur annually. Visual impacts associated with each re-drill are similar to Phase 2 and 4 drilling, with a decrease in duration of exposure to 24-hour drilling operations to an annual average of 30 days per year (meaning that some years could have more than 30 days of re-drilling). The overall setup, drilling time, and takedown of the elements associated with the electrical drilling rig are summarized in the Project Description section. The 32-foot sound attenuation wall setup is estimated at 3 weeks, the drill rig setup time is 2 weeks, drilling time is typically 30-days (~4 weeks) per well, drill take-down is 2 weeks, and wall take down is 2 weeks. This timeframe totals to approximately 7 months per re-drill if done in groups of 5, or 3 months per re-drill if done individually. As discussed above in Phase 4, re-drilling has the potential for collective recurring impacts (see discussion below), particularly when the potential for the presence of the workover rig is considered over the 30-35 year length of impact. This would be a significant impact.
4.1-91
Collective Recurring Impacts
The Project Site includes the installation and/or removal of significant, dominant and uncharacteristic visual masses and forms throughout its 35+ year lifespan. During Phase 2, the drill rig and/or boom crane are anticipated to be on site for 5 months and the 32-foot sound wall is scheduled to be on-site up to 62 weeks (One year, ten weeks). During Phase 4, the drill rig is anticipated to be on site for 2.5 years and the 32-foot sound wall is scheduled to be on-site up to 2 years 8 months. Although the number of redrills is uncertain, the potential for up to 30 re-drills (average of one annually) is a worst-case scenario during the lifespan of the project. Up to 5 redrills could occur in any given year. Collectively re-drills could account for an additional 2.5 years of drilling time. Assuming all 30 re-drills are performed, the collective length of exposure to the drill rig/boom crane and 32-foot wall (when set-up and take down are factored in) is dependent on whether re-drills are conducted individually or in six groups of five. Additionally, the workover rig would be permitted to be installed up to 90 days (3 months) per year, which may be divided up into a maximum of 15 individual installations. Under these parameters, there is a potential for addition and/or removal of dominant and uncharacteristic vertical features on the site in any given month out of any given year. Although these are stated as worst case scenario conditions, they present a potential for collective recurring visual impacts, with substantial degradation of the visual environment, which would contribute to the significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AE-1a
Material choice of electrical drill rig acoustical shroud shall be of neutral sky color which is selected for its ability to reduce visual impact, in coordination with and approval by the City Community Development Director. The sound attenuation wall shall be replaced by a permanent wall with design features installed at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to provide stability of views and opportunities for positive visual elements that partially mitigate the visual presence of the walls from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be adjusted to respond to faade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained. The permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and approval of the City Community Development Director.
AE-1b
Residual Impacts
The drilling rig would be covered to provide for sound reduction as well as to create a reduction in visual impact. Selection of the drilling rig covering material to be a neutral sky color would minimize the amount of visual impact. A solution for reducing potentially significant day and night time impacts is a permanent welldesigned architectural faade constructed at the conclusion of Phase 3. This solution is proposed in lieu of a permanent16-foot block wall and the potential for periodic set-up and take-down of a sound attenuation wall (up to 3 months in any given year). This faade would incorporate variations in form, height, color, architectural detail, fenestration and material use to blend with the surrounding visual environment. Other drill sites within Los Angeles utilize permanent
4.1-92
structures to integrate architectural details into the drilling site, including Long Beach, Beverly Hills Oil Field (next to Beverley Hills High School), the Packard Site in Beverly Hills and Downtown Los Angeles (the Breitburn site). A permanent wall would allow screening of day and nighttime operations and provide stability of visual conditions over the lifespan of the project. It would also be designed with features to soften the vertical facade, such as offsets. Reductions in impacts to other resource areas could also be achieved (traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) This mitigation is not capable of significantly mitigating the impacts of the boom-crane, drill rig or workover rig when they are on site. However creative form, material use, and landscape design integration may provide opportunities for positive visual elements that modulate the overall intrusive visual effects of alternating 16-foot and 32-foot walls. Following the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced but the impacts of the Proposed Oil Project while the drill rigs are on site are still considered to substantially degrade the visual environment and would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Impact #
Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project when no rig is present has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings.
Phase All Phases, when rigs are not present.
Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AE.2
Phase 1 Site Preparation
Phase 1 includes the demolition of the current City Maintenance Yard during a six to seven month construction Phase as well as site preparation activities. A 16-foot sound attenuation wall is proposed to move around the site and would also have the effect of screening views of active demolition activities. Overhead powerlines along Valley Drive would be placed underground, which can be considered an improvement to the visual environment for viewsheds along the Greenbelt in this vicinity. Visual impacts associated with demolition during this six month phase are temporary and considered to be less than significant due to their limited duration and limited degree of departure from existing site development conditions (see discussion of existing visual environment in section 4.1.2.1). At the conclusion of this six month phase a 32-foot sound attenuation wall and temporary landscaping would be constructed in preparation for Phase 2 drilling activities. This wall would be on site starting at the end of Phase 1 through week two of Phase 3 for a total of approximately one year and two months, with periods during testing when no drill rig would be present. For general comparison of mass and scale, it would be approximately 5-10 feet taller than the Beach Cities Self Storage building located immediately to the south of the Project Site. The portion of Beach Cities Storage that directly parallels Valley Drive (from the north edge of the south driveway to just south of the north driveway) is approximately 110 long and set back
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-93 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
approximately twenty feet from the sidewalk. The portion of the proposed sound attenuation wall that directly parallels Valley Drive would be just over double that length and set back ten feet. Three of the four mature trees would be retained during this Phase and would have the effect of softening the magnitude of this mass. Along the west edge, the wall would be placed above and just behind an 8-foot block retaining wall (with 6-foot chain link fence), for an overall height of 40 feet from the downhill side of the slope. The wall would span 228 along this edge of the property with a 10 landscape planter to the south and 2 setbacks from the west and north property boundaries. The sound wall would be approximately six feet taller than the tallest adjacent structure. The sound wall would introduce an element of uncharacteristic uniform mass and scale to the site and its surroundings. As proposed, the visual articulation of this mass is minimal; material use, form and color are singular. These visual features are uncharacteristic of the existing visual environment and would constitute a potentially substantial degradation of the visual character of its surroundings. Impacts would be significant.
Phase 2 Testing
The soundwall would be installed at the end of Phase 1 and remain in place the duration of Phase 2. A drill rig would be present during only a portion of Phase 2; the remainder would have just the soundwall and the testing equipment. During this period, the soundwall would present a significant impact as discussed above.
Phase 3 Final Design and Construction
Construction work at the site during this phase consists of the installation of the permanent oil production facilities during a sixteen month period. During this phase the remaining three large trees along Valley Drive are proposed to be removed during weeks 3 and 4. A 16-foot sound attenuation wall is proposed to move around the site and would also have the effect of screening views of active construction activities. A 16-foot permanent block wall is proposed to be installed during weeks 6-14. The block wall would screen much of the construction activity during this phase. Final landscaping is proposed to be installed during week 60 and 61. The landscape design would soften the visual mass and scale of the block wall and help the facility blend into the existing visual environment. Since the landscape design is essential to relieving the scale and mass of the wall, mitigation measures have been proposed to promote the probability of success to achieve full maturity. The 32-foot soundwall is proposed to be installed at the end of this phase. The impacts of the soundwall during Phase 4 are discussed in Phase 1 impact above.
Phase 4 During On-going Operations
The ongoing operations condition occurs when the electrical drill rig or workover rig would not be present. The block wall with landscaping would buffer sensitive views from view locations which are inferior (below), normal (level), or slightly superior (greater than 16 at eye level). The character and quality of the Proposed Oil Project perimeter condition can be considered consistent with the character and quality of the existing visual environment from these viewing angles, due to the increased level of landscaping and screened views of site operations. The ability of the planting scheme to achieve its full screening potential is reliant on a number of factors: provision of adequate water, quality and depth of growth medium, installation of quality nursery stock free of disease and injury, and demonstrated success of the species and variety in the project vicinity. Failure of the landscaping elements could cause a significant impact.
4.1-94
Mitigation measures have been provided to increase the potential for success of the planting scheme. Similar to Phase 3 construction, visual conditions from superior (greater than 16 feet at eye level) sensitive viewing positions would present viewing angles which are capable of seeing over the 16-foot wall and into the Project Site. The character of these views is anticipated to be industrial in nature. The duration of this view is for the remaining life of the Project (less re-drill conditions). However, these views would be more industrial than the current industrial nature of the site (with the existing City Maintenance Yard) and this visual impact would therefore be significant.
Mitigation Measures
AE-2a
Design of the sound attenuation wall exterior faade shall be required to include design articulations that are complementary to the character, scale, and quality of the surrounding environment. The intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity. The following measures of success shall be met: 1) Articulations of faade decrease scale and proportion of mass into smaller increments that more closely resemble those of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and material use are varied to a level consistent with existing visual environment. Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and growth of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of debris and construction waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet within all planted areas. Wall footings shall be designed to limit encroachment into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be conducted by a certified soil scientist. Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of this mitigation measure; and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they shall be amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette selected. Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be self-attaching or structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a density to achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be required on the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking facility. All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20 in height at installation and meet the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species alternate is proposed, it shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the Project Application in the following characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56.
AE-2b
AE-2c
AE-2d
Residual Impacts
Design of the 32-foot wall which includes architectural features would reduces the uniform mass associated with a 32-wall and reduce the substantial adverse effect. The inclusion of
4.1-95
appropriately sized and maintained landscaping, with appropriate landscaping techniques to ensure landscaping vitality, would also reduce the adverse effects and reduce the degradation of views. Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Oil Project while the drill rigs are not on site is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Impact # Impact Description The Pipeline project has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings. Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AE.3
Phase 3
Pipelines, Metering Station and Valve Boxes:
Visual impacts associated with this area of work occur primarily during construction and are associated with the presence of construction equipment. These impacts are temporary in nature (4-months total construction) and would be done in short segments which would further limit duration of impacts to any given viewshed along the alignment. The pipelines and valve boxes are proposed to be placed underground beneath existing roadway surfaces and/or within existing utility corridor rights-of-way in all three options. These impacts should not amount to a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the corridor and its surroundings, since the impacts are temporary and the visual environment would be restored to its original appearance at the conclusion of construction. Since the exact alignments within these ROWs have not been determined, and existing trees are known to exist at select locations within these ROWs, there is a potential that alignment options may be considered which include removal of trees. Where present along these corridor options, the trees are important elements of the visual environment which serve to screen and soften the impact of the powerline corridor. Mitigation measures have been included to limit potential for impacts to existing mature trees that currently exist within these rights of way.
Pipeline Alignment Options
Scenarios 1 and 2: This alignment includes a portion of the alignment along 190th within the City of Redondo Beach. Visual impact potential is considered equal in either of these alignments, though the location varies. These impacts include the potential for removal or modification of the urban forests canopy or root zone and/or streetscape at select locations along the ROW. Scenario 3: This alignment reduces the potential for urban forest and/or streetscape impacts along 190th, but increases the potential for temporary visual impacts to notable community facilities and features. A gateway plaza for the City of Redondo Beach is located within this ROW at the corner of Herondo St and Hwy-1. This feature is considered to have a high level of sensitivity to even temporary visual modification, due to its function as a City gateway. This alignment also has the potential to impact the Dog Park in Dominguez Park as well.
4.1-96
Valve Box Options
Option 1: This valve box option is in a parking lot at the end of a pipeline alignment which parallels 190th. The large evergreen hedgerow and stands of mature trees have the potential to be impacted depending on the selection of the pipeline location and installation method. These landscape features are critical to screening views of heavy industrial land uses to the south. Though the location is not publically visible, the potential for impacts to the hedgerow and street trees make it less preferable from a visual resource standpoint. Option 2: This valve box option is located in a heavily disturbed area surrounded by nonsensitive land uses. Visibility of impacts would be minimal. This valve box location is most preferable from a visual resource standpoint. Option 3: This valve box option is located adjacent a railroad corridor in a low visibility area next to a commercial parking lot. This valve box location is moderately preferable from a visual resource standpoint. Option 4: This valve box option has the potential to involve the removal of the existing landscaping and paver turnaround area. Potential for removal/disturbance of a fairly wellarticulated landscaped area with high visibility from major public roads is not a preferred option from a visual resource standpoint. This location can be considered to have the highest degree of visual sensitivity and impacts of the four options and is the least preferable.
Metering Station
The metering station site would include a 40-foot by 60-foot site with 8 high perimeter block wall. The materials and finishes of the wall and the landscape design have not been provided at this time. Given the character and quality of its existing setting, its size/scale and the low number of sensitive views, this station has a limited potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character or quality of the existing site or its surroundings.
Mitigation Measures
AE-3a AE-3b
Pipeline alignments and valve box locations shall be designed to avoid the removal or modification of trees, hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to the extent feasible. If landscaped areas, streetscapes, plazas and/or parklands are required to be temporarily disturbed, they shall be restored to their previous condition following completion of construction. Avoidance of disturbance shall be the preferred option, especially where landscape elements act to screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or where they act as community gateways (Redondo Beach at Hwy-1). Block color/s selection and pattern (if applicable) shall be complementary to adjacent buildings. A buffer of shrubs and vines shall be planted to match the existing character and quality of the adjacent properties.
AE-3c
Residual Impacts
Ensuring that minimal loss of mature landscaping occurs during the pipeline installation would reduce the adverse effects. Ensuring that any features added, such as walls, shall be complementary to adjacent buildings would also reduce the adverse effects. Following the
4.1-97
implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the pipelines, metering station and valve boxes is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
New Sources of Light or Glare
Impact # Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project with the drill rig has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Phase Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
AE.4
Phases 2 and 4
Phase 2 and Phase 4 Drilling 87-foot Electrical Drill Rig:
During Phase 2 and 4, the 87-foot electrical drill rig would be installed on-site and 24-hour drilling would occur for approximately 5 months. Per the Applicant Lighting Plan, the 87-foot electrical drill rig would be enclosed in a three-sided acoustical cover, the inside of which would be illuminated with in-ward facing LED lights 4-foot on-center to create an ambient glow for the safety of workers. The light levels associated with the statements in the Applicants Lighting Plan are not available at this time. The Applicant has stated that measures have been taken in this design to minimize potential for light spill and glare from the open side, however the interior faces of the acoustical shroud and the elements of the mast structure would catch light and would have the effect of producing a vertical lighted column visible from areas in the foreground, middleground and background areas. Views of the open (illuminated) side of the drill rig would be limited to the direction the open side faces. The pattern and scale of this illuminated feature would be out of character with existing nighttime views. Similar to day time impacts, this vertical feature would project above the horizontal plane of the existing illuminated environment and would become a focal element. The duration of exposure, number of sensitive viewers, and nature of the visual change would result in impacts that would be significant. During well workovers, the workover rig would not be used at night and would not produce lighting impacts, or only would during the short periods around dusk. Re-drills would produce the same impacts as drilling discussed above.
Mitigation Measures
AE-4a
Final acoustical cover material selection shall be required to be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare. Colors and finishes of equipment and surfaces within the soundwall (including the interior face of the soundwall, the interior face of the drill rig acoustical cover, and the physical structure of the drill rig within the acoustical shield) shall have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower. All proposed site lighting fixtures associated with the drilling activities shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as
AE-4b
AE-4c
4.1-98
required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
Residual Impacts
The Mitigation measures provided above would reduce the lighting impacts of the drilling rig and drilling related area lighting. However, when a drilling rig is present, it would produce a lighted structure higher than surrounding structures and would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Impact # Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project area lighting has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AE.5
Phases 2 and 4
Phase 1 and Phase 3 Site Preparation and Final Design and Construction
No nighttime lighting is proposed during these phases. The nighttime views to the site would experience a reduction in visible light as a result of the removal of the light fixtures currently illuminating the City Maintenance Yard at night. A 32-foot soundwall is proposed to be constructed around the site perimeter at the conclusion of Phase 1. The soundwall has the potential to catch light from existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street, as well as lights from the adjacent Self Storage. While this would enable the wall to be visible at night, the reflections levels would be relatively low and these light levels are not anticipated to adversely affect day or nighttime views. Impacts during this phase would be considered Less Than Significant.
Phase 2 Testing General Site Lighting:
During Phase 2, the 32-foot sound wall installed at the end of Phase 1 would remain on site and would shield the majority of views of light fixtures and night operations on site. Some private views would have the potential to see over this wall; however these views would be limited to approximately the top third of the wall. The wall is proposed to stay on site through the beginning of Phase 3. Light levels at the facility have the potential to be significantly higher than those currently on site, since they are being provided for worker safety during a 24-hour drilling operation. Current Maintenance Yard operations do not require 24-hour lighting for worker safety. IES Industrial Illuminance Recommendations for Petroleum, Chemical, and Petrochemical Plants range from 1 footcandle for general area lighting to 50 footcandles for control panel task lighting (IES, 2010). As a reference, light level readings at the tennis courts at Clark Stadium were measured around 35 footcandles. The Applicants Lighting Plan proposes shielded, hooded, downfacing fixtures that would not create light spill or glare, however the potential for sky glow or corona as a result of reflected light over the top of the wall cannot be ruled out. These impacts would be significant. These impacts would be generated if a drill rig is on site or not as these impacts would be associated with the operational area lighting.
4.1-99
Phase 4 General Site Lighting
Additional lighting is proposed associated with the Phase 4 production equipment and is shown in the Applicant Lighting Plan (Attachment A). Materials, textures and color choices of surfaces inside the facility can provide mitigation of the potential for reflected light from the visible interior surfaces. The material surface of the paving in Phase 4 is proposed to change from crushed aggregate base (CAB) to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or asphalt. PCC, depending on color and finish, has a higher potential to reflect light that CAB. As in Phase 2, the proposed gas combustor (enclosed ground flare) is designed to completely conceal the flare flame. Single shielded wall-mounted fixtures are proposed outside each entrance gate, mounted at 15-feet high. It is stated that they would be shielded, hooded and downcast so that they would not create light spill or glare beyond the property line. The potential for sky glow or corona as a result of reflected light over the top of the wall cannot be ruled out. Some views into the facility may also occur from private residences. Although current views into the City Maintenance Yard from elevated private homes are also degraded, additional high levels of lighting would impact these views as well. This would be a significant impact. Materials, textures and color choices of surfaces inside the 32-foot soundwall can mitigate the potential for reflected light from interior surfaces. The proposed gas combustor is an enclosed ground flare which is designed to completely conceal the flare flame. Single pole-mounted lowenergy fixtures are proposed outside each entrance. These fixtures are pole-mounted at 10 feet high and it is stated that they would be shielded, hooded and downcast so that they would not create light spill or glare beyond the property line. The site lighting proposed has the potential to be of a nature and intensity that is significantly higher than the existing lighted environment. Mitigation measures above require the installation of a permanent 32-foot wall that would significantly reduce the potential for sky glow and corona. Mitigation measures are provided below which can mitigate the site lighting impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AE-5a
Colors and finishes of surfaces within the facility, including the interior face of the soundwall, ground materials (darker or asphalt), wall paints and equipment paints to the extent feasible shall have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower to reduce the potential for glow. Final sound wall material/s selection/s (including gates) shall be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare. All proposed site lighting, including fixtures outside the wall, shall be fully shielded. Fully shielded shall be defined as: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaires lowest lightemitting part (IES/IDA, 2011).
AE-5b
AE-5c
4.1-100
AE-5d
The LZ-2 parameters of the Model Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) shall be used to demonstrate that maximum vertical illuminance for the site are not exceeded. For site lighting inside the wall, Table B allowances shall be used. Lighting outside the wall at site entrances shall not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a maximum of 1 footcandle. For the purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the plane of the property line shall be extended to an elevation equal to the height of the electric drilling rig. All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
AE-5e
Residual Impacts
Mitigation measure AE-1b proposes the inclusion of a permanent 32-foot acoustic/visual screen wall/facade. This additional wall height would serve to reduce potential site lighting impacts during the Phase 4. Mitigation measures requiring materials selection and fully shielded lighting would reduce the operational area lighting impacts to less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Impact #
Impact Description The Pipeline Project has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area.
Phase
AE.6
Phase 3 Pipelines
Construction activities for the pipeline are restricted to daytime hours per the Project Description and municipal codes and ordinances for the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. As such, the potential for light or glare impacts are not anticipated related to pipeline construction. Lighting design plans for the metering stations and/or valve boxes have not been developed at this time. If lighting is installed that creates a substantial new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in these areas, this could be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
AE-6a
Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for security and safety.
AE-6b
4.1-101
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the pipelines, metering station and valve boxes is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.1.5.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project components would create impacts to aesthetic resources. These are discussed in relation to the significance criteria below.
Impacts on Designated Scenic Vistas and Designated Scenic Resources
The City of Hermosa Beach has a designated Scenic Highways and viewpoints in their LCP. The impacts on scenic viewpoints or scenic highways would less than significant for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project as it would comply with applicable City height limits and would be subject to the mitigation measures under impact AE.7. No designated State Scenic Highways occur in the Project vicinity (Cal Trans, 2013).
Impacts On The Existing Visual Character Or Quality
Impact # Impact Description The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to cause a substantial degradation to the character and quality of the existing site and its surroundings. Phase Phase 1 and 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AE.7
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Temporary Facility
Construction of the temporary facility is anticipated to last 9 months. The temporary facility design proposes the demolition of the building located at 1330 Bard Street to accommodate the New Fleet Maintenance Building. This new building would be approximately 30-feet by 70 feet and 17 feet tall. Immediately to the south the Main building would be constructed with the dimensions of 150 feet by 50 feet and 17 feet tall. Obstruction of views to the east from parcels to the west would occur as a result. A retaining wall would be constructed just north of the existing self storage facility to provide the grade required to accommodate the new main building and proposed 15 parking spaces. Bard Street and 11th Place would temporarily be closed to through traffic for approximately 3.5 years. The alterations to the site would require the removal of approximately 7 mature trees. The heights of these trees range from 20 to 50 feet. Eight-foot retaining walls are proposed to define parts of the yard perimeter. These walls would have the effect of screening views of operations from most viewing locations. Private viewing locations near to the site that are from an elevated location (to the west and south) may have views into the site. The form, scale, and massing of the proposed yard appear generally consistent with the existing visual context of the site and its surroundings. The design proposes a new significant vertical
4.1-102
mass in the location of the existing parking lot on the west boundary of the site. It also proposes an increase in built mass at the new fleet maintenance building of approximately 4-5 feet in height. The overall volume of the built mass on the site would appear to increase since new built mass would occupy existing open areas, trees would be removed, new 8 walls would be constructed and the 11th Place and Bard would terminate into the main gates of the facility. The nature of operations at the City Maintenance Yard has the potential to lower the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation measures have been proposed to limit the potential for operations-related visual impacts that degrade the character and quality of the surrounding visual environment.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Permanent Facility
The form, scale, and massing of the proposed yard appear generally consistent with the existing visual context of the site and its surroundings. The design proposes vertical masses that are approximately 8-12 feet taller than the existing self storage structure along the southern boundary and in the northwest corner. It also proposes an increase in built mass at the parking lot location of approximately 5-10 feet. The overall volume of the built mass on the site would appear to increase since the perimeter deck wall would bring built mass closer to the project boundary and would encompass the parking area which currently appears open. Public views from Valley Drive, Pier Ave and City Hall are considered sensitive and mitigation measures have been provided to limit the potential for substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site. Obstruction of views to the east and north from private parcels to the west and south (respectively) would occur. Materials, colors, finishes and detailing of the built elements have not been determined at this time, therefore mitigation measures have been proposed to provide guidance in developing detailed solutions which blend with the character and quality of the surrounding visual environment. Landscape design plans have not been developed at this time, therefore mitigation measures have been proposed to provide guidance in developing detailed landscape design solutions which blend with the character and quality of the surrounding visual environment. The nature of operations at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to lower the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The majority of public viewing positions identified are either inferior (lower) than the operations area, are screened by vegetation on the greenbelt, or are screened by existing built forms (See KOPs 1 through 5). Private viewing locations to the west and south would be directly affected by the structure, but would not impede sensitive views of the ocean or surrounding. A 6-foot tall perimeter wall is proposed on the maintenance level, which from inferior (lower) view angles would screen nearly all operations from view in public rights of way, the Greenbelt, and public spaces outside City Hall. Private views from nearby residences would allow views into portions of the City Maintenance Yard. Mitigation measures have been proposed to limit the potential for operations-related visual impacts that substantially degrade the character and quality of the surrounding visual environment. Figures 4.1-4a 4.1-8b show photo simulated views from the same Key Observation Points established for each permanent option of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project.
4.1-103
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Permanent Facility No Added Parking Option
The impacts for this option are generally similar to the Parking Option (above). In this design, some materials storage uses are moved to an offsite area and the remaining maintenance yard uses and parking areas are accommodated on a single level. This allows for the accommodation of required number of parking stalls at-grade. The overall massing does not change substantially from the Parking Option design since the deck is still elevated (though 2-feet lower). The 20 tall mass along the west boundary is filled out to span the property length which is an increased mass along this boundary. As a result, there is an increased potential for obstruction of views to the east from parcels immediately to the west under this option. Along the southern boundary, a 5 tall strip of massing (above the 15 tall main mass) is eliminated which is a decreased mass and overall height along that boundary (as compared to the Parking Option). As a result, there is a slightly reduced potential for obstruction of views to the north from parcels immediately to the south under this option. The north and east edges of the maintenance yard are pulled in to accommodate the surface parking and the buffer landscaping area is retained. The design would require the relocation of some street lights and/or the undergrounding of overhead utilities. The same mitigation measures and impact levels would apply to this alternative as the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Parking Option and Temporary Facility.
Mitigation Measures
AE-7a
The materials, colors and finishes at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality, character and level of architectural detail to those of adjacent structures. The landscape design at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality and character to that of the surrounding visual environment. Incorporation of evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are recommended for their ability to provide additional screening capacity of operations areas. The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be required to have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where building masses do not otherwise define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas shall be employed through either increased screen wall height and/or landscape design.
AE-7b
AE-7c
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.1-104
New Sources of Light or Glare

Impact # Impact Description The Proposed Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area. Phase Phase 1 and 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AE.8
During construction, the same City Codes that limit the construction to daytime hours for the other portions of the project would apply to this location. Lighting design plans for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project have not been developed at this time, therefore measures have been proposed to provide guidance in developing site lighting design solutions which mitigate the potential for the facility to create a new source of substantial light or glare. The hours of operation and light levels at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (both temporary and permanent) are assumed to be comparable to those at the existing City maintenance yard (basic security lighting, no nighttime operations). These light levels are of the same character and intensity as those on and around the existing site. The locations of light sources are anticipated to be more evenly distributed across the site, rather than concentrated on the east end (parking lot) and north edge. However, if inappropriate lighting results in direct glare, it could cause a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
AE-8a AE-8b AE-8c
All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall not exceed that which is needed for security. All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the potential impacts at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site are considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.1.6 Comparison to Applicant Studies
Photo simulations of the Proposed Oil Project (KOPs 6 through 20) were produced by the E&B consultant Focus 360. The photo simulations in the Planning Application were updated at the request of the EIR consultant from a 28mm lens to use a 50mm lens, show the rig in a worstcase scenario drilling location for each view and adjust landscape size depictions per the supplemental landscape information provided after the original simulations were produced. These revised simulations are believed to more accurately depict the perceived distance, scale and magnitude of the project because the 50mm lens most accurately depicts the way the human
4.1-105
eye sees the world. See further discussion of the process for preparing these simulations in the Methodology section of this issue area.
4.1.7 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts
Some mitigation measures during construction related to noise soundwalls, such as NV-7a and NV-9a, would temporarily increase aesthetic impacts and degrade the visual environment for some private views during the construction phase. However, these soundwalls would be equal to or lower than buildings in the immediate vicinity and would not be substantially out of character with the existing environment and would therefore be less than significant. Mitigation measure NV-2a would increase the height of the soundwall used during drilling to 35 feet. As per mitigation measure AE-1b, this wall would become permanent at 35 feet (instead of the proposed Project 32 feet). The increase in the wall height by 3 feet would not produce significant impacts.
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No other cumulative projects would be constructed within the same viewsheds as the Proposed Project. The AES Project, to remove large portions of the AES Power Generating Station in Redondo Beach, could provide some increase in visual quality to the area by removing the large stacks and industrial equipment located next to King Harbor. There would be no other potential cumulative significant impacts.
4.1-106
4.1.9
Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Material choice of electrical drill rig Prior to City of Hermosa Approval of acoustical shroud shall be of neutral Construction issuance Beach sky color which is selected for its of Documents ability to reduce visual impact, in permits and Specifications coordination with and approval by and fieldthe City Community Development demonstration Director. The sound attenuation wall shall be Prior to City of Hermosa Approval of replaced by a permanent wall with issuance Beach Construction design features installed at the end of Documents of Phase 3. The intent is to provide permits and Specifications stability of views and opportunities and and for positive visual elements that during Inspection partially mitigate the visual constructi presence of the walls from the on Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16-foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be adjusted to respond to faade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained. The permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and approval of the City Community Development Director. Prior to Design of the sound attenuation City of Hermosa Approval of issuance wall exterior faade shall be Beach Construction of required to include design Documents permits articulations that are and Specifications and complementary to the character, and during scale, and quality of the Inspection constructi surrounding environment. The on intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity. The following measures of success shall be met: 1) Articulations of faade decrease scale and proportion of mass into smaller increments that more closely resemble those of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and material use are varied to a level consistent with existing visual
Mitigation Measure AE-1a
AE-1b
AE-2a
4.1-107
Mitigation Measure
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party environment. Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and growth of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of debris and construction waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet within all planted areas. Wall footings shall be designed to limit encroachment into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be conducted by a certified soil scientist. Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of this mitigation measure; and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they shall be amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette selected. Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be self-attaching or structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a density to achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be required on the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking facility. All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20 in height at installation and meet the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species alternate is proposed, it shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the Project Application in the following characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56. Approval of Construction Documents and
Specifications and Inspection
AE-2b
Priorto issuance of permits and during constructi on
City of Hermosa Beach
AE-2c
Approval of Construction Documents and

Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on
AE-2d

4.1-108
Mitigation Measure AE-3a
AE-3b
AE-3c
AE-4a
AE-4b
AE-4c
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Pipeline alignments and valve box Prior to Approval of Cities of Hermosa locations shall be designed to avoid issuance Construction Beach, Redondo the removal or modification of trees, of Documents Beach and hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to permits and Torrance Specifications the extent feasible. and and during Inspection constructi on If landscaped areas, streetscapes, Prior to Cities of Hermosa Approval of plazas and/or parklands are issuance Beach, Redondo Construction required to be temporarily of Beach and Documents disturbed, they shall be restored to permits Torrance and Specifications their previous condition following and and completion of construction. during Inspection Avoidance of disturbance shall be constructi the preferred option, especially on where landscape elements act to screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or where they act as community gateways (Redondo Beach at Hwy-1). Prior to Block color/s selection and pattern City of Hermosa Approval of issuance (if applicable) shall be Beach Construction of complementary to adjacent Documents permits buildings. A buffer of shrubs and and Specifications and vines shall be planted to match the and during existing character and quality of the Inspection constructi adjacent properties. on Final acoustical cover material Prior to Approval of City of Hermosa selection shall be required to be issuance Construction Beach fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be of Documents defined as completely blocking all permits and Specifications light from passing through its and and surface. The exterior finish shall be during Inspection low reflectivity and not capable of constructi producing glare. on Prior to Colors and finishes of equipment City of Hermosa Approval of issuance and surfaces within the soundwall Beach Construction of (including the interior face of the Documents permits soundwall, the interior face of the and Specifications and drill rig acoustical cover, and the and during physical structure of the drill rig Inspection constructi within the acoustical shield) shall on have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower. All proposed site lighting fixtures Approval of Prior to City of Hermosa associated with the drilling activities Construction issuance Beach shall demonstrate compliance with Documents of the mandatory B-U-G ratings for and permits
4.1-109
Mitigation Measure
AE-5a
AE-5b
AE-5c
AE-5d
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Specifications and area lighting as required by and during CalGreen mandatory measures in Inspection constructi the 7/1/2012 supplement. The on Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. Prior to Colors and finishes of surfaces City of Hermosa Approval of issuance within the facility, including the Beach Construction of interior face of the soundwall, Documents permits ground materials (darker or and Specifications and asphalt), wall paints and equipment and during paints to the extent feasible shall Inspection constructi have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 on or lower to reduce the potential for glow. Final sound wall material/s Prior to Approval of City of Hermosa selection/s (including gates) shall issuance Construction Beach be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall of Documents be defined as completely blocking permits and Specifications all light from passing through its and and surface. The exterior finish shall be during Inspection low reflectivity and not capable of constructi producing glare. on All proposed site lighting, including Prior to City of Hermosa Approval of fixtures outside the wall, shall be issuance Beach Construction fully shielded. Fully shielded shall of Documents be defined as: A luminaire permits and Specifications constructed and installed in such a and and manner that all light emitted by the during Inspection luminaire, either directly from the constructi lamp or a diffusing element, or on indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaires lowest lightemitting part (IES/IDA, 2011) Prior to The LZ-2 parameters of the Model City of Hermosa Approval of issuance Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) Beach Construction of shall be used to demonstrate that Documents permits maximum vertical illuminance for and Specifications and the site are not exceeded. For site and during lighting inside the wall, Table B Inspection constructi allowances shall be used. Lighting on outside the wall at site entrances shall not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a maximum of 1 footcandle. For the purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the plane of the property line shall be extended to an elevation equal to the height of
4.1-110
Mitigation Measure
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party the electric drilling rig. All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for security and safety. Approval of Construction Documents and
AE-5e
AE-6a

AE-6b

Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on
City of Redondo Beach
Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance

Mitigation Measure AE-7a Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party The materials, colors and finishes at Prior to Approval of City of Hermosa the Proposed City Maintenance issuance Construction Beach Yard Project shall be of comparable of Documents quality, character and level of permits and Specifications architectural detail to those of and and adjacent structures. during Inspection constructi on
4.1-111
Mitigation Measure AE-7b
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party The landscape design at the Prior to City of Hermosa Approval of Proposed City Maintenance Yard issuance Beach Construction Project shall be of comparable of Documents quality and character to that of the permits and Specifications surrounding visual environment. and and Incorporation of evergreen trees, during Inspection shrubs, groundcovers and vines are constructi recommended for their ability to on provide additional screening capacity of operations areas. The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be required to have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where building masses do not otherwise define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas shall be employed through either increased screen wall height and/or landscape design. All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Approval of Construction Documents and
AE-7c
AE-8a
Approval of Construction Documents and Specification s and Inspection Approval of Construction Documents and Specification s and Inspection Approval of Construction Documents and Specification s and Inspection
AE-8b
Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall not exceed that which is needed for security.
AE-8c
All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on Prior to issuance of permits and during constructi on
4.1-112
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
4.2
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
The air quality section of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers construction- and operation-related emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, and odors that could result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would include site grading and earth moving, construction, and oil and gas operations and related transportation; some of these activities would occur only once, while others would occur daily. This analysis attempts to provide a reasonable worst-case scenario of potential air emissions from construction (both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project), drilling and daily operations, and subsequently recommends mitigation to reduce those impacts. Air emission calculations are shown in detail in Appendix B. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project operational emissions would be equal to the current City Maintenance Yard emissions and are therefore not assessed. Air emission calculations are shown in detail in Appendix B. Portions of the construction phases of the Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would occur simultaneously, particularly during Phase 3. For example, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be constructed at the same time as the Proposed Oil Project and the pipelines are being constructed and the emissions from each of these components must be combined for comparison to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Therefore, all of the components of the Proposed Project are assessed together under the impacts sub-section. Specific Proposed Project component options (valve boxes, pipeline and parking) are discussed at the end of the impacts section.
The Proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which encompasses 10,473 square miles, including the four-county South Coast Air Basin (the Basin) and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin. The Basin, a subarea of SCAQMD jurisdiction, is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The 6,745-square-mile Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
4.2.1.1 Meteorological Conditions
The climate in the Basin is characterized by sparse winter rainfall and hot summers tempered by cool ocean breezes. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the oceans surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap, or inversion, over the cool marine layer and inhibits pollutants released into the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during summer further limit dispersion.
4.2-1
Sunlight triggers photochemical reactions that produce ozone, and this region experiences more days of sunlight than many other major urban areas in the nation due to climate, thereby increasing the potential for ozone formation. Table 4.2-1 summarizes historical meteorological conditions in the Basin. Data readings were taken at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at Los Angeles International Airport from 2001 until 2006.
Temperature and Rainfall
Temperature affects air quality in the region in several ways. Local winds are the result of temperature differences between the relatively stable ocean air and the uneven heating and cooling in the Basin from a wide variation in topography. Mean wind speed in the Basin is 7.5 miles per hour (mph). Temperature also significantly affects vertical mixing height and chemical and photochemical reaction times. Annual average temperatures throughout the Basin range from the low 40s in degrees Fahrenheit (F) to the high 90s in F. The coastal areas show little variation in temperature on a year-round basis due to the moderating effect of the marine influence. On average, September is the warmest month, while December and January are the coolest months of the year. Annual rainfall varies from a low of 5 inches to a high of 19 inches.
Table 4.2-1 Historical Meteorological Data Average 93F 40F 58F 76% 25 3 7 mph 13.1 inches None Range 84-101F 36-43F 55-63F 75-77% 15-35 0-10 6.4-7.5 mph 5.03-18.8 inches None
Element Highest temperature Lowest temperature Average temperature Mean relative humidity Days with heavy fog (visibility 0.25 miles) Days with thunderstorms Mean wind speed Total precipitation Snow, ice pellets, hail Notes: F = Fahrenheit, mph = miles per hour. Source: NOAA 2001-2006
Wind Flow Patterns
Wind flow patterns play an important role in transporting air pollutants in the Basin. The winds flow from off shore and blow eastward during daytime hours. In summer, the sea breeze starts in mid-morning, peaking at 10 to 15 mph, and subsides after sundown. There is a calm period until approximately midnight, after which a land breeze commences from the northwest, typically becoming calm again around sunrise. In winter, wind flows in the same general patterns, except that wind speeds are slightly lower on average than summer wind speeds. This low wind-speed pattern is a major contributor to pollutant accumulation in the Basin. Normal wind patterns in the Basin are interrupted by unstable air accompanying passing storms during winter and infrequent strong northeasterly Santa Ana wind flows from the mountains and deserts north of the Basin. Figure 4.2-1 shows a wind rose for the King Harbor meteorological station in King Harbor, located less than a mile to the south of the Proposed Project Site. A wind rose is a graphic representation of wind conditions (speed and direction) at a specific location.
Figure 4.2-1
Wind Rose for King Harbor Meteorological Station
Notes: Rose denotes which direction wind is blowing from. Source: SCAQMD
4.2.1.2 Existing Air Quality Criteria Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
The SCAQMD is responsible for ensuring satisfaction and maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards within its geographical jurisdiction. California and the federal government established health-based air quality standards for the following air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (the "criteria" pollutants). These standards were established to protect sensitive receptors within a margin of safety from adverse health impacts
due to exposure to air pollution. In most cases, the California standards are more stringent than the federal standards. California also established standards for sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 4.2-2 summarizes state and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each of these pollutants and their effects on health. The SCAQMD monitors levels of the aforementioned criteria pollutants at 36 monitoring stations throughout the Basin. Table 4.2-3 presents air quality data from the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles County Area monitoring station (Area 3, Station 820) in the SCAQMD, which is the closest monitoring station to the Project area, 6.8 miles to the north of the Project Site.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, and reduces the blood's ability to transport oxygen to vital organs in the body. The ambient air quality standard for CO aims to protect persons whose medical condition already compromises the ability of their circulatory system to deliver oxygen. CO was monitored at 26 locations in the SCAQMD in 2012 (the most recent data available) and no location exceeded the federal or state 8-hour CO standards. The highest 8-hour average CO concentration of the year was 4.7 parts per million (ppm), measured at Source/Receptor Area Number 12, South Central Los Angeles County (Station Number 112). No area within the district has exceeded the NAAQS since 2003. There were no exceedances of the CO standards in 2011 or 2012 at the monitoring station closest to the Project area (see Table 4.2-3).
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a brownish gas that is formed in the atmosphere through a rapid reaction of the colorless gas nitric oxide (NO) with atmospheric oxygen. NO is primarily formed by combustion. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx). NO2 can cause respiratory irritation and airway constriction, making breathing difficult.
4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Air Pollutant
State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standard (concentration/ averaging time) National Primary Standard (concentration/ averaging time)
Most Relevant Public Health Effects (a) Short-term exposures: (1) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals (2) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (b) Long-term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (c) Vegetation damage; (d) Property damage. (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses. (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration. Acute respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty leading to Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. (a) Excess deaths from short-term exposures and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease; (b) Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children. Decreased lung function from exposures and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease; elderly; children.
Ozone (O3)
0.09 ppm, 1-hour average > 0.070 ppm, 8-hour
0.075 ppm, 8-hour average*
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
20 ppm, 1-hour average > 9.0 ppm, 8-hour average >
35 ppm, 1-hour average > 9 ppm, 8-hour average >
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
0.18 ppm, 1-hour average, 0.03 ppm annual average >
0.053 ppm, annual arithmetic mean > 0.100 ppm hourly ** 75 ppb 1 hour*** 0.5 ppm 3 hour 0.14 ppm, 24-hour average > 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic mean > 150 g/m3, 24-hour average >
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
0.25 ppm, 1-hour. average > 0.04 ppm, 24-hour average > 50 g/m3, 24-hour average > 20 g/m3, annual arithmetic mean > 12 g/m3, annual arithmetic mean >
35 g/m3, 24-hour average > 15 g/m3, annual arithmetic mean >
4.2-5
Table 4.2-2 Air Pollutant
State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standard (concentration/ averaging time) 25 g/m3, 24-hour average >= 1.5 g/m3, 30-day average >= In sufficient amount to give an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometers (visual range of 10 miles or more) with relative humidity less than 70%, 8-hour average (10 a.m. 6 p.m. Pacific Standard Time) National Primary Standard (concentration/ averaging time) No federal standard 1.5 g/m3, calendar quarter> 0.15 g/m3, rolling 3 month>
Most Relevant Public Health Effects (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; (f) Property damage due to corrosion. (a) Increased concentrations in people's bodies; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction.
Sulfates
Lead
VisibilityReducing Particles
No federal standard
Reduced visibility
Hydrogen Odor annoyance at low concentration, acute and potential 0.03 ppm, 1-hour average > No federal standard Sulfide fatality at higher concentrations. Vinyl 0.01 ppm, 24-hour average dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, and giddiness. Known No federal standard Chloride > carcinogen. Note: g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter * Effective May 27, 2008; previous standard was 0.08 ppm ** To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010) *** Based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum. In addition, the EPA revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm effective August 23, 2010. Source: SCAQMD website 2013
4.2-6
In 2012 the SCAQMD monitored NO2 levels at 26 stations and the maximum annual arithmetic mean measured was 0.0246 ppm in Area 10 (Pomona/Walnut Valley). The maximum 1-hour level was 0.108 ppm in Central Los Angeles. The 1-hour state standard (i.e., 0.18 ppm) was not exceeded in 2012. The district is classified as in attainment for both the state and national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). There were no exceedances of the NO2 standards in 2012 at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site (see Table 4.2-3).
Table 4.2-3 Area) SCAQMD Air Quality Data for Southwest Coastal LA County Sub-Region (Project
2011 2012 Ozone 1-hour (ppm) max level 0.078 0.106 Federal Standard (0) NA State Standard (0) (1) 8-hour (ppm) max level 0.067 0.075 Federal Standard (0) (0) State Standard (0) (1) Carbon Monoxide 8-hour (ppm) max level 1.8 2.5 Federal Standard (0) (0) State Standard (0) (0) Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour (ppm) max level 0.097 0.067 Annual (ppm) 0.0134 0.0104 PM2.5/10 24-hour (ug/m3) max level 41.0 31 Federal Standard (0%) (0%) State Standard (0%) (0%) Annual Arithmetic Mean 21.7 19.8 Lead 30-day (ug/m3) 0.008 NA 3 Quarter (ug/m ) 0.005 NA Sulfate 24-hour (ug/m3) max level 5.9 (0%) NA Notes: ppm = parts per million; (x) = number of days or percent of samples exceeding the standard; -- = not monitored; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = Less than 12 full months of data; so data may not be representative. NA = no longer applicable PM2.5 monitored as PM10 PM10 and Sulfur Dioxide are not monitored at this location. Source: SCAQMD 2011-2012 Constituent
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects of SO2 inhalation include acute respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty. In 2011 (2012 data was not available), seven locations monitored SO2 levels, and neither the state nor the federal standards were exceeded.
4.2-7
Particulate Matter 10
PM10 is the coarse fraction of suspended particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter and includes a complex mixture of man-made and natural substances including sulfates, nitrates, metals, elemental carbon, sea salt, soil, organics, and other materials. Particulate matter is produced by wind-blown dust, combustion of wood or other fuels, and a range of other activities, both anthropogenic and natural, that produce dust or particulates. PM10 may have adverse health impacts because these microscopic particles penetrate into the respiratory system. In some cases, the particulates themselves may cause actual damage to the alveoli of the lungs, or they may contain injurious absorbed substances. In 2012, PM10 was monitored at 21 locations in the district. There were no exceedances of the federal 24-hour standard (i.e., 150 micrograms per cubic meter [g/m3]), while the state 24-hour standard (i.e., 50 g/m3) was exceeded at all but nine monitored locations. PM10 is monitored at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, and no exceedances were recorded (see Table 4.2-3).
Particulate Matter 2.5
The PM2.5 standard is a subset of the PM10 standard consisting of particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter. In addition to the health effects of PM10, PM2.5 exposure may also cause increased respiratory symptoms, disease, and decreased lung functions. In 2012, PM2.5 was monitored at 20 locations in the district. The federal 24-hour standard (i.e., 35 g/m3) was exceeded at 13 locations. The federal 24-hour standard was exceeded at seven locations. In 2011-2012, at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, PM2.5 was not monitored (see Table 4.2-3).
Lead
In 2011 (data for the year 2012 was not available), lead was monitored at 10 locations in the district. No location in the Basin exceeded the federal quarterly average or the state monthly average standards. There have been no violations of any lead standard in the district since 1982, although there were some localized exceedances of the state standard at special monitoring stations in 1991 and 1994.
Sulfates
Sulfates, or SOx, are a group of chemical compounds containing the sulfate group, which is a sulfur atom with four oxygen atoms attached. Combustion is the primary source of sulfates. In 2011 (data for the year 2012 was not available), sulfates were monitored at 21 locations in the district. The 24-hour state sulfate standard (of 25 g/m3) was not exceeded at any of these locations. There are no federal air quality standards for sulfates.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Since volatile organic compounds (VOC) are not classified as criteria pollutants, there are no state or national ambient air quality standards for these compounds. VOC are regulated, however, because limiting VOC emissions reduces the rate of photochemical reactions that contribute to the formation of ozone. As a precursor to ozone, VOC contribute to regional air quality impacts. In addition, VOC also transform into organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
4.2-8
contributing to higher PM10 and lower visibility levels. Although health-based standards have not been established for VOC, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOC because of interference with oxygen uptake. VOC are produced by combustion, consumer products, and leaking hydrocarbons from a range of industrial processes.
Ozone
In addition to primary criteria pollutants, the SCAQMD monitors ozone at various locations throughout the district. Unlike primary criteria pollutants emitted directly from an emissions source, ozone is a secondary pollutant. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through the photochemical reaction of sunlight with VOC, NOx, O2, and hydrocarbon materials. Ozone is a deep lung irritant, causing inflammation and swelling of lung passages. Exposure to ozone alters respiration, typically causing shallow, rapid breathing and decreasing pulmonary performance. Ozone reduces the respiratory system's ability to fight infection and to remove foreign particles. Ozone levels were monitored at 31 locations in 2012. Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour average ozone concentrations in 2012 were 0.147 ppm (East San Gabriel Valley) and 0.121 ppm (San Bernardino and Santa Clarita), respectively. Ozone concentrations exceeded the state standard at all but four of the monitored locations. At the monitoring station closest to the Project Site there was one exceedance of the state 1-hour ozone standard (see Table 4.2-3). There were no exceedances of the federal 8-hour ozone standard at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, and there was one exceedance of the state 8-hour ozone standard in 2012 (see Table 4.2-3). In 2012, the SCAQMD published its most recent air quality management plan report, which figuratively compares quality for selected pollutants with the standards. Figures 4.2-2 through 4.2-4 show the extent of particulate levels and ozone in the Basin for 2011. Note that most of the standards violations occurred inland from the Project Site. However, due to the movement of pollutants and the meteorology of the Basin, air pollution from sources within the entire Basin contributes to the air quality exceedances in the inland areas.
4.2-9
Figure 4.2-2
PM2.5 Annual Compliance Status - 2011
Source: SCAQMD AQMP 2012
Toxic Air Contaminants
In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified particulate matter from dieselfueled engines as a toxic air contaminant. Subsequent to this determination, the SCAQMD initiated an urban toxic air pollution study, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES). The MATES III program is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the Basin by the SCAQMD (2008). MATES III includes a monitoring program, utilizing both fixed and mobile monitoring stations, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the South Coast Air Basin. The study focused on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. The existing carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the South Coast Air Basin, based on the average concentrations at the MATES fixed-monitoring sites, is about 1,200 excess cancer cases per one million persons. This risk refers to the expected number of additional cancer cases in a population of one million individuals exposed over a 70-year lifetime. The MATES III study estimated that about 94% of the risk is attributed to emissions associated with mobile sources, and about 6% of the risk is attributed to toxics emitted from stationary sources. The results indicate that diesel exhaust is the major contributor to air toxics risk, accounting on average for about 84% of the total. The SCAQMD considers the risk of a Project to be significant if the increased cancer risk exceeds 10 excess cancer cases per million.
4.2-10
Figure 4.2-3
Ozone Annual Compliance Status - 2011
Source: SCAQMD AQMP 2012
MATES III identified risks in the vicinity of the Project Site due to nearby roadways, freeways (e.g., Interstate 405), and fixed facilities located in the SCAQMD emissions databases. The existing carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the vicinity of the Project Site, as per the MATES III report, is approximately 687 excess cancer cases per one million persons. The SCAQMD published guidelines for the analysis of diesel emissions from various mobile source categories (SCAQMD 2003). Guidelines are specified for the analysis of sources such as truck idling and movements associated with truck stops, warehouse distribution centers or transit centers, ship hoteling at ports, and train idling. The emphasis of the SCAQMD guidelines is on reducing operational emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) may be present in oilfield solid or liquid wastes. NORM is primarily a concern in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf States, such as Florida and Texas, as well as Illinois and Kansas. The USGA fact sheet shows that California has levels that are at background or marginally detectable. DOGGR conducted surveys in the 1980s of California Oil and Gas Fields (DOGGR publication ) indicated that of the 10,000 measurements taken, about 93 percent were at background levels. The remaining readings were above background levels, but low enough that only routine safety measures were considered necessary to minimize employee exposure and protect human health and the environment. Subsequent studies have confirmed these results. OSHA has requirements about testing and exposure of
4.2-11
workers to radiation codified in 29 CFR 1910.96. Generally, the concerns arise when produced water is disposed of in a manner that could cause environmental or human exposure, such as discharging to the environment (such as to the ocean). However, the proposed Project would inject produced water back into the reservoirs. Some NORM can occur in sludges and other wastes, which would be required to be disposed of properly by existing laws and regulations. NORM is not anticipated to be an issue for this project.
Basin Emissions
Total emissions of NOx and VOC basin-wide were estimated to be 758 and 593 tons per day, respectively, in 2008 (as per SCAQMD 2012). Almost 88% of NOx emissions and 57% of VOC emissions were due to mobile sources. Stationary sources accounted for 12% and 43% of NOx and VOC emissions, respectively. Two-thirds of mobile sources were due to on-road sources.
4.2.1.3 Existing Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are defined as any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorocarbons, the main contributors to global climate changes (IPCC 2007). These GHGs lead to the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the earths surface, commonly known as the greenhouse effect. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earths temperature. Without natural GHGs, the Earths surface would be cooler (CARB 2006). Emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Different GHGs have different global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas, CO2, is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as the CO2 equivalent or CO2e. This is the amount of GHGs emitted multiplied by the GWP. The GWP of CO2 is defined as one, whereas the GWP of methane, for example, is 21, meaning that methane gas absorbs 21 times as much heat, and therefore has 21 times greater impact on global warming per pound of emissions, as CO2. Water vapor is the most abundant and variable GHG in the atmosphere. The main source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent). Other sources include evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves (AEP 2007). Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources of CO2 include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic (human caused) sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations currently approximate 370 ppm. As stated above, CO2 has a GWP of 1. Methane gas is the main component of natural gas used in homes, industry and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. As discussed above, it has a GWP of about 21. Natural sources of methane arise from the decay of organic matter and from geological deposits known as natural
4.2-12
gas fields, from which methane is extracted for fuel. Sources of decaying organic material include landfills and manure. Nitrous oxide is a colorless gas with a GWP of about 310 that is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (nylon production, nitric acid production) also emit N2O. It is used in rocket engines, as an aerosol spray propellant, and in race cars. During combustion, NOx (NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides, NO and NO2) is produced as a criteria pollutant (see above), and is not the same as N2O. Very small quantities of nitrous oxide (N2O) may be formed during fuel combustion by reaction of nitrogen and oxygen (API 2004). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with either chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earths surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs in automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are used in aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. In general, fluorocarbons have a GWP of between 140 and 11,700. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest GWP of any gas at 23,900. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and therefore is not global in nature. According to CARB, it is difficult to make an accurate determination of the contribution of ozone precursors (NOx and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) to global warming (CARB 2006). Table 4.2-4 shows a range of gases that contribute to GHG warming with their associated global warming potential. The table also shows their estimated lifetime in the atmosphere and the range in global warming potential over 100 years. The total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,702 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE) in 2011, of which 84 percent were CO2 emissions (EPA 2013). In 2011, approximately 26 percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation and about 32 percent with electricity generation (USEPA 2013). In order to quantify the emissions associated with electrical generation, the resource mix for a particular area must be determined. The resource mix is the proportion of electricity that is generated from different sources. Electricity generated from coal or oil combustion produces greater GHG emissions than electricity generated from natural gas combustion due to coal and oils higher carbon content. Electricity generated from wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric dams or nuclear power is assigned zero GHG emissions. Although these sources have some GHG
4.2-13
emissions associated with the manufacturing of wind generators, solar panels, the mining and enrichment of uranium or the displacement of forest areas for reservoirs, these emissions have not been included in the lifecycle analysis, as emissions volumes are assumed to be relatively small compared to the amount of electricity generated. Estimates of nuclear power GHG emissions associated with uranium mining and enrichment range up to about 60 lbs/MWh (pounds per megawatt hour), or about five percent of natural gas turbine GHG emissions (CNS 1998).
Table 4.2-4 Global Warming Potential of Various Gases Life in the Atmosphere (years) 50-200 12 120 264 32.6 14.6 48.3 1.5 36.5 209 17.1 50,000 10,000 2,600 3,200 3,200 100-year GWP (average)
Gas
Carbon Dioxide 1 Methane 21 Nitrous Oxide 310 HFC-23 11,700 HFC-125 2,800 HFC-134a 1,300 HFC-143a 3,800 HFC-152a 140 HFC-227ea 2,900 HFC-236fa 6,300 HFC-4310mee 1,300 CF4 6,500 C2F6 9,200 C4F10 7,000 C6F14 7,400 SF6 23,900 Note: GWP = global warming potential Source: USEPA 2013. The 100 year timeframe from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) used for reporting under the UNFCCC values are used in this report as per the IPCC 2007 and USEPA 2013. These may be revised under the most recent CARB Scoping Plan CARB 2013.
Detailed information on power generation plants, their contribution to area electricity resource mix and their associated emissions have been developed by the Federal EPA in a database called the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). eGRID is a comprehensive inventory of environmental attributes of electric power systems and is developed from a variety of data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy Information Administration (EIA), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The most recent version released in 2012 contains information from as recent as 2009. About half of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal, producing a U.S. GHG emissions level of about 1,222 lbs/MWh (pounds per mega-watt hour). The GHG emissions rate is lower for western states, primarily due to the increased use of hydroelectric and natural gas. The California area has a GHG emission rate of about 661 lbs/MWh due to the contribution of hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable sources. Table 4.2-5 shows the resource mix and the nationwide and California GHG emission rates.
4.2-14
The rate used in this analysis was taken from CalEEMod modeling program for Southern California Edison (SCE) and is 641 lbs/MWh. The GHG emission rate for electricity obtained from SCE is about 45 percent less than the rate associated with direct natural gas combustion due to the electricity resource mix which includes non-GHG emission creating resources (hydroelectric and nuclear power, renewables).
Table 4.2-5 Electricity Generation Resource Mix and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resource Mixa United States 44.5 1.1 23.3 0.3 1.4 6.8 20.2 1.9 0.02 0.4 0.1 69.2 30.8 1,222 Calif Area (CAMX) 7.3 1.4 53.0 0.2 2.7 12.7 14.9 2.8 0.3 4.4 0.3 62.0 38.0 661
Coal Oil Gas Other Fossil Biomass Hydro Nuclear Wind Solar Geo Other Non-Renewables Renewables CO2 Rate, lb/MWh a. Resource Mix is the percentage of total mega-watt hours. Source: eGRID database with modifications and updates, EPA 2012, data for year 2009, USEPA 2012
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The quantification of GHG emissions associated with a Project can be complex and relies on a number of assumptions. GHG emissions are a global issue because emissions from one location could affect the entire planet, and they are not limited to local impacts. Therefore, offsite impacts, such as vehicle emissions and other associated transportation emissions, are included in this analysis. Emissions are generally classified as either direct or indirect. Direct emissions are associated with the production of GHG emissions at the Project Site or the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site. These include the onsite combustion of natural gas in heaters, the combustion of fuel in onsite engines and onsite construction vehicles, and fugitive emissions from valves and connections, as fugitive emissions include methane as a component, and other sources. Indirect emissions include the emissions from vehicles (gasoline, diesel or CNG) delivering materials and equipment to the sites, the use of electricity and water use and waste disposal. Electricity produces GHG emissions because fossil fuels generate some electricity. This report utilizes the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol and the CARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to support the Mandatory Reporting of
4.2-15
Greenhouse Gas Emissions as methods to calculate GHG emissions (CCAR 2009, CARB 2007), which can be found at teh California Air Resources Board websites. Indirect GHG emissions associated with solid waste and other services that might visit the Proposed Project Site are incorporated through the inclusion of the travel of trucks that would visit and service the Project Site. Indirect emissions associated with employees commuting utilizes the CalEEMod factors (CalEEMod 2014) for average commute distance within Los Angeles County and the EMFAC2011 (CARB 2014) estimates of vehicle emissions. Vehicle counts are based on information provided in the Applicant's Application.
Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With a population of over 37 million, California is the most populous state in the United States. In 2011, California produced close to 456 MMTCE of GHG emissions (CARB 2013). Overall, over 80 percent of Californias emissions are CO2 from fossil fuel combustion (CARB 2013). The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of Californias GHG emissions, producing 37 percent of the States total GHG emissions in 2011. In contrast, electrical generation produced 19 percent. Nonetheless, California ranks fourth lowest of the 50 states in CO2 emissions per capita. Figure 4.3-4 shows the historical GHG emissions in California.
Hermosa Beach GHG Emissions
The City of Hermosa Beach, working with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), is preparing a climate action plan of actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The five milestones include: conduct a baseline inventory, adopt an emissions target, develop a local action plan, implement policies and measures, and monitor and verify results. The City of Hermosa Beach in consultation with the SBCCOG prepared greenhouse gas emissions inventories for the City and community in 2009 and 2010. Emissions are those generated within the geographic boundaries of the city (except for electricity). The Municipal Inventory Report (SBCCG 2009) with year 2005 as the baseline year, found that: The City of Hermosa Beach municipal operations and facilities generated approximately 1,508 metric tons of CO2e in the baseline year, 2005; There was an overall 2.9% increase in GHG emissions between the baseline year 2005 and the interim year 2007; Under a business-as-usual scenario, the City can expect emissions to rise to 1,632 metric tonnes of CO2e by 2012, equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from 299 passenger vehicles; and 1,666 metric tons of CO2e by 2015, equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from 305 passenger vehicles if the city does nothing to reduce its emissions.
4.2-16
Figure 4.2-4
California GHG Emissions 2000-2011
Source: CARB 2013
A community inventory was also generated (SBCCG 2009), also using the year 2005 as a baseline, and it concluded that: In 2005, the City of Hermosa Beach (including municipal operations and facilities) generated approximately 138,463 MTCO2e. Gasoline represents the largest source of emissions, producing 76,153 MTCO2e or 55 percent of the total share of 2005 emissions; In 2007, the City of Hermosa Beach generated approximately 134,253 MTCO2e representing a 3 percent decrease from the total emissions in 2005. This decrease can be attributed to less emissions from electricity and gasoline sources; For both years 2005 and 2007, transportation was the largest sector of emissions (scope 1, consisting of emissions under control of the community). In 2005, this sector generated approximately 81,686 MTCO2e, or 59 percent of the total 2005 emissions. In 2007, it generated approximately 79,383 MTCO2e. The majority of transportation sector emissions are the result of gasoline and diesel combustion in vehicles traveling to and from activity centers within the boundaries of Hermosa Beach;
While short-term trends show a 3 percent reduction in emissions, long-term general trends in the absence of mitigation efforts project an increase in emissions. It is anticipated that Hermosa Beachs community emissions, under a business-as-usual scenario, will grow 2 percent by 2020, from 134,253 in 2007 to 136,944 MTCO2e in 2020.
Impacts of GHG Emissions
Global climate change is a change in the average climatic conditions reflected in changing weather patterns of the earth, which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Historical records have shown that dramatic temperature changes have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Some data indicate that the current temperature record differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (AEP 2007). These climate changes could lead to alterations in weather, rainfall patterns, and increasing sea levels leading to flooding. The worldwide scientific consensus is that global climate change is caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC 2007). The issue of how best to respond to climate change and its effects is currently one of the most widely debated economic, environmental and political issues in the United States and globally. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently around 392 ppm (based on the NOAA global annual mean calculated June 2013, NOAA 2013) and concentrations may increase to 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources (IPCC 2007). Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003 (IPCC 2007). CARB (CARB 2008) notes that a warming California climate would generate more smoggy days by contributing to ozone formation while also fostering more large brush and forest fires. Continuing increases in global greenhouse gas emissions at "business-as-usual" rates would result, by late in the century, in California losing 90 percent of the Sierra snowpack, average sea level rising by more than 20 inches, and a three to four times increase in heat wave days. Increases in temperature will also lead to increased concentrations and emissions of pollutants in California. In the Findings and Declarations for Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, see below), the California Legislature found that: The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to the marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other health-related problems. AB 32 addresses the results of studies conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001, 2007) that examined a range of scenarios and projected an increase in
4.2-18
globally averaged surface temperature of 0.5 to 11.5F over the period 1990 to 2100 with ocean rise between 0.6 to 1.9 feet over the same timeframe. The IPCC Studies (2007) indicate that In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. The studies also found that stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at less than 450 ppm would limit temperature rise to less than 3.6F by the year 2100 and would require global anthropogenic CO2 emissions to drop below the year 1990 levels within a few decades (by 2020). If GHG emissions, and atmospheric CO2 levels, were kept to this Category I level (producing increases in global average temperature of less than 1.8-5.4 F above 1980-1999 levels) impacts to gross domestic product (GDP) are projected to produce market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time, imposing costs in other places and sectors (IPCC 2007). Higher levels of CO2, ranging above 700 ppm with corresponding temperature increases of 7F, could cause a reduction in global GDP of more than 5%, with regional losses substantially higher. Reductions in GHG emissions between the year 2000 and the year 2050 would need to be 50-85% in order to be kept in this "Category 1" level (IPCC 2007 Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1), with global GHG emissions peaking in the years 2010 to 2015. Therefore, stabilizing GHG emissions levels at 1990 levels over the next two decades, and reducing GHG emissions by 50-85% by the year 2050, would reduce the impacts of climate change to "Category 1" levels that would produce nominal changes in global average GDP and would be less than significant. The 10,000 MTCO2E threshold has been adopted by three air quality districts in California as their approach to reducing GHG emissions to less than significant levels. It was originally adopted as an interim threshold by the SCAQMD in 2008. The SCAQMDs 10,000 MTCO2E threshold is based on a goal of a 90 percent emission "capture rate", meaning that 90 percent of basin-wide emissions that are estimated to be proposed as new projects in the future would be subject to the GHG thresholds. The emission threshold was determined by the SCAQMD to be low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008). The impacts of GHG emissions are worldwide. Climate change could occur at many different locations throughout the world due to, in very small part, the additional GHG emissions from this Proposed Project. A lifecycle approach to understanding the effects of this Project on global GHG emissions is very complex. For example, driving a more efficient automobile would reduce GHG emissions from automobiles here, with more reductions in GHG emissions at an area refinery due to processing less crude oil to make the gasoline and fewer emissions of ocean tankers to bring the crude oil from Saudi Arabia, for example, and fewer emissions from drilling and production of the crude oil in Saudi Arabia. However, the hybrid automobile might require special batteries and more manufacturing effort and more recycling efforts, thereby increasing GHG emissions. In addition, markets are evolving, with higher crude oil prices increasing domestic production, regulations requiring cleaner fuels and energy sources that could substantially alter the
4.2-19
environment for fuels in the near future. Producing natural gas and crude oil locally (not having to transport gas or crude oil from out-of-state or out-of-country) also could reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions. Although these activities may have some validity, they are not generally recognized when submitting GHG inventory information to the State or Federal Agencies and are not included when assessing requirements under the cap-and-trade system in California (see Regulatory section above). From a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standpoint, generally these types of out-of-state credits are not assessed.
4.2.1.4 Existing Site Emissions
The current City Maintenance Yard operations involve the use of a nominal amount of consumer level solvents and paints, emissions of which would be minimal. Emissions are also associated with the use of vehicles on the site and offsite for maintenance operations, as well as electricity consumption, water and wastewater use and treatment and solid waste generation. No other emissions sources are associated with the operations. The Hermosa Self-Storage facility located at the site of the proposed permanent City Maintenance Yard, currently uses a nominal amount of electricity, energy associated with water and wastewater use and treatment, and solid waste generation.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting includes regulations promulgated by federal, state, and the local governments for criteria pollutants. This section discusses criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.
4.2.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Regulatory Setting Federal Authority
EPA: The EPA enforces the Federal Clean Air Act and the associated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO, NO2, ozone, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. These air quality standards are concentrations above which the pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects. The Project Site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated as "severe nonattainment" status for the Federal 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard and is required to achieve the national standard by 2021. For PM10 the Basin was designated as serious nonattainment for the Federal standard, is now designated as "unclassified" and has met the PM10 standards at all stations and a request for re-designation to attainment is pending with U.S. EPA (SCAQMD 2012). The Basin is in nonattainment for PM2.5 and had until 2010 to achieve the national standard, but will be filing a five-year extension to 2015 (SCAQMD 2012). The Basin is in attainment for NO2. The Basin has met the Federal standards for CO and the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO in May 2007 by the EPA.
4.2-20
State Authority
California Air Resources Board: CARB is the state agency that: (1) establishes and enforces emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products; (2) establishes health-based air quality standards; (3) conducts research; (4) monitors air quality; (5) identifies and promulgates control measures for toxic air contaminants; (6) provides compliance assistance for businesses; (7) produces education and outreach programs and materials; and (8) oversees and assists local air quality districts that regulate most non-vehicular sources of air pollution. CARB approves the regional Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and is responsible for preparing those portions of the SIP related to mobile source emissions. CARB implements the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements, regulating emissions from motor vehicles and setting fuel standards. The CCAA established ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, lead, visibilityreducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. California standards are generally stricter than national standards. California Health and Safety Code 44300 (AB2588) requires facilities that emit large quantities of criteria pollutants and any amount of non-criteria pollutants to provide the local air district an inventory of toxic air contaminants. Such facilities may also be required to prepare a quantitative health risk assessment to address the potential health risks involved. The CARB and the SCAQMD will ensure implementation of these requirements for the oil field through various permitting, rules, and regulations. The California Health and Safety Code mandates that the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) establish safe exposure limits for toxic, non-criteria air pollutants and identify the best available methods for their control (Sections 39650 et seq.). These laws also require that the rules for new emission sources for each air district include regulations establishing procedures to control the emission of these pollutants. The CARB California Toxic Emissions Factors (CATEF) database lists toxic air contaminants from oil field operations. Cal/EPA has developed specific cancer potency estimates for assessing their related cancer risks at specific exposure levels. For non cancer-causing toxic air pollutants, Cal/EPA established specific noeffects levels (known as reference exposure levels) for assessing the likelihood of producing health effects at specific exposure levels. Such health effects would be considered significant only when exposure exceeds these reference levels.
Local Authority
SCAQMD: The SCAQMD is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the Basin. The SCAQMD operates monitoring stations in the Basin, develops and enforces rules and regulations for stationary sources and equipment, prepares emissions inventory and air quality management planning documents, and conducts source testing and inspections. The SCAQMD AQMP includes control measures and strategies to be implemented to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Basin. The SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to control or reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment. In addition, the SCAQMD receives and investigates odor complaints from residents.
4.2-21
The SCAQMD has rules and regulations that would apply to an oil and gas facility. These include the following: Rule 402. Nuisance - A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons; Rule 462. Organic liquid loading emission limits; Rule 463. Organic liquid storage emission control requirements; Rule 1110.2. Emissions From Gaseous- And Liquid-Fueled Engines limits; Rule 1118. Control of emissions from refinery flares; Rule 1134. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from stationary gas turbines limits; Rule 1148.1. Oil and gas production wells - addresses emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the wellheads, the well cellars and the handling of produced gas at oil and gas production facilities; Rule 1148.2. Notification And Reporting Requirements For Oil And Gas Wells And Chemical Suppliers; Rule 1166. Volatile organic compound emissions from decontamination of soil procedures and requirements; Rule 1173. Control of volatile organic compound leaks and releases from components at petroleum facilities and chemical plants; Rule 1176. VOC emissions from wastewater systems limits and required controls; and Rule 1178. Further reductions of VOC emissions from storage tanks at petroleum facilities.
The SCAQMD adopted Regulation XX - Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM), which changed the framework of air quality rules and permits (SCAQMD 1993). The RECLAIM program is a pollution credit trading program that applies to the largest sources of NOx and SOx emissions within SCAQMD jurisdiction. Rules and regulations applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be primarily associated with construction and fugitive dust emissions.
4.2.2.2 GHG Regulatory Setting International GHG Regulations Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed on March 21, 1994. The Convention was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions would be reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period from 2008 until 2012. However, while the US is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress has not ratified it; therefore, the US is not bound by the Protocols commitments.
4.2-22
Climate Change Technology Program
In lieu of the Kyoto Protocols mandatory framework, the US has opted for a voluntary and incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions. This approach, the Climate Change Technology Program, is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort, led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, who are charged with carrying out the Presidents National Climate Change Technology Initiative.
Federal GHG Regulations Clean Air Act
In the past, the US EPA has not regulated GHG under the Clean Air Act. However, in 2007 the US Supreme Court held that the EPA can, and should, consider regulating motor-vehicle GHG emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 states and cities, including California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations sued to force the EPA to regulate GHG as a pollutant pursuant to the Clean Air Act (US Supreme Court No. 05-1120; 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)). The Court ruled that GHG fit within the Clean Air Acts definition of a pollutant and that the EPAs reason for not regulating GHG was insufficiently grounded. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 40 CFR Section 98 specifies mandatory reporting requirements for a number of industries. The final 40 CFR Section 98 applies to certain downstream facilities that emit GHG, and to certain upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHG. For suppliers, the GHG emissions reported are the emissions that would result from combustion or use of the products supplied. The rule also includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, recordkeeping and verification requirements. The mandatory reporting requirements generally apply to facilities that produce more than 25,000 MTCO2e (or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source emissions).
State GHG Regulations and Programs Executive Order S-3-05
The 2005 California Executive Order S-3-05 established the following GHG emission-reduction goals for California: By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is charged with coordinating oversight of efforts to meet these targets and formed the Climate Action Team to carry out the Order. Emission reduction strategies or programs developed by the Climate Action Team to meet the emission targets are outlined in a March 2006 report (CalEPA 2006). The Climate Action Team also provided strategies and input to the CARB Scoping Plan.
Executive Order B-16-2012
The 2012 California Executive Order B-16-2012 directed that all State entities support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. The directive ordered state
4.2-23
agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to achieve by 2015 that the States major metropolitan areas will be able to accommodate zero-emission vehicles, each with infrastructure plans and streamlined permitting and that by 2020: The States zero-emission vehicle infrastructure will be able to support up to one million vehicles; and The costs of zero-emission vehicles will be competitive with conventional combustion vehicles; and Zero-emission vehicles will be accessible to mainstream consumers; and There will be widespread use of zero-emission vehicles for public transportation and freight transport; and Transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions will be falling as a result of the switch to zero-emission vehicles; and Electric vehicle charging will be integrated into the electricity grid; and The private sectors role in the supply chain for zero-emission vehicle component development and manufacturing within the State will be expanding.
And that by 2025: Over 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles will be on California roads and their market share will be expanding; and Californians will have easy access to zero-emission vehicle infrastructure; and The zero-emission vehicle industry will be a strong and sustainable part of Californias economy; and Californias clean, efficient vehicles will annually displace at least 1.5 billion gallons of petroleum fuels.
The Order also directs that California target for 2050 a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent less than 1990 levels, that at least 10 percent of California's state vehicle fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles be zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles be zero-emission by 2020.
Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, the legislature declared in AB 1493 (the Pavley regulations) that global warming was a matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment in the state. It cited several risks that California faces from climate change, including reduction in the states water supply, increased air pollution due to higher temperatures, harm to agriculture, and increase in wildfires, damage to the coastline, and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and insurance prices. Furthermore, the legislature stated that technological solutions for reducing GHG emissions would stimulate Californias economy and provide jobs. Accordingly, AB 1493 required the CARB to develop and adopt the nations first GHG emission standards for automobiles. The CARB responded by adopting CO2-equivalent fleet average emission standards. The standards will be phased in from 2009 to 2016, reducing emissions by 22 percent in the near term (2009 to 2012) and 30 percent in the mid-term (2013 to 2016), as compared to 2002 fleets.
4.2-24
Assembly Bill 32
AB 32 codifies Californias GHG emissions 2020 goal by requiring the state to reduce global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It further directs the CARB to enforce the statewide cap that would begin phasing in by 2012. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Key milestones of AB 32 include: June 20, 2007 Identification of discrete early action GHG emission-reduction measures. January 1, 2008 Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions levels and approval of a statewide limit equivalent to that level. Adoption of reporting and verification requirements concerning GHG emissions. January 1, 2009 Adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions. January 1, 2010 Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the actions. January 1, 2011 Regulatory adoption of GHG emission limits and reduction measures. January 1, 2012 GHG emission limits and reduction measures become enforceable.
Since the passage of AB 32, the CARB published Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. This publication indicated that the issue of GHG emissions in CEQA and General Plans was being deferred for later action, so the publication did not discuss any early action measures generally related to CEQA or to land use decisions.
California Senate Bill 1368
In 2006, the California legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1368, which requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to develop and adopt a greenhouse gases emission performance standard by March 1, 2007, for private electric utilities under its regulation. The PUC adopted an interim standard on January 25, 2007, requiring that all new long-term commitments for base load generation involve power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas turbine plant. That level is established at 1,100 lbs/MWh of CO2. The California Energy Commission has also adopted similar rules.
Senate Bill 97 CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 97 CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions stating, This bill advances a coordinated policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by directing the Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency to develop CEQA guidelines on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, SB 97 requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. The Resources Agency would be required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR would be required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by the CARB pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. SB 97 also identifies a limited number of types of projects that would be exempt under CEQA from analyzing GHG emissions.
4.2-25
On January 7, 2009, OPR issued its draft CEQA Guidelines revisions pursuant to SB 97. On March 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory and Preliminary Draft CEQA Guidelines Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Consistent with SB 97, on March 18, 2010, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include references to GHG emissions. The Preliminary Amendments offer guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents. According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether GHG may be generated by a project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a Projects effects on climate change are cumulatively considerable, even though its GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the Project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions. The Amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. The Amendments maintain CEQA discretion for lead agencies to establish thresholds of significance based on individual circumstances. The guidelines developed by OPR provide the lead agency with discretion in determining what methodology is used in assessing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of a particular project. This guidance is provided because the methodology for assessing GHG emissions is expected to evolve over time. The OPR guidance also states that the lead agency can rely on qualitative or other performance based standards for estimating the significance of GHG emissions.
California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, the CARB adopted the Scoping Plan as directed by AB 32 (CARB 2008). The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California. The numerous measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the Board are being implemented in phases with Early Action Measures that have already been implemented. Measures include a cap-and-trade system, car standards, low carbon fuel standards, landfill gas control methods, energy efficiency, green buildings, renewable electricity standards, and refrigerant management programs. The Scoping Plan provides an approach to reduce emissions to achieve the 2020 target, and to initiate the transformations required to achieve the 2050 target. The 2008 Scoping Plan indicated that a 29 percent reduction below the estimated business as usual levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2011 supplement (Functional Equivalent Document) to the Scoping Plan emission inventory revisions indicated that a 16 percent reduction below the
estimated business as usual levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020. This revision was due to the slowing economy between 2008 and 2010 and to reduction measures that were already in place (CARB, 2011a, p. 10). An update of the Scoping Plan is currently ongoing with a release of a Draft Discussion Document in October, 2013. Another update is required in 2018. CARB underwent an extensive and rigorous process in developing and approving the Scoping Plan. (For detailed discussion of this process, see Association of Irritated Residents et. al. v. State Air Resources Board et. al., 206 Cal. App. 4th 1487; AIR.). Among other things, CARB considered several alternatives to achieve the mandated maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs and submitted its analyses and recommendations for peer review and public comment on many occasions (AIR pp. 1498-1499). In affirming CARBs adoption of the Scoping Plan, the Court of Appeal of California concluded as follows: The Governor and the Legislature have set ambitious goals for reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions in California and to do so by means that are feasible and most cost-effective. The challenges inherent in meeting these goals can hardly be overstated. [C]ARB has been assigned the responsibility of designing and overseeing the implementation of measures to achieve these challenging goals. The scoping plan is but an initial step in this effort, to be followed by the adoption of regulations, the first of which are already in effect, and plan updates no less than every five years. As the plan itself indicates, there is still much to be learned that is pertinent to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. It is hardly surprising that the scoping plan leaves some questions unanswered and that opinions differ as to [the] many complex issues inherent in the task. After reviewing the record before us, we are satisfied that the Board has approached its difficult task in conformity with the directive from the Legislature, and that the measures that it has recommended reflect the exercise of sound judgment based upon substantial evidence. Further research and experience likely will suggest modifications to the blueprint drawn in the scoping plan, but the plans adoption in 2009 was in no respect arbitrary or capricious. (AIR, pp. 1505.) Executive Order S-03-05 sets a goal that California emit 80 percent less GHGs in 2050 than it emitted in 1990. CARB's Scoping Plan, including the October, 2013 Discussion Draft, provides additional direction and insight as to how it anticipates California will achieve the 2050 reduction goal in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05: "Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent will require California to develop new technologies that dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a landscape of new ideas, clean energy, and green technology. The measures and approaches in this plan are designed to accelerate this necessary transition, promote the rapid development of a cleaner, low carbon economy, create vibrant livable communities, and improve the ways we travel and move goods throughout the state." (CARB, 2008, p. ES-2.) "[T]he measures needed to meet the 2050 goal are too far in the future to define in detail." (Ibid.) The CEC and CARB also have published an alternative fuels plan that identifies challenging but plausible ways to meet 2050 transportation goals. The majority
4.2-27
of the measures identified by the CEC/CARB (renewable power requirements, the low carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions standards) relate to technology improvements beyond both the control of the project applicant [or Lead Agency] and the scope of the proposed project. But these technological improvements would reduce the demand for crude oil through a reduction in demand for gasoline and diesel fuels. California businesses are required to report their annual GHG emissions. This requirement is contained within sections 95100-95133 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations. It establishes who must report GHG emissions to the CARB and sets forth the requirements for measuring, calculating, reporting and verifying those emissions. The rule specifies a reporting threshold of 25,000 MTCO2e or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source emissions.
Scoping Plan 2013 Draft Discussion Document
A Draft Discussion Document Scoping Plan was released in October, 2013, as a preliminary document to the 2013 Scoping Plan update. The Discussion Document addresses issues such as a revision to the GWP for gasses (to a 20 year instead of the 100 year timeframe), the establishment of a mid-term, 2030 goal (of between 33-40% reduction over 1990 levels), and the development of post-2020 emissions caps related to Cap-and-Trade to reflect the establishment of a 2030 midterm target.
California Air Resource Board Cap-and-Trade Regulation
The California Air Resource Board has implemented a cap-and-trade type program, pursuant to the AB-32 directed Scoping Plan, applicable to specific industries that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e. The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade program as one of the strategies California will employ to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. Under Cap-and-Trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be established by the Cap-and-Trade program and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs. The program started on January 1, 2012, with an enforceable compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG emissions for GHG emissions from stationary sources. The petroleum and natural gas systems sector is covered starting in 2013 for stationary and related combustion, process vents and flare emissions if the total emissions from these sources exceed 25,000 MTCO2e per year. Suppliers of natural gas and transportation fuels are covered beginning in 2015 for combustion emissions from the total volume of natural gas delivered to noncovered entity or for transportation fuels. Cap-and-Trade is designed to reduce the emissions from a substantial percentage of GHG sources (about 80% of GHG emissions will come under the program) within California through a market trading system. The system would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the available GHG allowances over time up until the year 2020. The program beyond the year 2020 has not been designed yet, but the program is intended to extend beyond that timeframe. Facilities are required to obtain an allowance, either through purchasing on auction or through freely allocated industry assistance allowances from CARB, for each MTCO2e of GHG they emit. CARB issues the industry assistance allocations for free for a number of industries. These are based, in part, on a pre-defined benchmark of GHG emissions per unit of production. For the
oil recovery production sector, allowances are provided as a function of the amount of crude oil produced, thereby establishing, in effect, a level of efficiency in regards to GHG emissions for that sector. Other sectors are also allocated allowances based on their own respective activities. If an operation within the sector operates less efficiently than the specified benchmark, thereby receiving an insufficient number of free allowances to cover their emissions, they would be required to implement efficiency improvements or purchase additional allowances from the CARB auction. Some availability of offsets is also included in the program which can be obtained from specific, allowable offset programs, such as GHG reduction projects related to forestry, livestock and ozone depleting chemicals. Offsets outside of these three options are not allowed at this time. The first group of sectors began trading in allowances in 2012. That group includes the oil and gas sector as well as most stationary sources. A second group is planned to begin the program in 2015, which would include the transportation fuels sector. CARB auctioned about 23 million allowances in November 2012 to be used for the 2013 year. For subsequent periods after the initial 2013 period, allowances are planned to be distributed freely through the industry assistance program or auctioned off. Industry assistance allowances would decrease each year as per a cap adjustment factor. The cap adjustment factor would be about 2-3% annually through 2020. The total allowances allowed to be allocated each year (either freely allocated or auctioned) are limited by the defined allowance budget, which decreases each year through 2020 and is current set at about 163 million MTCO2e for the year 2013. An operator is required to participate in the Cap-and-Trade program if its facility emits more than 25,000 MTCO2e annually. Annual reporting of GHG emissions is required under the CARB Mandatory Reporting Rule.
California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol
The California Climate Action Registry is a program of the Climate Action Reserve and serves as a voluntary GHG registry. The California Climate Action Registry was formed in 2001 when a group of chief executive officers, who were investing in energy efficiency projects that reduced their organizations GHG emissions, asked the state to create a place to accurately report their emissions history. The California Climate Action Registry publishes a General Reporting Protocol, which provides the principles, approach, methodology, and procedures to estimate such emissions.
California Air Resource Board Proposed Mandatory Reporting Regulation
The CARB approved a mandatory reporting regulation in December 2007, which became effective January 2009 (which appears at sections 95100-95133 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations), which requires the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for specific industries emitting more than 25,000 MTCO2e or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source emissions.
4.2-29
The City of Hermosa Beach is involved in efforts to reduce its greenhouse gases. Some of these include: Cool Cities Program: The City Council became a participant in the 'Cool Cities Program' in 2006. The 'Cities for Climate Protection' Campaign helps local governments to adopt policies and implement changes that reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urban livability; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives: The City is a member of ICLEI, an international association of local governments that have made a commitment to sustainable development; Carbon Neutral Initiative: The City Council in 2010 declared its intent to pursue the path to make city operations carbon neutral. Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan: The Citys ad hoc Green Task Force prepared this plan and it was accepted by the City Council in 2011 and is being implemented. It proposes ways to meet AB 32 targets. City of Hermosa Beach The City Council adopted a Clean Fleet Policy and Action Plan on June 11, 2013. Energy reduction retrofits: The City is engaged in the SCE Energy Leadership Program and continues to implement energy reduction programs and retrofits at municipal facilities. City Hermosa Beach Carbon Neutral Scoping Plan (UCLA, 2013): This plan was prepared as a senior student practicum class project to advise the city on paths to carbon neutrality. Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focused on Sustainability and a Carbon Neutral Future: The City obtained a Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities Planning Grant to revise and integrate these plans around sustainability and carbon neutrality.1 Carbon Neutrality Road Map: The City Councils Strategic Plan adopted in 2013 identifies development of a carbon neutral road map as a top priority. Green Building Codes: The City adopted Tier 1 amendments in 2010 requiring increased energy reduction measures.
The Sustainability Plan (accepted in 2011) includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including emission reduction targets. To comply with AB32, the Plan indicates that municipal emissions must be reduced by 26 MYCO2e annually and community emissions by 1,630 MYCO2e annually by 2020. The major strategies for achieving these goals include energy efficiency in buildings, increased municipal employee carpooling, conversion of City vehicles to electricity (Clean Feet Policy adopted June 11, 2013), increased community electric and hybrid vehicles and bicycling, building retrofits for reduced energy consumption, embedding sustainability into the Citys General Plan and DNA, among others. The Councils stated goal in 2010, Strategic Plan adopted in 2013, and steady progress affirm the commitment to carbon neutrality, while the target date is under study.
The grant title stated low carbon future; however, the City Council has indicated its desire to pursue carbon neutrality.
4.2.3
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides these key questions to guide evaluation of impacts related to air quality. Does the Project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The SCAQMD, in its role as the agency responsible for regulating air emissions locally, has developed detailed criteria to address air quality issues relevant to the regional air basin and which establish quantitative thresholds which address the CEQA Appendix G questions listed above. This EIR applies the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD to determine whether an impact is significant. The SCAQMD makes significance determinations based on the maximum daily emissions during the Proposed Project construction period, which provides a worst-case analysis of the construction emissions. Similarly, significance determinations for operational emissions are based on maximum daily emissions during the Proposed Project operational phase. To determine whether or not air quality impacts from the Proposed Project are significant, emissions are evaluated and compared to the SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds (see Table 4.2-6). If impacts exceed any of the criteria, they will be considered significant and all feasible mitigation measures will be identified and implemented to reduce significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The SCAQMD has developed a localized significance threshold methodology to evaluate the potential localized impacts of criteria pollutants from construction activities (SCAQMD 2007). The localized significance threshold methodology requires an analysis regarding whether or not emissions of specified criteria pollutants exceed ambient air quality standards at a sensitive receptor. SCAQMD defines sensitive receptors as offsite locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas and any other areas where persons could be situated for an hour or more at a time. These other areas include parks, bus stops, and sidewalks but would not include building tops, roadways, or permanent bodies of water such as oceans or lakes. The localized significance threshold analysis is performed for emissions of CO, NO2, and particulates, both PM10 and PM2.5, associated with proposed projects. The SCAQMD has developed localized significant thresholds lookup tables that utilize the allowable concentrations of pollutants (shown in Table 4.2-6) combined with distances and construction or operational areas to calculate allowable emission rates. The lookup tables are specific for the
4.2-31
source/receptor area in the Basin as it also includes pollutant background and meteorological data specific to the area.
Table 4.2-6 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds Construction Operation NOx 100 pounds/day 55 pounds/day VOCs 75 pounds/day 55 pounds/day PM10 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day PM2.5 55 pounds/day* 55 pounds/day* SOx 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day CO 550 pounds/day 550 pounds/day Lead 3 pounds/day 3 pounds/day Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds Toxic Air Contaminants Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk > 10 in 1 million (including carcinogens and The risk per year shall not exceed 1/70 of the maximum allowable risk non-carcinogens) Maximum Cancer Burden >0.5 Hazard Index > 1.0 (Project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402. Nuisance defined as more than six odor events per year. Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants(a) NO2 In attainment; significant if Project causes or contributes to an exceedance of any following standard: 1-hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual average 0.03 ppm (state) PM10 and PM2.5 10.4 g/m3 (recommended for construction)(b) 24-hour 2.5 g/m3 (operation) 1.0 g/m3 annual (PM10 only) Pollutant 25 g/m3 In attainment; significant if Project causes or contributes to an exceedance of any following standard: 20 ppm (state) 1-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) 8-hour average Greenhouse Gas Emissions If the Projects GHG emissions are less than or mitigated to less CO2, N2O, CH4, etc than 10,000 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per year the Project is presumed to be insignificant for GHG Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; lbs/day = pounds per day; greater than or equal to * Based on SCAQMD 2006 Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds regional thresholds, October 2006 Source: SCAQMD CEQA website Sulfate 24-hour average CO
4.2-32
4.2.4
The Proposed Project would generate air emissions during the following activities: Construction of the Proposed Oil Project during Phase 1 and Phase 3; Demolition of the Existing City Maintenance Yard; Construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project; Phase 2 test drilling; Phase 2 operations/testing; Phase 4 drilling; Phase 4 operations; and Operations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project.
Emissions are generated related to criteria pollutants for construction and operations, greenhouse gasses, and toxics and odors. Portions of the Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would occur simultaneously, particularly during Phase 3. Therefore, all of the components of the Proposed Project are assessed together under the impacts sub-section.
4.2.4.1 Design Features
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with a range of air quality measures and permits, primarily through the SCAQMD, including component monitoring for leaks, combustion equipment emissions limits, measures to reduce fugitive dust, limits on venting, etc. The Applicant has proposed several design features in addition to these permitted requirements that would reduce air quality impacts such as: An electric automated drill rig, with an approximately 87-foot rig mast, will be used to drill the wells thereby eliminating diesel emissions from a drilling rig; An Air Quality Monitoring Plan that will provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on the Project Site during drilling and production operations; An Odor Minimization Plan that will address the potential sources of odors from all equipment; An odor suppressant spray system or vapor capture hood and carbon filter system on the mud shaker tables and carbon capture canisters on all tanks will be installed during Phase 2; Use of a closed-loop system venting all pressure relief valves to the vapor recovery unit or an enclosed ground flare, eliminating the release of odors associated with gases; and Air monitoring will be performed during the excavation activities in which contaminated or potentially contaminated materials will be disturbed, excavated, or otherwise handled.
4.2-33
4.2.4.2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the conditions of approval in the 1993 Conditional Use Permit. Applicable requirements for Air Quality are listed below. The number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency; Grading shall not be performed when wind speeds exceed 20 mph. The contractor shall maintain a wind speed monitoring device on site during grading operations. The contractor shall continually keep the soil moist during grading operations. At no time shall any dust be allowed to leave the work site; All trucks arriving or departing the drill site shall be washed to prevent spillage of earth and all routes shall be swept and or washed by the driller as required by the City; A vapor recovery system shall be installed to recover 99% of hydrocarbon emissions during storage and transfer of crude oil; Raw gas shall not be allowed into the atmosphere; Any flame shall be enclosed; Tanks shall be designed and located so that no odors or fumes can be detected from the adjacent areas outside the exterior walls of the Project; Odorless drilling muds shall be used; Well tubing and rods shall not remain out of the well during workover operations less than 8-hours. The tubing will be surface washed with a detergent solution to remove odor bearing residual hydrocarbons if exposed longer than 8-hours; The permittee shall monitor drilling mud during drilling on the site for odorous substances and take such measures to eliminate any odor which could be perceptible outside the drill site; Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste accumulation and shall be frequently steam cleaned; Gas and vapor detection systems shall be installed at appropriate locations; The permittee shall monitor drilling mud during drilling on the site for odorous substances and take such measures to eliminate any odor which could be perceptible outside the drill site; and The permittee shall undertake no refining process or any process for the extraction of produces from natural gas, except for such minor processing as necessary to make natural gas acceptable to the City gas mains for domestic use.
4.2.4.3 Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Air emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, VOC, NOx, SO2 and PM) during construction would result from construction equipment with internal combustion engines (e.g., backhoes, cranes) and offsite vehicles (e.g., construction employee commuter vehicles and trucks delivering equipment and materials). Air pollutants would also be emitted from contaminated soil off-gassing and asphalt paving off-gassing. Soil movement and vehicle movement on exposed soil (via grading activities or travel on dirt roadways) would also generate fugitive dust emissions. Vehicle travel on paved roads would also generate fugitive dust emissions.
4.2-34
Air emissions from construction equipment at the Project Site were estimated using the emission factors from the CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model (CAPCOA 2013) and the assumptions on the horsepower, duration and personnel detailed in Section 2.0, Project Description. The construction emissions were tabulated using spreadsheets instead of the CalEEMod program due to a number of factors, including the difficulty of assessing irregular, non-development type projects using CalEEMod with different sources, such as soil off-gassing. In addition, due to the irregular nature of the vehicular trips (soil hauling, oil and gas equipment delivery, etc), the peak day vehicle trips would be 5-6 times higher than the average day. CalEEMod is not capable of handling large variations in peak day emissions. Therefore, the CalEEMod emissions equations were utilized, but were developed and presented in spreadsheets for estimating the construction emissions from the Project Site. Appendix B includes details on the construction equipment and periods of operation for each equipment piece. The CalEEMod program with defaults were used to estimate the construction emissions associated with the construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard (both temporary and permanent). Construction emissions associated with the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard parking option, involving more construction, were used as a worst case. Scheduling of each option construction would be similar, with the parking option taking a bit longer due to the additional construction requirements. Analysis of the temporary Proposed City Maintenance Yard assumed a smaller area and shorter duration of construction and would be constructed prior to the start of the Proposed Oil Project Phase 1. The removal of the temporary yard was included in the permanent yard construction estimates. The primary source of criteria pollutants (NOx, CO, VOC, SOx and PM) would be the use of internal combustion engines associated with construction equipment, such as cranes and backhoes, as the pollutants are a byproduct of combustion in engines, including on-road vehicles. A large portion of particulate emissions during construction are produced by pieces of equipment traveling on disturbed soil and unpaved surfaces, and various earth-moving activities, such as trenching, grading, clearing, etc (called fugitive dust). The amount of these emissions mostly depends on the size of the graded area, volume of moved soil, the number of construction machinery and vehicles, and the duration of construction. Emission factors were used from CalEEMod model for calculation of the fugitive dust emissions. Onsite dirt road travel at the Project Site assumed a distance of 250 feet per truck visit, with a maximum of 18 truck visits per day. Truck loading and soil dumping assumed a total of about 450 cubic yards of material moved for electrical trenching and street work, and about 16,660 cubic yards of soil moved for the pipeline installation. Grading assumed a disturbed area equal to the Project Site area. The detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B. Site preparation at the Project Site includes excavation of soils contaminated with lead and some hydrocarbons. The Applicant's submittals to the City (see RAP in Appendix A) indicate that some of the hydrocarbon impacted soils would be excavated from shallower soils (less than 25 feet below ground) and the remaining hydrocarbon impacted soils would be "vapor extracted" in place. The vapor extraction would take place after the facility is constructed. As there is some uncertainty associated with the exact amount of soils to be excavated, it was assumed as a worst case that all of the hydrocarbon contaminated soils would be excavated with an additional 25%
4.2-35
contingency factor, totaling 16,875 cubic yards of contaminated soils to be excavated over the 40 day period assigned to that task. Estimates of the VOC emissions from contaminated soils offgassing utilized EPA estimates for Superfund sites (EPA 1992) assuming nonane (C9) emission rate of 1.48 grams VOC/second. The EPA approach assumes that all of the pore spaces of the excavated soils are saturated with the hydrocarbon and that these vapors are emitted as the soil is excavated. The average excavation rate over the excavation period was utilized as opposed to the EPA value of 0.42 cubic meters per second. Excavation of contaminated soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would also occur. Emissions were assumed to be similar to the emissions at the Project Site. The use of nonane molecular weight materials was used in the EPA equations to estimate offgassing emissions as the material at the site is weathered with the material located less than 1015 feet deep composed predominately of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons (carbon fraction range C13-C40), with some low concentrations of lighter hydrocarbons (<C13) which would be approximated with the surrogate of nonane (C9). Historical sampling (Brycon 2012) shows that the highest concentrations of VOCs (C4-C12) are located between 10 and 35 feet deep with the highest concentrations of C13+ being located nearer the surface. The highest concentrations of toxic VOCs (benzene, etc) are located between 25 and 40 feet deep, which is below the 15 foot deep area that would be excavated as part of the Applicants Remedial Action Plan (RAP). However, in order to estimate the potential effects of toxic air contaminants associated with the contaminated soil excavations, modeling was conducted assuming that all contaminated soil at all depths contain toxic hydrocarbons as defined by the proposed RAP (see toxics analysis below). The Project would also involve the laying of asphalt as part of the construction period in Phase 3 and these emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod emission factor of 2.62 lbs VOC/acre of asphalt. Crushed aggregate would be used for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 periods. Offsite emissions during construction would be produced by vehicles visiting the site. The EMFAC2011 emission factors for vehicles were utilized along with the default commute distances for Los Angeles County in the CalEEMod program (14.7 miles each way).
Table 4.2-7 Construction Criteria Emissions Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) CO NOx SOX PM10 PM2.5 8.30 0.00 8.30 1.60 9.90 28.12 0.00 28.12 14.38 0.00 14.38 0.60 14.97 44.29 0.00 44.29 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.66 1.66 0.01 1.67 2.99 2.26 5.25 0.92 0.39 1.31 0.01 1.32 2.75 0.23 2.98
Activity Temporary City Maintenance Yard Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 1 Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust
VOC 28.11 0.00 28.11 0.12 28.23 4.55 0.00 4.55
4.2-36
Table 4.2-7
Construction Criteria Emissions Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) CO NOx SOX PM10 PM2.5 4.00 11.38 0.00 0.24 0.22 32.12 55.67 0.04 5.49 3.20 8.25 0.00 8.25 3.29 11.53 22.27 0.00 22.27 31.07 0.00 31.07 9.09 62.44 19.78 0.00 19.78 1.35 21.13 12.28 1.57 13.85 17.18 0.00 17.18 11.88 29.06 45.43 0.00 45.43 43.54 0.00 43.54 30.95 119.92 29.22 0.00 29.22 3.45 32.68 16.16 2.73 18.89 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.89 2.21 3.10 0.25 3.36 2.30 0.04 2.34 2.93 0.04 2.96 0.66 5.96 1.91 5.55 7.46 0.37 7.83 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.82 0.22 1.04 0.23 1.27 2.14 0.01 2.14 2.73 0.01 2.73 0.59 5.47 1.80 2.89 4.68 0.11 4.80 0.83 0.04 0.87
Activity Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 2 Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 3 Construction Construction Equipment Pipeline Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions Pipeline Construction Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust - Pipeline Construction Equipment Onsite Fugitive Dust Emissions Onsite Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust - onsite Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Proposed City Maintenance Yard Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Construction Construction Equipment Offsite Mobile Emissions Total
VOC 0.36 4.91 1.69 0.00 1.69 0.35 2.04 4.58 0.00 4.58 7.06 0.00 7.06 0.93 12.57 28.20 0.00 28.20 0.27 28.47 1.41 0.08 1.49
Peak Day, Onsite 28.2 31.1 45.4 0.2 7.5 4.7 Peak Day, Total 41.0 83.6 152.6 0.1 13.8 10.3 SCAQMD Regional Construction Thresholds 75 550 100 150 150 55 (lbs/day) SCAQMD Localized Construction Thresholds 755 103 5.9 3.6 Lookup Tables (lbs/day) Significant Impact Regional? No No Yes No No No Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables? No No Yes Yes Notes: Local significance impacts compared to only onsite emissions. Peak Day=Phase 3 onsite construction, Pipeline and the City Maintenance Yard construction. City Maintenance Yard construction assumes Parking Option. See air quality appendix for detailed calculations
4.2-37
The proposed parking area at 636 Cypress Avenue was included in the emissions estimates for Phase 1 building demolition and asphalt paving, as well as offsite vehicle trips for demolition material hauling using the CalEEMod default values for demolition waste volumes. Construction air emissions are summarized in Table 4.2-7.
Impact # Impact Description Construction activities would generate NOx and PM emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. Phase Residual Impact Class II Less than Significant with Mitigation
AQ.1
Construction
Construction emissions generated during the Proposed Project could exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, PM2.5 and PM10. Several Proposed Project activities would generate construction emissions; including Phase 1 and some Phase 2 construction (Phase 2 construction includes installing equipment and setting up the drilling rig). Some activities would occur simultaneously, specifically during Phase 3 construction, which would include construction at the Proposed Oil Project Site, pipeline construction, construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard and offsite emissions associated with traffic traveling to and from the construction sites. Table 4.1-9 shows each activity and emissions associated with those activities. Appendix B includes the inputs to estimate the emissions levels. The highest emissions levels would occur during Phase 3 when the Proposed Oil Project construction, pipeline construction, and construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be occurring simultaneously. Emissions of NOx would exceed the regional significance criteria. All other pollutant emissions would remain below the regional significance thresholds. Onsite emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed the localized significance thresholds (see Table 4.2-7). Mitigation measures to reduce NOx emissions would include the required use of cleaner engines (called EPA Tier 3). Reductions of PM emissions could be achieved through the use of fugitive dust measures, such as watering, and other measures listed below.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1a
The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction).
4.2-38
AQ-1b
Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation.
The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications. Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100-horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided to the City and SCAQMD when each piece of equipment is mobilized.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of Tier 3 engines reduces emissions of NOx and PM. Fugitive dust would be reduced through the implementation of the mitigation measures. Emissions would be reduced to below the regional and localized thresholds for all pollutants. Table 4.2-8 shows the mitigated emissions with revised emission factors for fugitive dust and construction equipment. Therefore, the proposed construction would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-8 Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day) VOC CO NOx SOX PM10 PM2.5 0.93 0.00 27.95 0.00 18.93 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.11 1.02 1.11 0.10
Activity Phase 1 Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions
4.2-39
Table 4.2-8
Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day) CO NOx SOX PM10 27.95 18.93 0.04 2.13 4.00 11.38 0.00 0.24 31.95 30.31 0.04 2.37 7.96 0.00 7.96 3.29 11.24 27.24 0.00 27.24 29.39 0.00 29.39 9.09 65.72 15.14 0.00 15.14 1.35 16.49 2.00 1.57 3.57 29.4 82.2 550 755 No No 6.25 0.00 6.25 11.88 18.13 22.28 0.00 22.28 21.43 0.00 21.43 30.95 74.66 16.38 0.00 16.38 3.45 19.84 5.39 2.73 8.12 22.3 94.5 100 103 No No 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.1 0.1 150 No 0.28 0.99 1.27 0.25 1.53 0.95 0.04 0.98 1.18 0.04 1.21 0.66 2.86 1.24 2.01 3.25 0.37 3.62 0.00 0.04 0.04 3.3 6.5 150 5.9 No No
Activity Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 2 Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 3 Construction Construction Equipment Pipeline Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions Pipeline Construction Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive Dust -Pipeline Construction Equipment Onsite Fugitive Dust Emissions Onsite Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive Dust -Onsite Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Proposed City Maintenance Yard Construction Construction Equipment Fugitive Dust Emissions Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Construction Construction Equipment Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Peak Day, Onsite Peak Day, Total SCAQMD Regional Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) SCAQMD Localized Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) Significant Impact Regional? Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables?
VOC 0.93 0.36 1.29 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.35 0.68 1.22 0.00 1.22 2.54 0.00 2.54 0.93 4.69 28.20 0.00 28.20 0.27 28.47 0.28 0.08 0.36 28.2 33.2 75 No -
PM2.5 1.22 0.22 1.43 0.28 0.10 0.38 0.23 0.61 0.95 0.01 0.95 1.18 0.01 1.18 0.59 2.73 1.23 1.08 2.32 0.11 2.43 0.05 0.04 0.09 2.3 5.2 55 3.6 No No
4.2-40
Impact # AQ.2
Impact Description Construction activities would generate emissions from contaminated soil excavation.
Phase Construction
Residual Impact Class III Less Than Significant
As discussed above, the Applicant indicates that some of the hydrocarbon impacted soils would be excavated from shallower soils (less than 25 feet below ground) and the remaining hydrocarbon impacted soils would be "vapor extracted" in place. Soil sampling data indicates that most of the toxic and volatile hydrocarbons would be located below the areas that would be excavated. However, as a worst case, it was assumed that all soils excavated would be contaminated with the highest levels of toxic contaminants identified in the Applicant RAP and that the EPA Superfund emission rate (EPA 1992) assuming a surrogate hydrocarbon level of nonane of total hydrocarbons would occur. Modeling was conducted with AERMOD using an area source equal to the area of TPH contamination. The rate of soil excavation conservatively assumed that all hydrocarbon contaminated soils would be excavated with an additional 25% contingency factor to address the uncertainties associated with the contaminated area. The concentrations of toxic contaminants in the soil range from a high of 1.9 mg/kg of soil for naphthalene to a low of 0.015 mg/kg of soil for benzene. TPH ranges in the soil for the lighter hydrocarbons ranged up to 350 mg/kg soil. It assumed that the toxic hydrocarbon constituent would vaporize with the lighter hydrocarbons to produce the VOC emissions rate discussed above. The primary constituent of concern related to acute impacts would be benzene. The acute reference exposure level (REL) as defined by the OEHHA (OEHHA 2013) for benzene is 1,300 ug/m3 in the air and the modeled levels at the closest offsite location would be substantially below this level. Therefore, no acute impacts would be anticipated based on the SCAQMD thresholds for acute risks. The primary constituents of concern related to chronic impacts would be benzene (REL of 60 ug/m3), ethylbenzene (REL of 2,000 ug/m3) and naphthalene (REL of 9 ug/m3). The combined health hazard index (HI, the ratio of the anticipated concentration divided by the REL) at the closest offsite location would be 0.003, primarily due to the presence of naphthalene. This would be considered a less than significant impact. Cancer screening, using the OEHHA cancer potency factors for benzene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene yield an estimated cancer risk for the peak year (as per the SCAQMD Rule 1401) of 0.13 in a million at the closest offsite location, also primarily due to naphthalene. This also would be considered a less than significant impact. The SCAQMD Rule 1166 requires measures that would substantially reduce the emissions of VOC from the soil excavation activities. These include: Monitoring for VOC contamination at least once every 15 minutes commencing at the beginning of excavation or grading; All VOC soils shall be segregated, covered and watered for all periods longer than 1 hour to reduce VOC emissions;
All contaminated soils shall be removed from the site at least every 30 days; If soils contain VOC greater than 1,000 ppm, they shall be, as soon as possible, but not more than 15 minutes, loaded into trucks, moistened with additional water, covered and transported off site.
Implementation of the monitoring and VOC reduction measures required by Rule 1166 would substantially reduce the emissions of toxic vapors. Therefore, the proposed construction contaminated soils excavation activity would be less than significant (Class III). Contaminated soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site are classified as containing semi-volatile hydrocarbons and lead. Neither of these contaminants would produce impacts greater than those identified at the Project Site as the volatility of the materials are lower (i.e. less would go into the air). SCAQMD Rule 1166 would apply to activities at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site. Therefore, the proposed construction at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site would be less than significant (Class III).
4.2.4.4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Air emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx, CO, VOC, SO2 and PM) during operations would result from equipment associated with combustion (e.g., microturbines and the flare), fugitive emissions of VOCs from components and from offsite vehicles (e.g., employee commuter vehicles and trucks delivering supplies, trucks hauling crude oil, etc.). Combustion emissions were estimated utilizing the proposed equipment heat/fuel ratings along with emission factors. During Phase 1, the flare would be used to combust the produced gas because none of the gas would be used onsite or transported offsite. During Phase 4, the microturbines would be used to generate onsite electricity by burning some of the produced gas from the Project wells. The flare would be utilized during emergency situations or to allow for maintenance of the gas processing equipment and burn all of the produced gas so that the wells would not need to be shut-in if the gas plant equipment malfunctions or needs to be repaired. Shut-in of wells involves stopping the pumps and closing the main valves on each well to prevent flow from the wells. Emission factors for the microturbines and flares (flare for Phase 2 and Phase 4, microturbine for Phase 4 only) are based on Applicant submitted manufacturers information for NOx, CO and VOC. PM emission factors are based on EPA AP-42. Fugitive emissions are associated with gas leaks from fittings, valves, and tanks. The amount of gas that leaks from tanks is a function of the amount of crude oil throughput as the level of crude oil in the tank is raised and lowered, leaving a film of crude oil on the sides of the tank. The proposed tanks would have fixed roofs. The Applicant has proposed a vapor recovery system that was included in the air emissions calculations. Calculations utilized the EPA Tanks version 409d emissions model. Crude throughput was assumed to be the maximum throughput identified in Section 2.0, Project Description for Phase 2 and Phase 4. There would also be fugitive emissions from valves, compressors, pumps and connections. These emissions are a function of
4.2-42
the number of components and the levels of maintenance. Component counts were estimated based on the Applicant-supplied information. Emission factors for fugitive components are based on the SCAQMD Guidelines for Fugitive Emissions Calculations (SCAQMD 2003) default emission factors for oil and gas production facilities (Form P1 or P1U). Because these emission factors do not include the use of an inspection and maintenance program, as prescribed and required by SCAQMD Rule 1173, a reduction level of 80 percent was applied to these emissions to account for the quarterly Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) protocol as required by Rule 1173 (SBCAPCD 1998). Note that, using a correlation equation to estimate emissions (the procedure used in the air emissions study provided by the Applicant), where the number of "leakers" and "non-leakers", and the level of "leakers", for a facility is known based on historical monitoring data, would not be applicable in this case as the facility has not been built yet. The SCAQMD default fugitive emission rate correlates to about a 1.5 percent leaker rate (a leaker being defined as a hydrocarbon value of greater than 10,000 ppm detected at the valve location) based on the CAPCOA correlation equations (CAPCOA 1999). EPA estimates a similar leaker rate in industry studies (USEPA 1994). Emissions associated with drilling have been included in the operational emissions estimates because drilling could occur over an extended period of time during Phase 4 (2.5 years) and could continue intermittently for the life of the Project. In addition, because drilling would be occurring at the same time as facility operations (crude processing and shipping during Phase 2) and crude processing, shipping and gas processing (during Phase 4), the SCAQMD requires that these emissions be calculated and compared to the operational emissions thresholds. Because drilling would be performed using an electric drilling rig, drilling emissions at the Project Site would be limited to emissions from support equipment used to handle piping and equipment (a forklift) as well as potential emissions from muds handling. Muds that originate from areas of the borehole that contain hydrocarbons could come to the surface and release hydrocarbon vapors ("mud off-gassing"). Emissions estimates for muds off-gassing have not been well documented in the industry. EPA AP-42 does not address muds off-gassing, for example. The SCAQMD has begun exploring a potential rule adoption and protocols for estimating muds off-gassing emissions (SCAQMD 2012). Drillers often monitor the hydrocarbon levels in the vapors immediately coming off of the muds as they leave the wellhead in order to assess the potential for increased well pressures and to ensure they have proper well control. Due to the large amount of drilling activity in Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air Quality Division has published some emission inventories which estimate muds offgassing at about 75 pounds of VOC per day (ERGI 2007). For this Project, this was estimated to occur only during the last 500 feet of well drilling as the wells begin to encounter zones with hydrocarbons. Well workovers are maintenance activities performed on a well that use a rig similar to a drilling rig, but are less equipment intensive as an actual hole is not drilled (no muds used, etc). Workovers would occur for periods of up to 90 days per year for the life of the Project; this limitation is imposed by the 1993 CUP conditions. Well workovers would utilize a truck mounted drilling rig that would require a diesel generator and a diesel truck engine to be operating during the workover operations.
4.2-43
Operational emissions are shown in Table 4.2-9 for Phase 2 with drilling, Phase 2 with testing only, Phase 4 with drilling and Phase 4 without drilling. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard operational emissions would not change from the current City Maintenance Yard operational emissions and are therefore not shown. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard would not involve combustion sources (beyond vehicle use) and would therefore not produce any localized impacts. Odors from the site would be associated with normal vehicle maintenance activities and would not exceed the current operations.
Table 4.2-9 Operational Criteria Emissions Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) CO NOx SOX PM10 3.9 0.9 4.8 3.5 8.3 3.9 1.3 5.2 278.0 0.9 278.9 2.6 281.5 278.0 11.0 289.0 2.3 291.3 6.0 1.6 7.6 14.0 21.6 6.0 5.1 11.1 151.6 1.6 153.2 7.5 160.8 151.6 21.7 173.4 4.1 177.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.5 1.9 0.1 2.1 18.8 0.3 19.1 0.1 19.2 18.8 1.0 19.8 0.1 19.9
Activity Phase 2 Test Drilling and Testing Testing Equipment & fugitives Drilling Equipment & fugitives Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 2 Testing Only Combustion Equip and Fugitives Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Operations and Drilling Processing Equipment and Fugitives Drilling Emissions and Fugitives Subtotal: Stationary Equip, Workovers and Drilling Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Operations Only Processing Equipment and Fugitives Workover Emissions Subtotal: Stationary Equip, Workovers and Drilling Offsite Mobile Emissions Total
VOC 23.2 76.1 99.3 0.4 99.7 23.2 0.1 23.3 32.6 76.1 108.7 0.2 108.8 32.6 2.1 34.7 0.1 34.8
PM2.5 1.9 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.4 1.9 0.1 2.0 18.4 0.2 18.7 0.1 18.8 18.4 0.9 19.4 0.1 19.4
SCAQMD Regional Operations 55 Thresholds (lbs/day) SCAQMD Localized Operations Thresholds (lbs/day) Significant Impact Regional? Yes Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables? Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
550 755 No No
55 103 Yes Yes
150
150 1.3 No Yes
55 1 No Yes
No
4.2-44
Some potential impacts would be classified as Class III, or less than significant. These include impacts related to localized exceedances of CO standards "hot spots" and impacts related to truck traffic and health risk. CO hot spots are created when a substantial amount of traffic is generated by a project that causes congestion at an intersection. The vehicle emissions of CO can produce localized exceedances of the CO standards. Generally, the number of vehicle trips needed to generate enough traffic to contribute to CO hot spots would be more than a few thousand per day The Proposed Project would not generate enough traffic to generate CO hot spots. Truck traffic generating above about 100-200 vehicles per day over a long operational period can produce localized cancer-related impacts due to diesel emissions. Because cancer risks are based on lifetime exposure, the truck trips would need to be associated with the long term operational characteristics of a Project instead of just the relatively short-duration construction activities. The Proposed Project (Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project) would not generate enough operational truck trips to cause health risk impacts from diesel particulate emissions. Note that SCAQMD significance criteria for cancer risk are based on the incremental increase in cancer risk levels.
Impact # Impact Description Regional Impacts: Operational activities would generate emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District VOC and NOx regional thresholds. Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4. Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AQ.3
During routine maintenance or emergency scenarios, the produced gas would be routed to the flare instead of to the gas processing equipment. The flare operations are limited by the SCAQMD to 200 hours per year. During a peak day, the flare could operate for 24 hours. If this were to occur, the operational emissions generated would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx and would be considered significant. Emissions of VOC would also exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds due primarily to the fugitive emissions from tanks, valves and components and muds off-gassing during drilling and would be considered significant. During a normal operational day, with just the microturbines operating, the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx would not be exceeded but emissions of VOC would continue to be exceeded. Mitigation would include limiting the operating hours of the flare on the peak day, installing muds VOC capturing devices and reducing VOC fugitive emissions.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-3a
The Applicant shall limit flaring to a total of 5 hours per day at the full flaring capacity (or equivalent) during all emergency or routine flaring events in order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the thresholds. Lower NOx emission combustors or other equivalent measures can also be used to satisfy the requirement.
4.2-45
AQ-3b
The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least 90 percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control (either through carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing units routed to vapor control systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor immediately above the muds exit point from the wellbore and at other areas above the mud pits where muds may be exposed to the atmosphere in order to ensure that hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90 percent.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of reduced flare daily hours and reductions in the vapor from muds degassing would reduce the emissions of NOx and VOC from the operations and drilling to less than the thresholds. Emissions levels are shown in Table 4.2-10. Therefore, the proposed operational emissions would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-10 Operational Criteria Emissions: Mitigated Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) CO NOx SOX PM10 PM2.5 3.9 1.0 4.9 3.5 8.4 3.9 1.3 5.2 43.6 1.0 44.6 2.6 47.2 43.6 0.0 43.6 2.3 45.9 6.0 0.6 6.6 14.0 20.6 6.0 5.1 11.1 23.8 0.6 24.4 7.5 31.9 23.8 0.0 23.8 4.1 27.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.4 1.9 0.1 2.1 3.0 0.2 3.2 0.1 3.3 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 3.0 1.9 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.3 1.9 0.1 2.0 2.9 0.2 3.1 0.1 3.2 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.1 2.9
Activity Phase 2 Test Drilling and Testing Testing Equipment & fugitives Drilling Equipment & fugitives Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 2 Testing Only Combustion Equipment and Fugitives Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Operations and Drilling Processing Equipment and Fugitives Drilling Emissions and Fugitives Subtotal: Stationary Eq, Workovers and Drilling Offsite Mobile Emissions Total Phase 4 Operations Only Processing Equipment and Fugitives Workover Emissions Subtotal: Stationary Eq, Workovers and Drilling Offsite Mobile Emissions Total SCAQMD Regional Operations Thresholds (lbs/day) SCAQMD Localized Operations Thresholds (lbs/day) Significant Impact Regional? Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables?
VOC 23.2 7.6 30.8 0.4 31.2 23.2 0.1 23.3 12.7 7.6 20.4 0.2 20.5 12.7 0.0 12.7 0.1 12.8
55 No
550 755 No No
55 103 No No
150
150 1.3 No Yes
55 1 No Yes
No
4.2-46
Impact #
Impact Description Local Impacts: Operational activities would generate PM emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District local thresholds.
Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4.
AQ.4
Emissions from the microturbines or from the flare would cause the localized thresholds from the SCAQMD lookup tables to be exceeded for the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions even after the mitigation for the regional thresholds. Therefore, modeling using the AERMOD program was utilized to estimate the localized impacts following the guidance from the SCAQMD website (http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_ModelingGuidance.html). Modeling parameters are listed below based on Applicant and manufacturers' information. For the Phase 1 flare, the exhaust stack diameter: 3.5 feet, the exhaust gas exit temperature: 2000 deg F and the exhaust gas exit velocity: 15.3 feet/second; For the Phase 2 flare, the exhaust stack diameter: 10 feet, the exhaust gas exit temperature: 2000 deg F and the exhaust gas exit velocity: 15.3 feet/second; For the Phase 2 microturbines, there would be 5 separate stacks, one associated with each microturbine, with the following characteristics each: exhaust stack diameter: 1 foot, exhaust gas exit temperature: 325 deg F, exhaust gas exit velocity: 10.6 feet/second. All stacks would be 16 feet high.
For Phase 4, as the microturbine and flare stacks would be located within an area that has a 16 foot wall (when there is no drilling) or a 32 foot sound wall (when there is drilling), building downwash effects need to be included. Aerodynamic building downwash is a phenomenon caused by eddies created by air movement around building obstacles. Wind-tunnel and field studies have demonstrated that incorporating estimates of wind speed, streamline deflection, and turbulence intensities in the wake of wind flow over nearby buildings, as related to the location of the source, are crucial to accurately modeling ground level concentrations of pollutants. For a given source-building configuration, the dominant effect depends on the wind direction relative to the building face (affecting the amount of streamline descent) and the wind speed (controlling the rate of rise of the plume). Studies by Schulman (Schulman 2000) indicate that, for the parameters of the wall proposed by the Applicant, the wind "cavity", meaning the area downwind most influenced by the building downwash effect, would extend from 40 to 70 meters (for the 16 foot and 32 foot walls, respectively, using the equations from Schulman). The microturbine and flare stacks would be located within these cavities and, even though shorter than the 32 foot wall, would be substantially influenced by the downwash effect. Peak offsite pollutant concentrations increase by 2-3 times with the inclusion of building downwash effects. The building downwash parameters were estimated using the BPIPPRM program (EPRI 1997) assuming a 18 inch thick wall surrounding the site at 16 feet high or 32 feet high for the sound wall. Stack locations were placed based on the plot plans supplied as part of the Application.
4.2-47
For Phase 2, there would not be a 16 foot wall around the site so the building downwash corrections were not used unless drilling is taking place. Then the 32 foot sound wall was included with the corresponding downwash effects. The soundwall would be twice the height of the flare or microturbine stacks and could substantially influence the flow of wind around and near the site and influence the plume behavior and the ground level concentrations of pollutants. The AERMOD model building downwash algorithms was also run assuming a 32 foot wall around the site for Phase 2 and Phase 4 drilling periods to ensure that the modeling results are accurate. Modeling was run using terrain data generated from AERMAP and digital elevation files. The model was also run with the FLAT option (no terrain effects) to ensure that the maximum impacts were assessed (as per SCAQMD modeling guidance). The urban dispersion modeling setting was utilized with an urban population of 9,862,049 (as per SCAQMD Guidance). A near field receptor grid with receptors every 10 meters was used extending 250 meters from the site, with a grid of every 50 meters used beyond that for a distance of about 1 km. The site boundary was set with receptors approximately every 8 meters. Modeling results are shown below in Table 4.2-11. Levels are shown for the peak concentration at a sensitive (residential) receptor, as per SCAQMD Guidance for localized impacts.
Table 4.2-11 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter Background, ug/m3 Project Contribution, ug/m3 Project + Background Threshold Significant?
Pollutant
Phase 2 Flaring PM 24 hr 31 1.37 32.37 PM Annual 19.8 0.34 20.14 Phase 4 Flaring PM 24 hr 31 3.85 34.85 PM Annual 19.8 0.003 19.80 Phase 4 Microturbines PM 24 hr 31 4.87 35.87 PM Annual 19.8 1.37 21.17 Note: The flare and the microturbine would not operate at the same time. Source: AERMOD modeling, see Appendix B
2.5 change 1.0 change 2.5 change 1.0 change
No No Yes No
2.5 change 1.0 change
Yes Yes
Localized impacts associated with the Phase 4 operations would exceed the thresholds for PM and would be considered significant. Localized impacts associated with Phase 2 flaring would be below the thresholds. Mitigation measures discussed above, including limits on the daily flaring, would reduce PM emissions associated with the flare. Mitigation requiring microturbines that produce less PM
4.2-48
emissions, or the installation of fewer microturbines, thereby purchasing more electricity from the grid, would reduce localized impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-4
The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce emissions to below the localized thresholds.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of reduced flare daily hours and reductions in the microturbine PM emissions would reduce the localized impacts from the operations and drilling to less than the localized thresholds (see Table 4.2-12). As the microturbines are not critical to the functioning of the facility (additional electrical power could be purchased from the grid with substantially smaller turbines or heaters to satisfy the minimal heat demands), this mitigation would be feasible. Therefore, the proposed operational emissions would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-12 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter: Mitigated Background, ug/m3 Project Contribution, ug/m3 Project + Background Threshold Significant?
Pollutant
Phase 2 Flaring PM 24 hr 31 1.37 PM Annual 19.8 0.34 Phase 4 Flaring PM 24 hr 31 0.60 PM Annual 19.8 0.003 Phase 4 Microturbines PM 24 hr 31 2.29 PM Annual 19.8 0.64 Source: AERMOD modeling, see Air Quality Appendix
32.37 20.14 31.60 19.80
2.5 change 1.0 change 2.5 change 1.0 change
No No No No
33.29 20.44
2.5 change 1.0 change
No No
Impact #
Impact Description Operational activities would generate emissions that produce offsite odor impacts.
Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4.
AQ.5
Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
An odor is produced by the release of material that contains even small amounts of sulfur compounds or hydrocarbons. Several compounds associated with the oil and gas industry can produce nuisance odors. Sulfur compounds, found in oil and gas, have very low odor threshold levels. For instance, H2S (hydrogen sulfide) can be detected by humans at concentrations from 0.5 parts per billion (ppb, or 0.0005 ppm) (detected by 2 percent of the population) to 40 ppb,
4.2-49
qualified as annoying by 50 percent of the population. Above these levels, it would be detected by most people. The OSHA allowable limit for occupational exposure to H2S is 20 ppm with a 50 ppm peak over 10 minutes (29 CFR 1910.1000 Z-2 Table). Inhaling 100 ppm of H2S can be lethal according to the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (AIHA 2008). The H2S levels in the gas are estimated to be less than 6 ppm. However, it is possible that it could range up to 100 ppm because the gas plant would be designed to process gas with up to 100 ppm H2S. As a worst case, gas H2S levels of 100 ppm have been assumed. Many volatile compounds found in oil and gas (pentane, n-pentane, hexane, ethane and longer chain hydrocarbons) also typically have a petroleum or gasoline odor with varying odor thresholds. The most odiferous of these compounds are hexane, which has an odor threshold of between 68 and 248 ppm, and pentane, with an odor threshold of 2 ppm (New Jersey 2007). Natural gas contains mostly methane, which is odorless so it is odorized as dictated by law before entering a distribution pipeline. The various odorizing compounds contain sulfur compounds and have very low odor thresholds and can produce odors if released into the atmosphere. During Phase 2 and 4, the facility would inspect components for fugitive emissions as required by SCAQMD rule 1173 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants. Rule 1173 prohibits: (1) leaks of light liquids greater than three drops per minute; (2) leaks from gas components greater than 10,000 ppm; (3) leaks from heavy liquid components greater than 100 to 500 ppm; and (4) leaks from a pressure relief valve greater than 200 ppm. Rule 1173 also requires daily inspection of compressors, pumps, and pressure relief devices and inspection of all other components at least quarterly. Any leaks identified greater than 10,000 ppm are required to be repaired within 2 days and any leaks greater than 25,000 ppm are required to be repaired in 1 day. Odor events could occur due to many different situations associated with equipment or drilling upset conditions. The equipment components could also leak and cause odors. Tanks are equipped with hatches to protect them from overpressure. If these hatches lift, due to a failure of the vapor recovery compressor, for example, odor events could occur. During drilling, drilling muds, well kicks, and releases from increased pressure up the wellbore could cause odor events. During drilling, pockets of gas can be encountered, which can be picked up by the circulating muds, brought to the surface, and released through the muds processing system (muds offgassing, discussed above). These types of releases have caused notices of violation (NOV) at other oilfields in the past, such as the Baldwin Hills Oilfield. Any of these scenarios would be considered a significant impact. Due to the close proximity of the site to neighbors, businesses and the public (within 100 feet of businesses, 160 feet of residences, 55 feet of the Greenbelt and 20 feet of the public sidewalks), numerous other scenarios could cause odors offsite. These could include various maintenance activities, small spills and "leaker" components. A single component defined as a "leaker" by Rule 1173 (>10,000 ppm) from a compressor or pump seal, for example, could produce odor impacts 100 feet downwind and would produce odor impacts offsite (as per AERMOD modeling assuming a point source, leaking at the SCAQMD pegged emission rate).
4.2-50
Modeling was conducted to predict the potential extent of odor impacts from normal operations fugitive component leaks and muds off-gassing. The modeling utilized the same meteorological parameters and air dispersion models as the health risk analysis using the HARP Model and was conducted using the AERMOD modeling program assuming area sources for gas component fugitive leaks, muds off-gassing and oil component fugitive leaks. The H2S concentration was assumed to be 100 ppm as a worst case, and H2S in crude oil vapors was assumed to be 10 times higher as a worst case because vapors above crude oil containing even small amounts of H2S can have a substantially higher H2S content than the gas. The odor threshold was conservatively set at 2 parts per billion (ppb) for H2S. The modeling was based on the SCAQMD AERMOD meteorological files for LAX which cover 5 years of data. The results of the modeling indicate that fugitive emissions from normal operations could produce concentrations greater than the odor threshold from the Project equipment, which would reach nearby residences and businesses and public areas offsite. Concentrations of odiferous materials could be as high as 6 times the odor threshold, primarily driven by H2S levels. Odor impacts from normal operations would therefore be considered potentially significant. Because the odor thresholds for materials are very low, in the parts per billion, releases of odor causing materials creates impacts at considerable distances. Therefore, odor impacts associated with accidental releases, such as tank pressure relief device releases, or minor releases from the oil or gas equipment, due to the close proximity of neighbors, could impact surrounding areas and would also be a potentially significant impact. The frequency of odor events can be reduced with systems that direct odor-causing releases to flare-type systems, the use of odor masking materials, and implementing systems to notify operators when releases could or do occur. Increased vigilance associated with Rule 1173 also can reduce emissions from fugitive components. These mitigation measures are frequently utilized in oil fields in urban areas.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-5a
The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable flare at the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas encountered during drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas that is flared. The operator shall report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD. The Applicant shall install a detection system that will monitor vapor space on all crude oil tanks. The detection system shall be capable of monitoring pressure in the vapor space of the tanks and notifying the Operator via an alarm when the pressure in the tanks gets within 10 percent of the tank relief pressure. If the tank pressure exceeds the relief pressure, the Operator shall report the incident to the SCAQMD as a breakdown pursuant to Rule 430, and submit a report of the breakdown to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD, which shall detail the corrective actions the Operator shall take to avoid exceeding the tank relief pressure. The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to and approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall
AQ-5b
AQ-5c
4.2-51
address potential sources of odors from all site equipment, including wells and drilling operations, temporary operations such as truck loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these odors (e.g., containment, design modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues such as facility information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints, the protocol for handling odor complaints and odor event investigations and methods instituted to prevent a re-occurrence. AQ-5d The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors at all perimeter locations of the facility. At all times during operations, drilling, redrilling and workover operations, the Operator shall maintain monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible or visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm points shall be set at a maximum of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down of drilling or plant operations and notification to appropriate agencies, including the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station to monitor wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall be installed at the site. The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables, and shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are not equipped with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for example; the mud baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be detected at the closest receptor. The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action level of 100ppm and the installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or smaller) to ensure that leaking components are minimized at the facility.
AQ-5e
AQ-5f
Residual Impacts
Implementing these mitigation measures would substantially reduce the frequency of odor events that have resulted in odor complaints and NOV at other oilfields in urban settings in the past, as well as other suspected sources of odors associated with the site operations. Although odor events could still occur, with mitigation the number of odor events would most likely be reduced. In addition, normal operations leaking components and muds off-gassing impacts would produce offsite odor concentrations that would be below the odor thresholds. While the Applicant has proposed the development of air monitoring and odor minimization plans, the mitigation measures provide a degree of specificity, addressing issues that are important to include in each plan, and are therefore included as mitigation. However, due to the close proximity of residences, business and public and recreational areas, reducing the number of odor events to less than six per year, (which is the SCAQMD definition
4.2-52
of a nuisance,) would be difficult because the close proximity means that even small upset releases could generate odor events. Impacts would therefore remain significant. Using portable flares and odor suppressants during drilling would reduce the odor events associated with mud vapors and drilling gasses. Technology to separate the muds from entrained gasses and utilize flares, or equivalent devices, to combust the gasses would help reduce the impacts of events similar to the January 2006 event at the Baldwin Hill Oilfield, where gasses entrained in the muds were released and detected by oilfield neighbors. However, note that in the case of the Baldwin Hills Oilfield, neighbors were more than 1,000 feet from the drilling activities. At this site, drilling activities would occur within 20 feet of the public sidewalks, 55 feet from recreational facilities and 100 feet of businesses. The flare systems would be required to utilize a de-gassing vessel (i.e., gas buster). When high gas levels or pressures are detected, the muds would be re-directed to pass through this vessel to release entrained gasses. These gasses would be combusted in a flare while the liquid muds would flow to muds processing. The dedicated flare pilot or igniter would automatically and immediately ignite the flare gasses. The flare would essentially eliminate all of the hydrocarbons in the gas, and the combustion of gasses would create substantial heat, providing the combusted products with sufficient buoyancy to rise quickly into the air without producing odors. This type of flare technology for drilling operations is well developed in the oil and gas industry. Note that mitigation measures identified for impact AQ.3 would reduce muds off-gassing by 90 percent, which would also reduce potential sources of odor impacts. Engineering analysis of the operations identified tank hatches as a potential odor source. The tanks have a relief system that relieves the pressure to the atmosphere instead of to the vapor recovery system if the pressure gets too high inside of the tank. This could occur if the vapor recovery system fails or if surges in fluid flow cause short-term increases in pressure that exceed the capacity of the vapor recovery system compressor. Ensuring appropriate monitoring of the tank relief systems would increase the understanding associated with intermittent tank releases and allow for minimizing these potential odor events by increasing compressor capacity if necessary. By implementing these mitigation measures, the oil operations would substantially reduce the frequency of odor events and impacts to neighbors. However, due to the close proximity of neighbors, and the potential at oil fields to produce relatively localized odors, impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.2.4.5 Potential Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With the addition of combustion and gas processing equipment at the field, and the drilling operations, emissions of GHG would occur.
4.2-53
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
AQ.6
Potential operations and drilling at the Project Site would increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Phase 1 - 4
GHG emissions were estimated utilizing the same equipment size and fuel use data that were used to estimate criteria emissions, along with emission factors as defined by the CARB and the EPA (see Appendix B for the detailed calculations). GHG associated with operations include emissions from combustion sources (e.g., flare, microturbines), offsite vehicles (including crude oil trucking during Phase 2), electrical generation, and fugitive emissions that contain CO2 and methane. The largest sources of GHG emissions would be the microturbines, the flare, and offsite electrical generation. GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.2-13. Emissions associated with stationary equipment, offsite vehicles and electrical generation would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year during Phase 4, both during drilling and during operations without drilling; therefore, the impact would be significant. Phase 2 GHG emissions would not exceed the thresholds. Construction emissions have been amortized over 25 years and added to the Phase 4 GHG emissions. Mitigation measures could include a wide variety of measures, detailed in a plan and annual reports from the Applicant, from onsite increased efficiency to offsite programs implemented in the community, which would reduce GHG emissions. Onsite measures could include: reduced facility water consumption (by reducing pumping electrical consumption and water treatment emissions), waste generation, and material use; recycling to the maximum extent feasible; or equipment changes such as elimination or a reduction in the use of the microturbines. Offsite measures could include sponsoring solar installation, or methane-capture technology projects, including methane capture from dairy and agricultural operations, as well as purchasing offsets from approved sources. All of these activities would reduce emission of GHG.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-6
The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented to achieve the required reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications on the protocol, vintage, and registry for any offsite mitigation. The following mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD approval: 1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD protocol;
4.2-54
3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program; 4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII; 5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American Carbon Registry. In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon registries that follow specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to review and prior approval by the City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for acceptable credits include: Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project yielding quantifiable and verifiable reductions or removals. Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or other requirement. Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are reliable, based on applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate documentation. Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is sufficient evidence to show that the reduction occurred and was quantified correctly. Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the reduction project is implemented correctly. Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the expected life of the reduction project. Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be quantified and reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions reporting will follow the same reporting format and procedures as required by the Mandatory Reporting Rule.
Residual Impacts
Mitigation measure AQ-6 requires annual quantification and reporting of GHG emissions. Mitigation measures associated with criteria pollutants would also reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 80 MTCO2e per year during Phase 4. The GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan allows the Applicant to choose the most effective means of providing the necessary reductions or offsets. Several measures could be implemented to reduce GHG emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of the mitigation, including the following for onsite emissions: Reducing energy use, including natural gas and electricity, from existing and proposed direct sources, which would reduce GHG emissions from fuel combustion and electrical generation. Reducing water use, raw material use, and waste generation and increasing recycling would also reduce GHG emissions by reducing the energy used to transport and pump water, produce goods, and for truck trips.
None of these GHG emission levels would be above the 25,000 MTCO2e per year level that would require the facility be a part of the California Cap-and-Trade program.
4.2-55
Sources of GHG in the community that could be assisted by the Applicant, thereby achieving reductions, could include the following: Planting trees removes CO2 from the atmosphere as the tree grows. Trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store, or sequester, the carbon in the tree trunk, branches, and leaves. Tree carbon calculators indicate that a sycamore, 20 inches in diameter (at 4.5 feet height) and 50 feet tall, stores approximately 2.2 MTCO2e and grows at a rate that sequesters approximately 0.1 MTCO2 per year. Protocols for forest carbon sequestration would be utilized to ensure reductions are legitimate, such as those developed by the Climate Action Reserve. Installation of solar panels at parking lots, for example, or on City buildings or structures, would reduce the need to generate electricity by area utilities and would therefore reduce emissions of GHG. The City indicates that it currently has the capacity on its buildings for about 300 kW of solar panels. The installation of approximately 300 solar panels could reduce annual emissions of GHG by approximately 100 MTCO2e. Sponsoring a solar installation program assisting other entities (such as Hermosa Beach School District) and/or new or retrofitted private development. Obtaining offset credit through the Climate Action Reserve or through the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, would decrease GHG emissions impacts. This offset program establishes standards for the development, quantification, and verification of GHG emissions reduction projects; issues carbon offset credits known as Climate Reserve Tonnes generated from such projects; and tracks the transaction of credits. The CARB participates in the program. The Climate Action Reserve has issued more than 10 million Climate Reserve Tonnes.
A combination of these measures would reduce the GHG emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Impacts would therefore be less than significant with mitigation (Class II). As a note, elimination of the microturbines and utilizing entirely grid power could reduce GHG emissions at the site. This is because electricity generated by SCE relies in part on hydroelectric and low-GHG sources, thereby producing fewer GHG emissions per MWh than what the microturbines generate. However, as the site has a need for heat, which would be recovered from the waste heat from the microturbines under the Proposed Project, this approach would add emission sources including the heater treater, glycol regenerator and the DEA reboiler. Therefore, no GHG gains would be realized from this approach.
Carbon Neutral
In order to achieve a carbon-neutral approach to the Proposed Oil Project, as is defined in the City of Hermosa Beach strategic plan for at least municipal operations, the mitigation measure AQ-6 would need to require that the Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of zero MTCO2e per year.
End Use
End use is the combustion of the crude oil products (after refining into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products) and natural gas by automobiles, trucks, airplanes, residential end users, etc.
4.2-56
End use of the crude oil produced as a part of this Project has not been included in the GHG emissions. Crude oil is supplied to the region from a number of different sources, both local, from California, by train from other parts of the U.S and Canada, and by tanker from Alaska and foreign countries. The demand for crude oil in the region is not a function of supply; if this crude oil is not produced, it will be supplied by another source, as crude oil prices are set largely on the global market. CARB and SCAQMD specifications for the calculation of GHG emissions from a project do not include the end use estimates. Current policies, such as Cap-and-Trade and automobile efficiency standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, address GHG emissions from transportation fuels. The end use of fossil fuels will be encompassed by the Cap-and-Trade program in 2015. However, for informational purposes, the Project would generate, over its life, an average amount of crude oil that would generate 535,000 MTCO2e per year, from the combustion of natural gas, and crude oil products.
Toxic Air Contaminants
With the addition of equipment at the field and drilling operations, emissions of toxic air contaminants would occur. Toxic air contaminant emissions associated with operations would include the emissions from combustion sources (e.g., flare, microturbines) and fugitive emissions. Emissions were quantified using toxic air contaminant factors defined by CARB speciation profiles and the SCAQMD. Appendix B lists emissions quantified by toxic material for the drilling period and the following period when the only drilling would be re-drills or workovers.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant With Mitigation
AQ.7
Potential operations and drilling at the Project Site would emit toxic air contaminants.
Phase 4
According to AB 2588, health risk assessments (HRA) are required for facilities that emit toxic pollutants above a threshold criteria level. Based on SCAQMD annual emission reporting requirements, future operations at the site could exceed the thresholds for equipment that is covered by the SCAQMD Rule 301 reporting requirements. Although the SCAQMD Rule 301 reporting requirement does not include mobile sources and temporary equipment (e.g., drill rigs and construction equipment), they have been included to provide a comparison of these emissions to the reporting thresholds. Table 4.2-14 lists the toxic air contaminants from the Project Site equipment.
4.2-57
Table 4.2-13
GHG Emissions
Activity Construction (Phase 1 and 3) Phase 1 Construction Phase 2 Construction Phase 3 Construction City Maintenance Yard Construction Phase 4 Construction Offsite Construction Total Operations - one time (Phase 2) Drilling Emissions - Testing Testing Emissions Offsite Mobile (all Phase 2) Indirect Electrical Generation Operations - one time total, tons Operations while Drilling (Phase 4) Stationary Equipment Drilling Emissions Offsite Mobile Emissions Water, solid waste, waste water Amortized construction Offsite Electrical Generation Total Operations no Drilling (Phase 4) Stationary Equipment Workover Emissions Offsite Mobile Emissions Water, solid waste, waste water Amortized construction Offsite Electrical Generation Total
N2O, tons 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
CH4, tons 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.00
CO2, tons 93 17 675 273 14 62
MTCO2e 84 16 613 275 13 56 1,057
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04
0.00 12.86 0.00 0.19
8.0 5,605 87 4,107
7 5,290 79 3,711 9,087
0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.16
7.31 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.76
7,174 24 220 0.77 16,580
6,598 22 200 0.69 42 14,981 21,845
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
7.31 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.25
7,174 112.5 127 0.77 5,527
6,598 102 115 0.69 42 4,994 11,852
As part of this analysis, a health risk assessment was conducted using the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model version 1.4f. HARP is a computer software package that combines the tools of emission inventory database, facility prioritization, air dispersion modeling, and risk assessment analysis. All of these tools are tied to a single database allowing sharing and utilization of information. HARP inputs are included in Appendix B.
4.2-58
The State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments outlines the risk assessment methods and procedures (OEHHA 2013). The following paragraphs discuss the inputs associated with the model. Receptor locations were established based on the Project Site boundary, a regional receptor grid, and the closest residences. The main receptor grid covered a 1.5- by 1.5 miles grid with spacing every 160 feet. Receptors closer to the facility were spaced about every 30 feet. Impacts related to pipeline operations would not produce cancer, acute or chronic impacts as the pipeline related emissions would be nominal. Emissions from the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site would also be nominal and would not increase over the current City Maintenance Yard location and would therefore not generate any incremental risk. The health risk assessment utilized local meteorological data for worst-case health risk estimates: SCAQMD meteorological data from the LAX monitoring station was utilized as provided by the SCAQMD. Pursuant to SCAQMD Guidelines, terrain elevation heights were included in the modeling analysis. Digital Elevation Mapping data in the AEMOD AERMAP modeling software were used to input elevations for all sources and receptors. Digital Elevation Mapping data from four U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles were required, which included Inglewood, Redondo, Torrance and Venice. See Appendix B. The analysis was conducted for cancer, acute and chronic impacts. Acute and chronic impacts are assessed through a comparison to the OEHHA approved reference exposure levels, which are the levels at which symptoms would likely occur. This comparison for chronic and acute exposures is termed the health index, or the HI. An HI greater than 1.0 is considered a significant impact. Cancer impacts are assessed relative to the expected number of additional cancer cases per 1 million persons exposed. It was assumed that all offsite individuals would experience a lifetime exposure (i.e., 70 years under the SCAQMD and OEHHA risk assessment guidelines, which is the exposure timeframe to be used for long term projects, even if the project life is less than 70 years) for operations and drilling (including re-drilling and workovers). Two emission scenarios were evaluated in the analysis: a 70-year average emissions profile to estimate lifetime cancer risk, and a peak emissions year that was assumed to persist for 70 years to evaluate the SCAQMDs criteria limiting the risk per year to 1/70 of the maximum allowable risk. Since drilling would only occur over a 2.5 year period, the maximum emissions scenario represents a very conservative estimate of potential health risk. Offsite worker risk (workers at facilities different than the Proposed Project) was also examined for cancer based on a reduced exposure timeframe and breathing rate, as per OEHHA guidelines (OEHHA 2013). Table 4.2-15 shows the results of the HARP modeling for the facility fenceline (for Point of Maximum Impact, PMI) and for the closest receptor (residence) for the peak year cancer risk. Based on the health risk assessment modeling results, potential health risks would be considered
significant. Sources that would make the greatest contribution to the increased health risk levels were emissions from the diesel equipment used throughout the life of the Project, including the diesel forklift during drilling and redrilling and the diesel equipment used for workovers, as well as emissions from the crude oil tanks. Due to the close proximity of the facility boundary to industrial receptors/workers and residences, risks would be above the thresholds for the unmitigated scenario.
Table 4.2-14 Phase 4 Equipment Toxic Air Contaminants
Compound Acetaldehyde Acrolein Arsenic and Compounds (inorganic) Benzene Butadiene [1,3] Cadmium Chlorine Copper Diesel exhaust particulates Ethyl benzene Formaldehyde Hexane Hydrogen sulfide Lead compounds (inorganic) Manganese Mercury Methanol Methyl ethyl ketone {2-Butanone} Naphthalene [PAH, POM] Nickel Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total, w/o individual components reported [PAH, POM] Propylene Selenium Styrene Toluene Xylenes Zinc Note: CAS stands for the Chemical Abstract Number
CAS 75070 107028 7440382 71432 106990 7440439 7782505 7440508 9901 100414 50000 110543 647783 7439921 7439965 7439976 67561 78933 91203 7440020 1151 115071 7782492 100425 108883 1330207 7440666
Peak Year, lbs 7.3E+0 2.3E-1 6.5E-3 1.6E+2 1.8E-1 2.6E-3 2.8E-3 5.8E-3 9.4E+1 1.0E+0 1.5E+1 6.3E+2 0.0E+0 9.1E-4 5.1E-3 6.4E-4 2.9E-2 1.4E+0 1.1E-1 8.2E-4 1.4E-1 2.5E+0 7.3E-4 5.7E-2 9.4E+1 2.8E+0 2.0E-1
Average Year lbs 1.5E+1 2.3E-1 6.3E-3 1.1E+2 3.7E-1 2.6E-3 2.8E-3 5.7E-3 9.2E+1 1.3E+0 3.0E+1 4.4E+2 0.0E+0 8.9E-4 5.0E-3 6.3E-4 5.8E-2 2.9E+0 2.0E-1 8.0E-4 2.5E-1 5.1E+0 7.1E-4 1.2E-1 6.9E+1 3.5E+0 2.0E-1
The cancer burden is defined as the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population subject to a cancer risk of greater than or equal to one in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6) resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants.
4.2-60
The cancer risk contours are shown in Figures 4.2-5, 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 for acute and chronic impacts health index and cancer cases per one million persons. The results of the HARP modeling (summarized in Table 4.2-15) show that both acute and chronic impacts are below the applicable thresholds under the Proposed Oil Project. The cancer risk would be significant and are driven by diesel particulate matter (96 percent of the risk) from diesel engines (primarily workover rig engines) followed by benzene from crude oil fugitive emissions. The point of maximum impact (PMI) is defined as the offsite point of maximum impact which, for this Project, would occur along the western property boundary (see Figures 4.2-5, 4.2-6 and 4.2-7).
Table 4.2-15 Health Risk Assessment Results: Unmitigated Criteria Description HRA Result
Threshold Significant? Value Cancer risk, per million, Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) 689 10 Yes Cancer risk, per million, peak residential risk 46 10 Yes Cancer risk, per million, peak worker risk 105 10 Yes Peak Annual Equivalent Cancer peak residential risk 53 10 Yes Cancer Burden 0.12 0.5 No Chronic risk, health index 0.39 1 No Acute risk, health index 0.38 1 No Notes: Cancer thresholds are cancer cases per one million persons. Chronic and acute thresholds are the health index (HI). PMI based on fence line, worker based on closest business, peak annual based on closest residence (as per SCAQMD HRA Guidance). Source: HARP model. The PMI occurs at the western property boundary 30 feet from drilling activities.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures have been identified as part of the air quality analysis. Implementing these mitigation measures, including the mitigation measures identified in the discussions of impacts AQ.3, AQ.4 and AQ.5, would reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants. In addition: AQ-7a All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate catalyst to reduce Diesel PM emissions. All workover rigs shall utilize electric drive/sources and shall not utilize diesel generators or engines. Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of fugitive emissions.
AQ-7b
Residual Impacts
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, the HARP model was rerun using the same approach as was used to evaluate the potential future site development. Table 4.1-16 presents the results of the revised health risk assessment modeling. Worst-case health risks associated with mitigated Project operations would be below all applicable health risk criteria.
4.2-61
Mitigation would essentially eliminate most diesel PM emissions at the site. Remaining health impacts would be primarily associated with emissions from the crude oil tanks and, to a lesser extent, the fugitive emissions from the facility and the use of the mitigated forklift during drilling. With implementation of these mitigation measures, which would meet the SCAQMD Best Available Control Technology for Toxics requirements, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-16 Health Risk Assessment Results: Mitigated Criteria Description
HRA Threshold Significant? Result Value Cancer risk, per million, Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) 6.2 10 No Cancer risk, per million, peak residential risk 1.3 10 No Cancer risk, per million, peak worker risk 0.9 10 No Peak Annual Equivalent Cancer peak residential risk 2.6 10 No Cancer Burden <0.01 0.5 No Chronic risk, health index 0.004 1 No Acute risk, health index 0.01 1 No Source: HARP model. Cancer risk at the PMI would occur within the industrial zoned area.
4.2.4.6 Compliance with Area Air Quality Management Plans
The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) includes implementing control measures and strategies to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Basin. The SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to control or reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment. A project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if it results in population or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in that AQMP. Projects that do not involve growth-inducing impacts or exceed local or regional population or growth projections are generally considered consistent with the AQMP. The Proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD regulations and is not expected to result in population growth, and it would therefore comply with the goals of the AQMP.
4.2-62
Figure 4.2-5
Acute Impacts Health Index
Notes: HI=Health Impacts, PMI = Point of Maximum Impact
4.2-63
Figure 4.2-6
Chronic Impacts Health Impacts
4.2-64
Figure 4.2-7
Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Unmitigated
4.2-65
Figure 4.2-8
Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Mitigated
4.2-66
4.2.4.7 Valve Box Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the location of the valve box for the tie-in to the crude oil system. Air quality impacts could be realized if leaks occurred from components, causing localized odors. Therefore, the greater separation distance the better from populated areas. The valve box options 2 and 4 provide the best separation distance, with the Proposed Project location and option 3 being closer to receptors (a recreation/softball field and apartments and commercial areas, respectively).
4.2.4.8 Pipeline Route Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the pipeline route for tie-in to the crude oil system. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 involve construction in the roadway, which would require additional construction activities, including asphalt laying, which would generate more emissions than Scenario 3, which would be installed within the mostly dirt SCE right-ofway. Scenario 3 would therefore be preferable. However, none of the scenarios produce significant impacts.
4.2.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options for parking: a No Added Parking option that would retain the same number of parking spaces as are currently available at Hermosa Self-Storage; and a Parking Option, that would add 97 parking spaces. Under the Parking Option, additional construction would be required to construct the lower parking levels, thereby increasing construction emissions over the No Added Parking option. During operations, the Parking Option would introduce vehicle emissions into an area that does not currently have vehicles. However, as no diesel trucks would be used or distribution-type activities would be taking place, and traffic volumes would be below the levels that could produce CO Hot Spots, impacts would be less than significant. Otherwise, for operations, the two options would generate the same air quality impacts.
4.2.5 Comparison to Applicant Studies
The Applicant provided an air quality analysis associated with their Application materials. The EIR analysis provides general agreement with the criteria pollutant emissions levels as provided by the Applicant as the same emission factors were used for the combustion equipment. The EIR analysis was more conservative (higher emissions estimates) on the fugitive emissions as the SCAQMD default values were used instead of estimating the number of leaking components that would occur during inspections. For the modeling and estimates of localized impacts, this EIR produced more conservative values for ground level concentrations of pollutants as substantial building downwash was included in the analysis. The Applicant did not perform a health risk analysis, examining cancer risks, for example.
4.2-67
The GHG emissions estimates in this EIR are in general agreement for onsite emissions from combustion equipment, with this EIR producing a slightly higher emissions estimate as the AP42 GHG emission factor was used for gas combustion, and flaring to the full extent allowed by SCAQMD (200 hours per year) was assumed. The GHG emissions during operations (not the 2.5 years of drilling on Phase 4) were in general agreement with the Applicant. However, the EIR also calculated GHG emissions during the 2.5 years of drilling, when substantially more electricity would be used (for operating the electric drilling rig) and during this period of Phase 4, GHG estimates are substantially higher in this EIR. The Applicant studies did not calculated GHG emissions for the Phase 4 drilling period.
Some mitigation measures could increase construction requirements associated with the Project such as the permanent wall (AE-1b) which could increase construction-related emissions. However, none of these mitigation measures would increase the peak day emissions or operational health risk emissions. Therefore, the other issue area mitigation measures would not result in additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
Localized air quality impacts are generally restricted to an area within a few blocks from a project site. The localized impacts of the unmitigated Proposed Project would extend about 500 feet. None of the cumulative projects would be constructed near enough to the Proposed Project area for localized impacts to overlap, so there would be no operational localized impacts associated with cumulative projects. The AES project in the City of Redondo Beach, approximately 0.5 miles south of the Project Site, and the Proposed Project would not overlap localized criteria pollutant impacts since they are too far from one another to produce cumulative impacts. Operational regional impacts could be produced, however, as multiple projects would emit into the same air basin at the same time. However, as the SCAQMD has established thresholds for individual projects that would protect the air quality and achieve the long term goals of the Air Quality Management Plan, the mitigated Proposed Project would not produce cumulative significant impacts. Since none of the cumulative projects would be constructed near the Proposed Project sites, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with odors or toxic air contaminants. Emissions of GHG would contribute to global GHG emissions. Since the Proposed Project GHG emissions would be mitigated to less than significant and, as per CEQA Guidelines section 15130, the Proposed Project would be making a fair share contribution to solving global GHG impacts, cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant.
4.2-68
4.2.8

Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1a
Requirements The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction). Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation. The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party SCAQMD Plan Before and review, site during City of inspections construction Hermosa Both Oil Beach Project and City Yard
AQ-1b
Plan review, site inspections
Before and during construction
SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach
4.2-69
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
Requirements and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications. Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided to the City and SCAQMD when each piece of equipment is mobilized. The Applicant shall limit flaring to a total of 5 hours per day at the full flaring capacity (or equivalent) during all emergency or routine flaring events in order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the thresholds. Lower NOx emission combustors or other equivalent measures can also be used to satisfy the requirement. The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least 90 percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control (either through carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing units routed to vapor control systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor immediately above the muds exit point from the wellbore and at other areas above the mud pits where muds may be exposed to the atmosphere in order to ensure that hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90 percent. The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce emissions to below the localized thresholds.
AQ-3a
Before Phase 4 operations
AQ-3b
Before Phase 2 drilling
AQ-4
4.2-70
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-5a Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party SCAQMD Plan Before review, site Phase 2 City of inspections drilling Hermosa Beach
Requirements The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable flare at the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas encountered during drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas that is flared. The operator shall report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD. The Applicant shall install a detection system that will monitor vapor space on all crude oil tanks. The detection system shall be capable of monitoring pressure in the vapor space of the tanks and notifying the Operator via an alarm when the pressure in the tanks gets within 10 percent of the tank relief pressure. If the tank pressure exceeds the relief pressure, the Operator shall report the incident to the SCAQMD as a breakdown pursuant to Rule 430, and submit a report of the breakdown to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD, which shall detail the corrective actions the Operator shall take to avoid exceeding the tank relief pressure The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to and approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall address potential sources of odors from all site equipment, including wells and drilling operations, temporary operations such as truck loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these odors (e.g., containment, design modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues such as facility information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints, the protocol for handling odor complaints and odor event investigations and methods instituted to prevent a reoccurrence. The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors at all perimeter locations of the facility. At all times during operations, drilling, redrilling
AQ-5b
AQ-5c
AQ-5d
4.2-71
Requirements and workover operations, the Operator shall maintain monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible or visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm points shall be set at a maximum of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down of drilling or plant operations and notification to appropriate agencies, including the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station to monitor wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall be installed at the site. The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables, and shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are not equipped with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for example; the mud baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be detected at the closest receptor. The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action level of 100ppm and the installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or smaller) to ensure that leaking components are minimized at the facility. The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented to achieve the required reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications on the protocol, vintage, and registry for any offsite mitigation. The following mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD approval:
AQ-5e
AQ-5f
AQ-6
4.2-72
Requirements 1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program; 4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII; 5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American Carbon Registry. In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon registries that follow specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to review and prior approval by the City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for acceptable credits include: Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project yielding quantifiable and verifiable reductions or removals. Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or other requirement. Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are reliable, based on applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate documentation. Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is sufficient evidence to show that the reduction occurred and was quantified correctly. Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the reduction project is implemented correctly. Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the expected life of the reduction project. Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be quantified and reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions reporting will follow the same reporting format and procedures as required by the
4.2-73
Requirements Mandatory Reporting Rule.
AQ-7a
AQ-7b
All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate catalyst to reduce Diesel PM emissions. All workover rigs shall utilize electric drive/sources and shall not utilize diesel generators or engines. Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of fugitive emissions.

Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-1a Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party SCAQMD Plan Before and review, site during City of inspections construction Hermosa Both Oil Beach Project and City Yard
Requirements The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following: Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction). Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). Install gravel bed trackout apron (3
4.2-74
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
Requirements inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation. The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD: All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications. Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided when each piece of equipment is mobilized.
AQ-1b
4.2-75
4.2-76
4.3 Biological Resources
4.3
Biological Resources
This section describes environmental and regulatory settings related to offshore and onshore biological resources in the vicinity of the proposed E&B Oil and Gas Development Project (Project) Site; identifies impacts to these biological resources from the Proposed Project; identifies cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project and other projects in the region; and recommends mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The scope of this analysis includes all sites potentially affected by the Proposed Project, which include the existing City Maintenance Yard, the new City Maintenance Yard location and the location of the pipelines. However, the areas potentially affected directly by the Proposed Project constitute mostly previously disturbed and built out areas with little or no biological resources that could be impacted. This section also focuses on areas that could be affected as a result of an oil spill and includes descriptions of the offshore environment and onshore biological resources such as the Greenbelt. The onshore and offshore areas that could be potentially affected by an oil spill are described as general Project areas throughout the rest of this section. This following description of the affected marine and onshore environment is based on a reconnaissance-level field survey conducted October 23, 2013, queries of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Project plans and graphic renderings, the City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and other relevant data sources, including environmental documents that examine the environmental conditions of the Santa Monica Bay and Southern California Bight (SCB) region (CDFG 2001, CDFG and CINMS 2001, SMBRC 2008). A MRS senior biologist performed a reconnaissance survey of the proposed Pipeline route and the Project Site by walking its entire perimeter. Limited onsite natural resources were identified in the survey. These are described below.
The Proposed Project is bounded by the following: to the east by Valley Drive, the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail), Ardmore Park and, further to the east, by Ardmore Avenue and residential development; to the south by 6th Street, the Beach Cities Self Storage facility, light manufacturing land uses and, further to the south, by South Park and residential development; to the west by light manufacturing land uses, Cypress Street and, further to the west, by residential development; and to the north by light manufacturing land uses and, further to the north, by residential development and 8th Street. The site is fully developed with various buildings used as part of the Public Works Facility in addition to concrete and asphalt paving.
4.3.1.1 Onshore Resources Urban/Landscaped
As depicted on the Proposed Project and Pipeline route map (see Section 2.0, Project Description), the entire Proposed Project, including the Pipeline route and the proposed temporary and permanent City Maintenance Yard , is located on and within existing facilities,
4.3-1
paved roads, the existing SCE right of way, and parking areas. The habitat adjacent to the Proposed Pipeline route was inspected during the reconnaissance survey to ensure adequate identification of potential biological resources in the general vicinity of the Project. All of the vegetative communities surrounding the Project Site and along the Pipeline route were characterized as urban, disturbed, or developed communities, with the only open areas consisting of the vegetation located within the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (Greenbelt). The Greenbelt runs parallel to the Proposed Pipeline route along Valley Drive for approximately 2,000 feet. The disturbed or developed vegetation communities, as these terms are used in standardized habitat classification systems, collectively refer to areas that have been modified by humans. These include urban, rural residential, and commercial and industrial landscapes and would include the assortment of ornamental trees and shrubs located within the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt was developed in 1986 on an abandoned Santa Fe Railroad spur, which originally connected Redondo Beach Wharf to downtown Los Angeles. The Greenbelt was initially planted in the late 1980s (Veterans Parkway Master Planning Document, Manhattan Beach June 2013) and includes a jogging trail, work out stations, benches, and shade trees. The non-native trees and shrubs located within the Greenbelt include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), and acacia (Acacia sp.). Many of the trees and most of the shrubs show evidence of repeated pruning, which reduces the amount of cover at ground level. The groundcover consists of non-native grasses, ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), and Boston ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata). Although the Greenbelt consists primarily of non-native vegetation, these trees and shrubs do provide some limited resources for those wildlife species that are accustomed to heavily urbanized settings. These species, including possum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor), may use the accessibility and cover found on the greenbelt for a travel corridor between urban areas. The heavy human use and repeated vegetation pruning would reduce the overall value to most wildlife species. The trees and shrubs are also expected to provide canopy structure and cover suitable for numerous bird species for roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat. Bird species observed during the reconnaissance survey include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna). Such areas are important resources for perching, foraging, and nesting for raptor species that are capable of coexisting in urban areas, including the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).
Sandy Beach
The Proposed Project Site is approximately 1,700 feet to the east of the Hermosa Beach coastline. Several stormwater lines that drain off Valley Drive run perpendicular to the proposed Pipeline route and outflow onto the sandy beach habitat (see Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards). Sandy beach habitat is typically found between the intertidal zone and areas where vegetation becomes established, typically forming foredunes or pioneer dunes. Several invertebrate species (predominantly crustaceans and worms) are adapted to the wave action and shifting sands of the intertidal zone and are able to bury themselves quickly or deeply to avoid predation and displacement due to sand movement. These invertebrates attract shorebirds that are most abundant during the fall and winter and include willet (Tringa semipalmata), sanderling (Calidris alba), western (Calidris maudi) and least (Calidris minutilla) sandpipers and various
species of gull (Larus spp.). There was no vegetation observed along the sandy beach habitat or any signs of any additional vegetative communities in the general area. The entire beach area is heavily used by people recreating in the area.
Coastal Sage Scrub/Southern Coastal Scrub
Coastal sage scrub and southern coastal scrub communities consist primarily of low-growing, drought-tolerant native shrubs with an understory of grasses and herbs. These communities typically occur at lower, drier sites than chaparral assemblages. Southern coastal scrub is a structurally diverse vegetation community where animals typically have numerous opportunities to find food and shelter. This community in the Project area is mostly absent and has been heavily impacted in its range by fragmentation, invasive non-native weeds, and pollution. Originally, this community would have been the dominant habitat in the Project area; it is now extremely rare in the general area and was not observed during the reconnaissance survey of the Project Site and Pipeline route
4.3.1.2 Offshore Resources
The offshore areas that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Oil Project are located in the south-central part of the Santa Monica Bay near the city of Manhattan Beach, California (Figure 2.1). Santa Monica Bay is a large, open-water embayment of the Pacific Ocean that is bordered offshore by the Santa Monica Basin, on each end by the rocky headlands of Point Dume and the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and onshore by the Los Angeles Coastal Plain and the Santa Monica Mountains (SMBRC 2008). It is the natural drainage basin for approximately 414 square miles of land within the Los Angeles Coastal Plain. Santa Monica Bay itself is an integral part of the larger geographic region commonly known as the Southern California Bight (SCB), wherein the characteristic north-south trending coastline found off much of western North America experiences a significant curvature or indentation south of Point Conception. The SCB includes coastal southern California, the Channel Islands, and the local portion of the Pacific Ocean. The portion of the Pacific Ocean that occupies this region, from Point Conception in the north to just past San Diego in the south and extending offshore of San Nicolas Island, is characterized by complex current circulation patterns and a diverse range of marine habitats. The mainland coast and offshore islands contain rocky shores, long stretches of sandy beach, and numerous embayments. The wide variety of habitats found in the SCB encourages a similarly rich and varied marine life. In particular, the Channel Islands are important breeding grounds for several diminishing populations of marine birds and marine mammal species. Since the Channel Islands are situated some distance from a heavily populated coastline in southern California, they also represent the best examples of pristine environments in the southern California area. Marine biological resources that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Oil Project can be described in terms of three major habitat areas: open ocean, seafloor, and shoreline. Within the SCB, each of these three biological habitats is exceptionally diverse and productive. Marine resources of the Bay include a rich diversity of migratory and resident species of mammals, birds, fishes, and invertebrates.
4.3-3
Marine Birds
The SCB supports a rich population of seabirds (Baird 1993), providing a major foraging area for both residents and migrants. Seabirds can be segregated into two main groups: coastal and pelagic. Coastal seabirds feed in the pelagic realm but tend to remain within approximately five miles of the mainland shore. Common coastal seabirds include Western (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clarks grebes (Aechmorphorus clarkii), surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), loons (Gavia spp.), California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), and gulls (Subfamily Laridae). The highest coastal seabird densities occur in the SCB during winter months. However, California brown pelican populations generally peak in the summer months when birds from large Mexican colonies migrate northward. In contrast, pelagic seabirds spend most of their time farther from shore. As with coastal seabirds, they spend much of their time on the sea surface or diving into the water column to feed. Some of the most common offshore birds in the region include: shearwaters (Puffinus spp.), northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), phalaropes (Phalaropus spp.), jaegers (Stercorarius spp.), and common murres (Uria aalge). Storm-petrels (Oceanodroma spp.), puffins (Fratercula spp.), and auklets (Family Alcidae) also frequent the offshore waters of the Project area. Seasonal population peaks vary among the taxa; most seabird rookeries in the region are located on offshore islands, predominately the northern Channel Islands; few, if any, seabirds nest on the mainland coast of the SCB (Carter et al. 1992).
Marine Mammals
Because of its transitional location between the cooler zoogeographic province to the north of Point Conception and the subtropical province to the south that comprises most of southern Californias waters, the SCB supports a wide variety of marine mammals. More than 40 species of marine mammals are reported within the area, all of which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These include 34 species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and six species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) (Carretta et al. 2005, Leatherwood and Reeves 1983, and Reeves et al.1992). Additionally, the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), a representative of the weasel family, Mustelidae, is also occasionally observed in the region. Six species of cetaceans are federally listed as endangered, while two species of pinnipeds and the southern sea otter are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Marine mammal species in the region can be classified into three categories: (1) migrants that pass through the area on their way to calving or feeding grounds; (2) seasonal visitors that remain for a limited time; and (3) residents that remain much or all of the year. Five whale species transit the potentially affected area during annual migrations, while all but one of the dolphin species have resident populations within the area.
Marine Turtles
Though uncommon in the region, four species of marine turtles are known to inhabit the northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, all of which are protected under the FESA. They are the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
4.3-4
caretta) (Hubbs 1977). The green, olive ridley, and loggerhead turtles are listed as federally threatened species, while the leatherback is listed as a federally endangered species.
Hard Substrate Invertebrates
Natural hard substrate in Santa Monica Bay is primarily limited to areas adjacent to rocky headlands at the north and south of the Bay, submarine canyon edges, and the short Bank region (Allen 1982). Hard-bottom habitats have a diverse and abundant assemblage of organisms that are often unique to their habitat (MBC 1993). These areas provide substrate suitable for attachment of a variety of plants and sessile invertebrates, as well as shelter and forage for more motile organisms. Sessile species utilizing hard-bottom substrate include mussels, rock scallops (Family Pectinidae), barnacles, sponges, sea anenomes, sea fans (Order Gorgonacea), feather duster worms (Family Serpulidae), wormsnails (Family Vermetidae), and sea squirts (Order Ascidiacea). Most of these sessile invertebrates feed by filtering plankton and detritus from the water column. Motile invertebrates, including crabs, octopuses, and shrimp hide in crevices or are protectively colored. Invertebrates associated with hard bottom substrates are frequently a food source for birds (in the exposed intertidal zone) and fish (in the subtidal zone). Nearshore reefs provide substrate for giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii), and palm kelp (Pterogophora californica), which provide additional habitat for a multitude of organisms. Since most hard bottom habitats in the Bay are of low relief, the presence of kelp often lends a vertical element to the habitat that is otherwise lacking. Because reefs are diverse and have an abundance of unique organisms, they are also important sites for recreational diving and fishing (MBC 1993). California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus), yellow and Pacific rock crabs (Cancer spp.), red and purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S. purpuratus, respectively), and spot shrimp/prawn (Pandalus platyceros) are fished recreationally in the region (MBC 1993). Abalone, another hard substrate organism, was fished both recreationally and commercially until the 1990s.
Kelp Beds
Rocky subtidal habitats in Santa Monica Bay and throughout much of the SCB are vegetated with a wide variety of red and brown algae (MBC 1993). Red algae generally form a low turf or understory of coralline, foliose, and filamentous forms from shore to the edge of the photic zone. Brown algae are generally larger and form an overstory; locally, feather-boa kelp is dominant nearshore, while giant kelp dominates deeper areas of reefs, forming large beds at depths of 20 to 120 feet (6.1 to 36.6 m) (CDFG 2001). Giant kelp is a large, fast-growing, perennial algae that thrives in protected nearshore waters from Baja California to Santa Cruz. Kelp usually attaches to rock outcrops or large cobbles to stay in place; however, under calm conditions kelp plants have occasionally established themselves successfully in sandy subtidal regions as well, generally by attaching themselves to worm tubes. Giant kelp beds form an important and distinct marine habitat along the rocky coastal reaches of the SCB, particularly within the nearshore waters of the Channel Islands. While historically more widespread, during the past decade, kelp beds near the Project area have been limited to the extreme northern and southern portions of Santa Monica Bay. The rocky bottoms found offshore
4.3-5
Leo Carillo State Beach, the Malibu coast, and along the Palos Verdes Shelf support the majority of the kelp stands within the Bay, although individual plants occasionally manage to gain a foothold on temporarily exposed rocks along the sandy, central portion of the Bay as well (MBC 1993). Most hard bottom habitats in Santa Monica Bay are of low relief. The presence of kelp in such areas creates a vertically structured habitat that extends from the seafloor all the way up to the sea surface. Giant kelp beds provide food, shelter, and nursery areas for a variety of invertebrates and fishes, some of which are uniquely adapted for life in the kelp beds. Kelp bass, black perch, rubberlip seaperch, opaleye, kelp rockfish, and olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) are all commonly encountered in kelp beds. Topsmelt, kelp pipefish (Syngnathus californiensis), kelp perch (Brachyistius frenatus), giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus), kelp clingfish (Rimicola muscarum), and kelp gunnel (Apodichthys [=Ulvicola] sanctaerosae) are fishes known to frequent the canopy, or upper reaches of the kelp forest (MBC 1993). Lower down in the water column, where the leafy canopy is not as dense, yellowtail, white sea bass (Atractoscion [=Cynoscion] nobilis), rubberlip seaperch, halfmoon (Medialuna californiensis), and halfblind goby (Lethops connectens) can be found. Several of these species are important commercial and recreational fishery species.
Soft Bottom Substrate
The soft-bottom habitat of Santa Monica Bay supports a diverse and abundant infauna. As many as 1,200 infaunal species have been reported from Santa Monica Bay. The abundance and distribution of infauna varies seasonally and interannually. However, infauna in the Santa Monica Bay is usually dominated, in both number of species and individuals, by polychaete worms. Polychaetes play an important role in reworking the sediments and are important constituents in the diet of many demersal fish. Other important infaunal groups include crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms (Phylum Echinodermata). Epibenthic (living on the bottom) invertebrates of the Bay include sea stars, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, sea urchins, crabs, snails, and sea slugs. These organisms are larger than infaunal species, generally less common and, therefore, spaced further apart. However, sand dollars and sea urchins often occur in very dense, single-species patches that limit the abundance of other species.
Fish
The extensive soft-bottom habitat within Santa Monica Bay supports an abundant and diverse assemblage of more than 100 species of demersal (living on or just above the bottom) fish. Flatfishes (Families Pleuronectidae, Paralichthyidae, Cynoglossidae, and Bothidae), rockfishes (Family Scorpaenidae), sculpins (Family Cottidae), combfishes (Family Zaniolepididae), and eelpouts (Family Zoarcidae) make up most of the soft-bottom fish fauna in the Bay (MBC 1993). The inner shelf assemblage is dominated by speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), the middle shelf by stripetail rockfish (Sebastes saxicola), and the outer shelf by slender sole (Lyopsetta exilis) (Allen 1982). Over hard-bottom substrates, fish assemblages generally differ in composition relative to depth. Common shallow-water families include sea basses (Family Serranidae), surfperches, rockfishes,
4.3-6
kelpfishes (Family Clinidae), sculpins, damselfishes (Family Pomacentridae), and wrasses (Family Labridae). Important species in Santa Monica Bay include kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus), pile perch (Damalichthys vacca), black perch (Embiotoca jacksoni), white seaperch (Phanerodon furcatus), rubberlip seaperch (Rhacochilus toxotes), seorita (Oxyjulis californica), and opaleye (MBC 1993). Rocky subtidal species found in Santa Monica Bay include woolly sculpin (Clinocottus analis), opaleye, rockpool blenny (Hypsoblennius gilberti), spotted kelpfish (Gibbsonia elegans), and California clingfish (Gobiesox rhessodon). In deeper waters, vermilion rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod (Sebastes levis), and flag rockfish (Sebastes rubrivinctus) dominate (Allen et al. 1976, Moore and Mearns 1980).
4.3.1.3 Rare, Endangered, and Special Status Species
Species are considered endangered if in imminent danger of extinction, or threatened if they are likely to be in danger soon, and are, therefore, given special protection under the provisions of the FESA and California Endangered Species Act (California ESA). Table 4.3-1 summarizes the Federal and State endangered, threatened, and special status species identified in the CNDDB search that are recorded as being present or have historical records near the general project area. Many of the sensitive plant wildlife species identified in the CNDDB query (Redondo and Venice USGS Quad Summaries 3311874/090C and 3311884/090B) as being recorded in the project area are currently described as being extirpated from the area. In addition, most of the sensitive species included in Table 4.3-1 require specific coastal dune or coastal marsh habitat that is not present in the project area, and are therefore, considered to be unlikely to be present in the project area. As required by CEQA, species that are considered sensitive resources are included below. The following discussion includes those species that were identified in the CNDDB query, have a federal or state status including CDFW species of special concern and plant given status by the CNPS.
Beach Spectacle-Pod
Beach spectacle-pod (Dythyrea maritima) is a low growing, whitish-flowered perennial herb found in small transverse foredunes within approximately 150 to 1,000 feet of the surf. Beach spectacle-pod is usually found in areas of these fragile dunes where the sand is relatively unstable. Although historically present in the El Segundo dunes and Ballona Wetlands, much of the potentially suitable habitat for the beach spectacle-pod within the region was converted due to residential development between 1940 and 1974. This species has not been successfully reintroduced despite revegetation efforts between 1990 and 1994, and it is considered locally extinct.
Coastal Dunes Milk-Vetch
Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi) is a low, dwarf annual plant in the pea family (Fabaceae). This plant grows in moist depressions on clay soils in coastal terrace grasslands and in coastal strand vegetation on sand dunes. Historically, the range of the coastal dunes milk-vetch was known to include Monterey, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties; however, it is now presumed extant at only three locations, one in Monterey County and two in San Diego County.
Table 4.3-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area Common Name Plants Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Historical records in Hermosa Beach, El Segundo and Ballona wetlands; CNDDB (2013) describes this species as extirpated from area. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes; recorded population probably extirpated (CNDDB 2013). Not in project vicinity. Coastal salt marsh; historically observed in Ballona Marsh; presumed extirpated (CNDDB 2013). Not in project vicinity. Marshes and swamps; historical populations located in Ballona marsh (CNDDB 2013); no habitat present in Project vicinity. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes. Recent observartions at sand Dune Park in Manhattan Beach Facility Yard (CNDDB 2013). No coastal dune habitat in Project fooprint. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; Present in Palos Verdes peninsula on coastal bluffs. No suitable habitat in Project vicinity. Scientific Name Status Habitat/Occurrence
Beach spectacle-pod Coastal dunes milk-vetch Ventura marsh milk-vetch Southern tarplant Orcutts pincusion Island green dudleya Invertebrates
Dythyrea maritima
ST; CNPS List 1B.1
Astragalus tener var. titi Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanoissimus Centromadia parryi ssp. australis Chaaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Dudleya virens ssp. insularis
FE, SE
FE, SE CNPS List 1B.1 CNPS List 1B.1 CNPS List 1B.2
Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
El Segundo blue butterfly
Euphilotes battoides allyni
FE
Palos Verdes blue butterfly
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
FE
Globose Dune beetle
Coelus globosus
SSC
Roosts located in wind protected tree groves; observed in Ballona Wetlands in 1997 and in El Segundo City park in 1970s. No roosting habitat in Project footprint. Coastal dune habitat; host plant is Eriogonum parvifolium. Present in El Segundo dune habitat west of LAX and in Chevron refinery and 1990 records in Malago Cove, just north of Palos Verdes Peninsula, and in Miramar Park, Redondo Beach in 2007 (CNDDB 2013). No coastal dune habitat or Eriogunum parvifolium in Project vicinity, unlikely to be present. Restricted to seaward Palos Verdes slopes; host plant is Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus; record in Malaga Canyon (CNDDB 2013). No habitat or Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus present in Project vicinity, unlikely to be present. Coastal sand dune habitat, most common beneath dune vegetation, recorded in Ballona Wetlands in 1995 (CNDDB 2013). No coastal dune vegetation on Project vicinity.
4.3-8
Table 4.3-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area Common Name Birds Open dry annual grasslands; extirpated as breeder, observed in winter (CNDDB 2013). No habitat present in Project area. Coastal salt marsh; recent records in Ballona Wetlands. No habitat present in Project area; species not likely in Project area. Coastal sage scrub. Recent records in Palos Verdes peninsula, Portuguese Bend, Klondike Canyon and Coronell Canyon in scrub dominated by Artemisia Californica (CNDDB 2013). No habitat present in Project area. Abundant along coastal areas. Nests on coastal islands. Likely to be occasionally present in small numbers on Beach habitat. Abundant along coastal areas. Nests on coastal islands. Likely to be occasionally present in small numbers on Beach habitat. Present along coastal areas. Historically nested at Venice Beach site and Ballona Creek. Likely to forage in small numbers in offshore waters. Present in coastal areas. Likely to be present in small numbers in offshore waters. Abundant along coastal areas. Nests on coastal islands. Likely to be present in small numbers in offshore waters. Sandy beaches; no recent breeding records (CNDDB 2013), but likely to be present on beach during non-breeding season. (CNDDB 2013). Scientific Name Status Habitat/Occurrence
Burrowing owl Beldings Savannah Sparrow Coastal California gnatcatcher California brown pelican California gull California least tern Common loon Double-crested cormorant Western snowy plover Mammals South coast marsh vole Blue whale Fin whale Humpback whale North Pacific Right whale Sei whale
Athene cunicularia Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Polioptila californica californica Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Larus californicus Sterna antillarum browni Gavia immer Phalacrocorax auritus Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
SSC
SE
FT, SSC
FP
SSC
FE, SE/FP SSC SSC
FE, SSC
Microtus californicus stephensi Balaenoptera musculus Balaenoptera physalus Megaptera novaeangliae Eubalaena japonica Balaenoptera borealis
SSC FE FE FE FE FE
Tidal marshes; recent records in Ballona Wetlands; no marsh habitat in Project area; species not present in Project area. Present in low numbers each year. Present in low numbers each year in offshore waters. Present in low numbers each year in offshore waters. Present in low numbers each year offshore. Present in low numbers each year offshore.
4.3-9
Table 4.3-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat/Occurrence
F = Federal. FP = Fully Protected. S = State (California). T = Threatened. C = Candidate. SC = Species of Concern. E = Endangered. R = Rare BCC= Bird of Conservation Concern. Source: CNDDB 2013
Globose Dune Beetle
Globose dune beetles inhabit foredunes and sand hummocks immediately bordering the coast from Bodega Bay to Ensenada, Baja California. These beetles inhabit the sand beneath dune vegetation on which they depend for food. There are no well vegetated coastal dunes on the beaches in the Project vicinity and therefore this species is not expected to occur in the general Project areas discussed below.
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
The El Segundo blue butterfly is a small subspecies of blue butterfly that almost exclusively inhabits dune areas that support its sole host plant, the coast buckwheat. The lifecycle of the El Segundo blue butterfly is entirely reliant on the coast buckwheat; adults eat nectar, mate, and lay eggs on the flowers, developing larvae feed on the flowers, and pupae develop in the soil directly beneath the host plants. Attempts to protect the El Segundo blue butterfly from extinction have centered primarily around protecting and propagating its host plant. Following its initial discovery in 1975, the El Segundo blue butterfly was listed as endangered in 1976. The population continued to decline throughout the 1980s. There are no well vegetated coastal dunes in the Project vicinity and therefore this species is not expected to occur in the general Project areas discussed below.
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
The Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) is one of 11 subspecies of the Silvery Blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus) whose historic range probably extended over much of the Palos Verdes peninsula. Development of its dune habitat led to an endangered listing in 1980. By 1983 it was thought to be extinct; however, during a 1994 biological survey specimens were documented at the southern end of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, on the grounds of the Navy's Defense Fuel Support Center in San Pedro. At that time, the total count in the wild was estimated at approximately 214 individuals, making it what many consider to be the worlds rarest butterfly. Despite successful captive rearing of the Palos Verdes blue butterfly since its rediscovery, the wild population has not grown substantially. In 1999, the count increased to 646 individuals, but then dropped to 411 adults in 2000 (Mattoni and Powers 2000). The population has continued to fluctuate over the intervening years, with the wild population in 2007 approximately 220 individuals. The Palos Verdes blue butterfly is dependent on two known host plants, locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus, also known as Santa Barbara milkvetch) and common deerweed (Lotus scoparius). It has a single adult flight period
4.3-10
from late January through mid-April. Since the nearest colony is south of the Proposed Site on the Palos Verdes peninsula, this species is not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Project. There are no well vegetated coastal dunes in the project vicinity and therefore, this species is not expected to occur in the general Project areas discussed below.
Western Snowy Plover
After a decade of substantial decline in adult bird numbers (approximately 11 percent), the USFWS listed the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) as threatened on March 5, 1993 (USFWS 1993). By 1991, the number of adult birds on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. had dwindled to approximately 1,200 to 1,900 birds (Lafferty 2000). Critical habitat for this species was designated in 1999 and updated in 2005 and a recovery plan for the western snowy plover was finalized in 2007 (USFWS 2007). Historically, western snowy plovers nested on the Malibu beaches and a stretch of beach between Santa Monica and Redondo Beach (USFWS 2007). Western snowy plovers nest on beaches and salt flats that have some vegetation, and they feed on mud flats in the wetlands. Recent western snowy plover use of beaches in the Project area by winter migrants is expected, although nesting in the Project area has not been recorded since 1949 (USFWS 2007). Nevertheless, critical habitat is designated for the species on a series of Pacific coastline beaches from Washington to Southern California (USFWS 2007). Other nearby sites are Dockweiler Beach South and Hermosa Beach between 2nd and 6th Streets. The closest breeding colony to the Proposed Site is Bolsa Chica in Orange County; other colonies are in Ventura County (Santa Clara river mouth, McGrath Lagoon, and Mugu Lagoon), Santa Barbara County (Coal Oil Point), and on several of the Channel Islands.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The California coastal gnatcatcher is an obligate and permanent resident of low coastal sage scrub that is typically dominated by Artemisia Californica, Eriogonum fasciculatum and Salvia mellifera. This species decline is a direct result of habitat loss due to urban development. Recent records indicate the presence of breeding pairs of gnatcatchers in Palos Verdes peninsula, Portuguese Bend, Klondike Canyon and Coronell Canyon in scrub dominated by Artemisia Californica (CNDDB 2013). There is no coastal sage scrub habitat present in Project area; therefore this species is not expected in the Project area.
California Least Tern
The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) is a summer visitor that breeds in southern California coastal habitat from late April to September. It builds nests in shallow depressions in hard or soft dirt, dried mud, or sandy areas, usually on beaches or islands cleared of vegetation. Least terns utilize the open waters of Ballona Creek and, to a lesser extent, Ballona Lagoon and the Venice Canals to forage for small fishes. A protected nesting area is on North Dockweiler State Beach near Marina del Rey. The California least tern was federally-listed as endangered in 1970 and state-listed as endangered in 1971. This migratory shorebird species is found along the Pacific Coast of California, from San Francisco southward to Baja California. Historically, the California least
4.3-11
tern nested in small aggregations scattered among sandy beaches and salt flats all along the coast (Keane 1999). However, habitat loss in the early 1900s caused a drastic reduction in both breeding sites and breeding pairs. By the 1940s, the California least tern disappeared from Los Angeles and Orange Counties (Keane 1999). Nests consist of shallow depressions in undisturbed open sand, dirt, or dry mud close to estuaries or a dependable food supply. California least terns are colonial and create loose aggregations of nests with nests approximately 10 feet (3 m) apart. One to four eggs are laid during each breeding season. California least terns are known to have nested on the salt and mudflats at Playa del Rey since at least 1919, and small numbers remained there into the late 1970s. However, a program established in the early 1980s to protect least tern nesting grounds, including protective fencing and predator control on the north side of the entrance to Ballona Lagoon, at nearby Venice Beach (North Dockweiler State Beach), resulted in a preferential shift to that site. Since then, the Playa site has fallen into disuse, while the numbers of nesting pairs and fledglings at Venice Beach have tripled. Nesting pairs at the site increased from less than 100 in the late 1970s, to more than 400 by 2007. Meanwhile, from 1978 through 1994 the site contributed more than 10 percent of the fledglings statewide. The area currently remains one of only two permanent California least tern nesting sites in Los Angeles County; the other site is south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the Port of Los Angeles (Pier 400).
Pinnipeds
Six species of pinnipeds are found offshore southern California. Four of the species are yearround residents in the SCB, while the remaining two are uncommon visitors but have previously maintained substantial populations within the region (CINMS 2005). Only two of the pinniped species, the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), are expected to be encountered in the areas directly offshore of the Proposed Project Site with any regularity, although the resident populations of California sea lions, northern fur seals, and northern elephant seals all maintain breeding colonies on San Miguel Island, the northernmost of the Channel Islands.
Cetaceans
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) occur in the in the areas directly offshore of the Project area year-round, although the species present may vary from season to season or from year to year. Cetacean population levels are generally at their lowest in spring and their highest levels during the autumn (Dohl et al. 1983). Although a total of eight species of baleen whales occur in the SCB, the majority of these whales use the coastal waters of the SCB as migratory routes or are seasonal visitors (Carretta et al. 2005). Five species, the California gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata scammoni) can be expected to occur within the Project area (Dohl et al. 1983, Carretta et al. 2005). The remaining three whale species are only rarely sighted in the SCB, or are generally found far offshore. Five of the whales are considered endangered under the FESA and the California Endangered Species Act.
4.3-12
These listings were largely in response to worldwide population declines from intensive commercial whaling.
Dolphins and Porpoises
The commonly encountered delphinids in the SCB include the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), the northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). These species vary in their patterns of usage of the area and periods of peak abundances (Dohl et al. 1983).
4.3.1.4 Sensitive Habitats Coastal Dune Scrub Communities
Several habitats (Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, and Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub) located in the Project general vicinity are included in the CNDDB query as being locally sensitive habitats. Coastal dune scrub and the associated Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub are found on the bluffs of Palos Verdes. Southern Coastal Salt Marsh is located at the mouth of Ballona Creek, and Southern dune scrub is located in the El Segundo dunes immediately west of LAX. These habitats are surrounded by urban development and therefore, are exposed to the threats of urban encroachment and habitat fragmentation. The plant and animal species associated with these habitats are especially important because of the scarcity of other available habitat in the general area. None of these habitats are present in the immediate Project vicinity.
4.3.2.1 Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code 153 et seq.)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, protects and conserves threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA governs interagency cooperation and consultation to ensure that activities do not jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered species or result in adverse impacts, modification, or destruction of their critical habitat.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Secretary of Commerce delegated the authority to protect all cetaceans and pinnipeds to the NMFS. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for protecting sea otters and delegated this authority to the USFWS. The Marine Mammal Protection Act established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Under the Act, taking includes hunting, capturing, and killing and attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
4.3-13
Clean Water Act
The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its 1977 amendments, collectively known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishes national water-quality goals. The CWA established minimum water quality standards for effluents entering federal waters, implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Program. It requires states to establish standards specific to water bodies and designated the types of pollutants to be regulated, including total suspended solids and oil. The CWA also establishes guidelines for the discharge of dredged or fill materials to the waters of the United States and for the prevention of such discharges, individually or in combination with other activities, from having unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. Compliance with the CWA is provided by approval of a NPDES permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Coast Guard Regulatory Authority
Primary responsibility for the enforcement of U.S. maritime laws and regulations falls upon the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG is responsible for managing and regulating provisions for safe navigation of vessels in U.S. waters, as well as enforcing environmental and pollution prevention regulations. As such, the USCG regulates hazardous working conditions on the Outer Continental Shelf, manages and regulates measures for pollution prevention in territorial waters, and implements provisions in the Oil Pollution Act and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act. The USCG conducts pollution surveillance patrols to detect oil discharges within the territorial sea and contiguous zone and has enforcement authority over violations. The USCG maintains strike team responsibilities in the event of an oil spill.
Coastal Zone Management Act
In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, all Federal activities must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of each affected states coastal zone management program. Each states Coastal Zone Management program sets forth objectives, policies, and standards regarding public and private use of land and water resources in the coastal zone.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a single uniform Federal system of liability and compensation for damage caused by oil spills in U.S. navigable waters. The Act requires removal of spilled oil and establishes a national system of planning for and responding to oil spill incidents. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for spill prevention, oil-spill contingency plans, oilspill containment and cleanup equipment, financial responsibility certification, and civil penalties for offshore facilities and associated pipelines in all Federal and state waters.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code 703711)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended in 1972, makes it unlawful, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue; hunt; take; capture; kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess; offer for sale; sell; offer to purchase; purchase; deliver for shipment; ship; cause to be
4.3-14
shipped; deliver for transportation; transport; cause to be transported; carry or cause to be carried by any means whatever; receive for shipment, transportation, or carriage; or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird for the protection of migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird (16 USC 703).
4.3.2.2 State Resource Regulations California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.)
Pursuant to the CESA and Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, an incidental take permit from the CDFW is required for Projects that could result in the take of a state-listed Threatened or Endangered species. Under CESA, "take" is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. An incidental take permit authorized by CDFW under Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code would be required where a Project could result in the taking of a state-listed threatened or endangered species. The application for an incidental take permit under Section 2081(b) requires the preparation of a conservation plan, generally referred to as a Habitat Conservation Plan. The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy; a threatened species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management; and a rare species as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. The rare designation applies only to California native plants. Under CESA, CDFW is authorized to issue permits authorizing incidental take of threatened and endangered species. California Species of Special Concern is a designation that CDFW uses for some declining wildlife species that are not candidates for state listing. This designation does not provide legal protection, but signifies that CDFW recognizes that populations of these species are declining in the state and may be worthy of targeted conservation efforts to prevent their eventual listing.
California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513)
These sections makes is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 explicitly provides protection for all birds of prey, including their eggs and nests. Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the federal MBTA.
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) may require permits (waste discharge requirements) for the fill or alteration of Waters of the State. The term Waters of the State is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). Although waste is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the SWRCB interprets this to include fill discharge into water bodies. The SWRCB
4.3-15
and the RWQCBs have interpreted their authority to require waste discharge requirements to extend to any proposal to fill or alter Waters of the State.
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) became law in 1976 to provide a comprehensive framework to protect and manage coastal resources. The Coastal Act contains policies to guide local and state decision-makers in the management of coastal and marine resources. The Act identifies protective measures for nearshore marine resources. Coastal Act Section 30230 states: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Coastal Act Section 30231 states: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Coastal Act Section 30232 states: Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur. Coastal Act Section 30240 states: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
4.3-16
Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act
Under this Act, the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) was created and the CDFW became the lead state agency in spill response (Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response, OSPR). The Act requires that persons causing a spill begin immediate cleanup, follow approved contingency plans, and fully mitigate impacts to wildlife. Under an Interagency Agreement with OSPR, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) operates an oil spill program and maintains an oil spill staff. Before and after a spill, CCC staff are involved in review and comment to both state (e.g., OSPR) and Federal (e.g., USCG) agencies on contingency plans and regulations related to marine vessels, marine facilities, and marine vessel routing.
4.3.2.3 Local Regulations Los Angeles Water Quality Control Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Clara River and Los Angeles River Basins (Basin Plan) is the primary policy document that guides the LARWQCB. Established under the requirements of the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Basin Plan was originally adopted in 1975, and has been updated regularly. The most recent amendments to the Basin Plan were adopted in October 2009. The Basin Plan assigns beneficial uses (e.g., municipal water supply, water contact recreation) to all waters in the basin. The Basin Plan also sets water quality objectives, subject to approval by the EPA, intended to protect designated beneficial uses of water bodies. The water quality objectives in the Basin Plan are written to apply to specific parameters (numeric objectives) and general characteristics of the water body (narrative objectives). An example of a narrative objective in the Basin Plan is the requirement that all waters must remain free of toxic substances in concentrations causing detrimental effects on aquatic organisms. Numeric objectives specify concentrations of pollutants that are not to be exceeded in ambient waters of the basin. The water quality objectives are achieved primarily through effluent limitations embodied in the NPDES program.
Consistent with Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines, an impact would be considered significant if the lead agency determines that Project implementation would result in one or more of the following: Substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; Substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or interference with the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
A conflict with any local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or A conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Planning program, Natural Community Conservation Planning program, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Planning program.
4.3.4
For the analysis of potential impacts to Biological Resources, it is anticipated that most direct impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be the result of the Pipeline installation any future potential spills from those Pipelines, and/or some tree removal activities in the area of the existing City Maintenance Yard. Drilling activities, the new City Maintenance Yard and the installation of the entire Pipeline would occur in paved areas, or in areas previously disturbed or degraded and therefore, the construction phases of the Project are not expected to disturb any native vegetation and habitats. The impact analysis focuses on the areas surrounding the Project Site that could be affected as a result of an oil spill. The main areas where biological impacts could occur are identified as the beach area and potentially affected ocean waters that could be reached through existing drainages as a result of a pipeline spill. The following section describes the level of impact for each of the significance criteria described above in Section 4.3.4. Sensitive Species: Except for the potential for spills (discussed below under BIO-2), impacts to all of the biological resources in the Project area are expected to be primarily temporary in nature. There are no sensitive plant or wildlife species known or expected to be present in the project disturbance zone (within the existing facility yard and along the proposed Pipeline alignment), and therefore, the construction phase of the Project is not expected to have adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Sensitive Habitats including Federal Wetlands: There are no sensitive wetland habitat, coastal scrub habitat, federally protected wetlands, or any other sensitive habitat in the general Project area, nor immediately downstream of the Project Site and therefore, the construction and operation phase of the Project is not expected to have adverse effects on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; Wildlife Migratory Corridors: Construction activities would be temporary, and would be followed by some increased traffic along an already heavily used thoroughfare. Disturbances to any wildlife species attempting to move through the area would either be temporary in nature or similar to existing conditions and therefore, the construction and operation phase of the Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or interference with the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
4.3-18
Plan Consistency: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of any Conservation Planning program, Natural Community Conservation Planning program, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Planning program. Except for the potential for spills (discussed below under BIO-2), the Project is not expected to (1) substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance, (2) substantially reduce or eliminate quantity or quality of nesting areas; (3) substantially limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat; (4) substantially fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or access to food sources; (5) substantially limit or fragment range and movement (geographic distribution or animals and/or seed dispersal routes); or (6) substantially interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends. The following analyzes potentially significant impacts to biological resources due to installation of the Pipeline. These impacts would be temporary, during construction only, and would occur in previously disturbed areas.
Impact Number BIO.1 Impact Description Project Phase Impact Class Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Pipeline installation near potential avian breeding habitat has the potential to impact non-listed sensitive species including avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Phase 3
In general, drilling operations at the facility yard and the Pipeline installation would not result in a substantial loss of habitat, would not result in a substantial population decline of any native fish, wildlife or plant species, nor result in an overall reduction in biological diversity in the Project area. All of the wildlife species inhabiting the habitat in the Project vicinity are already exposed to high levels of human activities. Most of the wildlife species utilizing the urban setting and Greenbelt vegetation are currently exposed to high numbers of people walking through the area, traffic, traffic noise, pets, vegetation trimming, and regular maintenance. Site preparation at the City Maintenance Yard and Pipeline installation activities would result in minimal vegetation clearing and tree removal. It is expected that any Project related impacts to any plant or wildlife species in the area would be similar to existing conditions. No nests were visible in trees planned to be removed and/or trimmed near the facility yard during the non-nesting season site reconnaissance survey. However, vegetation trimming and tree removal could result in nests being impacted if vegetation removal was to occur during the avian nesting season which typically occurs between February 15 and August 15. Raptor species typically start breeding as early as January 15. Raptor species including American kestrel and red-tailed hawk likely forage within the project areas. Foraging for all these species would be temporarily affected by the noise and increased human presence during construction activities. The CDFW recommends a buffer area of 500 feet from active or occupied raptor nests during the breeding season.
4.3-19
The loss of any active nest would represent a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth below, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impacts to other non-listed sensitive species would not represent a substantial loss of a population nor result in the decline of any native wildlife species.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1:
To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done outside the breeding season (breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all non- raptor species). If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed during this period, then surveys for nesting birds must be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If nesting birds are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and maintained for the duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings fledge from the nest.
Residual Impact
Impacts to all common wildlife and plant species potentially affected by the project would be temporary, would not result in any substantial effects, and would therefore not require any additional mitigation. Foraging raptor species are likely to disturbed for only a short duration of time; significant impacts to breeding birds would be avoided by scheduling construction during the non-breeding season (MM BIO-1) and are therefore less than significant with mitigation (Class II). The only other impact that could occur based on the Biology thresholds is related to a potential oil spill that could reach the ocean, resulting in adverse effects on native species and habitats. Those impacts are discussed below.
Impact Number BIO.2 Impact Description Project Phase Impact Class Class I Significant and Unavoidable
A rupture or leak from oil Pipelines has the potential to result in a substantial adverse effect on native species and habitats, sensitive species, and biologically important habitats associated with the Pacific Ocean.
Phase 4
Spills and ruptures from the installed Pipelines could result due to geologic hazards, mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error during operations. Spills and cleanup activities would potentially result in impacts to biological resources, with the only sensitive resources being associated with coastal habitats. Small leaks or spills, which are most likely, contained and remediated quickly, would result in minor or negligible impacts to biological resources. In contrast, large Pipeline spills occurring during rain events which could allow oil to enter stormdrains and subsequently spread out into coastal habitats would substantially degrade their value, and would represent a potential long-term impact to biological resources.
4.3-20
The volume, location, and seasonal timing of any potential spill would dictate the severity of impacts to biological resources. The drilling and well location and the main Pipeline alignment are all located within an urban area or along a paved road and are therefore, easier to contain and clean up than any spill near native habitats or aquatic habitat where crude oil could be transported downstream. A spill outside of the well location would drain into the storm drains. All storm drains in the area eventually flow to the ocean. Figure 4.8-3 (Section 4.8) shows a map of the storm drain systems in the area. Storm drains located in the curbs at the corner of Cypress Avenue and 6th Street flow through storm drain piping and connect to the main storm drain system that runs down Valley Drive, which connects to the storm drain system that then runs down Herondo Street and out to the beach area. The storm drain system that runs down Valley Drive has intermittent street drains for collecting storm water, with drains located near the corner of Valley Drive and 2nd Street. A spill at the drilling facility would need to travel through approximately 0.75 miles of storm drains to reach the ocean. Impacts on resident biota could be short- to long-term, depending on the amount of oil spilled, environmental conditions at the time, containment and cleanup measures taken, and length of time for habitat recovery. Direct impacts on wildlife from oil spills include physical contact with the oil, ingestion of oil, and loss of food, critical nesting and foraging habitats. Organisms can be affected physically through smothering, interference with movements, coating of external surfaces with black coloration (leading to increased solar heat gain), and fouling of insulating body coverings (birds and mammals). Toxicity can occur via absorption through the body surface (skin, gills, etc.) or ingestion. Biological oxidation (through metabolism) can produce products more toxic than the original compounds. Sub-lethal effects include reduced reproductive success, narcosis, interference with movement, and disruption of chemosensory functions. Spills or disturbances resulting from cleanup efforts within the marine, sandy beach, and foredune habitats have the potential to substantially affect a wide variety of wildlife discussed below: Benthos. Oil represents a physical as well as a chemical hazard to benthic organisms, with impacts occurring through both physical smothering and hydrocarbon toxicity. Sessile species, such as barnacles, may be smothered while mobile animals, such as amphipods, may be immobilized and glued to the substrate or trapped in surface slicks. The potential severity of oil spill impacts to benthic organisms varies according to the degree of weathering of the oil. Fresh, unweathered oil contains higher amounts of the more-toxic aromatic hydrocarbons that may be readily accumulated by benthic organisms. The potential impacts of spilled oil to benthic communities are considered to be significant. When spilled oil reaches the shoreline or intertidal zone, it becomes concentrated in a narrow zone. Because of the shallower water depth, hydrocarbon concentrations can reach toxic levels. Thus, intertidal biota are exposed to higher concentrations of oil for a longer period of time than most other marine organisms. Similarly, spilled oil that does not evaporate or wash ashore, is eventually
4.3-21
incorporated into bottom sediments where it can be ingested by benthic organisms, or incorporated by contact with their gill membranes. Plankton. Laboratory studies, field enclosure studies, and field studies conducted during oil spills have shown that oil spills have measurable effects upon marine phytoplankton and zooplankton. Impacts to phytoplankton include mortality, reduced growth, and reduced photosynthesis. Additionally, early life stages, such as eggs, embryos, and larvae of zooplankton, are considered to be more susceptible than adults to oil spill impacts because of their higher sensitivity to toxicants and higher likelihood of exposure to oil at the surface of the ocean. The severity of effects on phytoplankton will vary with respect to species present in the water column, the time of the year, and the chemical composition of the oil spilled. Both lethal and sublethal effects of oil on plankton depend on the persistence of sufficiently high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the water column. Fish. Adult fish, due to their mobility, may be able to avoid or minimize exposure to spilled oil. However, there is no conclusive evidence that fish will avoid spilled oil (NRC 1985). Egg and larval stages would not be able to avoid exposure to spilled oil. The destruction of prey by a potential oil spill can also have significant impacts to fish productivity. Within the Project area, particularly vulnerable fish populations would be species that use estuaries or coastal wetlands, such as Ballona Lagoon, for part of their early life histories. These species, including game fishes, would be especially vulnerable because estuarine circulation tends to trap and recirculate pollutants at the sea water-fresh water interface. Because fish species can be economically important and because longterm loss can result from an oil spill, impacts to fish are considered to be significant. Marine Birds. Oil spills pose a significant threat to marine birds. Due to the migratory nature of many bird species, the severity of oil spill impacts on marine birds would depend on the time of the year, the species present, and their numbers. Oil on a marine bird clogs and damages the fine structure of the feathers that is responsible for maintaining water repellency and heat insulation. In addition to coating by oil, marine birds are also subject to chronic, long-term effects from oil that remains in the environment. For example, small amounts of oil on a birds plumage may be transferred to eggs during incubation. Birds can also consume oil through their diet or through preening, which results in physiological stress. Effects of ingested oil include acute irritation, difficulties in water absorption, and general pathological changes in some organs. Ingestion of oil can also affect reproductive success by degrading yolk structure, reducing clutch size, and decreasing egg viability. Shorebirds. Santa Monica Bay is a critical feeding area along the Pacific flyway used by up to one million shorebirds, including sandpipers, plovers, killdeer, oystercatchers, stilts, avocets and willets (Baird 1993). Shorebirds are most abundant in winter and generally feed in shallow waters and flats of bays and estuaries, while some prefer to feed along sandy beaches and rocky shores. Although shorebirds are able to avoid oiling to some extent by retreating from exposed habitat, both bay and open coast feeding habitats will potentially be impacted by any Project-related oil spill if that oil was able to flow from the spill site, down through storm drains, and out into the ocean. Marine Mammals. Marine mammals that could be impacted by an oil spill include cetaceans (whales and dolphins), pinnipeds (seals), and fissipeds (sea otters). Animals that are unable to avoid contact with oil could be impacted by fouling, inhalation, or ingestion that could result in sublethal or lethal
4.3-22
effects. The marine mammal species that occur in the Project area exhibit varying degrees of vulnerability to oil spills. Impacts can be caused either by oil contact or by ingestion. There is evidence that some cetacean species may avoid contact with oil at sea; however, pinniped species and sea otters could potentially suffer lethal and long term sublethal effects resulting in significant impacts. Onshore cleanup activities, depending on location, could disrupt pinniped haul-out and rookery areas and could also result in significant impacts. As a result, impacts to marine mammals are considered to be significant. Probability of Spill. As described in Section 4.8, Safety Risk of Upset and Hazards, the probability that there would be any sized spill at any point of the Pipeline over the 35 year life of the Project would be 34%. The probability of any sized spill in the Herondo area, which is closer to the ocean and sensitive biological resources, is estimated to be 14%. In order for flows to reach the marine habitats a spill would have to occur during a substantial rain event. The probability of a spill occurring during a 0.50 inch storm event in the Herondo area would be 0.4%. Therefore, the chance of any spill actually getting to the ocean and/or any sensitive receptor in the coastal area is exceptionally low. However, although there is a low likelihood of flows from a spill reaching the Pacific Ocean, any spill occurring during a substantial rain event does have some potential to affect nearshore and shoreline habitat. A spill occurring under these circumstances would therefore, have the potential to change the functionality of these areas. These sensitive areas and resources described above that are known to occur throughout the nearby marine habitat are protected by Federal, State and/or local regulations and include specialized communities and habitats that supports the presence of marine mammals, birds, and endangered species. A spill that contacts the shoreline would also contaminate or increase mortality of invertebrates that are forage material for some sensitive species in the general area. Impacts to sensitive habitats and protected species resulting from spills related to from the proposed project would be considered significant. Subsurface Release. Any subsurface drilling releases into the Pacific Ocean could result in potentially significant adverse effects on native species, sensitive species, sensitive marine mammal, important coastal habitats. Impacts on resident marine biota could be short- to longterm, depending on the amount of oil released, environmental conditions at the time, containment and cleanup measures taken, and length of time for containment. However, drilling is proposed to occur over 2,000 feet below the sea floor. Any fluids would then have to travel through 2,000 feet of substrate to reach the marine resources, the potential for any rupture or leak from subsurface drilling is considered to be very low frequency and probability. Impacts from Cleanup. Impacts of cleanup could be potentially more substantial than the effect of the spilled oil itself. Spill response and cleanup actions, including, but not limited to, the application of dispersants, pressure washing of intertidal areas, manual removal of oil from beaches and estuaries, could directly result in toxicity or fouling to biota, crushing of individual organisms, vegetation removal, and habitat degradation. The level of impact would depend on the size of the spill, the amount of habitat affected, and the number of individuals and types of species affected. Most of the habitat in the most likely of access points for spilled material did not support any native or non-native vegetation.
4.3-23
Mitigation Measure
The potential for oil spills and the associated spill volumes is discussed in Section 4.8: Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation measures identified in Sections 4.8 and 4.9 require procedures and plans that include an Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Pipeline Management Plan; and the requirement of an Emergency Response Plan; all of which act to limit the potential for onsite spills and associated significant impacts. If a spill and cleanup were to occur that affected the coastline, implementing the following measures would reduce impacts on biological resources. BIO-2: The Applicant shall submit for City approval and shall implement an Emergency Response Plan that would address protection of biological resources and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Plan shall, at a minimum, include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and animal species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment and cleanup within 1,000 feet downstream of the Pipeline. The plan shall contain: Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, and duties of all entities involved in oil removal operations; Procedures for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines and facilities; Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge; A description of the necessary onsite equipment and details on the placement of the material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil; Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following a discharge; Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge; Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures.
The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Action Plan shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of site-specific habitat restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate for mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to restore native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and egress points, staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat areas shall be identified. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall include species- and sitespecific procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of oiled wildlife. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing any construction activities.
4.3-24
Residual Impact
Implementing the proposed mitigation measures, as well as infrastructure preventative maintenance, structural integrity tests, and routine inspections, would reduce the likelihood and severity of potential spill and exposure impacts to sensitive biological resources. Small leaks or spills, which are contained and remediated quickly, are likely to have only minor or negligible impacts to biological resources. In contrast, large spills, such as those that could be produced from a Pipeline rupture, could spread to the beach and potentially to the numerous sensitive habitats and species present in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in an impact considered to be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.3.6. Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts
Mitigation measures proposed for other issues areas in this EIR would not increase impacts to biological resources if they are implemented. Most of the mitigation measures are designed to reduce the likelihood of spills and releases which would decrease potential impacts to biological resources. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
4.3.7. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
None of the cumulative residential or commercial projects would be constructed near the Proposed Project area, so there would be no operational localized impacts associated with cumulative projects. Although additional projects in the Project area could increase the potential for impacts to biological resources, all of the plant and wildlife species are already exposed to a high level of human-related pressures and impacts. Operational regional impacts could be produced, however, as multiple projects would emit pollutants into the same air basin at the same time. As the Proposed Project would produce significant impacts, cumulative impacts could also be significant. The cumulative geographic context for the evaluation of impacts on biological resources is regional coastal development, particularly within the Santa Monica Bay. Consequently, other projects considered in the Cumulative Project Impact Analysis could potentially result in degradations to water quality and biological resources, either through small-scale releases of contaminants or large-scale spills. Thus, cumulative impacts to biology are not considered to be significant.
4.3-25
4.3.8. Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Mitigation Requirements Measure BIO-1 To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done outside the breeding season (breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all non- raptor species). If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed during this period, then surveys for nesting birds must be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If nesting birds are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and maintained for the duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings fledge from the nest. The Applicant shall submit for City approval and shall implement an Emergency Response Plan that would address protection of biological resources and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Plan shall, at a minimum, include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and animal species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment and cleanup within 1,000 feet downstream of the Pipeline. The plan shall contain: Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, and duties of all entities involved in oil removal operations; Procedures for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines and facilities; Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge; A description of the necessary Method Plan review, site inspections Timing Before and during construction Compliance Verification Responsible Party City of Hermosa Beach
BIO-2
Plan review
Before construction
4.3-26
Mitigation Requirements Measure onsite equipment and details on the placement of the material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil; Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following a discharge; Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge; Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Action Plan shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of sitespecific habitat restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate for mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to restore native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and egress points, staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat areas shall be identified. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall include species- and site-specific procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of oiled wildlife. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing any construction activities.
Compliance Verification Method Timing Responsible Party
4.3-27
4.3-28
4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4
Cultural Resources
This section addresses potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from the Proposed Oil Development Project. Cultural resources are districts, buildings, sites, structures, areas of traditional use, or objects with historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. They include archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic), historic architectural resources (physical properties, structures, or buildings and hardscape and landscape elements), and traditional cultural resources (those important to living Native Americans for religious, spiritual, ancestral, or traditional reasons). Under CEQA, paleontological resources and unique geological formations are considered alongside cultural resources. A paleontological resource is defined as a locality containing vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils (i.e., fossil location, fossil-bearing formation or a formation with the potential to bear fossils of scientific importance). In identifying cultural and natural resources and evaluating impacts within the Proposed Project sites, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Applied EarthWorks) consulted numerous sources including historical and geological data presented in the E&B Natural Resources and NMG Geotechnical Inc. planning application. Applied EarthWorks staff then reviewed Converse Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 552 11th Place. Staff undertook independent literature and records searches at the California Historical Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), as well as at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM). They contacted the City of Hermosa Beach Development Department and reviewed available archival and secondary sources. In evaluating standing structures staff reviewed the City Assessors records. Staff attempted to contact the Hermosa Beach Historical Society on a number of occasions but was unable to reach archival personnel. Finally, Applied EarthWorks consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requesting a Sacred Land File search. Using all available information, Applied EarthWorks formulated a historic context for evaluation of cultural resources identified within the Proposed Project areas of potential effect.
The Proposed Project sites and three pipelines are located along the coastal portion of the Santa Monica Bay, within the southwestern Los Angeles Basin, approximately 0.4 mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles Basin is a lowland plain in southern California bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains to the north, the Elysian and Puente hills and on the east, and the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills in the southeast (Norris and Webb 1990). The sites are underlain by Holocene-age dune sands west of the adjacent older alluvial deposits in the Los Angeles Basin to the east. These deposits generally consist of dune and drift sands (NMG Geotechnical 2012:9) and are Holocene coastal sediments that consist of loose dune sand and drift sand that derive from ancient aeolian (wind-born) deposits (Dibblee 1999; NMG Geotechnical 2012:9). Immediately east of the Proposed Project sites, the Holocene deposits grade into stabilized dunes of fine-grained drift sand of Late Pleistocene age. According to Dibblee (1999), it is likely that these surficial deposits shallowly overlie older Quaternary
4.4-1
deposits known as the San Pedro Sand, a unit within the San Pedro Formation (Woodring et al. 1946). Within the Proposed Project sites, these deposits are covered by extant buildings, paved roads, and asphalt and concrete surfaces. Little of the original surface of the dunes remains exposed.
4.4.1.1 Prehistoric Chronology
Several cultural chronologies and archaeological sequences have been proposed for coastal and littoral southern California since the 1920s. These have attempted to track the development of terrestrial hunting-foraging and marine resource exploitation adaptations among populations in the area since at least the beginning of the Holocene. These proposed sequences have generally been based on changes in artifact types rather than linkage to socio-cultural systems in the region. In other words, the archaeological materials show cultural continuity for much of the Holocene, despite population increase, intensification of resource use, and techno-economic innovations in maritime and terrestrial resource exploitation (e.g., circular shell fish hooks, bow and arrow, and mortar and pestle). Lacking unequivocal archaeological evidence for major episodes of cultural change, researchers have proposed a range of different cultural periods for the region. Variants of the southern California prehistoric chronology include those proposed by King (1990) for the Santa Barbara Channel, Koerper and Drover (1983) for coastal Orange County, and Erlandson and Colton (1991) for southern California, and generally reflected the common use of an essentially tripartite division of early, middle, and late development for Holocene cultures in the region. Available evidence based on research for the Santa Barbara Channel region and along the southern California coast suggests that early man occupation of the coastal regions dates to 10,500 Before Present (B.P.) or earlier (Erlandson et al. 2008; Rick and Erlandson 2000). The chronology used in this assessment identifies three periods of prehistoric occupation in the southern California coastal region and is based on research conducted by Mason and Peterson (1994) and Altschul and others (2007). This information provides the basis for identifying and evaluating prehistoric archaeological deposits occurring within the region of the Proposed Project. The Early period (Millingstone Horizon) is subdivided into three phases: Phase I dates from 10,500+ to 8000/7500 B.P.; Phase II from 8000/7500 B.P. to 5000 B.P.; Phase III from 5000 to 3000 B.P. This early period is followed by the Intermediate Period dating from 3000 to 1300 B.P. The Late Prehistoric Period is divided into two phases: Phase I dates from 1300 to 700 B.P. and the Late Prehistoric Period Phase II from 700 to 240 B.P.
4.4.1.2 History of Early California and the Los Angeles Region
In 1542, the Portuguese explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led a Spanish expedition from Mexico to explore the lands of what is now California. It was during this expedition that Europeans first came in contact with the regions native peoples. This was followed in 1602 with Sebastian Vizcano expedition to San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands and the mainland near presentday San Pedro (McCawley 1996:207). Later, in 1769, the Gaspar de Portol expedition crossed the Gabrielino homeland twice in his exploration for suitable settlement sites.
4.4-2
The ethnographic evidence suggests that several Gabrielino settlements were located on the Los Angeles plain at this time. Mission life was highly regimented and contrasted sharply with the traditional Gabrielino lifeway. As a result, colonization had a dramatic effect on Gabrielino society. The traditional Indian communities were depopulated and epidemics caused by the introduction of European diseases further reduced the local Indian population. Sites dating to this time period could potentially be found in the Proposed Project area.
4.4.1.3 History of Hermosa Beach
The area encompassing present-day Hermosa Beach was originally part of an 1837 Mexican land grant known as Rancho Sausal Redondo issued to Antonio Ygnacio Avila by then-governor Juan Alvarado. The 22,458-acre property included present-day Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. In 1855, the United States patented the land grant to Avila, recognizing him as the rightful owner of the property. When Avila died in 1858, his heirs sold the property to Scotland native Robert Burnett. His combined holdings were used to raise sheep and cattle and in 1873 he leased a portion to Daniel Freeman. In 1885, Freeman purchased all of the land from Burnett and in the late 1800s Freeman sold his property to various real estate developers. Among them was A. E. Pomroy, who eventually owned most of Rancho Sausal Redondo and sold 1,500 acres to developers, Moses Hazeltine Sherman and Eli Clark. With this transaction Sherman and Clark gained controlling interest of the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company (Rhein 1933). The official survey for the Hermosa Beach boardwalk was completed in 1901, and the construction of the wood plank boardwalk followed shortly along the 2-mile stretch of the Strand. In 1904, the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company built the Citys first pier. Constructed of wood and extending 500 feet into the Pacific waters, it was partially washed away and replaced in 1913. Following the election for city officers on Christmas Eve of 1906, the City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated and chartered on January 14, 1907. During this time, the City acquired its 2-mile stretch of coastal property by deed from the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The deed included a clause to hold the property in perpetuity as a public place for recreation and general enjoyment, as it remains today. In 1914, tides had again washed away portions of the boardwalk; these sections were then replaced with a cement walkway. In 1926, another 2,000 feet of cement walkway was added to the north end of the boardwalk (City of Hermosa Beach 2013). Development of the City came relatively quickly at the turn of the twentieth century. By the end of the first decade, the City had its first primary school, with plans for another to accommodate third through ninth grades. The Pioneer and Berth hotels were established by 1907, and by the end of the second decade, the City had a fully functioning city hall, police and fire departments, post office, street and sewer maintenance departments, civic club, and library (Rhein 1933). The current civic center was designed and built between 1961 and 1965 by Savo Stoshitch, a native of Indianapolis who made his home in Hermosa Beach following service in the Army Corps of Engineers during World War II. The establishment of a railroad through Hermosa Beach by the Santa Fe Railway and the Los Angeles Railway cemented Hermosa Beach as a popular destination on the Pacific Coast.
4.4-3
Oil development played a significant role in early City development. In August 1930, California Ventura Oil Companys Well #1 (later Stinnett #1) struck oil, which extended the Torrance Oilfield into Hermosa Beach. This and eight follow-up wells produced over a million barrels of oil. Initial 1930 production peaked 22 months later in May 1932 when 205 barrels of oil were produced per day from a total of five wells (Finken 2013). Following this peak, the rate of oil production declined steadily until the last well was abandoned in 1988. The last producing well in Hermosa Beach, Stinnett #7 (originally California Ventura Oil Company well #2) was shut down in January 1988. By 2005, all Hermosa Beach wells had been plugged and abandoned (Finken 2013).
4.4.1.4 Proposed Oil Production Site: 555 6th Street
Archival research indicates that this portion of the Proposed Oil Production Project was first developed in the early 1920s. The Los Angeles County Assessors Map Books from 19001960 indicate City ownership or lease of the subject property began in 1920 (Assessors Map Book 188 p50), and continues until the present day. Cypress Avenue lots, which bound the site to the west, were developed as early as 1925 and residents of medium income occupied the first housing. A review of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show that the streets were laid out and residential neighborhoods were platted in the general region by 1927. Few changes in the street pattern have since occurred. The 1924 topographic map depicts what appears to be a large pit or depression west of the Santa Fe Railroad and within the subject area. By 1927, the Sanborn Map shows the City Dump and Refuse Burner with a structure at the southeast corner of 6th Street and East Railroad Avenue; one part of the structure is labeled Waste Storage 1925. Approximately 100 feet north of this structure is the City Dumping Grounds. The 1934 topographic map depicts the pit or depression representing the dump, one structure, and one circular feature (probably Stinnett Oil Well No. 1 which struck oil in August 1930). By 1946, the Sanborn Map depicts the City Garage & W. Ho. and conversion of the former burner building, at 553 6th Street. A small office is depicted at 541 Sixth Street, in the middle of Bard Street. West of the office, in the lot labeled 601 (Bard), are 2 steel oil tks and to the north an oil well (presumably Stinnett Oil Well No. 1). The City dumping grounds are depicted in the same location as shown on the 1927 Sanborn Map. The 1960 Sanborn Map is largely the same as the 1947 map; however, the office and the dump are no longer depicted and the dump area is labeled City Service Yard suggesting that the dump had closed.
4.4.1.5 New City Maintenance Yard
Los Angeles County Assessors Map books show that the proposed City Maintenance Yard relocation site was owned between 1906 and 1920 by Bernard Hiss and from 19201927 jointly by Bernard Hiss, the Pacific State Lumber Company, and Olsen Lumber (Map Books 160:2,188:4). In 1925, the City Directory lists Olsen Lumber at 606 Pier Avenue. Between 1927 and 1936, the subject property was owned jointly by Olsen Lumber, the Patten and Davis Lumber Company, and the Patten Blinn Lumber Company (Map Book 188:49). The 1934 topographic map depicts at least one structure in the subject area, as does the 1938 aerial
photograph. By 1946, two structures remained, identified as a silk mill and a conc, products structure (Sanborn Map). The railroad spur does not appear to extend onto the Proposed Project site. Aerial photographs between 1953 and 1956 show the building had been expanded to an L shaped structure, then a rectangular structure with associated parking lots. The 1960 Sanborn Map identifies the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory occupying most of the subject property. By 1978, the site had been converted to a self storage facility (Converse Consultants 2005, iii, 812). The Hermosa Beach Civic Center was built across the street from the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory between 1961 and 1965. This complex included City Hall, the Public Library, the Police Station, and the Fire Station buildings. The library was dedicated on August 10, 1962 and City Hall on January 24, 1965. Construction costs amounted to $328,390. The library faces Pier Avenue while City Hall is immediate to the north of the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory. The complex was designed by Savo Stoshitch (19141994) who received his graduate degree in architectural design from the University of Illinois in 1935. After relocating to Hermosa Beach, he designed other projects in the Greater Los Angeles area for the Los Angeles Unified School District, Pepperdine College, Los Angeles City public libraries, and Hughes Aircraft. He also designed a number of Lawrys restaurants including Tam OShanter, Mediterrania, and Five Crowns in Corona del Mar (Los Angeles Times 1965). The Hermosa Beach Civic Center was constructed in the New Formalist Style and Stoshitch took an innovative approach when using heavy glass in place of iron bars in the Hermosa Beach Jail. He was among the first to do so. He also added pneumatic tubes in City Hall using the newest technology.
4.4.2 Records and Literature Search
Applied EarthWorks conducted two record searches. Staff requested information on previously recorded archaeological site and cultural resources from the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton on October 11, 2013. They also contacted the LACM of Natural History on November 12, 2013.
4.4.2.1 Cultural Resources Record Search
A records search at the SCCIC identified previous studies and recorded archaeological sites within a one-half-mile radius of the Proposed Project sites (including along the proposed pipeline alignments). In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) the California Register of Historic Places (CAL REG), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) were reviewed. The following summarizes those findings. The HRI lists three properties that have been evaluated for historical significance within the records search area (19-186114, 19-0186751, 19-186927), but no above-ground historic resources were listed within the Proposed Project sites or along the pipelines. The three properties are as follows: 19-186114 consists of a plaque located at the southeast corner of Harbor Drive and Yacht Club Way, Redondo Beach. The plaque marks the location of an old salt lake and reads
4.4-5
This marker locates the site near which the Indians and early California settlers came to obtain their salt, which at many times was more valuable than gold. The plaque was erected in 1955 and is located 0.5 mile south of the proposed E&B Oil Production facility. 19-186927 is the Hermosa Valley (formerly Valley Vista) School built in the 1950s and located at 1645 Valley Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north of the proposed City Maintenance Yard. 19-0186751, is the Hermosa Beach Community Center a Modernistic/Art Deco building originally built in 1911 and located at 710 Pier Avenue, approximately 0.15 mile northeast of the proposed City Maintenance Yard.
The CAL REG lists two historic properties within the records search area. These properties are the Hermosa Beach Community Center (described above), and the Clark Building constructed in 1937 and located at 861 Valley Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north of the proposed E&B Oil Production Project. No other properties are listed on the PHI, NRHP, or CHL. No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the Proposed Project sites and no sites are listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list. One archaeological site (19-001872) was identified approximately 0.3 mile south of the Proposed E&B Oil Production Project. It was first recorded by Greenwood and Associates in 1990. They described the site as a light-density shell scatter containing various chert flakes. A historical component consists of three 1880s commercial structures. Greenwood and Associates noted that the site was severely damaged by later railroad and demolition/construction activities and that the prehistoric component of the site was likely redeposited midden (Greenwood and Associates 1990). This site lies in close proximity to the old Salt Lake (designated an HRI as above) which lies in the AES Redondo Beach Generating Station. Thirteen cultural resources studies have been conducted within the records search radius. Of these, one was a large survey that included the current Proposed Project sites. This project, the West Basin Water Reclamation Project, resulted in a Phase I Cultural Resources study prepared by ERA in 1993. The ERA survey covered the entire E&B Oil Development Project currently being proposed. ERA concluded that the vast majority of the 42-mile-long pipeline route they were considering was already developed as highways, streets, and urban landscapes. ERA recommended that a formal archaeological survey be completed at only three small, potentially undisturbed parcels.
4.4.3 Paleontological Records Search
Applied EarthWorks staff requested a museum records search at LACM which they supplemented through a review of the University of California, Museum of Paleontologys online database (UCMP). This database contains paleontological records for all of Los Angeles County. The LACM records show that there are no known localities within the surficial dune and drift sand. However, according to McLeod (2013), it is likely that the young surficial sediments shallowly overlie older Quaternary deposits in the Proposed Project sites. These underlying
4.4-6
older Quaternary deposits have yielded vertebrate fossils at localities east of the Proposed Project sites, sometimes at relatively shallow depth. McLeod (2013) reports three localities within the vicinity of the Proposed Project sites. Locality LACM 4444 to the east near Crenshaw Boulevard and 190th Street, yielded fossil specimens of Equus (horse), and Cetacea (whale) at a depth of 15 feet below the surface. Southeast of the Proposed Project sites, near Crenshaw Boulevard and 236th Street, locality LACM 1839 produced a specimen of Equus, recovered from 35 feet below the surface. Near Prairie Avenue and 139th Street, northeast of the Proposed Project sites, locality LACM 2035 produced a fossil specimen of Mammuthus (mammoth) at an unreported depth. The UCMP online database for Los Angeles County indicates there are 87 fossil localities within the San Pedro Formation in Los Angeles County. Recovered fossil specimens include horse, camel, saber-tooth cat, rodent, rabbit, bird, sloth, bison, dire wolf, mollusk, and microfossils. The implications of these finds are reported in the technical report prepared for this study (Warren et al.; Appendix G) and summarized below.
4.4.3.1 Sacred Lands Search
The NAHC was contacted on October 9, 2013, for a review of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity, etc.) are present within or adjacent to the Proposed Project sites (Appendix C). The NAHC responded on October 11, 2013, stating that no Native American cultural resources are known to exist within the immediate Project vicinity; however, the NAHC indicates that Native American Sacred Land place(s) exist in close proximity to the Proposed Project sites and requested that Native American individuals and organizations be contacted to solicit further information regarding cultural resource issues or traditional concerns related to the Proposed Project. Ten individuals and organizations were contacted by email and/or letter on October 21, 2013. The Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation responded via email on October 21, 2013, and stated they would review the Proposed Oil Production Project documents. On October 29, 2013, a representative of the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council reported that they had conducted an independent survey of the Proposed Oil Production site and had observed a bivalve shell and rock that might be culturally modified. These items were located beyond the Proposed Project site boundaries along a pedestrian path, a former railroad grade where the rails have been removed and hence disturbed. Nonetheless, the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians requested monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor of all Project-related ground-disturbing activities. On November 5, each individual on the NAHC list who had not previously responded was again contacted; this time by telephone; voice messages were left. On November 6, the Gabrielino Tongva Nation representative responded via email and requested archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related excavations. No other responses to the voice messages were received (for further details see Appendix G).
4.4-7
4.4.4
Cultural Resources Survey
On October 28, 2013, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. staff conducted a vehicular survey of the Proposed Project sites and pipeline alignments. Both construction sites were found to be in urban areas and heavily built-over, providing zero visibility for the detection of archaeological resources. Proposed pipeline alignments were found to be in urban areas or along existing utility rights-of-way and again afforded zero visibility for the detection of archaeological resources. On October 30, 2013, Applied EarthWorks staff visited the Hermosa Beach Public Works Maintenance Yard (City Yard) located at 555 6th Street to evaluate the potential for significant cultural resources to be present on site. Results of this inspection are presented in the technical report appended (Appendix G; Warren et al. 2013) and are summarized below.
4.4.4.1 Archaeological Resources
Archival research demonstrated that the Proposed Oil Production site was utilized as a City Dump and refuse processing area from the 1920s through the 1940s. The 1924 topographic map depicts what appears to be a large pit or depression within this portion of the Proposed Project site. The pit may have been a natural depression, a sand mining pit, or may have resulted from the borrowing of fill. The horizontal dimensions of the dump are unknown and the depth of the deposits, based on available soil boring information appears to be at least 29 feet and possibly as deep as 45 feet (NMG Geotechnical 2012:10). The deposit contains glass, ceramics, brick, metal, and concrete near the base and it is assumed to be the result of municipal refuse collection beginning in the early 1900s. Little information exists about refuse collection in Hermosa Beach, although it is known that a refuse burner was present during the early years of operation (1924 to 1946). The former City dump appears potentially to contain archaeological deposits that may be removed and adversely impacted by the development of the Oil Production site. This section of the Proposed Project Site is therefore considered to have high potential to contain historical archaeological remains. The 1946 Sanborn Map depicts an oil well (presumably Stinnett Oil Well No. 1), and two rectangular features on the site, presumably above-ground storage tanks. The oil well was plugged and abandoned in 2005 and the tanks and associated pipes and dispenser equipment removed in 1989 and 1998 (Brycon LLC 2012:2). All archaeological remains associated with these oil industrial features (beyond the well shaft) have been removed, so there is low potential for significant oil industry-related archaeological features to be present. The City Maintenance Yard is the site of the former Olsen Lumber Mill, an unnamed silk mill, and the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory. In 1978, the mill structures appear to have been demolished when the self-storage facility was added. Subsurface deposits associated with the earlier land use are likely to be limited to structural remains, which, given the early twentiethcentury date and light industrial nature of the site, are unlikely to yield any new or significant archaeological data about these operations. The historical archaeological sensitivity of this site is considered low. The area bordering the proposed pipelines was developed in the early 1900s and the street grid established by the 1920s. Archival research did not indicate prior development in these areas.
4.4-8
Further, the proposed pipelines will be placed below city streets in areas likely to already be disturbed. The archaeological potential, therefore, is considered low. The records and literature search did not indicate the presence of previously recorded prehistoric resources within the Proposed Project sites or along the proposed pipelines. The only previously recorded site was situated 0.3 miles to the south. It was described as a light scatter of chipped stone flaking debris and shell (Greenwood and Associates 1990). The site was reported to be heavily disturbed by railroad and later-period construction and/or demolition. Most of the Proposed Project is located in an urban environment, which has also been extensively disturbed. However, local Native American groups expressed concern and consider the Proposed Project sites to be within their traditional use area. Among those contacted, two tribes requested monitoring of all Project-related ground-disturbing activities by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor (see Warren et al. 2013: Appendix G).
4.4.4.2 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey
The Proposed Oil Development site is currently occupied as the City Maintenance Yard. Existing improvements consists of three buildings, two trailers, storage containers, sheds, trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing, and masonry walls. In addition, within the boundaries of the Proposed Project Oil Development site, there is an asphalt parking area to the south of the Maintenance Yard. Based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps it would appear that the Maintenance Building, located at 555 6th Street, on the northwest corner of the intersection formed by Valley Drive and 6th Street was constructed between 1924 and 1927. Therefore, it is more than 50 years of age. The other two structures are less than 50 years of age. The maintenance building is oriented slightly northwest-southeast. It is a long rectangular frame industrial structure measuring approximately 18 feet high with a flat-top roof and an adjacent open-air service bay situated east of the building. The 45 foot by 90 foot building has undergone several additions and modifications to its original brick and cement-mortar footprint, which is primarily composed of a brick furnace room and service bay on the ground level. What appears to be a basement-level loading dock has since been converted into a garage. Measuring 22 feet by 45 feet, the northern portion of the building currently contains most of the historical elements and architectural features of the City Yard refuse burner. Today the upper portions of the brick and cement-mortar wall construction are unpainted and provide an unobscured view of original construction elements. The wood-plank ceiling has largely been replaced, and on the western part of the room, the ceiling is supported by two parallel I-beam joists running north-south and set into cut recesses of original brickwork. The I-beams were clearly added later. An arched brick doorway at the eastern part of the building has been filled in to accommodate a modern wall and door. Close to the ceiling of the eastern portion of the building is a pair of iron rails separated at a width of 4 feet 6 inches, remnants of a former pulley system that likely transferred items from a loading dock on the lower level to the furnace room above for incineration. Modern additions to the building are not considered historically significant, but the brick and mortar refuse burner/furnace contained within the City Maintenance Building is considered potentially significant and may yield important information about site operations and refuse disposal
4.4-9
practices associated with the operation of the dump during the early to mid twentieth century. Because the furnace is surrounded by more modern additions its current condition is not fully known. However, the original footprint of the furnace is fully subsumed in the larger maintenance structure. What is visible inside the maintenance building (hearth, chimney, arched ceiling, and ghosts of the lifting mechanisms) reflect elements of this early 1920s industrial structure. Removal of later-period additions likely will reveal additional information about the structure and its function in the incineration and recycling process employed by the City of Hermosa Beach between 1924 and 1947. The construction of the New City Maintenance Yard is proposed at Valley Drive and 11th Street across from (to the south of) City Hall. This building, along with the Fire Station buildings, the Police Station, and the County Library, were built between 1961 and 1965 and designed by local architect Savo M. Stoshitch. All buildings were constructed in the New Formalist style with steel framing and posts, brick veneer, and banks of windows. Brick colonnades adorn the exterior of the City Hall the front of which faces a parking lot to the east. Additional parking is provided on the southern and western perimeters. The Civic Center complex has not been previously evaluated. For the purposes of CEQA and determining project impact, the City Hall complex is assumed to be eligible for the CRHR on a local level under Criterion 3. While there will be no direct impacts to the complex, construction of the New City Maintenance Yard across the street has the potential to cause an indirect visual impact on these historically significant structures if it detracts unfavorably from the views of the existing City Hall. Applied EarthWorks historian reviewed the City Assessors records and other on-line resources in the evaluation of a third structure which is proposed to be demolished at 636 Cypress Avenue. When constructed in 1952, this commercial structure was built to contain 3,710 square feet. It had 0 bath/0 bedrooms. It has a flat roof, a double bay garage door, and is of frame construction. It is zoned commercial /industrial and no additions have since been made. Other structures surrounding 636 Cypress appear to be of the same age and function. For the purposes of CEQA, this building is not considered a historical resource.
4.4.4.3 Paleontological Resources
Based on the literature review and museum records search results, and in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologys (SVP) sensitivity scale, the unconsolidated Holocene dune sand and drift sand within the Proposed Project sites is determined to have a low paleontological resource potential. However, the Pleistocene San Pedro Sand, associated with numerous significant paleontological localities, has a high paleontological resources potential and may underlie the surficial deposits at varying depths below the Project sites. The depth at which the San Pedro Sand underlies the surficial sand deposits in the vicinity of the Proposed Oil Production site is unknown, but may have ranged from approximately 15 feet to 50 feet prior to the development of the City Dump (Dibblee 1999; McLeod 2013; Woodring et al. 1946). As previously stated, the former dump is approximately 45 feet deep. Therefore, the likelihood of Project-related grading and excavations reaching underlying intact San Pedro Sand is considered low. However, should Project-related excavations exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or depths of 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits, scientifically significant paleontological resources may potentially be encountered.
4.4-10
4.4.5
Regulatory Setting
Cultural and paleontological resources have been evaluated to determine if the Proposed Project will have any significant environmental impacts on these resource types. The CRHR is an authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify and evaluate the states historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR are based on those developed by the National Park Service for listing on the NRHP. The CRHR was established to consider a broader range of resources that better reflect the history of California. Under CRHR, a historical resource is considered significant if it: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory of history of the local area, California or the nation. According to CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall generally be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources [pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code], or identified in a historical resources survey [meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code] does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. In addition to the CEQA guidelines, the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.53: Historic Resources Preservation provides guidance for the evaluation of resource significance at the local level. The ordinance is intended to identify resource types that are potentially important to the City and ensure the long-term protection and use of historical resources, such as buildings and structures, sites, and places within the City that reflect special elements of the Citys architectural, artistic, cultural, historical, political, and social heritage. The City's General Plan also includes the City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Map that identifies Potential Locally Significant Resources, Potential State Historic Landmarks, and designated State Historic Landmarks (City of Hermosa Beach 2009). No such resources have been identified within the Proposed Project sites. Per the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Sections 17.53.070 through 17.53.120, a historic resource may be designated a landmark if it meets one or more of the following criteria: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
4.4-11
D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City (Ord. 981186 4, 11/10/98 [City of Hermosa Beach 2013]. Based on criteria A through E above, identified cultural resources were assessed for local significance, important to the City and to the community of Hermosa Beach.
Under CEQA guidelines lead agencies are to protect and preserve resources with cultural, historic, scientific, or educational value. CEQA Section 15064.5 provides significance threshold criteria for determining a substantial adverse change to the significance of a cultural resource. In addition, Appendix G of CEQA provides additional guidance in determining a project's impact on cultural resources. The information provided in the CEQA guidelines has been used to develop the significance criteria for cultural resources for the E&B Oil Development Project. This project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if: The project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. This would include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. The project causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. If the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. If the project disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Generally, intact historical resources and archaeological deposits are considered significant. Severely disturbed or mixed deposits often are not considered significant but may have educational value. Paleontological resources are also afforded protection under CEQA. Appendix G (V) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a Project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it will disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits knowing and willful excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any paleontological site or feature on public lands (lands under jurisdiction of state, county, city, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof), except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation measures for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands. Human remains and associated grave offerings are accorded special consideration, even when fragmentary and are considered significant. CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (d) prohibit disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, without proper
4.4-12
treatment and reburial with appropriate dignity. Human remains must also be treated in compliance with Health and Safety Code, Section7050.5 and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. Indirect impacts to cultural resources result primarily from the effects of project-induced population growth. Such growth can result in increased construction as well as increased habitation, recreational activities, or site usage, activities that can disturb or destroy cultural resources. The following section evaluates project impacts and offers mitigation measures to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.
4.4.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Proposed Project consists of two construction sites and three associated pipelines. Additionally, and as a prelude to Phase 1of development, a temporary City Yard site will be located within the parking lots of City Hall. A parking lot is also proposed at 636 Cypress Avenue, directly to the west of the Proposed Oil Production Site. While no excavations are planned at either location, an extant building at 636 Cypress will be demolished. This structure is not a historical resource according to CEQA. Impacts to historical resources are not anticipated at the City Yard Site or 636 Cypress Avenue. Potential impacts at other locations are reviewed below and proposed mitigation measures follow. Development of the Proposed Oil Production site will be undertaken in four phases. For this cultural resources assessment, it is assumed that only Phases 1 and 3 would result in grounddisturbing activities on the Oil Production Site and hence have the potential to impact archaeological resources. In addition, the introduction of new structures, or the alteration of the existing setting, has the potential to indirectly impact historical resources and will potentially have a more lasting impact on the environment. Phases 2 and 4 will involve actual drilling and oil production. Once in place, oil drilling will not have the potential to further impact historical resources at the project sites until plans are made to cease operations and/or remove equipment. Phases 1 and 3 of the Proposed Project on the Oil Production site will entail demolition and ground-disturbing activities. It will include the complete removal and/or relocation of all buildings and at least 15 feet of over-excavation of the dump deposits (NMG Geotechnical 2012:21). One building will be relocated to the temporary City Yard. Site preparation will require that unsuitable earth materials including fill and weather dune sands be removed prior to new construction. The geotechnical report estimated that removal of fill will vary from 2 to 4 feet over most of the site. Site preparation elsewhere will require that the majority of the eastern portion of the site be excavated approximately 7 feet deeper than the surrounding grade. Further, a retaining wall will be built around the proposed tanks to ensure containment (NMG Geotechnical 2012:22). Such actions will have an impact on the Hermosa Beach City Dump site which dates to the 19201940s. It will also result in the demolition of the brick furnace built in 1924 which is extant within the existing maintenance building. Development at this site has the potential to impact historical and archaeological resources. Mitigation measures are necessary to ensure reduction of significant impacts. Construction of the new permanent City Maintenance Yard on the site now occupied by Hermosa Beach Self Storage would consist of building a two-level structure to accommodate a
4.4-13
City Yard on the upper deck and the possible addition of parking for 129 cars on the lower deck. Taking advantage of the depressed nature of the site, lower level parking will be accessed from 11th Place opposite the parking lot that borders City Hall. The overall floor area of the upper deck is proposed to be approximately 48,000 gross square feet and be accessed from Valley Drive. The vehicle maintenance facility will be placed in the southwest corner of the yard. The city yard offices, gym, restrooms, lockers, and kitchen/break room will all be set in their own facility at the northwest corner of the deck. The entire complex will be surrounded by a wall. Under the replacement without parking, the yard footprint will be similar in size to the added parking option. The proposed new permanent City Maintenance Yard with added parking, developed by RNL Design (2013), proposes that the massing of the new facility respect its surroundings in order to avoid overpowering its neighbors. Further, this design sets the City Maintenance Yard shops along the southern margin of the block forming a buffer between the yard and the neighboring residences. This also places the shops at the back of the yard some distance from City Hall. A review by Applied EarthWorks architectural historian of the proposed design plans concluded that while the City Yard Office and Public Use area will be immediately across the street, this structure will be to the rear of City Hall reducing its visual impact further. Nonetheless, to ensure there will be no indirect impacts to City Hall due to new construction, additional design considerations are recommended below. Pipelines will be placed below city roads and within existing utility ROWs within Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and the City of Torrance. Placed at depths ranging from 3.5 to 4 feet, these areas, including any archaeological deposits that may have been present, are likely to have been previously disturbed due to utility construction. The potential for direct impacts to archaeological resources is therefore considered low. Pipelines will not be visible and street disturbance will be short term and temporary. Construction activities have no potential to indirectly impact resources. The potential to affect archaeological deposits along the pipeline alignments, therefore, is considered low.
4.4.7.1 Historical Resources
The existing City Yard Maintenance building contains the remnants of a historic utility building (the brick furnace) which is considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Also, the Hermosa Beach City Hall complex is considered potentially significant as a historical resource under Criterion 3 of the CRHR at a local level. Each resource is considered separately in the following discussion.
4.4-14
Impact #
Impact Description The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, such as the furnace remnant due to building demolition.
Phase(s)
CR.1
Phases 1 and 2
While the existing City Maintenance Yard building is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; and it is not identified with a person or events significant in local, state or national history; nor does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction and it is not representative of a notable builder, designer, or architect; the remnant structure does meet Criterion 4 of the CRHR and Criterion D of the NRHP. It has the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history on a local level. Demolition of the building, therefore, will cause a substantial adverse change to a potentially significant historical resources, and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure
CR-1
Prior to beginning demolition of the existing City Maintenance Yard Building, guidelines shall be developed for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace. Once exposed, detailed documentation of the furnace shall be undertaken. Documentation shall be guided by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This documentation shall include production of high quality 35-mm photographs and plan drawings of building elements exposed, including but not limited to, a floor plan, any character-defining building features, and elevation drawings. All work carried out pursuant to the recordation of the furnace building shall be conducted by, or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994) as an architectural historian. A written report detailing the HAER-like documentation shall be provided to the City upon completion the work. This report shall be produced on archivally stable materials and filed with the Hermosa Beach Historical Society.
Residual Impact
The architectural reconnaissance survey identified two properties within the Proposed Project sites that are more than 45 years of age and were evaluated for significance. The first, the existing City Yard Maintenance building, while not architecturally significant, was demonstrated to meet the requirements for significance under the CRHR Criterion 4. Proposed construction activities will result in demolition of the building which has the potential to impact this resource. A methodical approach by a qualified archaeologist would be developed as part of the mitigation to allow for careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and
mortar furnace. If mitigation CR.1 is implemented impacts would be considered less-than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Impact # Impact Description The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource through indirect impacts to the Hermosa Beach City Hall Complex Phase(s) Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
CR.2
Phases 1 and 3
The City Hall complex situated across the street from the proposed new City Maintenance Yard is over 50 years of age, it was built by a local architect of note, and it represents distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction. While not fully documented during the current study, the building complex for the purposes of CEQA is assumed to be a historical resource. Further, according to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, City Hall is a: unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represent[ing] an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community or the City Therefore, it qualifies as a City Landmark under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, sections 17.53.070 through 17.53.120. The City Hall complex is located across the street (to the north) of the proposed New City Maintenance Yard. City Halls main entrance faces a parking lot that surrounds much of the building. The elevation facing the proposed maintenance building is a secondary faade. The site on which the New City Maintenance Yard will be constructed is currently the location of a self storage facility. Removal of this facility would improve the setting surrounding City Hall and add to the City Civic complex if designed appropriately. According to CEQA Section15064.5: Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources: o Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a less than a significant impact on the historical resource [CEQA Section 15064.5](B)(3). o In order to avoid indirect impacts to the City Hall complex the following mitigation measures, taken from the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and Guidelines shall be applied. The design of the New City Maintenance Yard Building shall be compatible in design, styling, material, and massing of the adjacent City Hall complex. The building design should not attempt to replicate the New Formalist style, but it shall not conflict or
Mitigation Measure
CR-2a
contrast with the existing building style. The buildings constructed in the New City Maintenance Yard shall be no more than two stories high. They shall not overpower or overshadow the existing building complex. CR-2b The landscaping associated with the proposed New City Maintenance Yard shall replicate the planting types surrounding the City Civic buildings, to the extent possible, in order to blend the new construction into the existing Complex. The final design of both the new building and landscape should be developed in consultation with an historic architect or architectural historian who meets Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994).
Residual Impact
The City Hall complex was also recognized as a potentially significant historic resource. It is presumed eligible under Criterion 3 of the CRHR. It is also significant as a local landmark under Hermosa Beach Municipal City Code Criterion F (City of Hermosa Beach 2013a). City Hall will not be directly impacted by the Proposed Project, but the construction of the New City Maintenance Yard across the street from City Hall has the potential to indirectly impact the resource adversely. Providing that mitigation measures CR-2a and CR-2b are implemented, impacts will be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.4.7.2 Archaeological Resources
Proposed construction activities have the potential to result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of an archaeological resource. The cultural resources study of the Proposed Project sites prepared by Applied EarthWorks staff has identified the former Hermosa Beach City Dump at the Project Site as a potentially significant archaeological resource (Warren et al. 2013; Appendix G). The Project may cause the following impact.
Impact # Impact Description A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, such as dump deposits, due to ground disturbance and over excavation. Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
CR.3
Phases 1 and 3
The records and literature search completed at the SCCIC revealed that no previously recorded archaeological sites have been reported within the Proposed Project sites. However, the City Dump was not previously evaluated. Geologic coring showed that subsurface archaeological deposits exist in the lower layers of the dump. With items such as glass, porcelain, and ceramics present, this historic dump potentially contains consumer behavioral data dating to the early 1920s. Recycling and incineration were among the practices explored for refuse disposal in the City of Los Angeles at the turn of the century. Investigations undertaken in 2006 at the former Pacific Garbage Reduction Plant (CA-LAN-2770H) revealed that significant archaeological deposits could be present in municipal dumps/landfills (Livingstone et al.
4.4-17
2006:421460). Excavations in this Los Angeles facility revealed that important information can be gained about municipal operations during a period of refuse collection crisis, which occurred from the 1880s through the mid 1900s as municipalities struggled to cope with excessive waste deposal in uncontrolled neighborhood dumps (CA-LAN-2121/H), in the Citys streets, and in surrounding stream courses (e.g., Los Angeles River). The City Dump at Hermosa Beach appears to have similar data potential. This site is considered potentially eligible at the local level under the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.53: Historic Resources Preservation, Criterion B. It is identified with ....events significant in local, state, or national history; It is also considered potentially eligible under Criterion 4 of the CRHR: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. The Proposed Project entails ground-disturbing construction activities at the Oil Production site. It will result in the complete removal of all buildings and at least 15 feet of the dump deposits (NMG Geotechnical 2012:21). Implementation of the Proposed Project will cause a substantial adverse change in a potentially significance archaeological resource (the former City of Hermosa Beach Dump and furnace site). Ground-disturbing construction activities at the New City Maintenance Yard and pipeline excavations may also cause adverse change in a potentially significance archaeological resource (prehistoric archaeological remains). No known prehistoric sites exist in the immediate proximity of the Proposed Project sites or along the proposed pipeline alignment and based on the best available evidence, the potential for encountering prehistoric archaeological deposits is considered low. No evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources was found during the cultural resources survey. However, the project sites are in an urban environment in which the ground surface is obscured by paving and structures, thereby limiting the visibility of any surface evidence of archaeological resources. Taking into consideration local Native American concerns, any discovery of unanticipated prehistoric archaeological remains would be considered a significant archaeological resource and implementation of the Proposed Project would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
Mitigation Measures
CR-3a
Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or building removal within the Proposed Project sites, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist with provision for review and input by concerned Native Americans and approval by the City. The Plan is to include provisions for archaeological and Native American monitoring, detailed documentation of all early twentieth-century artifactbearing deposits exposed during ground-disturbing site work, and development of a clear collection policy for both prehistoric and historic artifacts, subsequent artifact analysis, reporting of findings, and disposition and/or curation of any significant artifacts recovered. All reports of findings shall be filed with to SCCIC.
4.4-18
CR-3b
Any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the area of the previous City of Hermosa Beach Dump following over-excavation at the Proposed Oil Development Project site must be protected in place. Stabilization and covering of these archaeological deposits shall be monitored by a qualified historical archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994).
Residual Impact
The alterations, grading, and additions at the Proposed Oil Production Site in Hermosa Beach will substantially alter the terrain surrounding the dump including the removal of several feet from the current grade. It is proposed that 15 feet of earth removal will occur within the area of the dump pit and vegetation largely will be cleared around it. While not known, but based on geological borings, it is expected that archaeological deposits will continue to depths between 29 to 45 feet. Therefore, the full contents of the dump pit will not be removed. Indirect impacts could occur due to unanticipated erosion following site development resulting in the subsequent destruction of archaeological deposits not removed as a result of the Project. Reduction of the protective cap (15 feet of fill) and subsequent Project Site maintenance could subject significant archaeological deposits to increased exposure resulting in further Project impacts. Therefore, any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the unexcavated area of the dump site following construction must be protected in place, in accordance with CEQA. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Evaluation of the Hermosa Beach City Dump situated within the existing City Maintenance Yard has been shown to have the potential to contain significant historical archaeological deposits. The proposed over-excavations of the city dump area up to 15 feet for the installation of the oil drilling and production equipment have the potential to impact these deposits. With the implementation of mitigation measures CR-3a and CR-3b above as well as CR-5 below, impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.4.7.3 Paleontological Resources
Based on the literature review and museum records search results, and in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologys (SVP) sensitivity scale, the unconsolidated Holocene dune sand and drift sand (Qsp) mapped within the Proposed Project sites is determined to have a low paleontological resource potential. However, the Pleistocene San Pedro Sand, associated with numerous significant paleontological localities found in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, has a high paleontological resource potential and may underlie the surficial deposits at varying depths. Therefore, the Proposed Project has the potential to:
4.4-19
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
CR.4
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature.
Phases 1 and 3
The following mitigation measure applies.

Mitigation Measure
CR-4 Should Project-related excavations be designed to exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or depths greater than 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise be shown to have the potential to impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits as described above, a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) shall be developed by a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City and implemented prior to or during Project-related ground disturbing activities.
Residual Impact
Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse impact to a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature. However, the implementation of mitigation measure CR-4 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.4.7.4 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
While only limited evidence of prehistoric archaeological deposits was found within proximity to the Proposed Project sites and along the pipeline alignments, the possibility (albeit limited) to expose human remains exists.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
CR.5
The Project could have a substantial impact if it results in the disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery.
Phases 1 and 3
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur at the site until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
4.4-20
Therefore the following mitigation measure applies:

Mitigation Measure
CR-5
Ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or redirected. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the site to allow for further examination and treatment of the find. A City representative shall immediately notify the Los Angeles County Coroners office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD.
There is no direct evidence of prehistoric archaeological remains occurring in the Proposed Project sites or along the Proposed Pipeline; however, human remains and associated grave offerings are accorded special consideration, even when fragmented, and such impacts would be considered significant; however, because there is no record of burials in the area and the likelihood of finding any burials is extremely low this impact is considered to be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
None of the mitigation measures proposed for other issue areas would increase the impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation for cultural resources is not required.
For the purpose of the Proposed Project as outlined in Section 3 above, the cumulative impact study area includes the immediate vicinity surrounding the Proposed Project sites and the crude and gas pipelines in the City of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, as well as the area around the Proposed City Maintenance Yard. Known projects of a scale and in a location that could add to cumulative impacts to cultural resources were found only in the City of Redondo Beach. Nonetheless, the broader cumulative impact study area encompasses the three communities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. According to CEQA cultural resources include historic properties (standing buildings or structures), historical and prehistoric archaeological sites, paleontological resources, and human remains inside or out of designated cemeteries. Grading and ground disturbing activities can significantly impacts these non-renewable resources. Without mitigation, these resources would be destroyed through construction and urban expansion resulting in cumulative loss of cultural resources over time. However, applicable state and City laws and regulations, as discussed in
4.4-21
Section 4.4.4 above, offer guidance for managing cultural resources, provide for preservation of significant natural and cultural resources, and direct mitigation through data recovery where avoidance is not possible. Among known projects proposed for the City of Redondo Beach one is of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to the Proposed Project impacts to historical resources. This project, the Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP), does have the potential to impact standing structures and other built environment resources. It is a federally entailed project. Projects with federal involvement require systematic identification and management of cultural resources stressing avoidance or data recovery. Taken in conjunction with the Proposed Oil Development Project all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The current project has imposed mitigation measure as required by CEQA and the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, thus reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Under this cumulative scenario the Proposed Project will not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on historical resources. The records review for the Proposed Oil Development Project identified only one archaeological resource within the area of potential effect (APE). In reviewing other projects proposed for the cumulative impact study area, two projects proposed in the City of Redondo Beach are of the scale and location that could cumulatively add to the Project impacts on archaeological resources. These projects are the RBEP and Harbor Development Project. Archaeological resources have been previously identified in vicinity to the RBEP. The existence of similar resources in the Harbor Development Project APE is not known at this time. While impact to archaeological resources are likely to occur as a result of these projects, and will no doubt occur on other projects in the planning stage in the surrounding region, imposition of similar mitigation measures to those proposed for the Proposed Oil Development Project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Providing that mitigation measures are properly designed and implemented as required by CEQA, there would be no loss of data or cumulative impacts to archaeological resources in the impact study area. Three projects proposed for the City of Redondo Beach are of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to the Project impacts on paleontological resources. These projects include: Redondo Beach Energy Project; Anita Traffic Lane Modifications Project; Harbor Development Project.
These areas of Redondo Beach potentially are underlain by the same Pleistocene San Pedro Sand (Qsp) deposits as discussed for the Proposed Project. The research for the current study demonstrated that 87 fossil localities within Los Angeles County are recorded. These deposits are considered to have high paleontological resources potential and may underlie the surficial deposits at varying depths within the Redondo Beach project areas. However, with the mitigation of impacts on these projects, whether required by federal, state, or local laws, cumulative impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and there would be no cumulative loss of significant or unique paleontological resources.
4.4-22
The current study suggests that there is little potential to encounter human remains in the general study area, and there are no previously reported prehistoric sites that have been shown to contain human burials. The potential to inadvertently expose Native American or other human remains during construction is possible, but considered low. Nonetheless, any disturbance or impacts to human remains would be considered significant under CEQA and these impacts cannot be reduced through mitigation. Therefore, exposure of human remains has the potential to result in cumulatively significant impact. On all federal and CEQA projects, however, avoidance, preservation in place, and development of a reburial plan in consultation with the NAHC and local tribes is required to reduce the impacts wherever possible.
4.4-23
4.4.10 Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Table 4.4-1 Mitigation Measure CR-1 Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Method Prior to beginning demolition of the existing City Maintenance Yard Building, guidelines shall be developed for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace. Once exposed, detailed documentation of the furnace shall be undertaken. Documentation shall be guided by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This documentation shall include production of high quality 35mm photographs and plan drawings of building elements exposed, including but not limited to, a floor plan, any character-defining building features, and elevation drawings. All work carried out pursuant to the recordation of the furnace building shall be conducted by, or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994) as an architectural historian. A written report detailing the HAER-like documentation shall be provided to the City upon completion the work. This report shall be produced on archivally stable materials and filed with the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. The design of the New City Maintenance Yard Building shall be compatible in design, Development and implementation of a monitoring and documentation plan by a qualified archaeologist. Timing During building demolition within areas of recorded historical resources. Responsible Party Project Proponent and Construction Contractor
CR-2a
Design of the New City Maintenance Building and
Design Phase
Project Proponent and City
4.4-24
Mitigation Measure
Compliance Verification Requirements Method styling, material, and massing of the adjacent City Hall complex. The building design should not attempt to replicate the New Formalist style, but it shall not conflict or contrast with the existing building style. The buildings constructed in the New City Maintenance Yard shall be no more than two stories high. They shall not overpower or overshadow the existing building complex. The landscaping associated with the proposed New City Maintenance Yard shall replicate the planting types surrounding the City Civic buildings, to the extent possible, in order to blend the new construction into the existing Complex. The final design of both the new building and landscape should be developed in consultation with an historic architect or architectural historian who meets Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994). Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or building removal within the Proposed Project sites, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist with provision for review and input by concerned Native Americans and approval by the City. The Plan is to include provisions for archaeological and Native American monitoring, detailed documentation of all early twentieth-century artifactbearing deposits exposed during ground-disturbing site work, and development of a landscape Timing Responsible Party
CR-2b
Design of the New City Maintenance Building and landscape
Design Phase
CR-3a
Development and implementation of a monitoring plan by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with concerned Native American tribes.
The monitoring plan shall be submitted for review by the City of Hermosa Beach and approval prior to beginning development. Plan shall be implemented prior to and during construction.
Project Proponent and Construction Contractor
4.4-25
Mitigation Measure
Compliance Verification Requirements Method clear collection policy for both prehistoric and historic artifacts, subsequent artifact analysis, reporting of findings, and disposition and/or curation of any significant artifacts recovered. All reports of findings shall be filed with to SCCIC. Any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the area of the previous City of Hermosa Beach Dump following over-excavation at the Proposed Oil Development Project site must be protected in place. Stabilization and covering of these archaeological deposits shall be monitored by a qualified historical archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994). Should Project-related excavations be designed to exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or depths greater than 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise be shown to have the potential to impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits as described above, a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) shall be developed by a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City and implemented prior to or during Project-related ground disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or redirected. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the site to allow Timing Responsible Party
CR-3b
Following construction any remaining archaeological deposits must be stabilized and covered for protection.
Following overexcavation
CR-4
A paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation program (PRMMP) for treatment of the paleontological resources will be developed and implemented.
The monitoring plan shall be submitted for review by the City of Hermosa Beach and approval prior to beginning development. Plan shall be implemented prior to and/or during construction.
CR-5
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted by the Los Angeles County Coroner,
Upon discovery of human remains.
4.4-26
Mitigation Measure
Compliance Verification Requirements Method for further examination and treatment of the find. A City representative shall immediately notify the Los Angeles County Coroners office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD. and a Most Likely Descendant must be designated. Any further treatment of the remains will occur in consultation with the MLD, the NAHC, and a qualified archaeologist. Timing Responsible Party
4.4-27
4.4-28
4.5 Energy and Mineral Resources
4.5
Energy and Mineral Resources
This section addresses the Projects potential impacts related to energy and mineral resources. The following discussion identifies energy consumption levels and trends in California, along with current energy conservation policies established by the State and by the City of Hermosa Beach. The Projects estimated energy consumption is defined for all phases. The energy that would be produced by the Projects oil and gas production activities is also estimated and compared to the major forms of energy (electricity, natural gas) and their sources (including alternative energy sources) generated and consumed in California.
California end users primarily consume electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuels. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the state energy sources and their production and consumption in California.
Table 4.5-1 California Energy Sources and Annual Consumption Imported, from Other States and Foreign Countries 102 (34%) 1,937 (88%) 391 (63%) Total Consumed 302 2,204 619
Type of Energy Source Electricity, terawatt-hours Natural Gas, billion cubic feet Crude Oil to refineries, million barrels Source: CEC 2012
Produced In-State 199 (6%) 268 (12%) 228 (37%)
4.5.1.1 Electricity
Natural gas, hydropower, renewables and nuclear energy fuel most electricity production in California. Electricity production fueled by natural gas accounts for more than 53 percent of all electricity produced in the state (CEC 2013). Oil-fueled electricity production is being phased out in California. Coal accounts for less than 2 percent of electricity production. Electricity demand grew by 11 percent between 2002 and 2012. The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that future electricity consumption will show an annual growth in demand ranging from 1.03 percent to 1.69 percent from 2010 to 2022, with peak demand growing by 1.0 percent to 1.91 percent over the same period (CEC 2012). Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical power to the Project Area. Based on California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Independent System Operator (CalISO) resource adequacy requirements, the areas current electricity supplies are adequate and are anticipated to be adequate for future development of the area. The current City Maintenance Yard uses a minimal amount of electricity, less than 1-2 kW load average.
4.5-1
4.5.1.2 Natural Gas
According to the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), California is estimated to contain 3.6 trillion cubic feet of proven (could be extracted with current technologies) natural gas reserves (DOGGR 2004). The CEC estimates that natural gas consumption will increase by an annual average of between 0.58 percent and 0.81 percent between 2010 and 2022 (CEC 2012). Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service to the area. California depends on natural gas produced both in state and out of state. As the Proposed Oil Project would produce natural gas, supplies for the Proposed Project are assumed to be adequate. The current City Maintenance Yard uses a minimal amount of natural gas, primarily for water heating.
4.5.1.3 Transportation Fuels
Historically, since 1997, California has received more crude oil from non-California sources (i.e., Alaska, foreign countries) than from within California. The quality of the average crude oil refined in California, especially crude produced in California, has historically been heavier and more sulfurous than crude from other sources. The States complex of refineries have adapted their equipment and operations to process low- to medium-quality crude oil into highway fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel for vehicles). Overall, California sales of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel have trended downward recently (CFTB 2012). For example, average yearly gasoline sales declined 9 percent between 2004 and 2012. Daily diesel fuel sales declined by 8 percent between 2004 and 2012. The CEC expects annual gasoline consumption to decrease between 2010 and 2030, largely because of high fuel prices, efficiency gains, competing fuel technologies, and mandated increases in alternative fuel use. The CEC estimates that gasoline consumption will decrease by 4 percent during the same timeframe, but may increase by as much as 15 percent in the "high" scenario of a strengthening economy and decreasing fuel prices (CEC 2011). The current City Maintenance Yard uses a nominal amount of propane, less than 500 gallons per year, for the "go fors". Gasoline and diesel use is less than 10,000 gallons per year used primarily for on-road vehicles servicing the Hermosa Beach area. Table 4.5-2 summarizes energy consumption in California by sector and type.
4.5-2
Table 4.5-2
Energy Consumption in California by Sector and by Form Sector or Sub-sector Natural Gas Electricity b Crude Oil
Transportation < 1% 5% 91% Electrical Generation 43% 5% Residential 22% 32% < 1% Commercial 10% 37% < 1% Industrial a 23% 15% 5% - Petroleum Refining 6% 3% 0% - Oil and Gas Extraction 4% 1% 0% a. The Industrial Sector has many other sub-sectors; however, only the information on the two subsectors relevant to this EIR is provided here. Crude oil use by the industrial sector is primarily coke use. b. Electricity use by transportation includes communication and utilities Source: CEC 2009
4.5.1.4 Minerals
Several minerals are mined in California; however, there are no meaningful quantities of known mineral resources (e.g., sand, gravel) at the Project Site or the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site (USGS 2014). Under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the sites are not listed as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), which includes only non-fuel mineral resources. Historically, the closest mining to the site was the Clifton-Redondo Placer mine located about 1.5 miles east of the Project Site, which mined titanium ore.
4.5.1.5 Energy Conservation and Alternative Energy Sources
Frequently during the EIR process for an oil and gas project, questions arise about the use of alternative fuels or other methods for developing/conserving the energy produced by the Proposed Project. This sub section provides a discussion of these issues. The CEC, the California Power Authority (CPA), and the CPUC jointly adopted in 2005 the Energy Action Plan II (Plan) that listed joint goals for Californias energy future (CEC 2005). The main goal is for Californias energy to be adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally-sound. The Plan also described the priority sequence for actions to address increasing energy needs as (1) cost-effective energy efficiency and demand response, (2) renewable sources of power and distributed generation and (3) clean and efficient fossil-fired generation. The CEC 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), and subsequent reports in 2011, adds achieving AB-32 greenhouse gases reduction goals to this list of priorities. The IEPR recommends a number of programs, including cost effective energy efficiency standards, renewable energy development, improved electricity infrastructure, and distributed power generation, In order to provide information on other methods of generating the same level of energy production (crude oil and gas) that would be produced by the Proposed Project, an analysis was conducted to determine the level of alternative energy projects or programs that would be
4.5-3
required to offset the amount of energy production that would exist under the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would allow for the production of an average of about 3,000 barrels per day (bpd) over the life of the Project (based on the Applicant's estimated production totals). Assuming an average gasoline production of 21.6 gallons per barrel of crude (CEC 2004 data), this would equate to an average of about 65,000 gallons of gasoline per day over the life of the Project. Crude oil is used to produce more fuel types than gasoline, such as diesel fuel, jet fuel, etc. However, it was assumed in this analysis that the primary driver of the consumption of crude oil is gasoline production. The natural gas produced would average about 0.91 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) over the life of the Project. Assuming that all of this natural gas would be used to produce electricity, this could produce about 4.1 megawatts (MW) of electricity (based on the average efficiency of power plants in California). Average gasoline consumption in California totals about 42 million gallons per day and the use in Los Angeles County is estimated to be about 11 million gallons per day (based on the number of registered cars in Los Angeles County). Electrical generation in California totals about 60 gigawatts (GW) of installed electrical generating capacity. Total capacity supplied to California is about 80 GW. Details of specific energy conservation alternatives and alternative fuels are provided below for reference to what those alternatives would have to produce in relationship to the Project.
Automobile Efficiency and Fuel Type
Gasoline consumption could be reduced by the equivalent of the amount produced by the Project, by replacing an estimated 63,000 automobiles with hybrid automobiles (e.g., Toyota Prius). This would constitute approximately 0.5 percent of the cars on the road in California. Increasing the gas mileage of the average California car by 0.2 percent would also offset the gasoline produced by the Proposed Project.
Solar Energy
The amount of electricity that could be produced by the natural gas produced from the Project could be produced by installing close to 98,000 200 watt photovoltaic solar panels on about 4,900 homes. Note that the solar panels would produce this level of energy for an estimated 25 years. However, the panels would only produce this amount of electricity during the daylight hours. Solar energy currently makes up about 0.9 percent of the gross system power produced in the State of California (CEC 2013).
Electrical Efficiency
The amount of electricity that could be produced by the natural gas from the Proposed Project could also be saved by increasing the efficiency of the end users of electricity. In Los Angeles County, 70 percent of electrical consumption is by non-residential consumers. State-wide, electrical consumption breaks down by sector to 32 percent residential, 37 percent commercial, 16 percent industrial, seven percent agricultural, and the rest miscellaneous users.
4.5-4
Lighting accounts for an estimated 25 percent of residential electrical consumption and refrigerators account for an estimated 17 percent of residential energy use. By replacing inefficient light bulbs with more efficient bulbs through a replacement program or older, inefficient refrigerators with newer, more efficient models, Los Angeles County could reduce electrical demand in excess of the amount of electricity produced by the Proposed Project. Increasing the efficiency of industrial processes, through computer controlled equipment management, and replacing pump/compressor/HVAC units with more efficient models, electrical consumption could be reduced in the industrial sector. Air conditioners are large consumers of electricity during the hot summer months. Air conditioners use represents approximately 30 percent of all electricity in the State during those months. Increasing the efficiency of air conditioners by replacing old air conditioners and increasing the building envelope efficiency through better insulation, ductwork and window type, would reduce electrical generation requirements during the hot months.
Natural Gas Use Efficiency
California consumes approximately 6.3 billion cubic feet (0.17 billion m3) of natural gas per day. The amount of natural gas produced by the Proposed Project could be conserved by increasing the efficiency of Californias natural gas usage by about 0.02 percent. The majority of natural gas power plants in California operate at efficiencies of 9,000 Btu/kWh to 11,000 Btu/kWh, with an average of 10,500 Btu/kWh (CEC 2007). More recent technology produces generating efficiencies at or below a 7,500 Btu/kW level, including the technology of combined cycle plants that utilize waste heat to generate additional power (CEC 2007). Only 17 percent of power plants in California produce power with efficiencies below 9,000 Btu/kWh. Calpine Corporation, which operates nearly 50 combined cycle power plants in California, indicates that their three largest combined cycle facilities operated at 7,300 Btu/kWh for all of 2003, including down times for maintenance. A substantial amount of power generating capacity could be realized by increasing the efficiency of power plants by re-tooling them or replacing older, less efficient power plants with more efficient plants. Replacing only one percent of the generating capacity of the most inefficient power plants (those with efficiencies above 11,000 Btu/kWh) with combined cycle, high efficiency plants would offset the Proposed Project energy producing capabilities. An estimated 44 percent of residential natural gas use is attributable to space heating. Increasing the efficiency of space heating through a replacement program of heating units and increasing the building envelope efficiency, by installing insulation, windows, duct-work, etc., would reduce space heating requirements.
Wind Turbines
The equivalent level of electricity produced by combustion of natural gas could be generated through the use of wind turbines. The rated capacity of wind generation within California was approximately 9,200 GWh at the end of 2012, generated by over 11,000 turbines, for a total of about 4.6 percent of Californias electrical generating capacity. Wind turbine sizes in California range from small turbines less than 20 kW to massive turbines rated at 1.8 MW. GE currently makes turbines of 3.6 MW size and is developing turbines in the five to seven MW size with
blades 140 meters in diameter. The majority of wind generating capacity in California is in the Altamont Pass (Bay Area) and Tehachapi Pass (Mojave). The installation of three 1.5 MW turbines would generate the electricity that could be produced by the natural gas produced by the Project.
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is produced by the heat of the earth and is often associated with volcanic and seismically active regions. California has 25 known geothermal resource areas, 14 of which have temperatures of 300F or greater. California's geothermal power plants produce about 40 percent of the world's geothermally-generated electricity. The power plants generated about 12,700 GWh in 2012 -- producing 6.4 percent of California's total electricity in 2012. Major geothermal locations in the State include the Geysers (north of San Francisco), the Imperial Valley area east of San Diego, and the Coso Hot Springs area near Bakersfield. It is estimated that the State has a potential of more than 4,000 megawatts of additional power from geothermal energy, using current technologies (CEC 2007). Development of geothermal electrical power plants could offset the need for the Proposed Projects natural gas to produce electricity.
Livestock Biogas Energy
Livestock generate a large amount of biological wastes that can be converted into gaseous fuel through digester systems and burned in generator engines to produce electricity and thermal heat energy. The GE Jenbacher engines provide specifications on the efficiency of biogas processes and an estimate of the amount of gas produced per livestock unit. A livestock unit is defined as about 1,200 pounds of livestock (500 kg), or the equivalent of about one cow. Based on the use of the GE Jenbacher generator sets, it would take a population of about 10,000 cows (or livestock units) to generate the equivalent amount of electrical energy that would be produced from the Proposed Project. There are an estimated 1.7 million dairy cows in California, 60 percent of them on high-density feed lots, which are ideal locations for generating biogases, located primarily in Merced, Tulare, San Bernardino and Stanislaus counties. This system would also produce a substantial amount of thermal energy from the cogeneration side of the system for use in the livestock and farming processes.
4.5.2.1 Federal Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) addresses energy consumption and the establishment of the Department of Energy. Title 10 addresses: State energy programs; Energy conservation programs; Energy efficiency of industrial and commercial products; Alternative fueled vehicles; Power plant regulations;
4.5-6
Department of Energy provisions; and Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear facilities.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18
Title 18 of the CFR addresses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which handles issues related to electricity, natural gas and oil transportation, provisions, and tariffs.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30
Title 30 of the CFR establishes the Mine Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Geological Survey, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue
4.5.2.2 State
In addition to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), several other acts and regulations govern energy production, utilization, conservation, and development of new energy sources.
The Warren-Alquist Act
California adopted the Warren-Alquist Act to encourage conservation of non-renewable energy resources. The Act created the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and has been codified in the Public Resources Code Division 15, Energy Conservation and Development.
Financial Code Division 15.5
Section 32000 et seq. State Assistance Fund for Energy, California Business and Industrial Corporation.
Government Code Title 2
Section 14450 et seq. Part 5, Chapter 4 California Transportation Research and Innovation Program; Section 15814.10 et seq. Part 10b, Chapter 2 Energy Conservation in Public Buildings; and Section 15814.30 et seq. Part 10b, Chapter 2.8 Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings;
Public Resources Code Division 3, Chapter 6, Section 3800 et seq, Disposition of Geothermal Revenues
The purpose of this chapter is to allocate revenues distributed to the State pursuant to Section 35 of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, with respect to activities of the United States Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, and other federal agencies undertaken pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (Chapter 23 of Title 30 of the United States Code) to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels and stimulation of the State's economy through development of geothermal resources.
4.5-7
Division 6, Part II, Chapter 3, Section 6801 et seq. Oil and Gas and Mineral Leases
This section authorizes the California State Lands Commission to issue and manage leases for the exploration and production of oil and gas resources within State lands.
Division 16, Chapter 1, Section 26000 et seq. California Alternative Energy Source and Advanced Transportation Authority Act
This section promotes the prompt and efficient development of energy sources that are renewable or more efficiently utilize and conserve scarce energy resources.
Public Utilities Code Division 1
Section 330 et seq. Part 1, Chapter 2.3 Electrical Restructuring; Section 445 et seq. Part 1, Chapter 2.5 Public Utilities Commission Reimbursement Fees; Section 701 et seq. Part 1, Chapter 4 Regulation of Public Utilities; Section 1001 et seq. Part 1, Chapter 5 Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity; and Section 2801 et seq. Part 2, Chapter 7 Private Energy Producers.
The California Department of Conservation
The California Department of Conservation is the primary agency with regard to mineral resource protection. Under the Public Resources Code Sections 600-690, the Department is responsible for conserving earth resources and has five program divisions that address mineral resource issues: California Geological Survey; DOGGR; Division of Recycling; and Office of Mine Reclamation.
The State Mining and Geology Board develops policy direction regarding the development and conservation of mineral resources and reclamation of mined lands.
The California Energy Commission
The CEC is the state's energy policy and planning agency. Created by the Legislature in 1974, six basic responsibilities guide the CEC as it sets state energy policy: forecasting future energy needs; promoting energy efficiency and conservation by setting the state's appliance and building efficiency standards (Title 24); supporting public interest energy research that advances energy science and technology through research, development and demonstration programs; developing renewable energy resources and alternative renewable energy technologies for buildings, industry and transportation; licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts or larger; planning for and directing state response to energy emergencies. Other state agencies with statutory authority with regard to mineral resources issues include:
4.5-8
Coastal Commission (for land uses that could affect access to mineral resources within the Coastal Zone); State Water Resources Control Board (as pertains to mineral resource water qualityrelated issues).
4.5.3
This EIR applies several criteria (adapted from Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines) to determine if the Project would have a significant effect related to energy. Significance criteria for impacts related to mineral resources are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, states that "Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures may apply: The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project's life cycle including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed; The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity; The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy, water conservation and solid-waste reduction; The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards; The effects of the project on energy resources; and The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G discusses mineral resources, stating that a project could generate significant impacts if it: Results in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; and Results in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
A significant impact would therefore occur if the Project would: Conflict with the adopted California energy conservation plans; Use non-renewable energy resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner; Substantially increase demand upon existing power, transportation fuel supply or natural gas utilities;
4.5-9
Necessitate new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the existing power and natural gas utilities; Decrease the availability of a known energy or mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.
4.5.4
This section characterizes the energy consumption impacts and impacts on mineral resources generated by the Proposed Project. Conflict with the adopted California energy conservation plans or use non-renewable energy resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner; The Proposed Oil Project would not conflict with the adopted California energy conservation plans or use non-renewable energy resources wastefully or inefficiently. The primary use of energy during the operational phase would be the microturbines, which are proposed to be CapStone low emission microturbines, running at an electrical efficiency of 33 percent. As the microturbines would also provide heat to the processes (glycol and amine regeneration and crude oil heating), the efficiency would be higher. These levels are in line with standard natural gas power plants in California and would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be required to be constructed to the California Title 24 requirements and would therefore comply with energy conservation plans and would not use energy resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Substantially increase demand upon existing power, transportation fuel supply or natural gas utilities: At peak production, facilities related to the Proposed Oil Project would require approximately 7 megawatts (MW) of power during drilling and 3 MW during operations. One MW would be generated onsite. SCE would provide electrical power requirements through the existing power service structure. Electrical power would be routed underground inside conduits from the electrical meters provided by SCE. This increase in electricity use is small relative to the approximately 7,500 megawatt average power consumed in Los Angeles County in 2011. This increase would not require upgrades to the current electrical facilities. According to SCE, the Proposed Project load is within the SCE parameters for the service area's projected load growth as per "will serve" letters supplied to the Applicant. Therefore, the Proposed Oil Project would not substantially increase demand and would have less than significant impacts on electrical energy resources. The Proposed Oil Project would also produce natural gas; therefore, impacts to natural gas demand are not anticipated. The Proposed Oil Project would produce and treat natural gas and use a portion of it to fuel the process (e.g., heaters) and electrical production. The Proposed Oil Project would produce an estimated peak of 2.5 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) of natural gas, and a small portion of this gas (13 percent) would be consumed for facility
4.5-10
operations. Therefore, the Proposed Oil Project would result in a net increase in natural gas available the area. Crude oil is a raw material used to manufacture petroleum-based products, such as diesel and gasoline. The natural gasoline portion of crude oil ranges from five to seven percent. When reformulation processes are involved, the gasoline fraction could increase up to 70 percent and the diesel fuel fraction could increase from seven to 20 percent (CEC 2000). As a result, 77 to 90 percent of the future oil field production could be used to produce fuels such as gasoline or diesel. The Proposed Oil Project would treat oil and gas from field wells and then send the treated petroleum materials to the refineries where diesel fuel would be produced along with other oil products. The Proposed Oil Project would consume only a fraction of the oil produced from the field wells. Specifically, a nominal amount of diesel fuel would be consumed during drilling (for the forklift and misc equipment) due to the use of an electric drilling rig, while up to 336,000 gallons (8,000 bbl) of crude oil would be produced each day, resulting in approximately 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel produced each day (in addition to gasoline, jet fuel, etc.). Therefore, the Proposed Oil Project would be a net producer of petroleum-based transportation fuels. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard would use a similar amount of energy as the current City Maintenance Yard and would therefore not increase the use of energy or transportation fuels over the current use. Necessitate new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the existing power and natural gas utilities The Proposed Project would not necessitate new energy systems or supplies or substantial alterations to existing utilities except what is proposed as part of the Proposed Oil Project to produce oil and natural gas. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard would not require any new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the existing power and natural gas utilities. Decrease the availability of a known energy or mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State The Proposed Oil Project would produce the mineral resources in the area and would not cause a loss of availability of these resources to the region and the residents of the state. Both the Porposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would not use any other mineral resources nor would it occupy an area that contains known meaningful quantities of mineral resources (aside from oil and gas).
4.5-11
4.5.5
Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts
Mitigation measures proposed for other issues areas could increase impacts to energy and mineral resources if they are implemented. This section discusses those potential mitigation measure impacts. Some mitigation measures could increase construction requirements associated with the Proposed Project (such as the permanent wall mitigation measure AE-1b), which could increase construction-related fuel use. Mitigation measure AQ-7a would require the use of electric workover rig equipment, which would increase the requirement for electricity. However, these mitigation measures would increase fuel use levels only minimally, and the Proposed Project would still be a net producer of petroleum-based fuels and would, therefore not create any additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
The cumulative projects discussed in Section 3.0, Cumulative Project Description, would construct and use additional housing units, retail establishments, hotel rooms, and an energy project. None of these projects would contribute to unacceptable strains on the energy supply in the area. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts.
No mitigation measures are proposed.
4.5-12
4.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Response
4.6
Fire Protection and Emergency Response
This section addresses the fire protection and emergency response resources related to the Proposed Project. These resources include the existing services and capabilities of nearby fire departments and the systems and design of the proposed facilities and their associated pipelines. The emergencies that would require summoning these available resources include fire, oil spill, hazardous substance release, and other events that could lead to these emergency situations, such as earthquake, traffic accident, and pipeline rupture. This section also presents criteria used to determine significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. The Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would each have the potential for impacts on Safety and Risk. As the Proposed Oil Project and the Pipelines would operate together during the operational phases, these have been discussed in the same sub-section. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has been discussed in a separate impact sub-section.
The environmental setting addresses the capabilities currently in place, such as equipment and resources of agencies, such as the City of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo and the County of Los Angeles.
4.6.1.1 Response Capabilities
Response capabilities are associated with agencies with jurisdiction over the Project Area or that have mutual aide agreements with that jurisdiction.
Agency Response Capabilities and Responsibilities
The Project sites are entirely within the City of Hermosa Beach, which is under the jurisdiction of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The pipeline routes pass through the City of Hermosa Beach, as well as the City of Redondo Beach and Torrance, all of which are under the jurisdiction of the respective area fire departments. These areas are not a part of the emergency response area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD, also known as the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County). The City of Hermosa Beach has "automatic" aide agreements with Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach Fire Departments. This means that the dispatch of units to an incident is handled automatically by the dispatch center and the dispatch of additional units does not require the input of a commander on the scene. Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach have the same dispatch center. Redondo Beach has its own dispatch center. The City of Hermosa Beach also has mutual aide agreements with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department as well as the City of Torrance and El Segundo. Units from these fire
4.6-1
departments would be dispatched under the request of the commander on the scene. The City of Torrance also has a hazardous materials unit, but it is not a part of the mutual aide agreement. For a hazardous materials incident, such as a crude oil fire, a gas release or a hazardous material spill (i.e. crude oil spill), the City would provide the initial response and then rely on the resources of the hazardous materials unit from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Redondo Beach has very limited hazardous material response capabilities.
Table 4.6-1 Fire Stations Available to Respond to an Emergency at the Project Site Distance to Site (approximate response time) < 5 minutes 2 miles, 7:46 minutes
Fire Station/ Facility Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach #1 Redondo Beach #2 Manhattan Beach #1 Manhattan Beach #2
Address 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach 401 S. Broadway, Redondo Beach 2400 Grant Av, Redondo Beach 400 15th Street 1400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Equipment and Staff 1 Fire Engine Paramedic rescue unit Ambulance 3 Fire Engines Ladder Truck Fire Boat Limited Haz mat Unit Light Air Response Unit Ambulance 2 Fire Engines Paramedic rescue unit Ambulance Engines Ladder trucks Haz mat trailer Haz mat response team Paramedics Etc Engines Ambulance
2 miles, 6:58 minutes
2.3 Miles, 6:14 minutes 2.5 miles, 5:45 minutes
Torrance (6 fire stations)
1701 Crenshaw Blvd. (HQ), Torrance
5.5 Miles, 15 minutes
314 Main Street 5.5 miles, 13 minutes El Segundo CA LACFD #18 4518 Lennox Blvd, 8 miles, 17 minutes (closest) Inglewood Various LACFD #106 27413 Indian Peak Rd, 8 miles, 17 minutes (closest) Rancho Palos Verdes 18915 S Santa Fe Ave LACFD #105 12.5 miles, 24 minutes Haz Mat unit Carson 921 S Stimson Ave LACFD #43 37 miles, 46 minutes Haz Mat unit La Puente 42110 6th St West LACFD #129 79 miles, 90 minutes Haz Mat unit Lancaster 19190 Golden Valley LACFD #150 44 miles, 52 minutes Haz Mat unit Road, Santa Clarita Notes: response times from Redondo Beach and Manhattan beach based on average response times into Hermosa Beach, as per HBFD records from 2009-2013. El Segundo
4.6-2
The Hermosa Beach Fire Department training program includes monthly training on a range of topics, including: Apparatus Operations; Driving Techniques; Emergency Medical; Hazardous Materials; Incident Command; Fire Investigations; Fire Preventions; Rescue Operations; Fire Suppressions; and Wildland
Total personnel training hours total about 350 per month in 2013. The Hermosa Beach Fire Department issues an Annual Performance Report that details the departments performance against various criteria and acts as a guide for areas that might need improvement. The report indicates that, in 2012, there were 2,461 total calls for service, with 1,728 of those calls for services within the City and 1,551 of the calls for Emergency Medical Treatment (EMT, paramedics). The EMT total response time and travel times met the department goals or were within 5% of the department goals. However, the EMT dispatch alarm processing times and EMT turn-out times "clearly missed the goals". For fire service calls, the travel and response times were within 5% of the department goals. However, the fire dispatch alarm processing times and fire turn-out times also clearly missed the goals. In addition, response times with an Effective Response Force (meaning a minimum of four firefighters and, at emergency medical-related incidents, a minimum of four personnel with at least two of them paramedics) also clearly missed the goals to fire incidents, but met and exceeded the goals to emergency medical incidents. In terms of firefighting effectiveness, the percent of fires confined to room of origin, the average dollar loss per structure fire and the percentage of property saved from fire all met the Department goals. For inspections, the number of effective fire inspections (403 in the year 2012) and the number of effective pre-incident plans (1 conducted) did not meet the Department goals. For preliminary data on year 2013, the number of pre-incident plans increased to 42 and met Department goals. In terms of training, the training hours met the Department goals. For preliminary data on year 2013, the number of training hours has decreased by 17 hours per year per firefighter, and is potentially not meeting Department goals in some areas. In 2013, an Operations Analysis report was prepared for the Hermosa Beach Fire Department by ICMA Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA 2013). ICMA was retained by the city of Hermosa Beach to complete an operational analysis of the citys fire department to include staffing and workload. The analysis was intended to provide the City with an unbiased review of fire services provided by the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The report concluded that the
4.6-3
Hermosa Beach Fire Department was a capable department in the delivery of first response emergency medical (EMS) and fire services. However, it also concluded that the dispatch handling times are high for EMS and fire calls relative to NFPA 1710 Standards and that this "exceeding slow processing time" could contribute to difficulties in incidents with flashover and critically ill or injured patients. The report produced a number of recommendations related to organization and administrative issues. The report examined the entire fire response capabilities of the area mutual aide, including Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach Fire Departments, as well as the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The report also showed that the Project Site would be encompassed within the 4 minute travel times for the Redondo and Hermosa Beach Fire Departments and within the 6 minute travel time for the Manhattan Beach Fire Department. Hermosa Beach Fire Department units responded to 1,660 calls that originated from within the city in a 12 month period (May 1, 2012, to April 30, 2013) and 755 calls for mutual or automatic aide during the period (primarily from Manhattan and Redondo Beach).
Agency Inspection Programs
The City of Hermosa Beach conducts inspections on all businesses within the City. Currently, within the City, there are only light industrial facilities, such as automobile mechanics, that maintain any inventory of hazardous materials. The City Fire Departments goal is to inspect every business annually, although historically, they have achieved an inspection rate of about 6070% annually, with 406 inspections in 2012. The City Fire Department inspects fire compliance issues such as exit signs, hazmat locations, spacing, access and "pre-incident planning". In 1991, the LACFD merged with the Department of Health Services Hazardous Materials Control Program to form the Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD). In 1997, the HHMD became a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to administer the following programs within Los Angeles County: the Hazardous Waste Generator Program, the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal-ARP), the Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and the Underground Storage Tank Program. The HHMD has an Inspection Section, an Emergency Operations Section, a Special Operations Section, and an Administration and Planning Section. The Inspection Section permits and inspects hazardous material handling and hazardous-waste generating businesses to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to hazardous materials. It also oversees the proper handling, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes generated by many industries. These inspections ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations and assist businesses with pollution prevention and waste reduction. The HHMD personnel also investigate and resolve complaints alleging mismanagement of hazardous material and hazardous waste. The LACFD inspects hazardous materials locations annually as well for regulatory compliance. There are 28 facilities within the City of Hermosa Beach that are inspected by the LACFD. The LACFD inspects for issues such as compliance with hazardous material storage, use and disposal regulations and requirements.
4.6-4
4.6.2
Regulatory Setting
The regulatory section first discusses codes and standards and then federal and state legislative requirements.
4.6.2.1 Codes and Standards
Several codes and standards apply to fire protection and emergency response for facilities such as the Proposed Project. Table 4.6-2 lists many applicable rules and regulations from the American Petroleum Institute (API), Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Guidelines, Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI), LACFD Criteria and Guidelines, the International Fire Code (IFC), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Table 4.6-2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Guidelines
Description Classification of Hazardous Areas in Petroleum Pipeline Facilities Design and inspection of atmospheric tanks Inspection for Fire Protection Design and Construction of LPG installations and 2510A Fire API 2510 considerations Design, Construction, Operation, Inspection and Maintenance of Tank API 2610 and Terminal Facilities Guidelines for Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical and CCPS Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities IRI IM.2.5.2 Plant Layout and Spacing for Oil and Chemical Plants LACFD Fire 20 - Safety of Refineries, Bulk Plants and Chemical Plants and 24 Prevention Above Ground Storage & Dispensing of Flammable & Combustible Regulations Liquids NFPA Standard 11 Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems NFPA Standard 15 Water Spray Fixed Systems NFPA Standard 22 Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection NFPA Standard 24 Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection NFPA Standard 25 Systems NFPA Standard 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code IFC Chapter 53 Compressed gasses IFC Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids IFC Chapter 50 Hazardous Materials IFC Chapter 61 Liquefied Petroleum gasses IFC Appendix C&D Fire flow requirements, fire hydrant locations, Access Guidelines Notes: LPG = liquefied petroleum gas
Code/Standard API 500 API 653 API 2004
American Petroleum Institute
API develops petroleum and petrochemical equipment and operating standards and represents the oil and gas industry.
4.6-5
API 2610, Design, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Inspection of Terminal and Tank Facilities, addresses issues related to terminals and tank facilities. It addresses site selection, tank spacing requirements, waste management, operations, fire prevention, piping systems, and other issues. API 2610 generally referrers to NFPA 30 and NFPA 11 for fire protection issues, such as spacing and foam systems. Water supplies should be based on consideration of the specific risks involved. Water supply can be from any source that is capable of providing the required flow-rate and for sufficient duration. API 2610 also indicates that each facility should develop a written emergency plan for the event of a fire in the facility. API 2610 addresses: Hazard identification and communication (section 4.2); Written operating procedures to address routine and non-routine operations, such as emergency shutdown and startup (section 4.3); Safe work practices, including hotwork, lockout/tagout, and confined space entry (section 4.4); Emergency response plans (section 4.5, 5.6); Management of change, training programs, pre-startup review, incident investigation, and contractor safety (sections 4.6-4.10); Control of flammable vapors (e.g., storage tank type, inert gas) (section 5.2); Overfill protection and high level alarms (section 5.2, 6.1); Inspection and maintenance programs (see API 653); Portable fire extinguishers (section 5.3); Tank leak detection and vapor emission control (section 6.1); Tank appurtenances (e.g., vents, gauges, manholes, ladders, grounding); Water draw-off systems to remove water in the bottom of the tank; Dikes sized to contain the greatest amount of liquid that may be released from the largest tank within the diked area assuming a full tank and providing sufficient allowance for precipitation; Location of firefighting valves outside diked areas; Anchoring of piping and elimination of dead-legs; Loading facilities spill containment, including sloped pavement and catch basins, lighting, fire protection, and overpressure protection (section 9); Loading valves either self-closing (top loading) or automatic shut-off to prevent overfill; Loading area water/foam spray systems, automatically or manually activated with thermal/flame detectors, and combustible vapor detection; Loading vapor control systems; Loading emergency shutdown systems; Communication systems; and Corrosion control.
API 2610 states that unless known to be otherwise, crude oil and residual fuels in storage should be considered to be flammable liquids for firefighting purposes (section 5.8.2).
4.6-6
API 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, addresses the maintenance of atmospheric storage tanks: Tank suitability for service; Brittle fracture considerations; Inspections; Materials; Design considerations; Tank repair and alteration; Dismantling and reconstruction; Welding; Examination and testing; Marking and recordkeeping; External tank inspections by an authorized inspector every 5 years; Ultrasonic inspections of shell thickness every 5 years (when corrosion rate unknown); Internal bottom inspection every 10 years, if corrosion rates unknown; and Detailed checklists for in-service and out-of-service inspections (Appendix C).
API 2510 addresses storage and use of liquefied petroleum gasses (LPG), such as propane and butane. API 2510 requires: Looped water supply systems around the storage and handling of LPG; Water supply supplies capable of cooling the largest vessel being protected (0.25 gallons per minute per square foot [gpm/ft2]of vessel) plus adjacent vessels plus reserve capacity of three 250-gallon-per-minute (gpm) cooling streams; Water supply for at least 4 hours of supply; Location of hydrants so that each storage vessel can be reached from at least two directions by at least three cooling streams, none of which uses more than 300 feet of hose; Water deluge systems manually operated from outside the spill containment area and at least 50 feet from the storage vessel; Automatic systems considered for unattended operations; Fireproofing of vessel structural supports; Vessel fireproofing if portable equipment is the only means of applying water; Emergency shutoff systems, including manual shutoff from a location accessible during an emergency or automatic shutoff through fire activation; Shutoff valves shall close automatically with fire or be remotely actuated; and Fire and hydrocarbon detection.
Center for Chemical Process Safety
The American Institution of Chemical Engineers formed the CCPS in 1985 in response to the 1984 industrial accident in Bhopal, India. Since then, CCPS has published more than 100 process safety guidebooks. Guidelines for Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical and Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities (CCPS 2003a) and Facility Siting and Layout (CCPS 2003b) address several issues related to the Proposed Project processes, including fire protection
4.6-7
strategies, fire prevention, hazards analysis and risk assessment, equipment spacing, and design guidelines. Specific guidelines include: Firefighting access should be provided from at least two directions and should not require crossing an adjacent unit. Access ways should be provided every 200 feet, should be at least 20 feet wide, and should not pass under pipeways. A water supply of 4 hours should be provided with a minimum demand of 3,000 gpm. The use of flammable gas detection and fire detection (i.e., flame, smoke, and heat) is recommended. Detection and alarm systems are recommended, including alarms in the control room or another 24-hour attended location, visual and audible alarms such as strobes or beacons, and horns and detection systems utilizing heat, smoke, gas, and flame detection with appropriate spacing (NFPA 72). Foam systems should be checked at least annually, including foam performance evaluations and fire extinguishers should be checked monthly. Isolation valves should be used on inventories more than 2,000 gallons and they should be easily accessible under adverse conditions or remotely operable.
Industrial Risk Insurers
IRI provides guidance for facilities to address property loss prevention. IRI Guideline 17 indicates that water supplies should be capable of supplying at least 500 gpm for 4 hours for pumping stations (IRI 17.3.3), and 3,000 gpm for 4 hours to all areas of an oil storage terminal (IRI 17.3.4). IRI IM 2.5.2 also provides guidelines for the overall oil and chemical plants layout. The most important guidelines recommend: At least two entrances to the plant; Subdividing the site into general areas (blocks) with a maximum size of 300 by 600 feet; Access roadways between the blocks to allow access to each block from at least two directions; and Road widths and clearances sized to handle large moving equipment and emergency vehicles.
National Fire Protection Association
The NFPA, established in 1896, publishes numerous codes and standards that cover issues ranging from foam systems to dry cleaning facilities. Several NFPA codes and standards are applicable to the Proposed Project. NFPA Standard 11 addresses foam application to protect outdoor atmospheric storage tanks containing flammable and combustible liquids. Fire-fighting foam is an aggregate of air-filled bubbles formed from aqueous solutions and is lower in density than flammable liquids. It is used principally to form a cohesive floating blanket on flammable and combustible liquids and prevents or extinguishes fire by excluding air and cooling the fuel. It also prevents re-ignition by suppressing formation of flammable vapors. Foam is prepared by utilizing a water supply along with a foam concentrate.
4.6-8
Foam for tank fires can be applied through fixed foam discharge outlets permanently fixed to the tank top, by portable hose streams using foam nozzles, or by large-capacity monitor nozzles close to the tank. Foam can be applied to a liquid spill into a dike to suffocate a fire or prevent ignition of the flammable material spill, utilizing fixed systems, portable systems, or monitors. Foam systems should be inspected annually, including foam performance tests. For fires on the roof of the tank, NFPA 11 requires a foam supply with a minimum discharge rate of 0.16 gpm/ft2 (for hand-held and foam monitors) and a minimum discharge time of 65 minutes for crude petroleum (section 5). The minimum foam application rate and discharge time for discharge outlets fixed to the tank are 0.10 gpm/ft2 and 30 minutes, respectively. For diked areas, foam rates shall be 0.16 gpm/ft2 for 30 minutes. NFPA 11 also requires that fixed foam systems have automatic fire detection (thermal and hydrocarbon detection) and alarms. NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, addresses water spray systems and issues such as installation requirements; design requirements, including hydraulic calculations; water supplies; and maintenance. NFPA 22 addresses the installation of private water tanks to supply water to a facility. NFPA 24 and 25 address the installation of private fire service equipment, including service mains and fire hydrants, as well as inspection, testing, and maintenance. NFPA 30 addresses issues related to flammable and combustible liquids. NFPA 30 addresses fire prevention and risk control, electrical systems, storage in containers, processing facility issues, aboveground storage tanks requirements, and piping systems. NFPA 30 also addresses separation distances from vessels and tanks to property lines and to buildings and structures. NFPA 291 addresses testing of fire hydrants. As per NFPA 291.4.13, fire hydrants should be flow tested every five years and should be flushed at least annually. Class AA hydrants have a rated capacity of 1,500 gpm or more, Class A 1,000 gpm, Class B 500 gpm and Class C less than 500 gpm.
International Fire Code
The IFC addresses issues ranging from egress and emergency escapes to fumigation, hot work, and cryogenic fluids. Article 9 addresses fire protection systems, site access and water supply for buildings, including access road minimum width requirements of 20 feet and all-weather driving capabilities.
4.6.2.2 Federal and State Regulations
California Code Title 8, Division 1 (Department of Industrial Relations) Chapter 4 (Division of Industrial Safety), Subchapter 14 (Petroleum Safety Orders--Drilling and Production), addresses several issues related to confined space and testing of vapor. Article 6, section 6529 addresses issues related to fire and explosions:
4.6-9
Firefighting equipment should be inspected, tested, and maintained in serviceable condition. A record should be kept recording when fire extinguishers were last inspected, tested, and recharged. A plan shall be established and implemented to ensure the safe and orderly evacuation of employees.
Section 4.8, Risk of Upset, Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Resources, further discuss regulations related to oil spills and pipelines.
Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Regulations
The LACFD maintains fire prevention regulations that address issues from fireworks to aboveground storage of flammable materials. Regulation 8 addresses fire hydrant design, specifying 300-foot spacing, a minimum fire hydrant flow of 1,000 gpm, and a maximum flow of 5,000 gpm for 2 to 5 hours. Regulation 20 addresses refineries and chemical plants that store, handle, process, or distribute hazardous materials that are regulated by the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Regulation 20 addresses inspections, labeling of piping and tanks, permits, emergency plans, and safety training programs. The LACFD submitted a letter in response to the Notice of Preparation of this Environmental Impact Report that indicated requirements and needed submittals, which are reflected in existing codes and standards, including: The hazardous material types and quantities to be stored or used at the facility; Required permits from the Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and other appropriate agencies; Hazardous materials inventory submittal to CUPA; Hazardous materials management and emergency response plan; Identification of the oversight agency for remediation of onsite soil and groundwater contamination; and If storing natural gas over 10,000 pounds, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and submitted to the CUPA.
LACFD Fire Code (Title 32 and as per the International Fire Code Section 3406.3) addresses flammable and combustible liquids issues related to oil and gas wells, including: Overfill prevention; Automatic shut-off; Tank venting; Required use of foam systems on crude tanks with onsite storage of foam; Diked areas equal to or greater than the largest tank; and Well drilling and operations separation distance from storage tanks (25 feet), sources of ignition (25 feet), streets and railways (75 feet), buildings (100 feet), places of assembly and schools (300 feet).
4.6-10
Los Angeles County Dispatch Response Matrices
The LACFD maintains dispatch response matrices which guide the dispatch centers designation of resources for different calls, from structure fires to marine rescues. The first alarm requirements for an explosion, pipeline or oil well fire would include up to 4 engines, 1 truck, 1 squad, 1 emergency support team, 1 hazardous material task force, 1 urban search and rescue, 1 foam unit, 2 battalion chiefs and 1 ambulance.
4.6.2.3 Equipment Spacing
Safe equipment spacing requirements for petrochemical plants are given in IRI Guidelines IM2.5.2, CCPS, NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, NFPA 30, and API 2510. Table 4.6-3 summarizes the requirements applicable to the Proposed Project.
Table 4.6-3 Applicable IRI, CCPS, NFPA, and API Equipment Spacing Requirements
A. Inter-Unit Spacing Requirements (feet) - IRI Water supply Pumps Flares
Flares Loading Racks 300 50 Service Buildings 300 200 Control Rooms 300 200 Fire Pumps 300 200 50 50 Process Units High Hazard 300 200 400 300 300 200 Pressure Storage Tanks 400 350 350 350 350 350 * Atmospheric Storage Tanks 300 250 250 250 350 350 * * Notes: = no spacing requirement; * = see table C (Storage Tanks Spacing Requirements) Source: IRI IM2.5.2 B. Intra-Unit Spacing Requirements (feet) - IRI Compressors
High Hazard Pumps
Pipe racks
Fired Heaters
Heat Exchanges
Compressors Pipe racks Fired Heaters Heat Exchanges High Hazard Pumps Emergency controls Analyzer rooms Notes: = no spacing requirement Source: IRI IM2.5.2
30 50 50 30 30 50 50
Emergency controls
50 10 15 50 50
25 50 50 50 50
5 15 50 50
5 50 50
4.6-11
Analyzer rooms
Atmospheric Storage Tanks
Control Rooms
Pressure Storage Tanks
Loading Racks
Process Units High Hazard
Service Buildings
C. Plant Equipment Spacing Requirements (feet) CCPS
Property
Heat Exchangers
Property Storage Tanks 200 15 Heat Exchangers 200 15 15 Fired Heaters 200 50 50 Gas Compressors 200 15 15 50 Pumps 200 15 15 50 15 Loading Racks 100 200 200 200 200 200 LPG Loading racks 350 250 250 250 250 250 150 Office, lab, maintenance areas * 200 200 200 200 Control room * 200 200 200 200 Notes: see following table Source: CCPS Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical and Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities, Appendix A D. Tank Spacing to Other Areas (feet) CCPS Atmospheric Tank less than 10,000 gallons 25 50 50 50 Atmospheric Tank more than 10,000 gallons 100 100 250 200 Tank Type Atmospheric Tank with boil over potential 200 200 500 200 LPG Loading racks Loading Racks Pumps
Gas Compressors
Storage tanks
Fired Heaters
Location
Pressurized Storage 200 250 350 250
Refrigerated Flammable Storage 200 250 250 200
Property Boundary Public Access Offsite Populations Fire pumps
ESD and 50 50 50 50 50 mitigation systems Office, lab, 50 250 35 Maintenance areas Control 100 250 35 room Source: CCPS Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical and Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities, Appendix A
4.6-12
E. Storage Tanks Spacing Requirements (feet) IRI, CCPS Floating Roof Tanks 3,000<C<10,000 bbl
Floating Roof Tanks 10,000<C<300,000 bbl
Floating Roof Tanks 3,000<C<10,000 bbl Floating Roof Tanks 10,000<C<300,000 bbl Pressure Storage vessels Drums and Bullets IRI Pressure Storage vessels Drums and Bullets CCPS C = tank capacity; D = tank diameter Source: IRI IM2.5.2, CCPS
0.5 D D 1.5 D 100 min. 2.0 D 100 min
D 1.5 D 100 min. 2.0 D 100 min.
F. Atmospheric Storage Tanks Spacing Requirements - NFPA
Between Adjacent Tanks (Shell-to-Shell) From Property Line that Is or Can be Built Upon, Including the Opposite Side of a Public Way With Protection for Exposures From Property Line that Is or Can be Built Upon, Including the Opposite Side of a Public Way No Protection for Exposures From Nearest Side of any Public Way or from Nearest Important Building on the Same Property Liquid processing equipment, such as pumps heaters, etc distance to a property that can be built upon Source: NFPA 30
Required Distance 1/6 sum of adjacent tank diameters but not less than 3 feet times diameter of tank or 175 feet for tanks over 3,000,000 gal (72,000 bbl) capacity Diameter of tank, but need not exceed 175 feet but no less than 5 feet 1/6 times diameter of tank but no less than 5 feet or 60 feet for tanks more than 3,000,000 gallons capacity 25 feet
4.6-13
Pressure Storage vessels Drums and Bullets D D
G. Pressurized Liquefied Petroleum Gas Tanks Spacing Requirements - API Required Distance 5 feet or of larger tank diameter 75 feet (for 30,000-70,000 gallon Adjoining Property Line tanks) Control buildings 50 feet Other buildings 100 feet Process vessels 50 feet Flares and other equipment with open flames 100 feet Fired equipment including process furnaces 50 feet 50 feet Rotating equipment, except pumps taking suction from LPG tanks 10 feet Loading facilities 50 feet Source: API Standard 2510 Design and Construction of LPG Installations, 2001 Edition Between Adjacent Tanks (Shell-to-Shell)
4.6.3
The CEQA Guidelines do not identify specific significance criteria for fire protection and emergency response. Therefore, significance criteria have been developed against which the significance of the future operations impacts to fire or other emergency protection can be judged. These thresholds address fire protection impacts in two areas: the general adequacy and design of onsite fire protection systems, and the general adequacy of emergency response capabilities. The basis for the thresholds are existing codes and standards. By examining these two areas, the following significance criteria were developed. The Proposed Project would be considered to have a significant impact in the fire protection and emergency response area if: The Project Site does not contain adequate water supply or fire foam supplies to meet the recommended CCPS, NFPA Standards, and the IRI guidelines or the CAL FIRE requirements; The Project facilities do not have sufficient capabilities in early fire detection according to the NFPA requirements; The Project equipment layout and access structure do not meet the API, NFPA, IFC, and IRI or CAL FIRE recommendations for equipment spacing and clearances; The Project Site is more than 10 miles (15 minutes) from an emergency response location with fire-fighting capabilities (i.e., a fire station or facility with fire-fighting and emergency response capabilities) or accessibility to the site is difficult or limited causing issues in terms of access, evacuations, and response; Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
4.6-14
4.6.4
Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Fire Protection service; or The Project Site does not have an emergency response plan.
This section characterizes the fire protection and emergency response impacts generated by the Proposed Project.
4.6.4.1 CUP Requirements
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit. Applicable requirements for Fire Protection are listed below. Adequate fire detection and fighting equipment and supplies, approved by the Fire Department, shall be maintained on the drillsite and tank production facility at all times. A supplementary analysis by a professional consultant shall be provided detailing any necessary improvements the Fire Department may need to prevent, and to halt oil related fires and shall also include the following: public notification, warning and evacuation plan. Oil sumps, drip pans, etc. shall be cleaned at regular intervals to reduce fire hazards and prevent minor spills. Oily rags, paper and miscellaneous waste shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner to reduce fire hazards. Signs warning of flammable fluids and prohibiting smoking shall be installed where appropriate. The drillsite and production facility shall be protected by automatic fire detection sensors and suppression systems. The fire suppression systems shall include a tank-cooling sprinkler system. Drilling operations shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate Division of Oil and Gas regulations and shall utilize all required blowout prevention equipment and safety devices. Fire flows to service the operation shall meet Fire Department requirements. All equipment necessary to contain an oil fire or blowout shall be provided and or maintained on site and all fire personnel shall be trained on its use.
4.6-15
4.6.4.2 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Impacts

FP.1
Oil development activities at the site could be deficient in water supplies, detection systems, access or emergency response.
Phase 2, 4
Water Supply
Water used to fight fires would be obtained from the connection to the reclaimed water system that runs along the Greenbelt. The West Basin Municipal Water District would supply the reclaimed water. Potable water would be supplied to the site by California Water Services Company (CalWater) for domestic uses. The closest fire hydrants are located near the corner of 6th and Valley Drive along 6th Street and at the corner of 6th Street and Cyprus. Flow testing by CalWater is conducted only upon request and payment. That is the only time these hydrants appear to be tested. CalWater indicates that a 4 inch hydrant (at 6th and Valley Dr,) and a 6 inch hydrant at 6th and Cyprus, both connected to the 6 inch main along Valley Drive. Recent testing of these hydrants by CalWater indicate flows of more than 2,432 gpm at 20 psi and 3,011 gpm at 20 psi, respectively, which would be insufficient or only marginally sufficient (only one of the hydrants is above the minimum 3,000 gpm), to supply adequate water service to the site. An 8 inch main is also located along 4th and 2nd Streets. Peak flows and pressures from the reclaimed water system might help to provide sufficient water supply and the West Basin Municipal District indicates that its' reclaimed water can be used as water. Current requirements by NFPA and the LACFD indicate that water supplies should be from 3,000 to 5,000 gpm. The lack of sufficient water supply flows at the site would be a significant impact.
Detection
Detailed design drawings are not yet available for the Project, so the exact layout of fire detection systems cannot be assessed. During the Drilling and Testing Phase 2, temporary equipment would include hydrogen sulfide monitors on the drilling rig and breathing air packs at the rig and in the safety trailer, as well as the use of the nearby fire hydrants to supply water. The site's fire protection would include an automated alarm system and fire hydrant system as required by the LACFD. However, preliminary design documents have not yet been developed to address the details of the installation of fire detection and prevention systems, such as foam systems on crude oil storage tanks, flame detection, and flammable gas detection systems. Although these systems are anticipated to be developed and implemented, failure to do so would be a significant impact.
4.6-16
Response Capabilities and Response Time
If an incident required fire protection and emergency services, the closest fire stations to the Proposed Project Site would be Hermosa Beach Fire Station, just a few minutes away, followed by other nearby fire stations within 10 minutes. The closest hazmat unit is located in Torrance (15 minutes) or the LACFD in Carson (24 minutes response time). The LACFD has extensive HAZMAT resources and planning to fight an oil fire and, generally, a low number of historical incidents associated with existing oil facilities in the Los Angeles have occurred. For example, at the Baldwin Hills Oil Field, in Inglewood, which is close to 100 years old, has almost 1,000 active wells, over 50 tanks and almost 8 miles of internal piping, there has been only a few LACFD responses to release incidents in the last four years. The installation of the Proposed Project oil and gas processing facility would require a minimal increase in response or dispatch activities because the number of incidents at the facility is anticipated to be low. The ICMA report prepared in 2013 indicated that slow dispatch times were a concern and could contribute to the potential for difficulties in incidents with flashover and critically ill or injured patients. This could be a significant impact if an incident were to occur at the Proposed Oil Project. Otherwise, response times comply with the established significance criteria, with some concerns related to dispatch capabilities. For the capabilities of the response, the distance to an LACFD Hazmat team is relatively long at 24 minutes, and the Torrance HAZMAT is not currently a part of the Hermosa Beach mutual aide agreement. LACFD dispatch matrices indicate that the local Fire Departments (Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo) would be able to provide some of the response capabilities to a pipeline incident or an oil well fire incident (such the appropriate number of fire engines, trucks, ambulances, etc), but would be lacking in such items as a Hazmat unit. The exact specifications of equipment requirements would be a function of the Project Site response equipment. For example, a foam truck might not be needed if the Project Site has sufficient foam systems installed. However, equipment and training for a crude oil spill (for the pipeline route) and Hazmat response would be needed as a minimum. This would be a significant impact for Hazmat response. Inspection requirements may strain the capabilities of the local fire department. The local fire department already is below the goals defined in the Annual Performance Report for inspections and the inspection requirements associated with an oil and gas production facility would far exceed any inspection requirements that the department currently undertakes. The lack of appropriate inspection resources would be considered a significant impact. Part of the response system is the ability to alert neighbors, residences and businesses in the event of a fire or other incident and allow for the implementation of rapid and effective shelterin-place or evacuation procedures. Hermosa Beach has an alert system that could be utilized to assist in the notification of emergencies. The Project would need to be integrated into this existing alert system. The Proposed Project facilities would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The evacuation plans may need to be amended as a part of the emergency response planning, however. The current lack of these measures would be a significant impact.
4.6-17
Access to the Project Site appears to be adequate based on the preliminary design documents. Access is from two sides with adequate width for firefighting (26 feet as per the design documents). Detailed plans associated with the Proposed Project have not been developed. These plans would include Emergency Response Plans, Spill Prevention Plans, and Oil Spill Response Plans. Additionally, Evacuation Plans would be developed to ensure the safety of the employees, and plans would be designed to communicate with surrounding residences and businesses regarding neighborhood evacuations in the event of flammable gas releases, crude oil tank fires, or other relevant events. These plans would be reviewed by the Fire Department and measures would be implemented as part of the permitting phase to ensure that appropriate response capabilities are in place. If these plans are not developed, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation measures would include measures to ensure proper water supply, community outreach, and alert systems, plans reflect current codes, and the development of emergency response plans.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measure HWQ-2d required that onsite personnel be trained in oil spill response and containment with appropriate equipment onsite. This will help to improve response capabilities to an oil spill at the site or along the pipeline. The following mitigation measures shall also be implemented to enhance the response capabilities. FP-1a The Applicant shall ensure adequate (3,000-5,000 gpm) water supplies are available from the reclaimed water pipeline, the existing hydrant system, or some other source for water supplies that provides sufficient water supply rates, pressure and duration to comply with codes and the LACFD. Installation of a fire pump, or installation of a piping connection to area water mains that can supply the flows, may be required to ensure the appropriate water flow and pressure requirements. The Applicant shall ensure that all area hydrants and water supplies are tested annually as required by NFPA standards for water flows and pressures, and shall ensure that the results are reported to the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The Applicant shall implement a community alert notification system to automatically notify area residences and businesses in the event of an emergency at the oil field that would require residents to take shelter or take other protective actions. The Applicant shall fund an additional FTE position at the HBFD, or equivalent, for personnel with specific capabilities in inspection and code compliance associated with oil and gas production facilities. This arrangement shall be to the satisfaction of the HBFD. The Applicant shall develop emergency response plans addressing the facility's firefighting capabilities pursuant to the most recent NFPA requirements, Los Angeles County Fire Code, LACFD, California Code of Regulation, and API requirements, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the LACFD and the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, fire monitor
FP-1b
FP-1c
FP-1d
4.6-18
placement, water capabilities, fire detection capabilities, fire foam requirements, facility condition relating to fire-fighting ease and prevention, and measures to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The plan should also address coordination with local emergency responders and area schools and daycare facilities. FP-1e The Applicant shall ensure that the emergency response planning includes development and testing of evacuation plans of neighbors for an emergency scenario at the facility, and the Applicant shall implement programs to ensure that all immediate neighbors are included in the notification system. The Applicant shall ensure and make funding available to 1) upgrade the dispatch system and procedures within Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo to implement a CAD-toCAD system to improve dispatch times; and 2) extend the mutual aide agreements between the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and the Torrance Fire Department to include the Torrance HAZMAT unit, or provide for funding to provide additional equipment and to train a sufficient number of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach Emergency Response personnel to provide first response HAZMAT capabilities.
FP-1f
Residual Impacts
The LACFD codes, and other codes and standards, require water supplies of 3,000 to 5,000 gpm. The water supply infrastructure in the area currently is not able to provide these levels of flow, but can be improved to do so with additional design and equipment (i.e. fire pumps, additional hydrants, and/or installation of pipelines). With this mitigation, the water supplies impact would be less than significant. Early fire detection systems and preventative measures at the site, as well as fire fighting capabilities, including automatically activated foam systems on and around the crude oil tanks, within the containment area and around the well area, are critical for ensuring that any release response is effective and quick. Notification of area residences and businesses would also facilitate effective emergency response. Notification systems would be initiated by the HBFD or the sheriff or police departments. Upgrading the dispatch system to computer aided dispatch systems that ties together Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo Fire Departments would reduce dispatch times. Extension of the mutual aide agreements to include the Torrance Fire Department Hazmat units, or providing local capabilities in hazmat response, would reduce the time of a HAZMAT response. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.6-19
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
FP.2
Oil development activities at the site could be deficient in equipment spacing pursuant to applicable codes and standards.
Phase 2, 4
Equipment Spacing
The Proposed Project is particularly challenged to provide sufficient spacing between equipment and between equipment and areas offsite due to the small size of the site. For example, the current design of the facility has the compressors, the low temperature separation equipment, the VRU and the flare all located within the containment area for the crude oil tanks. If a crude oil spill were to occur, crude oil would impact this equipment and substantially increase the ignition probabilities, leading to an almost certain crude oil fire in the event of a spill. NFPA 30 does not specifically prohibit the placement of combustion or other equipment within diked areas, but it does prohibit the placement of "combustible materials, drums or barrels" (NFPA 30.22.11.2.8) within a diked area, thereby implying combustion equipment within the diked area would not be considered "good engineering practice". Based on preliminary design drawings, the site appears to have some issues with equipment spacing requirements, including: Well drilling equipment spacing from buildings (100 feet, as per LACFC) - well drilling equipment would be located 33 feet from adjacent buildings; Fired heater separation distances from property line (200 feet) and from storage tanks (15 feet) as per CCPS- the flare would be located 10-12 feet from the property line and 8 feet from the storage tanks;
Some equipment spacing could still create impacts, such as the location of the flare relative to process units or atmospheric storage tanks and distances from public areas. Inadequate equipment spacing would be a significant impact. During the drilling phases of the Project, a 32 foot sound wall would be installed. The flare would be located immediately adjacent to the soundwall with the flare stack height 16 feet and the soundwall being 32 feet. This could produce a fire risk with the soundwall in such close proximity to the high temperatures of the flare exhaust. LACFD Code requires that "where soundproofing material is required during oil field operations, such material shall be noncombustible". Failure to provide proper separation distances to combustible materials could also be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
FP-2a
The Applicant shall ensure that design and construction comply with applicable codes and standards for equipment spacing, particularly those related to flare location and distances to public areas and distances from well drilling equipment to buildings. If
4.6-20
this cannot be achieved, additional requirements shall include the construction of thermal radiation barriers or insulation on the crude oil tanks, installation of thermal barriers/walls around the flare stack, increasing the height of the flare stack during drilling, relocation of the flare stack, providing thermal radiation modeling to estimate the impacts of equipment on the crude tanks and process piping and public areas. Fire rated barriers shall be established, as per LACFD requirements, to ensure that all buildings within 100 feet of well drilling would be protected from thermal radiation. The design and construction compliance status shall be verified by third-party audits under the direction of the City. FP-2b Fire protection measures specific to the crude oil containment system shall be provided, including the installation of automatic fire foam systems along the perimeter of the crude oil containment system and wellhead area and immediately adjacent to combustion or spark producing equipment within or immediately adjacent to the crude oil containment area that would be automatically and remotely activated in the event of a crude oil spill. The highest level electrical classification achievable shall be designated for all equipment located within the crude oil containment area.
Residual Impacts
Ensuring that equipment spacing complies with codes and standards before construction would ensure that impacts associated with equipment spacing would be less than significant. Ensuring that firefighting methods, including fire foam, would automatically and effectively be discharged in the event of a crude oil spill would help to reduce the impacts of a crude oil fire. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Valve Box Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the location of the valve box for the tie-in to the crude oil system. For fire protection and emergency response, there is no difference between the locations as long as appropriate access would be provided. It appears from the preliminary plans that access would be appropriate.
Pipeline Route Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the pipeline route for tie-in to the crude oil system. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 involve construction in the roadway, which would require additional construction activities, which would potentially produce some traffic congestion, and potentially slow fire response activities that would use these roadways. Scenario 3 would be installed within the mostly dirt SCE right-of-way. Scenario 3 would therefore be preferable.
4.6.4.3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts
The operations of the permanent Proposed City Maintenance yard Project would have the same impacts on emergency response and fire protection as the current City Maintenance Yard operations. Water supply would be from existing fire hydrants. Early fire detection would be as per building codes for smoke alarms and sprinkler systems. Equipment spacing and code compliance for oil equipment would not be applicable. The City Maintenance Yard Project
4.6-21
would be located immediately next door to the Hermosa Beach Fire Department, so response times would be more than adequate. Therefore, permanent operations at the City Maintenance Yard would have less than significant impacts. There is the potential to have adverse impacts on existing emergency response facilities.
FP.3
The temporary City Maintenance Yard Facilities could interfere with the Fire Department response activities.
Phase 1
As the temporary City Maintenance Yard would utilize some space currently used by the Fire Department, there is the potential for the temporary facilities to interfere with the Fire Department response activities. The Fire Department currently utilizes 11th Street and Bard Street to occasionally move fire trucks in and out of the fire station. Loss of this route would require the fire trucks to negotiate a sharp turn when exiting the fire station onto Bard Street. This could cause some slowing of response times and affect emergency response capabilities and would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
FP-3
The City Public Works Department shall coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that fire trucks have adequate access to and from the fire station, and that the temporary City Maintenance Yard does not inhibit the ability of the Fire Department to respond to emergencies. This may require the elimination of some parking along Bard Street to ensure adequate room for fire truck turn-arounds, or other measures. Public Works shall incorporate the potential loss of parking into their parking plan.
Residual Impacts
Ensuring that the fire department is involved in the planning and design of the temporary City Maintenance Yard would ensure that fire response is not compromised by the temporary facilities. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options for parking: a No Added Parking option that would retain the same number of parking spaces as are currently available at Hermosa Storage; and a Parking Option, that would add 97 parking spaces. The two options would generate the same impacts on fire protection.
None of the mitigation measures proposed for impacts related to other issue areas would change fire protection and emergency service impacts. Therefore, the mitigation measures would not result in additional significant impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
4.6-22
4.6.6
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Cumulative projects that would draw on the same emergency response resources could impact the fire protection analysis of the Proposed Project. The HBFD, the primary responder for the Project Site, maintains a fire station located proximate to the Project Site, which would be able to provide sufficient initial fire response services for the Proposed Project. Other cumulative projects in the area would not increase the fire response needs of the area. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure FP-1a Requirements The Applicant shall ensure adequate (3,000-5,000 gpm) water supplies are available from the reclaimed water pipeline, the existing hydrant system, or some other source for water supplies that provides sufficient water supply rates, pressure and duration to comply with codes and the LACFD. Installation of a fire pump, or installation of a piping connection to area water mains that can supply the flows, may be required to ensure the appropriate water flow and pressure requirements. The Applicant shall ensure that all area hydrants and water supplies are tested annually as required by NFPA standards for water flows and pressures, and shall ensure that the results are reported to the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The Applicant shall implement a community alert notification system to automatically notify area residences and businesses in the event of an emergency at the oil field that would require residents to take shelter or take other protective actions. The Applicant shall fund an additional FTE position at the HBFD, or equivalent, for personnel with specific capabilities in inspection and code compliance associated with oil and gas production facilities. This arrangement shall be to the satisfaction of the HBFD. The Applicant shall develop emergency response plans addressing the facility's firefighting capabilities pursuant to the most recent NFPA requirements, Los Angeles Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before City of water flow Phase 2 Hermosa calcs and Beach tests, HBFD annual reviews
FP-1b
Review and testing of system
Before Phase 2
City of Hermosa Beach HBFD
FP-1c
Training and hiring completed at HBFD
Before Phase 2
FP-1d
Review and approval of plans
Before Phase 2
4.6-23
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements County Fire Code, LACFD, California Code of Regulation, and API requirements, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the LACFD and the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, fire monitor placement, water capabilities, fire detection capabilities, fire foam requirements, facility condition relating to fire-fighting ease and prevention, and measures to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The plan should also address coordination with local emergency responders and area schools and daycare facilities. The Applicant shall ensure that the emergency response planning includes development and testing of evacuation plans of neighbors for an emergency scenario at the facility, and the Applicant shall implement programs to ensure that all immediate neighbors are included in the notification system. The Applicant shall ensure and make funding available to 1) upgrade the dispatch system and procedures within Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo to implement a CAD-to-CAD system to improve dispatch times; and 2) extend the mutual aide agreements between the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and the Torrance Fire Department to include the Torrance HAZMAT unit, or provide for funding to provide additional equipment and to train a sufficient number of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach Emergency Response personnel to provide first response HAZMAT capabilities. The Applicant shall ensure that design and construction comply with applicable codes and standards for equipment spacing, particularly those related to flare location and distances to public areas and distances from well drilling equipment to buildings. If this cannot be achieved, additional requirements shall include the construction of thermal radiation barriers or insulation on the crude oil tanks, installation of thermal barriers/walls around the flare stack, increasing the height of the flare stack during drilling, relocation of the flare stack, Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
FP-1e
Review of plan revision
Before Phase 2 and Phase 4
FP-1f
Review of Mutual Aide agreement revision
FP-2a
Third party audit report review
4.6-24
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements providing thermal radiation modeling to estimate the impacts of equipment on the crude tanks and process piping and public areas. Fire rated barriers shall be established, as per LACFD requirements, to ensure that all buildings within 100 feet of well drilling would be protected from thermal radiation. The design and construction compliance status shall be verified by thirdparty audits under the direction of the City. Fire protection measures specific to the crude oil containment system shall be provided, including the installation of automatic fire foam systems along the perimeter of the crude oil containment system and wellhead area and immediately adjacent to combustion or spark producing equipment within or immediately adjacent to the crude oil containment area that would be automatically and remotely activated in the event of a crude oil spill. The highest level electrical classification achievable shall be designated for all equipment located within the crude oil containment area. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
FP-2b
Review of design documents

Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure FP-3 Requirements The City Public Works Department shall coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that fire trucks have adequate access to and from the fire station, and that the temporary City Maintenance Yard does not inhibit the ability of the Fire Department to respond to emergencies. This may require the elimination of some parking along Bard Street to ensure adequate room for fire truck turn-arounds, or other measures. Public Works shall incorporate the potential loss of parking into their parking plan. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before the City of design start of the Hermosa documents temporary Beach facility HBFD construction
4.6-25
4.6-26
4.7 Geological Resources/Soils
4.7
Geological Resources/Soils
This section addresses Proposed Project impacts related to geologic hazards and resources. In addition to evaluating potential impacts at each of the Proposed Project sites, the assessment identifies the potential for impacts that might be in the Proposed Project vicinity or subregion, such as induced seismicity and subsidence (onshore or offshore) due to oil and gas extraction. The discussion below draws on several sources, including geotechnical studies prepared by the Citys consultants for this EIR (NMG Geotechnical 2012; Geosyntec 2012), as well as geologic reports and maps pertaining to the Proposed Project area.
4.7.1.1 Regional Geology
The Proposed Project is located along the southwestern margin of the Los Angeles Basin and Coastal Plain, approximately 0.4 miles inland (east) of the coastline and the Pacific Ocean, at the southwest end of Santa Monica Bay. The Los Angeles Basin is an alluvial-filled basin that is bound to the north and east by the Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana mountains and to the west and south by the Pacific Ocean and the Palos Verdes Hills. The Los Angeles Basin is approximately 70 miles long and 10 miles wide, and is a structural basin formed in the midMiocene epoch as a result of tectonic processes. As the basin formed, it filled with a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits (up to 35,000 feet thick). The Los Angeles Basin is also referred to as a depositional basin in order to describe the simultaneous deepening of the basin by tectonic processes and infilling with sediment. Prior to approximately five million years ago, this basin was submerged under the ocean and much of the sediment was deposited in a marine environment. This thick sequence of sedimentary materials provides the large reservoir for the Los Angeles area oil and gas fields. Of the 43 active oil fields in the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 35 produce from the Upper Miocene and Pliocene age reservoirs (Table 4.7-1), including the Proposed Oil Projects Hermosa Beach oil field that is located on what is called the Los Angeles Western Shelf, at the extreme northwest end of the Torrance-Wilmington Anticline. The anticline plunges down to the southeast, from Torrance towards Wilmington. The targeted oilproducing geologic units for the Proposed Oil Project include: the Upper Main, the Lower Main, and the Del Amo units of the Miocene age Puente Formation (Figure 2.8).
4.7-1
4.7 Geolo ogical Resou urces/Soils
Figure 4.7 7-1
Regional Fault Ma ap
E&B Oil Drilling D & Prod duction Projec ct
4.7-2
Dra aft Environme ental Impact Report
Table 4.7-1
General Stratigraphic Section for Hermosa Beach Oil field Area Approximate Thickness (feet) Proposed Oil Project Target Oil Zones
Age
Formation/Lithology
Holcene and Upper Pleistocene Lower Pleistocene Pliocene Miocene
Undifferentiated sands and Lakewood Formation (?) San Pedro Formation Pico Formation Repetto Formation Puente Formation
~0 100 ~200 400 ~800 1,500 ~100 1,200 ~1,000 2,000
----Upper Main Lower Main Del Amo Schist Conglomerate
Schist Conglomerate ~100 400 Catalina Schist Cretaceous-Jurassic --Basement Rock Source: Geosyntec 2012. Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Technical Report for E&B Oil Development Project
4.7.1.2 Local Geology
The Proposed Project sites are underlain by Holocene-age dune sands located west of the adjacent older alluvial deposits of the Los Angeles Basin to the east. The on-site deposits, which were encountered in borings drilled at the Project Site to depths of 45 feet below ground surface, generally consist of dune and drift sands that were deposited as ancient eolian (wind-blown) deposits. The wind-blown dune sands are described as yellowish brown, slightly silty to clean, well-sorted sands that are medium dense to very dense (NMG Geotechnical 2012). Artificial fill (inert landfill material) was encountered in the northeast area of the Project Site, where an onsite landfill had operated from the 1920s through the 1940s. Small amounts of undocumented artificial fill were also found scattered across the Project Site (NMG Geotechnical 2012). Beneath the surficial dune sands is the Pleistocene age San Pedro Formation, consisting of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated stratified sands with some clays, silts, and gravels. Beneath the San Pedro Formation is the late Pliocene age Pico Formation, consisting of marine siltstones and sandstones (Figure 2-8, Applicant Proposed Project Lease Areas Cross Sections). Beneath the Pico Formation is the early Pliocene age Repetto Formation, consisting of siltstones with layers of sandstones and conglomerates. Beneath the Repetto Formation is the Miocene age Puente Formation, which is the primary oil reservoir in the Hermosa Beach area. Within the Puente Formation, the Proposed Oil Project targets the Upper Main, Lower Main, and Del Amo reservoir units. The Upper Main is expected to be the shallowest oil productive section for the Proposed Oil Project and it is known to be the most prolific oil-producing zone for this area of the Los Angeles Basin. Beneath Hermosa Beach, the Upper Main is expected to be over 300 feet thick (Figure 2-8, Applicant Proposed Project Lease Areas Cross Sections) and
4.7-3
composed of interbedded thin sands and shales. The shales are already fractured and provide both fracture porosity and permeability, which is important to oil production in the area. The Lower Main directly underlies the Upper Main, is similar in lithology to the Upper Main but with fewer interbedded fine-grained sands, and is also fractured. This geologic unit is expected to be over 500 feet thick. The Del Amo Zone directly underlies the Lower Main and is considered to be the poorest producing oil zone from the Puente Formation, for the Proposed Oil Project. Similar to the overlying Upper and Lower Main zones, the Del Amo Zone is fractured and varies in thickness from 200 to 700 feet in the Proposed Oil Project area. Underlying these three units targeted by the Proposed Oil Project is the Late Miocene age Schist Conglomerate. This geologic unit may have some oil potential north and northeast of Hermosa Beach, and possibly in Wilmington to the southeast, and may be a viable exploration target for the Proposed Oil Project.
4.7.1.3 Geologic Hazards Faulting and Seismicity Faulting
The seismicity of southern California is dominated by the intersection of the northwest-trending San Andreas Fault System and the east-west trending Transverse Ranges Fault System. The Los Angeles Basin is located at the intersection of these two systems. Both systems are responding to strain produced by the relative motions of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. The strain is relieved by right lateral strike slip faulting on the San Andreas and related faults and by vertical, reverse slip, or left lateral, strike slip displacement on faults in the Transverse Ranges. The effects of this deformation include mountain building, basin development, deformation of Quaternary marine terraces, widespread regional uplift, and generation of earthquakes. The Proposed Project sites are not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (California Division of Mines and Geology 1999; California Geological Survey 2010; Geosyntec 2012; and NMG Geotechnical 2012). Based on mapping by the State (California Geological Survey 2010), there are no known major active faults at the Proposed Project sites and no evidence of active faulting was observed during NMGs geologic/geotechnical Project Site investigation. The closest active faults are the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located 5.8 miles east of the Project Site, and the Palos Verdes Fault, located 1.9 miles west of the Project Site (California Geological Survey 2010; Geosyntec 2012; and NMG Geotechnical 2012) (Figure 4.7-1). An inactive offshore fault, named Offshore Fault 103, is located approximately 1.4 miles west of the Project Site (Geosyntec 2012).
4.7-4
Ground Shaking
The energy released during an earthquake propagates from its rupture surface as seismic waves. The resulting strong ground motion from the seismic wave propagation can cause significant damage to structures. At any location, the intensity of the ground motion is a function of the distance to the fault rupture, the local soil and bedrock conditions, and the earthquake magnitude. Intensity is usually greater in areas underlain by unconsolidated material, such as the Proposed Project area, than in areas underlain by more competent rock. Earthquakes are characterized by a moment magnitude, which is quantitative measure of the strength of the earthquake based on strain energy released during the event. The magnitude is independent of the site, but it is dependent on several factors including the type of fault, rock type, and stored energy. Moderate to severe ground shaking will be experienced in the Proposed Project area if a large magnitude earthquake occurs on one of the nearby active faults. Historical records indicate that the Proposed Project area has experienced shaking from a number of seismic events over the last century and a half. The seismic events that likely caused varying degrees of ground motion at the Proposed Project sites include the earthquakes of 1812, 1827, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1893, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1965, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1987, 1991, and 1994. The 1812 and 1857 events are thought to have occurred along the Mojave Segment of the San Andreas Fault and caused significant damage to developed areas of southern and central California. Those earthquakes were estimated to have had moment magnitudes of approximately M7.1 and 7.8, respectively. The 1952 Tehachapi earthquake had an estimated moment magnitude of M7.7. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake, which occurred on the nearby NewportInglewood Fault, caused serious damage to weak masonry structures and killed 115 people. The earthquake had an estimated moment magnitude of M6.4 (USGS 2012; Southern California Earthquake Data Center 2014). A Project Site-specific seismic analysis completed for the Proposed Oil Project indicated that the maximum moment magnitude would be a magnitude 7.7 earthquake, generated from the Palos Verdes Fault (NMG Geotechnical 2012).
Probabilistic Ground Acceleration Analysis
The California Geological Survey has prepared probabilistic seismic hazard maps, expressed in terms of the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion. For example, the 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map depicts an annual probability of 1 in 475 of being exceeded each year. These maps have been prepared for use in designing buildings in high seismic areas. The maps for 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years show ground motions that the California Geological Survey do not believe will be exceeded in the next 50 years. In fact, there is a 90 percent chance that these ground motions would not be exceeded. This probability level allows engineers to design structures for larger ground motions than what is expected during a 50 year interval. In the Proposed Project area, there is a 10 percent probability of exceedance of ground acceleration of 0.4 to 0.5 g (percent of gravity) (California Geological Survey 2013).
4.7-5
In confirmation of the maps described above, Project Site-specific acceleration values were calculated (NMG Geotechnical 2012). A peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.433g and peak vertical ground acceleration of 0.560g was calculated for the Project Site. Based on these predicted ground accelerations and underlying earth material conditions, moderate to severe ground shaking due to a seismic event can be expected in the Proposed Project area.
Earthquakes and Petroleum Facilities
Worldwide, earthquake performance at various types of petroleum facilities has been excellent from the standpoint of direct damage, but several significant instances of damage have occurred as a result of fire following an earthquake. In the 1952 Kern County earthquake (magnitude 7.3), the Paloma Cycling Plant survived the earthquake well until two large butane spheres collapsed, releasing highly volatile material, which spread quickly and was ignited within minutes. The 1964 Niigata, Japan earthquake (magnitude 7.5) resulted in fire at the Showa Oil Company refinery, which burned continuously for two weeks. In addition, fire occurred at failed storage tanks following the 1964 Alaska earthquake (magnitude 8.4). However, during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude 6.4), in the northern Los Angeles area, damage to refineries in the vicinity of the epicenter was limited to internal piping and some storage tanks. Similarly, oil lines were undamaged during the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (magnitude 6.4) and pipeline damage was minimal during the 1983 Coalinga earthquake (magnitude 6.4) (California Division of Mines and Geology 1988). The low earthen embankments used as retention dikes around oil storage tanks are subject to failure from earthquake shaking. Damage to storage tanks is commonly due to the sloshing of liquids that damages or destroys the fixed or floating tank tops. Tank piping often breaks when it does not possess sufficient flexibility. Historically, while the spillage of oil has sometimes been considerable, these spills have not been serious when contained within dikes and kept free of ignition sources (California Division of Mines and Geology 1988).
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Potential hazards resulting from the secondary effects of ground shaking include: liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential settlement, and landslide-induced earthquakes.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a type of ground failure that occurs as a result of loss of shear strength or shearing resistance in loose and sometimes medium dense, cohesionless soils, due to seismically induced ground shaking. Liquefaction typically occurs in sediments where static, relatively widespread groundwater is less than 50 feet (15 m) below ground surface. Factors that affect the degree of liquefaction include: Magnitude and proximity of the earthquake; Duration of shaking; Soil types; Grain size distribution; Clay fraction content;
Density; Angularity; Effective overburden; Cyclic loading; and Soil stress history.
Based on the dense native sand dune deposits and the depth to groundwater at the Proposed Project sites, the liquefaction potential is considered to be low (Figure 4.7-2) (NMG Geotechnical 2012).
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading occurs as a result of liquefaction in which a subsurface layer becomes a liquefied mass, and gravitational and inertial forces cause the mass to move downslope. This type of failure is common in over-steepened slopes comprised of unconsolidated silts and sands. The magnitude of lateral spreading movements depends on earthquake magnitude, distance between the site and the seismic event, thickness of the liquefied layer, ground slope or ratio of free-face height to distance between the free face and structure, fines content, average particle size of the materials comprising the liquefied layer, and the standard penetration rates of the materials. Lateral spreading during a strong seismic event at the Proposed Project sites is not anticipated to occur due to the lack of liquefaction potential, as described above.
Differential Settlement
Differential settlement is a process whereby soils settle non-uniformly, potentially resulting in stress and damage to pipelines or other overlying structures. Such movement can occur in the absence of seismically induced ground failure, due to improper grading and soil compaction or discontinuity of naturally occurring soils; however, strong ground shaking often greatly exacerbates soil conditions already potentially prone to differential settlement, resulting in distress to overlying structures. Elongated structures, such as pipelines, are especially prone to damage as a result of differential settlement. Pipe connections at storage facilities are especially vulnerable to the differing earthquake response between buried pipe and rigid structures (California Division of Mines and Geology 1988).
Oil Field Induced Seismicity
A seismic study has been conducted for the Proposed Oil Project area in order to identify past seismic activity that may have coincided with and been a result of past nearby oil field operations (Geosyntec 2012). The results of the study concluded that past seismic activity did not coincide with past oil field operations (such as drilling, fracturing, oil extraction, or water injection) and there were no patterns of seismic activity relative to those past oil field operations.
4.7-7
4.7 Geolo ogical Resou urces/Soils
Figure 4.7 7-2
Liquef faction and Landslides L M Map
E&B Oil Drilling D & Prod duction Projec ct
4.7-8
Dra aft Environme ental Impact Report
Geotechnical Hazards Expansive Soils
Expansive soils swell or heave with increases in moisture content and shrink with decreases in moisture content. Montmorillonitic clays are most susceptible to expansion. Structure foundations constructed on expansive soils require special design considerations (2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2). No clay soils that would be expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics were encountered during field investigations at the Project Site (NMG Geotechnical 2012).
Subsidence
Land subsidence is defined as the downward settling of the earths surface with little or no horizontal motion. There are various causes of land subsidence, including natural causes and human-induced causes. Natural subsidence can occur due to tectonic subsidence (sediment loading), and compaction and consolidation of young sediments. Significant land subsidence can occur in oil fields due to the lowering of reservoir pressures and the subsequent compaction of reservoir materials, which results in a lowering of the overlying land surface (Geosyntec 2012). Generally, damage to structures and underground utilities occurs only where a substantial amount of subsidence occurs. Past subsidence due to oil extraction from the late 1940s to the late 1960s has been documented in the adjacent Wilmington Oil Field to the south, with measured subsidence up to 29 feet during that timeframe. Subsidence stopped when water injection into the pumped oil reservoir occurred, thereby filling the voids resulting from the oil extraction. Water injection presently occurs routinely at numerous oil fields to minimize subsidence and this process minimizes both onshore and offshore subsidence (City of Long Beach 2014).
Corrosion
Soils and bedrock throughout Southern California have varying degrees of sulfate and corrosion potential. Corrosion of oil and gas related pipelines and other infrastructure can result in weakening of the metal and resultant leaks to the environment. Onsite soils are corrosive to metals (NMG Geotechnical 2012).
4.7.1.4 California Building Code (CBC)
The California Building Code contains requirements related to excavation, grading, and construction. According to the California Building Code, a grading permit is required if more than 50 cubic yards of soil is moved. The California Building Code specifies the acceptable design criteria for construction of facilities with respect to seismic design and load-bearing capacity.
4.7-9
Applicable codes and industry standards related to various geologic and soil features are identified in the ASCE Standard 7.05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures. The Proposed Project sites are not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for landslides.
4.7.1.5 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972
In response to the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures, California passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The goal of the act is to avoid or reduce damage to structures like that caused by the San Fernando Earthquake by preventing the construction of buildings on active faults. In accordance with the law, the California Geological Survey maps active faults and the surrounding earthquake fault zones for all affected areas. Any project that involves the construction of buildings or structures for human occupancy, such as residential housing, is subject to review under this law. Structures for human occupancy must be constructed at least 50 feet from any active fault. Oil drilling facilities and associated pipelines would not be considered structures for human occupancy (i.e., expected to have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-hours per year) and would therefore not be subject to provisions of this zoning act.
4.7.1.6 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is designed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other ground failures, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify the hazard and formulation of mitigation measures before the permitting of most developments designed for human occupancy. Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, (California Geological Survey 1997) constitutes the guidelines for evaluating seismic hazards other than surface fault rupture, and for recommending mitigation measures as required by Public Resources Code Section 2695(a). This document contains no special provisions related to oil and gas facilities.
4.7.1.7 California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act of 1972 created the Coastal Commission to enact policies as standards in its coastal development permit decisions. Among many issues, the California Coastal Commission and the coastal development permit program protect against loss of life and property from coastal hazards, including geologic hazards (Section 30006.5, Public Resources Code, Division 20, California Coastal Act of 2013). Section 30262 [5] of the Act also provides that: The development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards unless it is determined that adequate measures will be undertaken to prevent damage from such subsidence.
4.7-10
4.7.1.8 California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regulates production of oil and gas, as well as geothermal resources, within the State of California. DOGGR regulations, defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 4, include well design and construction standards, surface production equipment and pipeline requirements, and well abandonment procedures and guidelines, including the following: DOGGR regulates well abandonment procedures to ensure effectiveness in preventing migration of oil and gas from a producing zone to shallower zones, including potable groundwater zones. DOGGR oversees well operations. When an operator ceases well operation or production, state law requires the well is abandoned within a reasonable time period.
Regulations require well operators to maintain detailed records of abandonment operations and file copies with DOGGR. In addition, DOGGR regulates environmentally sensitive pipelines, which are defined under California Code of Regulations Section 1760 as: A pipeline located within 300 feet of any public recreational area, or a building intended for human occupancy, that is not necessary to the operation of the production operation, such as residences, schools, hospitals, and businesses; A pipeline located within 200 feet of any officially recognized wildlife preserve or environmentally sensitive habitat that is designated on a United States Geological Survey topographic map, designated waterways, or other surface waters, such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, canals, creeks, or other water bodies that contain water throughout the year; A pipeline located within the coastal zone, as defined in Section 30103(b) of the Public Resources Code; Any pipeline for which the Supervisor determines there may be a significant potential threat to life, health, property, or natural resources, in the event of a leak, or that has a history of chronic leaks; and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1774 requires a pipeline management plan for environmentally sensitive pipelines.
4.7.1.9 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element
The Seismic Safety Element of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan generally describes the seismic setting for the area, describes seismic related problems associated with existing older structures, and provides recommendations for new development. In addition, the plan provides recommendations for educating the public on geologic hazards and associated disaster preparedness.
In determining whether or not an impact is significant, this EIR draws on the criteria provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the Los Angeles County CEQA Guidelines. In
general, the guidelines indicate that a substantial adverse impact would occur if a project would expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. This recognizes any and all unstable geologic conditions as a result of construction, as well as hazards associated with earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, groundwater, and other geologic hazards, features, or events. In terms of construction, significant adverse impacts are determined based on whether construction of the project would generate unstable geologic conditions lasting beyond the short-term construction phase. The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Exposes people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides; Is located within any of the following areas: (1) a State of California designated AlquistPriolo Special Fault Study Zone, (2) a designated Fault Hazard Area, (3) a mapped area of tsunami hazard; Is located in an area at risk of landslides/mudflows; defined as areas with slopes greater than 10 percent; Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; Is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; Is located on expansive soil, as defined in the 2010 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property; or Is underlain by soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of water.
4.7.3
4.7.3.1 Introduction
The Proposed Project is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region that is subject to earthquakes and potentially strong ground shaking. Proposed Oil Project facilities and infrastructure during Phases 2 and 4, including proposed oil and gas pipelines, as well the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project facilities, would be subject to such seismically induced ground motion. In addition, wastewater injection would potentially induce seismicity in the vicinity of the Proposed Project during Phases 2 and 4. Soils at the Project Site, along the pipeline route, and at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site, would be subject to sloughing and caving during temporary excavations during Phases 1 and 3. The Proposed Oil Project will remove an unknown volume of oil, gas, and associated water. In the absence of injection of produced water back into the subsurface, the potential for settlement of overlying infrastructure increases during Phase 2 and 4 operations. Similarly, offshore subsidence could occur, as oil would be extracted beneath offshore waters. During Phases 1 and 3, grading and construction activities would temporarily increase the amount of suspended solids in surface flows derived from the Proposed Project sites during storm events.
4.7-12
4.7.3.2 Proposed Project Design Features Phase 1
During Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project, there would be demolition and construction activities with various combinations of construction equipment working on the Project Site. Phase 1 demolition and construction activities would incorporate the following operational practices related to geology and soils: A Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report, prepared by NMG Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 19, 2012, has been completed for the Proposed Oil Project and submitted to the City for review. The Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report includes an assessment of the geologic setting, including faulting and seismicity, and a site specific seismic analysis, including liquefaction and settlement potential. Prior to grading, grading plans would be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to determine if additional recommendations are needed. A detailed geotechnical report would be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and submitted with engineered grading plans to provide a design and/or construction level recommendations for the Proposed Project. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports would be prepared in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division, Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports. Grading and earthwork would be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist to ensure proper sub-grade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, and placement and compaction of structural fill, as well as to provide professional review and written approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the Project Site, grading level details of proposed temporary slopes would be evaluated for stability and necessary shoring to protect the adjacent property and improvements. The detailed geotechnical report would provide design parameters for shoring. Once the Project Site is cleared, retaining walls would be constructed along the western boundary of the Project Site and set back 10 feet along the western portion of the southern property boundary. A minimal amount of rough grading would occur in the western and southwestern portions of the Project Site to allow for: the construction of a well cellar for three exploratory oil wells and a water injection well; a change in grade to provide surface drainage towards the well cellar in the event of an oil spillage or rainfall; the set up and movement of the drill rig; and the installation of temporary production equipment. In addition, the trenches for the existing utilities and the basement under the existing maintenance building would need to be filled in. It is not anticipated that the rough grading would require the import or export of fill material. The surface of the Project Site would be covered with crushed aggregate base material to serve as a dust inhibitor and driving surface. The grading would ensure storm water from up to a 100-year event would not leave the Project Site and soil erosion would not occur. Excavation and grading would occur off-site to implement the following improvements which would be provided as a part of the Proposed Oil Project:
4.7-13
o Undergrounding of the existing overhead power lines and communication lines on poles that run through the existing trees along Valley Drive to a location in the right-of-way adjacent to the Project Site; o To provide electrical service to the Project Site, installation of underground conduit in the right-of-way in Valley Drive from 8th Street to the northeast corner of the Project Site; o Installation of a six-inch lateral water line from an existing reclaimed waterline in the Veterans Parkway, across Valley Drive, to a location south of the Project Site entrance driveway, to provide reclaimed water for irrigation of the landscape areas and drilling in Phases 2 and 4; and o The construction of improvements at the southwestern corner of 6th Street and Valley Drive, including the undergrounding of power lines. o The specific locations of the improvements would be determined by the respective utilities and the City. As appropriate, the areas disturbed would be returned to their existing condition to the satisfaction of the City.
Phase 2
During Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project, four wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig and temporary production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil, gas, and water. The processed oil would be removed from the Project Site by truck and delivered to an off-site location for sale. No additional grading would occur in Phase 2. The construction trailer, temporary production equipment, and tanks would be trailer mounted and the temporary piping would be above ground.
Phase 3
During Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project, there would be construction activities resulting in various vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, including trucks used in the export of soil during the implementation of the remedial action plan for the Proposed Oil Project. In addition, there would be construction activities associated with the installation of off-site pipelines resulting in short-term road closures in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Phase 3 construction activities would incorporate the following design features and operational practices related to geology and soils.
Design Features and Operational Practices
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be implemented to remove the lead contaminated soil within the former landfill area on the northeastern portion of the Project Site. The impacted soil would be removed to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the former landfill area. Upon confirmation that the lead contaminated soil has been removed to the extent identified in the RAP, the excavations would be backfilled with a minimum of 5 feet of clean soil. It is anticipated that approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site and hauled to a Class 1 landfill. During the grading for the remediation activities, shoring may be required. The RAP would be implemented to address the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil in the northeastern portion of the Project Site. The TPH contaminated soil would be treated
on-site via vapor extraction conducted by two to four extraction wells on the northern portion of the Project Site. The only visible indication that the wells are present would be a grade level metal cover on the ground. Following completion of the RAP, construction of the remaining retaining walls and the final grading of the Project Site would occur. The Phase 3 grading plan requires the removal of 9,000 cubic yards of material from the Project Site, consistent with the RAP to obtain the grades needed, including the depressed containment area for the tanks. The soil balance was engineered to accommodate the need to remove the 9,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil without requiring any import of clean fill. Fill would be placed in accordance with the Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report (NMG Geotechnical 2012) as engineered fill. Prior to grading, grading plans would be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to determine if additional recommendations are needed. A detailed geotechnical report has been prepared by a registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering (NMG Geotechnical 2012), which would be submitted with engineered grading plans to provide a design and/or construction level recommendations for the Proposed Oil Project. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports would be prepared in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division, Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports. Grading and earthwork would be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist to ensure proper sub-grade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, placement and compaction of structural fill, and to provide professional review and written approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, grading level details of the proposed temporary removal excavation slopes would be evaluated for stability and necessary shoring to protect the adjacent property and improvements. The detailed geotechnical report would provide design parameters for shoring. Shoring would be designed by a shoring engineer and the reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and the City for approval prior to installation. Structures would be designed to the findings stated in the Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report (NMG Geotechnical 2012). This report would be submitted to the City with engineered grading plans to provide a design and/or construction level recommendations for the Proposed Oil Project. The proposed oil drilling facility, spill containment vaults, Proposed Oil Projectrelated pipelines, and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures would be designed and constructed to withstand anticipated horizontal and vertical ground acceleration in the Proposed Project area, based on the California Building Code. The calculated design base ground motion for Proposed Project components would consider the soil type and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available. All surface facilities and equipment would have suitable foundations and anchoring design, surface restraints, and moment-limiting supports to withstand seismically induced ground shaking. Grading of the Project Site that would occur during Phase 3 would result in the construction of retaining walls along Valley Drive, the remainder of the retaining wall along 6th Street, and retaining walls within the Project Site for the containment area. After completion of the
4.7-15
retaining walls, the final grading of the Project Site would occur to allow for: the completion of the well cellars; the completion of the final drainage facilities; the installation of the permanent production equipment, storage tanks, the small office building, and electrical equipment; and the construction of the perimeter block wall and other site improvements. The grading would not be anticipated to come in contact with the existing oil well (Sinnett Oil Well #1) that was drilled in the western portion of the Project Site in 1931. The well was abandoned in 2005 to the current standards of the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). There are two 550-gallon underground storage tanks that were abandoned in place by filling with concrete in the southerly portion of the Project Site. In April 1989, the County of Los Angeles issued a closure letter with no further action. The exact location of these tanks are not known and they may be encountered during grading at the Project Site and may require removal if they are in the way of grading or improvements. The permanent oil, gas, and water production equipment would be installed on the eastern portion of the Project Site. This would include storage tanks with a maximum height of 16 feet. The tank area on the Project Site would have a finished grade of 6 to 7 feet below ground surface, be surrounded by a 6- to 7-foot retaining wall in the interior of the Project Site, and a 16-foot split-face block wall around the perimeter of the Project Site. The storage tanks and any piping for the vapor recovery system would be below the height of the 16-foot perimeter wall. Some of the tanks, equipment, and walls in the northern and northeastern portions of the Project Site would be located in the vicinity of the former landfill and the contaminated soil would be remediated with the implementation of the RAP. This area would be subject to potential seismic settlements of up to 3.5 inches as a result of the landfill material left in place. To address this issue, the Proposed Oil Project would implement one of the two following feasible options to address settlements for proposed structures that cannot tolerate settlements of 3.5 inches or significant differential settlement: ground improvements and/or deep foundations including drilled-in-place, grouted pipe piles; or cast-in-drilled hole piles. The final design and selection of the most appropriate option to address potential settlement would be required once site plans and structural plans are finalized. The ground surface of the Project Site would be paved with concrete or asphaltic concrete. In addition, the construction of final street improvements along the frontage of the Project Site along 6th Street and Valley Drive would occur. This would include the installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Phase 4
During Phase 4 of the Proposed Oil Project, remaining wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig and production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil, gas, and water. Phase 4 of the Proposed Oil Project would incorporate the following design features and operational practices related to geology and soils.
4.7-16
Design Features and Operational Practices
No additional grading would occur in Phase 4 as all of the improvements on the Project Site needed for drilling and ongoing operations would be completed in Phase 3. A comprehensive Subsidence Monitoring Program would be implemented as a part of the Proposed Oil Project in order to monitor subsidence in the area during oil extraction and water injection. The Program would include land surface monitoring using Global Positioning Survey (GPS) and InSAR technology. The purpose of the Program would be to facilitate the early identification of potential subsidence caused by oil extraction. The primary objective of the Program would be to measure whether subsidence occurs; measure potential vertical ground movement (either up or down); collect information that could definitively distinguish between measurable subsidence caused by oil extraction operations and subsidence attributable to other human activity or natural processes; and implement defined action level requirements, thus minimizing or eliminating the potential for damaging subsidence. The Program would ensure that subsidence would not occur to the degree that it could endanger the facility, surrounding properties/structures, shoreline areas, and offshore areas. A comprehensive Induced Seismicity Monitoring Program would be implemented as a part of the Proposed Oil Project in order to monitor seismic activity in the area during oil extraction and water injection. The Program would monitor seismic activity using the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN). The primary objective of the Program would be to measure, if it occurs, potentially induced seismicity that might result from drilling activities and water injection, collect information that would allow for a determination of the causes of any measurable seismicity, and implement defined action level requirements, thus minimizing the potential for continued induced seismicity. If activity is detected and the overseeing agencies consider it necessary, the Proposed Oil Project operations would be modified or ceased.
4.7.3.3 Applicant Prepared Studies
As discussed in Section 4.7.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, a site-specific geotechnical investigation was completed in association with the Proposed Oil Project (NMG Geotechnical 2012). This report provides a summary of the geologic setting and includes an analysis of the potential for seismically induced ground movement and associated ground failure. The geotechnical report provides recommendations for grading, temporary excavations, and foundation construction. In addition, Geosyntec Consultants (2012) conducted a seismic study for the Proposed Project area in order to identify past seismic activity that may have coincided with and been a result of past nearby oil field operations.
4.7.3.4 Impacts
The following environmental thresholds would result in no impacts, as discussed:
4.7-17
Septic Tanks
Geologic impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project: Is underlain by soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of water. The Proposed Project would be served by existing sewer infrastructure. Water and sewer service would be provided by the California Water Service Company and the City/Los Angeles Sanitation District, respectively. Proposed Project development would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems for disposal of sanitary wastewater. Produced water associated with oil and gas production would be disposed in deep injection wells at the Project Site. See Section 4.14, Water Resources, for additional information pertaining to disposal of sanitary waste and produced water. Impact GEO.1 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Exposes people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides; or Is located within any of the following areas: (1) a State of California designated AlquistPriolo Special Fault Study Zone, (2) a designated Fault Hazard Area, (3) a mapped area of tsunami hazard. See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding potential tsunami impacts.
Impact Description Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Impact #
GEO.1
The Proposed Project would potentially expose people and structures to seismically induced ground shaking.
Phase 2 and 4
The Project Site, proposed oil/gas pipelines, and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site are not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, and no evidence of active faulting was observed during a site specific geotechnical investigation at the Project Site. Therefore, surface fault rupture is not anticipated to occur in the event of an earthquake. However, the City of Hermosa Beach is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region that is subject to earthquakes and potentially strong ground shaking. Major active or potentially active faults in the region include the Newport Inglewood and Palos Verdes faults. Available geologic data suggest that the highest peak ground accelerations at the Project Site, pipeline route, and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site would occur as a result of an earthquake on the Palos Verdes and Newport-Inglewood faults, which have a maximum moment magnitude (MW) of 7.7 and 7.0, respectively. The Proposed Oil
4.7-18
Project facilities, associated oil/gas pipelines, and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project facilities would be susceptible to damage as a result of an earthquake on these or other regional faults. Although the Proposed Project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards, the potential exists for seismically induced differential settlement and soil collapse. As indicated in Section 4.7.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, a detailed geotechnical report has been prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering (NMG Geotechnical 2012). This report would be submitted to the City with engineered grading plans to provide a design and/or construction level recommendations for the Proposed Oil Project. The proposed oil drilling facility, spill containment vaults, oil and gas pipelines, and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures would be designed and constructed to withstand anticipated horizontal and vertical ground acceleration in the Proposed Project area, based on the California Building Code. The calculated design base ground motion for Proposed Project components would consider the soil type and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available. All surface facilities and equipment would have suitable foundations and anchoring design, surface restraints, and moment-limiting supports to withstand seismically induced ground shaking. However, as discovered during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake, existing building codes are often inadequate to completely protect engineered structures from hazards associated with large ground accelerations. Therefore, potential seismic impacts and associated damage to structures from a major earthquake on the nearby Newport Inglewood and Palos Verdes faults, or any other regional fault, would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1a In coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory, the Applicant shall install an accelerometer at the Project Site to determine site-specific ground accelerations as a result of any seismic event in the region (Los Angeles/Orange County and offshore waters of the Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Channel). The drilling operator shall cease operations and inspect all onsite oil field-related pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure following any seismic event that exceeds a ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13 percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling operator shall not reinstitute operations at the Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be determined that all oil field infrastructure is structurally sound. GEO-1b All seismic related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: Drilled-in-place piles or cast-in-drilled-hole piles shall be constructed for foundations in the landfill area, i.e., northeast Project Site, to reduce seismically induced settlement. Ground improvement techniques, including high pressure grout injection, i.e., compaction grouting, shall be used in areas outside the landfill area to reduce
4.7-19
seismically induced settlement and allow construction of conventional shallow foundations. Seismic design criteria for horizontal and vertical accelerations, identified in Tables 10 and 11 of the geotechnical report, shall be used during Proposed Project design. The upper 2 to 4 feet of soil over the majority of the Project Site shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Approximately 15 feet of soil shall be removed in the former landfill area and replaced with a minimum of 8 feet of compacted fill. Asphalt pavement and underlying subgrade soils shall be designed to accommodate the proposed drill rig. Positive surface drainage shall be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and toward suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water on structural pads shall not be allowed.
GEO-1c A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a geotechnical investigation specific to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations.
Residual Impacts
The mitigation measures presented above are standard mitigation requirements for most projects and are expected to result in standard requirements consistent with building codes and standard construction practices. Specifically, the geotechnical investigation for the relocated City Maintenance Yard is not expected to uncover any features that would result in significant and unavoidable geological impacts. With implementation of measures GEO-1a through GEO-1c, the residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact GEO.2 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Exposes people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides.
4.7-20
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
GEO.2
Wastewater injection would potentially induce seismicity in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Phase 2 and 4
A very small fraction of oil field extraction and associated wastewater injection activities in the United States have induced seismicity at levels that are noticeable to the public. There are examples of past oil field operations in the Los Angeles Basin inducing seismic events. For example, very shallow earthquakes at the Wilmington Oil Field occurred between 1947 and 1961, as well as possible fault creep at the Inglewood Oil Field in the early 1960s. These events have been associated with extreme amounts of land subsidence that occurred in these fields that resulted from lack of proper water re-injection operations (Geosyntec Consultants 2012). (See Impact GEO.4 related to subsidence.) As indicated in Section 4.7.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, Geosyntec Consultants (2012) conducted a seismic study for the Proposed Project area in order to identify past seismic activity that may have coincided with and been a result of past nearby oil field operations. The results of their study concluded that past seismic activity did not coincide with past oil field operations (such as drilling, fracturing, oil extraction, or water injection) and there were no patterns of seismic activity relative to those past oil field operations. Most of the recent seismicity (1981 to 2010) in the northwest portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which includes the Project Site, occurs at depths below 5 miles, as a result of normal tectonic stresses. Except for one shallow, low magnitude earthquake located west of the Wilmington Oil Field, no shallow earthquakes (less than 4 kilometers below ground surface) were recorded in the active Wilmington or Torrance oil fields, including the Redondo Beach area located immediately adjacent to Hermosa Beach. As previously discussed, the Project Site is located 5.8 miles west of the active NewportInglewood Fault, 1.9 miles east of the active Palos Verdes Fault, and 1.4 miles east of inactive Offshore Fault 103. A study by Geosyntec (2012) indicated that the closest fault, Offshore Fault 103, is located at a sufficient distance from the proposed wastewater injection wells such that injected water-induced seismicity along this fault is not expected. The data indicates that the Hermosa Beach area should not experience an increase in seismicity as a result of oil production and wastewater injection during Proposed Oil Project operations (Geosyntec 2012). In addition, adherence to California regulations and oversight by DOGGR would minimize the potential for an earthquake induced by water injection. Based on California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Section 1724.10, an accurate, operating pressure gauge or pressure recording device would be available at all times, and all injection wells would be equipped for installation and operation of such a device. To determine the maximum allowable surface injection pressure, a step-rate test would be conducted prior to sustained liquid injection. A steprate test involves incrementally increasing the injection pressure on a given well until fracture pressures are reached. Maximum allowable surface injection pressure would be less than the fracture pressure, thereby minimizing the potential for earthquakes and surface ground cracking.
4.7-21
The appropriate DOGGR district office would be notified prior to conducting the test so that it may be witnessed by a Division inspector. Conventional hydraulic fracturing operations (i.e., fracking), where high volumes of water are injected into large areas of the reservoir formation at relatively high rates, would not be utilized during Proposed Oil Project operations. Therefore, potential impacts related to fracking induced seismicity would not occur. Although Proposed Oil Project-induced seismicity is not anticipated to occur, impacts would be potentially significant in the absence of monitoring to verify that seismicity is not occurring. Therefore, the applicant proposes a Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Program to detect seismicity as a result of wastewater injection activities to ensure that seismicity is not occurring. In addition, the following mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts related to subsidence.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-2a Injection pressures associated with secondary recovery operations (i.e., water flooding) shall not exceed reservoir fracture pressures as specified in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Section 1724.10, and as approved by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. GEO-2b The seismicity monitoring program shall be completed in coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory. GEO-2c In the event that monitoring indicates that Proposed Oil Project-induced seismicity is occurring, water flood operations shall be adjusted to alleviate such seismicity. The drilling operator shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased or decreased levels in water flood operations.
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measures GEO-2a, GEO-2b, and GEO-2c, residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact GEO.3 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Is located in an area at risk of landslides/mudflows; defined as areas with slopes greater than 10 percent.
GEO.3
The Proposed Project is not located in an area at risk of landslides/mudflows; defined as areas with slopes greater than 10 percent.
Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4
4.7-22
The Project Site is generally flat to gently sloping. No steep hillsides potentially subject to failure are located adjacent to the site. Similarly, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site is gently to moderately sloped, with a 20 foot elevation difference across the site. There is very limited potential for landslides or mudflows on either site. However, these properties are underlain by loose dune sands and similarly loose fill material. These soils would be subject to sloughing and caving during temporary excavations related to removal of the former landfill in the northeast portion of the Project Site, removal of 2 to 4 feet of material across the remainder of the Project Site, and grading for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site. Such sloughing and caving could result in adverse health and safety impacts to onsite grading and construction crews. In addition, temporary excavations along the northern Project Site boundary could potential destabilize offsite structures located immediately to the north. Impacts are considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-3
All slope stability related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. Temporary excavations shall be stabilized per the latest edition of Cal/OSHA requirements for loose sands, including shoring or laying back of trench walls. Shoring along the northern perimeter of the Project Site shall be designed by an experienced structural engineer due to the proximity to existing buildings that must be protected from potential settlement and lateral movements.
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measure GEO-3, residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact GEO.4 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. See Impact GEO.1 with respect to the potential for seismically induced ground failure and Impact GEO.3 with respect to the potential for slope failure.
GEO.4
The Proposed Oil Project would potentially result in ground subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal.
Phase 2 and 4
4.7-23
Subsidence due to oil, gas, and groundwater withdrawal generally occurs over a large area. As a result, differential settlement damage due to subsidence is typically only evident in long linear features, such as pipelines, roadways, or aqueducts. As indicated in Section 4.7.4.2, Geosyntec (2012) conducted a subsidence study for the Proposed Oil Project that was peer reviewed by the EIR preparers. The report concluded that subsidence has not occurred to date in the Torrance Oil Field and subsidence is not expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Oil Project related oil extraction, for the following reasons: Sand-grain packing is mature in the Torrance Oil Field reservoir formations, unlike the adjacent Wilmington Oil Field reservoir formations, where historical subsidence has occurred. Lithology of the target reservoir formations includes lenses/layers of compacted and cemented shale units, which inhibits subsidence, unlike the greater unconsolidated thicknesses of sandstone of the adjacent Wilmington Oil Field. Water injection would be conducted to minimize subsidence as oil is extracted during the operational life of the Proposed Oil Project.
The Proposed Oil Project will remove an unknown volume of oil, gas, and associated water. In the absence of injection of produced water back into the subsurface, the potential for settlement of overlying infrastructure increases. Similarly, most of the subsidence could occur offshore, as oil would be extracted beneath offshore waters and most of the initial water reinjection is planned for portions of reservoir zones located beneath onshore areas. Produced water reinjection is a standard practice in the oil and gas industry, not only for the disposal of wastewater, but also to prevent ground subsidence. Although reinjection of produced water in proposed injection wells would substantially reduce the potential for ground subsidence, such reinjection does not ensure avoidance of subsidence. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant in the absence of subsidence monitoring to verify that subsidence is not occurring. As indicated in Section 4.7.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, the applicant proposes a Subsidence Monitoring Program to detect subsidence as a result of drilling activities to ensure that subsidence would not be allowed to the degree that it could endanger the facility, off-site structures, and the shoreline. In addition, DOGGR will review the Proposed Project operations including plans for fluid withdrawal, water re-injection and reservoir pressure maintenance. DOGGR maintains jurisdiction to arrest or ameliorate subsidence under Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5.5 of the California Public Resources Code (beginning with Section 3315). The DOGGR requires development of field wide re-pressuring plan to abate potential subsidence due to fluid production and sand withdrawal. Furthermore, section 3319 (c) requires that field wide repressuring plans be based upon a competent engineering study that includes re-pressuring operations designed to most effectively arrest or ameliorate subsidence. Consequently, oil field operations will be conducted under the oversight of DOGGR and will be designed to reduce potential subsidence as much as possible. In addition to the Applicant proposed Subsidence Monitoring Program, the following mitigation measures would further reduce potential impacts related to subsidence.
4.7-24
Mitigation Measures
GEO-4a Prior to approval of the first drilling permit, the Applicant shall have submitted and the City of Hermosa Beach, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shall have approved a Subsidence Monitoring and Avoidance Program. The Subsidence Monitoring Program shall include: Ground elevation survey methodologies with high vertical resolution; A network of survey or subsidence monitoring locations, including continuous GPS stations and GPS benchmarks, positioned within and outside the City that are sufficiently spaced to draw conclusions about subsidence within the City; Use of InSAR imagery technology to evaluate regional subsidence patterns both within and beyond the proposed oil field; Sufficient monitoring frequency to establish trends in subsidence in order to distinguish background ground movement from any subsidence caused by proposed oil field operations; Reservoir monitoring, including documentation of produced fluid volume (oil, gas and water) and reservoir pressures at similar frequency to ground elevation measurements; Reporting requirements; and Action levels.
Subsidence monitoring reports shall be completed annually. Surveying for both vertical and horizontal ground movement shall be completed along the perimeter and throughout the interior of the oil field, utilizing Global Positioning System technology in combination with a network of ground stations. The continuous monitoring GPS stations shall include: Hermosa Beach Pier. The pier will serve as the furthest offshore point in the monitoring program, and the closest to where the center of the subsidence bowl would be expected to occur. Longfellow Outfall. This Outfall is larger and more structurally stable than some of the other outfalls along the Citys coast. King Harbor Jetty. This location was selected to achieve a distribution of continuous monitoring points along the coast of Hermosa Beach. This will help provide a limited regional picture of the subsidence between survey events.
The results shall be forwarded to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Hermosa Beach for review.
4.7-25
GEO-4b In the event that the Global Position System monitoring indicates that subsidence is occurring in and/or around the Proposed Project area, wastewater or water reinjection operations shall be increased to alleviate such subsidence. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased levels of wastewater reinjection operations. The Applicant will also coordinate with the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department, to verify that subsidence has been mitigated sufficiently.
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measures GEO-4a and GEO-4b, residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact GEO.5 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Residual Impact Class III Less Than Significant
GEO.5
Site grading could increase erosion and impact water quality off-site.
Phase 1 and 3
Phase 1 would include demolition of existing facilities, excavation of 2 to 4 feet of soil across the remainder of the site, and soil backfill and compaction. Subsequently, additional excavations would be completed for retaining walls, a well cellar, and a temporary retention basin. In addition, grading would occur for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, to be located adjacent to City Hall. Phase 3 would include additional grading and excavations for additional retaining walls, sound wall construction, excavation of office building footings, and installation of underground oil and gas pipelines. The 4-inch and 6-inch diameter gas pipelines would extend 0.43 mile and 1.4 miles, respectively, at a depth of 3.5 to 4 feet below ground. Similarly, the 8-inch diameter oil pipeline would extend for approximately 3.5 miles, at a depth of 3.5 to 4 feet below ground. The pipelines would be installed utilizing conventional trenching methods within roadway right-ofways. Two 237-foot sections of pipeline would be constructed per day, including one new 237foot section and one 237-foot segment being completed from the day before. Excavated soil associated with infrastructure and pipeline construction would be temporarily stockpiled pending backfill and compaction. In addition, during Phase 3, approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be excavated from the Project Site and temporarily stockpiled prior to being exported off-site. These grading and construction activities would temporarily increase the amount of suspended solids in surface flows derived from the Project Site during storm events, due to sheet erosion of
4.7-26
exposed soil, thus potentially resulting in significant water quality impacts to the nearby Pacific Ocean, located approximately seven blocks to the west of the Project Site. The temporary retention basin would reduce offsite siltation of surface runoff by allowing sediment in the runoff to settle to the bottom of the basin prior to discharge. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) prepared for Phases 2 and 4 of the Project that were provided as Attachment F of the Response to the Planning Application Completeness Review submitted to the City on 4/11/2013. As discussed, no surface runoff from within the perimeter fencing during Phase 2 and the perimeter wall in Phase 4 would be allowed to leave the Project Site. Therefore, no onsite or offsite erosion or siltation would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. In addition, water quality impacts would be mitigable with implementation of the following standard conditions of approval: The Applicant would implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) using Best Management Practices (BMPs) and would monitor and maintain stormwater pollution control facilities identified in the SWPPP, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program). Stormwater management protection measures and wet weather measures would be designed by a California registered, Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Developer. In addition, a California registered, Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Practitioner would oversee and monitor construction BMPs and stormwater management, in accordance with the State General Construction Permit and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Conventional measures typically recommended by the State Water Resource Board and the California Department of Transportation include the following: Implement permanent erosion and sediment control measures: o Minimize grading, clearing, and grubbing if possible; o Use mulches and hydroseed, free of invasive plants, to protect exposed soils; o Use geotextiles and mats to stabilize soils; o Use drainage swales and dissipation devices; and o Use erosion control measures outlined in the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. Implement temporary Best Management Practice mitigation measures: o Use silt fences, sandbags, and straw wattles; o Use temporary sediment basins and check dams; and o Use temporary Best Management Practices outlined in the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. Implement tracking control Best Management Practices to reduce tracking sediment offsite. o Use stabilized construction entrance and exit with steel shakers; o Use tire wash areas; and o Use tracking control Best Management Practices outlined in the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook.
Also, see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality with regard to other water quality impacts to be addressed by a standard SWPPP.
4.7-27
With implementation of these standard erosion control measures, impacts would be less than significant (Class III).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required in the absence of significant impacts. Impact GEO.6 pertains to the following significance criteria: The Proposed Project would be considered significant if it: Is located on expansive soil, as defined in the 2010 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property.
GEO.6
Expansive soils could be present at Proposed Project sites.
Phase 1 and 3
Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. As indicated in Section 4.7.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, a geotechnical investigation was completed at the Project Site (NMG Geotechnical 2012). Based on this site investigation, the majority of native soils at the Project Site are sandy, including mixtures of sands, silty sands, and clayey sands, which are generally not prone to soil expansion (NMG Geotechnical 2012). Preliminary geotechnical investigations have not been completed along the proposed pipeline route or for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. In addition, although imported fill is not anticipated as part of the Proposed Oil Project, unforeseen import of soil could result in clay rich soils being laid at or near the surface, potentially resulting in cracks and failure of foundations and infrastructure. Impacts are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-6
A Registered Civil Engineer shall analyze surficial and near-surface soils at the Project Site subsequent to grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of non-expansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer.
4.7-28
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measure GEO-6, the residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
GR.7
Corrosion could potentially damage the structural components and pipelines which would result in a pipe burst and subsequent oil spill.
Phase 4
Soils and bedrock throughout Southern California have varying degrees of sulfate and corrosion potential. Long-term production could result in corrosion of pipelines and other components in contact with the soil and bedrock. Such corrosion could result in oil leaks. Onsite soils are corrosive to metals (NMG Geotechnical 2012) and therefore may pose a hazard to proposed concrete and metal components and improvements. If corrosion of pipelines were to occur, the pipelines would be weakened and increase the potential for an oil discharge. Degradation of concrete hold downs, slabs, and foundations could compromise the structural integrity of the elements. Therefore, the impacts due to corrosion would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-7a Proposed Oil Project design must conform to the recommendations of HDR Schiff (2012), included within Appendix C in NMG Geotechnical (2012), or as per the City Engineer, and should occur prior to completion of the final Project design. GEO-7b All buried metal pipelines shall be coated and placed under impressed cathodic protection. To monitor for internal corrosion, corrosion coupons or equivalent measures can be utilized. GEO-7c External pipe inspections shall be conducted for the exposed pipeline sections to ensure atmospheric coatings are in good conditions. All external inspections shall be documented and reviewed by the operations management and repairs documented, when necessary. GEO-7d In accordance with California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources pipeline regulations (Public Resources Code Sections 3013 and 3782), a pipeline management plan shall be implemented. Mechanical testing, including ultrasonic and hydrostatic testing, shall be completed in coordination with the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff. GEO-7e All concrete in contact with the high sulfate or corrosive soils shall be Type V concrete in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code.
4.7-29
Residual Impacts
Implementing mitigation measures GR-7a through GR-7e would reduce the severity of corrosion-related impacts to less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
None of the mitigation measures identified in other sections of the EIR would increase the impacts to geological resources. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
In general, the impacts due to the Proposed Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts related to seismically-related ground shaking and associated ground failure, as well as landslides and other impacts, would be similar to what is described for Proposed Project-specific impacts. The impacts would be addressed on a project-by-project basis through compliance with existing building codes and any site-specific mitigation measures for individual projects. Remaining impacts associated with the cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site will not have any impacts that result in cumulative impacts, since the impacts are site specific and not significant with mitigation Compliance with applicable code requirements and the recommendations of site-specific geotechnical evaluations on a case-by-case basis would reduce cumulative impacts relating to geotechnical hazards to a less than significant level. All mitigation measures are based on conventional techniques and standards within the industry. All geotechnical hazards can be mitigated to acceptable levels by licensed professionals who will provide guidelines and specifications to mitigate and remediate the specific hazard. Therefore, cumulative impacts relating to geotechnical hazards would be less than significant.
4.7-30
4.7.6
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party GEO-1a In coordination with the Inspection Following City of Caltech Seismological by a any seismic Hermosa Laboratory, the Applicant California event that Beach shall install an Registered results in accelerometer at the Civil substantial Project Site to determine Engineer ground site-specific ground acceleratio accelerations as a result of ns at the any seismic event in the Project region (Los Site, as Angeles/Orange County preand offshore waters of the determined Santa Monica Bay and San by a Pedro Channel). The Californiadrilling operator shall cease licensed operations and inspect all geotechnic onsite oil field-related al engineer. pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure following any seismic event that exceeds a ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13 percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling operator shall not reinstitute operations at the Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be determined that all oil field infrastructure is structurally sound. GEO-1b All seismic related Review Approve City of recommendations provided and geotechnic Hermosa by NMG Geotechnical approval of al report Beach (2012) shall be geotechnic prior to incorporated into the al report. issuance of Proposed Oil Project grading design. These measures permit. shall include, but not be limited to the following: Drilled-in-place piles or cast-in-drilled-hole piles shall be constructed for foundations in the landfill area, i.e., northeast Project Site, to reduce seismically induced settlement.
4.7-31
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Ground improvement techniques, including high pressure grout injection, i.e., compaction grouting, shall be used in areas outside the landfill area to reduce seismically induced settlement and allow construction of conventional shallow foundations. Seismic design criteria for horizontal and vertical accelerations, identified in Tables 10 and 11 of the geotechnical report, shall be used during Proposed Project design. The upper 2 to 4 feet of soil over the majority of the Project Site shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Approximately 15 feet of soil shall be removed in the former landfill area and replaced with a minimum of 8 feet of compacted fill. Asphalt pavement and underlying subgrade soils shall be designed to accommodate the proposed drill rig. Positive surface drainage shall be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and toward suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water on structural pads shall not be allowed. A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a geotechnical investigation specific to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures. All geotechnical recommendations provided
GEO-1c
Review and approval of geotechnic al report.
Approve geotechnic al report prior to issuance of grading permit for Phase 3 City
4.7-32
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party in the report shall be Maintenanc followed during grading and e Yard. construction at the site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations. GEO-2a Injection pressures Comparing During City of associated with secondary pressure waterflood Hermosa recovery operations (i.e., measureme operations Beach water flooding) shall not nts on each exceed reservoir fracture injection pressures as specified in well to California Code of formation Regulations Title 14, fracture Division 2, Section 1724.10, pressure and as approved by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. GEO-2b Monthly The seismicity monitoring Coordinate City of program shall be completed with Cal Hermosa in coordination with the Tech Beach Caltech Seismological Laboratory. GEO-2c In the event that monitoring Following City of indicates that Proposed Oil monthly Hermosa Project-induced seismicity monitoring, Beach is occurring, water flood as operations shall be necessary adjusted to alleviate such seismicity. The drilling operator shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased or decreased levels in water flood operations. GEO-3 All slope stability related Submit Prior to City of recommendations provided temporary permit Hermosa by NMG Geotechnical shoring issuance Beach (2012) shall be plans and incorporated into the calculation Proposed Oil Project s. design. Temporary excavations shall be stabilized per the latest
4.7-33
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party edition of Cal/OSHA requirements for loose sands, including shoring or laying back of trench walls. Shoring along the northern perimeter of the Project Site shall be designed by an experienced structural engineer due to the proximity to existing buildings that must be protected from potential settlement and lateral movements. GEO-4a Prior to approval of the first Annually Monitor City of drilling permit, the Applicant subsidence Hermosa shall have submitted and with GPS Beach and the City of Hermosa Beach, technology. California the California Coastal Division of Oil Commission, and the and Gas and California Division of Oil, Geothermal Gas and Geothermal Resources Resources shall have (DOGGR) approved a Subsidence Monitoring and Avoidance Program. The Subsidence Monitoring Program shall include: Ground elevation survey methodologies with high vertical resolution; A network of survey or subsidence monitoring locations, including continuous GPS stations and GPS benchmarks, positioned within and outside the City that are sufficiently spaced to draw conclusions about subsidence within the City; Use of InSAR imagery technology to evaluate regional subsidence patterns both within and beyond the proposed oil field; Sufficient monitoring frequency to establish trends in subsidence in order to
4.7-34
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party distinguish background ground movement from any subsidence caused by proposed oil field operations; Reservoir monitoring, including documentation of produced fluid volume (oil, gas and water) and reservoir pressures at similar frequency to ground elevation measurements; Reporting requirements; and Action levels. Subsidence monitoring reports shall be completed annually. Surveying for both vertical and horizontal ground movement shall be completed along the perimeter and throughout the interior of the oil field, utilizing Global Positioning System technology in combination with a network of ground stations. The continuous monitoring GPS stations shall include: Hermosa Beach Pier. The pier will serve as the furthest offshore point in the monitoring program, and the closest to where the center of the subsidence bowl would be expected to occur. Longfellow Outfall. This Outfall is larger and more structurally stable than some of the other outfalls along the Citys coast. King Harbor Jetty. This location was selected to achieve a distribution of continuous monitoring points along the coast of Hermosa Beach. This will help provide a limited
4.7-35
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party regional picture of the subsidence between survey events. The results shall be forwarded to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Hermosa Beach for review. GEO-4b In the event that the Global Increase Following California Position System monitoring wastewater monitoring Division of Oil indicates that subsidence is reinjection results and Gas and occurring in and/or around and/or indicating Geothermal the Proposed Project area, water subsidence Resources wastewater or water replenish(DOGGR) reinjection operations shall ment and Hermosa be increased to alleviate Beach Public operations such subsidence. The Works Applicant shall coordinate Department with the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased levels of wastewater reinjection operations. The Applicant will also coordinate with the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department, to verify that subsidence has been mitigated sufficiently. GEO-6 A Registered Civil Engineer Soil auger Prior to City of shall analyze surficial and and final design Hermosa near-surface soils at the analytical Beach Project Site subsequent to laboratory grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and
4.7-36
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of nonexpansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer. GEO-7a Proposed Oil Project design Design for Prior to City of must conform to the protection final design Hermosa recommendations of HDR against Beach Schiff (2012), included corrosion within Appendix C in NMG Geotechnical (2012), or as per the City Engineer, and should occur prior to completion of the final Project design. GEO-7b All buried metal pipelines Under Prior to City of shall be coated and placed impressed final design Hermosa under impressed cathodic cathodic Beach protection. To monitor for protection internal corrosion, corrosion coupons or equivalent measures can be utilized. GEO-7c Monthly External pipe inspections Visual City of shall be conducted for the inspections Hermosa exposed pipeline sections Beach to ensure atmospheric coatings are in good conditions. All external inspections shall be documented and reviewed by the operations management and repairs documented, when necessary. GEO-7d In accordance with Prepare Prior to City of California Division of Oil, under final design Hermosa Gas, and Geothermal guidance of Beach Resources pipeline California regulations (Public Departmen Resources Code Sections t of 3013 and 3782), a pipeline Conservati management plan shall be on Division implemented. Mechanical of Oil, Gas, testing, including ultrasonic and and hydrostatic testing, Geotherma shall be completed in l coordination with the Resources California Department of
4.7-37
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff. GEO-7e All concrete in contact with Pour During City of the high sulfate or corrosive proper constructio Hermosa soils shall be Type V concrete n Beach concrete in accordance with adjacent to the 2010 California Building corrosive Code. soils
4.7-38
City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party GEO-1c A Registered Civil Engineer Submit Prior to City of and Certified Engineering temporary permit Hermosa Geologist shall complete a shoring issuance Beach geotechnical investigation plans and specific to the relocated calculation Proposed City Maintenance s. Yard Project structures. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the Project Site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations. GEO-6 A Registered Civil Engineer Soil auger Prior to City of shall analyze surficial and and final design Hermosa near-surface soils at the analytical Beach Project Site subsequent to laboratory grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of nonexpansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer.
4.7-39
4.7-40
4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazard
4.8
Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards
This section discusses the potential safety, risk of upset and hazardous materials impacts that could result from the Proposed Project. The information in this section describes the environmental setting (including baseline risks), regulatory setting, and states the significance criteria, Proposed Project potential levels of risk to the public or the environment associated with the facility and pipeline construction and operations, and the significance of the risks. Mitigation measures are also identified which would reduce the risk levels. The safety and risk of upset analysis addresses upset scenarios that could immediately and adversely affect public safety, such as explosions, fires and releases of flammable or toxic gas. The analysis assesses what upsets could occur, based on the Proposed Project facility design and operations, estimates the frequency of the upsets and assesses what the resulting consequences of the upsets could be. These are then compared to the significance thresholds to determine the level of significance. This section also analyzes the baseline and the Proposed Project for the impacts of oil spills, including the estimated frequency and volume of spills. This section does not assess the impacts of spills to water quality or biological resources. The Biological Resources section and the Hydrology and Water Quality sections discuss those oil spill impacts. This section also includes an assessment of potential impacts related to soil contamination and proposed remediation activities to address contamination. Air emissions from soil contamination are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Safety impacts related to worker safety and OSHA-related requirements are not addressed in this EIR as this EIR addresses only potential impacts to public receptors as per CEQA. For a discussion of odor impacts and health risk impacts, cancer, chronic and less immediate acute impacts see Section 4.2, Air Quality. Detailed risk calculation spreadsheets are included in the Appendix C. In general, oil production fields and oil and gas facilities present potential hazards to employees and the public, depending on the type of facility, due to the presence of flammable gas, toxic gas, and gas processing by-products, such as flammable propane and butanes. Drilling operations present hazards, depending on reservoir characteristics, because placing a well-bore through potentially pressurized reservoirs could create blow-out situations and release flammable gases. Storing and transporting natural gas, propane, butane, and other gas liquids can also create a hazard. In addition, storing and transporting crude oil presents hazards due to crude oil tank fires and environmental hazards due to crude oil spills. This section discusses these hazards, their
4.8-1
4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards
associated estimated frequency of occurrence based on industry-wide experience, and their potential impacts and resulting risks. The Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would each have the potential for impacts on Safety and Risk. As the Proposed Oil Project and the Pipelines would operate together during the operational phases, these have been discussed in the same sub-section. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has been discussed in a separate impacts sub-section.
For the Proposed Project, the environmental setting or baseline conditions reflect the risks of upset, spills or site contamination associated with existing facilities. The Project is proposed in an area that does not currently have any oil and gas operations. However, the current maintenance yard operation does present some acceptable risk to the public or the environment, including the risk of small spills of oil, accidents related to releases from vehicle gasoline tanks or releases from the onsite propane tank. There is also some existing site contamination (see section 4.8.1.4).
4.8.1.1 Study Area and Scope
The study area is defined as any area that could be impacted by a release of hazardous materials, generally the area within 500 feet of the Proposed Project Site or pipeline route. This distance includes all areas that could be immediately impacted by a release of hazardous materials. The study area includes the Proposed Project Site and any routes associated with proposed pipelines. Spills could also flow down storm drains and affect areas farther from the release location depending on drainage patterns. An upset condition from the Proposed Project operations that subsequently releases hazardous materials could adversely impact public health and safety or environmental resources in the study area. Potentially affected areas include: Residences and businesses along 6th Street, 7th Street, 8th Street, Cypress Avenue, Loma Drive, and residences on the east side of the Greenbelt along Ardmore Avenue, 5th Street, 6th Street , 7th Street and 8th Street. Depending on the specific scenario, some additional areas might be impacted; Recreational users along the Greenbelt adjacent to the Project Site; Recreational users within the South Park; Areas adjacent to the crude oil pipeline routes along Valley Drive and Herondo Street and 190th Street; Ocean areas around the Herondo Street outfall; Areas adjacent to the natural gas pipeline route along Valley Drive; Areas adjacent to the crude oil pipeline; and Pedestrian traffic along Valley Drive and area streets immediately adjacent to the Project Site.
4.8-2
4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazard
4.8.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology
The method for evaluating risks used in this EIR is a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). An explanation of a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is included in this section. In addition, spill risks and security risks are also discussed.
Facility Quantitative Risk Assessment Approach
The QRA analyzes the risks presented by industrial operations on nearby populations. The assessment follows commonly accepted industry standards including the recommendations of the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), the Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom, and the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Threshold and Guidelines for Public Safety. The QRA examines the risks of immediate human safety impacts. The main objective of the QRA is to assess the facilitys risk of generating serious injuries or fatalities to members of the public, and to develop mitigation measures that could reduce these risks. The development of the serious injury and fatality aspects of the QRA involves five major tasks: Identifying release scenarios; Developing frequencies of occurrence for each release scenario; Determining consequences of each release scenario; Developing estimates of risk, including risk profiles; and Developing risk-reducing mitigation measures.
Figure 4.8-1 shows the steps in developing a QRA. A QRA computer model, developed by Marine Research Specialists, was used to calculate the risk profiles (or FN curves) and, in conjunction with Geographic Information System software, to manage the data in accordance with CCPS guidelines for hazard assessments (CCPS 1989). The model is based on a polar coordinate grid of cells. The grid extends at least 0.5 miles from the facility in all directions and has varying cell sizes depending on the populations and ignition sources. Hazard zones were then laid over the grid to determine populations impacted. The following sections discuss the information developed as inputs to the model. Meteorological conditions at the site are represented by two stability classes: F stability and D stability. Wind stability is divided into stability classes from A to F, with F being the most stable. Wind conditions are divided into 16 directions and the probability of wind in each direction, at each stability class and speed, is entered. The meteorological conditions are based on wind data taken from the King Harbor meteorological station. Fatality and serious injury probabilities are entered for each type of scenario (i.e., flame jets, fires, vapor clouds, including flammable and toxic clouds, explosions, and boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions), indicating the percentage of persons who are exposed to a scenario that would suffer serious injuries or fatalities. Population density information developed for each receptor includes the number of persons present at each location, the area over which the persons are distributed, and the maximum
4.8-3
number of persons that could be exposed. If a cloud covers only a portion of the area, the population density is used to determine the number of persons exposed. Census data is used for residential areas based on the block group populations and areas. A use factor is applied to each receptor based on the hours per day that persons are at the location. For example, a receptor that has persons at it 12 hours per day would have a use factor of 0.5. This factor reduces the frequency of a release scenario impacting persons. An ignition probability at each receptor is applied, which defines the probability that a flammable cloud would reach the receptor and ignite and affect the receptor location. For example, if there are no ignition sources between the receptor and the release point and there is an ignition point at the receptor, such as a campfire, which has a high probability of igniting the cloud, then the ignition probability would be 1.0 at the receptor. This would mean that any receptor farther from the release point would not be impacted by a flammable gas release. If there are ignition sources at the release location (such as flares or heaters), the ignition probability at the receptors would be less than 1.0, meaning that, part of the time, the flammable cloud would not reach the receptors at all. The sum of ignition probabilities along any one path is equal to or less than 1.0. A shielding factor is also applied to receptor locations. The shield factor is applicable to thermal scenarios only, such as flame jets, fires, or boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions. Thermal scenarios only produce impacts if the receptor is directly exposed to the flame and has a line of sight. Buildings, vegetation, terrain, and other types of obstructions would prevent persons exposed to the fire from experiencing the full effects, and would reduce the probability that the person would suffer a serious injury or fatality. Release scenario frequencies are determined though failure rate analysis and fault trees, which detail the general conditions and equipment-specific frequencies that could lead to a release. Event trees evaluate post-release behavior of the released material, such as whether it forms a flammable cloud, flame jet, toxic cloud, explosion, or a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. The end products for the serious injury and fatality analysis are risk profile or FN (frequency/number) curves, one for fatalities and one for serious injuries, developed from the scenario frequencies and effected populations for each scenario. The risk profile curves estimate the risk that any existing population would suffer fatalities or serious injuries. An FN curve is a logarithmic plot of the number of serious injuries/fatalities plotted against the frequency of the scenario that produces the serious injuries/fatalities. The lower left corner of the plot is the lowest risk area (few injuries/fatalities at a low frequency) and the upper right corner of the plot (many injuries/fatalities at a high frequency) is the highest risk area.
4.8-4
Figure 4.8-1
Steps Involved in Developing a Quantitative Risk Assessment
4.8-5
In general, a conservative (estimating more risk than would actually occur) approach is taken in conducting the analysis. Using a conservative approach ensures that risks are overestimated and ensures the focus of efforts are on the areas that produce the highest risk. Conservative assumptions include the following: Minimal piping friction effects. For flammable gas releases, consequence analysis assumed that release volumes were located at the break source and all releases were assumed to behave like a release from a short pipe length or a hole in a vessel. Piping lengths, which would increase the friction and reduce the release rates, were not included. For example, if a scenario includes two exchangers, nine vessels, two filters, and an estimated 240 meters of piping, it was assumed that this entire inventory was released as though it was contained within a single vessel at the unit temperature and pressure and released through a short pipe segment. In reality, the gas would have to travel through piping and equipment to get to the release point. This would reduce the release rate and the subsequent impact zone. In addition, for flammable releases, the peak release rate was used to determine the hazard zone. This approach produces larger hazard zones since the release rate would most likely decrease over time, thereby reducing the size of the impact zone over time. Minimum human intervention and shutdown systems were included. It was assumed there would be no human intervention in the event of a crisis situation. Manual shutdown systems were assumed not to be activated or activated only after a sufficient amount of material was released, which would allow the hazard zones to reach their maximum extents (given the dispersion and meteorological conditions at the time of the release). All automatic shutdown systems that can isolate portions of the plant were assumed to fail, and the failure rates of these automatic shutdown systems were included in the fault tree analysis. However, it was assumed that compressor low pressure shutdown systems would prevent the system from continuing to operate and compressing additional gas from the wells in the event of an equipment failure. Maximum release volumes were assumed producing the worst case consequences. All releases were assumed to release the entire volume of the equipment or the entire volume of the gas gathering system. In reality, numerous valves and bottlenecks would prevent a release of the majority of the gas inventory in the field through a given pipe or equipment rupture.
Release Scenarios
The approach to developing release scenarios is to group the equipment and operations by operating parameters - equipment with similar temperatures, pressure, and composition are grouped into a single set of scenarios. This generally produces a set of release scenarios for each process. Each set of release scenarios contains at least one rupture release and one leak release. A rupture is defined as a large release over a short period of time caused, for example, by catastrophic equipment failure. Ruptures are generally associated with releases through holes larger than 1 inch. A leak is defined as a release due to a small valve failure or a small hole in a vessel, for example, generally less than 1 inch in diameter. This approach encompasses a range of risks by including a less frequent, more severe scenario, and a more frequent, less severe scenario. In some cases, the leak release actually produces a higher risk (i.e., combination of
4.8-6
consequence and frequency) than the associated rupture release because leaks occur more frequently than ruptures. The principal immediate hazards to public health at an oil facility or oil field (areas with drilling and production and processing) include: Releases of flammable gas causing vapor cloud explosions or thermal impacts from fire and flame jets; Releases of propane (gasses stored as a liquid under pressure) causing vapor cloud explosions, thermal impacts from fire and flame jets, or thermal and overpressure impacts from explosions and boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions; Releases of gas containing toxic materials (such as hydrogen sulfide) or release of odorant causing toxic impacts; and Releases of crude oil with subsequent fire causing impacts from thermal exposure to crude oil fires.
Failure Frequencies
Once the scenarios have been identified, the QRA analysis estimates the frequency of each scenario. This is done by combining the series of events necessary for the scenario to be realized. These are called fault trees. For example, a release from a simple pipe and valve system could be due to the pipe breaking or leaking, the valve breaking or leaking, or an operator leaving a valve open during a maintenance procedure. Any of these events would cause a release of the material. Failure rate databases quantify how often each of these events has occurred industry-wide historically. Several failure rate databases are available that list failure rates for a long list of equipment types and operations. These databases are produced from a large dataset of industry-wide information from hundreds of facilities. Some rates are industry-specific, such as nuclear facilities, liquefied petroleum gas facilities, or oil and gas industries, whereas some are more general. The sources included the Center for Chemical Process Safety, Lees, WASH 1400, Hydrocarbon Leak and Ignition database, and the Rijnmond Public Authority reports, which include both equipment failures and failures due to human error. These industry-wide failure rate databases incorporate a range of equipment, differing in design standards and equipment age. Therefore, the failure rates are considered an average of a group of equipment that might include some older equipment and some relatively new equipment. Failure rates are developed, for example, from a listing of valve breaks that have occurred in an industry. Dividing the number of breaks per year by an estimate of the number of valves in that industry generates a failure rate. For example, this rate may be 0.003 leaks per year per valve, so that if there are 100 valves at a facility, 0.3 leaks per year or approximately one leak every 3 years could be expected. The same information is available per meter of pipe length as a function of pipe size, for example. Other examples of this type of information include the number of times per year a pump might be expected to fail or a pump seal would develop a leak. Rates can also be based on what is called a demand basis, which is a probability that if the equipment is called upon, it will not work. Good examples of this are the probability that a switch will not operate if it is used, or that a fire pump will not operate if it is needed.
Failure rate databases also include human error rates. These include the frequency that a valve is not closed correctly, or that a series of instructions are not followed correctly, or that a hose is not connected properly. These human error rates are based upon industry-wide data and have been incorporated into the fault trees where applicable. Table 4.8-1 shows frequencies for some common events in everyday life taken from the databases. Appendix D includes the source and frequency calculations.
Table 4.8-1 Frequencies for Common Events Number 18 40 222 167 3,333 1,142 10.5 10,000,000 Interval times it is done times it is done times it is read times it is read times it is used years per weld months years per tank
Event Failure to follow instructions occurs once every Simple arithmetic error with self checking occurs once every Incorrect reading of a gauge occurs once every Fail to read a 10 digit number correctly occurs once every A switch fails to operate once every A welded connection leaks once every A computer fails to run once every A propane tank explodes once every Sources: CCPS 1989b, R&MIP 1988
The failure rate databases that were used to estimate the base failure frequencies include a range of equipment types, services, and age. Many of the failure rates, for example, are based on services that are much more hazardous than oil and gas processing, such as boiler systems, piping, and refinery reactor equipment. Industry data on the correlation between equipment age and failure rates is sparse; in fact, several studies indicate that there is no correlation. In one study, 50 percent of failures were attributable to pressure vessels that were less than 10 years old and 50 percent were attributed to vessels more than 10 years old (Lees 1996). This is primarily because failures occur during the first few years of equipment life due to manufacturing inadequacies. An examination of facilities regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) (formerly the Minerals Management Service) in the Gulf of Mexico over the past 10 years shows that equipment failure rates actually decrease even as the average equipment age increases. However, other studies indicate an increase in failure rates with age. Thomas developed a quantitative method for determining the failure rates in process piping and vessels using empirical data from the process industry (Thomas 1981). That method involves examining the piping and vessel size, construction geometry, and number and length of welds, as well as the equipment age and maintenance practices. This method assigns an age factor as high as 1.4, meaning failure rates would increase by approximately 40 percent at the age of 20 years over the failure rate at 10 years. This method estimated that process piping leaks are due primarily to manufacture and materials selection (50 percent) and corrosion and erosion (25 percent), with fatigue, vibration, expansion, mal-operation, and shock making up the remainder.
4.8-8
Since the Thomas report, a number of refinements and data development activities have occurred, mostly focused on the nuclear industry. The worldwide nuclear industry has developed risk informed in-service inspection techniques. A number of approaches to risk informed in-service inspection have been proposed, but most of them rely on assessing the severity of process degradation mechanics and assigning a level of risk to specific processes. Developed databases, namely the SKI-PIPE for the worldwide nuclear industry, allow for a comparison to the Thomas model and databases. A study examining the SKI-PIPE database indicates that the age factor can range as high as 2.0 for larger diameter pipes in facilities older than 25 years, and as high as 2.5 for pipes subject to stress corrosion cracking environments (Lydel 2000). The California State Fire Marshal (CSFM) pipeline study indicates that pipeline leak rates are relatively constant during the 30- to 40-year timeframe, and then increase substantially (CSFM 1993). The failure rates of the oldest pipelines are 2.8 times greater than the average. For this study, it was assumed that as equipment ages beyond the first 10 to 20 years, to the age of more than 40 years, lack of proper maintenance would substantially increase failure rates. However, if proper maintenance practices are employed and equipment is repaired or replaced proactively, it would be assumed that base failure rates would be similar to the average rates seen in the industry. Since all age-related degradation issues (e.g., corrosion) cannot be captured by even the best maintenance programs, a factor of 2.0 has been included in the base failure rates for equipment more than 20 years old. Since all equipment would be new for the Project, this factor would not be relevant until the later years of the Project. The average base failure rate for a group of equipment was quantified by examining the range of failure rates between the different databases (WASH, Lees, HLID, Rijnmond, and Center for Chemical Process Safety) and assigning the higher failure rates to equipment in corrosive service and receiving less maintenance. For example, the failure rates for a rupture of process piping, from a number of reputable studies, range from a very high rate of once every 40,000 meteryears (the interval between failures for a single meter of pipe) to a very low rate of once every 11 million meter-years (WASH1400, Lees, Center for Chemical Process Safety, and Rijnmond). This results in an average failure rate of about once every 1.9 million meter-years. The higher values are assumed to correlate to facilities that operate under corrosive service and belowstandard maintenance. The lowest rates are assumed to correlate to facilities that have less- or non-corrosive service and the highest standards of maintenance. The Proposed Project facilities were assumed to be new with less- or non-corrosive service because they are associated with relatively sweet gas (<100 ppm), rather than sour gas (greater than 1,000 ppm H2S). Appropriate maintenance practices were determined based on the State of California Safety Orders (2013), the International Fire Code (IFC 2012), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2012 and 1013), and API (2005), as well as industry practice. Appropriate maintenance would include: An established computerized maintenance management system, including record keeping, design review, maintenance checklists, diagnostics recording, preventative scheduling, and monitoring.
4.8-9
For piping and pipelines, visual and ultrasonic or non-destructive testing inspections for corrosion (per API 574) and cathodic potential inspections (for underground piping), as is conducted on many pipelines utilizing smart pigs and cathodic potential systems. Pipe coating would be maintained to protect against weathering, and pipe bracing should be maintained for seismic considerations. The frequency of non-destructive testing of process piping would be a function of the corrosiveness of the service. However, a baseline should be established for older piping. For vessels, external and internal visual and ultrasonic testing should be conducted every 5 years. Maintenance of vessel bracing and bolting for seismic considerations. Pressure relief to safe locations, preferably closed systems. For atmospheric tanks, ultrasonic wall testing every 5 years, bottom examination every 10 years, and appropriate seismic design considerations to prevent failure in an earthquake. For valves, checking for small leaks more than once per year, since small leaks are frequently precursors to larger leaks and ruptures. Valves should also be exercised at least annually to ensure operational effectiveness, and should be refurbished periodically, including seal and seat refurbishment or replacement, according to manufacturers recommendations. Pressure relief valves should be pressure checked annually. Pressure relief valves that fail the annual test should be retested within 6 months. For equipment that rotates mechanically, such as pumps and compressors, appropriate maintenance may involve replacing seals, oil maintenance, and a number of other operations according to the manufacturers recommendations. Also, design issues are important, such as redundant systems that allow for more frequent maintenance activities, pressure relief systems that vent to a safe location, and seismic bracing for piping and equipment. For sensor equipment, such as lower explosion level, fire eyes, and H2S sensors, appropriate maintenance would involve replacing sensors when new technology presents a significant improvement in reliability, and conducting quarterly inspections and testing to ensure operational effectiveness, and as per manufacturers recommendations. For control systems, such as level, pressure, vibration, and temperature, annual testing including system actuation to ensure operation. Emergency shutdown systems should be checked and exercised annually. For fire water systems, testing and exercising annually, pressure testing water header, verification of flow alarms, fire pumps weekly inspection and annual performance test, foam system sampled and analyzed annually.
Comparative Risk
Frequency levels can be assigned to a number of different events in life which can produce fatalities. Generally, risks which are voluntary, such as riding a motorcycle or skydiving, are more tolerated than involuntary risks, such as exposure to nearby accidents. The National Safety Council (NSC 2011) compiles risk statistics on a variety of situations (see Table 4.8-1 below). These are generally based on the frequency as applied to the general population in the United States. However, some of the statistics, such as riding a motorcycle, are applied to only motorcycle riders, as the odds of suffering a fatality while riding a motorcycle are zero if one does not ride a motorcycle. Also, there is a strong variation in age. For example, the odds of
health related deaths, as opposed to accidents, are far higher for the older population. Falls are also much higher odds for the older population. But drowning is higher for the young.
Table 4.8-2 Frequencies for Fatality Events Event Frequency per year Interval
Health (heart attack, cancer, stroke, etc) Accidents all types Motorcycle accidents (per motorcyclist) Motor vehicle accidents, all US population Poisoning accidental Assault Drowning Fires Complications of medical care Electrocution Lightening Explosion and rupture of pressurized device
Sources: NSC 2011
5.7X10-3 6.1X10-4 5.1X10-4 1.5X10-4 9.9X10-5 6.1X10-5 1.1X10-5 1.1X10-5 8.6X10-6 1.3X10-6 1.5X10-7 1.3X10-7
170 1,600 2,000 6,900 10,100 16,400 87,500 91,700 116,000 774,500 6,549,800 7,725,400
Pipelines
Transportation by pipeline is one of the safest forms of transportation for oil or natural gas. Nonetheless, failures do occur, resulting in fatalities, injuries, and property damage. The recent failure of a 30-inch gas transmission pipeline in a residential area of San Bruno, California, garnered extensive media coverage when it caused seven fatalities and numerous serious injuries and destroyed homes. The San Bruno release reportedly continued for more than 1 hour, which exposed the surrounding area to extensive thermal radiation damage. Spectators reported flames as high as 1,000 feet and damage occurred as far as 600 feet from the release location. The gas pipeline installed along Valley Drive as part of the Proposed Project would operate at a potentially higher pressure than the gas pipeline in San Bruno (up to 225-465 psi for the Proposed Project compared to 375 psi at San Bruno), but would only be 4 inches in diameter (depending on location) for the Proposed Project (compared to 30 inches in diameter for the San Bruno pipeline). However, it could still create significant risk levels. Incidents associated with gas pipelines are compiled by the DOT, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Between 1993 and 2012, 1,211 total incidents on gas transmission pipelines caused 42 fatalities and 209 injuries nationwide (DOT 2013). Gas pipeline failure frequencies in this report utilized the DOT failure rates for gas pipelines within California. The base rate of pipeline failure is 4.65x10-4 incidents per mile. This rate is for transmission pipelines only. Based on detailed data compiled by the OPS from 2002 to 2004, 63 percent of incidents produced leaks and 37 percent produced ruptures. This analysis used these leak and rupture rates.
4.8-11
The OPS database also lists incidents by cause, which are listed in Table 4.8-3. Corrosion, both internal and external, third-party excavation, equipment failures, and other activities are the leading causes of gas pipeline incidents.
Table 4.8-3 DOT National Gas Transmission Pipelines Incident Causes Percentage 21.0 20.4 23.6 21.0 8.3 3.2 2.2
Cause Corrosion Third party damage Equipment failure (pipe, welds, valves, etc) Other Environmental non-earthquake (landslides, etc) Earthquakes Operational Error Source: DOT website, data from 1993-2012
Earthquakes
During earthquakes, ground vibrations and subsequent liquefaction of the soil under structures can collapse and damage buildings and processing equipment. There is no exact correlation between earthquake Richter scale magnitude and ground acceleration values. Earthquakes measuring the same Richter scale value can generate different acceleration values, and thereby equipment damage, depending on the depth and type of ground shaking. For example, the 1994 Northridge earthquake had a magnitude of 6.7 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.94g (g being the acceleration of gravity), whereas the 1971 San Fernando earthquake had a magnitude of 6.7 and a peak ground acceleration of 1.25g. The distance between the epicenter and the estimated peak acceleration location can also vary. The estimated distance to the peak ground acceleration in the Northridge earthquake was double the distance in the San Fernando earthquake. The distance to the peak acceleration value can be as much as 24 miles. This indicates that areas of damage are not limited to the epicenter of an earthquake. Equipment damage can be understood by examining damage to equipment during past earthquakes. The assessment for this EIR examined reconnaissance reports published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for these earthquakes (the reports are not available for all earthquakes): Imperial in 1979; Northridge in 1994; Coalinga in 1983; Santa Barbara in 1978; Whittier Narrows 1987; and Loma Prieta in 1989.
4.8-12
Among the earthquakes examined for this report, most process industry equipment damaged during the earthquakes was related to atmospheric oil or water storage tanks (non-pressured generally larger cylindrical tanks, such as the crude oil tanks proposed for this Project) that ruptured or developed severe seam leaks. Piping connected to the atmospheric tanks often ruptured. Vessels that were not anchored showed some sliding and pipes leaked when the equipment shifted. However, no pressurized vessels failed and no gas liquids (e.g., propane or natural gas liquids) were released during any of the studied earthquakes. The California Department of Conservations Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) 1984 annual report presents results of drill operator surveys in the Coalinga area to assess damage to drilling and processing equipment after the 1983 magnitude 6.3 Coalinga earthquake (with a peak ground acceleration of 0.54g measured 5 miles away, although no accelerometers were located in Coalinga). The survey indicated that more than 40 atmospheric tanks significantly leaked due to the earthquake. Impact to vessels, compressors, and processing equipment was limited to some shifting and failed equipment tie-downs and fittings, but there were no significant material releases. Some wells sustained damage to downhole casing, but no releases occurred. Earthquakes are difficult to assess in a QRA. Earthquakes can have a range of magnitudes and ground acceleration values, and their impact on equipment is a function of the ground shaking characteristics as well as acceleration. The approach taken in this study is similar to that used as part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Management Plan and the California Accidental Release Program. Seismic probability assessments are conducted on a facility to estimate the maximum credible earthquake, and seismic engineers assess the equipment to ensure that it can withstand an earthquake of the maximum credible magnitude. Any deficiencies are corrected to ensure that the facility is seismically safe. This approach essentially assumes that, given good seismic engineering practices and design, a rupture release would not occur in the event of the largest credible earthquake. This approach is supported by the earthquake damage reports discussed above, which provide evidence of the advantages of good engineering design. However, in this report, it is assumed that atmospheric storage tanks could fail given a large magnitude earthquake producing peak ground acceleration values exceeding 0.50g. A peak ground acceleration value of 0.50g would occur approximately once every 1,500 years for the Project Site location, based on the US Geological Survey analysis, and this value is included in the atmospheric tank failure frequency. It was also assumed that an earthquake producing greater than 1.5g would cause releases from the pipeline, based on the damage seen in the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute reports discussed above. That is estimated to occur about once every 50,000 years as per USGS data (USGS 2013). Note that the DOT pipeline data, 3% of releases from gas transmission pipelines have been caused by earthquakes.
Failure Rate Uncertainty
There are several sources of variation in the failure rate numbers. These sources include the equipment types and boundaries; the severity of the processes; the application and environment
4.8-13
of the equipment; the equipments age and maintenance history; construction suitability; and interpretations of data gathering at the facility levels. It should be emphasized that the approach taken to estimate the equipment failure rates in this study is an approximation. The large number of variables involved and the relatively sparse information available, particularly related to age influences on equipment failure rates, necessitates a best estimate approach. Ideally, the most accurate data would be obtained from several facilities exactly like the Proposed Project, using the same methods to gather data, the same type of equipment, and the same services over many years. Unfortunately, failure data is not gathered specifically enough to obtain statistically significant numbers for the exact variables that match the facility. For example, all of the databases include some equipment that is old and some that is relatively new, so there is some duplication in the approach to estimating equipment failure rates and the associated rates as a function of age. The Center for Chemical Process Safety includes the variability in frequency numbers and provides a high, low, and a mean value for a range of equipment. These ranges show that frequency numbers for equipment average a high of 3.6 times the mean, and a low of 0.0042 times the mean failure rate value.
Consequence Analysis
The consequence analysis and hazard modeling consider the physical effects of a release and its damage to people. The analysis judges the severity of potential hazards associated with accidents and their possible consequences. Risk assessments typically evaluate fire, flammability, explosion, and toxicity. Fire and flammability hazards are relevant for flammable vapors with relatively low flash points, such as propane and methane; their hazard is usually thermal radiation from vapor jet or vapor cloud fires. In addition, larger vapor jet fires can also lead to a loss of structural integrity of other storage or process vessels. The temperature in flame jets is usually high, and flame impingement onto nearby equipment is of concern. The release and ignition of flammable vapors may also cause an explosion or a deflagration. The blast overpressure hazard depends on the nature of the chemical, the strength of the ignition source, and the degree of confinement. Deflagration impacts are related to burns and exposure to flame fronts. Finally, toxic chemicals can produce adverse effects to humans. The degree of these effects depends on the toxicity of the material and the duration of the exposure. Performing state-of-the-art hazard assessment requires a combination of sophisticated analytical techniques and extensive professional experience. The models in this analysis are the result of more than two decades of development, and they have been validated using large-scale field tests. The hazard assessment models used as part of this analysis can be categorized into two groups: Release rate models; and
4.8-14
Vapor dispersion models.
The following sections discuss the general characteristics of each of the models used in this analysis. Specific models used in the analysis were selected based on the scenarios identified in the hazard identification task.
Release Rate Models
Several models were utilized to simulate potential releases of gas, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas liquids, and crude vapor, and two-phase releases from pipes and vessels. One of the first steps in consequence modeling is to establish the source terms (i.e., release rate, temperature, pressure, and velocity) associated with each scenario. The release rate is the rate at which the material is released from the pipe or vessel to the atmosphere. Before the source terms can be estimated for each scenario identified in the hazard analysis, the thermodynamic and physical properties of each hydrocarbon stream must be characterized. The thermodynamic and physical properties of the hydrocarbon streams were estimated using the IoMosaic SuperChems model, which utilizes numerous thermodynamic and physical property estimation techniques. The SuperChems model also simulates the release of multi-component liquid and vapor streams characteristic of the potential releases associated with the facility. For this study, these models are useful in assessing the effect of multi-component streams on vapor cloud flammability characteristics.
Two-Phase Flashing Flow Model
This is a critical two-phase flashing flow and multi-component liquid discharge model based on methodology validated by experimental data in recent literature. "Flashing" is a term used to define the rapid vaporization of gasses that are stored as liquids under pressure and then rapidly vaporize, or flash, when released, like propane. Multi-component are processes that contain different materials mixed together, like a process containing propane, methane and pentane, for example. The data have demonstrated that, for a pipe length exceeding approximately 4 inches, regardless of pipe diameter, there is enough residence time for a discharging flashing liquid to establish equilibrium in the pipe. The output of the model gives a mass release rate and defines the properties of the exiting hydrocarbon aerosol mixture. The two-phase flashing flow model was used to estimate release rate characteristics for the scenarios where potential aerosol formation could occur as a result of rapid vessel or pipeline decompression and cooling or where pressurized liquids (e.g., gas liquids) could be released, such as a propane release.
Steady and Non-Steady Release from a Pressurized Vessel or Pipeline
These numerical steady and non-steady state flow models are used to compute multi-component liquid and vapor release rates from a ruptured valve or pipeline. The steady-choked and unchoked flow models compute a single release rate assuming uniform pressure and temperature in the vessel. Choked flow is defined as flow where the velocity could approach the speed of sound (sonic velocity) in the fluid, thereby limiting, or "choking" the flow rate. In most rupture releases from pressure vessels, the pressure inside is sufficiently high that choked flow (i.e.,
4.8-15
releases at sonic velocity) conditions exist during most of the release period. However, in smaller pressure vessels, or for relatively larger release rates, the conditions inside the vessel are not steady. The pressure drop influences the flow velocity and, thus, the mass flow rate. In addition, the density and temperature inside the vessel are also changing. The unsteady state models compute a time-dependent release rate profile based on the chemical component properties. The modeling method for release rate is to simulate the initial and the average release rate from a pipe or vessel rupture based on the operating conditions: the temperature, pressure, and composition. The initial release rate is then assumed to be steady for the duration of a flammable release (the average release rate is used for a toxic release) until the inventory is expelled or a system shutdown intervenes.
Dispersion Models
Dispersion is the spreading out of a released material into the atmosphere after it has been released and is a function of the material type, temperature, and meteorological characteristics at the time of the release. Among the models required for hazard assessment, vapor dispersion models are perhaps the most complex. This is due to the varied nature of release scenarios, as well as the varied nature of the chemicals that may be released into the environment. The user must select the exposure limit carefully, to reflect both the impact of interest (e.g., fatality, serious injury, injury) and the scenario release conditions (particularly the duration of the release). In dispersion analysis, gases and two-phase vapor-liquid mixtures (where some aerosols of liquid are comingled with the vapor/gasses, thereby affecting the dispersion) are divided into three general classes: Positively buoyant; Neutrally buoyant; and Negatively buoyant.
These classifications are based on density differences between the released material and its surrounding medium (air) and are influenced by release temperature, molecular weight, ambient temperature, relative humidity, and the presence of aerosols. Initially, the density of the release affects the dispersion process. A buoyant release may increase the effective height of the source. By the same token, a heavier-than-air release will slump towards the ground. For heavier-than-air releases at or near ground level, the initial density determines the initial spreading rate. This is the case particularly true for large releases of liquefied or pressurized chemicals, where flashing of vapor and formation of liquid aerosols contributes to the initial effective vapor density, due to the cooling effect, and, therefore, to the density difference with the air. This is particularly true for gas releases where significant cooling of the released material occurs due to expansion of the gas from the pipe pressure to atmospheric pressure. Results of recent research dramatically indicate the importance of heavy gas dispersion in chemical hazard assessment; for these reasons:
4.8-16
The initial rate of spreading is large and is dependent on the differences between the effective mean vapor density and the air density. The rapid mixing with ambient air due to slumping leads to lower concentrations at shorter distances than those predicted using neutral density dispersion models. There is very little mixing in the vertical direction and, thus, a vapor cloud hugging the ground is generated. When the mean density difference becomes small, the subsequent dispersion is governed by prevailing atmospheric conditions.
Since heavy gas dispersion occurs near the release, this effect is important when considering large releases of pressurized flammable chemicals. In addition, dispersion analysis is also a function of release modes, which are divided into several categories: Instantaneous release (puff); Continuous release (plume); Momentum-dominated continuous release (jet); and Time-dependent continuous releases (jet/plume).
For instance, a momentum-dominated jet will dilute much faster than a plume due to increased entrainment of air caused by the jet. This is especially important when simulating the release of compressed gases. In addition to the effects of initial release density, the presence of aerosols, release rate and quantity, release duration, and mode of release, dispersion analysis also depends on: Prevailing atmospheric conditions; Limiting concentration; Elevation of the source; Surrounding roughness and terrain; and Source geometry.
Prevailing atmospheric conditions include a representative wind speed and an atmospheric stability class. Less stable atmospheric conditions result in shorter dispersion distances than more stable weather conditions. Wind speed affects the dispersion distance inversely. Because weather conditions at the time of an accident cannot be determined a priori, it is usually prudent to exercise the model, at a minimum, for both typical and worst-case weather conditions. Limiting concentration is the concentration at which human health effects would begin to occur. Lower concentrations of concern lead to larger dispersion distances. As with source release rates, the effect is non-linear. For example, for steady state releases, a factor of 100 reduction in the limiting concentration results in an increase in the dispersion distance by a factor of approximately 10. Source elevation is attributed to the physical height of the source (such as a tall stack). In general, the effect of source height is to increase dispersion in the vertical direction (since it is not ground restricted), and to reduce the concentration at ground level.
4.8-17
Surrounding roughness and terrain affect the dispersion process greatly. Roughness is a function of the presence of trees, shrubs, buildings, structures and other surface features, while terrain is defined as hills and general topology. Roughness usually enhances dispersion, leading to a shorter dispersion distance than predicted using a smoother, or lower, roughness factor. Source geometry refers to the actual size and geometry of the source emission. For example, a release from a safety valve may be modeled as a point source. However, an evaporating pool may be very large in area and require an area source model. Source geometry effects are significant when considering near field dispersion (less than ten times the characteristic dimensions of the source). At farther distances, the source geometry effects are less significant and eventually negligible.
Plume Dispersion Models (Atmospheric)
For the estimation of the distance that a release could impact, or the hazard zones, for low to zero velocity releases involving flammable or toxic materials, a set of neutrally buoyant Gaussian plume models are available. The effects of initial density are usually small in the computation of far field dispersion zones. Several mathematical variations are included in the models. They have also been computerized as part of the IoMosaic SuperChems modeling package for ease of use. Additional models, rigorously evaluated, are available in the public domain. These models have been validated using large-scale field tests and wind tunnel experiments. The variations in these models consider the details of the source effects (as opposed to the virtual source method). They include: A continuous line or plane source model (to approximate finite size source effects from evaporating pools, overflowing dikes, etc.); A continuous point source plume model (isolated stack) including effects of buoyancy and momentum (jets); A finite duration point source model for concentration; A finite source duration and receptor duration to model dose effects from a point source; and A finite duration "probit" model which accounts for a non-linear dose response relationship.
As a function of downwind distance, each of these models evaluates concentration and width of the dispersing vapor cloud at both source and ground level.
Dense Gas Dispersion Model
The SLAB model for dense gas dispersion was used to model the high pressure gas releases and the gas liquids releases. This model has been validated against experimental data and is available in the public domain. It is appropriate for gas releases, which become cold when they expand from high pressure to atmospheric pressure upon escape from a pipe or vessel. The SLAB model includes the effects of air entrainment into high speed jets of gas, the gravity effects on cold dense gases which cause the cloud to slump and spread, the warming of the cloud and the transition to a passive Gaussian dispersion. NTIS publication DE91-008443, available from the EPA, contains more details on the SLAB model.
4.8-18
A number of sources discuss the effects of jet entrainment and momentum dominated jets, including Leess Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, and the CCPSs The Use of Vapor Cloud Dispersion Models and Vapor Cloud Source Dispersion Models Workbook. The Center for Chemical Process Safety discusses jet entrainment and momentum dominated jets. For releases from pressurized pipes and vessels, if the pressure exceeds two times the ambient pressure, then the flows are generally sonic, with speeds up to 400 m/s, and produce significant jet entrainment issues. Several studies have validated the jet models in large-scale controlled releases at the Burro trials, Coyote trials, Desert Tortoise, and the Goldfish trials (Chan and Ermak 1983, Koopman 1983, and Morgan 1983). It should be noted that using a jet model for the near-field dispersion produces smaller hazard zones than a simplified Gaussian model because the jet effects of a gas released from a pressurized source entrain large amounts of air. This entrained air causes more rapid dilution of the streams and, in combination with temperature and density effects, subsequently smaller hazard zones. Jet effects can reduce hazard zone estimates by up to 50 times over the simplified Gaussian estimates (CCPS, Lee). Given the extensive field validation of the effects of jets and near-field air entrainment, it is believed that the jet models are a more realistic estimate of hazard distances than the simplified Gaussian models.
Flame Jet Model
A flame jet can occur if pressurized gas is released and encounters an ignition source, thereby producing a flaming jet emanating from the release location and causing impacts through thermal exposure. This model is designed to simulate turbulent diffusion flames (flame jets) and can characterize the turbulent flame length, diameter, temperature, and thermal radiation effects. This flame jet model is capable of simulating inclined turbulent jets, radiation fields, and the aerodynamic effects on radiant energy and flame stability. This model was used for all scenarios where potential flammable vapor releases were identified.
Unconfined and Partially Confined Vapor Cloud Explosion Model
Flammable gas releases can produce clouds of the released gas and, if an ignition source is encountered, can explode, producing impacts through overpressure. A partially confined deflagration model was used to estimate overpressure levels for each flammable vapor release considered. The pressure-time histories within the explosion chamber (i.e., confined space or vapor cloud) are calculated by the model and are in generally good agreement with small- and large-scale experimental data on methane-air, propane-air, and hydrocarbon mixture vented and unvented explosions. Explosion potential is expressed in terms of trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalence, and well-known shock wave propagation relationships are used to estimate overpressure levels at specified distances from the explosion. The potential for unconfined vapor cloud fires and explosions was assessed using the IoMosaic SuperChems model. The potential for a vapor cloud explosion versus a vapor cloud fire (deflagration) was assessed based on the physical characteristics of the hydrocarbon stream. Generally, releases of methane into open air would produce a deflagration instead of an explosion as methane requires some "confinement" (within a building) in order to explode.
4.8-19
Parameters that influence the potential for, and consequences of, a vapor cloud explosion include: Characteristics of ignition sources; Flame acceleration mechanisms; Deflagration to detonation transitions; Direct initiation of detonations; Overpressure levels within the combustion zone; Effects of pressure rise time dependency on structures versus TNT curves; Minimum amount of mass sufficient to sustain an unconfined vapor cloud explosion; Partial vapor cloud confinement and flame reflection characteristics; and Explosion efficiencies.
The SuperChems model was used to assess whether or not enough flammable mass could accumulate to sustain an unconfined vapor cloud explosion (a relatively large amount of flammable mass is required for the flame front in the vapor cloud to gain sufficient speed to result in a pressure wave within the vapor cloud). In most cases, the amount of flammable mass or the levels of confinement were not sufficient to sustain an unconfined vapor cloud explosion. In other cases, modeling results showed that vapor cloud ignition would be characterized by a deflagration (i.e., sub-sonic flame velocity) and would not transition to a full detonation (i.e., supersonic flame velocity).
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion Model
A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion is a sudden loss of containment of a liquid that is above its boiling point (at atmospheric conditions). A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion results in a sudden, vigorous liquid boiling and the production of a shock wave. Liquids stored under pressure (such as the gas liquids, propane) fall into this category as well as any liquid that is stored at an elevated temperature above its boiling point. The main hazards presented by liquids stored under pressure are fireball and radiation. Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions were modeled using the SuperChems model for fireballs. The approach estimates the total energy that could be produced by the material combustion and the duration of the explosion. Impacts are estimated by integrating the energy flux over the time that the explosion occurs at different distances from the source of the explosion. Overpressure due to boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion was also estimated assuming the vessel fails due to overpressure, and the resulting shockwave is dissipated into the environment. The larger of the hazard zones pertaining to boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions (either overpressure or thermal radiation) was used to estimate risk. Recent incidents indicate the extent to which gas liquid releases can cause impacts. In December 2006, a propane gas leak in a Milwaukee plant led to an explosion, killing three people and injuring 46 others. The explosion knocked workers off their feet, broke windows in nearby houses and businesses, and scattered burning debris over several blocks. Concussions from the blast were felt miles away (LA Times 2006).
4.8-20
A 1998 incident in Iowa provides valuable lessons regarding propane tank fires and boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions. Vehicle impact sheared liquid pipe off of an 18,000gallon propane tank. The excess flow valve on the line was not sized correctly and did not close. The resulting fire engulfed the tank, subsequently causing a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. Fire department personnel set up too close to the tank (100 feet) and two people were killed. Fragments thrown from the blast caused additional fatalities. An incident on October 6, 2007, in Tacoma, Washington, involved a propane tanker truck and propane storage vessels. Reports indicate that a propane-truck driver off-loaded propane that may have leaked. Nearby welding may have created sparks that ignited the fumes. The propane tanker subsequently exploded, apparently damaging the propane storage tanks. The thermal impacts to the propane storage tanks caused the pressure relief devices on the propane storage tanks to relieve, sending a flame jet high into the air. The tanks continued to vent propane and produce a flame jet for multiple hours. The explosion was so intense that part of the tanker truck landed on a nearby highway. Video of the explosion was available on the internet. Video taken approximately 0.25 miles from the explosion indicated a large fireball. However, no overpressure impacts were felt at the video location except for car alarms activated by the pressure wave. This incident serves to highlight the type of impacts that external events can have on active firefighting equipment, such as deluge systems. The explosion of the propane truck or the flame jets and high thermal impacts of releases effectively would have destroyed any fire-fighting capability of the deluge system. This is why deluge systems are assigned a relatively high failure rate in the fault trees.
Fatality and Serious Injury Rates
Since the release streams are flammable, releases could potentially result in thermal radiation exposure from a fire, and also present an overpressure hazard due to explosions from flammable vapor clouds or boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions. Spills of crude oil and subsequent fires could also cause thermal damage. Damage criteria were developed in order to quantify the potential consequences of an accidental release. Damage criteria are defined as the levels of exposure that could produce fatalities and produce serious injuries. Serious injury is defined as an impact from the exposure that could require medical intervention and could produce effects that last significantly longer than the duration of the exposure. An injury such as lung damage that would require hospitalization and/or other types of therapy would be considered a serious injury.
Thermal Radiation Damage Criteria
The potential concern associated with large-scale compressed gas vapor jet fires is thermal radiation intensity, and its effects on persons, the surrounding structures, processes, and fire suppression equipment. Table 4.8-4 presents an overview of thermal radiation intensity and observed effects. Data presented in these tables show that no considerable physical effect would result from exposure to a radiation intensity between 1 and 1.6 kW/m2 over extended periods. Exposure to a radiation intensity of 5 kW/m2 would result in pain if the exposure period was to exceed 13 seconds, and it would result in second-degree burns after 40 seconds. Exposure to a
4.8-21
radiation intensity of 10 kW/m2 would result in pain (5 seconds) and second-degree burns after short exposure periods (i.e., 14 seconds), and death after longer periods.
Table 4.8-4 Thermal Radiation Serious Injury and Impacts Intensity 2 (kW/m ) 1 Impact
Time for severe pain - 115 seconds a Time for second-degree burns - 663 seconds b 1.6 No discomfort for long exposure Time for severe pain - 45 seconds 2 a Time for second-degree burns 187 seconds Time for severe pain - 27 seconds 3 a Time for second-degree burns - 92 seconds Time for severe pain - 18 seconds 4 a Time for second-degree burns - 57 seconds Time for severe pain - 13 seconds 5 a Time for second-degree burns - 40 seconds Time for severe pain - 5 seconds 10 Time for second-degree burns - 14 seconds ac Time for 100% fatality - 270 seconds b 12.5 Melting of plastic tubing b 25 Minimum energy to ignite wood b 37.5 Damage to process equipment Time for severe pain - <1 seconds 100 Time for second-degree burns - 1 sec c Time for 100% fatality - 11 seconds a. Based on Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures, FEMA b. CCPS Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis c. CCPS Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis using probit equation by Eisenberg
The time required to reach pain, second-degree burn, and fatality thresholds were used to estimate radiation levels that would result in serious injury or fatality. Persons exposed to thermal radiation have the opportunity to move away from the hazard, unlike overpressure effects or vapor cloud fires and explosions, which are relatively instantaneous. It was assumed in this analysis that some people not within the flame area would move away from the flame to get away from the heat. Analysis of the distances to various radiation levels indicates that this is feasible. Therefore, a less than 1 minute exposure was used as the basis for determining the damage criteria. Exposure to a thermal radiation level of 10 kW/m2 could result in a serious injury (at least second-degree burns) if exposed for less than 1 minute, and it was, therefore, assumed that all persons exposed to 10 kW/m2 would suffer serious injuries. Serious injuries would start to be realized at and above 5 kW/m2. Exposure to thermal radiation levels in excess of 10 kW/m2 would likely begin to generate fatalities in less than 1 minute. All persons exposed to thermal radiation within the flame area were assumed to suffer fatalities regardless of exposure duration.
4.8-22
Flammable Vapor Criteria
A release of flammable material can produce impacts by producing a cloud of the flammable material that, if it encounters an ignition source, either explodes or burns (deflagration) back to the material source. Persons located within the cloud when it explodes or burns could be seriously impacted. Whether the cloud explodes or burns is a function of the material and the level of confinement in the environment in which the cloud is located (e.g., within pipe racks, between buildings). All release scenarios from the Proposed Project could contain flammable vapors. Potential ignition sources onsite are primarily located at the flare or compressor area with other ignition sources mostly associated with drilling or well workover operations or pumps. Several biological and structural explosion damage criteria were reviewed; specifically the Center for Chemical Process Safety reports (CCPS 1989, 1994, 1996). Persons within a structure suffer considerably more damage than persons in the open due to overpressures. This is primarily due to secondary object impacts. Table 4.8-5 details the levels of impacts at various overpressure levels to buildings, equipment and persons.
Table 4.8-5 Overpressure Damage Overpressure Level 0.04 0.15 0.30 Impact Loud noise, sonic boom (143 dBA) Glass breakage Center for Chemical Process Safety projectile limit, 10% broken window glass, 95% no serious damage. Beyond this the "safe distance" Wood trailer roof and walls collapse Unreinforced masonry building partial collapse. partial demolition of houses Estimated 10% fatality/injury rate Wood trailer completely destroyed Unreinforced masonry building completely destroyed Utility poles snapped Estimated 100% fatality/injury rate Reinforced building major damage/collapse Estimated 40% fatality rate Loaded train wagons overturned Reinforced building completely destroyed Estimated 100% fatality rate Lung hemorrhage, lower range of direct human fatalities
1.0
5.0
6.0 7.0 12.0 15.0 Source: CCPS 1989, 1996
An overpressure level of 0.3 psi would likely result in broken windows and some potential for serious injury. Complete structural damage and serious injury/fatality could occur for wooden
4.8-23
buildings and unreinforced masonry as a result of exposure to an overpressure level of 1.0 psi. An overpressure level of 5.0 psi would result in structures being completely destroyed and an estimated 100 percent serious injury/fatality to building occupants. Deflagration of the vapor cloud would produce impacts to persons located within the flammability limits of the vapor cloud. Persons located within the lower flammability limit (where the concentration of the gas could allow for ignition) would most likely suffer at least serious injuries. As there is some natural variability within the cloud, it is assumed that persons located within the area that would be encompassed by a level of concern equal to one-half the lower flammability limit (a larger area than the lower flammability limit area) would suffer serious injuries.
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Toxic Criteria
Hydrogen sulfide would be present in the produced gas. Hydrogen sulfide also occurs naturally in sewers, manure pits, well water, and volcanoes. Because it is heavier than air, hydrogen sulfide can collect in low-lying and enclosed spaces, such as manholes, sewers, and underground telephone vaults. Its presence makes work in confined spaces potentially very dangerous. Toxicological effects of H2S gas at different concentrations are summarized in Table 4.8-6. The health effects of hydrogen sulfide depend on how much H2S a worker breathes and for how long. However, many effects are seen even at low concentrations. Effects range from mild, headaches or eye irritation, to very serious, unconsciousness and death. Upon exposure to H2S concentrations in produced gas of 100 ppm or above, the sense of smell is impaired in 2 to 15 minutes due to paralysis of the olfactory nerve. In addition, death from exposure to still higher concentrations of H2S gas can occur from lung paralysis before any odor is detected. According to the California Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of hydrogen sulfide for an employee in an 8 hour work period is 10 ppm with a maximum exposure level of 50 ppm for a maximum period of 10 minutes. OHSA publishes information on the effects of H2S. Some people who breathed in levels of hydrogen sulfide high enough to become unconscious continue to have headaches and poor attention span, memory, and motor function after waking up. Problems with the cardiovascular system have also been reported at exposures above permissible exposure limits. People who have asthma may be more sensitive to hydrogen sulfide exposure. That is, they may have difficulty breathing at levels lower than people without asthma (OSHA 2013).
4.8-24
Table 4.8-6
Toxicological Effects of H2S Symptoms/Effects Typical background concentrations Odor threshold (when rotten egg smell is first noticeable to some). Odor becomes more offensive at 3-5 ppm. Above 30 ppm, odor described as sweet or sickeningly sweet. Prolonged exposure may cause nausea, tearing of the eyes, headaches or loss of sleep. Airway problems (bronchial constriction) in some asthma patients. Possible fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, irritability, poor memory, dizziness. Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERPG-2 - the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hr without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects. Slight conjunctivitis ("gas eye") and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour. May cause digestive upset and loss of appetite. Coughing, eye irritation, loss of smell after 2-15 minutes (olfactory fatigue). Altered breathing, drowsiness after 15-30 minutes. Throat irritation after 1 hour. Gradual increase in severity of symptoms over several hours. Death may occur after 48 hours. Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERPG-3 - the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. Loss of smell (olfactory fatigue or paralysis). Marked conjunctivitis and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour. Pulmonary edema may occur from prolonged exposure. Staggering, collapse in 5 minutes. Serious damage to the eyes in 30 minutes. Death after 30-60 minutes. Rapid unconsciousness, "knockdown" or immediate collapse within 1 to 2 breaths, breathing stops, death within minutes. Nearly instant death
Concentration (ppm) 0.00011-0.00033 0.01-1.5
2-5
20 30
50-100 100
100
100-150 200-300 500-700 700-1000 1000-2000 Source: OSHA 2013
Odorant Toxic Vapor Criteria
Odorant is a material used in the gas processing and is added to the gas stream to give the gas an odor, as required by the Pipeline Safety Regulations of the Department of Transportation, in 49 CFR 192, section 192.625. Processed produced gas does not have an odor. Odorizing the gas system provides a warning device for the public if the gas is released along the pipelines or within homes or businesses. Odorant would be stored and used at the facility. Toxicological information on tetrahydrothiophene (the odorant) is sparse. However, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) does indicate some toxicity levels for mice and rats, which can be extrapolated to human impacts based on factors of safety for other, better known materials.
4.8-25
A search of the National Library of Medicines Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) produced information related to animal toxicity and reports of worker exposures as well as DOT emergency recommendations. The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) by NIOSH indicates that the lethal inhalation concentration of tetrahydrothiophene for a mouse is 27 grams/meter3 for 2 hours. This is equivalent to approximately 7,300 parts per million (ppm). Using the probit method (with an estimated power factor [n] of 1.5, which defines the curve between lethal dosage and time) results in a lethal inhalation concentration for a mouse of approximately 11,800 ppm per hour exposure. For comparison, the lethal inhalation concentration for a rat for hydrogen sulfide, a well studied lethal and odiferous gas, is 713 ppm per hour. The comparison to hydrogen sulfide is made because of the number of detailed studies of hydrogen sulfide, not because of any similarity in chemical composition. Using the same factors of safety for tetrahydrothiophene as for hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen sulfide would produce equivalent emergency response planning guideline-2 and emergency response planning guideline-3 values of approximately 500 ppm and 1,600 ppm, respectively (AIHA 2005). In addition, to assess more minor injuries, such as those associated with exposure to strong odors, the hydrogen sulfide Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit (OSHA PEL) of 15 ppm for 15 minutes (or 6 ppm per hour) was also compared. This would be equivalent to 100 ppm per hour of tetrahydrothiophene exposure. Given the lack of available toxicity data on tetrahydrothiophene, emergency response planning guideline values have been estimated based on the factors of safety applied to lethal levels of hydrogen sulfide exposure for rats and mice. This produces an estimated fatality level at 1,000 ppm per hour and an estimated serious injury level at 100 ppm per hour exposure for tetrahydrothiophene. Table 4.8-7 details the criteria selected for the risk analysis for both fatalities and serious injuries. In this table, the zero percent fatality or serious injury level is the level at which fatalities or serious injuries could begin to occur.
4.8-26
Table 4.8-7 Event
Fatality and Serious Injury Rates Fatality 30% fatality within the lower flammability limit Serious Injury 100% injury within the lower flammability limit 50% injury within lower flammability limit Assumptions Assumes 30% of the population is outdoors and would suffer 100% fatalities within the lower flammability limit. Assumes indoor population would not suffer more than serious injury due to subsequent fire and damage. Outdoor population percentage estimated. Based on Handbook of Chemical Hazards Analysis Procedures, exposure to 10 2 kW/m produces second-degree burns in 14 seconds, 10% fatalities at 60 seconds based on Eisenberg Probit Equation (1975). Injury based on time to seconddegree burns of less than 1 minute for 10 2 and 5 kW/m . Based on total energy integration over boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion duration using the jet fire energy rate.
Vapor Cloud Fire
Thermal Radiation Jet Fire or Pool Fire
100% fatality within flame jet area 10% fatalities 2 at 10 kW/m
100% injury at 10 2 kW/m 2 10% injury at 5 kW/m
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion: Radiation Dosages
10% fatalities 2 at 80 kJ/m
100% injury at 80 2 kJ/m 2 10% injury at 25 kJ/m
Based on Center for Chemical Process Safety Process Plant Buildings where occupants of a building experience 10% Explosion: fatality/injury at 1 psi for an unreinforced 10% fatalities Over 5% injury at 0.3 psi masonry or wood framed building. Injuries at 1 psi Pressure produced at 0.3 psi overpressure assumed to be 5% as per the probability of serious damage. 1,000 ppm 100 ppm For odorant - Estimated based on OSHA Toxic exposure limits and animal studies. 10% fatality 10% injury For Hydrogen sulfide: Based on ERPG-2 Toxic 100 ppm 30 ppm and ERPG-3 2 2 Notes: kW/m = kilowatts per square meter; kJ/m = kilojoules per square meter; psi = pounds per square inch; ppm = parts per million. ERPG based on AIHA 2013 Guidelines
Risk Analysis
The results of the failure rate and consequence analysis are combined to develop risk profile curves (plots of frequency versus the number of fatalities or serious injuries). These risk profile curves are commonly called risk profiles and represent societal risk. This is the risk that a person could sustain serious injury or fatality. In calculating the risk profiles, a computer model of the pipelines, facility and surrounding area was prepared. The population distribution and probabilities of ignition were specified across the area of the model; and the likelihood of an individual fatality or injury occurrence was calculated at each grid location in the model. The analysis has assumed that the populations near the facility are at their current estimated levels would remain so in the future.
4.8-27
To develop the risk profile, many factors were considered. Each release scenario was evaluated for all wind directions, and for each combination of stability and wind speed. In any given direction of travel, the chances of having the particular wind stability class, the cloud igniting onsite, and the cloud igniting offsite at every downwind location from the release site was evaluated. The frequency of attaining the maximum downwind distances for flammable vapor dispersion will be reduced if the vapor cloud encounters ignition sources at the point of release or at any point along its travel path. The approach for general calculations followed these steps: Summarize meteorological data into representative wind direction, wind speed and stability conditions; Construct a model of the site and surrounding area, including populations and population densities; Identify the ignition sources and enter the ignition probabilities; Select the release events, along with the likelihood of release, consequence data and release locations; Determine the event trees; likelihood and consequences of immediate ignition, vapor cloud fires, jet fires, and explosions as appropriate, for each condition; Determine the probability of ignition at each point along the path of a dispersing vapor cloud. Select another release event and repeat the preceding three steps; Apply conditional probabilities of fatality given exposure, for each type of consequence (i.e., thermal exposure, vapor cloud exposure); Aggregate the likelihood of all probabilities of fatality at each location in the model for all the release scenarios; and Construct risk profiles, or frequency number, of fatality curves by summing the number of fatalities for each event outcome and plotting the results against the frequency. This was also done for serious injuries.
Meteorological Data
Meteorological data was gathered for the King Harbor monitoring location. Stability classes A through F are a means of measuring the amount of atmospheric turbulence present and was developed by Pasquill in 1961. An "A" class is very unstable, whereas a "D" is neutral and "F" is stable. Atmospheric stability classes D and F were selected as characteristic wind stability conditions for this study. Based on wind speed conditions for these stability classes, a wind speed of 8.6 mph was selected for stability class D (neutral atmospheric stability), and a wind speed of 4.3 mph was selected for stability class F (stable atmospheric conditions). The predominant conditions are generally wind from the west direction, although wind frequencies from all directions were used in the analysis.
Population Data
Population information was gathered for locations within 1,000 feet of the facility and entered into the Quantitative Risk Assessment Model. Information was gathered from site visits,
4.8-28
estimates of populations from housing counts generated from aerial photographs, and from Census data (USCB 2013).
Ignition Probabilities
Flammable vapor clouds have the potential to ignite anywhere within their flammable limits. Hence, it is necessary to identify potential ignition sources that a cloud may encounter, and to quantify the likelihood of ignition if the cloud encompasses these sources. When determining ignition probabilities, there are two factors to take into account; source duration and source intensity. Source duration is the fraction of time that the source is present or in operation. Source intensity is the chance of the source actually causing ignition if contacted by a flammable cloud. For example, if a ground level flare is operating, it will almost always ignite a cloud, but it may only operate ten percent of the time. This would generate an overall chance of ignition by the ground level flare of 0.1 (or 10 percent). In general, when trying to identify ignition sources, the search is primarily for open flames, hot surfaces and electrical sparks, and, to a lesser extent, friction sparks from both continuous and intermittent activities. Extensive listings of potential ignition sources and estimates of ignition probabilities may be found in the literature (CCPS 1989, UK 2004). Typical ignition probabilities that were used in the analysis include: Cars 0.06 per car; although many potential ignition sources within a car, such as faulty wiring or backfires, are due to fuel rich mixtures in intake air, they are not always present nor guaranteed to cause ignition (CCPS). Houses 0.01 per house; while there are many ignition sources within a home (switches, doorbells, faulty wiring, pilot lights, smoking materials, fireplaces, and stoves), the flammable vapors must first penetrate the house before these ignition sources pose a hazard. Typical residence times of clouds are brief enough that this is relatively unlikely (CCPS). Industrial Areas 0.1 for light industrial, 0.25 for medium industrial and 0.5 for heavy industrial areas. Heavy industrial areas are classified as having large motors, high temperature surfaces and open flames (UKHSE 2004).
In order to estimate the number of vehicles, traffic counts for roads were used (based on the Arch Beach Consulting 2012 traffic analysis by the Applicant and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant, see Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation) along with average speeds to determine the density of vehicles per mile and probabilities of ignition along roadways. For the neighboring operations, a medium industrial use was assumed.
Post Accident Event Trees
Event trees are used to determine the fate of a released material after the release has occurred. A release of a flammable material, for example, could experience instantaneous ignition leading to a flame jet. It could also disperse downwind, encounter an ignition source and burn or explode, or it could disperse safely. Table 4.8-8 shows the probability of each of these scenarios for rupture and leak events. These probabilities are based on Center for Chemical Process Safety
4.8-29
recommendations (CCPS 1989, 1994). Larger releases, which involve greater energies associated with metal failure and/or impacts, have a higher probability of igniting at the source and causing a flame jet than smaller releases.
Construction of Risk Profiles
Risk profiles display the frequency with which public safety impacts/consequences (e.g., fatalities or serious injuries) exceed a given magnitude. They can be used to show property damage (among others), but are generally used for public safety impacts. The risk profiles indicate accident size (based on numbers of persons affected) and display how the potential number of fatalities varies as a function of frequency. Risk profiles are generally plotted on logarithmic scales because they span multiple orders of magnitude. There are many sources of uncertainty that affect the risk profiles. These uncertainties include: Release frequency; Release size; Population impacts, including distribution and likelihood of fatality/serious injury; Behavior of the release (jet mixing versus passive dispersion); Accuracy of the hazard models; and Ignition sources and probabilities.
Event Tree Probabilities
Table 4.8-8
Event Tree: Rupture Events (large releases > 50 kilograms per second)
Event Immediate Ignition Vapor Cloud with Flash Fire Probability 0.25 0.75
Event Tree: Leak Events (smaller releases <50 kilograms per second)
Event Immediate Ignition Vapor Cloud with Flash Fire Probability 0.10 0.90
Event Tree: Gas Liquids Releases

Event Immediate Ignition Vapor Cloud with Flash Fire Explosion/boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion Notes: * depends on configuration of vessels and piping Source: CCPS 1989 Probability 0.08 0.90 0.002 - .07*
4.8-30
The release frequencies and sizes are the most important contributors to overall uncertainty. Changes in failure rates will directly influence the risk profile. A doubling of the event frequencies would double the probability of fatalities. Changes in the relative sizes of leaks and ruptures will influence the risk profile, but to a lesser extent. The assumptions concerning population distribution and ignition probability also influence the risk profiles.
Spill Risk Analysis Approach
The approach for the spill analysis involved estimating the frequency of release events from the facilities and the release volumes. Spill volumes from a pipeline system rupture are based on the pipeline diameter and the terrain profile, which would limit the amount of oil that could drain out of the pipeline. In addition, the pumping rate also affects the size of a release since oil pumped into the pipeline would contribute to the release size until the pumps are shut down. It was assumed that pumping could continue for 60 minutes for a worst case spill. Spills contained by the berms and drainage system valves would only be directed outside of the field after a subsequent failure in the drainage discharge procedure or equipment.
Security Risk
Effective and comprehensive site security programs are a prudent aspect of reducing the risk of chemical releases at a facility. Although the Proposed Project area would not be considered a terrorist target on the order of New York or Washington, DC, it could be the subject of vandalism that could release hazardous materials. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security established chemical facility anti-terrorism standards in 2007 (6 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 27). This rule established riskbased performance standards for the security of chemical facilities. It requires chemical facilities to prepare security vulnerability assessments that identify facility security vulnerabilities and to develop and implement site security plans, which include measures that satisfy the identified risk-based performance standards. The security vulnerability assessments include analysis related to asset characterization, threat assessment, vulnerability analysis, risk assessment, and countermeasure assessments. Generally, facilities covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management and Environmental Protection Agency Risk Management Plan rules are required to comply with these standards. A number of industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Center for Chemical Process Safety, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Chemistry Council, and the Chlorine Institute have developed approaches for assessing security risk. Each of these methods involves analyzing the security systems at the facility in combination with the hazards and determining a level of security risk.
4.8-31
Security systems at the site covered by these approaches include: Security policies for employees and contractors including access control, preemployment screening, information security, and post-employment issues; Appropriate signage preventing access; Fencing systems; Visitor sign-in and sign-out; Surveillance of hazardous material areas; Employee and contractor identification methods; Night lighting; Partnerships with local response agencies; System to report and collect security incidents; Communications equipment; or Employee vehicles and access keys, codes, and card security.
4.8.1.3 Existing Site Hazards
The current maintenance yard operations involve the use and storage of some hazardous materials associated with vehicle maintenance and fueling. Hazardous materials include relatively small quantities of paint, welding gasses, consumer quantities of solvents, etc. None of these materials are stored in sufficient quantities that they present a risk to the public. The current storage facility, where the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be located, does not store hazardous materials. Some inventory of gasoline and diesel fuel is located within vehicle tanks of the vehicles located onsite. A vehicle accident or mishap could occur which would produce an explosion associated with the spillage of gasoline (within a confined space, for example); however, this risk is common throughout the area with numerous vehicles on the roadways and parked (both onsite and offsite) and is considered to be acceptable due to its low frequency. The maintenance yard also has a 500 gallon tank of propane that is used for fueling of parking enforcement "gophers" (small vehicles used by the parking enforcement division) and forklifts. The storage and use of propane at the maintenance yard introduces some risk to the area. Figure 4.8-2 shows the estimated risk levels associated with the propane tank as plotted on the FN curves. Risk levels of the existing propane tank are estimated to be acceptable based on the SBC criteria (see section 4.8.3) and includes the risks of monthly propane deliveries. No underground storage tanks are located at the maintenance yard. Fueling of vehicles (diesel and gasoline) is done offsite.
4.8.1.4 Existing Site Contamination
Historical activities at the current City Maintenance Yard site which may have contributed to site contamination are listed below as detailed in numerous historical reports.
4.8-32
Former landfill present onsite from the 1920s to 1950s with resulting contamination in the northeast area; Former steel underground storage tanks (USTs) and related piping and dispenser equipment were reportedly removed from the site by the City of Hermosa Beach in 1989 and 1998. A previous Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed by ENTRIX indicated that chemicals of concern were not present in the area of the UST location; Old Maintenance Building (most northerly building) including a paint room, vehicle maintenance room, a parts room and a miscellaneous storage room. The results of a Phase II ESA indicated that no chemicals of concern were present within the soil below the old Maintenance Building. The building materials would be assessed for asbestos content and presence of lead based paint, consistent with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Oil Well Stinnett #1 and associated storage tanks. An oil production well and associated tanks were located on the site. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources website shows the well to be plugged and abandoned. ENTRIX investigated the area as part of their Phase II ESA. The results of the Phase II ESA indicated that no chemicals of concern were present within the soil in the former oil well location; Asphalt Batching Area. An area utilized for asphalt batching was reported by ENTRIX in a previous Phase I ESA. The area appears to be in use today as a storage area for sand and gravel. A phase II ESA completed by ENTRIX indicated that chemicals of concern were not present within the soil below the asphalt batch area.
The site has been the subject of previous environmental evaluation by GeoResearch (1989) ENTRIX (1994, 1995), GEO-CAL. Inc (1998) and Brycon (2012). The scope and results of the previous environmental assessments are discussed below.
GeoResearch 1989
GeoResearch completed a report outlining the closure of two 550 gallon underground storage tanks on the Site in 1989. The tanks were filled with concrete and abandoned in place as part of the project. A total of 18 soil samples were obtained from three soil borings and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The analysis detected no TPH in any of the samples. The County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works issued a closure letter with no further action required for the project on April 10, 1989.
4.8-33
Figure 4.8-2
Existing Maintenance Facility Risk Profiles: Fatalities and Injuries
4.8-34
ENTRIX - 1994
ENTRIX, Inc. completed a Phase I ESA (October 1994) on the site. The principal findings were: 1. Several features at the site may have released petroleum and/or solvents at the site. These included a maintenance building, a drum storage area, a vehicle washout area, an asphalt batching area, the Stinnett Oil well, and two underground storage tank settings. Additional sampling was recommended. 2. A soil gas survey was performed on underground storage tanks (USTs) located on the site. Low to non-detectable concentrations of TPH, BTEX, and VOCs were encountered, indicating a significant release from the USTs was not likely. 3. The site history and aerial photo study indicated several concerns including a city dump, possible spills near the Stinnett well, former above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and the former Hermosa Glass Company located on the site of the maintenance building (Paint Room). Additional sampling was recommended. 4. The regulatory database review did not reveal any significant concerns.
ENTRIX - 1995
ENTRIX, Inc. completed a Phase II ESA (April 1995) on the site in order to evaluate the environmental subsurface condition of the property. Fifteen soil borings were completed across the site at depths of up to 46 feet bgs. Soil samples were obtained and analyzed from various depths within specific soil borings. ENTRIX concluded that petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil was present on the northeastern portion of the site near the base of the old landfill area in a circular pattern 40 feet in diameter and 20 feet thick at a depth of up to 30 feet. The highest concentration of impacted soil identified by ENTRIX was within soil sample B14D, which was 36,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at 20 feet bgs. The calculated volume of petroleum impacted soil by ENTRIX was 700 cubic yards. The analytical reports contained within the ENTRIX document indicated that the TPH present was primarily of longer chain hydrocarbons (C23+). A single point of elevated lead and cadmium impacted soil was identified within the former City landfill area at a depth of 15 feet bgs. ENTRIX concluded that the area of elevated metals was most likely localized and further evaluation was necessary.
GEO-CAL, INC 1998
GEO-CAL, INC. issued a report in 1998 outlining the work completed in regards to the removal of three USTs and associated piping and dispensers. The USTs included two (2) 4,000 gallon gasoline tanks and one (1) 2,000 gallon diesel tank. A total of 12 soil samples were collected and analyzed. Samples were obtained from immediately below each tank (2 per tank), below each dispenser (1 per dispenser), and below the piping trench (1). Three samples were also obtained from the fill material removed from around the tanks. Soil samples collected from below the gasoline tanks and dispenser were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range (TPHg), for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total zylenes (BTEX), and for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). Soil samples from below the diesel tanks and dispenser were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel range (TPHd), BTEX, and MTBE. Soil samples from the trench and surrounding removed material were analyzed for TPHg, TPHd, BTEX and MTBE. The results of all analytical tests were none detected with the exception of the sample below the diesel dispenser. The result for that sample was 15 mg/kg TPHd. The
4.8-35
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works issued a Closure Certification and a no further action required letter for the project on January 13, 1999.
Brycon 2012
According to a site assessment prepared in 2012 (Brycon 2012), 10 of the 73 soil samples taken exceeded Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines for total petroleum hydrocarbons, all within the mid range hydrocarbons (C13-C22). Volatile organic carbons were not present in any of the samples at concentrations above the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels. Six of the samples exceeded the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels for lead. In addition, a series of groundwater borings conducted in 2013 (Brycon 2013) found the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, barium, and arsenic in the groundwater below the City Maintenance Yard that exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established for drinking water by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Existing site contamination from historical site uses is shown in Figure 2.3 in the Project Description. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard site had a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted in 2005 (Converse 2005). Based on the analytical results, Converse concluded that the semi-volatile organic carbon impacted soil is at a depth of approximately 2 to 5-feet bgs in the area about the middle of the current building site; that lead impacted soil is located on the northeastern portion of the property approximately 2 to 5-feet bgs in the area near the property line; and that the lead impacted soil may extend offsite; and that an estimated up to 120 tons of impacted soil will need to be excavated and disposed of as non-RCRA hazardous waste.
4.8.1.5 Existing Site Spill Potential
Spill potential from the existing operations is minimal as no large quantities of materials are stored onsite which could spill and affect areas offsite. A spill outside of the facility would drain into the storm drains. All storm drains in the area eventually flow to the ocean. Figure 4.8-3 shows a map of the storm drain systems in the area. Storm drains located in the curbs at the corner of Cypress Ave and 6th Street flows through storm drain piping and connects to the main storm drain system in Valley Drive, and flows southerly to connect to the storm drain system in Herondo Street that discharges onto the beach area. The storm drain system that runs down Valley Drive has intermittent street drains for collecting storm water, with drains located near the corner of Valley Drive and 2nd Street. The storm drain systems are under the jurisdiction of both the City of Hermosa Beach and the County of Los Angeles Flood Control District.
4.8-36
Figure 4.8-3
Storm Drain System in the Facility Vicinity
4.8-37
A spill at the City Maintenance Yard would have to travel through approximately 0.75 miles of storm drains to reach the ocean. Pictures of the storm drain system are shown in Figure 4.8-4.
Figure 4.8-4 Storm Drain System Pictures
Ocean Discharge on the Beach
Valley Drive and 2nd St.
4.8.2
Regulatory Setting
Many regulations and standards exist to ensure the safe operation of oil and gas facilities, pipelines, and hazardous materials. This section gives an overview of the Federal and State regulations.
4.8.2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations
Federal laws address gas and liquid pipelines and oil and gas facilities.
Gas Pipelines
Natural gas pipelines are under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and must follow the regulations in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192, Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipeline. This regulation addresses the following areas: Classification of pipeline; Pipe type and marking of pipe; Pipeline materials and design issues; Pipeline fittings and connections; Inspection of pipelines; Compressor stations and vaults; Installation of pipelines; Corrosion control; and Emergency plans.
Section 49 CFR 192.179 addresses transmission pipeline valves, and requires that, for Class 3 areas (areas where there are more than 46 buildings within 220 yards of a 1 mile section of
pipeline, generally residential areas), gas pipelines are required to have a manually controlled valve every 4 miles. Section 192.935c requires that, if an operator determines, based on a risk analysis, that an [automatically or remotely controlled valve] would be an efficient means of adding protection to a high consequence area in the event of a gas release, an operator must install the [automatically or remotely controlled valve]. In making that determination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factorsswiftness of leak detection and pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas being transported, operating pressure, the rate of potential release, pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, and location of nearest response personnel.
Liquid Pipelines and Oil Facilities
Hazardous liquid pipelines are under the jurisdiction of the DOT and must follow the regulations in 49 CFR Part 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, as authorized by the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 USC 2004). Other applicable Federal requirements are contained in 40 CFR Parts 109, 110, 112, 113, and 114, pertaining to the need for Oil Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures Plans; 40 CFR Parts 109114 promulgated in response to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Overview of the 49 CFR 195 Requirements
Part 195.30 incorporates many of the applicable national safety standards of the: American Petroleum Institute (API); American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME); American National Standards Institute (ANSI); and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Part 195.50 requires reporting of accidents by telephone and in writing for: Explosion or fire not intentionally set by the operator; Spills of 5 gallons or more, or 5 barrels if confined to company property and cleaned up promptly (prior to 2002, the reporting quantity was 50 bbls); Daily loss of 5 barrels a day to the atmosphere; Death or injury necessitating hospitalization; or Estimated property damage, including cleanup costs, greater than $50,000.
The Part 195.100 series includes design requirements for the temperature environment, variations in pressure, internal design pressure for pipe specifications, external pressure and external loads, new and used pipe, valves, fittings, and flanges. The Part 195.200 series provides construction requirements for standards such as compliance, inspections, welding, siting and routing, bending, welding and welders, inspection and nondestructive testing of welds, external corrosion and cathodic protection, installing in-ditch and covering, clearances and crossings, valves, pumping, breakout tanks, and construction records. The Part 195.300 series prescribes minimum requirements for hydrostatic testing, compliance dates, test pressures and duration, test medium, and records.
4.8-39
The Part 195.400 series specifies minimum requirements for operating and maintaining steel pipeline systems, including: Correction of unsafe conditions within a reasonable time; Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies; Training; Maps; Maximum operating pressure; Communication system; Cathodic protection system; External and internal corrosion control; Valve maintenance; Pipeline repairs; Overpressure safety devices; Firefighting equipment; and Public education program for hazardous liquid pipeline emergencies and reporting.
Overview of 40 CFR Parts 109, 110, 112, 113, and 114
The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plans (SPCC) covered in these regulatory programs apply to oil storage and transportation facilities and terminals, tank farms, bulk plants, oil refineries, and production facilities, as well as bulk oil consumers, such as apartment houses, office buildings, schools, hospitals, farms, and state and federal facilities as follows: Part 109 establishes the minimum criteria for developing oil-removal contingency plans for certain inland navigable waters by State, local, and regional agencies in consultation with the regulated community, i.e., oil facilities. Part 110 prohibits discharge of oil such that applicable water quality standards would be violated, or that would cause a film or sheen upon or in the water. These regulations were updated in 1987 to adequately reflect the intent of Congress in section 311(b) (3) and (4) of the Clean Water Act, specifically incorporating the provision in such quantities as may be harmful. Part 112 deals with oil spill prevention and preparation of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. These regulations establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent the discharge of oil from onshore and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States. These regulations apply only to nontransportation-related facilities. Part 113 establishes financial liability limits; however, these limits were preempted by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Part 114 provides civil penalties for violations of the oil spill regulations.
Overview of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, 6 CFR Part 27
The Federal Department of Homeland Security established the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards in 2007. This rule established risk-based performance standards for the security of chemical facilities. It requires covered chemical facilities (with chemical quantities above a screening threshold; the Proposed Project would be below these levels) to prepare Security
4.8-40
Vulnerability Assessments, which identify facility security vulnerabilities, and to develop and implement Site Security Plans, which include measures that satisfy the identified risk-based performance standards.
Hazardous Waste Handling Requirements Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Associated Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 40 CFR 260
Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) resulted in the creation of a major federal hazardous waste regulatory program that is administered by the EPA. Under RCRA, the EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended by the Associated Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the concept of regulating hazardous wastes from generation through disposal. HSWA specifically prohibits the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes. Under RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs instead of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as the federal RCRA requirements. The EPA approved California's program to implement federal hazardous waste regulations on August 1, 1992.
Asbestos and Lead National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR 61 Subpart M
Under Subpart M, an asbestos containing materials survey must be performed prior to renovation or demolition activities. Notification of the lead agency is required 14 days prior to the start of work (disturbance of asbestos containing materials). Additional federal and state asbestos requirements related to US Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) standards in 29 CFR 1926.1101 are covered by the Asbestos Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR Section 1529. Worker Protection Rule, 40 CFR 763, Subpart G, and 29 CFR 1910.1001. This rule provides worker protection measures through engineering controls, worker training, labeling, respiratory protection, and waste management, and sets the permissible exposure level for asbestos. The definition of asbestos containing materials is also provided in these regulations.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the EPA requires local agencies to regulate the storage and handling of hazardous materials and requires development of a plan to mitigate the release of hazardous materials. Businesses that handle any of the specified hazardous materials must submit to government agencies (i.e., fire departments), an inventory of the hazardous materials, an emergency response plan, and an employee training program. The business plans must provide a description of the types of hazardous materials and waste onsite and the location of these materials. The information in the business plan can then be used in the event of an emergency to determine the appropriate response action, the need for public notification, and the need for evacuation.
4.8-41
Hazardous Materials Management Planning Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 40 CFR 68
The USEPA requires facilities that handle listed regulated substances to develop Risk Management Programs to prevent accidental releases of these substances. Stationary sources with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance shall be evaluated to determine the potential for, and impacts of, accidental releases from that process. Under certain conditions, the owner or operator of a stationary source may be required to develop and submit a Risk Management Program. Risk Management Programs consist of three main elements: a hazard assessment that includes offsite consequences analyses and a five-year accident history; a prevention program; and an emergency response program. Risk Management Programs for existing facilities were required to be submitted in 1999 and must be updated every 5 years.
National Contingency Plan Requirements Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans, 40 CFR 112.3 and 112.7
Facilities that store large volumes of hazardous materials are required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans (SPCCP), per the requirements of 40 CFR 112. The SPCCP is designed to prevent spills from onsite facilities and includes requirements for secondary containment, provides emergency response procedures, establishes training requirements, and so forth.
Hazardous Materials Transportation The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 CFR 171, Subchapter C
The DOT, Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration regulate transportation of hazardous materials at the federal level. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act requires that carriers report accidental releases of hazardous materials to DOT at the earliest practical moment. Other incidents that must be reported include deaths, injuries requiring hospitalization, and property damage exceeding $50,000.
Worker Health and Safety Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 CFR et seq.
Under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety (29 CFR). These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including the reporting of accidents and occupational injuries. Some OSHA regulations contain standards relating to hazardous materials handling, including workplace conditions, employee protection requirements, first aid, and fire protection, as well as material handling and storage.
Hazard Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200
The purpose of the OSHA Hazard Communication law is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated, and that information concerning any potential hazards is transmitted to employers and employees. This transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs, which are to include
4.8-42
container labeling and other forms of warning, material safety data sheets, and employee training.
Process Safety Management, 29 CFR 1910.119
Under this section, facilities that use, store, manufacture, handle, process, or move hazardous materials are required to: Conduct employee safety training; Have an inventory of safety equipment relevant to potential hazards; Have knowledge on use of the safety equipment; Prepare an illness prevention program; Provide hazardous substance exposure warnings; Prepare an emergency response plan; and Prepare a fire prevention plan.
In addition, 29 CFR 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, specifically requires prevention program elements to protect workers at facilities that have toxic, flammable, reactive or explosive materials. Prevention program elements are aimed at preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of chemicals and include process hazard analyses, formal training programs for employees and contractors, investigation of equipment mechanical integrity, and an emergency response plan.
Emergency Action Plans, 29 CFR 1910.38
Under this section, facilities that are required to have fire extinguishers must also have an emergency action plan to ensure the safe response to emergencies. The purpose of an emergency action plan is to facilitate and organize employer and employee actions during workplace emergencies. At a minimum, the plan must include the following elements [29 CFR 1910.38(c)]: Means of reporting fires and other emergencies; Evacuation procedures and emergency escape route assignments; Procedures prior to evacuation for employees who remain to operate critical plant operations; Procedures to account for all employees after an emergency evacuation; Rescue and medical duties for responsible employees; and Identification of persons who can be contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the plan.
4.8.2.2 California Laws and Regulations
State laws address gas and liquid pipelines, oil and gas facilities, and hazardous materials and waste.
California Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.5, 25100-25249, Hazardous Waste Control;
4.8-43
Division 20, Chapter 6.95, 255500, et seq., Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Community Right-to-Know and Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plan Program); Proposition 65 Compliance, H&SC 25249.5 et seq.; H&SC 25340-25392, Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act; and H&SC 25531-255413, California Accidental Release Prevention Program.
California Water Code
Division 7, Water Quality (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act)
California Code of Regulations
Title 8, 1529, Asbestos Construction Standard; Title 8, 1532.1, Lead Construction Standard; Title 8, 5189, Accidental Release Plan; Title 8, 5192, Accidental Release Plan; Title 14, Division 2, Department of Conservation; Title 19, 2729, Employee Training Program; Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Hazardous Wastes; Title 22, Division 4.5, 66260-67786, Hazardous Waste Requirements; and Title 22, 66265.50-.56, Contingency/Emergency Response Plan.
Gas and Liquid Pipelines and Oil Facilities Overview of California Pipeline Safety Regulations
State of California regulations Part 51010 through 51018 of the Government Code provide specific safety requirements that are more stringent than the Federal rules. These include: Periodic hydrostatic testing of pipelines, with specific accuracy requirements on leak rate determination; Hydrostatic testing by state-certified independent pipeline testing firms; Pipeline leak detection; and Reporting of all leaks required.
Recent amendments require pipelines to include means of leak prevention and cathodic protection, with acceptability to be determined by the State Fire Marshal. All new pipelines must also be designed to accommodate passage of instrumented inspection devices (smart pigs) through the pipeline.
California Public Resources Code Sections 30260, 30262, and 30265
The California Public Resources Code requires adverse environmental effects to be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, that new and expanded oil and gas facilities be consolidated, and that platforms not be sited where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might result from the facility or related operations.
4.8-44
Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
The DOGGR was formed in 1915 to regulate oil and gas activities with uniform laws and regulations. The Division supervises the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of onshore and offshore oil, gas, and geothermal wells, preventing damage to: (1) life, health, property, and natural resources; (2) underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; and (3) oil, gas, and geothermal reservoirs. Division responsibilities are detailed in Section 3000 of the California Public Resources Code and Title 14, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations. These regulations address issues such as well spacing, blow-out prevention devices, casing requirements, plugging and abandonment of wells, maintenance of facilities and safety systems, fencing, inspection frequency and reporting requirements. In addition, DOGGR publishes a number of instruction manuals related to testing of oil and gas wells (M06), blowout prevention requirements (M07), and drilling wells in a hydrogen sulfide environment (M10). The DOGGR is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil wells for the purpose of preventing: damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy; and damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes. Section 1774 of Title 14 CCR Division 2, chapter 4 specifies oilfield maintenance practices related to oil field facilities. Written approval from DOGGR is required prior to changing the physical condition of any well. The operator's notice of intent (notice) to perform any well operation is reviewed on engineering and geological bases. For new wells and alteration of existing wells, approval of the proposal depends primarily on the following: protecting all subsurface hydrocarbons and fresh waters; protection of the environment; using adequate blowout prevention equipment; and utilizing approved drilling and cementing techniques. DOGGR must be notified to witness or inspect all operations specified in the approval of any notice. This includes tests and inspections of blowout-prevention equipment, reservoir and freshwater protection measures, and well-plugging operations. In addition, the operator must have a bond on file with DOGGR before certain well operations can begin. The purpose of the bond is to secure the state against any expenses that the state may incur in obtaining operator compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and orders of DOGGR. The operator must also designate an agent, residing in the state, to receive and accept service of all orders, notices, and processes of DOGGR or any court of law. DOGGR regulates and maintains historically abandoned wells and frequently will access a site to re-abandon a well if it is identified as a problem. DOGGR also maintains a database of historical wells (an abandoned well is located on the Project Site, see Figure 2.3). DOGGR requirements related to construction projects that are near to or on top of historically abandoned wells are promulgated by DOGGR, including the submission of plans to DOGGR. The plans that are
4.8-45
submitted must illustrate the footprint of all buildings and access obstructions and the surveyed location of all wells. All wells must be excavated and tested for leakage and some or all of the wells may require additional plugging and venting. DOGGR advises not to undertake construction or development that would prevent access to any oil or gas well. Maintaining access to an oil or gas well is defined as 1) maintaining rig access to the well, and 2) not building over, or in close proximity to the well. Close proximity is defined as being within ten feet from the property line and/or structure. DOGGR would oversee and implement requirements related to the existing well on the Project Site.
California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981
This Act gives regulatory jurisdiction to the State Fire Marshal for the safety of all intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines and all interstate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances. The law establishes the Federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act and federal pipeline safety regulations as the governing rules for interstate pipelines.
Oil Pipeline Environmental Responsibility Act (Assembly Bill 1868)
This Act requires every pipeline corporation qualifying as a public utility and transporting crude oil in a public utility oil pipeline system to be held strictly liable for any damages incurred by any injured party which arise out of, or are caused by, the discharge or leaking of crude oil or any fraction thereof. The law applies only to public utility pipelines, such as those proposed by this Proposed Project, completed after January 1, 1996, or existing pipelines more than 3 miles in length and relocated after January 1, 1996. Signed into law in October 1995, the major features include: Each pipeline corporation that qualifies as a public utility that transports any crude oil in a public utility oil pipeline system shall be absolutely liable, without regard to fault, for any damages incurred by any injured party that arise out of, or are caused by, the discharge or leaking of crude oil. Damages for which a pipeline corporation is liable under this law are: all costs of response, containment, cleanup, removal, and treatment, including monitoring and administration cost; injury or economic losses resulting from destruction of, or injury to, real or personal property; injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including but not limited to, the reasonable cost of rehabilitating wildlife habitat, and other resources and the reasonable cost of assessing that injury, destruction, or loss, in any action brought by the State, county, city, or district; loss of taxes, royalties, rents, use, or profit shares caused by the injury, destruction, loss, or impairment of use of real property, personal property, or natural resources; and loss of use and enjoyment of natural resources and other public resources or facilities in any action brought by the State, county, city, or district. A pipeline corporation shall immediately clean up all crude oil that leaks or is discharged from a pipeline. No pipeline system subject to this law shall be permitted to operate unless the State Fire Marshal certifies that the pipeline corporation demonstrates sufficient financial responsibility to respond to the liability imposed by this section. The minimum financial responsibility required by the State Fire Marshal shall be $750 times the maximum capacity of the pipeline in the number of barrels per day up to a maximum of
4.8-46
$100,000,000 per pipeline system, or a maximum of $200,000,000 per multiple pipeline system. For the Pacific Pipeline, the bill specifically requires $100,000,000 for the financial responsibility (section l.h.(l)). Financial responsibility shall be demonstrated by evidence that is substantially equivalent to that required by regulations issued under section 8670.37.54 of the Government Code, including insurance, surety bond, letter of credit, guaranty, qualification as a self-insurer, or combination thereof or any other evidence of financial responsibility. The State Fire Marshal shall require that the documentation evidencing financial responsibility be placed on file with that office. The State Fire Marshal shall require evidence of financial responsibility to fund postclosure cleanup spots. The evidence of financial responsibility shall be 15 percent of the amount of financial responsibility.
California Accident Release Prevention
The California Accident Release Prevention program mirrors the Federal Risk Management program, except that it adds external events and seismic analysis to the requirements and includes facilities with lower inventories of materials. A California Accident Release Prevention or Risk Management Plan is a document prepared by the owner or operator of a stationary source containing detailed information including: Regulated substances held onsite at the stationary source; Offsite consequences of an accidental release of a regulated substance; The accident history at the stationary source; The emergency response program for the stationary source; Coordination with local emergency responders; Hazard review or process hazard analysis; Operating procedures at the stationary source; Training of the stationary sources personnel; Maintenance and mechanical integrity of the stationary sources physical plant; and Incident investigation.
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Control Law
The Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control. Department of Toxic Substances Control has adopted extensive regulations governing the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These regulations impose cradle-to-grave requirements for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment. The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulations establish requirements for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes. They prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. Hazardous waste is tracked from the point of generation to the point of disposal or treatment using hazardous waste manifests. The manifests list a description of the waste, its intended destination, and regulatory information about the waste.
Hazardous Materials Management Planning
The Office of Emergency Services, in support of local government, coordinates overall state agency response to major disasters. The office is responsible for assuring the State's readiness to respond to and recover from natural, manmade, and war-caused emergencies, and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. During major emergencies, the Office of Emergency Services may call upon all State agencies to help provide support. Due to their expertise, the California National Guard, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Conservation Corps, Department of Social Services, and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) are the agencies most often asked to respond and assist in emergency response activities.
Hazardous Materials Transportation in California
California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the State in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The CHP enforces materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations that prevent leakage and spills of material in transit and provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an incident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP. The CHP conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. CalTrans has emergency chemical spill identification teams at locations throughout the State. Hazardous waste must be regularly removed from generating sites by licensed hazardous waste transporters. Transported materials must be accompanied by hazardous waste manifests.
Hazardous Material Worker Safety, California Occupational Safety and Health Act
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in Title 8 CCR. Cal/OSHA hazardous materials regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances. The hazard communication program also requires that Material Safety Data Sheets be available to employees and that employee information and training programs be documented.
Asbestos and Lead
Cal/OSHA defines asbestos-containing construction materials as any internal building component containing greater than 0.1 percent asbestos. This definition is more stringent than federal definitions of asbestos-containing materials, which contain asbestos in concentrations greater than 1 percent. Asbestos-containing materials regulations apply to all building components, including exterior materials and roofing. Lead-containing paint is defined as paint containing 0.006 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) lead by weight. Lead-based paint is defined
as paint containing 0.05 mg/kg lead by weight. Asbestos and lead hazards associated with facility operations are subject to these rules. Existing asbestos containing materials and leadbased paint surveys cannot identify all materials, especially in or on internal building components. Compliance with 29 CFR 1926.1101, 40 CFR 61 Subpart M (NESHAPS) and similar state laws, requires sampling of suspect or presumed asbestos-containing materials before disturbance, if it is in a quantity of more than 260 linear feet on pipes, or 160 square feet on other facility components, or 35 cubic feet. Cal/OSHA requires registered asbestos abatement contractors to remove asbestos-containing construction materials in quantities greater than 100 square feet.
The Asbestos Construction Standard, Title 8 CCR Section 1529
The Cal/OSHA asbestos standard for construction activities applies to all asbestos work where asbestos-containing construction materials may be disturbed in threshold quantities. The Asbestos Construction Standard regulates asbestos exposure in all construction work as defined in Title 8 CCR Section 1502, including, but not limited to, the following: Demolition or salvage of structures where asbestos is present; Removal or encapsulation of materials containing asbestos; Construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation of structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain asbestos; Installation of products containing asbestos; Asbestos spill and emergency cleanup; Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of, and housekeeping activities involving asbestos or products containing asbestos, on the site or location at which construction activities are performed; Excavation which may involve exposure to asbestos as a natural constituent that is not related to asbestos mining and milling activities; Routine facility maintenance; and Erection of new electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and alteration, conversion and improvement of the existing transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
Cal/OSHA Lead Construction Standard, Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1
The Lead Construction Standard applies to all construction work where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead. The standard applies to any construction activity that may release dust or fumes including, but not limited to, manual scraping, manual sanding, heat gun applications, power tool cleaning, rivet busting, abrasive blasting, welding, cutting, or torch burning of lead based coatings. Unless otherwise determined by approved testing methods, all paints and other surface coatings are assumed to contain lead at prescribed concentrations, depending on the application date of the paint or coating. All construction work excluded from coverage in the general industry standard for lead by Section 5198(a)(2) is covered by this standard. Construction work is defined as work for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating. It includes, but is not limited to, the following:
4.8-49
Demolition or salvage of structures where lead or materials containing lead are present; Removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead; New construction, alteration, repair, or renovation of structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain lead, or materials containing lead; Installation of products containing lead; Lead contamination/emergency cleanup; Transportation, disposal, storage, or containment of lead or materials containing lead on the site or location at which construction activities are performed; and Maintenance operations associated with the construction activities.
4.8.2.3 Local Laws and Regulations Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County has established a number of programs and plans to address oil and gas operations in the County.
Los Angeles Municipal Code (Fire Protection Chapter 5, Section 57, Divisions 4 and 5)
These portions of the municipal fire code regulate the construction of buildings and other structures used to store flammable hazardous materials, and the storage of these same materials. These sections ensure that the business is properly equipped and operates in a safe manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Los Angeles County Fire Department issues these permits.
Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency
The Certified Unified Program Agency is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities throughout the County. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is the Certified Unified Program Agency for the entire County except in the cities of El Segundo, Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, and Vernon; these cities are Certified Unified Program Agencies within their own jurisdictions. The Los Angeles County Fire Department manages the hazardous materials disclosure program administered under Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations Title 19 (19 CCR) and requires the submittal of a hazardous materials inventory and contingency plan if the business handles or stores hazardous materials.
Los Angeles County General Plan
The Board of Supervisors adopted the first Safety and Seismic Safety Elements as components of the Los Angeles County General Plan in 1975 and updates in 1990. The Safety Element addresses earthquake, landslides, flood and fire hazards; and potential hazardous materials incidents related to these hazards. The specific policies of the General Plan (Policies 20 and 21 of the Safety Element) state that the County should: Review proposed development projects involving the use or storage of hazardous materials, and disapprove proposals which cannot properly mitigate unacceptable threats to public health and safety to the satisfaction of responsible agencies. And promote the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
Los Angeles County Fire Department
The Los Angeles County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Section is the administrative agent for the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations related to Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know laws, and Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III. The Los Angeles County Fire Department Hazardous Waste Control Program regulates the disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous and toxic materials. Its purpose is to protect the County of Los Angeles from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. It accomplishes this through inspections, emergency response enforcement, and site mitigation. The Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency (LACoCUPA) established its Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) in 1986. SMU's voluntary oversight program operates per Health and Safety Code 101480 which allows oversight of certain contaminated sites. In addition, in May 2008, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) delegated corrective action oversight authority to LACoCUPA under chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of California Health and Safety code to implement corrective action under consent agreement at CUPA facilities within its jurisdiction. SMU voluntary oversight and corrective action oversight programs are options in addition to DTSC and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) oversight programs for residents and businesses of Los Angeles County seeking oversight in a cost effective and timely manner for cleanup of their contaminated properties. County Code Chapter 12.60 Hazardous MaterialsSite Assessment/Remediation directs that the provisions of the chapter shall apply to all the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency. A site assessment/remedial investigation is required whenever there is a suspected escape, spill or release of hazardous materials into the environment or for the purpose of determining applicability of the hazardous waste control laws. A remedial action is required whenever it is determined that there was an escape, spill or release of hazardous materials into the environment which may pose a significant threat to human health or the environment. No person shall engage in the process of site assessment/remedial investigation or remedial action on a site, where a hazardous material release may have occurred and which is under the jurisdiction of the forester and fire warden or where oversight is requested from the forester and fire warden, until an application for oversight has been submitted to and approved by the health hazardous materials division, site mitigation unit of the forester and fire warden pursuant to this chapter.
The City of Hermosa Beach adopted Ordinance No. 85-803 on June 25, 1985 establishing the Hermosa Beach Oil Code and adding Chapter 21A to the Municipal Code. The purpose of the Oil Code is to "regulat[e] the development and design of oil recovery and establishing a permit system for drilling and oil recovery operations". Subsequent to the adoption of the oil code, the voters passed ballot Measure E prohibiting all oil development within the City. The Oil Code addresses the following areas: Permits; Well location;
4.8-51
Derricks and blowout protection; Development standards; Noise; Abandoned and idle wells; Storage; Fire prevention; Enforcement and review procedure; and Permit revocation procedures
The Proposed Project would revoke the general provisions of the oil code and incorporate specific regulations governing standards and procedures, to the extent that procedures are not part of the Citys permit processes that would apply to E&Bs Project into the Development Agreement that will be concurrently presented to the Hermosa Beach electorate.
4.8.2.4 Other Applicable Guidelines, National Codes, and Standards
Safety and Corrosion Prevention Requirements American Society of Mechanical Engineers, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, American National Standards Institute, and API American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) & American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B16.1 Cast Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings; ASME & ANSI B16.9, Factory-Made Wrought Steel Butt Welding Fittings; ASME & ANSI B31.1a, Power Piping; ASME & ANSI B31.4a, addenda to ASME B31.4a, Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols; National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Standard RP0190, Item No. 53071. Standard Recommended Practice External Protective Coatings for Joints, Fittings, and Valves on Metallic Underground or Submerged Pipelines and Piping Systems; NACE Standard RP0169, Item No. 53002. Standard Recommended Practice Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems; API 49, Recommended Practice for Drilling and Well Service Operations Involving Hydrogen Sulfide; API 54, Recommended Practice for Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations; API 510 Pressure Vessel inspection Code; API 570 Piping Inspection Code, applies to in-service metallic piping systems used for the transport of petroleum products; API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels; API 574 Inspection Practices for Pipe System Components; API 575 API Guidelines and Methods for Inspection of Existing Atmospheric and Lowpressure Storage Tanks; API 576 Inspection of Pressure Relieving Devices; API 650 Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage; API 651 Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Storage Tanks;
4.8-52
API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction; API 2610, Design, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Inspection of Terminal & Tank Facilities; and API Spec 12B - Bolted Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids.
API 653, atmospheric tank inspection and repair, addresses the following issues: Tank suitability for service; Brittle fracture considerations; Inspections; Materials; Design considerations; Tank repair and alteration; Dismantling and reconstruction; Welding; Examination and testing; Marking and recordkeeping; Tank inspections; External inspections by an authorized inspector every 5 years; Ultrasonic inspections of shell thickness every 5 years (when corrosion rate not known); and Internal bottom inspection every 10 years, if corrosion rates not known. Fire and Explosion Prevention and Control, National Fire Protection Agency Standards National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and Handbook; NFPA 11, Foam Extinguishing Systems; NFPA 12, A&B Halogenated Extinguishing Agent Systems; NFPA 15, Water Spray Fixed Systems; NFPA 20, Centrifugal Fire Pumps; and NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
4.8.2.5 Regulatory Oversight
There are a large number of federal, state, local laws and codes and standards which apply to an oil and gas facility. Generally, the regulatory oversight falls into the following categories. This matrix should not be considered all encompassing, but provides for a general understanding of the many different agencies involved in oversight of an oil and gas facility.
As defined in the CEQA Appendix G (section VII), the Environmental Checklist Form, a significant safety effect is one in which the Project would:
4.8-53
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
Regulatory Oversight Responsibilities
State RWQCB or DTSC Local Jurisdiction/City LA County FD/CUPA
Table 4.8-9
State Fire Marshal
Federal/Cal OSHA
State CalTrans
State DOGGR
Oversight Area
Cleanup of spills Compliance with permit conditions and local codes Emergency response plan preparation, hazardous materials plans Emissions of toxic and hazardous materials Inspections of facilities for code compliance Pipeline transportation of hazardous materials Responding to emergency scenarios, conducting drills, etc Site contamination issues Spills of hazardous materials Storm water discharges Truck transportation of hazardous materials Worker safety and workplace conditions
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X X X
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
4.8-54
Local AQMD
Federal DOT
Federal EPA
State OES
Local FD
Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. For site contamination, result in mobilization of contaminants currently existing in the soil and groundwater, creating potential pathways of exposure to humans or other sensitive receptors that would result in exposure to contaminant levels that would be expected to be harmful; or For site contamination, result in the presence of contaminated soils or groundwater within the project area, and as a result, expose workers and/or the public to contaminated or hazardous materials during construction activities at levels in excess of those permitted by Cal/OSHA in CCR Title B and the federal OSHA in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.
Because neither the City of Hermosa Beach nor Los Angeles County have established public safety thresholds, the thresholds below, modeled after the Santa Barbara County General Plan (SBC) Public Safety Thresholds adopted in August 1999, have been used in this analysis. These thresholds have been used for EIRs by the California State Lands Commission as well as other local jurisdictions within Southern California (Los Angeles County, the City of Whittier) to determine if a project presents a "significant hazard to the public". In addition, a Safety Element Supplement was adopted by SBC in February 2000 (Board of Supervisors Resolution 00-56) covering hazardous materials. The objective of the Safety Element is to define unacceptable risk in a manner that guides consistent and sound land-use decisions involving hazardous facilities. As part of this objective, SBC defined unacceptable risk involving new development, as well as modifications to existing development if those modifications increase risk. The public risk thresholds utilize FN curves, and consist of three classifications green, amber, and red for guiding the determination of significance, based on the estimated probability and consequence of an accident. FN curves are graphs that plot the frequency of scenarios vs. the consequences (the number of fatalities or injuries) on a logarithmic scale. In summary, the thresholds utilize FN curves to define the significance level of a proposed project or modification. The guidelines indicate that significant impacts would be avoided if the frequency of a single fatality is shown to be less than 1 in 1,000,000 years (the individual specific risk). If the risk of a single fatality is greater than 1 in 1,000,000 years, then a detailed quantitative risk analysis must be completed to indicate whether the risks are below those defined by the FN curves as significant. A safety and risk impact is considered significant if any of the following apply: The estimated probability and consequences of an accident falls within the red or amber zone of the SBC 2000 Safety Thresholds FN curve; or Existing or proposed emergency capabilities (including oil spill response plans and other plans that would be used for emergencies) are not adequate to effectively mitigate spills and other accident conditions.
4.8-55
4.8.4
Proposed Project Impacts
The risk analysis for the Proposed Oil Project (both at the Project Site and along the pipeline route) involves developing release scenarios, conducting a frequency and consequence analysis, and then combining these analyses to present a risk analysis. Impacts are then discussed for all aspects of the Proposed Project (the Project Site, the pipeline and the City Maintenance Yard).
4.8.4.1 Design Features
There are a large number of codes and standards and regulatory requirements applicable to the Proposed Oil Project that will help to reduce the risks of oil and gas facilities, from Process Safety Management systems to metallurgical requirements (discussed in Section 4.8.2, Regulatory Setting). The Applicant has proposed additional design features which would further reduce the risk levels of the facility. These include the following: Rather than using a shutdown system utilizing cascading shutdowns, if a problem occurs, the entire facility would shut down; Use of vent-to-flare systems so that all pressure safety valves are vented to the flare; Use of isolation valves within the process to allow for smaller releases of material; and The use of off-shore equivalent certified blind shear rams in the BOP during drilling.
4.8.4.2 CUP Requirements
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit. Applicable requirements for Safety, Risk and Hazards are listed below. A minimum of one annual site audit shall take place to inspect for soil contamination as a result of accidental spills in any areas not paved and exposed. Auditor shall be hired by City; The maximum number of days the workover rigs or any other rig that is to be used onsite shall be 90 days per year; The maximum size for any storage tank any type shall be forty feet in of diameter and sixteen feet in height; Prior to construction and prior to obtaining building permits for oil production, a complete soil analysis shall be performed and approved by all applicable governing agencies having jurisdiction over the Project; Not more than five tanks shall be installed, and shall be submerged in a concrete basin which contains 10% above the volume required by the State Division of Oil and Gas and the Uniform Fire Code; Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height from grade; The well cellars shall be concrete lined and shall be designed to hold contaminated runoff from onsite sources; or a sump shall be provided;
4.8-56
The site shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete wall with solid gates during all operations, protecting both against public entry, observation and attraction. A chain link fence to provide security is acceptable only through the exploratory phase; Security personnel shall be employed at all times during the drilling stage (24 hours) and emergency phone numbers shall be posted during production Phase II; Security personnel shall be employed at all times during the drilling stage (24 hours) and emergency phone numbers shall be posted during production Phase II Signs warning of unauthorized entry and safety hazards shall be posted on all sides. Access to facilities shall be limited to authorized personnel only. Trees shall be maintained at a distance from all walls to prohibit children and others from unauthorized entry. All site personnel shall be instructed on required safety procedures if hydrogen sulfide concentrations are encountered. Documentation of training and instruction shall be made available to the City Personnel Director. Both solid and liquid wastes shall be sampled and tested to determine if it needs to be treated as a hazardous waste. An Oil Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and an Oil Drilling Contingency Plan will be prepared for the Project and approved by the State Division of Oil and Gas, and the city of Hermosa Beach Fire and Building and Safety Departments. Drillsite and production facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the State seismic standards, and designed in accordance with U.B.C. seismic requirements for hazardous facilities. A soils engineering report and engineering geology report prepared by a licensed geologist and engineer shall be prepared and reviewed in conjunction with the plans for all physical improvements. Said report shall address potential seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, due to soils or geologic conditions. All recommendations contained in said reports shall be incorporated in the construction documents. An emergency response plan, including a blowout prevention and control plan, shall be prepared for review and approval by the Division of Oil and Gas and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. When a leak or spill occurs, it shall be contained, the fluid shall be recovered and the area restored to its original condition. Tanks shall be submerged 6 to 8 feet or more below grade; Project Site shall be graded so that all contaminated runoff is collected and treated onsite and disposed of according to all laws; Site shall be graded in a manner so that all hazardous or contaminated fluids and runoff are directed toward a cellar and approved pit and disposed of properly; No water from the site shall be allowed to enter the storm drainage system or any public area; No water from the site shall be allowed to surface flow across the public beach; Pipelines shall be designed with ample safety factors, pressure-tested prior to being placed in operation, and monitored for corrosion once in operation; Safety shut-down devices that respond to drops in pipeline pressure shall be incorporated into the Project in order to stop the flow of the Pipeline contents in case of a Pipeline rupture;
4.8-57
The CUP also states that, all requirements, standards, conditions stated within the Oil Production Code, Chapter 21-A, of the City's Municipal Code shall be met. Applicable to safety impacts, additional measures listed in the Oil Production Code include: No process operations shall be permitted at any well site. No oil well shall be drilled within twenty (20) feet of the exterior boundary of any dedicated public street, highway or private street except wherein a greater distance is required by state statutes or the Division of Oil and Gas; No well shall be located within twenty (20) feet of any building, nor shall any such building be erected within twenty (20) feet of any well not abandoned, except buildings incidental to the operation of the well. Prior to commencement of any drilling operation, all private roads used for access to the drill site and the drill site itself shall be maintained in such manner so as to minimize dust and mud. In oil operating areas all open, accessible surface excavations used for the disposal of waste liquids and all well production equipment having external moving parts hazardous to life or limb shall be attended twenty-four hours per day or be enclosed by fencing; If oil or other liquid storage facilities are established incidental to a producing well on a drill site, the total capacity of such storage facilities shall not exceed two thousand barrels per well. Sumps shall not be used for the storage of any oil or other liquids; All electrical equipment used, installed or maintained within fifty feet of a drilling well and within twenty-five feet of a producing well shall be in accordance with the provisions of N.F.P.A. Standard No. 70, Article 501 governing Class l, Division 2, Hazardous Locations; No internal combustion engine (except those used for the drilling, redrilling, or servicing of a well), storage tank, boiler, fired equipment or open flame (except welding supervised by the production foreman, drilling foreman, drilling supervisor, or safety supervisor) shall be located closer than twenty-five feet to a producing well nor closer than one hundred feet to a drilling well. During drilling operations on a drill site of two acres or less in an area where two or more wells are drilled and drilling and production equipment are located on such sites, the provisions of this code relating to distances of storage tanks may be altered at the discretion of the chief of the fire department after consideration of the private fire prevention measures to be provided A minimum of two fire extinguishers shall be maintained at all well locations where drilling, redrilling, workover, or well servicing is being conducted. Each such extinguisher shall have a minimum classification of 20 B as set for in N.F.P.A. Volume No. 10.
4.8.4.3 Characteristics of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Odorant
As it emerges from the wellhead, crude oil is a heterogeneous mixture of solids, liquids, and gases. This mixture includes sediments, water and water vapor, salts, and acid gases, including carbon dioxide and, sometimes, hydrogen sulfide. Flammable vapors that may emanate from crude oil include methane, propane, butane, and pentane.
4.8-58
Crude oil comes in many forms. Thin and volatile oils are "light," whereas thick and viscous ones are "heavy." Light oils have an American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity of 30 to 40 degrees, which means that the density is much less than the density of water, 1.0 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cc). These oils float easily on water. By contrast, heavy oils have an API gravity of less than about 20 degrees. Oil with the same density of water has an API gravity of 10. Crude oils are also characterized by Reid vapor pressure. Reid vapor pressure (ASTM Method D 323) is the absolute vapor pressure exerted by a liquid at 100 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The higher the Reid vapor pressure, the more volatile the oil and the more readily it will evaporate. Sulfur in crude oil occurs in many natural compounds including hydrogen sulfide. Total sulfur ranges from approximately one to four percent by weight in crude oils, and hydrogen sulfide concentrations can be more than 100 ppm in sour crudes. Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas that can cause injuries or fatalities if released into the atmosphere and inhaled by persons. Its strong, pungent odor is detectable at a level substantially below that which causes health effects. It also causes paralysis of the olfactory functions at levels lower than those that cause health effects. Other constituents of crude oil include nitrogen and oxygen compounds, and water- and metalcontaining compounds, such as iron, vanadium, and nickel. API from Redondo Beach wells indicate that the crude oil from the Proposed Project wells is expected to have an API of between 14 and 25 gravity, as per historical records from the Redondo Beach wells. The Applicant indicates an API gravity of 18 is expected. Hydrocarbon gas is also produced from formations and would be processed at the Proposed Project gas plant. The processed gas must conform to requirements established by Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) for use in their distribution system. The majority of the gas would be methane, with some smaller amounts of ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane+, and inert compounds (such as CO2). Natural gas presents hazards due to its flammability in the form of vapor cloud fires and explosions, and thermal radiation impacts due to flame jet fires emanating from a gas leak or rupture. Based on historical information from Redondo Beach wells for wells from the western portion of the Torrance oil field, the crude oil potentially produced by the Proposed Project most likely would not contain appreciable quantities of hydrogen sulfide.
Hydrogen Sulfide
The exact level of hydrogen sulfide levels in the gas will not be known until the test wells are developed. There could also be some variation in H2S levels between the different wells produced as part of Phase 2 or 4. Historical well information for the Redondo Beach wells is sparse as records at that time were more interested in crude oil than gas. However, one of the well records (for well#2) indicated a "rotten odor" from the test gasses, which may indicate the presence of some H2S. Some of the Redondo Beach wells produced higher hydrogen sulfide gas levels in the later production years, with levels up to 5,000 ppm, but these wells may have become sour due to contamination from injected materials from the surface (according to CSLC and the Applicant). Nearby well sampling data acquired by the Applicant indicates that wells in
4.8-59
the Torrance Oil Field within 2.0 miles of the Project Site have historically exhibited H2S levels of 2.5 to 6 ppm. The Applicant indicates that H2S levels are anticipated to range up to 6 ppm. Information related to hydrogen sulfide obtained from the California State Lands Commissions indicates the following (CSLC 2013): Torrance oil field includes several zones among them the Main zone is the most productive one. From top to bottom; Tar, Ranger, Main(depth; 3500 to 4500, with 1.37% MW of H2S), and Del Amo Inspection of Redondo Beach tank farm for gas streams before and after Scrubber shows the H2S concentration of (160 200) and <80 ppm respectively H2S concentrations for 5 offshore wells before and after treatment recorded as; (1,200 5,500) to (0 130) ppm respectively Well CRB#5 in the Redondo Beach with 1,200 ppm H2S is the nearest (1/4 mile distance) to the Hermosa Beach border Well CRP#3 & 53 distanced 0.6 miles with 4,000 ppm and well S-5 distanced 1.3 mile with 5,500 ppm H2S In June 1994 a water sample from Marble#102, which is located east of the City Maintenance Yard showed no detectable H2S Generally speaking, H2S concentration increases from north toward south direction
DOGGR indicates in their publication M10 (DOGGR 1997) that the Torrance oilfield has H2S odor, but with concentrations unknown. As the design of the facility is to allow gas containing up to 100 ppm of H2S to be processed, and the Applicant indicates in their application that levels above this are not anticipated, this analysis assumes a peak H2S level within the produced gas of 100 ppm H2S. Any gas produced with levels above this would require that the Applicant permanently shut down the high H2S wells or shut down the high H2S wells and conduct further CEQA and permit related analysis in order to resume operation of the high H2S wells.
Odorizing
The gas would be odorized at the Proposed Project odorant station as per requirements of the gas company, most likely with 100 percent tetrahydrothiophene or an equivalent. Tetrahydrothiophene is a liquid at standard conditions (68F and atmospheric pressure) and has a boiling point of approximately 247F. It can produce a flammable vapor with explosion limits of 1.1 to 12.3 percent and is, therefore, somewhat volatile. It has a low flash point of approximately 54F; meaning that, above this temperature, sufficient volatile vapors are produced to create a flash if brought in contact with an ignition source. If spilled, or opened to the atmosphere, the odorant produces a vapor that is approximately three times heavier than air. It is a colorless liquid with a stench and is insoluble in water. For impacts related to odors, see Section 4.2, Air Quality.
4.8-60
4.8.4.4 Release Scenarios at the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipeline Route
The approach taken to develop the release scenarios was to group the proposed equipment and operations by operating parameters; equipment that has a similar temperature, pressure and composition were grouped into one set of scenarios. This generally produced a set of release scenarios for each process. Each set of release scenarios contained at least one rupture release and one leak release. This approach encompasses a range of risks by including a less frequent, more severe scenario, and a more frequent, less severe scenario. In some cases, the leak release actually produces a higher risk (i.e., combination of consequence and frequency) than the associated rupture release because leaks occur more frequently than ruptures. The principal immediate hazards to public health at the Proposed Oil Project Site include: Releases associated with drilling activities, resulting in pressured gas releases and subsequent fires or vapor/toxic clouds; Releases associated with gas processing of flammable gas resulting in pressured gas releases and subsequent fires or vapor/toxic clouds; Releases of odorant causing toxic impacts; and Releases of crude oil with subsequent fire causing impacts from thermal exposure to fire.
Table 4.8-10 shows the characteristics of the release scenarios analyzed in this study.
Scenario 1: Releases During Drilling
It is anticipated that the wells drilled at the field would not be pressurized wells once they are drilled and in production for a certain amount of time. When in production (after drilling), the Applicant indicates that wells would utilize down-hole pumping units in order to move the crude oil to the surface. This type of well would not produce a blowout type scenario that has a sustained release of flammable materials with sufficient volume and duration to produce serious injuries or fatalities offsite. However, during drilling, and initially during production for a period after the well has been drilled, there may be periods of time and zones of the reservoir where substantial pressures could be encountered, giving rise to the potential for wells that could, if a release occurs, produce pressurized releases that could cause risks to the community. Historical data from the Redondo Beach wells drilled mostly in the 1950s indicate that, on some wells, there was free flow for up to 15-27 days before pumps had to be installed. While most wells drilled at Redondo exhibited minimal initial flow, based on drillstem test records, free flows from wells during testing did show some wells with very strong gas flows and with surface pressures as high as 800 psi (EB well #5). A drillstem test is performed during drilling to test the flow capabilities of the well, produce the reservoir fluids through the drillpipe and allow the well to flow for a time, thereby gathering information on the well. Of the 30 Redondo Beach wells examined, 9 of them had drillstem tests where flows were ranked as "strong" or "very strong" during one of their respective drillstem tests. There were often up to 5 drillstem tests performed for each well with varying results. The drillstem tests generally were run for about an hour. Therefore, based on Redondo Beach drillstem testing, for this analysis it was assumed that wells would be pressurized during drilling with up to 1,000 psi pressure and that pressurization would
4.8-61
continue for 30 days into the production period. Note that the Applicant has indicated that the wells could be pressurized for as much as 14 days after drilling is completed (Bercha 2013). This scenario involves rupture of the drilling equipment upstream of the gas gathering system. The release location would be at the drilling site. Failures would be due to piping or valve breaks, vessel failures or high pressure "kicks" and losses of well control that are not controlled by the blowout prevention (BOP) system. The release was modeled as a rupture with a sustained release of reservoir fluids. The rupture case assumed a break of 3 inches (leak releases are addressed under scenario 2). The release was modeled at a conservative well head pressure of 1,000 psi. Possible consequences include toxic, flame jets and flammable vapor clouds. The risks associated with a drilling blowout would be associated with the drilling of either a production or injection well.
Scenario 2: Wellhead Release During Operations
This scenario involves rupture of the gas equipment at the wellheads during operations after drilling. Operational scenarios that could lead to a release would include wellhead or piping failures, value failures, loss of well control (blowout) or releases during well workovers or redrills. Releases would be associated with only the production wells as the injection wells would just be injecting non-hazardous water. This release was assumed to occur only during the first month of production. The release location would be at the well pad site. Failures would be due to piping, valve breaks, vessel failures, or kicks from high pressure coming up the well-bore. It was modeled as both a rupture and a leak with the entire contents of the well bore being released. The rupture case conservatively assumed a break of 3 inches. The leak case assumed a hole size of 1 inch. The release was modeled at normal operating pressure and temperature. The gas composition was produced gas. Possible consequences include toxic, flame jets and flammable vapor clouds.
4.8-62
Table 4.8-10
Facility Release Scenarios Pressure (psig) 1,000 500 25 Temperature (F) 120 120 120 Line Size (inches) 3 3 6 Vessels, number 0 0 11 Valves, number 0 2 44 Volume, cf continuous continuous 1,876
# 1 2 3
Scenario Drilling blowout Release of Gas at the Well Heads: production Release at Gas Plant, low pressure (VRU, VRU Discharge, etc) Release at gas plant, mid pressure (1st stage discharge to second stage inlet) Release at gas plant, high pressure (second stage discharge to outlet) Release of Natural Gas from the Gas Pipeline Odorant Release Crude Oil Release with Fire Crude Oil Spill
Composition Produced Gas Produced Gas Produced Gas Produced Gas
Piping, ft 0 80 500
165
120
28
255
543
5 6 7 8 9 10
500 500 atm atm atm
120 68 68 68 120 68
Natural Gas Natural Gas Odorant Crude Oil Crude Propane
3 4 1 4 1
3 0 1 2 2
12 0 4 8 8
255 2,640 25 75
98 230 67 2900 bbls each 2900 bbls each 50
Propane refrigeration 160 system Source: Applicant data and Bercha 2013 Final
4.8-63
Scenario 3: Release of Production Piping: Low Pressure
This scenario involves rupture of the gas piping between the production well pad and at gas compressors before compression to higher pressures at the gas plant (see Figure 2.18). The release location would be at the gas plant. Failure would be due to piping/vessel ruptures or leaks. It was modeled as both a rupture and a leak with the entire contents of the low pressure gas system being released. The rupture case conservatively assumed a break of 6 inches, or the largest pipeline diameter. The leak case assumed a hole size of 1 inch. The release was modeled at normal operating pressure and temperature, which would be at a relatively low pressure. The gas composition was produced gas. Possible consequences include toxic, flame jets, explosions and flammable vapor clouds.
Scenarios 4: Release of Gas Plant Equipment: Mid Pressure
This scenario involves a rupture or leak of equipment within the gas plant during and after first stage compression to the inlet to second stage compression. Releases would be due to piping failures, vessel failures, valve failures, heat exchanger failures or compressor failures. It was modeled as both a rupture and a leak with the entire contents of the mid pressure gas system (between compression stages) being released. The rupture case conservatively assumed a break of 4 inches, or the largest pipeline diameter. The leak case assumed a hole size of 1 inch. The release was modeled at normal operating pressure and temperature. The gas composition was produced gas. Possible consequences include toxic, flame jets, explosions and flammable vapor clouds.
Scenarios 5: Release of Gas Plant Equipment: High Pressure
This scenario involves a rupture or leak of equipment within the gas plant including and after the second stage compression to the pipeline that transports the gas off site. Releases would be due to piping failures, vessel failures, valve failures, heat exchanger failures or compressor failures. It was modeled as both a rupture and a leak with the entire contents of the high pressure gas system and the pipeline volume being released. The rupture case conservatively assumed a break of 4 inches, or the largest pipeline diameter. The leak case assumed a hole size of 1 inch. The release was modeled at normal operating pressure and temperature. The gas composition was natural gas (without H2S). Possible consequences include flame jets, explosions and flammable vapor clouds.
Scenario 6: Release of Natural Gas Pipeline and Metering
This scenario involves rupture of the gas pipeline after the natural gas has left the gas plant and is being transported to the SCGC system along valley Drive. It would occur along the pipeline route or at the gas metering location. Failure would be due to piping ruptures or leaks or valve ruptures or leaks. It was modeled as both a rupture and a leak with the entire contents of the gas pipeline being released. The rupture case conservatively assumed a break of 4 inches, or the largest pipeline diameter. The leak case assumed a hole size of 1 inch. The release was modeled at a normal operating pressure and temperature. The gas composition was natural gas. Possible consequences include flame jets and flammable vapor clouds. If the release were to occur back into the facility, there could be sufficient confinement to allow for an explosion.
4.8-64
The pipeline would be equipped with a return pipeline that would be used if the gas is determined not to meet the specifications of The Gas Company. The return pipeline would not normally be used and would be isolated from the normal pipeline by valves.
Scenario 7: Odorant Releases
This scenario includes the odorant facilities located at the gas plant. Releases would be due to equipment or tank failures or releases during tank filling operations if vapor control is not implemented or fails. The release would be a pool spilled onto the ground and vaporizing. Odorant could cause toxic impacts if inhaled at sufficiently high concentrations.
Scenario 8: Crude Oil Release with Fire at Storage
This scenario encompasses the crude oil storage systems at the Facility. The equipment includes the crude oil storage tanks and piping. The scenario assumes a catastrophic loss of the tank contents into the dike area with subsequent ignition and fire. Possible consequences include large crude oil fire and thermal radiation.
Scenario 9: Crude Oil Spill Outside Containment
This scenario involves a crude oil spill that could affect areas outside of the facility site. It encompasses all of the crude oil processing equipment at the site as well as the drainage systems failure. Section 4.3, Biological Resources, addresses potential impacts to biological resources. This scenario assumes that all tank and piping areas at the Facility would drain to a bermed area. In order for the releases to spill outside of the berm containment, an operator would need to open the drain valve or leave a drain valve open during a subsequent inspection.
Scenario 10: Refrigeration System Releases
This scenario involves a release of the propane refrigerant used in the low temperature separation system. Release could be due to valve, vessel or piping failures. Impacts would be due to flammable vapor clouds or explosions.
Drilling Releases
Releases during drilling activities can occur due to equipment failures, such as ruptured piping or valve structural failures, or can be due to over pressurization of the drilling system due to the lack of well control and control of reservoir pressures, or blowouts. Blowouts release large amounts of pressurized gas and liquid that can ignite, causing a large fire with associated thermal radiation, or the gas can form a vapor cloud, which can cause a vapor cloud explosion if it encounters an ignition source. Blowouts occur when the drilling encounters an area of sufficient pressure and the drilling muds and cement cannot contain the reservoir fluids, and the reservoir pressure causes oil and gas to flow back up the well to the surface. The flow can occur through the drilling pipe and casing. This is what happened recently in the Gulf of Mexico at the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon. The use of blow out prevention devices (BOPD) can reduce the frequency of uncontrolled blowouts that occur through the drill pipe and casing. These devices are installed on the top of
4.8-65
the well and can close the well hole by shutting a valve or shearing off the drilling pipe if the drilling pipe is in the hole. Regulating agencies require the use of BOPD when wells are being drilled or serviced. However, like all equipment, there are times when BOPD do not function properly or the configuration is such that the BOPD does not stop the well flow. Several agencies compile data on well blowouts and releases. These include the BOEMRE, the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas and the Texas Division of Oil and Gas. The BOEMRE maintains the most detailed database and accident reports, enabling the frequency of BOPD failures to be defined. Although most of the BOEMRE data is for offshore environment, it does provide a conservative estimate of BOP failure and well blowout frequencies. The BOEMRE maintains safety reports that are required to be filed for every loss of well control incident. The BOEMRE uses the term loss of well control which includes blowouts as well as more minor incidents related to a loss of control of well fluids that do not necessarily result in a release of fluids to the environment. From 1992 to 2005, there were 67 loss of well control incidents in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (four in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and 63 in the Gulf of Mexico). In order to estimate the frequency of blowouts and subsequent events, the BOEMRE incident database was examined for all incidents listed as loss of well control (MMS 2007). In the BOEMRE database, each incident has an incident report detailing the events leading up to the incident and the resulting consequences and actions taken. Of the 67 loss of well control incidents, approximately 10 percent produced fires, approximately 7 percent were sub-surface blowouts, and in 46 percent of incidents a BOPD stopped the flow. In 33 percent of the releases, the BOPD did not function (due to either equipment failures or the incorrect implementation of procedures) or was not present, resulting in a sustained release for a period of time exceeding 15 minutes, and the release required evacuations from the facility. Table 4.8-11 summarizes the BOEMRE incident reports. Table 4.8-11 also shows the estimated frequency of well blowouts from a number of different studies and agencies. These include data from DOGGR from 1950 to 1990, when more than 100,000 wells were drilled with a total of 140 blowouts. Well blowout rates from 1980 through 1990 are also shown. The table also shows blowout data from the Texas Division of Oil and Gas; for approximately 250,000 wells drilled from 1990 to 2006, there were 373 well blowouts. The blowout rates for drilling range from 0.33 blowouts to 5.2 blowouts per 1,000 wells drilled. Blowout rates during production are substantially lower than during drilling at approximately 0.14 blowouts per well-year. For a blowout to occur, the reservoir must be pressurized. During drilling, the drill hole must pass into or through an area that is pressurized. It is unclear at this time the extent to which the reservoir will be pressurized or the drilling will pass through areas that are pressurized. If the wells do not have pressure to allow for sufficient flow of crude oil and gas, then the wells would utilize pumps placed down the well hole to pump up the crude oil. The Applicant is currently proposing the use of this technology. A well that does not have sufficient pressure to free flow cannot have a blowout. It is possible that the reservoir could have some pressure during initial
4.8-66
drilling (see above), but this pressure would diminish as the wells went into production over several months.
Table 4.8-11 Blowout and Loss of Well Control Frequencies
Well Blowouts BOEMRE Incident Reports Database Number of loss of well control incidents from 1992 to 2005 Fraction occurring during drilling Fraction occurring during production Fraction occurring during workovers Fraction occurring during abandonment, completions, other Fraction of loss of well control incidents producing fires Fraction of loss of well control incidents that were sub-surface Fraction of loss of well control incidents where a BOPD was present Fraction of loss of well control incidents where the BOPD stopped the flow Fraction of loss of well control producing sustained releases Well Blowouts Frequency of Blowouts HLID (HLID 1992) frequency of blowouts during drilling, per 1,000 wells drilled HLID frequency of blowouts during production, per 1,000 well years HLID frequency of blowouts during well workovers, per 1,000 well workovers MMS loss of well control incident rate, 1996 to 2005, per 1,000 wells drilled MMS loss of well control incident rate with sustained release, 1996 to 2005, per 1,000 wells drilled California DOGGR, well blowouts all activities, 1950 to 1990, per 1,000 wells drilled California DOGGR, well blowouts during drilling & completion only, 1950 to 1990, per 1,000 wells drilled California DOGGR, well blowouts during drilling only, 1980 to1990, per 1,000 wells drilled Texas DOG, well blowouts, 1990 to 2006, per 1,000 wells drilled Note: MMS has been renamed to BOEMRE.
67 60% 9% 15% 16% 10% 7% 78% 46% 33% 1.6 0.14 0.73 5.2 1.7 1.4 0.68 0.33 1.5
Due to the uncertainty of the levels of pressure that would be encountered in the wells during drilling and production, in this analysis it was assumed that the reservoir or areas the drill hole passes through are pressurized and that blowouts could occur. The rate used for blowouts during drilling was the BOEMRE rate, which is the most conservative. The rates used for blowouts during workovers and production were the HLID rates (see Table 4.8-11) (HLID 1992).
4.8.4.5 Frequency Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines
Table 4.8-12 shows the failure rates for each of the release scenarios. The sources used in developing the failure rates for this study are listed in the references. The tables located in the risk appendix provide the fault trees and the rationale for each selected failure rate and information on the data sources used. The highest frequency events are associated with leaks. The highest frequency for rupture scenario is associated with well blowouts.
4.8-67
Table 4.8-12
Scenario Failure Rates Failure Rate, per Year 6.2X10 -2 4.2X10 -6 1.7X10 -3 1.7X10 1.2X10 1.0X10
-4 -3
Scenario Scenario 1 Wellhead Area Rupture during drilling: blowout Scenario 1b Wellhead area leak during drilling Scenario 2 Wellhead Area Rupture during production Scenario 2b Wellhead area leak during production -pressurized and nonpressurized wells Scenario 3 Rupture at Gas Plant separators, scrubbers to compressors low pressure Scenario 3b Leak at Gas Plant through inlet scrubbers to compressors low pressure Scenario 4 Rupture at Gas Plant LTS, scrubbers and compressors - mid pressure Scenario 4b Leak at Gas Plant LTS, scrubbers and compressors - mid pressure Scenario 5 Rupture at Gas Plant compressors 2nd stage - high pressure Scenario 5b Leak at Gas Plant compressors 2nd stage - high pressure Scenario 6 Rupture at natural gas pipeline along Valley Dr and at meter Scenario 6b Leak at natural gas pipeline along Loop Road and at meter Scenario 7 Loss of Containment from odorant storage/transfer Scenario 8 Release of Crude Oil and Subsequent Fire Scenario 9 Release of Crude Oil Storage/Pumping with subsequent spill outside containment Scenario 10a Rupture at refrigeration system Scenario 10b Leak at refrigeration system Combined Facility Gas Rupture during drilling Combined Facility Gas Leak during drilling Combined Facility Gas Rupture: no Drilling Combined Facility Gas Leak: no Drilling Source: Failure rate expressed in scientific notation. See Risk Appendix
Years Between Failures 162 24 604,127 576 8,385 978 10,902 903 21,513 1,282 9,065 8,418 14 3,660 6,421,148 28,448 2,478 152 21 2,472 162
-3
9.2X10 1.1X10
-5
-3
4.6X10 -4 7.8X10 -4 1.1X10 -4 1.2X10 -2 6.9X10 -4 2.7X10 -7 1.6X10 3.5X10 -4 4.0X10 6.6X10 -2 4.7X10 -4 4.0X10 -3 6.2X10
-3 -5
-5
The combined frequency of a release from all the Proposed Project equipment (not including the odorant operations) is estimated in Table 4.8-12 during production when drilling, and during production when not drilling. This includes both rupture and leak releases. Releases during drilling operations are more frequent due to the higher frequency of well blowouts during drilling than during production. Note that these frequencies do not include the conditional probability that persons may be exposed to the release, that the release reaches public areas, or that meteorological conditions contribute to a large impact zone.
4.8-68
4.8.4.6 Consequence Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines
Figure 4.8-5 and the risk appendix show the results of the consequence modeling. The appendix includes the inputs to the modeling, the results of the release rate models, and results of the dispersion, toxic, overpressure, flammable vapor, and thermal radiation modeling. Figure 4.8-5 shows the results of the modeling for both fatality impacts and injuries. Of all of the scenarios analyzed, a well blowout would create the worst-case in terms of impact distances. This scenario would occur only if the well was pressurized. A release from the pipeline could impact nearby residences. However, due to the pipe diameter and relatively short distance, the release would only last less than 5 minutes before pipeline pressure dissipated, assuming that the pipeline rupture location is not also fed by the main gas transmission pipeline along Herondo St. If the release is also fed by the gas main, the release duration would be longer. Figure 4.8-6 shows the distances from the Project Site equipment that could produce fatality or serious injury impacts. Note that these impact distances do not represent risk levels, only the areas that could potentially be exposed to these levels of concern. Offsite injuries and fatalities are primarily due to drilling related releases, if the drilling encounters pressurized reservoirs and the thermal impacts due to a crude oil fire. Overpressure zones from flammable gas releases also contribute to the larger zones. Drilling impacted areas are located to the west of the site and crude oil fires are primarily located to the east of the site. The overpressure curve in Figure 4.8-6 designates the area that could experience some fragment impacts due to explosions (the 0.3 psi line) which could cause some injuries if a person is impacted by fragments. Note that explosions would only be due to propane releases from the refrigeration system or from a gas release that would be associated with some "containment" (within a relatively confined area of the facility, such as within the crude oil containment area between equipment), meteorological conditions appropriate to allow for gathering of the released gas, and a release duration long enough to release enough gas in order to produce an explosion.
4.8-69
Figure 4.8-5
Consequence Analysis Results: Fatality and Serious Injury
Odorant releases would not produce offsite fatality impacts
Note: For fatality, Scenario 7, an odorant release, would not produce offsite impacts.
4.8-70
Figure 4.8-6
Areas That Could Be Potentially Exposed
Note that these zones only show areas that could potentially be impacted and do not indicate the frequency that an event could occur.
Hydrogen Sulfide Impacts
The only toxic impacts would be associated with a spill of odorant. This is due to the assumption of a maximum H2S level of 100 ppm in the produced gas (not in the natural gas that is transported offsite by pipeline). As the fatality and injury levels for H2S are 100 ppm and 30 ppm respectively (ERPG-3 and ERPG-2), these levels would not be achieved offsite because, when the materials is released, it immediately starts mixing with air,, particularly when it is a pressurized release that would involve jet mixing, and the concentration decreases rapidly. If the concentration within the piping before the release is already close to the fatality or injury levels, the impacts zones would be nominal, at less than 20 feet.
4.8-71
4.8.4.7 Risk Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines
The results of the failure rate and consequence analysis were combined to develop risk profile curves. The risk profiles are location dependant, meaning that they provide an assessment of the risk based on the populations estimated to be there today. If the facility were located in an isolated area, the risk profiles would be zero. The analysis assumed the facilities were operating at their proposed maximum levels and that the populations near the facility were at their current levels with no additional development. Meteorological data utilized the King Harbor data obtained from the SCAQMD.
Population Data
Population information was estimated for locations within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project Site. Table 4.8-13 lists these locations and the estimated populations, population densities, and ignition probabilities. The industrial areas around the site, although enclosed, are often equipped with large garage doors that are frequently open to the front, thereby effectively making them more of an outdoor type receptor than one where significant infiltration would be required in order to have impacts. Therefore, these receptors were treated as outdoor receptors. The exception to this is for thermal impacts, where the shielding effect of the building would reduce impacts. Building shielding was assumed to reduce thermal impacts (impacts from a fire) by 50% due the fraction of persons outdoors.
Risk Analysis Results
Figures 4.8-7 and 4.8-8 shows the risk profile curves for the Proposed roject and for the gas pipeline. Impacts associated with the facility assuming that drilled wells would encounter pressurized areas and have the potential for a blowout would present significant risk levels. Risk levels without pressurized wells would be less than significant. As the majority of the pipeline would be located separate from the facility, the risk profiles are shown separately. Pipeline segments that are close to the facility have been included within the facility risk profiles.
4.8-72
Table 4.8-13
Population Information Population Density (persons per square mile) Use Factor, hrs per day Primarily Indoors (I) or Outdoors (O) Ignition Probability
Location 6-7th Street residences: east side of greenbelt 8th Street residences Industrial Area 7th and Cyprus Industrial Area along Cyprus Other residential areas
Notes
28,500 28,500
24 24
I I
0.10 0.10
Based on Aerial photos Based on Aerial photos Outdoors based on open business fronts, ventilation systems. Based on number of units and estimates.
30,000 30,000 28,500
8 8 24
O O I
0.25 0.25 0.10
Population estimated based on 50 people per 1,000 meters. Ignition probability Recreational/Greenbelt 18,700 12 O 0.10 due to automobiles. Based on park area South Park 5,300 12 O 0.10 and parking spaces Sources: Census data 2010 for Hermosa Beach, Aerial photos for housing unit counts, site visits. Ignition probability of industrial sources based on medium industrial. Houses and automobiles were combined to account for a 0.10 ignition probability.
Impacts that could produce a fatality involve higher concentrations of material or higher levels of thermal radiation than the levels that could produce injuries. Therefore, fatality zones are smaller than injury zones; they do not reach as far. The highest risk scenarios for fatality are principally generated by a rupture releases from the drilling operations assuming that there are pressurized wells. As there is some uncertainty associated with that, risk profiles are shown for both the pressurized well scenario and for a scenario where no wells are pressurized. The no pressurized wells scenario also corresponds to the period of time after the Phase 4 drilling when only operations are occurring with no drilling. The FN curves shown in Figures 4.8-7 and 4.8-8 encompass a large number of scenarios, accounting for rupture and leak releases, 16 different wind directions, two groupings of different meteorological conditions, and different potential events (fires, vapor cloud, flame jets, toxic impacts), thereby producing a total of more than 1,000 potential outcomes. This explains the shape that they take on in the figures. FN curves show the frequency of experiencing a scenario (along the Y axis) that produces greater than a given number of serious injuries/fatalities (along the X axis). Another driver to the risk levels is the scenario of a rupture of the crude oil tank with subsequent ignition and a fire at the facility. The resulting fire would produce levels of thermal radiation that could impact areas offsite and produce injuries or fatalities. This scenario has a high
ignition frequency due to the presence of numerous ignition producing equipment within the spill containment area, including the flare, the low temperature separation equipment and the compressors. Impacts from the gas pipeline present risk levels that are less than significant for fatalities, but are close to the significant region partly due to the potential for longer duration events caused by the connection to the gas main. The modeling assumed that a release from the gas pipeline would also drain the gas main it would be connected to, thereby increasing the duration.
Phase 2 Risks
Risk levels associated with Phase 2 would be less than the Phase 4 risk as fewer wells would be drilled (4 as opposed to 12 a year) and less equipment would be located onsite. Risk levels would remain significant during Phase 2 primarily due to the drilling blowout scenario. Risks associated with truck transportation of the crude oil resulting in a potential spill are discussed below under spill risks. Risks due to a crude oil spill from a truck would primarily be environmental as, with the heavier crude oil, ignition probability is quite low.
Comparison to Applicant Studies
The Applicant contracted with Bercha Group to prepare a risk assessment of their Proposed Oil Project (Bercha 2013). Bercha used established standards for assessing risk, in a similar fashion to that assessed in this report. The release frequencies and modeling results were similar to those developed in this EIR. Overall facility release rates for the Bercha study were on the order of once every 2,500 years for a rupture release from the facilities. This is similar to the frequency developed in this report if the frequency of a drilling blowout and a crude oil fire are removed from the analysis. This EIR included those two additional scenarios in order to assess the range of risks that could occur. Crude oil fires and drilling blowouts were not assessed in the Bercha Report. The resulting FN curves were similar for the operational scenario where no drilling is occurring. Impact distances for flammable vapor clouds were somewhat larger/farther in the Bercha Report due to the use of different models. This report used the publically available SLAB model, which takes dense gas effects in account. Generally, high pressure gas releases involve substantial jet entrainment and temperature changes. This EIR also looked at a lower overpressure scenario than the Bercha Report, 0.3 psi overpressure, to examine the potential for fragment impacts, which produced larger/farther impact zones.
4.8-74
Figure 4.8-7
Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Gas Pipeline: Fatalities
Notes: Fixed facility risk profiles on the left include the pipeline segments located close to the facility.
4.8-75
Figure 4.8-8
Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Pipeline: Injuries
Notes: Fixed facility risk profiles on the left include the pipeline segments located close to the facility.
4.8-76
4.8.4.8 Proposed Project Impacts
The Projects potential to result in significant impacts is discussed below relative to each of the significance thresholds identified in Section 4.8.3, for the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard.
Near Schools
The proposed drilling and production site, laydown site and proposed parking site are not within a quarter mile of a school. The nearest school is the Hermosa Valley School on Valley Drive, which is 0.5 miles to the north of the site. There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the gas pipeline, unless the gas pipeline is extended along 190th Street. Along the 190th Street route, there are schools (existing or planned) within a quarter mile of the proposed pipeline alignment options. These include Jefferson Elementary on Flagler in the City of Redondo Beach (0.15 miles), Towers Elementary School on Towers Street also in Redondo Beach (0.15 miles), Valor Christian Academy on Earle St in Redondo Beach (0.12 miles) and North High School on 182nd Street in Redondo Beach (0.25 miles). However, the crude oil pipeline, due to the heavy nature of the crude oil, is not anticipated to produce significant public risk. The gas pipeline could produce risks a distance of 330 feet from the pipeline (0.06 miles), and would therefore not present a significant risk to the nearby schools.
Listed Hazardous Materials Site
None of the sites (drilling and production, laydown site, proposed parking site, oil and gas pipeline alignments, or valve boxes) are included on a list for hazardous materials sites (see discussion in Section 4.8.1.4).
Public Airport or Private Airstrip
None of the sites are within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is the Torrance Airport (3.5 miles) and the Los Angeles International Airport (5 miles). None of the project sites are in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Impair Emergency Response
This issue is dealt with in Section 4.6, Fire Protection and Emergency Response.
Wildland Fires
The project (all proposed sites) and vicinity is in an urbanized region. There are no wildlands, and thus no risk of wildland fire, in the vicinity.
Hazardous Materials
The Proposed Oil Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport and use of a hazardous material or through reasonably foreseeable
4.8-77
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impacts of this are discussed below relative to the significance criteria.
Impact # Impact Description Operational and drilling activities would generate offsite risks that exceed the thresholds. Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4. Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
SR.1
As discussed above, the drilling activities could produce offsite risks if they encounter pressurized areas of the reservoirs. Although it is not known at this time what areas, or if any areas, of the drilling will encounter pressure that could produce a blowout, historical data from drilling in Redondo Beach indicates that there is the potential for some of the wells to produce pressure and the potential for a blowout. The Applicant has proposed three features to reduce these risks, including the use of offshoreequivalent-style blow out preventer (BOP), venting to flare and non-cascading shutdown systems. However, blowout scenarios can still occur due to the potential for a pressurized reservoir and the potential for BOP failures, and these are difficult to mitigate and would be significant. Other aspects of the operations contribute to the risk levels, although not in a significant manner, including the equipment arrangements that place spark-producing equipment within the containment, which could possibly be mitigated, but as the site is very small, these impacts may not be able to be completely mitigated. Mitigation measures are listed below in addition to what would be required under the CUP.
Mitigation Measures
SR-1a
The Applicant shall cause to be prepared an independent third-party audit, under the direction and supervision of the City, of the gas and crude oil plants and pipelines, once constructed, including the well pads, to ensure compliance with Fire Code, applicable API and NFPA codes, EPA RMP, OSHA PSM, and SPCC and emergency response plans requirements. The review shall include a seismic assessment of equipment to withstand earthquakes prepared by a seismic engineer in compliance with Local Emergency Planning Committee Region 1 CalARP guidance. All audit items shall be implemented in a timely fashion, and the audit shall be updated annually, as directed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Departments. The Applicant shall ensure that no spark producing equipment is located within the crude oil spill containment areas, or that spark producing equipment is sufficiently isolated from the crude oil containment area, in order to reduce the potential for crude oil fires. The Applicant shall ensure that all crude-oil truck haulers are trained in HAZMAT (to the HAZWOPER technician level at least) spill response and that each truck carries a spill response kit. The Applicant shall install automatic valves on the gas pipeline that will automatically shut down under a low pressure scenario at the Processing Facility Area for all
SR-1b
SR-1c
SR-1d
4.8-78
pipelines leaving the processing plant, and shall install a backflow prevention device at the main gas pipeline tie-in location, to prevent the release of gas from the main transmission pipeline in the event of a rupture in the gas pipeline. The second, return pipeline shall remain isolated from the main gas pipeline during normal operations. SR-1e The Applicant shall ensure that warning tape is installed above the pipelines within the pipeline trench to warn third parties that pipelines are located below the warning tape and that the pipelines are capable of utilizing a smartpig. The odorant system shall have its own, smaller containment area around it limiting the spilled pool size to the minimum size attainable, in order to prevent any offsite impacts. Transfer of odorant shall utilize carbon canisters and a canister changeout/maintenance program to ensure that filling of odorant tanks do not cause offsite impacts. Produced gas shall be continuously monitored for hydrogen sulfide and, if H2S levels exceed 100 ppm, the well shall be shut in and abandoned as per DOGGR requirements.
SR-1f
SR-1g
Residual Impacts
For the pipeline, the installation of back-flow prevent devices would ensure that a rupture of the pipeline along Valley Drive would produce a release with a short duration. Longer duration releases can substantially contribute to secondary effects, such as structure fires, as well as increasing the injuries and fatalities of persons exposed to jet fires. This measure would ensure that the risks of a pipeline rupture are less than significant with mitigation. There is uncertainty associated with being able to eliminate spark producing equipment within the crude oil containment. Spacing requirements limit the location of the flare, but if the flare is elevated and surrounding by shrouds/protection, it would minimize the ability of the flare to ignite a spill of crude oil. There would be other spark-producing equipment, such as pumps and compressors, that keeping out of the bermed area would also minimize the chances of igniting a crude oil spill. Incorporating this design safety issue will help reduce the ignition probability given a crude oil spill. Timely and thorough audits would help to ensure that safety systems are operating as designed and would help to reduce the risk levels. Because the blowout scenario cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificant however, the risks would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Site Contamination
The Project Site currently contains some contamination from historical activities. The Applicant has proposed a Remedial Action Plan that would excavate the shallower portions of the site and utilize vapor extraction for the deeper, TPH affected areas of the site. The RAP would be implemented during phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project and be a less than significant impact.
4.8-79
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
SR.2
Grading at the site could mobilize soil contamination.
Phase 2
During Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project, the site would be graded to depths of at least 1-3 feet, and possible more depending on compaction requirements, and areas of lead contaminated soils could be exposed. Modeling of the fugitive dust emissions using AERMOD was conducted based on the grading phase and five years of meteorological data. See section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases for a discussion of modeling parameters. Soil lead contamination levels of greater than 9,500 mg/kg, with the application of water every 3 hours as per mitigation measure AQ-1a, could cause offsite impacts of lead greater than the allowed standards (3 month rolling average). This could cause an exposure of the public to contaminated or hazardous materials during construction activities and would be a significant impact. Note that the Environmental Site Assessment encountered lead levels as high as 9,680 mg/kg, found under the Main Building 15 feet deep. Other lead levels above 1,000 mg/kg were found at depths of 5 to 25 feet.
Mitigation Measures
SR-2
The Applicant shall sample soil during Phase 1 grading to ensure that soil lead contamination levels are below 9,500 mg/kg. If soils are encountered above these levels, then those soils shall be removed from the site and transported to a disposal site. This may necessitate implementing the RAP during Phase 1 if substantial amounts of contamination are encountered.
Residual Impacts
By sampling soils and ensuring that soil contamination is not encountered or, if it is, removing those contaminated soils, the impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Spill Risks of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines
Spills of crude oil from the Project have the potential to impact the environment. Spills could occur from the Project Site facilities, from the crude oil pipeline or from the trucks transporting the crude oil during Phase 2. As the crude oil would be heavy and not volatile, it would be difficult to ignite and would not present a significant risk to the public. Therefore, this section analyzes the potential spill frequency and spill size only. Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Resources, discuss impacts to the environment associated with a spill of crude oil. The facility and crude oil pipeline would have a number of prevention measures in place, primarily due to regulatory requirements, including berms around processing areas, SCADA systems to monitor for pipeline leaks, pressure sensors, shut-off valves, and pipeline features such as cathodic protection and pipe coating, as well as maintenance activities and internal pipeline inspections.
4.8-80
A crude oil spill from the tanks or equipment at the Project Site would require a subsequent failure of the bermed area or drainage system at the facility in order to impact the environment. The facility is proposed to be designed so that all spills would be captured by berms and the facility drain system and directed into the crude oil/water processing system for disposal down the injection wells or recovered into the crude processing stream. This system could fail with a catastrophic scenario, such as a major earthquake causing failure of the retaining walls. Even this scenario might not produce a spill as the bermed area would be at an elevation below street level. The drain system, as is typical for closed drains, might have (the design details have not been prepared by the Applicant at this time) some overflow type outlet that may flow to the street if a major storm event occurs that floods the capacity of the site sumps or the sump pumps fail. This could cause a spill to the environment outside of the facility if a spill were to occur during this type of rain event. In addition, the drain system could be left open by mistake during a routine inspection, and not captured by a subsequent inspection, which could allow a subsequent spill to reach the environment. However, these are all very low frequency events (less than 1 in a million). A blowout during drilling at the facility, if the wells are pressurized, could send crude oil up into the air, which could cause impacts outside of the site as well as spill crude oil into the site area. The volumes of crude oil spilled offsite would most likely be a few barrels as most crude oil would affect onsite areas. Another potential spill scenario would be a subsurface release from the borehole. Incidents of this type have been recorded in the offshore environment, as indicated in Table 4.8-11, with 7% of offshore "loss of well control" incidents involving release from nearby the platform from subsurface. All but one of these incidents occurred during drilling and all of them involved releases coming to the surface within a few hundred feet from the drilling location. Once the wellbore has entered an area that is beneath the seafloor (see Figure 2.8), the wellbore would be more than 1,500-2,000 feet beneath the seafloor. A release from the wellbore to the ocean would have to occur through fissures or other cracks in the geology of the area and would require substantial well pressures as well. Discussions with California State Land Commissions (CSLC 2014) indicate that this scenario would be a very low probability release. The pipeline transporting crude oil to markets could leak or rupture along its length, allowing crude oil to enter surface streets and storm drain systems, which, depending on the location of the rupture, would potentially drain to the ocean. The volume of oil from a pipeline spill is a function of two factors: draindown volume and pumping volume. Draindown is the spill of crude oil that is in the pipeline and that drains down to the rupture location and into the environment by the force of gravity. For most spills, not all of the crude oil within the pipeline can drain out of a pipeline rupture due to the terrain profile and air displacement effects. Hence the spill volumes would most likely be smaller than the pipeline volume. Figure 4.8-9 shows the elevation profile of the Proposed Oil Project crude and gas pipelines. The elevation profile is used to estimate the potential draindown volume that could occur at a rupture location. For example, a rupture along the pipeline at the corner of Herondo Street and Valley Drive would be lower in elevation than the Project Site and the peak pipeline elevation at 190th and Prospect Avenue (see elevation profile). Therefore, the crude oil would drain down towards the Herondo Street rupture site from both the Project Site and the pipeline segment between the rupture site
4.8-81
and Prospect Avenue. Crude oil in the pipeline on the east side of Prospect Avenue would not drain down to a rupture site at Herondo Street.
Figure 4.8-9 Pipeline Profile
Notes: the elevation profile are based on Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from the USGS and the Applicant submitted pipeline route.
Pumping volumes are due to a spill of crude oil through the rupture that is due to the action of continuing to pump the crude oil after the rupture occurs. For a large rupture, with a spill diameter equal to the pipeline diameter that could occur due to a large earthquake or third party impact, pressure sensors at the facility would most likely (depending on the release characteristics, rate and location) detect the immediate pressure drop and sound alarms, allowing for a shut-down of the pumping within 5 minutes (note that draindown would still occur). For a spill that occurs more slowly, through a smaller hole, where the pressure drop is not substantial enough to be picked up at the facility, leak detection would rely on the SCADA system balancing (5% of flow in 15 minutes, for example, see Section 2.0, Project Description). A leak of as small as 175 gallons over 15 minutes could be detected by the SCADA system in 15 minutes. This assumes that everything operates correctly and that operators respond accordingly. Some historical spills, such as the Platform Irene spill, were exacerbated by the operator re-
4.8-82
starting the pumps, thereby increasing the pumping volume by 60 minutes. Therefore a worst case pumping time of 60 minute has been assumed. Table 4.8-14 shows the potential spill volumes at different locations along the pipeline. The Herondo Street and Valley Drive location would be the worst case spill volume along the pipeline for spills closer to the ocean. A crude oil rupture at the intersection of Herondo Street and Valley Drive could enter storm drains that flow about 1500 feet to an ocean outfall on the beach (see Figure 4.8-2 and 4.8-3). Spills on the east side of Prospect Avenue would still impact the environment and storm drains, but most likely would not impact the ocean unless there are substantial storm flows occurring through the storm drain system. Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Resources, discuss impacts associated with a spill of crude oil on hydrological and biological resources.
Table 4.8-14 Potential Proposed Oil Project Pipeline Spill Volumes Pumping Volume, Worst Case, gallons 2,493 2,493 Spill Volume, Worst Case, gallons 4,826 3,304
Leak Location Herondo and Valley Drive Between Prospect and Flagler Ln.
Drain Down Volume, gallons 2,332 810
Pumping Volume, gallons 208 208
Spill Volume, gallons 2,540 1,018
At Torrance Refinery 2,799 208 3,007 2,493 5,292 Note that this depicts the design capacity of the pipeline, at 8,000 bpd. The worst case shutdown time is 60 minutes. Normal shutdown time is 5 minutes.
Since crude oil would be temporarily transported by truck during Phase 2, crude oil could spill if an accident, such as a rollover, caused a rupture of the truck tank. A spill of crude oil would produce environmental impacts if the spill drained into culverts or drainage areas that lead to creeks, the ocean or other sensitive areas (see Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Resources). Truck spill volumes would be limited to about 6,700 gallons, which would be the capacity of a crude oil truck. If an accident were to occur with a resulting spill along Valley Drive or along Herondo Street, and the spill were to enter into the storm drain system, the crude oil could reach the ocean. Because the crude is relatively heavy, spills of crude oil would be odiferous, but generally would not present a serious health impact to area residences. There is a possibility that the spilled crude oil could ignite and burn, similar to the possibility that the truck diesel fuel could spill, ignite, and burn. However, the crude oil vapors would not collect to the extent that they could produce a flammable cloud and subsequent explosion, unlike spilled gasoline, for example. Recent events associated with unit train accidents have highlighted the dangers of very light crude oil, which would have substantial vapors that could be released if the crude oil is spilled; however, this crude oil would be heavy with minimal vapor releases. DOT nationwide data on 3,147 crude oil pipeline spills indicates that, since 1986, four deaths have occurred related to crude oil pipeline spills. Two of these were employee accidents related to maintenance activities and the other two were when a driver and a passenger of a vehicle ran
4.8-83
into an above-ground crude oil pipeline. A total of 41 injuries have occurred associated with crude oil pipelines since 1986 nationwide, with all of them being employees except a single incident in 1987 in Texas where work on a crude oil pipeline within a mobile home park sparked a fire causing eight injuries. This demonstrates the low probability that a crude oil spill from a pipeline could produce fatalities or injuries. A spill near Herondo Street and Valley Drive, whether from a truck or the pipeline, would most likely be directed into the storm drain system. The storm drain system, from that point, drains about 1,500 feet through storm drain piping into an ocean discharge (See Figure 4.8-4). This particular discharge is a long cement "tunnel" that, during rains, allows storm water to drain under the beach into the surf without disturbing too much of the beach sand area (the discharge is located about 150 feet from the surf line, depending on tide). During dry periods, sand builds up around the mouth of the discharge making a sort of containment area that might trap a crude oil spill depending on the amount of sand build-up and the standing water inside the discharge tunnel. However, during rains, crude oil would readily flow with the rain water through the storm drains, through the discharge "tunnel" to the ocean. A few examples of area oil spills involving pipelines and storm drains or creeks: Nearly 805 gallons of crude oil bubbled up from a break in an underground Crimson pipeline. Firefighters built sand berms around the spill to keep it from spreading. No oil reached sensitive areas (Huntington Beach, July 4th, 2011). A minor landslide caused a pipeline break in the oil fields near Faria Beach, about 10 miles northwest of Ventura. Officials said about 55 gallons of oil flowed down the ravine and made its way to the beach sand (Ventura March 8, 2011). About a thousand gallons of crude oil spilled onto the street near the Breitburn Operating Company. Firefighters said they stopped the oil from entering a storm drain (Los Angeles, October 28, 2010); 672 gallons of crude oil spilled into a Huntington Beach flood-control channel that drains to wetlands and the Pacific Ocean. The oil traveled 1.8 miles downstream, but it did not reach wetlands or the ocean (Huntington Beach, January 22, 2010). A spill occurred from a Crimson Pipeline during a major storm. The State Department of Fish and Game and the Los Angeles Watershed Protection Division recovered more than 1,000 gallons of oil. The leak was traced to a gash in the protective casing around the pipeline. The leak reportedly seeped from the Wilmington pipeline into the Los Angeles storm drain system and eventually into the ocean (Wilmington Dec 10, 2010); and Thousands of gallons of diluted crude oil/water spilled from a broken pipeline into Ballona Creek near La Cienega Boulevard, near the Los Angeles-Culver City border for at least four hours. Emergency crews apparently were able to stop the flow before it polluted the ocean. The spill extended three to four miles long (Los Angeles, Oct 9, 1999).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensations, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and California law require responsible parties to report hazardous material releases. Data from 1993-2012 is available online (CalOES 2014). E&B Natural resources has reported 12 spills at facilities in Santa Barbara County, Kern County and san Luis Obispo County between 2007-2012. The largest
spill was 65 barrels of crude oil. The most common spills were from pipeline breaks and tank overflows. All spills were contained. About nine days a year in Los Angeles (for Torrance) have precipitation over 0.50 inches (Western Regional Climate Center data for 1937 - 2012). A day with 0.50 inches would be sufficient to create substantial storm drain flows.
Spill Frequencies of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines
As a pipeline system is a fixed entity, the spill frequency from a pipeline is essentially fixed, regardless of the amount of crude oil transported. A number of different sources are used in this report to estimate the frequency of crude oil pipeline spills. These include the DOT databases (U.S. DOT 2013) and the CSFM databases and reports (CSFM 1993). Each is discussed below and their estimates of pipeline spill frequencies are used to define a range of possible failure frequencies. Information on the number and causes of pipeline spills in the United States greater than 5 gallons or 50 bbl in size is available from the DOT OPS (depending on the reporting year). These data were obtained for spills occurring from 2003 to 2012. A total of 268 spills were reported during that timeframe covering 7,374 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines within California. Spills caused by materials failure such as welds, etc (for hazardous liquid pipelines) ranked highest, at 25% of spills, with spills caused by corrosion ranking second, with an estimated 24% of all spills. The overall spill rate of hazardous liquid pipeline spills within California was estimated to be 3.6 spills per 1,000 mile-years. The DOT rate for hazardous liquid pipeline spills includes crude oil pipelines, refined product pipelines and other hazardous liquid pipelines. About 56% of pipeline mileage is crude oil and the remaining mileage being refined product or highly volatile liquids. A breakdown of the DOT database for California demonstrates that, for the years since 2010, 2002-2010 and pre-2002, the DOT rate for only crude oil pipelines ranged up to 4.54 spills per 1,000 mile years. This higher rate was the more recent data reflecting the lower reporting threshold (from 50 bbls before 2002 to 5 gallons after 2002). A CSFM report, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk Assessment (CSFM 1993), analyzed leak information for the 7,800 miles (at that time) of liquid pipelines within California for the years 1981 through 1990. This study adjusted pipeline spill rates based on variables such as pipeline age, diameter, and operating temperature, as well as spill cause. The study found that external corrosion was the major cause of pipeline leaks, causing approximately 59 percent of spills, followed by third-party damage at 20 percent. Older pipelines and those that operate at higher temperatures had significantly higher spill rates. The CSFM base rate for crude oil pipeline spills of any size and operating conditions was calculated to be 9.89 incidents per 1,000 mileyears. Crude oil had the highest spill rate primarily due to the transportation of crude oil at elevated temperatures, which increases the rate of external corrosion. Faster corrosion rates occur at elevated temperatures when metal comes in contact with soil moisture. Although the CSFM database is older, the results are similar to the DOT rate for crude oil pipelines. Because seismic activity is a concern in California, seismically-induced ruptures were examined in the CSFM database. Three of the 507 pipeline spills reported in the CSFM report for the 1981
4.8-85
to 1990 study period were related to seismic activity. Based on the total length of pipelines in the State (72,303 mile-years), and the number of spills (three) observed during this 10-year period, the base rate for seismically induced spills would be 0.004 spills per 1,000 mile years. This number has been included in the rupture rates. For the Proposed Oil Project pipeline with newer pipe (average age over the life of the Project of 20 years), elevated temperature, pipe type and coating type of average, the failure rate utilized in this EIR is the 5.27 spills per 1,000 mile years calculated from the CSFM database as it is considered to be the most conservative. Based on the pipeline distance, the estimated rate of ruptures and leaks for the entire pipeline length would be once every 297 years for a rupture and once every 65 years for a leak where leaks are defined as less than 50 bbls. Spills due to ruptures and leaks in the Herondo Street area, nearer to the ocean, are estimated to occur once every 1,109 and 244 years, respectively. The rate for a rupture or leak occurring during a 0.50 inch storm event would be once every 45,000 and 9,800 years, respectively. These rates can also be expressed in terms of probability using probability theory and statistics. The Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a number of events occurring in a fixed period of time if these events occur with a known average rate, and are independent of the time since the last event. The distribution was postulated by Simon-Denis Poisson (17811840). The probability that there are exactly k occurrences is given below.
where e is the base of the natural logarithm (e = 2.71828...), k is the number of occurrences and is a positive real number, equal to the expected number of occurrences that occur during the given interval. Utilizing the Poisson equation, the probability that there would be any sized spill along any point of the pipeline over the 35 year life of the Project would be 34%. The probability of any sized spill in the Herondo Street area, nearer to the ocean, is estimated to be 14%. The probability of any spill occurring during a 0.50 inch storm event in the Herondo Street area would be 0.4% over the life of the Project. The significance criteria do not specify the frequency at which an upset scenario producing a spill creates a "significant" hazard to the environment. However, the impacts to the environment are discussed in Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Resources.
Valve Box Options
The Proposed Project includes three different options for the location of the valve box for the tiein to the crude oil system. Risk impacts could be realized if releases occurred from components, causing localized impacts. Therefore, the greater separation distance the better from populated areas. The valve box options 2 and 4 provide the best separation distances.
4.8-86
The Proposed Project includes three different options for the pipeline route for tie-in to the crude oil system. Scenario 1, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, would all present the same risks of upset and none is preferable.
4.8.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Risks
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard site (for temporary and permanent facilities) is 0.18 miles from the Hermosa Valley School on Valley Drive. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard site would not handle hazardous materials that could impact areas offsite and would therefore not present a significant risk to the Hermosa Valley School. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard is not included on a list for hazardous materials sites, is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or is in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Project and vicinity is in an urbanized region. There are no wildlands, and thus no risk of wildland fire, in the vicinity. Site contamination at the existing City Maintenance Yard would be cleaned up as part of construction activities and would therefore not cause a significant impact. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would not store quantities of hazardous materials that could cause impact to the public offsite and would therefore be less than significant. The potential for spills from the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be the same as the current City Maintenance Yard, which would be nominal due to the small quantities of consumer level paints and solvents that would be stored onsite.
Mitigation measure AE-1b in Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, would provide for a permanent wall around the Project Site. A permanent wall would allow for additional protection in the event of an overpressure scenario as most of the overpressure energy of the explosion would be directed upwards. Mitigation measures in Section 4.6, Fire Protection and Emergency Response, related to spacing, ignition sources and fire foam requirements (FP-1a and FP-2b) would reduce the frequency of crude oil fires. None of the mitigation measures from other issues areas would increase the risk levels at the Proposed Oil Project Site, Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site or along the Pipeline routes. Therefore, the mitigation measures would not result in additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
4.8-87
4.8.6
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts of cumulative projects would occur if there were an increase in the frequency or volume of oil spills into the same environment as the Proposed Project, an increase the public safety risks to the same populations as the Proposed Project, or an increase in the risks due to an increase in the receptor populations within the Proposed Project impact zones. None of the cumulative projects would affect the same populations or increase the number of populations that could be exposed to the Proposed Project scenarios. A fire or explosion at the AES site, would not impact the same areas as a release from the Project Site. Therefore, there are no cumulative significant impacts.
4.8-88
4.8.7

Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure SR-1a
Requirements The Applicant shall cause to be prepared an independent third-party audit, under the direction and supervision of the City, of the gas and crude oil plants and pipelines, once constructed, including the well pads, to ensure compliance with Fire Code, applicable API and NFPA codes, EPA RMP, OSHA PSM, and SPCC and emergency response plans requirements. The review shall include a seismic assessment of equipment to withstand earthquakes prepared by a seismic engineer in compliance with Local Emergency Planning Committee Region 1 CalARP guidance. All audit items shall be implemented in a timely fashion, and the audit shall be updated annually, as directed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Departments. The Applicant shall ensure that no spark producing equipment is located within the crude oil spill containment areas, or that spark producing equipment is sufficiently isolated from the crude oil containment area, in order to reduce the potential for crude oil fires. The Applicant shall ensure that all crude-oil truck haulers are trained in HAZMAT (to the HAZWOPER technician level at least) spill response and that each truck carries a spill response kit. The Applicant shall install automatic valves on the gas pipeline that will automatically shut down under a low pressure scenario at the Processing Facility Area for all pipelines leaving the processing plant, and shall install a backflow prevention device at the main gas pipeline tie-in location, to prevent the release of gas from the main transmission pipeline in the event of a rupture in the gas pipeline. The second, return pipeline shall remain isolated from the main gas pipeline during normal operations.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before LACFD audit Phase 4 HBFD operations reports and annually thereafter
SR-1b
Before Phase 3 construction
SR-1c
Site inspections , review of contracts Review of design documents
City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach HBFD
SR-1d
4.8-89
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure SR-1e Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before City of design Phase 3 Hermosa documents construction Beach HBFD
Requirements The Applicant shall ensure that warning tape is installed above the pipelines within the pipeline trench to warn third parties that pipelines are located below the warning tape and that the pipelines are capable of utilizing a smartpig. The odorant system shall have its own, smaller containment area around it limiting the spilled pool size to the minimum size attainable, in order to prevent any offsite impacts. Transfer of odorant shall utilize carbon canisters and a canister changeout/maintenance program to ensure that filling of odorant tanks do not cause offsite impacts. Produced gas shall be continuously monitored for hydrogen sulfide and, if H2S levels exceed 100 ppm, the well shall be shut in and abandoned as per DOGGR requirements. The Applicant shall sample soil during Phase 1 grading to ensure that soil lead contamination levels are below 9,500 mg/kg. If soils are encountered above these levels, then those soils shall be removed from the site and transported to a disposal site. This may necessitate implementing the RAP during Phase 1 if substantial amounts of contamination are encountered.
SR-1f
SR-1g
SR-2
Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections
City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach
Phase 1
4.8-90
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9
Hydrology and Water Quality
This section addresses the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality in connection with the Proposed Project. In addition to potential impacts, this section identifies mitigation measures that can reduce potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts.
4.9.1.1 Proposed Oil Project Site Topography and Drainage
The Proposed Oil Project Site is located approximately 0.4 mile inland from Santa Monica Bay, within an established urban area, at an elevation of approximately 55 feet above mean sea level. The Project Site is fully developed with two large buildings and surface asphalt or concrete paving throughout, with the exception of a small area along the west side, where there is a slight unpaved embankment. In addition, the majority of land surrounding the Project Site is also developed. The general topography of the Proposed Oil Project Site is gently sloping toward the west; however, a small portion of the Proposed Oil Project Site drains to the east toward Valley Drive. Onsite drainage flows as sheetflow across mostly paved surfaces, away from a slight knoll located in the southeast portion of the site. Two drainage sumps are located onsite, including a sump drain in the entry driveway and a sump drain at the base of a ramp drive in the lower level of the building. The outlet of the latter sump drain is unclear. However, the sump drain within the driveway, as well as all other site runoff, flows into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District storm drain system before ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean, at an outfall at the end of Herondo Street. A portion of the runoff from the Herondo Street storm drain is diverted to the sanitary sewer system prior to ocean outflow, thus reducing discharge of poor water quality from the storm drain (E&B Natural Resources 2012).
4.9.1.2 Existing City Maintenance Yard Topography and Drainage
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site is gently to moderately sloped, with a 20 foot elevation difference across the site, from east to west. Surface runoff occurs as sheetflow toward and existing storm drain inlet and the Pacific Ocean. The property is fully developed and is similarly surrounded by urban development.
4.9.1.3 Pipeline Route Topography and Drainage
Beginning at the Project Site, the Proposed Pipeline route trends southerly along Valley Drive, across relatively flat-lying topography. The Pipeline then trends easterly up gently to moderately sloping topography, with an elevation gain of approximately 45 feet, at which point the topography is relatively flat to the Torrance Refinery. Rainwater runoff along the Pipeline route
4.9-1
is primarily by surface sheet flow across the paved surfaces, toward the west. The surface runoff flows into storm drains, which empty into the Pacific Ocean.
4.9.1.4 Surface Water and Hydrology
There are no rivers or streams through the Proposed Project area. The Proposed Project is located within the Los Angeles-San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit (HU) and in the West Coast Hydrologic Sub Area (HAS); as defined by the Water Quality Control Plan or the Basin Plan (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1994). A hydrology study of the Proposed Oil Project area was conducted in 2012 (E&B Natural Resources, 2012) and corroborated by the EIR preparers. The study determined that there is no existing runoff onto the Project Site from offsite sources. The majority of the current runoff occurring on the site is by sheet flow. The total discharge from the Project Site during a 100year frequency storm was determined to be 3.93 cubic feet per second, representing a 24-hour volume of 0.54 acre-feet, or 23,522 cubic feet. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Rate Insurance Map for the Proposed Project area, the elevation of the Project Site, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site, and the Proposed Pipeline route are above the 500-year flood elevation. Because the Proposed Project Sites are located above the 500-year flood level, the sites are similarly not within the 100-year flood plain (Figure 4.9-1). Offshore marine waters are a part of Santa Monica Bay, which generally extends south from Pointe Dume, in Malibu, to the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Prior to 1825, the primary drainage flowing into the bay was the Los Angeles River. However, a catastrophic flood event in 1825 diverted the Los Angeles River south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Ballona Creek, an ancestral remnant of the Los Angeles River, is now the primary drainage feeding into the bay. Other waterways draining into the bay include Malibu Creek and Topanga Creek.
4.9-2
Figure 4.9-1
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Proposed Project Area
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazards Layer, 2012
4.9-3
4.9.1.5 Groundwater
The natural groundwater reservoirs beneath Los Angeles County consist of groundwater basins that are grouped together under five major geographic areas (California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1994). The Proposed Project Sites are located along the westerly edge of the West Coast Basin, west of a series of injection wells that serve as the West Coast Groundwater Barrier Project (Figure 4.9-2). The West Coast Basin is one of the largest basins of the Coastal Plain groundwater basins. Two million residents of the Coastal Plain depend on groundwater that is protected by the barrier facilities, for approximately 35 percent of their potable water supply.
Figure 4.9-2 Location of Barrier Injection Wells in the Proposed Project Area
Source: E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation 2012
The West Coast Basin is bounded on the west and south by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Ballona Escarpment, and on the east by the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. This fault forms a natural barrier to restrict groundwater flows from the adjacent Central Basin. Three major fresh water aquifers exist as part of the West Coast Basin, including the 200-Foot Sand (Gage), the Silverado, and the Lower San Pedro and Pico aquifers. Aquifers in the West Coast Basin are generally confined and receive the majority of their natural recharge from adjacent groundwater basins underflow and from the Pacific Ocean (seawater intrusion). Aquifer depths can reach more than 1,500 feet in the West Coast Basin, although production water wells generally do not need to be drilled this deep to tap sufficient water.
4.9-4
Groundwater beneath the Project Site was encountered in borings, at depths between 48 and 49 feet below ground surface (NMG Geotechnical 2012), which is equivalent to elevations of approximately 4 to 5 feet above mean sea level.
4.9.1.6 Water Quality
The Basin Plan identifies water quality objectives and beneficial uses of groundwater for the West Coast Basin. The designated beneficial uses for groundwater within the West Coast Basin include: municipal, agriculture, and industrial. The water quality objectives for the West Coast Basin are: 800 mg/L total dissolved solids, 250 mg/L sulfate, 250 mg/L chloride, and 1.5 mg/L boron.
4.9.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and establishes regional quality standards for surface waters. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has implemented pollution control standards for industries, as well as water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The Clean Water Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable water unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is obtained from the EPA. Each NPDES permit specifies effluent limitation for particular pollutants, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements for the proposed discharge. The implementation of permit issuance, receipt of monitoring data submitted by permittees, compliance monitoring, and enforcement has been granted to the states.
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop lists of impaired waters, being waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards. States must develop Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDL, for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. States must develop TMDL plans to determine how to reduce pollution from point sources and non-point sources, so that pollutant loads stay below the maximum specified in the TMDL. States are required to prioritize waters/watersheds for TMDL development, compile this information in a list and submit the list to the EPA for review and approval. This list is known as the 303 (d) list of impaired waters. Santa Monica Bay is listed on the California 303(d) list as impaired for human body contact recreation, due to high concentrations of bacteria, and is designated as REC-1 in the Basin Plan. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) established the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacterial (SMBBB) TMDLs, for both dry and wet weather. The City of Hermosa Beach is located within Jurisdiction 5 of the SMBBB TMDL monitoring program,
4.9-5
which covers the Hermosa sub-watershed, as defined by the RWQCB (Technical Steering Committee, City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles 2004).
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA) was implemented by the EPA. It is the primary federal regulation controlling drinking water quality in every public water system in the United States. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce guidelines for drinking water, in order to protect water supplies from both naturally occurring and manmade contaminants. Significant amendments to the SDWA were promulgated in 1986 and 1996. Standards for treatment of individual contaminants, including pesticides, trihalomethanes, arsenic, selenium, radionuclides, nitrates, toxic metals, bacterial viruses, and pathogens, were set in the original SDWA. The amendments to the SDWA made significant changes, most of which resulted in more stringent protection of drinking water sources. The amended SDWA also greatly enhances the existing law by implementing operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of establishing safe drinking water.
Oil Pollution Act
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a single uniform Federal system of liability and compensation for damages caused by oil spills in U.S. navigable waters. The Act requires removal of spilled oil and establishes a national system of planning for and responding to oil spill incidents, including provisions to: Improve oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response capabilities; Establish limitations on liabilities for damage resulting from oil pollution; Provide funding for natural resource damage assessments; Implement a fund for payment of compensation for such damages; and Establish an oil pollution research and development program.
4.9.2.2 State Policies and Regulations State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the principal state agencies with responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. The SWRCB enforces the water quality standards set forth in the Clean Water Act for the State of California on behalf of the Federal EPA. Most SWRCB objectives are based on California Code of Regulations, Title 22 - State Drinking Water Standards. The City of Hermosa Beach lies within Region 4, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWRCB has elected to adopt a Statewide General Permit serving as an NPDES permit, in compliance with CWQ Section 402, to regulate discharge. The General Permit Order 20090009-DWQ, regulates discharges of storm water associated with construction sites. The general permit authorizes discharges of storm water and non-storm water associated with the construction activity so long as the discharges comply with the requirements and provisions in the permit.
4.9-6
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Since 1973, the California State Water Resources Control Board and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards were delegated the responsibility of administering permitted discharge into the Waters of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides a comprehensive water quality management system for the protection of California waters and regulates the discharge of oil into navigable waters by imposing civil penalties and damages for negligent or intentional oil spills. Under this Act, "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the water of the state" must file a report of the discharge with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pursuant to the Act, the Regional Board may then prescribe "waste discharge requirements" that add conditions related to control of that discharge. Porter-Cologne defines "waste" broadly and the term has been applied to a diverse array of materials, including non-point source pollution. When regulating discharges that are included in the Federal Clean Water Act, the State essentially treats waste discharge requirements and NPDES as a single permitting vehicle. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is primarily a state regulation addressing water quality and waste discharge on land. Permitted discharges must be in compliance with the Basin Plan that was developed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board for Region 4, which includes Los Angeles County and the City of Hermosa Beach, including the Proposed Project. Each Regional Board implements a Basin Plan to ensure that projects consider regional beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and water quality problems. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates urban runoff discharges under NPDES permit regulations. NPDES permitting requirements cover runoff discharged from point sources, such as industrial outfall discharges, and non-point sources, including storm water runoff. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board implements the NPDES program by issuing construction, operational, and industrial discharge permits. Regulatory authority of the NPDES permitting process is typically overseen by local jurisdictions, such as the City of Hermosa Beach. As a part of the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are required as part of the SWPPP. The EPA defines Best Management Practices as "schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of the Water of the United States. Best Management Practices include treatment requirements, "operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage". (20 CFR 122.2)
California Coastal Act (PRC 30000 et seq.)
The California Coastal Act is the principal planning and regulatory program for the coastal zone of California. It governs a variety of actions and activities that affect the shoreline throughout the state. Specifically, the Act protects coastal access, environmentally sensitive habitats, agricultural lands, fisheries, cultural resources, and scenic qualities of the shoreline. The Act also establishes guidelines for development in the coastal zone and contains provisions for protecting life and property from coastal hazards. It is implemented through Local Coastal Programs that are developed and adopted by county and city jurisdictions, as well as other state
4.9-7
agencies that own land in the coastal zone. The Act also addresses surface waters, flood hazards and disturbances, maintenance of biological productivity in surface waters, and potential impacts from runoff.
California Toxics Rule (40 CFR Part 131)
Under Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, states must adopt numeric criteria for the priority toxic pollutants listed under Section 307(a) if those pollutants could be reasonably expected to interfere with the designated uses of States waters. Therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other water quality standards provisions to be applied to waters in the State of California. This rule satisfies Clean Water Act requirements and fills the need for water quality standards for priority toxic pollutants to protect public health and the environment. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Policy for implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California in 2000.
Disposal of Oil Field Waste (CCR, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, Articles 3 and 5)
Oil field materials, including but not limited to drilling muds, oily wastes, and brines, generally contain toxic substances and materials that could significantly impair the quality of usable waters and generally constitute Group I Wastes. Such waste, which is ordinarily deposited at Class I or Class II-1 disposal sites, may be disposed by other means if such operations do not unreasonably affect water quality because of the type of waste and disposal operation, or an operation is in compliance with ordinances and regulations of other governmental agencies which adequately protect water quality. In 1980, Congress added section 1425 to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which controls underground injection of waste, giving the States authority to demonstrate that they maintain an effective program to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources.
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act provides two ways to administratively list chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. A chemical can be listed if a body considered being authoritative by the State's qualified experts, such as the EPA or Food and Drug Administration (FDA), formally identifies the chemical as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. The criteria for listing these chemicals are outlined in 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12902.
4.9.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan is part of the Development Planning Program of the NPDES, Phase I, Stormwater Permit for the County of Los Angeles. The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) applies to development and redevelopment projects within the County that fall within specific categories. The County of Los Angeles has developed a SUSMP Manual that includes the permitting and inspection process for projects required to meet SUSMP regulations. The objective of the SUSMP is to effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges and reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water conveyance systems to the
4.9-8
maximum extent practicable statutory standards. The SUSMP defines hydrology standards for designing volumetric and flow rate-based Best Management Practices.
2012 Los Angeles County NPDES Permit
In November 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and waste discharge requirements for storm water and non-storm water discharges from the MS4, within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County. The City of Hermosa Beach, along with other cities in Los Angeles County, is transitioning to the new 2012 permit and is preparing a watershed management plan for compliance with the new permit, which will include even more stringent rules governing stormwater runoff for development projects. Depending on when the Proposed Project proceeds, it may be subject to SUSMP requirements or even more stringent requirements in the 2012 permit. Currently, the SUSMP is still required, but the rules may become more stringent in the near future.
County of Los Angeles Flood Control Act
The State legislature adopted the County of Los Angeles Flood Control Act in 1915, after a disastrous flood took a heavy toll on lives and property. The Act established the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and empowered it to provide flood protection, water conservation, recreation, and aesthetic enhancement within its boundaries. In August 2000, the Watershed Management Division of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works became the planning and policy arm of the Flood Control District. Overall the District encompasses more than 3,000 square miles, 85 cities, and approximately 2.1 million land parcels. It includes a vast majority of drainage infrastructure within incorporated and unincorporated areas in every watershed, including 500 miles of open channels, 2,800 miles of underground storm drains, and an estimated 120,000 catch basins. The LACFCD regulates hydrologic and hydraulic design within its boundaries through its 1982 Hydraulic Design Manual and its 2006 Hydrology Manual. In conjunction with the Watershed Management Strategic Plan, the County Public Works Department provides criteria and planning procedures for flood plains, waterways, channels, and closed conduits within Los Angeles County. The Department promulgates the standard for project design through its "Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan" or SUSMP. This is the vehicle used to determine compliance with the California State EPA Stormwater Program for stormwater discharges.
The City of Hermosa Beach is currently the owner of the portion of the Project Site at 555 6th Street and the City Maintenance Yard relocation site at 552 11th Place/1315 Valley Drive. The Community Development Department is charged with the administration of the ordinances and policies relating to land use and development within the City, along with enforcing building standards for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety. In addition, the City Public Works Department has responsibility for some of the flood control measures in the region and regulates engineering standards and issues permits for all new grading and construction.
4.9-9
4.9.3
As defined in CEQA Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, hydrology and water resource impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project would: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Results in a discharge of pollutants into an impaired water body that has been designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, under Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act); Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern (i.e., pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, oil, grease, solvents, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, plant debris, animal and yard waste) to a receiving water body, as identified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board; Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table level, ultimately affecting the production rate of existing nearby wells; Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate of runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite; Create, contribute, or alter hydrologic characteristics of the area producing runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or flood hazard delineation; Place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or Cause an inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
4.9.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.9.4.1 Introduction
Construction activities associated with Phases 1 and 3 of the Proposed Oil Project, the Proposed Pipelines, and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project could discharge pollutants that violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, result in a discharge of pollutants into an impaired water body, or result in a discharge of pollutants of concern. Proposed Phases 2 and 4 drilling, oil processing, and oil transport operations could result in oil spills due to geologic hazards, mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error. See Section 4.8, Risk of Upset, regarding potential crude oil spill scenarios.
4.9.4.2 Proposed Project Design Features Contaminated Soil
Phase 3 would include implementation of a Remedial Action Plan to address the known contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the former landfill. Approximately 9,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site and hauled to an offsite Class I landfill, i.e., Kettleman Hills Facility. The petroleum contaminated soil would be treated in-place via vapor extraction technology. See Section 4.7.3.2, Proposed Project Design Features, for further details pertaining to the Remedial Action Plan.
Potential Tank Spills
The tank area would be surrounded by a containment berm, sufficient in height to retain 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank, as well as any contingency for rainwater and other liquids.
4.9.4.3 Applicant Prepared Studies
The Applicant prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Brycon, LLC 2012a) to determine the potential for subsurface soil and groundwater contamination at the Project Site, followed by a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Brycon, LLC 2012b) to identify and (if present) delineate soil and groundwater contamination. Excavations in contaminated soil and/or groundwater could impact surface water quality. Based on the results of the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, a Remedial Action Plan (Brycon, LLC 2012c) was prepared in association with the Proposed Oil Project. This plan was developed specifically to address areas of contaminated soil on the Project Site in the event that Phase 3, Final Design and Construction, would be implemented.
4.9.4.4 Impacts
The following environmental thresholds would result in no impacts, as discussed:

Groundwater Recharge or Level
Hydrology and water resource impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project would: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table level, ultimately affecting the production rate of existing nearby wells. Groundwater in the West Coast Basin, which underlies the Proposed Project area, is primarily recharged from the West Coast Basin Barrier Project. No subsurface structures are proposed as part of the Proposed Project that would interfere with the West Coast Basin Barrier Project recharge activities. Proposed production and wastewater injection wells would not impede recharge to the basin.
4.9-11
There are no domestic water supply wells located in the vicinity of the Project Site. However, in the general area of the Project Site, there is at least one well that pumps water for onsite industrial water. During the drilling of the production and injection wells, 130,000 gallons of water per well is expected to be used, primarily for production of drilling mud, which would be circulated through the well bore (E&B Natural Resources 2012). In order to offset the demand for potable water, the Proposed Oil Project would use recycled (i.e., reclaimed) water supplied from a recycled water system, operated by West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD). Recycled water provided by WBMWD is available from its 12-inch main located in Valley Drive. The Proposed Oil Project proposes to use recycled water for well drilling, landscaping, and any other acceptable application where permitted. The WBMWD provided a will-serve letter to the Applicant, which is a written verification of sufficient water supply, based on substantial evidence. As a result, no impacts would occur with respect to depletion of groundwater supplies, interference with groundwater recharge, or lowering of the groundwater table. See Section 4.14, Water Resources, for further discussion regarding water supply and demand.
Drainage Patterns
Hydrology and water resource impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project would: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate of runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite; or Create, contribute, or alter hydrologic characteristics of the area producing runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project Site and most of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site are currently paved, excluding an embankment and small planter along the north side of the latter site. Because the two sites are currently paved and landscaping will be established on the Project Site, re-paving of these sites as a result of Proposed Project construction would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. In addition, runoff at the Project Site would be substantially decreased as a result of the Proposed Oil Project. During Phase 1 construction, the surface grade would be altered such that it drains toward a temporary retention basin, capable of containing 100-year flood volumes. Phase 1 would also include construction of an oil/gas drilling well cellar, approximately 8 feet wide by 40 feet long by 12 feet deep, which would collect runoff in the vicinity of the drill rig during Phase 2 drilling activities. During Phase 3, the well cellar would be expanded to include two cellars, approximately 8 feet wide by 120 feet long by 12 feet deep and equipped with storm water management collection sumps and pumps to direct storm water to a drain sump for processing and injection into the oil-producing reservoir. Similarly, a storm drain system would be designed such that during Phases 2 and 4, all storm water within the perimeter fence or wall for a 100-year storm event would be retained and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. Therefore, the Proposed Oil Project would not create, contribute, or alter hydrologic characteristics of the area
producing runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Similarly, the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not alter hydrologic characteristics or have any effect on storm drainage systems.
100-year Flood Hazards, Levee or Dam Failures, Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflows
Hydrology and water resource impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project would: Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or flood hazard delineation; Place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or Cause an inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project Site and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site are located seven blocks uphill from the beach. The Official Tsunami Map of Los Angeles County (California Geological Survey 2013) indicates that the Proposed Project Sites are not located within the influence zone of a tsunami wave. There are no rivers or streams in the vicinity of the sites, nor are the sites within a flood hazard zone (Figure 4.9-1). As determined by FEMA, the sites are above the 500year flood plain and are not in an area protected by levees or dams. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The storm water management plan for the Proposed Oil Project Site will be designed to contain a 100-year storm event. The temporary, construction-related, onsite detention basin will be adequately sized to accommodate 100-year storm flows during Phase I of the Proposed Oil Project. During Phases 2 and 4, all Project Site runoff would be contained onsite as a result of construction of two well cellars that would capture all precipitation. Consequently, there is unlikely to be any contribution to offsite runoff that might result in flooding. The Proposed Project Sites do not have potential risks associated with loss, injury, or death due to flooding or from potential failure of a levee or dam. In addition, there is no risk of seiche or mudflow at the Proposed Project Sites. Impact HWQ.1 pertains to the following significance criteria: Water quality impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Oil Project would: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Results in a discharge of pollutants into an impaired water body that has been designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, under Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act); or Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern (i.e., pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, oil, grease, solvents, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, plant debris, animal and yard waste) to a receiving water body, as identified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
4.9-13
Impact #
Impact Description New grading, construction, and soil remediation could degrade surface water quality
Phase
HWQ.1
Phase 1and 3
Grading and construction at the Project Site, at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site, and along the pipeline corridors could result in degradation of surface runoff entering the storm drain system and emptying into nearby Santa Monica Bay, which is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) list as an impaired water body for contact recreation. Potential construction related contaminants include solid and sanitary wastes, phosphorous, nitrogen, oil and grease, concrete washout, construction chemicals, and construction debris. Project Site Soils in the northeast portion of the Project Site, in the vicinity of a former landfill, have been impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, and other metals. Groundwater has similarly been impacted as a result of the soil contamination. Other contaminants may be present in Project Site soils as a result of City maintenance activities or other prior onsite activities (Brycon, LLC 2012a, 2012b). Therefore, excavation and construction at the Project Site could encounter contaminated soils, which could be mobilized such that surface runoff is adversely affected. As indicated in Section 4.9.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, Phase 3 would include implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (Brycon, LLC 2012c) to address the known contaminated soil and groundwater beneath the former landfill. Approximately 9,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site and hauled to an offsite Class I landfill, i.e., Kettleman Hills Facility. The petroleum contaminated soil would be treated in-place via vapor extraction technology. Soil remediation activities and/or offsite disposal of contaminated soil could also result in incidental spills of petroleum products from excavation and grading equipment and/or exposure of improperly covered/contained contaminated soils to rainfall, resulting in contaminated runoff. However, the following standard conditions of approval would be implemented to mitigate these impacts, resulting in less than significant impacts. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the Applicant would develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), approved in accordance with the State General Construction Permit and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP would be developed by qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD). A Qualified Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan Practitioner (QSP) would oversee and monitor the implementation of this plan. The SWPPP would include, but not be limited to:
As part of the structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), filtering elements such as silt fences, straw wattles, and absorbent materials would be used together with filter technology to catch sediment, debris, oil and pollutants; During construction, washing of concrete trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained and
4.9-14
filtered through structural BMPs. The location(s) of the washout areas(s) would be clearly noted at the site with signs; Implement BMPs to reduce tracking sediment offsite, including use of a stabilized construction entrance/exit with steel shakers, as well as use of tire wash areas; Construction materials and waste, such as paint, concrete slurry, fuels, etc. would be stored, handled, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for storm water contamination. A hazardous materials storage and use plan would be maintained onsite, to include bermed and lined hazardous materials storage areas that are covered during the rainy season; and maintenance of hazardous materials spill cleanup equipment (e.g.; sorbent pads, shovels, and bags for containment of contaminated soil). All workers would be trained in location and use of cleanup equipment; and Stormwater monitoring would be completed by an independent, third party consultant, in accordance with requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater runoff monitoring protocol would include establishment of pre-drilling, baseline surface water quality conditions; establishment of a RWQCB-approved constituent list, including associated detection limits, maximum allowable concentration; and a subsequent sampling schedule. The storm water analysis would demonstrate that the water is free of all petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants, including total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and total xylenes (BTEX); and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and is within allowable Basin Plan and EPA benchmark parameters for general minerals, before being discharged to surface waters of the State.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site Similar to the Project Site, demolition, grading, and construction could result in degradation of surface runoff entering the storm drain system and emptying into nearby Santa Monica Bay. Incidental spills of petroleum products from construction equipment or leaching of potentially contaminated soil encountered during excavations could adversely impact surface water quality. However, construction would be completed in accordance with a standard SWPPP, as described above, such that impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Pipelines Similar to the Project Site, excavations, temporary stockpiling of soil, pipeline construction, and trench backfill and compaction could result in degradation of surface runoff entering the storm drain system and emptying into nearby Santa Monica Bay. Incidental spills of petroleum products from construction equipment or leaching of potentially contaminated soil encountered during excavations could adversely impact surface water quality. However, construction would be completed in accordance with a standard SWPPP, as described above, such that impacts would be less than significant. Also see Section 4.7, Geological Resources, regarding potential water quality impacts related to erosion.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures would not be required in the absence of significant impacts.
4.9-15
Impact HWQ.2 pertains to the following significance criteria: Water quality impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Oil Project would: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Results in a discharge of pollutants into an impaired water body that has been designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, under Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act); or Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern (i.e., pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, oil, grease, solvents, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, plant debris, animal and yard waste) to a receiving water body, as identified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Impact # Impact Description A rupture or leak during oil drilling operations, from pipelines, or from other infrastructure could substantially degrade surface water and groundwater quality Phase Phase 2 and 4 Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
HWQ.2
Up to 30 oil/gas wells and four wastewater injection wells would be drilled at the Proposed Project Site, from two separate well cellars. The produced oil and gas would be separated into gas, oil, and water streams. The oil would be processed to remove any remaining water and then the dry oil would be temporarily stored in tanks and shipped via pipeline or trucks to local Los Angeles area refineries (during Phase 2) or transported by pipeline (Phase 4). The produced water would be conveyed to onsite injection wells, where the water would be injected back into the producing formation. Proposed drilling, oil processing, and oil transport operations could result in oil spills due to geologic hazards, mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error during any of the steps outlined above. Among other geologic hazards, the Palos Verdes and NewportInglewood faults lie approximately two miles southwest and six miles northeast of the Project Site, respectively, at the closest point. Both of these faults are active and capable of producing severe seismically induced ground shaking at the Project Site (see Section 4.7, Geological Resources/Soils). The most likely spills from the facility would involve crude oil and/or produced water. Such spills could potentially result in water quality impacts to shallow groundwater, nearby drainages, storm drain runoff, and the nearby Pacific Ocean. Small leaks or spills, which are contained and remediated quickly, may have minor or negligible impacts to water resources. In contrast, large spills outside of the facility, such as those that could be produced from a pipeline rupture, could spread to surface waters and/or groundwater and may substantially degrade water quality, with potential long-term impacts to beneficial water quality. No creeks are located in the vicinity of the Project Site, nor along the Proposed Pipeline route; however, the Pacific Ocean is located only a few blocks downhill from the Project Site and all storm drains in the Project Site vicinity and along the Pipeline route lead directly to the ocean.
4.9-16
Although some of the more toxic components of oil, e.g., volatile organic compounds, would be dissipated rapidly due to aeration, i.e., volatilization, spills and associated contaminated stormwater runoff reaching the ocean could have significant and widespread impacts to water quality. Similarly, spills could result in significant, long-term contamination of groundwater in dune and alluvial sediments beneath the spill site, if present, as these soils are generally unconsolidated and permeable. Although most of the Project Site and surrounding area would be paved and impermeable, pipeline spills could occur underground and/or spill into areas that might be unpaved and permeable. Therefore, the impacts could be significant. With respect to potential offshore water quality impacts, the Proposed Oil Project would utilize directional drilling techniques to access oil and gas reserves in offshore areas. As illustrated in Figure 2-8, the targeted oil and gas reserves are located approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet beneath the seafloor. The current geologic mechanism that is creating a trap for oil accumulation within the Upper Main, Lower Main, Del Amo, and Schist Conglomerate zones of the Puente Formation prevents upward migration of oil and gas into overlying marine waters. The oil wells would be designed to meet all of the rules and regulations of the California DOGGR. As illustrated in Figure 2-10, all of the wells would have steel casing that would be cemented in place, thus preventing migration of oil, gas, and drilling fluids outside the well bore. The Applicant has indicated that no high volume/high pressure fracking, i.e., hydraulic fracturing, would occur during oil and gas production activities, thus minimizing inadvertent migration of crude oil and/or drilling fluids above the producing geologic formations. See Impact WR.3 of Section 4.14, Water Resources, regarding potential water quality impacts related to wastewater injection. According to Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards section, under worst-case conditions, maximum estimated spill volumes at the Project Site would be from a catastrophic failure of one of the oil shipping tanks to be constructed during Phase 3, which would have a capacity of 2,900 barrels. The tank area would be surrounded by a containment berm, sufficient in height to retain 110 percent of the volume of the largest tank, as well as any contingency for rainwater and other liquids. A worst-case scenario for pipeline rupture would be a rupture at the tie-in at the Torrance Refinery, which could result in a spill of almost 5,300 gallons. A release from the pipeline between the Project Site and Prospect Avenue, near the corner of Herondo Street and Valley Drive, could produce a spill of 4,800 gallons that could drain directly into subsurface soils and/or to the ocean through storm drains. These impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
HWQ-2a The Applicant shall properly maintain the associated crude oil pipelines, storage tanks, and processing facilities within and outside the Project Site, including smart-pigging according to State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal requirements and the standards outlined by the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall inspect storage tank and processing equipment at least daily and pipeline inspections on a weekly basis.
4.9-17
HWQ-2b The Applicant shall install a leak detection system for crude pipelines to the Torrance Refinery. The system shall include pressure and flow meters, flow balancing, supervisor control and data acquisition system, and a computer alarm system in the event of a suspected leak. Temperature, pressure, and flow shall be monitored at each pipeline entry and exit. If any variable deviates by more than 10 percent of the normal operating range, the system shall trigger both audible and visual alarms. Flow balancing shall be conducted every 5 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours with the accuracy defined once the system is established and tested. HWQ-2c Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces and shall be included in a spill trailer maintained onsite. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations. HWQ-2d Oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the thencurrent California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. HWQ-2e A response manual and Oil Spill Contingency Plan, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department, shall be implemented to outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The Plan shall be completed prior to Phase 2. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan. HWQ-2f The well cellars shall be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent oil-based substances from seeping into groundwater supplies. All drilling muds storage shall be contained within Baker-type enclosed tanks, which shall be sized to accommodate high intensity rainfall events without overtopping. HWQ-2g The Applicant shall install a check valve in the crude oil pipeline at the Herondo and Valley drive intersection, where the crude oil pipeline turns eastward and starts uphill. HWQ-2h The Applicant shall fund and install, under the direction of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, an oil/grit separators or oil/water separator located along Herondo Street, downstream of Valley Drive, in order to capture small to medium sized spills before they reach the ocean. Installation and maintenance costs shall be provided by the Applicant and the devices shall be inspected by the Applicant to ensure that the "trap" is operational before any storm events.
Residual Impacts
Inspection and maintenance programs can effectively reduce the frequency of release events in industry. The implementation of plans, training and the ready availability of spill control equipment would help to reduce the potential impacts of a crude oil spill.
4.9-18
The installation of a check valve into the crude oil pipeline at Herondo Street would reduce the potential spill volumes from a spill at that point by about 1,250 gallons by eliminating the draindown of the pipeline from the segment from Herondo Street to Prospect Avenue. The installation of an oil separator, or a "Water Quality Inlet (WQI)" (EPA 1999), consist of a series of chambers that promote sedimentation of coarse materials and separation of free oil (as opposed to emulsified or dissolved oil) from storm water. Most WQIs also contain screens to help retain larger or floating debris, and many of the newer designs also include a coalescing unit that helps to promote oil/water separation. The system may need to be specially designed for the level of water flows that are generated along Herondo. Although these measures would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with a large spills, the residual impacts to water quality would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I), based on the severity of impacts.
Some mitigation measures could increase construction requirements associated with the Proposed Project, which could increase construction-related potential for storm water discharges or activity discharges. However, mitigation measures would effectively reduce the potential for discharges. Therefore, the mitigation measures would not result in additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
The region of influence for surface water quality-related impacts would be limited to those cumulative projects located within the same watershed. Since the Proposed Project Sites are located on old dune topography, the top of the local watershed that encompasses the Proposed Project Sites extends approximately one mile to the east. In general, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts due to the Proposed Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. However, because of the severity of impacts associated with the increased potential for an accidental oil spill, the Proposed Project would be a potentially significant adverse contribution to cumulative water quality impacts.
4.9-19
4.9.7

Requirements The Applicant shall properly maintain the associated crude oil pipelines, storage tanks, and processing facilities within and outside the Project Site, including smart-pigging according to State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal requirements and the standards outlined by the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall inspect storage tank and processing equipment at least daily and pipeline inspections on a weekly basis. The Applicant shall install a leak detection system for crude pipelines to the Torrance Refinery. The system shall include pressure and flow meters, flow balancing, supervisor control and data acquisition system, and a computer alarm system in the event of a suspected leak. Temperature, pressure, and flow shall be monitored at each pipeline entry and exit. If any variable deviates by more than 10 percent of the normal operating range, the system shall trigger both audible and visual alarms. Flow balancing shall be conducted every 5 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours with the accuracy defined once the system is established and tested. Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces and shall be included in a spill trailer maintained onsite. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before City of maintenance Phase 4 Hermosa reports operations Beach Annually
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2a
HWQ-2b
Review of system design and testing results
HWQ-2c
Review of training and equipment
Before Phase 2 and Phase 4 operations
4.9-20
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2d
Requirements Oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the then-current California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. A response manual and Oil Spill Contingency Plan, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department, shall be implemented to outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The Plan shall be completed prior to Phase 2. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan. The well cellars shall be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent oil-based substances from seeping into groundwater supplies. All drilling muds storage shall be contained within Baker-type enclosed tanks, which shall be sized to accommodate high intensity rainfall events without overtopping. The Applicant shall install a check valve in the crude oil pipeline at the Herondo and Valley drive intersection, where the crude oil pipeline turns eastward and starts uphill. The Applicant shall fund and install, under the direction of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, an oil/grit separators or oil/water separator located along Herondo Street, downstream of Valley Drive, in order to capture small to medium sized spills before they reach the ocean. Installation and maintenance costs shall be provided by the Applicant and the devices shall be inspected by the Applicant to ensure that the "trap" is operational before any storm events.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before City of training and Phase 2 and Hermosa incident Phase 4 Beach reports operations Review of reports Before Phase 2 and Phase 4 operations City of Hermosa Beach
HWQ-2e
HWQ-2f
Review of design documents, field inspection
HWQ-2g
HWQ-2h
Review of design documents, field inspection Review of design documents, field inspection
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
4.9-21
4.9-22
4.10 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis
This section details the existing land use and planning conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site, outlines applicable land use plans and policies, and summarizes potential land use and planning impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Project.
4.10.1 Environmental Setting 4.10.1.1 Land Use Oil Production Site
E&B, the Applicant, is proposing the development of the Project on a 1.3-acre parcel located at 555 6th Street in the City of Hermosa Beach (City). The Project Site is bounded on the east by Valley Drive and on the south by 6th Street, approximately seven blocks east of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard and the Proposed Project would require the relocation of this facility to another site located west of Valley Drive, adjacent to and south of the Hermosa Beach City Hall, and the installation of offsite underground Pipelines for the transportation of the processed crude oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers. The cities bordering Hermosa Beach include the city of Manhattan Beach to the north, and the City of Redondo Beach to the south and east. Hermosa Beach, similar to its neighboring cities, is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The Project Site is bounded by the following: to the east by Valley Drive, the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail), Ardmore Park and, further to the east, by Ardmore Avenue and residential development; to the south by 6th Street, the City Beach Self Storage facility, light manufacturing land uses and, further to the south, South Park and residential development; to the west by light manufacturing land uses, Cypress Street and, further to the west, residential development; and to the north by light manufacturing land uses and, further to the north, residential development and 8th Street. The immediately adjoining properties were sparsely developed into the 1940s, with a few residential units located to the northwest of the Project Site. Post 1940s, significant development occurred with industrial buildings being constructed to the south and west of the Project Site by 1953 and to the north of the Project Site by the 1960s. By 1960, the buildings to the west of the Project Site were identified as containing a building material warehouse, a boat repair shop, and a contractors storage yard. By 1960, the building to the south was being utilized as a planter mix manufacturing site. Since the 1960s, the various adjoining buildings have been utilized for multiple small businesses as industrial/commercial uses, approximately 50 feet to the east, from the late 1800s, there was a railroad right of way that was utilized by the Santa Fe Railway. During the 1960s, the railroad right-of-way was converted to a greenbelt/park (Veterans Parkway - Hermosa Valley Greenbelt
4.10-1
(Greenbelt)), followed by a voter initiative in the 1980s which changed the designation for the Greenbelt to OS-1 Restricted Open Space. The land uses adjacent to the Project Site (on the same block between 8th and 6th Street and Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive) are commercial/industrial (Cypress Auto Body, A&B Heating, JB Plumbing, McGivern Surfboard Manufacturing, and other various small commercial/industrial businesses), with some residential uses along 8th Street to the north. Adjacent blocks include residential uses located 150 feet to the north of the Project Site, 250 feet to the west and 180 feet to the east (across the Greenbelt), with small commercial/industrial uses and the Beach Cities Self Storage facility located to the immediate south across 6th Street with its parking lot located to the immediate west of the Project Site. The current use on the Project Site, the City Maintenance Yard, would be relocated to a City owned property located west of Valley Drive, adjacent to, west, and immediately south of City Hall for the temporary facility and south of Hermosa Beach City Hall for the permanent facility. Currently, there are 15 parking spaces located at the Citys Maintenance Yard used by maintenance yard employees from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and by the public at other times without charge. These spaces are a portion of the Citys inventory of free remote public parking spaces under the Citys Coastal Preferential Parking Program.
Pipelines
The Project also includes offsite underground Pipelines to transport the oil and gas to destinations outside the City. The gas Pipeline route travels a distance of 0.43 miles in the right of way (ROW) of southbound Valley Drive (which is a one way street south of 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to a tie in to a Southern California Gas (SCG) Company gas line in the Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Corridor east of N. Francisca Avenue in the City of Redondo Beach. Land use along the Pipeline route in the City is a mix of commercial and residential with the Veterans Parkway Green belt to the east of the Pipeline route. From the SCG tie in the gas Pipeline would continue through the City of Redondo Beach to an existing SCG Pipeline transmission facility (Line 1170) located on the south side of 190th Street near its intersection with Green Lane, between Flagler Lane and Beryl Street, in the City of Redondo Beach. The section of the proposed gas line in the City of Redondo Beach is bounded to the north by commercial land uses and residential development in the City of Redondo Beach; and to the south by commercial land uses, residential development, and public facilities including Dominguez Park and Redondo Beach Dog Park in the City of Redondo Beach. The offsite underground oil Pipeline for the transport of oil would follow the same route in the City with a distance of 0.39 mile in the ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is one-way starting at 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to the corner of Valley Drive/N. Francisca Avenue and Herondo Street in the City of Redondo Beach. The Proposed Pipeline would then continue in one of three routes and valve box options (see Section 2.0, Project Description) to an area refinery located in the City of Torrance. The land use designations of the oil Pipeline route through the City of Redondo Beach are a mix of commercial and residential uses.
4.10-2
Proposed Relocated City Maintenance Yard
Two options for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard have been identified by the City: (a) development of a new Permanent City Maintenance Yard (including sub-options with and without added parking of approximately 129 spaces) located on that portion of the site occupied by a self-storage business, south of City Hall; and alternatively (b) a Temporary City Maintenance Yard may first be developed and utilized through the exploration phases of E&Bs Project, with a the permanent facility developed only if E&B fully develops the permanent drill site. The Temporary Yard would be primarily located at 1315 Valley Drive in the areas west and south of City Hall now occupied by several City buildings, parking for City vehicles, employee parking, and Bard Street which would be closed. Employee parking would be relocated to the Community Center during work hours, and shared free remote coastal public parking would be relocated to the south side of Herondo Street in Hermosa Beach. The City would select one of these options for implementation if E&Bs Project is approved. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard and the onsite parking spaces at the existing City Maintenance Yard would occur prior to initiation of any site clearance of the Project Site at 555 6th Street. The site proposed for the new City Maintenance Yard relocated permanent City Maintenance Yard is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing with a portion zoned OS Open Space. The adjacent land uses are residential uses to the south and west, the Greenbelt to the east, and the Civic Center (City Hall, Library, and Fire Station) and commercial uses to the north. The proposed site for a relocated permanent City Maintenance Yard, at 1315 Valley Drive/552 11th Place, new City Maintenance Yard currently houses the Hermosa Self-Storage Facility, occupied on a month to month lease by a private business, along with 32 parking spaces, reserved for City employees between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday (i.e., work hours) and used by the public at other times without charge. These 32 spaces are a portion of the Citys inventory of free remote public parking under the Citys Coastal Preferential Parking Program.
Proposed Project Offsite Parking Locations
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, in order to comply with the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit requirements, 17 public parking spaces would have to be generated under the Proposed Oil Project. The 17 spaces would be required to replace the current 15 parking spaces to be removed at the current City Maintenance Yard and the loss of the 2 on-street public parking spaces removed from 6th Street from the proposed street improvements at the corner of 6th Street and Valley Drive. In addition, Phases 1, 2, and 3, and the drilling portion of Phase 4 Drilling would require temporary offsite parking for Project employees. Temporary parking is proposed for 636 Cypress Avenue, adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Site. The parcel at 636 Cypress Avenue is a relatively level 6,000-square foot property and is currently developed with a single-story building that occupies approximately 75 percent of the parcel and a parking lot with approximately 6 parking spaces. The property, the Cypress Parking Lot, and the adjacent properties are zoned for light industrial use (zoning designation M1). The Project proposes that the 17 replacement parking places be located at the new City Maintenance Yard location, or if no added parking is constructed there, the 17 replacement
4.10-3
spaces would be located at the Cypress Parking Lot (The City has indicated there is no agreement to provide for this parking at a relocated City Maintenance Yard). Temporary Project employee parking during some Project phases could exceed the capacity of the Cypress Parking Lot. The Applicant proposes to use available existing parking facilities for these peak parking demand situations, not yet identified. Employees would walk or be shuttled by van from these remove parking facilities to the Project Site. Figure 4.10-1 shows the Project Site and surrounding land uses in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Figure 4.10-1 Proposed Project Location
4.10-4
4.10.1.2 Recreation
The City of Hermosa Beach is known for its beaches, surfing, and the paved strip path that parallels the beach known as the Strand that connects Hermosa Beach with the neighboring beach cities. The City owns the wide beach that runs the length of the city and serves both locals as well. The Strand is also part of the statewide California Coastal Trail system. As a beach community, Hermosa experiences a high visitor population. During the 2010-11 fiscal year (FY), beach attendance ranged from a low of 94,300 in December 2010 to a high of 939,000 in July 2010, according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lifeguard Division. Total beach attendance in FY 2010-11 was up 18.5% from FY 2009-10 to 3,763,700. The Hermosa Pier is 1,228 feet long and offers year-round fishing and contains the Surfers Walk of Fame where surfing legends from Hermosa Beach are commemorated with bronze plaques embedded within the piers walking surface. In addition to surfing, recreational beach activities include volleyball, skating and skateboarding, jogging, and bicycling. Special events throughout the year are primarily focused on the beach, the adjacent Pier Plaza and downtown area. There were nearly 60 special events, open to the public, scheduled for 2014 as of January 2014. The City of Hermosa Beach has over 20 parks throughout the City with green space, picnic facilities, a skateboard park and space for sporting events. The City of Hermosa Beach Community Resources Department administers the Citys recreation program which offers a variety of recreational activities for participants of all ages, as well as scheduling private events at city park facilities. Three facilities, Valley Park, Clark Stadium, and South Park, support activities and sport leagues for both youth and adult participants. Clark Stadium also provides lawn bowling. Clark Building located at 861 Valley Drive provides a multi-purpose hall and lighted sports fields. The Farmers Market is held every Friday just north of the tennis courts at Clark Stadium. South Park located at 425 Valley Drive provides lawn areas, a new play area is in progress, and a community garden. The Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail) located between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue runs the length of the City and connect with Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. The Greenbelt provides a walking and jogging trail. Also in the vicinity of the Project Site are Ardmore Park at 491 Ardmore Avenue and Bicentennial Park, located at Valley Drive and 4th Street. The Community Center and Hermosa Beach Community Theater located 710 Pier Avenue, at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Pier Avenue and extending west to Ardmore Avenue, provides a community center with meeting rooms, Senior Center, large and small theaters, gymnasium, Skate Park and tennis courts. P.A.R.K. (Positive Active Recreation for Kids) Program is a new After School program offered at the Hermosa Beach Community Center and South Park for Hermosa Beach residents, emphasizing active recreation for children in the First through Eighth grade. Children walk with a supervisor from Valley School and View School to the Community Center and also along the greenbelt to South Park.
4.10-5
This section summarizes land use planning and recreational resource management policies primarily as they relate to general growth, conservation, and development, park and recreational uses, and public access.
4.10.2.1 Federal
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as administered by the State of California, applies to this Project. Other Federal agencies having regulatory authority that affect land use and growth issues include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
4.10.2.2 State California State Lands Commission
The State of California owns the tidelands and submerged lands extending three nautical miles seaward of the mean high tide line. State law confers primary responsibility for determination of the precise boundary between these public tidelands and private lands and administrative responsibility over state tidelands to the California State Lands Commission (CSLC). Access and use of state lands can be obtained through lease agreements. In 1919, the State of California granted the City of Hermosa Beach, in trust, the tidelands within the Torrance Oil Field. Because the proposed Project would be located on uplands and sovereign submerged lands that have been transferred, in trust, to the City (Statue of 1919, Chapter 479), no CSLC authorization would be required. However, the CSLC would act as a trustee agency because of its trust responsibility for projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters.
The California Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Act of 1976 created the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and established planning and management policies for the protection of coastal resources. The Act requires local governments within the coastal zone to prepare local coastal programs (LCP) that provide for maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas (see Section 30500 of the California Coastal Act). Through the certification process of the local coastal programs, the CCC identifies sensitive coastal resources, determines whether these areas were of regional or statewide significance, identifies potentially significant adverse impacts that could result to these coastal resources from development, and ensures that actions adequate to protect these resources are incorporated into a jurisdictions LCP. After an LCP has been certified and all implementing actions have become effective, the Act delegates subsequent development review authority to the local agency whose program has been certified. The City of Hermosa Beach does not have a certified LCP. However, such delegation does not apply to any development on any tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands lying within the coastal zone. Such lands are considered the original jurisdiction of the state. The Act does not limit the authority of the CSLC over lands within its jurisdiction.
4.10-6
The planning and management policies to protect coastal resources are described in Sections 30200 through 30264. Sections 30210 through 30213 provide that the publics right of access to the sea is not to be interfered with by development unless it is inconsistent with public safety, military security, or the protection of coastal resources. Where appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking would be distributed throughout an area to minimize impact to any single area. Low-cost visitor and recreation facilities and low- and moderate-income housing opportunities would be encouraged. Sections 30230 through 30236 provide that marine resources are to be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances would be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures would be provided for accidental spills. Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational boating industries would be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Pursuant to Sections 30240 through 30254, land resources such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas and prime agricultural land would be protected. Archaeological and paleontological resources would also be protected. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas would be considered and protected when contemplating development. New development would maintain and enhance public access to the coast by having passages to roadways and transit opportunities. Pursuant to Sections 30260 through 30264, coastal-dependent industrial development would be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and long-term growth would be permitted where consistent with the area. Where new or expanded facilities are not otherwise consistent, they will be permitted if: (1) alternative locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it is found that not permitting such development would adversely affect the public welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; and (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. The passages of Proposition 20 in 1972 and the State Coastal Conservancy Act in 1976 represented major legislative acts that established strong coastal resource access policies and programs. The CCC implements these policies through its requirement providing public shoreline access as a condition of certain coastal development permits. Local governments are required to include provisions in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) for acquiring, improving, and managing access areas. Further, in jurisdictions that do not have a certified LCP, the CCC implements these policies through coastal development permits. In addition, the Coastal Conservancy provides funding and technical assistance to local governments and citizens groups to acquire, develop, operate, and manage new access ways (CCC 1991). In 1979, additional legislation was enacted that directed the CCC and State Coastal Conservancy to establish a comprehensive program to maximize public coastal access and coordinate all local, State, and Federal efforts to implement the program. As part of the program, the CCC was mandated to prepare a Coastal Access Guide for the public.
4.10-7
Article 10, Section 4 of the State Constitution guarantees the public's right to access to the State's navigable waters along the California coast. Approximately 42 percent of the State's shoreline is publicly owned and accessible, with the remaining 58 percent either privately owned or held by Federal, State and local governments and not open to the public. The public's right of access to or along the State's tidelands can be obtained by: (1) purchase of shoreline lands for public use by Federal, State, or local governments or private organizations; (2) deed restrictions or dedications by the landowner that grant the public the right to cross private property; or (3) through legal doctrines of "implied dedication" and "prescriptive rights." "Dedicated" lands become open to the public only after an agency or private party has accepted responsibility for liability and maintenance. The CCC and many local governments require the provision of access as a condition of approval for development permits to mitigate impacts of new coastal developments on public access. Most of the dedicated strips of land remain undeveloped and unmanaged by government agencies and do not form a continuous system of access to and along the shore (CCC 1991). The Coastal Conservancy helps coordinate the statewide California Coastal Trail system which follows The Strand within Hermosa and the adjacent beach. The City of Hermosa Beach joined the California Coastal Trail Association as a charter member in 2013.
Other State Agencies
Other State agencies having control over land use and recreation in Los Angeles County include the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Department of Transportation. Additionally, the South Coast Air Quality Management District implements State and Federal policies within the vicinity of the Project Site.
4.10.2.3 Local Southern California Association of Governments Plans
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments for southern California, including Los Angeles, Orange, and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAG is composed of elected city and county officials and provides a forum for addressing regional problems in the area and for formulating and implementing regional development policies. SCAGs regional growth projections provide the basis for Federal- and State-mandated plans (such as the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy, and city general plan housing elements) and review of federally funded programs in the region.
City of Hermosa Beach General Plan
The California Government Code requires each city and county to have a planning agency and to develop a General Plan providing a comprehensive, long-term plan for its physical development. The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan provides long-term guidance and policies for the citys growth and development, including maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the community, both man-made and natural. As a policy document, the General Plan provides guidance and programs to support the adoption of rules, regulations, programs and actions to execute its intent. In addition to the required elements, Land Use, Circulation,
4.10-8
Conservation, Open Space, Housing, Noise, Safety/Seismic Safety, the Hermosa Beach General Plan also includes Urban Design, Economics and Utilities Elements. The General Plan was adopted in 1979, some elements were updated in 1994 with additional minor amendments at other times, and the Housing Element was amended in 2013 per State law. The Hermosa Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the Project Site as Industrial and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard sites as Industrial, Open Space, and General Commercial.
Policies set forth within the General Plan are implemented, in part, through enforcement of the Citys zoning regulations. Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specified zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (Zoning) designates the Project Site as M-1 Light Manufacturing and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard site as M-1 Light Manufacturing, O-S Open Space, and C-2 Restricted Commercial. Figure 4.10-2, Project Site and Area Land Uses, shows the Project location and surrounding land uses.
City of Hermosa Beach Oil Code
In 1985, the City adopted the Oil Production Code within the Citys Zoning Ordinance (a component of the Citys Municipal Code) that established terms and conditions governing oil drilling and development in the City, including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for oil and gas production on City-owned parcels. While the Oil Code ceased to be of effect in 1995 due to a ballot measure which disallowed any oil drilling in the City of Hermosa Beach, if the ban on oil drilling is lifted by the voters, then the Oil Code will apply.
City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan
As noted above, the California Coastal Act requires local governments within the coastal zone to prepare local coastal programs (LCP) that provide for maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas and implement planning and management policies for the protection of coastal resources. LCPs are comprised of a coastal land use plan, coastal zoning code and other implementing documents as may be appropriate. In 1982, the City of Hermosa Beachs Coastal Land Use Plan (titled Local Coastal Plan but referred to as the Coastal Land Use Plan in this EIR) was certified by the Coastal Commission; it is noted that the document does not contain energy policies that would guide the development of oil and gas resources within the city. The City has not adopted a coastal zoning code and currently does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. Therefore, under current conditions, the Applicant and the City would each need to seek coastal development permits from the Coastal Commission for their respective parts, the Applicant for the Proposed Oil Project if approved by the voters, and the City for the City Maintenance Yard relocation, respectively. The Project Site, currently the City Maintenance Yard, is designated Open Space. The proposed City Maintenance Yard sites are designated Residential - Medium Density and Open Space Government.
1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditions of Approval
The 1993 CUP includes the conditions of approval for the following impact categories; land use development, public safety, fire safety, subsidence, vehicle traffic and circulation, sanitary
sewer, noise/vibration, landscaping, aesthetics, odors/vapor/air pollution, grading/storm water/site runoff, Pipeline construction, and general procedural requirements. Specific permit requirements are discussed in the associated applicable sections of Section 4.0. The land use development permit conditions of the 1993 CUP are as follows: 1. The maximum size for any storage tank of any type shall be forty feet in diameter and sixteen feet in height, appurtenances not included. 2. Prior to construction and prior to obtaining building permits for oil production, a complete soil analysis shall be performed and approved by all applicable governing agencies having jurisdiction over the Project. 3. Not more than five tanks shall be installed, and shall be submerged in a concrete basin which contains 10% above the volume required by the State Division of Oil and Gas and the Uniform Fire Code which is as follows: The volumetric capacity of the diked area shall not be less than the greatest amount of liquid that can be released from the largest tank within the diked area. The capacity of the diked areas enclosing the more than one tank shall be calculated by deducting the volume of the tanks other than the largest tank below the height of the dike. 4. All wells shall be drilled and cemented in accordance with State Division of Oil and Gas regulations to protect underground aquifers. 5. Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height from grade as defined in the Oil code. 6. The electrical service systems shall be designed with sufficient capacity to minimize surging impacts. 7. The well cellars shall be concrete lined and shall be designed to hold contaminated runoff from onsite sources; or a sump shall be provided. 8. Solid state control console linked to a control system to perform energy conservation function such as start/stop time programming of motor equipment, data logging of energy consumption and maintenance and service scheduling shall be provided. a. All Electrical machinery where possible shall have a minimum coefficient of efficiency of 0.75. 9. Parking shall be provided on the site consistent with the submitted parking plan to provide adequate parking facilities for all workers involved in oil recovery operations, including exploratory and production phases. 10. All studies, report, plans and analysis required by any section of this CUP or required by law shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the issuance of any permit for commencing any work, including site preparation. An up-front deposit of $10,000 in addition to any required plan check fees shall be submitted at the time of submitting such studies, reports, plans, or analysis for the City to draw upon to cover the Citys cost of hiring the appropriate expert or specialist, if necessary, to review these submittals for adequacy. Any amount of this deposit not used would be returned to the permittee, and any additional costs the City spends over $10,000 shall be reimbursed by the permittee.
City of Redondo Beach
The Proposed Pipeline routes for both oil and gas Pipelines would travel through the City of Redondo Beach with the gas Pipeline terminating in Redondo Beach and the oil Pipeline continuing through Redondo Beach to the City of Torrance. The City of Redondo Beach
4.10-10
General Plan Land Use Element establishes goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new development will occur and existing uses will be conserved in the City of Redondo Beach. The Redondo Beach Municipal Code Chapter 4, Pipeline Franchises, of Section 11, Public Utilities, is specific to the permitting and operation of pipelines in the City.
City of Torrance
The Proposed Project oil Pipeline is routed through the City of Torrance terminating at a valve box which would connect to an existing pipeline to a refinery located in Torrance. The City of Torrance General Plan lists maintaining, preserving, and enhancing community resources as a priority for the City and General Plan. The General Plan contains the following resource Element Plans; Land Use, Circulation and Infrastructure, Community Resources, Safety, Noise, and Housing.
Figure 4.10-2 Project Site and Area Land Uses
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map from www.hermosabch.org
4.10-11
The Proposed Project is considered to have a significant impact to land use if the Project would cause any of the following to occur: Physically divide an established community; A conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, promulgated by an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program/plan, or zoning ordinance); or A conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; and Is markedly incompatible in scale or use characteristics with any adjacent land uses.
An impact on recreation and tourism would be considered significant and would require additional mitigation if the Project would cause any of the following to occur: Pre-emption of a recreational use during a peak season, including public beach access; Conflict with planning efforts to protect the recreational resources of the Project Area; Degradation of a recreation area or prolonged interruption of use (e.g., due to an oil spill and cleanup efforts); and Creation of a nuisance to recreation area users (e.g., creation of an unpleasing view, noise, or odor).
4.10.4 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
This section characterizes the potential land use and recreation impacts generated by the Proposed Project.
4.10.4.1 Land Use Proposed Project and Pipelines Physically divide an established community.
The Proposed Project would be constructed within an existing previously developed urban area and no additional land outside of the existing area would be acquired for purposes of the Proposed Project. The use of Valley Drive and other Hermosa Beach surface streets for Project equipment, employee travel, and trucking of oil is short term and temporary. In addition, and as discussed in Section 4.13, implementation of the traffic control measures proposed by the Applicant would minimize traffic and pedestrian mobility through the Project area and associated surface streets. Installation of the Pipelines is proposed for existing pipeline Rights of Way (ROW) consistent with existing pipelines, and construction of the Pipelines is a short term and temporary impact. The Proposed Project and Pipelines would not physically divide an established community; therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
4.10-12
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation.

LUPR.1
The Proposed Project conflicts with established land use plans, policies, and land use maps.
All
As currently written, the Proposed Project conflicts with the existing City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Oil Production Code and Coastal Land Use Plan (the document is titled Local Coastal Plan but it is referred to as the Coastal Land Use Plan in this EIR to avoid confusion with local coastal program). The conflicts are summarized in Table 4.10-1.
Table 4.10-1 Proposed Project General Land Use Plan and Code Conflicts Land Use Conflict th Proposed Project Site 555 6 Street Chapter 5.56 specifies oil drilling is an unlawful act. A precise development plan is required for all development exceeding 1500 square feet in area. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the approval or denial of the Proposed Oil Project lies with the Hermosa Beach electorate. The need and requirement for a precise development plan is therefore eliminated per the proposed amendment to the code. Section 21A-2.10(C) prohibits oil or gas processing The definition of grade in Section 21A-2.9(C)which affects the calculation of heightapplies to most elements within the perimeter wall of a site but does not apply to the perimeter wall itself. Under the current definition, the height of a retaining wall to hold fill to establish finished grade is counted as part of the total height. This means that the height of a wall constructed on a retaining wall would be at a lower elevation from finished grade than that portion of the perimeter wall not constructed in a retaining wall. This condition would reduce the effectiveness of some proposed mitigation. Therefore, the definition is proposed to be amended. The Plan does not provide guidance regarding whether oil and gas development is allowed in the Industrial designation and for development of an oil and gas project and thus the Proposed Project is inconsistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project site is designated as Open Space and is inconsistent with the purpose of that designation and is inconsistent with the Citys General Plan Industrial designation and current use as the Citys Maintenance Yard. The proposed amendment will remedy these inconsistencies.
Land Use Plan or Map
Municipal Code
Municipal Code Oil Production Code
Coastal Land Use Plan
The Proposed Project includes amendments to the General Plan, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Plan to resolve the land use conflicts: Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to delete Chapter 5.56 (Oil Wells) to lift the ban on oil drilling, which had been imposed with Proposition E in 1995, and allow oil
drilling in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone in Chapter 17.28 subject to a development agreement at the Project site located at 555 6th Street. (E&B proposes to utilize the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and the conditions of approval from the Permit will be included in the development agreement.) Deletion of Chapter 5.56 will also eliminate the requirement that all funds the City derives from Hydrocarbons Recovery go into the Citys Park and Recreation Facilities Fund except the first $500 of Business License Fees and any funds regulated by the State Lands Commission, approved with Proposition L in 1987, to allow oil and gas royalties to be used for other purposes. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the designation of the Project Site located at 555 6th Street from Open Space to Industrial consistent with the current use as the City Maintenance Yard and the proposed use as defined for the Proposed Project. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies regulating oil and gas recovery, as proposed in Appendix P. Adopt a Development Agreement to provide for the orderly development of the Oil Development Project, and to provide the Applicant with a vested right to proceed with the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation Measures in the certified EIR, conditions of approval from the 1993 CUP, any benefits and commitments to the City that may be proposed by the Applicant, and other provisions agreed to by E&B and the City will be incorporated into the Development Agreement. Approve a Franchise to allow the proposed oil and gas pipelines within the City of Hermosa Beach. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, including the Oil Production Code (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 21-A), to amend the prohibition on process operations to allow oil and gas processing and treatment activities. Oil and gas processing shall be defined as treatment activities that involve the chemical separation of oil and gas constituents and the removal of impurities. Processing activities would include oil stripping; hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal systems; depropanizers, debutanizers, or other types of fractionation; sulfur recovery plants; wastewater treatment plants; and separation and dehydration of oil/gas/water. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to modify the definition of grade (adjacent ground elevation) to allow for a perimeter wall height of 32 feet. Grade shall be defined as the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface level of the ground, paving or sidewalk, excluding excavations for well cellars and storage tanks, within the enclosed area of the privacy wall, to also include the privacy wall (i.e., the perimeter wall around the Oil Project Site).
As proposed, and required by the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, the land use plan and Municipal Code revisions as pertains to E&Bs Oil Project are subject to a ballot measure and vote of the people of Hermosa Beach. If the ballot measure is approved, the land use conflicts would be resolved and the impact reduced to less than significant. As regards the proposed amendment to add policies to the Coastal Land Use Plan to guide oil and gas development, the proposed policies would allow oil and gas development in the Industrial designation limited to the Proposed Oil Project site unless the Coastal Land Use Plan is further amended in the future pursuant to a vote of the electorate, and provide policies to guide
4.10-14
that development and ensure the development will be compatible with the Coastal Act and protect coastal resources and human health. Therefore, no significant impacts will result from their adoption. If the Proposed Oil Project is not approved by the voters then none of the land use changes identified will be enacted. The Proposed Project may be considered to be inconsistent with certain land use goals and policies pertaining to preservation of the City of Hermosa Beachs small town beach community atmosphere; however due to the subjectivity of this issue the EIR concludes that a vote to allow the Proposed Oil Project to proceed signifies that the electorate finds the Proposed Project to be consistent. Specific discussion of consistency or inconsistency is provided in Section 4.10.6, Policy Consistency Analysis below: Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to delete Chapter 5.56 (Oil Wells) to lift the ban on oil drilling, which had been imposed with Proposition E in 1995, and allow oil drilling in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone in Chapter 17.28 subject to a development agreement at the Project site located at 555 6th Street. (E&B proposes to utilize the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and the conditions of approval from the Permit will be included in the development agreement.) Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the designation of the Project Site located at 555 6th Street from Open Space to Industrial consistent with the current use as the City Maintenance Yard and the proposed use as defined for the Proposed Project. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies regulating oil and gas recovery, as proposed in Appendix P. Adopt a Development Agreement to provide for the orderly development of the Oil Development Project, and to provide the Applicant with a vested right to proceed with the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation Measures in the certified EIR, conditions of approval from the 1993 CUP, any benefits and commitments to the City that may be proposed by the Applicant, and other provisions agreed to by E&B and the City will be incorporated into the Development Agreement. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, including the Oil Production Code (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 21-A), to amend the prohibition on process operations to allow oil and gas processing and treatment activities. Oil and gas processing shall be defined as treatment activities that involve the chemical separation of oil and gas constituents and the removal of impurities. Processing activities would include oil stripping; hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal systems; depropanizers, debutanizers, or other types of fractionation; sulfur recovery plants; wastewater treatment plants; and separation and dehydration of oil/gas/water. Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to modify the definition of grade (adjacent ground elevation) to allow for a perimeter wall height of 35 feet. Grade shall be defined as the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface level of the ground, paving or sidewalk, excluding excavations for well cellars and storage tanks, within the enclosed area of the privacy wall, to also include the privacy wall (i.e., the perimeter wall around the Oil Project Site).
4.10-15
As proposed, and required by the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, the land use plan revisions are subject to a ballot measure and a vote by the people of Hermosa Beach. If the ballot measure is approved, the land use conflicts would be resolved and the impact reduced to less than significant. The Proposed Project may also be considered to be inconsistent with certain land use policy goals pertaining to preservation of the City of Hermosa Beachs small town beach community atmosphere. Specific discussion of consistency or inconsistency is provided in Section 4.10.6, Policy Consistency Analysis below. Because pipelines are allowed in all zoning districts, no land use plan or policy conflicts associated with the construction of the Pipeline through the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance exist.
Other Required Land Use Approvals
In addition to the actions noted above to resolve land use impacts, the Proposed Project requires the following land use permit and agreements: Adopt a Development Agreement to provide for the orderly development of the Oil Development Project, and to provide the Applicant with a vested right to proceed with the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation Measures in the certified EIR, any benefits and commitments to the City that may be proposed by the Applicant, and other provisions agreed to by E&B and the City will be incorporated into the Development Agreement. California Government Code section 65869 requires Coastal Commission approval of a development agreement in an area without a certified LCP, such as Hermosa Beach, before it can be applicable to a project. Therefore, even if the voters pass the ballot initiative for the Proposed Oil Project, the proposed Development Agreement will not be valid until after it has been approved by a formal Coastal Commission action. Approve a Franchise Agreement to allow the proposed oil and gas Pipelines within the City of Hermosa Beach. Amend Ordinance 87-897 Mandating that all Funds the City derives from Hydrocarbons Recovery go into the Citys Park and Recreation Facilities Fund except the first $500 of Business License Fees and any funds regulated by the State Lands Commission, approved with Proposition L in 1987, to allow oil and gas royalties to be used for other purposes. Franchise agreement and permits for the proposed oil and gas Pipelines in the City of Redondo Beach. Franchise agreement and permits for the proposed oil and gas Pipelines in the City of Torrance.
Mitigation Measures
Adoption of the plan, code and ordinance amendments listed above would resolve the land use consistency impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Residual Impacts
The residual impact would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.10-16
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Proposed Project or construction of the Pipelines is not expected to conflict with local habitat conservation plans, or natural community conservation plans because no such plans are applicable to the Proposed Project. The site of the Proposed Project is an existing previously developed area. Based on these considerations, no significant adverse impacts to established residential or natural communities are expected. Specific impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 4.3.
Incompatible in scale or use characteristics with any adjacent land uses.
Impact # Impact Description Potential noise, odors, and visual impacts generated from the Proposed Project could be incompatible with adjacent land uses. Phase Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
LUPR.2
All
The drilling, construction, and potential future operations would be in close proximity to land uses zoned as open space and residential. As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, short-term noise monitoring was performed at a number of locations around the perimeter of the Project Site. These locations were selected to represent the closest residential and recreational uses to the Project Site. Proposed Project activities during all phases may generate significant noise impacts that would be incompatible with these adjacent land uses. Implementing the mitigation measures proposed in Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, would be necessary to minimize impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, noise barriers, limited hours of operation where applicable, equipment selection and maintenance. Therefore, the impacts to adjacent land uses due to noise would be considered significant. The drilling, construction, and potential future operations may also have odor and visual impacts to the surrounding open space and residential land uses. Section 4.2 discusses air quality and potential odor impacts and the associated mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. Section 4.1 presents impacts to visual and aesthetic resources along with measures to mitigate impacts to those resources. As discussed in those sections, the mitigations measures reduce the impacts but potential odor and visual impacts to adjacent open space and residential land uses remain, therefore, the impacts would be considered significant. The construction and installation of the Proposed Pipelines would be short term; therefore, no significant land use issues along the Pipeline route are expected.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures described in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.11, for Aesthetic/Visual, Air Quality/Odor and Noise and Vibration, respectively. No additional mitigation is proposed.
Residual Impacts
The mitigation measures in Section 4.1 for aesthetic and visual impacts, Section 4.2 for odor impacts, and 4.11, for impacts from noise and vibration reduce the impacts. However, the
4.10-17
incompatibility of these industrial type impacts to adjacent open space and residential land uses remains. Therefore, the residual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
City Maintenance Yard Physically divide an established community.
The proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard, for both the temporary and permanent options, would be constructed within an existing previously developed urban area and no additional land outside of the existing area would be acquired for purposes of the Proposed Project. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be a short term and temporary activity and moving the physical location of the facility would not significantly affect the maintenance services provided to the community of Hermosa Beach. Therefore, the proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not physically divide an established community and no significant impacts are expected.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation.
Impact # Impact Description The Proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard conflicts with established land use plans, policies, and land use maps Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
LUPR.3
All
As proposed, the proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard conflicts with the existing City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Zoning, and Coastal Land Use Plan maps. The conflicts are summarized in Table 4.10-2.
Table 4.10-2 Proposed City Maintenance Yard General Land Use Plan and Code Conflicts
Proposed New City Maintenance Yard Temporary Option The northwestern portion of the site is designated General General Plan Land Use Map Commercial. The northwestern portion of the site is zoned C-2 Restricted Commercial and a portion of the site is zoned M-1 Light Zoning Map Manufacturing. A portion of the site is designated zoned Residential Medium Coastal Land Use Plan Map Density. Proposed New City Maintenance Yard Permanent Option General Plan Land Use Map Most of the site is designated Industrial. Most of the site is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing. The proposed City Maintenance Yard may be inconsistent with the development standards in the proposed O-S Open Space Zoning zone (lot coverage and setbacks). The City may approve modifications on a case by case basis through the planned development permit process which is required by the code. This will address those potential inconsistencies. Coastal Land Use Plan Map A portion of the site is designated Residential-Medium Density.
4.10-18
The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would require amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan to resolve the land use conflicts as described below. Temporary Option: Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from General Commercial (GC) to Open Space (O-S). Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Restricted Commercial (C-2) to Open Space (O-S) zone. Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government. Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236). If the Oil Development Project is approved by the electorate, both the proposed Oil Development Project and the Yard Relocation would require other permits and approvals as detailed in Section 2.0 of this DEIR and below. This would include the California Coastal Commission review of the amendments to the City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, the Development Agreement, and Coastal Development Permits for the Proposed Project.
Permanent Option: Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from Industrial (I) to Open Space (OS). Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to Open Space (O-S). Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from Residential - Medium Density to Open Space Government. Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit CDP 5-84-236).
As proposed, the land use amendments to the General Plan map, the zoning map, and the Coastal Land Use map would resolve the subject conflicts with these land use plans. Therefore, if the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard is approved by the City of Hermosa Beach, the land use conflicts would be reduced to less than significant. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would require amendments to the General Plan map, Zoning map and Local Coastal Plan map to resolve the land use conflicts: As proposed, the land use amendments to the General Plan map, the Zoning code, and the Coastal Land Use map would resolve the subject conflicts with these land use maps and requirements. Therefore, if the Proposed Oil Project is approved by the voters, and as a consequence it is necessary to relocate the City Maintenance Yard, the City will initiate the amendments identified and upon approval the land use conflicts would be reduced to less than significant. If the Proposed Oil Project is not approved by the voters then none of the land use changes identified will be enacted.
4.10-19
Other Required Land Use Approvals
In addition to the actions noted above to resolve land use impacts, the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard, for either the temporary or permanent option would require the following land use permit actions: Approve of a Planned Development permit to develop a City Maintenance Yard in the Open Space zone. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and removal of facilities at the existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed relocation of the City Maintenance Yard.
Mitigation Measures
Adoption of the plan, code and ordinance amendments listed above would resolve the land use consistency impacts to less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Residual Impacts
The residual impact would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard is not expected to conflict with local habitat conservation plans, or natural community conservation plans because no such plans are applicable to the Proposed Project. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be from one existing previously developed area to another previously developed area. Based on these considerations, no significant adverse impacts to established residential or natural communities are expected. Specific impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 4.3.
Incompatible in scale or use characteristics with any adjacent land uses.
There are no industrial land uses adjacent to the proposed location for the new City Maintenance Yard with most of the surrounding area in residential land use. Work activities associated with the City Maintenance Yard has the potential to generate noise and other impacts associated with maintenance work conducted outdoors. However, similar work is currently conducted at both the City Fire and Police Stations. Impacts to adjacent land uses from the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are not expected to be significant,
Proposed Project Offsite Parking Locations
The Proposed Project offsite parking location, the Cypress Parking Lot, and the adjacent properties are zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1). The use of the Cypress Parking Lot site for temporary or permanent parking is consistent with the current land use which includes parking, existing land use plans, policies, and land use maps. Therefore, use of the site for offsite parking for the Proposed Project would not result conflicts with any of the significance criteria for land use impacts.
4.10-20
4.10.4.2 Recreation Proposed Project and Pipelines Pre-emption of a recreational use during a peak season.
The Proposed Project and associated Pipelines would not be built on or through any recreational facilities and as discussed in Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation, potential impacts to traffic access to recreational areas would be mitigated to less than significant. Potential impacts to parking would be mitigated through the amendment of the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program, thus, impacts to parking for recreational activities is not expected to be significant. Therefore, no significant impact to peak season recreational use is expected from the Proposed Project or construction and installation of the Project Pipelines.
Conflict with planning efforts to protect the recreational resources of the Project Area.
The Proposed Project and associated Pipelines do not conflict with any planning efforts to protect recreational resources in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Degradation of a recreation area or prolonged interruption of use.
Impact # Impact Description Accidental oil release and potential cleanup from operation of the oil Pipeline would conflict with current and projected recreational users. Phase Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
LUPR.4
Phase 4
Several recreational uses are within the area that would be impacted by a potential oil spill and spread of oil from the Proposed Project oil Pipeline. Potential oil spills within the facility (see Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards), would not be significant as the site is proposed to be bermed and potential spills would be contained within secondary containment. A potential oil spill from the oil Pipeline along Valley Drive or at the intersection of Valley Drive and Herondo Street could drain directly into storm drains during a rain event that flow to the ocean. Even without rains, the capacity of the storm drains is such that a spill could still reach the ocean, depending on the arrangement of sand at the mouth of the ocean discharge. With a substantial rain event and a spill, oil would have the potential to reach the beach and ocean. A spill along the coastline could affect beach areas, leading to beach closures and boating restrictions at the locations during and potentially after cleanup. In addition, it could affect the public perception of the recreational quality of the beaches and cause a reduction in the recreational activities at the beaches for a substantial period of time. An oil spill along Valley Drive also has the potential to reach the Greenbelt recreational area. Impacts from an oil spill would be significant and unavoidable, Class I.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures described in Sections 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards; 4.8, Hydrology and Water Resources. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.
4.10-21
Residual Impacts
Implementing these mitigation measures would substantially reduce both the volume of a potential oil spill and the resulting impact to recreational areas and the environment. Installation of a check valve at the intersection of Valley Drive and Herondo Street can reduce the volume of a potential spill by 50%. Spill containment resources along with the spill control measures outlined in the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan can significantly reduce the amount of oil from a spill from reaching sensitive recreational and environmental resources. However, due to the close proximity of the beach and greenbelt recreational areas, impacts from an oil spill have the potential to remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Creation of a nuisance to recreation area users.
Impact # LUPR.5 Impact Description Potential noise, odors, and visual impacts generated from the Proposed Project could create a nuisance to recreational area users. Project Phase Phases 1,2,3 and 4 Residual Impact Class III Less Than Significant
Construction, drilling and new operations would generate additional noise in the vicinity of the Project Site and the new City Maintenance Yard. Noise impacts are evaluated in Section 4.11. Construction noise would be less than significant as it is short term and would only affect daytime hours. For the recreational users, however, elevated noises from construction machinery could be annoying and could disrupt their normal recreational activities. However, none of the recreational areas in the vicinity of the Proposed Project would be affected by higher than 70 dBA daytime noise levels which are specified as acceptable noise levels in recreational areas such as the Veterans Parkway Greenbelt. Construction, drilling and new operations would have the potential to create odors which could create a nuisance to recreational users. Impacts from odors are presented in Section 4.2 along with measures to reduce odor and air emission impacts. The drilling rig and other equipment may also constitute a visual impact to recreational users because the industrial nature and size of the equipment would be a significant change from the existing Project Site use as the City Maintenance Yard. Aesthetics and visual resources are evaluated in Section 4.1 The Proposed Project may create noise, odor, and visual impacts nuisances to recreational users, especially users of the Veterans Parkway Greenbelt as they pass by the Project Site. However, the impacts of passing by the Project Site while using the Greenbelt would be short term, temporary, and avoidable. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant (Class III).
None of the mitigation measures from other issue areas would have land use or recreation impacts. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation for land use is not required.
4.10-22
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Project would result in changes to the Citys General Plan, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Plan. However, the Project is the only oil drilling and production project currently under review by the City and no other such projects exist or are contemplated for the City. The proposed land use plan amendments are limited to the subject Project and would not allow for additional similar projects to be permitted without additional land use plan modifications. Other non-oil drilling and production projects in the City would continue to reflect existing adopted local plans and conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative effect on the land use plans and regulations of the City of Hermosa Beach.
4.10.7 Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis
The Proposed Projects consistency with the Elements of the General Plan is discussed in the following sections.
4.10.7.1 Hermosa Beach General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element
Objective 2.0: Protect the environment on residential streets by minimizing intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking in residential neighborhoods. Implementation Policy 2.1: Through vehicle traffic shall be reduced and diverted from residential neighborhoods by implementation of a neighborhood traffic control program which would include neighborhood participation and review. A neighborhood traffic control program would provide a mechanism for review of specific neighborhood traffic problems at the request of organized neighbor groups. Neighborhood area specific studies would respond to specific through neighborhood, speed or accident problems. Traffic control devices such as signs, signals, and pavement markings as well as traffic management devices such as medians and traffic diverters would be studied as potential solutions on a case by case basis. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project is subject to the conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 6 of the CUP contains conditions that limit truck deliveries, the number of truck trips, and site access ingress and egress. In addition, the Proposed Project Description includes specific routing detail for Project truck traffic. Permit Condition 13, of Section 6 of the CUP, allows for the City Council to restrict the use of certain streets, alleys, or roadways. Thus the permit conditions of the CUP would protect residential neighborhoods by preventing Project related traffic and parking. These conditions and requirements constitute a traffic control program; therefore, the Project is consistent with Implementation Policy 2.1 Objective 3.0: Ensure an adequate supply of parking, both on-street and off-street, to meet the needs of both residents and commercial businesses. Implementation Policy 3.6: Require all new development to accommodate Project generated parking consistent with encouraging alternate transportation demand management programs.
4.10-23
Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project is subject to the conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 2 of the CUP requires that Project related vehicles use onsite parking and be consistent with a parking plan. The Proposed Project would remove 15 existing parking spaces; these spaces are located at the existing City Maintenance Yard (Project Site) and available for use by City Maintenance Yard employees from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and by the public at other times without charge. These spaces are a portion of the Citys inventory under the Citys Coastal Preferential Parking Program. The Project would also remove two on-street parking space due to the modifications to the intersection of 6th Street/Valley Drive needed to provide the necessary turning radius for Project-related trucks. The Applicants Proposed Project description includes onsite and offsite parking to be consistent with the parking requirements of the CUP. Offsite parking is proposed for 636 Cypress Avenue, adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Site. The property, to be known as the Cypress Parking Lot, would provide parking for the Proposed Project except during certain phases where additional parking demands are expected. The additional parking locations for the high demand phases of the Proposed Project have not been determined, however, the locations would be required to be approved by the City. In addition, for parking locations not nearby the Project Site, not yet identified, employees would walk or van pool to the Project location consistent with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements of City Municipal Code 17.48. The Project proposes that the 17 replacement parking places lost at the Project Site be located at the new City Maintenance Yard location, or if no added parking is constructed there or an agreement is not reached with the City to allow this replacement parking to be located there (the City has not made any determination in regards to this issue), the 17 replacement spaces would be located at the Cypress Parking Lot. The relocation of the new City Maintenance Yard would include construction of a temporary facility, and then if the Applicant proceeds to Phase 3 a permanent facility would be constructed, to serve the basic maintenance functions or to both serve basic maintenance functions and supply added parking. Both of the permanent facility options would provide adequate space for existing onsite parking needs and those of the relocated City Maintenance Yard. However, the temporary City Maintenance Yard would require relocating some existing parking spaces offsite for the duration of the temporary facility. The City has identified several locations to serve city employee, city vehicle and public coastal parking requirements as identified in Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. However, there would be a shortfall of 18 spaces needed for employee parking from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The City proposes to seek locations where this need can be met, but in the event that spaces cannot be identified, a maximum of 18 employees would utilize spaces at the Community Center which are otherwise part of the Citys remote free coastal public parking under the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit. Section 2.0, Project Description, provides the detail on the parking options for the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. The inconsistency with the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit is mitigated because the demand is temporary and limited to weekdays (excluding Fridays) only, and as indicated the City will seek alternatives that would reduce or eliminate this inconsistency. The Proposed Project would also institute transportation demand management practices if necessary; therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with Implementation Policy 3.6.
4.10-24
Objective 4.0: Develop and construct transportation improvements to provide the capacity and performance necessary to meet the service needs of the public while preserving open space and the special environmental quality of the City. Implementation Policy 4.0: Maintain a service level of (LOS) C or better during peak hours at signalized intersections whenever possible. Consistency Analysis: As discussed above regarding Implementation Policy 2.1, the Proposed Project compliance with the CUP vehicle requirements and the specific Project traffic routing detail in the Project Description constitute a traffic control program and minimize Project related traffic during peak hours. Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, did not identify any impacts from either the Proposed Project or the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard that would result in a degradation of service levels below LOS C. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Implementation Policy 4.0. Implementation Policy 4.4: All new development shall be required to provide reasonable mitigation measure for traffic impacts identified by the City. Consistency Analysis: As discussed above for Implementation Policies 2.1 and 4.0, the Proposed Project compliance with the CUP vehicle requirements and the specific Project traffic routing detail in the Project Description constitute a traffic control program. In addition, Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, provides mitigation measures for Project related traffic impacts for both the Proposed Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. Therefore, the Proposed Project and City Maintenance Yard relocation are consistent with Implementation Policy 4.4. Implementation Policy 4.8: Maintain paved surfaces on all public roadways throughout the City to a level which will assure safe and efficient traffic flow. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project is subject to the conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 6, Condition 11, of the CUP requires an evaluation of the structural condition of the existing pavement on all access streets and proposed truck routes prior to commencement of the Proposed Project. The permit condition further requires that the road evaluation contain recommendations to maintain the roads in their current condition throughout all phases of the Project. CUP Condition 12 requires the Project applicant to provide the street profiles, drawings and engineering of the recommendations to the City Public Works Department. Therefore, the requirements of the CUP will maintain the paved surface of the public roadways and demonstrate consistency with Implementation Policy 4.8.
Conservation Element
Policy 2: Drilling or mining of any natural resources directly on the beach or by off-shore platform in the ocean is to be prohibited. Oil and gas drilling may be done by means of slant drilling from an on-shore drill site, except for the beach area, into the tidelands if it has been or is approved by a vote of the people. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project drilling site is located on an on-shore location and will utilize slant drilling technology from that single site to reach offsite tideland locations. The
4.10-25
Proposed Project is subject to a vote of the people as required by the Settlement Agreement and will maintain consistency with Oil and Gas Lease No. 2, and therefore consistent with Policy 2 of the Conservation Element. Policy 14: Encourage programs to improve the quality of storm water runoff. Minimize the effects of water runoff. Consistency Analysis: The Applicants Project Description includes perimeter walls designed to contain a 100-year rain event and systems to contain, pump, and process all rain water into the proposed facility re-injection wells. Section 12, Conditions 6 and 7 of the CUP stipulates that no water from the site be allowed to enter the storm drain system, or be allowed to surface flow across the public beach. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not represent a significant change to the water runoff quality at the new City Maintenance Yard site because of the existing overall drainage of the site would not be significantly altered. Therefore, as discussed in Section 4.14, Water Resources, the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are consistent with the storm water objectives of Policy 14 of the Conservation Element. Policy 14, Program 2: Require as much planting as feasible for new construction on major remodels. This should be required as part of the review process for new development. Consistency Analysis: While the Proposed Project is not a major remodel project, it does include both temporary and permanent landscaping for the Project Site and permanent landscaping in the parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue. Section 9, Condition 1 of the CUP requires the submittal, review and approval of detailed landscaping plans for each phase of the Proposed Project. Conditions 2 through 7 of Section 9 of the CUP include specific requirements for plant type, sprinklers, and that the landscaping be maintained in a neat and clean condition. Final landscaping designs for the two options for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard have not been determined, however, approval of either option by the City would include landscaping consistent with the Conservation Element policies. The Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are consistent with the landscaping goals of Conservation Element Policy 14, Program 2. Policy 15: Prevent salt water intrusion by injection of water underground to create a barrier. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project includes injection wells to return water removed from the geologic formation from drilling operations and any rain water collected onsite back underground to the formation. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the prevention of salt water intrusion goal of Policy 15.
Open Space Element
Policy 16: To obtain and preserve open spaces within City limits of Hermosa Beach sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of future residents. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project includes several actions involving parcels with the Open Space designation on the Citys General Plan. The relocation of the City Maintenance
4.10-26
Yard for a temporary or permanent facility would include a General Plan amendment to change the Land Use Map designation on a portion of the site to Open Space. The location for a permanent facility at 552 11th Place a commercial self -storage facility and parking area and the location for the temporary facility at 1315 Valley Drive provides parking and facilities in conjunction with the administrative functions of the Civic Center. This action would make the Citys General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and zoning map consistent with each other, as well as achieving consistency on the Civic Center properties as a whole. The Citys General Plan lacks a land use designation that is descriptive of the civic center use and instead designates the entire site Open Space. Therefore, while the proposal would increase the amount of Open Space in the City consistent with Open Space Policy 16, the change is immaterial because the sites do not provide open spaces and there is are no plans, policies or programs indicating a future change to open space uses. Policy 22: To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same for pedestrian walkways, malls, and plazas. Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project includes both temporary and permanent landscaping for the Project Site including along the outside of the facility walls along the street scape. Section 9, Condition 1 of the CUP requires the submittal, review and approval of detailed landscaping plans for each phase of the Proposed Project. Conditions 2 through 7 of Section 9 of the CUP include specific requirements for plant type, sprinklers, and that the landscaping be maintained in a neat and clean condition. Therefore, the landscaping component of the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are consistent with the street scape beautification goals of the Opens Space Element Policy 22.
Comprehensive Park and Master Plan
The Comprehensive Park and Master Plan is part of the Citys General Plan and details existing and potential park facilities for 23 sites in the City of Hermosa Beach. Consistency Analysis: The Project Sites at 555 6th Street Place and 636 Cypress Avenue, and 552 11th Place/1315 Valley Drive, and the Pipeline routes, are not designated as existing or potential park facility locations. Should the Added Parking Option be built with the new parking structure at the location of the new City Maintenance Yard Facility location, the it may provide the opportunity for additional public parking adjacent to the open space recreation area known as the greenbelt as well as within walking distance to Clark Stadium, the Community Center and the beach, as well as South Park and Valley School. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Park and Master Plan for Hermosa Beach. The Comprehensive Park and Master Plan details existing and potential park facilities for 23 sites in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Land Use Element
The City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Element is divided into two Volumes. Volume I includes the following general goals, objectives, and policies: Goal 1: Protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of Hermosa Beach.
Goal 2: Accommodate existing and future commercial land uses to provide service to both local residents and regional shoppers. Goal 3: Encourage land uses which enhance and promote the Citys coastal environment. Goal 4: Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure to adequately serve the needs of residents and permitted land uses. Goal 5: Provide community resource facilities which will adequately support the needs of local residents and businesses. Goal 6: Maintain existing land use standards and controls for the commercial and industrial districts. Volume I also includes standards for building/population densities, land use definitions and designation revisions, parking, open space designations, property maintenance, design review, and historic preservation. Section III of Volume I is dedicated to commercial space issues and the downtown corridor. Volume II expands the discussion of the subjects outlined in Volume I with chapters on current land use, zoning and general plan map inconsistencies, building intensity/population density, land use zoning definitions and designation revisions, parking, open space designations, public rights of way, property maintenance, design review, historic preservation, and alternatives for commercial use of the downtown corridor. Consistency Analysis: As currently written, components of the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard conflict with existing City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Municipal Code, Land Use Map and Local Coastal Plan map. These conflicts, and the proposed plan and code amendments to resolve the conflicts, are discussed above in Section 4.10.4.1. The amendments, if approved, would make the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the applicable sections of the Land Use Element. As addressed in the discussion for the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element, the parking structure facility at the new permanent City Maintenance Yard with added parking option has the potential to increase the available parking in the City. A potential increase in public parking is consistent with Goal 2 of the Land Use Element which suggests accommodating commercial land uses to provide service to both local residents and regional shoppers. While a parking structure would not provide more commercial land uses, it could potentially provide additional parking for resident and visitors. An oil drilling and production facility may be inconsistent with Land Use Element Goal 1, to protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of Hermosa Beach. No oil drilling and production project(s) currently exists in the City. While some other small California beach communities have oil drilling and/or production facilities, Hermosa Beach does not. Further, most coastal California oil and gas facilities are located on the outskirts of towns as opposed to the center of a town such as the Proposed Project. Industrial land uses and especially heavier industrial uses are not typically associated with the perception of a small town beach community atmosphere. The Proposed Project may also conflict with Goal 3, to encourage land
uses which enhance and promote the Citys Coastal environment. Again, although the coast of California is linked with oil drilling and development, the City of Hermosa Beach is exceptionally dense and of limited geographic area and is not currently associated with this type of industrial development. The potential conflicts noted above with the goals of the Citys Land Use Element may be considered a significant impact. However, the Proposed Project is subject to a vote of the people of Hermosa Beach. As such, the people of Hermosa Beach have a direct means to make the determination as to whether the Proposed Project is consistent with Goals 1 and 3 of the Land Use element. Therefore, if the Project is approved, the Project will have been deemed consistent with the goals of the Land Use Element by the people of Hermosa Beach.
Economic Element
The Citys Economic Element focuses on how basic service area needs can be met, promoting pedestrian mobility as a way to enhance the City, and enhancing the downtown. The Economic Element proposes that the highest and best use of land can mesh with the achievement of economic revitalization. The Economic Elements lists the following applicable policies: To promote and encourage greater flexibility in the development of land within commercial zones without creation an imposition upon existing or planned use in and around the subject. To maintain prevailing scale and mix of development. These in turn create a downtown environment that encourages interaction between people and that environment by fostering pedestrian mobility as well as the diminished use of vehicle in the commercial zones of the city. To promote the expansion of parking facilities by means of a cooperative effort with those interested in the commercial sector. To augment the service capabilities of public transportation, and thus help to decrease reliance on the automobile. To expand opportunities for non-motorized movement by the continued promotion of and expansion of a city bikeway network. To enforce zoning and building codes which help ensure desirable new and /or revitalized commercial entities. To modify building and zoning codes to reflect the newest methods of construction and onsite planning in order to lower commercial structure costs while not sacrificing considerations of health, safety, public welfare and aesthetics.
Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project includes the construction of modifications to the intersection of 6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for Project-related trucks. These modifications include undergrounding of utilities along Valley Drive, redesign of the sidewalk at the intersection, and relocation of the stop sign and striping on Valley Drive. These modifications have the potential to improve traffic flow for commercial vehicle movement through the City. The Economic Element promotes the expansion of parking facilities and the Project Site is used after normal business hours and on weekends by the public for parking with 15 spaces available.
4.10-29
Those parking spaces which are part of the Citys coastal Preferential Parking Program, as well as two on-street spaces, would be lost with the implementation of the Proposed Project. The Project proposes that these 17 parking places be located at the new City Maintenance Yard location with added parking, or if no added parking is constructed there, the 17 replacement spaces would be located at the Cypress Parking Lot location near the current parking location (existing City Maintenance Yard); the City has not made any determination in regards to whether such parking would be accommodated at the relocated City Maintenance Yard. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard proposal contains two options for either a temporary or permanent approach. The temporary City Maintenance Yard would require relocating some parking spaces for the duration of the temporary facility. The City has identified several locations that would serve city employee, city vehicle and public coastal parking requirements as identified in Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. There would be a shortfall of 18 spaces needed for employee parking from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The City proposes to seek locations where this need can be met, but in the event that spaces cannot be identified, a maximum of 18 employees would utilize spaces at the Community Center which are otherwise part of the Citys remote free coastal public parking under the Citys Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit requirements. Since there is often excess parking at the Community Center during city employee work hours, and demand is more typically associated with recreation users of the community center, the potential temporary loss of parking should not affect economic activity in the city. Therefore, the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are consistent with the Economic Element regarding parking. The Proposed Project does not provide for significant improvement in pedestrian mobility, expansion of the Citys bike path network, or public transportation. While undergrounding utilities along a portion of Valley Drive may reduce impediments on sidewalks, this benefit is relatively minor. Due to the scale of the drill rig, the industrial nature of oil and gas operations, and additional truck traffic, the Proposed Project may have a detrimental effect on the existing mixed land uses in the Project area. As discussed in detail in Section 1.0, Introduction, the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Project have significant financial implications for the City of Hermosa Beach. If approved by the voters, the Proposed Project is projected to increase revenues to the City in relationship to resource recovery volumes, timing, commodity prices, and other factors, over the production phase of the project. The Proposed Project would be subject to a ballot measure for approval and thus the voters of the City would determine whether the project moves forward or not. If the voters reject the ballot measure, the City would owe the Applicant $17.5 million. If the voters approve the ballot measure and the Applicant secures all the necessary permits to drill, the city would owe the company $3.5 million paid from royalties. The Hermosa Beach City School District would also collect royalties from the Project. There would be restriction on how the royalties not required to retire the Citys debt to the Applicant could be spent, with a portion of the Citys royalties restricted to the tidelands. In addition, Municipal Code Section 5.56.020, states that disposition of city funds derived from hydrocarbon recovery be restricted to expenditures to a park and recreational facilities fund; however, the ballot measure will propose to eliminate this restriction. It is noted that there will still be restrictions on the use of funds derived from oil recovery within the tidelands, but potential increased revenues to the City, in excess of legal obligations, may be available for a wide variety of purposes, some of which may
4.10-30
have direct or indirect benefits to economic development consistent with the Economic Element objectives. The Proposed Project does not provide for significant improvement in pedestrian mobility, expansion of the Citys bike path network, or public transportation. Due to the scale of the drill rig, the industrial nature of oil and gas operations, and additional truck traffic, the Proposed Project may have a detrimental effect on the existing mixed land uses in the Project area. However, the financial implications and improvement that would result from the Proposed Project could be substantial. Therefore, the Project can be considered consistent with the main goals of the Economic Element. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not result in any inconsistencies with the Economic Element because there would not be a significant change from the existing City Maintenance Yard activities and the conversion of commercially zoned land to Open Space involves small parcels currently owned by the City and used for City or public functions.
Noise Element
Policy 3: Establish acceptable noise standards, consistent with health and quality of life goals and employ effective techniques of noise abatement through such means as building code, noise, subdivision and zoning ordinances. Consistency Analysis: The City has adopted noise standards applicable to the Proposed Project in both the General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code. The Noise Element sets maximum ambient noise levels for various land use zones along with maximum traffic noise level increase limits for residential and commercial land use designations. The Citys Municipal Code Chapter 8.24 provides qualitative noise regulations, stating that no person shall make, permit to be made or cause to suffer any noises, sounds or vibrations that in view of the totality of the circumstances are so loud, prolonged and harsh as to be physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and to cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity and provides restrictions on the allowable timing of noisy activities, particular relating to noise from construction activities. In addition, the Oil Code (established by Ordinance No. 85-803, Municipal Code Chapter 21A) defines noise level standards for oil drilling and redrilling operations. Thus, the City has established a series of standards applicable to all components of the Proposed Project to protect the health and life quality goals for noise. Baseline noise monitoring was conducted for the Proposed Project for the three main Project areas: E&Bs Project Site, the truck and Pipeline routes, and the City Maintenance Yard Project Site (relocation site). The baseline monitoring established baseline noise values, modeled Proposed Project noise impacts and determined compliance with the Citys noise regulations. Further, the Proposed Project is subject to the conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 8 of the CUP sets forth requirements for noise and vibration including the stipulation that the Proposed Project must meet the noise limits set forth in the Citys Oil Ordinance. The CUP also identifies requirements for sound attenuation walls, noise from equipment, operational limitations, and noise monitoring. The ballot measure will also include an amendment to the Oil Code to modify the definition of grade to ensure that proposed mitigation to attenuate sound will be effective. Therefore, the Proposed Project is expected to be consistent with Policy 3 of the Noise Element.
4.10-31
Policy 4: Reduce the present and future impact of excessive noise from transportation sources through the judicious use of technology, planning, and regulatory measures. Consistency Analysis: As noted above, the Proposed Project is subject to the conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 8, Condition 8 of the CUP requires that all oil maintenance equipment, vehicles, and non-electric motors be equipped with manufacturer approved mufflers or housed in a sound proofing device. Section 6 of the CUP contains schedule limitations for truck deliveries and other vehicle traffic including time of day restrictions and number of allowable truck trips per day. The requirements of the CUP represent technology, planning, and regulatory measures for noise abatement. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with Noise Element Policy 4. Policy 5: Establish noise criteria in the specifications for vehicles and their components. Consistency Analysis: As discussed above for Noise Element Policies 3 and 4, the noise provisions of the Noise Element, the Municipal Code, the Oil Code, and the 1993 Conditional Use Permit represent noise criteria for vehicles and their components applicable to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy 5.
Safety Element
The Citys Safety Element identifies areas of risk and provides the safety objectives for fire and railroad crossings. The safety objectives for fire are as follows: 1. To maximize the level of fire prevention and to minimize the potential hazards to life and property in the City of Hermosa Beach. 2. To minimize the response time to fire and rescue emergencies. 3. To identify fire hazards and develop appropriate code requirements and inspections to mitigate this hazard. Consistency Analysis: The conditions and requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the provisions of the Citys Oil Code both contain requirements to minimize risk from fire. Section 4 of the CUP lists 9 conditions including that adequate fire detection and firefighting equipment be maintained onsite at all times. CUP Section 4, Condition 2 requires an analysis by a professional consultant to determine any necessary improvements to the Citys Fire Department and a public notification, warning and evacuation plan. CUP Section 4, Condition 6 requires that the facility have an automatic fire detection sensor and suppression system including a tank cooling sprinkler system. The CUP also contains other requirements for fire prevention including that fire water flows to service the Proposed Project operation meet the Citys Fire Department requirements. Article 9 of the Citys Oil Code lists requirements for electrical equipment, internal combustion equipment, storage tanks, and flammable waste and vapors. The Proposed Project would also be subject to the requirements of the Citys Municipal Code including Chapters 2.56 Emergency Services, 8.16 Hazardous Materials, and 15.20 the Fire Prevention Code. Operation of oil and gas Pipelines is subject to the requirements of the State Fire Marshal and the Department of Transportation. The stipulations of the CUP, the Oil Code, the Municipal Code, and State and Federal requirements all represent requirements to minimize the risk of fire and make the Proposed
4.10-32
Project safer. However, Fire Safety Objective 1 of the Citys Safety Element is to maximize the level of fire prevention and minimize potential hazards to life and property in the City of Hermosa Beach. In addition, Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards, identified a significant risk to safety from drilling operations. The Proposed Project represents a new potential hazard to the City and thus is potentially inconsistent with the Fire Safety Objective 1 of the Safety Element. Section 4.8 did not identify a significant risk from the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard; therefore, the City Maintenance Yard relocation would be consistent with the Safety Element.
Seismic Element
The City of Hermosa Beach Seismic Element contains information on active or potentially active faults, data on the earthquake readiness of the Citys residential development, emergency communication objectives, and identifies certain problem areas with issues that have the potential for significant problems from seismic activity. The problem areas listed are existing private structures, dated land use and development code regulations, essential structures and services, public education, a disaster preparedness plan, and seismic safety research. For each of these subject areas, the Seismic Element provides recommendations to improve the Citys infrastructure and preparedness for a seismic event. Consistency Analysis: The stipulations of the Seismic Element relevant to the Proposed Project are the recommendations for the dated land use and development codes. Recommendation 3 requires consideration of seismic factors in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for new construction. Recommendation 4 requires a geologic and soils report for all proposed structures in areas of high seismic risk. Section 4.7, Geological Resources/Soils, of this EIR includes analysis on the geology, faults, seismicity, soils, and earthquake risk of the Proposed Project area. Section 3, Condition 10, of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requires an engineering/engineering geotechnical report. The report is required to include information on seismic hazards and liquefaction due to soils or geologic conditions. Therefore, the seismic analysis in this EIR and compliance with the conditions of the CUP demonstrate the Proposed Project is consistent with the relevant sections of the Seismic Element.
Utilities Element
The City of Hermosa Beach Utilities Element identifies overhead utility poles and wires as a significant source of urban blight and potential hazard during a natural disaster. The Utility Element further recommends a comprehensive review of overhead utilities with the goal of undergrounding the Cities utilities. The Element provides the following goals/objectives/policies applicable to the Proposed Project: 1. The City shall systematically develop and systematically follow a schedule of undergrounding of utility service, and with the aid of underground districts, which are to be created in concert with the schedule, the undergrounding of private service connections is to be accomplished within reasonable time periods. 2. All trenching for undergrounding shall be designed to accommodate television cable as well as power lines and telephone. 3. All new commercial, industrial, or residential construction and remodels of more than $15,000 shall underground utilities to the nearest available power source.
4.10-33
Consistency Analysis: The Proposed Project Description includes undergrounding of utilities along Valley Drive and to the Project Site. Relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not affect the Cities schedule for undergrounding of utilities. Therefore, the Project and City Maintenance Yard relocation are consistent with the goals of the Utility Element.
4.10.7.2 City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 17 of the Citys Municipal Code provides the zoning and development standards for various land uses. Chapter 17.28 addresses the M-1 Light Manufacturing Zone. The M-1 Zone contains standards and limitations for parking, enclosures, signs, building height, setbacks, and landscaping. The M-1 Zone contains a list of permitted uses and permitting requirements for those permitted uses; due to the prohibition on oil drilling in Chapter 5.56, oil and gas development is not currently allowed in the M-1 zone. The ballot measure would ask the voters whether to lift the ban in Chapter 5.56 on oil and gas development, in which case E&Bs Proposed Project could proceed in the M-1 zone in accordance with the approved 1993 CUP and other requirements. The Zoning Code also requires a precise development plan for developments exceeding 1500 square feet. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement the voters of the City of Hermosa Beach will determine whether the Proposed Project may proceed and therefore the ballot will include an amendment to eliminate the requirement for a subsequent precise development plan for the Proposed Oil Project. As indicated above the proposed relocated City Maintenance Yard site is zoned M-1, O-S Open Space and C-2 Restricted Commercial. It is proposed that the entire Civic Center properties would be rezoned to O-S. A planned development permit approved by the City would be required in order to allow reduced setbacks (10 feet required) and lot coverage exceeding 10% as indicated in Chapter 17.30. The planned development permit allows the City to consider on a case by case basis projects that do not fully comply with all standards of the O-S zone. Therefore, if the voters approve the ballot measure to allow the Proposed Oil Project to proceed, then the City would undertake the planned development permit process prior to applying to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit to allow the City Maintenance Yard to be constructed. Consistency Analysis: As currently written, components of the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard conflict with existing City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Municipal Code and Coastal Land Use Plan map. These conflicts, and the proposed plan and code amendments, as well as the planned development permit process, to resolve the conflicts, are discussed above in Section 4.10.4.1. The amendments, if approved, would make the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the applicable sections of the Municipal Code.
City of Hermosa Beach Oil Production Code
As discussed in Section 1.0 of this EIR, a citywide oil and gas drilling prohibition was passed in 1932 for Hermosa Beach. In 1984, Ballot Measures P and Q were passed by the voters in the City, granting exceptions to the drilling ban that authorized oil development on two City-owned parcels, the City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street and the South School site. Subsequently in 1985, the City adopted the Oil Code within the Municipal Code that required a well permit for
4.10-34
the drilling, redrilling and production of petroleum and established terms and conditions governing this activity within the City. In November 1995 Ballot Measure E passed and reestablished the ban on oil and gas development in the City thereby disallowing petroleum development. The Oil Code, Ordinance 85-803, Chapter 5.56 of the City Municipal Code contains 11 articles governing drilling, redrilling and production of petroleum in Hermosa Beach. The sections of the code address general requirements, permits, well location, derricks and blow-out prevention, development standards, noise, abandoned and idle wells, storage, fire prevention, enforcement and review procedures, and permit revocation procedures, consistent with the Uniform Fire Code, the Citys Municipal Code, and other land uses in the City. Section 21A-2.10(E) of the code specifically prohibits processing operations, and because some processing is proposed by the Applicant, the ballot measure includes an amendment to the Oil Code to allow limited processing. In addition, the definition of grade in Section 21A-2.9(C)which affects the calculation of heightapplies to most elements within the perimeter wall of a site but does not apply to the perimeter wall itself. Under the current definition, the height of a retaining wall to hold fill to establish finished grade is counted as part of the total height. This means that the height of a wall constructed on a retaining wall would be at a lower elevation from finished grade than that portion of the perimeter wall not constructed in a retaining wall. This condition would reduce the effectiveness of some proposed mitigation. Therefore, the definition is proposed to be amended. Consistency Analysis: A component of the Proposed Oil Project is to amend Municipal Code Chapter 5.56 to lift the ban on oil drilling and allow oil drilling in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone as a conditional use at the Project Site located at 555 6th Street. In this case, the Oil Code would also be effective and apply to the Project. It is also proposed that the Oil Code be amended to also allow for processing of oil and gas, as well as to modify the definition of grade. Therefore, should the people of the City of Hermosa Beach vote to approve the Proposed Project and allow oil drilling and processing, the Proposed Project would not be in direct conflict with the Oil Code, the Project would be subject to the regulations stipulated by the code, and the code would not inhibit the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures in this EIR.
4.10.7.3 City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan
The City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (titled the Local Coastal Plan) was certified in 1982 by the Coastal Commission. The Project Site at 555 6th Street, which was utilized as the Citys Maintenance Yard, was designated Open Space on the Land Use Map, while the surrounding area was designated Industrial. It is noted that the Coastal Land Use Map generally designated lands owned by the City as Open Space-Government and therefore the designation of the City Maintenance Yard as Open Space-Government is consistent in that regard. The 1982 Coastal Land Use Plan did not include any provisions for oil drilling or development. In 1997, the City submitted a draft Coastal Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission with an industrial land use designation for the Project Site but the land use plan amendment was not approved or certified. Thus the Proposed Project is inconsistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan as currently certified by the Coastal Commission.
4.10-35
Consistency Analysis: Approval of the voters and subsequently by the Coastal Commission to amend the Coastal Land Use Plan map and re-designate the Project Site at 555 6th Street and add policies to regulate oil and gas development will achieve consistency. Amending the Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies to regulate oil and gas and thus allow for oil development would make E&Bs Proposed Project consistent with the amended Coastal Land Use Plan. A portion of the City Maintenance Yard relocation site is designated Residential-Medium Density and is proposed to be changed to Open Space-Government consistent with the remainder of the site. While relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not be part of the Proposed Oil Project ballot measure, should the voters approve the Proposed Oil Project and the City Maintenance Yard is relocated, amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan would be initiated by the City to resolve the inconsistencies. Through the Coastal Land Use Plan amendment process, the Coastal Commission will determine whether the Proposed Oil Project, and, separately the City Maintenance Yard relocation, have the potential for significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. If the Coastal Commission proposes suggested modifications to the Proposed Oil Project, the ballot measure (via the Development Agreement) will allow those changes to be incorporated into E&Bs Project without a subsequent vote of the people. Therefore, should the Coastal Commission approve the proposed amendments to the Citys Coastal Land Use Plan, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. E&Bs Proposed Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard will also require separate Coastal Development Permits (CDP) from the Coastal Commission in order to be constructed. The City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan is divided into four sections, Parking, Coastal Housing, Coastal Recreational Access, and Coastal Development and Design. Policies in Parking and Coastal Development and Design are applicable to the Project and discussed below.
Parking
The City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan (1981), a part of the Coastal Land Use Plan, addresses parking ( with the LUP Amendment 6 and 03-02) with the goals of 1) To provide adequate residential parking; 2) To maintain adequate parking space for both visitor and shoppers; 3) To provide easy access to work-related parking for merchants; 4) To maximize the safety .and accessibility of parking while minimizing noise, traffic congestion and negative visual impacts; 5) To provide an equitable distribution and allocation of parking resources; and 6) To recognize the unique parking needs of the pedestrian oriented downtown business area. Specific policies include:

The City should not allow the elimination of existing on-street parking or off-street parking spaces within the coastal zone; The City should control congestion through the granting of parking permits; The City has enacted a permit plan to control parking congestion; and
4.10-36
A separation of long-term (beach user) and short-term (shoppers) parking be created in the downtown area to provide adequate and flexible number of parking spaces for commercial demand. A number of programs have been implemented by the City of Hermosa Beach to address these policies. A future policy defined in the Plan is that "the City should investigate the possibility of lease or purchase of parking lots dispersed throughout the city so as to minimize the impact on the parking demand to the City and its residents". Consistency Analysis: The analysis of the Citys General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element provided above details the Parking Plan for the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. Both projects have options to account for and provide the parking spaces lost at the Proposed Project site and the City Maintenance Yard relocation site. Therefore, the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not result in the elimination of existing on or off street parking spaces within the coastal zone. In addition, for parking locations not yet identified, employees would walk or van pool to the Project location consistent with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements of City Municipal Code 17.48 which could lessen motorized vehicle use in the coastal zone. Therefore, the Proposed Project and the City Maintenance Yard relocation are consistent with the referenced Parking Policy.
Coastal Development and Design
Policies related to the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard in the Coastal Development and Design section and Appendix G are associated with the aesthetics and visual impacts and include goals and policies "To preserve and enhance coastal overviews and key view point areas (section VI.B.2)." Applicable policies include "that the City should restrict building height to protect overview and view-shed qualities and to preserve the City's' existing low-rise profile". Appendix J to the Coastal Land Use Plan includes a map designating a "Scenic Highways Plan" (dated 1972, and as Amendment 9 to the Hermosa Beach General Plan dated 2/25/75). The Scenic Highways Plan designates Valley Drive from Gould Avenue south to about 2nd Street as a Scenic Corridor. This would include the Proposed Oil Project Site and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site. Appendix G to the Coastal Land Use Plan also contains a Viewshed and landscape map, Figure XXII. Consistency Analysis: Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, provides an analysis of the structure height impacts of the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. The drill rig, work-over rig, and the perimeter wall of the Proposed Project would exceed existing zoning and building code height limitations and would require the amendments to the Citys zoning ordinance and land use plans discussed above in Section 4.10.4.1 above to be approved. Therefore, the Proposed Project is inconsistent with the Coastal Development and Design policy on building heights.
4.10-37
4.10.7.4 Coastal Act
Applicable policies of the Coastal Act are in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, beginning with Section 30200. Preliminary analysis of the projects consistency with each applicable Coastal Act policy is discussed below. Section 30232 - Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur. The Proposed Project has been designed to prevent spills from leaving the site. In addition, the Applicant has spill containment and has prepared a response plan for the Facility. This plan would have to be updated and approved by the City and other agencies prior to commencement of drilling. Equipment to be on site will include booms, sorbent pads, etc. A detailed list of spill equipment will be developed as part of the final spill response plan, and will be approved by the City prior to drilling. Therefore, the project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30232 of the Coastal Act. Section 30240 - (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas. The Proposed Project would be contained entirely within the proposed oil and facility. None of the project would be built within an ESHA. Therefore, the Project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act. Section 30244 - Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required. As discussed in the Cultural Resources analysis (Section 4.4), the Proposed Project is not expected to directly impact any known cultural sites. This section contains a set of mitigation measures to ensure that unidentified cultural sites that might be found during construction are not significantly impacted. However, construction of the new City Maintenance Yard has the potential to impact the City Hall complex which has been designated as a potentially significant historic resource. Therefore, the Proposed Project could potentially be found inconsistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act. Section 30250 - (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.
4.10-38
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas. The Proposed Oil Project has been granted a Conditional Use Permit to conduct an oil and gas project on the Project site if the voters agree to lift the ban. The Project Site is surrounded by developed areas in a highly urbanized environment. While the Proposed Oil Project site is designated Open Space in the Coastal Land Use Plan, the proposed Industrial designation is consistent with the proposed use. It is located within the Citys major industrially zoned area and is bound by M-1 zoning and industrial and commercial uses. The analysis in the Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards Section (Section 4.8) shows that with the implementation of mitigation measures that the safety impacts to residences would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30250(b) of the Coastal Act. Section 30251 - The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Equipment associated with the Proposed Project includes a drilling rig as well as other associated oil and gas processing equipment. The drill rig would not be completely screened from public views and would be visible in the area around the City of Hermosa Beach. The design of the Project, required conditions of approval from the original 1993 Conditional Use Permit and implementation of mitigation measures in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, reduce visual impacts, the Project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. However, as the impacts to visual resources are considered significant and unavoidable even with mitigation, the Project could be found inconsistent with this policy. Section 30253 - This provision states that new development shall: minimize risks to life and property; assure structural stability; be consistent with AQMD requirements; minimize energy consumption; and protect special communities and neighborhoods. The proposed location of the Project combined with the mitigation measures for Geology, Risk of Upset, and Air Quality would potentially allow the Proposed Project to be found consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. The relocation of the City Maintenance Yard does not constitute a significant change to risk and thus would be consistent with this policy. Section 30260 - Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
4.10-39
The Proposed Project location is not located within an existing coastal dependent industrial site. In addition, as discussed herein, the Proposed Project may be determined to be inconsistent with other sections of the Coastal Act. This Policy allows for the Coastal Commission to make the consistency determination after review of the Proposed Project location, analysis of the potential impact to the welfare of the public and the mitigation of adverse environmental effects. Section 30262 -Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260, if the following conditions are met: (a) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geologic conditions of the well site. (b) New or expanded facilities related to such development are consolidated, to the maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the number of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts. The mitigation measures for Risk of Upset (Section 4.8) and the DOGGR and California State Lands Commission requirements for constructing wells would ensure that the Project is conducted safely. Therefore, the Proposed Project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30262(a) of the Coastal Act. The Proposed Oil Project has been granted a Conditional Use Permit to conduct an oil and gas project on the Project site if the voters agree to lift the ban. The Project Site is surrounded by developed areas in a highly urbanized environment. While the Proposed Oil Project site is designated Open Space in the Coastal Land Use Plan, the proposed Industrial designation is consistent with the proposed use. It is located within the Citys major industrially zoned area and is bound by M-1 zoning and industrial and commercial uses. The analysis in the Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards Section (Section 4.8) shows that with the implementation of mitigation measures that the safety impacts to residences would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project could potentially be found consistent with Section 30250(b) of the Coastal Act.
4.10.7.5 Redondo Beach
The Proposed Pipeline routes for both oil and gas Pipelines would travel through the City of Redondo Beach with the gas Pipeline terminating in Redondo Beach and the oil Pipeline continuing through Redondo Beach to the City of Torrance. Consistency Analysis: Pipelines are a permitted use in all zone districts and subject to the requirements of Chapter 4, Pipeline Franchises, of Section 11, Public Utilities of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Redondo Beach General Plan and Municipal Code.
4.10-40
4.10.7.6 Torrance
The Proposed Project oil Pipeline is routed through the City of Torrance terminating at a valve box which would connect to an existing pipeline to a refinery located in Torrance. Consistency Analysis: Pipelines are a permitted use in all zone districts, thus the Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Torrance General Plan and Municipal Code.
No additional mitigation measures are identified as part of this section beyond those already contemplated in other sections of this document.
4.10-41
4.10-42
4.11 Noise and Vibration
This section addresses the potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed E&B Oil Development Project, including the development and ongoing operation of the oil drilling and production facility, the truck routes and construction of oil and gas pipelines that would extend out from Hermosa Beach into the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance and the relocation of the City Yard. It describes the existing noise and vibration environment, identifies significance criteria for noise and vibration impact, assesses the likely impacts of the Project in the context of those criteria and identifies feasible mitigation measures.
4.11.1 Environmental Setting 4.11.1.1 Characteristics of Noise
Sound is most commonly experienced by people as pressure waves passing through the air. These rapid fluctuations in air pressure are processed by the human auditory system to produce the sensation of sound. Noise is defined as unwanted sound that may be disturbing or annoying. The character of noise is defined by its loudness and its pitch and also by the way the noise varies with time.
Loudness and Sound Level
Human perception of loudness is logarithmic rather than linear: On the logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB in sound level represents a perceived doubling of loudness. Conversely, a decrease of 10 dB in sound level is perceived as being half as loud. For this reason, sound level is usually measured on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale, which is calculated from the ratio of the sound pressure to a reference pressure level. The reference pressure for sound in the air is 20 microPascals (Pa), which is represented as zero on the decibel scale. This value is used because it approximates the lowest pressure level detectable by a healthy human ear. Decibel noise levels from two or more sources add logarithmically and not in the more familiar arithmetic way. For example, two similar sources with a noise level of 50 dBA combine to produce a total noise level of 53 dBA; three similar sources with a noise level of 50 dBA would result in a total noise level of 55 dBA.
Pitch and Frequency
The rate at which sound pressure changes occur is called the frequency of the sound. Frequency is usually measured as the number of oscillations per second or Hertz (Hz). Frequencies that can be heard by a healthy human ear span the range from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Towards the lower end of this range are low-pitched sounds, including those that might be described as rumble or boom. Towards the higher end of the range are high-pitched sounds such as screech or hiss.
4.11-1
Pure Tones
Noise in which a single frequency stands out, is said to contain a pure tone. Sources that produce pure tones are often described as being tonal and tend to be more noticeable, and potentially more annoying, to humans than sources that do not contain pure tones. In assessing the subjective impact of tonal noise, it is common practice to take this increased annoyance into account by adding a 5 dBA penalty to the measured noise level.
A-Weighting, dBA
Humans are more sensitive to some sound frequencies than others. It is therefore common practice to apply an audio filter to measured sound levels, to approximate the response of the human ear. This filter is called the A-weighting filter, which emphasizes sounds between 500 and 5,000 Hz and attenuates the frequencies outside of that range. The resulting measure is the A-weighted decibel, or dBA, which is used almost universally in the assessment of noise impact on humans. Table 4.11.1 shows typical noise levels that might be found in both outdoor and indoor environments.
Table 4.11-1 Common Environmental Noise Levels Noise Level (dBA)
120 Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 110 Pile driver at 100 feet 100 Night club with live music 90 Large truck passby at 50 feet 80 Gas lawn mower at 50 feet 70 Commercial/Urban area daytime 60 Suburban daytime 50 Urban area nighttime 40 Suburban nighttime Quiet rural areas Wilderness area 30 20 Quiet recording studio 10 Threshold of human hearing 0 Threshold of human hearing Library Quiet bedroom at night Quiet office environment Active office environment Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Normal speech at 5 feet Noisy restaurant Rock concert
Outdoor Environment
Indoor Environment
4.11-2
Time-Varying Noise Descriptors
Some sources, such as air-conditioning equipment, produce continuous noise with a steady level that does not change with time. Other sources may be transient in nature, such as a train or aircraft passing-by. Between these two extremes are constant sources that vary gradually with time, such as distant freeway traffic, and intermittent sources that vary rapidly with time, such as traffic on a surface street. A location may receive noise contributions from a number of sources that fall into some or all of these categories, resulting in a complex time-varying noise environment. For this reason, meaningful measurement and analysis of environmental noise usually requires time-dependent noise descriptors. The equivalent sound level, or Leq , is a sound energy average, calculated over a stated time period. 1-hour, A-weighted Leq values are used commonly in environmental noise assessments. The Day-Night noise level, or Ldn, is an A-weighted sound energy average calculated over 24hours, with a 10 dBA weighting added to sound levels between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am to reflect the increased annoyance of noise at night. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, or CNEL, is similar to the Ldn, but with an additional 5 dBA weighting applied to sound levels during the evening hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Time-varying noise environments may also be expressed in terms of the noise level that is exceeded for certain percentages of the total measurement time. These statistical noise levels are denoted LN, where L is the noise level exceeded for N percent of the time. For example, the L50 is the noise level exceeded for 50 percent of the measurement time and the L25 is the noise level exceeded for 25 percent of the measurement time. For a one-hour measurement period, the L50 would be the noise level exceeded for a total of 30 minutes in that hour and the L25 would be the noise level exceeded for a total of 15 minutes. The maximum and minimum sound levels measured over a stated period are denoted by Lmax and Lmin respectively.
Sound Propagation
Noise levels produced by a source reduce with increased distance, depending on a number of factors discussed below:
Geometric Spreading
Sound from a single small source, which is referred to as a point source spreads outwards as a series of spherical waves. The sound level of a point source reduces at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. A busy highway does not behave as a simple point source; the movement of vehicles on a highway approximates a line source, in which the sound waves spread out in a cylindrical pattern. The sound level of a line source reduces at a rate of 3 dBA for each doubling of distance.
Ground Effects
The path between the noise source and the receptor is often very close to the ground. This introduces two additional mechanisms by which sound is attenuated as it radiates from the source, in addition to the geometric spreading losses described above.
4.11-3
First is ground absorption, due to imperfect reflection of the sound waves by the ground surface. The amount of absorption depends on the nature of the ground surface. For an acoustically hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, very little attenuation due to ground absorption will occur. On a site with acoustically soft ground surfaces, such as tilled soil, grass or scattered bushes and trees, there may be an appreciable amount of attenuation due to ground absorption. High frequency sounds are generally attenuated more than low frequencies by ground absorption. Second is the destructive interference between the direct sound wave and the sound wave reflected off the ground surface. This phenomenon, often called the ground effect is generally limited to the frequency range of 200 600 Hz.
Barriers and Shielding
A solid barrier placed between the source and the receptor can significantly reduce the noise level at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding the noise source in this way depends on the size and location of the barrier and the frequency content of the noise produced by the source. To be effective, a sound barrier must generally be at least large enough, in both height and width dimensions, to block sightlines between the noise source and the receptor. Barriers located very close to either the source or receptor, provide the most effective noise reduction. A wide barrier which is just high enough to block the line-of-sight to the noise source will reduce noise levels by approximately 5 dBA. A higher barrier will increase the amount of attenuation. A barrier is more effective at attenuating the high frequencies, since low frequencies can diffract more easily around the perimeter of the barrier. Permanent or temporary barriers may be purpose-built to attenuate noise transfer between source and receptor. Natural terrain, such as hills or berms, and man-made structures, such as buildings can also perform well as noise barriers, even though this is not their primary function.
Human Response to Noise
It is widely accepted that a change of 3 dBA is considered just noticeable to most people, while a change of 5 dBA is generally acknowledged to be the point at which most people would consider a significant increase or decrease in noise level to have occurred.
Noise Mitigation
Since industry-related noise can often impact sensitive receptors, many mitigation methods are available to reduce this type of noise including: walls, temporary and permanent acoustical barriers, engine exhaust silencers, acoustical equipment enclosures, sound-absorbing blankets and panels, and sound-dampening flooring and siding materials. The acoustical performance of materials and products designed to control noise, and therefore the criteria used to specify mitigation, is often described using one or more of the metrics summarized in Table 4.11-2:
4.11-4
Sound Power Level
The sound energy produced or radiated by a source (e.g., an engine, power tool, appliance etc.) may be expressed as the Sound Power Level, or Lw, which is expressed in decibels and varies with frequency. Overall Sound Power Level is often conveyed as an A-weighted value in dBA.
Table 4.11-2 Noise Control Metrics Abbreviation Description The ability of a material, product or assembly to reduce the amount of sound transmitted through it. TL varies with frequency, with high frequencies generally being attenuated more readily than low frequencies. A weighted average of TL values over the frequency range 125 Hz - 4,000 Hz. STC is widely used as a convenient single-number way of conveying the ability of a material or product to reduce sound passing through it. The net effect of introducing certain sound mitigation measures. IL varies with frequency, with high frequencies generally being attenuated more readily than low frequencies. The acoustical performance of exhaust silencers and noise barriers is often expressed in terms of their IL. The ability of a material or assembly to absorb sound incident upon it. Absorption coefficient varies with frequency and depending on factors such as the thickness, porosity and density of the materials involved. Acoustical panels and blankets designed to absorb sound are often made up of a soft acoustical core covered or wrapped in a protective layer of vinyl, woven fabric or perforated metal. A convenient single-number way of expressing sound absorption. NRC is the average of the Absorption Coefficient in the 250, 500, 2,000 and 4,000 Hz frequency bands.
Term
Transmission Loss
TL
Sound Transmission Class
STC
Insertion Loss
IL
Absorption Coefficient
Noise Reduction Coefficient
NRC
4.11.1.2 Characteristics of Vibration
Vibration is acoustic energy transmitted as pressure waves through a solid medium, such as soil or concrete. Like noise, the rate at which pressure changes occur is called the frequency of the vibration, measured in Hz. Vibration may be the form of a single pulse of acoustical energy, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillating motion.
Ground-Borne Vibration
The way that vibration is transmitted through the ground depends on the soil type, the presence of rock formations or man-made features and the topography between the vibration source and the receptor location. These factors vary considerably from site to site and make accurate
4.11-5
prediction of vibration levels at receptors distant from the source extremely difficult (often impossible) in practice. As a general rule, vibration waves tend to dissipate and reduce in magnitude with distance from the source. Also, the high frequency vibrations are generally attenuated rapidly as they travel through the ground, so that the vibration received at locations distant from the source tends to be dominated by low-frequency vibration. The frequencies of ground-borne vibration most perceptible to humans are in the range from less than 1 Hz to 100 Hz. When ground-borne vibration arrives at a building, there is usually an initial ground-tofoundation coupling loss. However, once the vibration energy is in the building structure it can be amplified by the resonance of the walls and floors. Occupants can perceive vibration as motion of the building elements (particularly floors) and also rattling of lightweight components, such as windows, shutters or items on shelves. Vibrating building surfaces can also radiate noise, typically heard as a low-frequency rumbling known as ground-borne noise. At very high levels, low-frequency vibration can cause damage to buildings.
Vibration Levels
Vibration may be defined in terms of the displacement, velocity or acceleration of the particles in the medium material. In environmental assessments, where human response is the primary concern, velocity is commonly used as the descriptor of vibration level, expressed in inches per second (in/s). The amplitude of vibration can be expressed in terms of the wave peaks or as an average, called the root mean square (rms). The rms level is generally used to assess the effect of vibration on humans. Vibration levels for typical sources of ground-borne vibration are shown in Table 4.11-3 below.
Table 4.11-3 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration Typical Velocity at 50-feet (in/s, rms) 0.1000 0.0447 0.0178 0.0100 0.0056 0.0040 0.0032 0.0020 0.0003
Source Blasting from construction projects Bulldozers and other heavy tracked construction equipment. Commuter rail, upper range Rapid transit rail, upper range Commuter rail, typical range Bus or truck over bump Rapid transit rail, typical range Bus or truck typical Background vibration
Human or Building Response Minor cosmetic damage to fragile buildings Workplace annoyance; difficulty with vibrationsensitive tasks.
Distinctly Perceptible Residential annoyance for infrequent events
Barely perceptible. Residential annoyance for frequent events Approximate threshold of perception None
Source: Adapted from Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006)
4.11-6
4.11.1.3 Project Area - Existing Noise and Vibration Environment
For the purposes of noise and vibration impact analysis, the Project area can be divided into three main components: The vicinity of the Project Site itself - centered on the proposed oil drilling and production facility at 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach. The areas adjacent to the truck and pipeline routes - which would extend out from the Project Site across the city of Hermosa Beach and into the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. The vicinity of the site proposed for the relocated City Yard, just to the south of 11th Place and Hermosa Beach City Hall.
Vicinity of the Project Site
The Project Site is the current location of the City Yard at the intersection of Valley Drive and 6th Street. The site is bounded on its north, west and south sides by light manufacturing uses and on its east side by the Veterans Parkway greenbelt space. Beyond these immediate adjacencies, the land uses are predominantly residential, with the exception of South Park to the south. The topography of this area is such that the residential uses on Loma Drive and 8th Street are elevated above the Project Site, with clear sightlines between many of the homes and the existing City Yard. The noise and vibration sources in the area include traffic flows on the local streets (8th Street, Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue are particularly significant), noise from the light industrial uses on 6th Street, Cypress Avenue, City Yard activity and associated vehicle movements.
Truck and Pipeline Routes
The proposed truck and pipeline construction routes include Valley Drive and Prospect Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach, Herondo Street, Anita Street and 190th Street in the City of Redondo Beach and 109th Street in the City of Torrance. Since these are major thoroughfares, the steady flow of street traffic is the predominant source of existing noise and vibration along the truck and pipeline routes. The uses flanking these routes are largely residential, with some commercial properties - generally situated at the major street intersections in Redondo Beach and Torrance. Hermosa View School is located on Prospect Avenue and a large commercial plant nursery facility runs along the south side of Anita Street190th Street in Redondo Beach. Street traffic is the predominant source of existing noise and vibration in these areas.
Relocated City Yard
The proposed site for the relocated City Yard is bounded by 11th Place and City Hall to the north, Valley Drive and Veterans Parkway to the east and residential uses on 11th and Cypress Streets to the south and west. Further west, beyond Veterans Parkway and Ardmore Avenue are more residential uses, the Hermosa Beach Community Center and Library. Noise and vibration sources in the area include traffic flows on Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue and Pier Avenue, as well as vehicle movements associated with the City Hall and Police Department parking lots. Occasional noise contributions are made by the maintenance facility for the Police Department vehicles which is located nearby. The public parking lot near the intersection of 11th Street and Valley Drive is another source of vehicle noise.
4.11-7
Baseline Noise Monitoring
The existing noise environment in the Project area was established by long-term monitoring using unmanned data acquisition systems to continuously measure and log noise levels. Measurement locations were selected for their proximity to sensitive uses as well as potential future exposure to noise impacts associated with the Project.
Project Site
Establishing an accurate and representative noise baseline for the area around the proposed oil drilling and production facility was considered critical to the impact analysis for the Project. And because of the unique nature of this neighborhood, it was important to capture both weekday (Monday through Friday) and weekend (Saturday and Sunday) noise conditions. For these reasons noise levels at each of six selected locations around the Project Site were monitored for a continuous period of seven days. The noise monitoring occurred during August and September, 2013, with a break in measurements over the Labor Day holiday weekend (August 31 - September 2) to avoid gathering non-representative data. The locations around the Project Site selected for long term noise monitoring are shown in Figure 4.11-1; figure 4.11-2 shows a typical noise monitor installation. The results of these measurements are presented as seven-day noise histograms in the Appendix and are summarized in Tables 4.11-4 and 4.11-5.
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Monitoring Locations around the Project Site
4.11-8
Figure 4.11-2
Typical Noise Monitor Installation
Table 4.11-4
Summary of Existing Ambient Leq Noise Levels Around the Project Site Monday - Friday Saturday & Sunday Lowest Hourly Leq (dBA)
Daytime 8am-7pm Nighttime 7pm-8am
Monitoring Location
Lowest Hourly Leq (dBA)

Overall Average Leq (dBA)

Overall Average Leq (dBA)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
6th Street & Cypress 634 Loma Dr. 730 Cypress St. 526 8th Street 600 6th Street Veterans Parkway
55.7 49.7 50.4 61.7 57.3 51.3
38.1 40.0 38.0 45.6 38.3 35.6
61.2 55.8 58.9 63.6 60.6 56.4
53.0 48.8 48.5 58.5 54.2 47.8
53.1 47.6 47.5 60.3 52.7 50.2
37.7 39.9 37.6 48.3 42.4 40.7
58.0 51.5 53.0 63.3 57.6 52.1
52.2 47.0 48.0 58.3 50.8 46.5
4.11-9
Table 4.11-5
Summary of Existing Ambient L50 Noise Levels Around the Project Site Lowest Hourly L50 (dBA)
Monitoring Location
Monday - Friday
Saturday & Sunday

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
6th Street & Cypress 634 Loma Dr. 730 Cypress St. 526 8th Street 600 6th Street Veterans Parkway
46.1 45.5 46.0 54.6 51.0 49.2
37.2 39.5 35.2 34.5 37.0 33.7
41.5 41.1 43.6 49.2 41.4 46.6
37.4 37.3 35.5 39.8 33.6 38.5
The results of additional statistical analysis are presented in Table 4.11-6. The statistical noise descriptors used in the analysis correspond to the time-dependent noise limits in the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (see section 4.11.2).
Table 4.11-6 Existing Ambient Noise Levels Around the Project Site - Additional Statistics Lowest Hourly L25 (dBA)
Monitoring Location 6th Street & Cypress 634 Loma Dr. 730 Cypress St. 526 8th Street 600 6th Street
Lowest Hourly L8.3 (dBA)

Lowest Hourly L1.7 (dBA)

Lowest Hourly Lmax (dBA)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
43.5 43.1 45.5 57.3 46.9
38.0 37.8 36.4 36.2 34.9
52.5 48.0 49.6 65.0 57.1
38.8 38.8 38.0 40.2 39.3
61.8 57.1 54.8 68.9 63.9
39.5 40.3 40.8 47.0 41.6 38.8
73.7 67.6 65.5 74.7 70.1 62.3
42.3 45.9 46.1 68.2 50.2 54.1
Veterans 50.1 34.5 53.5 35.7 56.5 Parkway Note: L25, L8.3 and L1.7 correspond to 15, 5 and 1 minute, respectively.
4.11-10
Truck and Pipeline Routes
Extensive noise monitoring along the truck and pipeline routes was performed by the Applicants noise consultant (Behrens & Associates) during August 2012. The gathered data was originally presented in a noise impact study report dated November 9, 2012, which was attached to the Project application as Appendix J. The data from the 2012 study has been used as the baseline for the noise impact analysis for the truck and pipeline routes presented in this section, but not before it had been verified for accuracy and to ensure that no significant change had occurred since the time of the noise monitoring. Verification was achieved by repeating the noise monitoring at two of the locations used in the 2012 study between July 30 and August 1, 2013. The locations selected for the verification noise monitoring were: 531 Herondo Street (Redondo Beach) and 5410 W. 190th Street (Torrance). Agreement between the two sets of data was found to be good, as shown in Table 4.11-7.
Table 4.11-7 Comparison of Noise Monitoring Results from the Truck and Pipeline Routes Daytime (7am-10pm) Leq (dBA) 2012 2013 Delta/ Result Result Change 66.5 70.6 66.0 71.7 - 0.5 + 1.1 CNEL 2013 Result 68.7 73.3
Monitoring Location 531 Herondo Street 5410 W. 190th Street
2012 Result 67.8 73.9
Delta/ Change - 0.9 + 0.6
Figures 4.11-4, 5, 6 and 7 show the noise monitoring locations used for the 2012 study along the truck and pipeline routes and Table 4.11-8 provides a summary of the measurement results, which have been used in the analysis presented in this section.
City Yard Relocation Site
Baseline noise monitoring was performed around the proposed site for the City Yard relocation during September and October 2013. A total of eight monitoring locations were selected for this task, which are shown in Figure 4.11-8. Noise levels were monitored continuously for a period of one week at each location, to capture both weekday and weekend conditions. Results of the monitoring are presented as seven-day noise histograms in the Appendix and are summarized in Table 4.11-9. During the period of noise monitoring, there was significant noise from a construction site at 533 11th Street, which elevated noise levels at measurement locations Y3, Y5 and Y6 between the hours of 8AM and 4PM on weekdays. Since this construction activity could be considered atypical, weekday daytime noise level averages at the affected locations have been recalculated, excluding the hours of construction. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.11-10.
4.11-11
Figure 4.11-4
Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study)
Figure 4.11-5
4.11-12
Figure 4.11-6
Figure 4.11-7
4.11-13
Table 4.11-8 Behrens Location Number T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25
Truck and Pipeline Route Ambient Noise Measurement Summary* Daytime (7am 10pm) Leq (dBA) 59.9 66.5 73.2 63.4 63.5 63.3 64.4 73.1 63.4 57.7 70.6 64.9 69.7 73.0 69.6 75.3 69.7 20-minute Daytime Leq (dBA) 57.3 65.7 64.9 61.9 54.0 54.9 58.4 61.5
Address 6th Street & Cypress Street 531 Herondo Street 426 Anita Street 1107 Valley Drive 201 Valley Drive 1556 Prospect Avenue 404 Gentry Street 752 Pier Avenue 1213 Owosso Avenue 1228 Agate Street 5410 W. 190 Street 4777 W. 191 Street 4713 Towers Street 4305 W. 190 Street 4100 W. 185 Street 3625 W. 190 Street 18721 Crenshaw Blvd 415 Herondo Street 2 Hermosa Avenue 1231 N. Catalina Avenue 408 Agate Street 817 N. Lucia Street 817 N. Paulina Avenue 801 Anita Street 1327 Amethyst Street
th th th st th
City
CNEL (dBA) 61.4 68.7 75.5 65.1 64.0 63.7 65.1 75.8 66.2 60.1 73.3 67.2 73.4 75.6 70.7 77.6 73.4 -
Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Torrance Torrance Torrance Torrance Torrance Torrance Torrance Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach
T26 5210 Arvada Street Torrance 51.9 Source: Reproduced from Behrens & Associates Noise Impact Study dated November 9, 2012 in the Applicants Application. Some locations were monitored for 24 hour periods, some (T18-T26) were measured for only 20 minutes.
4.11-14
Figure 4.11-8
Noise Monitoring Locations around the City Yard Relocation Site
Table 4.11-9
Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation Site Monday - Friday Saturday & Sunday Average Leq (dBA)
Monitoring Location
Average Leq (dBA)

Average L50 (dBA)

Average L50 (dBA)

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
Ardmore Ave & 11th Street Ardmore Ave at the Library 546 11th Street 1141 Cypress St Roof of Storage Facility (west) Roof of Storage Facility (south) City Hall Parking Lot 1107 Valley Drive
63.8 63.0 65.4 60.8 57.7 60.9 53.3 63.5
57.7 58.6 52.1 47.9 46.6 47.3 48.7 57.5
58.3 58.4 58.2 49.3 48.8 50.7 48.7 58.8
45.9 48.4 44.8 41.5 43.3 44.0 45.8 47.3
63.3 61.7 56.4 56.6 54.6 52.1 50.2 64.8
55.2 56.3 51.0 46.9 44.3 45.3 47.8 56.3
56.2 55.9 49.7 46.2 44.7 45.2 47.0 56.4
45.2 47.7 45.4 43.0 42.1 42.2 45.6 46.4
4.11-15
Table 4.11-10 Recalculated Daytime Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation Site Monday - Friday Monitoring Location Y3 Y5 Y6 546 11th Street Roof of Storage Facility (west) Roof of Storage Facility (south) Average Leq (dBA), 4pm - 7pm 59.6 48.1 48.9 Average L50 (dBA), 4pm - 7pm 53.3 45.1 46.0
Baseline Vibration Measurements
Baseline vibration levels were determined by direct measurement of ground vibration at all of the same locations selected for the 2013 baseline noise measurements around the proposed oil production site and potential City Yard relocation site, except locations Y5 and Y6 - which were on the roof of an existing structure and therefore not relevant to the vibration study. Vibration levels were measured over a 20-minute period in each case. Maximum and average baseline vibration values recorded during each 20-minute sample are shown in Table 4.11-11.
Table 4.11-11 Baseline Vibration Levels (2013) Location Number S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Maximum Velocity (in/sec, RMS) 0.0023 0.0015 0.0017 0.0013 0.0013 0.0008 Average Velocity (in/sec, RMS) 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 Location Number Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y7 Y8 Maximum Velocity (in/sec, RMS) 0.0018 0.0015 0.0011 0.0027 0.0012 0.0017 Average Velocity (in/sec, RMS) 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
Baseline vibration measurements were also made during 2012 by the Applicants consultant Behrens & Associates, including measurements at locations along the proposed truck/pipe routes associated with the Project. The results of the 2012 measurements - which have been converted from peak particle velocity (PPV) to approximate root-mean-squared (RMS) velocity values, assuming a crest factor of 4 - are shown in Table 4.11-12. A crest factor is the ratio of the peak value and the RMS value.
4.11-16
Table 4.11-12 Baseline Vibration Levels (2012) Location Number T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Maximum Velocity* (in/sec, RMS) 0.0005 0.0023 0.0038 0.0005 0.0015 0.0010 0.0018 Location Number T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 Maximum Velocity* (in/sec, RMS) 0.0035 0.0018 0.0015 0.0038 0.0015 0.0010 0.0020 Location Number T15 T16 T17 T18 T26 Maximum Velocity* (in/sec, RMS 0.0033 0.0020 0.0040 0.0018 0.0015
Measured maximum PPV converted to approximate RMS value by applying a crest factor of four. 20minute sample.
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting 4.11.2.1 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
There are no quantitative noise standards in the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. However, Chapter 8.24 of the Code does include certain qualitative noise regulations and restrictions on the allowable timing of noisy activity that are generally applicable to the Project, as follows: 8.24. 030 Prohibited Noises - General Standard. Unless otherwise permitted in this Chapter, no person shall make, permit to be made or cause to suffer any noises, sounds or vibrations that in view of the totality of the circumstances are so loud, prolonged and harsh as to be physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and to cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity. When considering whether a noise, sound or vibration is unreasonable within the meaning of this section, the following factors shall be taken into consideration: The volume and intensity of the noise, particularly as it is experienced within a residence or place of business; Whether the noise is prolonged and continuous; How the noise contrasts with the ambient noise level; The proximity of the noise source to residential and commercial uses; The time of day; and
4.11-17
The anticipated duration of the noise.
8.24. 040 Specific Prohibited Noises. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following acts and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared and deemed to be in violation of this chapter: (c) Engines, motors and mechanical devices near residential district. The sustained, continuous or repeated operation or use between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of any motor or engine or the repair, modification, reconstruction, testing or operation of any automobile, motorcycle, machine, contrivance, or mechanical device or other contrivance or facility unless such motor, engine, automobile, motorcycle, machine or mechanical device is enclosed within a sound insulated structure so as to prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating. Loading and unloading. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause noise disturbance, except for solid waste collection by a franchised collector. Non-emergency signaling devices. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any electronically amplified signal from any bell, chime, siren, whistle or similar device, intended primarily for non-emergency purposes, from any place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and in no event for more than ten (10) consecutive seconds in any hourly period outside those hours. Emergency signaling devices. 1. The intentional sounding, or permitting the sounding, outdoors, of any emergency signaling device including fire, burglar, civil defense alarm, siren, whistle or similar emergency signaling device, provided, however that testing of an emergency signaling device is permitted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Any such testing shall use only the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall such test time exceed sixty (60) seconds. Testing of the emergency signaling system shall not occur more than once in each calendar month. 2. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm unless such alarm is terminated within fifteen (15) minutes of activation. 3. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm unless such alarm is terminated within five (5) minutes of activation. 4. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm more than three times of any duration in any twenty-four (24) hour period. 8.24. 050 Construction. (a) Permissible hours of construction.
4.11-18
All construction shall be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except national holidays), and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction activity is prohibited at all other hours and on Sundays and national holidays. For purposes of this section, "construction" or "construction activity" shall include site preparation, demolition, grading, excavation, and the erection, improvement, remodeling or repair of structures, including operation of equipment or machinery and the delivery of materials associated with those activities.
Hermosa Beach General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan sets the following noise limits (all of which are assumed to be in dBA) for various land use zones: NOISE TOLERANCE STANDARDS City policy should be geared to the following maximum ambient noise levels: R-1 R-2 R-3 C-1 C-2/C-3 M 45 or below (also schools, hospitals, nurseries and rest homes) 50 or below (also parks and playgrounds) 55 or below 55 or below 60 or below 65 or below
Maximum traffic noise should be restricted in residential areas to no more than 5 dBA above the ambient standard levels. In commercial and manufacturing areas, no more than 10 dBA above ambient standards. Every effort to keep mean dBA considerably below this should be made.
Hermosa Beach Oil Code
Article VI of the City of Hermosa Beach Oil Code (established by Ordinance No. 85-803 and added to the Municipal Code as Chapter 21A) defines noise level standards for oil drilling and redrilling operations as follows: Sec. 21A-6.2 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS (a) No person, either as owner, agent, or operator, shall conduct any drilling, or redrilling operation at any well in any manner as to create any noise which causes the exterior noise level when measured at the property line of any single or multiple-family dwelling unit, guest room, commercial building, school, hospital, church, or public library to exceed the noise level standards set forth in table below (Table 1 in the code). The exterior noise level shall be continuously monitored to ensure conformance to the noise level standards. The costs of such monitoring shall be borne by the operator conducting such operation.
4.11-19
Cumulative Number of Minutes In Any One-Hour Time Period 30 15 5 1 0
Noise Level Standards, dBA Daytime (8 am to 7 pm) 50 55 60 65 70 Nighttime (7 pm to 8 am) 45 50 55 60 65
No person, either as owner, agent, or operator, shall conduct any drilling, or redrilling operation at any time at any well in any manner so as to create any noise which causes a noise level in excess of those limits provided by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. If the existing ambient noise level, exclusive of existing drilling activity, at the nearest adjacent dwelling unit, guest room, commercial building, school, hospital, church or public library property line to the requested oil drilling site does not exceed the permitted nighttime noise levels in [Table 1] for any period, then the following regulations shall apply: 1. The only activity permitted between the hours of seven p.m. and eight a.m. will be on-bottom drilling, with single joint connections. None of the following will be done during the hours of 7 p.m. and 8 a.m.: a. Hammering on pipe; b. Racking of pipe; c. Acceleration and deceleration of engines or motors; d. Use of drilling assembly rotational speeds that could cause more noise than necessary and could reasonably be reduced by use of slower rotational speed; e. Picking up or laying down drill pipe, casing, tubing or rods into or out of the drill hole. 2. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four noise limit categories in [Table 1] above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five-decibel increments in each affected category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to equal the maximum ambient noise level. 3. If the difference between the noise levels with noise source operating and not operating is four decibels or greater, then the noise measurement of the alleged source can be considered valid with a correction applied to account for the contribution of the ambient noise. The correction is to be applied in accordance with the data shown in e table below (Table 2 in the code).
4.11-20
BACKGROUND NOISE CORRECTION Difference Between Total Noise Amount to be Subtracted from and Background Noise Alone Total Noise Measurement (Decibels) (Decibels) 4.0 - 4.5 2.0 4.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
The noise monitoring results show that the lowest hourly noise levels at residential properties near the Project Site are all below the limits in the Oil Code, so that no adjustment is required to the Oil Code limits at these locations. The Hermosa Beach Oil Code also requires that all derricks and drilling machines that produce noise be enclosed in acoustical blankets, as follows: Sec. 21A-6.3 ACOUSTICAL BLANKETS (a) No person, either as owner, agent or operator, shall conduct any drilling machines on any well unless all derricks and all drilling machines which produce noise and which are used in connection with said drilling or redrilling operations are enclosed with soundproofing material as provided in subsection B of this section. When sound proofing is required by the provisions of subsection A of this section, such soundproofing shall comply with accepted A.P.I. standards and shall be subject to fire department regulations. All doors and similar openings shall be kept closed during drilling operations, except for ingress and egress and necessary logging and well completion operations. Alternate methods of soundproofing may be used, provided that such alternative has been approved by the director and chief of the fire department. The director and chief of the fire department may approve any such alternative if they find that the proposed material and method is equal to the soundproofing ability and fire resistive qualities to the aforesaid specifications. Either may require the submission of evidence to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding the use of such alternative.
Los Angeles County Code - Vibration Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach currently has no regulations that limit vibration. Vibration is, however, covered by Chapter 12.08 of the County of Los Angeles Code, as follows: 12.08.560 Vibration Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way is prohibited. The perception threshold shall be a motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of 1 to 100 Hertz.
The County Code allows an exemption for oil well drilling and redrilling performed in compliance with the conditions of permits issued by the County. However, since permits for the Project would be issued by the City of Hermosa Beach and not the County, the Project would not qualify for this exemption and the vibration limits in the County Code would still apply.
4.11.2.2 City of Redondo Beach Noise Standards Redondo Beach Municipal Code
Title 4, Chapter 24 of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code regulates noise and vibration in the City of Redondo Beach. Exterior and interior noise standards are defined as follows: ARTICLE 3 EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS 4-24.301 Maximum permissible sound levels by land use categories. The noise standards for the various categories of land use districts identified shall be the higher of either the presumed or actual measured ambient and shall apply to all such property within a designated category as follows:
Receiving Land Use District Category Low Density Residential R-1-A, R-1, R-2, P-D-R, P-U-D Overlay Medium Density Residential R-3, R4, P-D-R, P-U-D Overlay High Density Residential R-5, R-6, P-D-R, P-U-D Overlay, C-I Commercial NSC, CSC, GC, P-D-C Industrial P-D-I Industrial P-I Time Period 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Presumed Ambient Level (dBA) 45 50 50 55 55 60 60 65 60 65 70 70
As indicated above, the presumed ambient levels in the Planned Development Residential (PD-R) and the Planned Unit Development (P-U-D) Overlay land use districts are categorized so as to be consistent with the actual density of the development. The presumed ambient levels for the Planned Development (P-D) and the Civic Center (C-C) land use districts shall be consistent with those established for the lowest adjacent land use district. (a) Correction for time characteristics. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
4.11-22
(1) The noise standard of the receiving land use district for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or (2) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (4) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus fifteen (15) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus twenty (20) dB for any period of time. (b) Levels exceeding the noise limit categories. If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible as set forth in subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) of this section, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five (5) dB increments as appropriate to encompass or reflect such ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise level set forth in subsection (5) of subsection (a) of this section, the maximum allowable noise level shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (c) Correction for location of noise source. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different land use district categories, the noise level limit applicable to the lower land use district category, plus five (5) dB shall apply. (d) Correction for ambient noise levels when alleged offending sources cannot be shut down. If possible, the ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in subsection (a) of this section with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If for any reason the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, then the ambient noise shall be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source, but at a sufficient distance such that the offending noise from the source is inaudible. If the difference between the noise levels with the noise source operating and not operating, with the utilization of either of the above-described methods of measurement, is six (6) dB or greater, then the noise measurement of the alleged source can be considered valid. (e) Correction for character of sound. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady audible tone, such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise, such as hammering or riveting, the standard limits set forth in this section shall be reduced by five (5) dB. ARTICLE 4 INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS 4-24.401 Maximum permissible interior dwelling sound levels. The following noise standards for various categories of land use presented as follows, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all such structures within a designated land use district category with the windows in their normal seasonal configuration:
4.11-23
Receiving Land Use Category
Time Interval 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA) 40 45 45 40
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. School Hospital and designated quiet areas 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Any time
(a) Correction for time characteristics. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level, when measured inside the receiving structure, to exceed: (1) The noise standard for that land use district category as specified for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (2) The noise standard plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (3) The noise standard plus ten (10) dB for any period of time. ( 1, Ord. 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976) The Code contains the following specific regulations for construction noise:
4-24.503 Construction noise.
(a) All construction activity shall be prohibited, except between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sunday, or the days on which the holidays designated as Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Years Day are observed. (b) In the case of an emergency, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. Such permit shall be issued for only the period of the emergency. Where feasible, the Building Officer shall notify the residential occupants within 300 feet of any emergency construction activity of the issuance of any permit authorized by this subsection. (c) If the Building Officer should determine that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of residential property will not be impaired because of the location or nature of the construction activity, the Building Officer may issue a permit for construction activity for periods during which construction activity is prohibited by subsection (a) of this section. (d) For purposes of this section, construction activity shall mean the erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building. (e) Exemption. This section shall not be applicable to minor repairs or routine maintenance of residential dwelling units. ( 1, Ord. 2183 c.s., eff. August 11, 1976, as amended by 2, Ord. 2535 c.s., eff. April 13, 1989, and 1, Ord. 2608 c.s., eff. January 3, 1991)
Vibration is regulated by the Code as follows:

4-24.504 Vibration.
The operation or permitting the operation of any device which creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (forty-six (46) meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way, shall be prohibited. For the purposes of this section, vibration perception threshold shall mean the minimum ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or the visual observation of moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be .001 gs in the frequency range from zero to thirty (30) Hz and .003 gs in the frequency range between thirty (30) and 100 Hz.
Redondo Beach General Plan
The Noise Element of the Redondo Beach General Plan includes the Citys objectives and policies for controlling noise impacts on the community. The following policy would apply to noise from the pipeline and trucking routes associated with the Project that pass through Redondo Beach: Section 10.3.4 Prohibit the development of new industrial, commercial, or related land uses or the expansion of existing land uses when it can be demonstrated that such new or expanded land uses would be directly responsible for causing overall (ambient) noise levels to exceed an Ldn of 65 dB (A) exterior upon areas containing housing, schools, healthcare facilities, or other noisesensitive land uses (as determined by the City of Redondo Beach).
4.11.2.3 City of Torrance Noise Standards Torrance Municipal Code
Noise in the City of Torrance is regulated by Division 4, Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code. Since that component of the Project occurring in the city will be Pipeline construction, Article 3 of the noise regulations is particularly relevant: ARTICLE 3 CONSTRUCTION SECTION 46.3.1. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Torrance to operate power construction tools, equipment, or engage in the performance of any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects in or adjacent to a residential area involving the creation of noise beyond 50 decibels (dB) as measured at property lines, except between the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and
4.11-25
Holidays observed by City Hall. An exception exists between the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. for homeowners that reside at the property. (b) The Community Development Director may allow expanded hours and days of construction if unusual circumstances and conditions exist. Such requests must be made in writing and must receive approval by the Director prior to any expansion of the hour and day restrictions listed above. (c) Every construction project requiring Planning Commission review or considered to be a significant remodel as defined by Section 231.1.2, shall be required to post an information board along the front property line that displays the property owner's name and contact number, contractor's name and contact number, a copy of TMC Section 46.3.1, a list of any special conditions, and the Code Enforcement phone number where violations can be reported. (d) Properties zoned as commercial, industrial or within an established redevelopment District, are exempted from the above day and hour restrictions if a minimum buffer of 300 feet is maintained from the subject property's property line to the closest residential property. The Community Development Director, may, however, revoke such exemption for a particular project if the noise level exceeds 50 decibels (dB) at the property line of a residential property beyond the 300 linear foot buffer. (e) Heavy construction equipment such as pile drivers, mechanical shovels, derricks, hoists, pneumatic hammers, compressors or similar devices shall not be operated at any time, within or adjacent to a residential area, without first obtaining from the Community Development Director permission to do so. Such request for permission shall include a list and type of equipment to be used, the requested hours and locations of its use, and the applicant shall be required to show that the selection of equipment and construction techniques has been based on minimization of noise within the limitations of such equipment as is commercially available or combinations of such equipment and auxiliary sound barriers. Such permission to operate heavy construction equipment will be revoked if operation of such equipment is not in accordance to approval. General noise regulations (from which motor vehicles are exempt) are provided in Article 7: ARTICLE 7 GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS SECTION 46.7.1. GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. SECTION 46.7.2. NOISE LIMITS. To provide for methodical enforcement and to give reasonable notice of the performance standards to be met, the foregoing intent is expressed in the following numerical standards. For purposes of this Chapter, the City is divided into regions. Region 1 includes the
4.11-26
predominantly industrial areas in and around the refineries and industrial uses on the western edge of the City. Region 2 includes the area in and around the airport and includes the commercial and industrial uses south of Lomita Boulevard and north of Pacific Coast Highway. Region 3 encompasses the residential neighborhoods south of Pacific Coast Highway and west of Hawthorne Boulevard Region 4 includes the remainder of the City. (a) Noise Limits on Residential Land. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Torrance (wherever located) to produce noise in excess of the following levels as received on residential land owned or occupied by another person within the designated regions. In addition to the noise limits stated herein, the noise limits set forth in Sec. 46.7.2.b) shall also be complied with. (1) For noise receivers located on residential land, for measurement positions five hundred (500) feet or more distant from the boundaries of Regions 1 and 2, the following limits apply:
REGION (in which noise receiver is located) 3 4 NOISE LEVEL, dB Day 50 55 Night 45 50
(2) For noise receivers located on residential land, for positions within five hundred (500) feet from the boundary of Region 1 or 2, the following limits apply: Five (5) dB above the limits set forth in Section 46.7.2.a) 1 above, or 5 dB above the ambient noise level, whichever is the lower number. (b) Noise Limits at Industrial and Commercial Boundaries: (1) Noise Sources in Region 1: It shall be unlawful for any person in Region 1 to produce noise levels at the boundary of Region 1 in excess of 70 dB during the day or 65 dB during the night. (2) Noise Sources in Region 2: It shall be unlawful for any person in Region 2 to produce noise levels at the boundary of Region 2 in excess of 60 dB during the day or 55 dB during the night. (3) Noise Sources in All Remaining Industrial Use Land: It shall be unlawful for any person on industrial use land outside Region 1 and 2 to produce noise levels at his own property boundary in excess of 60 dB during the day or 55 dB during the night. (4) Noise Sources on All Land Use for Commercial Purposes: It shall be unlawful for any person on land used for commercial purposes to produce noise levels at his own property boundary in excess of 60 dB during the day or 55 dB during the night. In addition to the noise limits set forth herein (Sec. 46.7.2.b), the noise limits set forth in Sec. 46.7.2. (a) shall also be complied with. (c) Corrections to the Noise Limits: The numerical limits given in Sec. 46.7.2. (a) and (b) shall be adjusted by addition of the following corrections where appropriate.
4.11-27
Noise Conditions
Correction to the Limits, decibels -5 -5
1. Noise contains a steady, audible tone, such as a whine, screech or hum 2. Noise is a repetitive impulsive noise, such as hammering or riveting 3. If the noise is not continuous, one of the following corrections to the limits shall be applied: a) Noise occurs less than 5 hours per day or less than 1 hour per night b) Noise occurs less than 90 minutes per day or less than 20 minutes per night c) Noise occurs less than 30 minutes per day or less than 6 minutes per night 4. Noise occurs on Sunday morning (between 12:01 A.M. and 12:01 P.M. Sunday)
+5 +10 +15 -5
Section 91.32.4 addresses vibrations in limited manufacturing districts, stating "No equipment, machinery or facility shall be operated so as to generate vibration which is perceptible at or beyond the property line, without the aid of instruments to a person of normal sensibilities".
City of Torrance General Plan
The noise control provisions of the Torrance Municipal Code are reiterated in the Noise Element (Chapter 5) of the City of Torrance General Plan. The General Plan also includes maximum noise level guidelines for land-use compatibility, which are not applicable to the Project.
The significance criteria used in this EIR are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (section X), which presents the following key questions relative to noise impacts. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.11-28
These questions from the CEQA Guidelines are further enhanced for analysis specific to the Proposed Project through the application of locally adopted standards and criteria described in the previous section. Based on these enhanced significance thresholds, the potential noise effects for each phase are discussed below.
4.11.3.1 Oil Production Site
A significant noise impact would occur if: Operational activity results in noise levels in excess of the limits established by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (see section 4.11.2). Construction activities at the Project Site occur outside of the hours allowed by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (see section 4.11.2). Operations, drilling or redrilling results in an increase of more than 3 dBA in the lowest hourly ambient equivalent noise levels (Leq) at residential uses. Operations, drilling or redrilling results in an increase of more than 5 dBA in the lowest hourly ambient equivalent noise levels (Leq) at sensitive non-residential uses (school or greenbelt). Operations, drilling or redrilling produce noise that includes pure tones when measured at a neighboring property. Construction activities result in an increase of more than 5 dBA in the daily ambient equivalent noise level (Leq) measured over the period 8:00AM - 7:00PM.
A significant vibration impact would occur if: Construction or operational activity causes vibration levels at the property line of any neighboring use to exceed 0.01 inches/second over the frequency range 1 - 100 Hz.
4.11.3.2 Pipeline Construction and Trucking Routes
A significant noise impact would occur if: Pipeline construction activity associated with the Project results in noise levels in excess of the limits established by local codes and regulations of the cities through which the Pipeline passes (see section 4.11.2). Pipeline construction activities occur outside of the hours allowed by the Municipal Codes of the cities through which the Pipeline passes (see section 4.11.2). Pipeline construction activities result in an increase of more than 5 dBA in the equivalent noise level (Leq) measured over the entire daytime period. Traffic associated with the Project results in an increase in the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of more than 3 dB. Traffic associated with the Project that passes through the city of Redondo Beach results in a Day-Night average noise level (Ldn) of more than 65 dB.
A significant vibration impact would occur if:
4.11-29
Project-related construction or traffic along the Pipeline/truck routes results in vibration levels at the property line of any neighboring use to exceed 0.01 inches/second over the frequency range 1- 100 Hz.
4.11.3.3 Relocated City Yard
A significant noise impact would occur if: Construction activities result in an increase of more than 5 dBA in the average daily ambient equivalent noise level (Leq) measured over the period 8:00AM - 7:00PM. Operation of the yard results in an increase of more than 3 dBA in the daily average ambient equivalent noise level (Leq) measured over the period 8:00AM - 7:00PM.
A significant vibration impact would occur if: Construction or operational activity causes vibration levels at the property line of any neighboring use to exceed 0.01 inches/second over the frequency range 1 - 100 Hz.
4.11.3.4 Significance Criteria Rationale Noise Impacts of the Oil Production Facility
The significance criteria for operations (including drilling and redrilling) at the Project Site are based on A-weighted minimum hourly average equivalent noise levels (Leq, dBA). The intent is to provide a relatively simple, easily understood description of the noise environment that does not require complex analysis to measure or enforce. The minimum hourly Leq is selected as the baseline, because the operation of the proposed facility would be continuous, 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Project noise levels contributing a 3 to 5 dBA increase over the baseline noise level were selected as significance criteria. These levels are derived from typical human response to changes in noise level. A change of 3 dBA is generally acknowledged as the point at which most people would begin to perceive an increase or decrease in noise level; a change of 5 dBA is generally considered to be the point at which most people would perceive a significant increase or decrease in noise level. The lower value was selected for residential locations with nighttime occupancy (nighttime usually produces the lowest hourly, A-weighted equivalent noise level), whereas the higher value was used for areas that generally do not have nighttime occupancy. Pure tones are sounds in which a single frequency stands out, like a hum or a buzz. Pure tones can be considerably more annoying than sounds that do not contain pure tones at the same dBA level, and therefore the impacts of pure tones have been specifically addressed herein. A pure tone shall be deemed to exist if the one-third octave band sound-pressure level in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound-pressure levels of the two contiguous onethird octave bands by 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 Hertz and above, and by 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hertz, and by 15 dB for center frequencies less than or equal to 125 Hertz.
4.11-30
Construction Noise
Construction noise is generally accepted as a necessary part of construction activities, which are allowed by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (section 8.24.050) if the construction activities are limited to daytime, weekday and Saturday hours only. The cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance regulate construction in a similar time-limited way, without specific noise limits. However, in order to ensure that daytime noise levels do not produce noise levels that are "physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and ... cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity" (as per the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 8.24.030), the significance criteria for construction noise impacts limit noise from Project-related construction (including the Pipelines and relocated City Yard, as well as the oil production facility itself), based on the daily equivalent noise level - i.e. the equivalent noise level (Leq) measured over the entire day. By limiting the total amount of noise generated during the day to a specific increase over the baseline, the impacts could be classified as not annoying and would not contribute to discomfort. The significance criteria for construction noise are less stringent than the significance criteria for operational noise from the Project, because noise from the construction phases of the Project would be intermittent and temporary whereas noise from the operation of the production facility would be constant and long-term.
Traffic Noise
It is conventional to assess the noise impact of changes in traffic flow noise in terms of a 24-hour noise average such as CNEL or Ldn. CNEL is marginally more stringent than Ldn, because it includes a 5 dB penalty for the evening hours (which Ldn does not) and has therefore been selected as the default metric for assessing traffic noise impact associated with the Project. A 3 dB increase in the CNEL is selected as the threshold of significance because a 3dB change is generally acknowledged as the point at which most people would begin to perceive an increase or decrease in noise level. For those truck routes that pass through the City of Redondo Beach, an additional significance criterion of 65 dB, Ldn is applied - consistent with the traffic noise policy prescribed by the Redondo Beach General Plan.
Noise Impacts of the Relocated City Yard
Unlike the proposed oil production facility, the operation of the relocated City Yard would be limited to the daytime, with activities occurring predominantly Monday through Friday. The City Yard would not operate at night and it is expected that weekend operations would be limited to a few hours on Saturdays - consistent with the schedule at the existing yard. Also unlike oil production operations, noise from the City Yard is sporadic and varies from hour to hour. For these reasons, the significance criterion for noise impact from the City Yard is based on equivalent noise levels measured over the entire daytime, rather than the minimum hourly Leq. It should also be noted that the significance criterion for weekend operations is more stringent than it is for operations on Monday - Friday due to the lower baseline noise levels in the area during weekends and the criteria being based on an increase over baseline.
4.11-31
Vibration
Since the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and Municipal Code do not address vibration, the significance criteria for Project-related vibration impacts in the city has been based on the County of Los Angeles Code has been used, which defines a perception threshold vibration limit of 0.01 inches per second over the frequency range 1 - 100 Hz. The same rationale has been applied to Project-related vibration impacts in the City of Torrance. The Redondo Beach Municipal Code, which requires that vibration be limited to the threshold of perception, which is defined in terms of acceleration (gs) rather than velocity (inches per second). Nonetheless, the 0.01 inches per second limit is applied as the significance threshold for Project-related vibration sources (Pipeline construction) that would occur in the City of Redondo Beach because: Although the metrics are different, the intent of the vibration limits in the Los Angeles County Code and the Redondo Beach Municipal Code is the same - to describe the threshold of human perception. Applying the 0.01 inches per second (1 - 100 Hz) significance criterion to all three cities affected by the Project is consistent and avoids unnecessarily complication in the presentation of the vibration analysis.
Impacts are assessed associated with noise, at the Proposed Oil Project Site and along the Pipeline and traffic routes, and vibration.
4.11.4.1 Proposed Oil Project Noise Impacts & Mitigation
The noise impacts of the Project have been predicted by creating computer modeling using SoundPLAN 7.3 software. The SoundPLAN software allows the environment around the Project to be modeled in three dimensions, based on terrain contours and ground surface characteristics. The physical characteristics of buildings and other structures that will serve as barriers to (or reflectors of) noise have been imported directly into the model from records provided by the Planning Department at the City of Hermosa Beach, ensuring that footprint and height dimensions are the most accurate available. The various noise sources associated with each phase of the Project have been input to the model, with calibration checks to verify that received noise levels are accurate. The software then uses all of this information to calculate noise contours and singlepoint-receiver noise levels, assuming a light downwind in all directions.
Project Phase 1 - Site Preparation
According to the Project Application, the Phase 1 of the Project has an estimated duration of 23 weeks, during which time various site preparation work would occur at the oil production site including:
4.11-32
Relocation of existing overhead utilities along Valley Drive and at the intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive underground. Construction of redesigned intersection at 6th Street and Valley Drive. Demolition of the existing buildings on the site. Demolition of existing concrete paving, asphalt, fencing and walls. Construction of new retaining walls at west and south property lines. Rough grading. Excavation and construction of the well cellar. Construction of a new chain-link fence. Installation of electrical services. Landscaping. Erection of a 32-foot high sound attenuation wall.
According to equipment usage data made available by the Applicant, together with published noise level data for the various activities and equipment associated with the proposed site preparation work, the noisiest portion of the demolition stage is expected to be the removal of concrete paving, fencing and walls, estimated to last up to 7 weeks. By a similar assessment, the noisiest part of the construction work in Phase 1 has been determined to be the pumping of concrete for the new well cellar; the noisiest stage of this construction work would occur when a concrete truck and concrete pump are in use simultaneously, estimated to last up to 2 weeks. These two specific stages of the site preparation work have therefore been modeled as representing the worst-case demolition and construction noise scenarios during Phase 1, using information about the type and usage of equipment during each provided by the applicants consultant. Table 4.11-13 summarizes the equipment noise and usage data input to the noise prediction models for Phase 1. Note that the demolition and concrete pumping portion of Phase 1 would last for a combined 9 weeks of the Phase 1 twenty-three week period. The other periods of Phase 1 would generate less noise and therefore have lower noise levels than these predicted in this analysis.
Table 4.11-13 Phase 1 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Work Stage Equipment Concrete Buster Phase 1 Demolition Removal of concrete paving, fencing and walls. Loader Truck Phase 1 Construction Pumping of concrete for the well cellar.
1
Sound Power Level (dBA) 121.8 110.7 115.8 113.8 116.8
Quantity in Model 1 1 1 1 1
Usage Factor1 (%) 10 40 40 20 40
Concrete Pump Concrete Truck
The percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each day of the modeled scenario.
4.11-33
The applicant proposes the following noise reduction design features measures for Phase 1: A 16-foot high temporary acoustical barrier, with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25 erected around the perimeter of the site. Demolition and construction activities at the Project Site limited to between 8am and 6pm Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm on Saturdays. No demolition or construction activities on Sundays or Federal holidays. All demolition and construction equipment will be regularly serviced and maintained in proper working order, so as not to create excessive noise. Any non-compliant equipment will be immediately removed from service. Equipment maintenance work will be subject to the same time restrictions as the other demolition and construction activities. All mechanical equipment, including mobile equipment, will be switched off when not in use. All personnel working on the Project Site will receive Employee Noise Awareness training, to ensure familiarity with all noise control procedures and the importance of strict compliance. Horns, whistles or other loud devices will not be used. Yelling will be avoided. All personnel communications - outside of emergencies - will be made via walkie-talkies or other electronic communication devices. No radios or other loudspeaker devices will be allowed on the site.
In addition, the Applicant would be bound by the following construction noise control measures required by the 1993 Conditional Use Permit: All truck and equipment deliveries will be limited to the hours of 9am to 3pm, Monday through Friday. Operation of earthmoving equipment will be limited to the hours 8am - 6pm.
Figures 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 show the predicted noise contour maps for the worst-case demolition and construction scenarios during Phase 1, with all of the Applicants noise control proposals inplace. The contour values are overall average Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) and the receiver height for these two figures is 5-feet, which represents approximate ear height for a person standing on the ground. Figures 4.11-11 and 4.11-12 show the noise contours for the same two scenarios with a receiver height of 20-feet - which approximates the height of a second or thirdstory window or deck. These contours are relevant to the residential uses in the neighborhood, which are typically two- or three-story structures. Tables 4.11-14 and 4.11-15 compare baseline (existing) noise levels at those receptors closest to the proposed oil production site with the predicted demolition and construction noise levels associated with Phase 1 of the Project, with the Applicants proposed mitigation measures. The baseline is the average daytime noise level measured on a Saturday - since this day of the week will represent the worst-case noise impact as the baseline noise levels are lower on the weekend than the weekday.
4.11-34
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
NV.1
Demolition and construction machinery would increase noise levels.
Phase 1
As the tables show, the predicted noise impact of demolition and construction activities in Phase 1 of the Project is significant at many of the neighboring sensitive uses. The most significant impacts occur during the construction phase, when Project-related noise is expected to result in an increase in daytime noise levels of as much as 12.7 dBA at the homes to the northwest and west of the site.
Table 4.11-14 Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Prediction Phase 1 for Baseline Demolition Phase 1 + Baseline Demolition 62.8 63.5 66.2 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 52.7 65.6 59.8 66.3 59.8 63.9 64.0 65.4 58.6 67.4 60.8 66.6 62.3 65.1 64.3 65.6 59.6 Increase in Daytime Noise Level (dBA) 3.4 4.6 6.7 12.5 3.5 6.3 11.9 13.2 6.9
Location
Receiver Height (ft)
Significant?
Residential Uses North of Site on 8th Street Residential Uses Northwest of Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses East of Site on Ardmore Avenue Residential Uses West of Site on Loma Drive Veterans Parkway (Center)
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
4.11-35
Table 4.11-15 Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Prediction Phase 1 for Phase ConBaseline 1 Construction + struction Baseline 62.8 63.7 66.3 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 52.7 65.3 58.3 66.1 58.4 63.1 61.7 64.9 55.1 67.2 59.7 66.4 61.6 64.5 62.2 65.1 57.1 Increase in Daytime Noise Level (dBA) 3.5 4.4 5.6 12.3 2.8 5.7 9.8 12.7 4.4
Location
Receiver Height (ft)
Significant?
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES NO
Mitigation Measures
NV-1a
Increase the height of the noise barriers on the west and north sides of the site to 35feet and upgrade the sound insulation performance of the barrier material from STC25 to STC-32. Increase the height of the noise barriers on the south and east sides of the site to 22feet. The sound insulation performance of the barrier material in these locations may remain at STC-25. The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-1b
NV-1c
NV-1d
Figures 4.11-11 through 4.11-15 show predicted demolition and construction noise contours for Phase 1, with these mitigations in place. Tables 4.11-16 and 4.11-17 show how the additional mitigation measures reduce noise impact around the site during Phase 1.
Residual Impacts
The noise impacts of construction would be less than significant with mitigation. The noise impact of demolition equipment in Phase 1 would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.11-36
Figure 4.11-9
Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-37
Figure 4.11-10 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-38
Figure 4.11-11 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-39
Figure 4.11-12 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-40
Table 4.11-16 Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Prediction Phase 1 Baseline for Phase 1 Demolition + Demolition Baseline 62.8 56.5 63.7 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 57.3 53.5 57.9 57.2 61.1 57.5 56.5 63.9 56.8 59.4 61.1 63.1 58.7 57.9 Increase in Daytime Noise Level (dBA) 0.9 1.1 2.7 5.3 2.3 4.3 6.3 5.5
Location
Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20
Significant?
NO NO NO YES NO NO YES YES
52.7
56.5
58.0
5.3
YES
Table 4.11-17 Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Prediction Phase 1 for Phase 1 ConBaseline Construction + struction Baseline 62.8 54.4 63.4 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 52.7 56.4 51.7 56.3 54.8 59.2 54.5 54.0 52.8 63.7 56.1 58.3 60.3 62.0 56.6 56.3 55.8
Location
Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
Increase in Daytime Noise Level (dBA) 0.6 0.9 2.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 4.2 3.9 3.1
Significant?
Residential Uses North of Site on 8th Street Residential Uses Northwest of Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses East of Site on Ardmore Avenue Residential Uses West of Site on Loma Dr Veterans Parkway (Center)
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
4.11-41
Figure 4.11-13 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-42
Figure 4.11-14 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-43
Figure 4.11-15 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-44
Figure 4.11-16 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-45
Project Phase 2 - Drilling and Testing
Phase 2 of the Proposed Project has an estimated duration of 12 months, during which time the potential productivity and economic viability of the site would be evaluated by the drilling of test wells. Three test wells would be drilled together with one water injection well. Test production equipment would also be in use during this phase, testing the wells at a rate of approximately 800 barrels per day. According to the Applicants schedule, the test drilling and test production activities would occur simultaneously for approximately 2 months. During this time, drilling and test production equipment would operate 24-hours per day. After the overlap period, the test production activity only would continue for approximately 7 months, with equipment operating continuously 24-hours per day. The drilling would occur for 4 months. Data used in the noise modeling of the drilling activities in this phase is based on: Field measurements made by Behrens and Associates of the noise produced by an Ensign 533 electric top drive drilling rig operating on a site near Bakersfield. According to the application, this rig is similar to the drilling equipment proposed for Phase 2 of the Project. Field measurements made by Arup Acoustics at the Whittier oilfield of various intermittent pipe-handling noises associated with drilling.
The test production equipment noise model has been based on noise measurements made by Behrens and Associates at PXPs Murphy site in Los Angeles. According to the application, the production equipment in use at the Murphy site is similar to that proposed for this phase of the Project. Table 4.11-18 summarizes the equipment types and source noise levels used in the noise analysis of Phase 2.
Impact # Impact Description Drilling + Production activities would increase noise levels. Phase Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
NV.2
Phase 2
The Applicant proposes the following noise reduction design features for Phase 2: A 32-foot high acoustical barrier, with a minimum STC rating of 32 will be erected around the perimeter of the Project Site during all drilling activities. The air inlets of the hydraulic power unit will be fitted with silencers providing the following minimum insertion loss performance:
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Insertion Loss (dB) 63 4 125 8 250 18 500 31 1k 38 2k 38 4k 31 8k 18
An acoustical shroud will be provided on three sides of the drill rig mast to reduce top drive noise emissions. Mud pumps to be completely enclosed by acoustical barriers, with a minimum STC-25 rating.
An 8-foot high acoustical barrier, with a minimum STC rating of 25 will be installed around the shaker tables. The implementation of a Drilling Quiet Mode Plan, as described in the appendices to the Application. The plan includes both engineering and administrative measures designed to reduce noise disturbance during the nighttime hours (from 7 pm to 8 am). Each well pump will be fitted with an acoustical enclosure to limit the radiated sound power level to 83 dBA. Noise emissions from each of the produced oil pumps, produced water pumps, water booster pumps and variable frequency drive (VFD) cabinets will be attenuated in such a way as to limit the radiated sound power level to 77 dBA. Noise emissions from the water injection pump will be attenuated in such a way as to limit its radiated sound power level to 83 dBA. Noise emissions from the vapor recovery compressor will be attenuated in such a way as to limit its radiated sound power level to 83 dBA. Noise emissions from the cooler for the vapor recovery compressor will be attenuated in such a way as to limit its radiated sound power level to 85 dBA.
Table 4.11-18 Phase 2 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Sound Power Level1 (dBA) 110.7 105.4 93.3 75.3 131.7 97.7 77.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 96.8 93.6 90.2 83.3 Quantity in Model 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Usage Factor2 (%) 100 100 100 100 0.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Work Stage
Equipment Hydraulic Power Unit
Phase 2 Test Drilling Three test wells and one water injection well.
Mud Pump Drill Rig Top Drive Shaker Metal on Metal Noise Well Pumps Produced Oil Pumps Produced Water Pumps
Phase 2 Test Production At a rate of 800 barrels per day.
Loading Pumps Water Booster Pumps Water Injection Pumps Vapor Recovery Compressor Vapor Recovery Unit Cooler Variable Frequency Drive
2 The
Source level, not including noise control design features, where proposed. percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each 24-hour period.
4.11-47
In addition, the Applicant would be bound by the following drilling and production equipment noise control measures required by the 1993 Conditional Use Permit: Heavy/large reciprocating equipment shall be mounted on vibration isolators. Pumping units shall be maintained to eliminate noise from worn parts. Tripping will be restricted to daylight hours only. Loudspeaker paging systems will be prohibited. Well workover rigs or any other rig that is used shall be operated only between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm during daytime weekday hours only, excluding holidays, except in an emergency as defined in the CUP and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement. The exhaust and intake of the diesel engine (if used on workover rig) shall be muffled to reduce noise to an acceptable limit. The operator shall use whatever means necessary, including but not limited to enclosing the diesel engine and rig in acoustic blankets or housing. All oil maintenance equipment, vehicles and non-electrical motors shall be equipped with manufacturer-approved mufflers or housed in a sound-proofing device. Noise monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of an independent certified acoustical engineer paid for by the permittee. Reports shall be submitted to the Planning Director within three working days after the completion of each phase of the monitoring. The monitoring shall include: o Pre-drilling phase monitoring. Prior to the start of the drilling phase, noise measurements shall be obtained during the operation of the specific drilling rig which has been selected and the measurements shall be related to those experienced at the nearest residential boundaries to the drilling site. In addition, the noise control measures which have been (or will be) applied to the rig as needed for compliance with the City of Hermosa Beach noise ordinances shall be identified. o Start of drilling. Noise measurements shall be obtained during the nighttime hours (10:00pm to 7:00am) for at least six hours on each of three nights within the five day period from the start of the drilling phase. Monitoring is to occur at the nearest residential boundary to the actual drilling operation. o During the drilling phase. Noise monitoring shall occur during a six-hour period between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am at least once each month during the drilling phase of the Project. The noise level data obtained shall be compared to the City of Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance standards by the Planning Department. Where an exceedence of the standards is identified. Noise control measures shall be required. o Production phase. Noise measurements shall be obtained during a six-hour period between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am at least once each year during the production and completion phase.
Figures 4.11-17 and 4.11-18 show predicted noise contours for the drilling-plus-test production stage of Phase 2, for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet above the ground, respectively. These predictions include all of the noise reduction design features proposed by the Applicant for this phase of the Project.
4.11-48
Figure 4.11-17 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-49
Figure 4.11-18 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-50
Table 4.11-19 shows how predicted drilling-plus-production noise levels in Phase 2 would impact noise levels at the nearby receivers during the quietest hours of the night. Table 4.11-20 compares predicted drilling-plus-production noise levels with the 45 dBA noise limit required by the Hermosa Beach Oil Code.
Table 4.11-19 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) Baseline (Lowest 1hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Drilling + Test Production 44.6 49.1 41.3 47.0 45.2 47.9 44.5 45.2 44.8 Drilling + Test Production + Baseline 48.1 50.7 42.8 47.5 46.0 48.4 45.8 46.3 45.3 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 2.5 5.1 5.2 9.9 7.7 10.1 5.9 6.4 9.7 Significant?
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Table 4.11-20 Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Predicted Drilling + Test Production Noise Level (dBA) 44.6 49.1 41.3 47.0 45.2 47.9 44.5 45.2 44.8
Location
Complies with 45 dBA Limit? YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO YES
Residential Uses North of the Site on 8th Street Residential Uses Northwest of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Residential Uses West of the Site on Loma Drive Veterans Parkway (Center)
4.11-51
Table 4.11-21 Phase 2 - Predicted Test Production (Only) Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) Baseline (Lowest 1hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Drilling + Test Production 35.6 36.5 31.9 36.9 31.9 34.0 34.6 35.1 32.2 Drilling + Test Production + Baseline 46.0 46.1 38.6 40.3 39.2 39.7 41.0 41.1 37.2 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.7 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 Significant?
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
As the figures and tables show, predicted noise impacts during the production-only portion of Phase 2 are less than significant. Figures 4.11-19 and 4.11-20 show predicted noise contours for the test production (only) stage of Phase 2, for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet above the ground, respectively. These predictions include all of the noise reduction design features proposed by the Applicant for this phase of the Project. The predicted noise impacts on the surrounding uses during this part of Phase 2 are summarized in Table 4.11-21. Predicted noise impacts during the Phase 2 drilling and production stage are significant on all sides of the site and in many cases also exceed the 45 dBA limit prescribed by the Hermosa Beach Oil Code. Since the Applicants proposals for Phase 2 already include extensive noise control measures, there is little additional scope for reducing noise emissions during the drilling and production stage. However, the additional mitigation would be feasible.
4.11-52
Figure 4.11-19 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-53
Figure 4.11-20 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-54
Mitigation Measures
NV-2a
Increase the height of the noise barriers on all sides of the site from 32-feet to 35-feet (35-feet is the maximum height allowed). Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck, pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-2b
NV-2c
NV-2d
Residual Impacts
Figures 4.11-21, 4.11-22 and Table 4.11-22 show predicted noise levels during the drilling and production stage of Phase 2 with mitigation - in addition to all of the noise control design features already proposed by the Applicant.
Table 4.11-22 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact with Mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Baseline (Lowest 1-hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Drilling + Test Production 43.7 48.0 41.1 45.1 44.6 47.0 43.9 44.4 43.7 Drilling + Test Production + Baseline 47.8 50.0 42.7 45.8 45.5 47.5 45.4 45.7 44.3
Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 2.2 4.4 5.1 8.2 7.2 9.2 5.5 5.8 8.7
Significant?
Table 4.11-23 compares mitigated noise levels during the drilling-and-production stage of Phase 2 with the requirements of the Hermosa Beach Oil Code.
4.11-55
4.11 Noise and Vibration Table 4.11-23 Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Predicted Drilling + Test Production Noise Level (dBA) 43.7 48.0 41.1 45.1 44.6 47.0 43.9 44.4 43.7
Location
Complies with 45 dBA Limit? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES YES
As the figures and tables show, while the additional mitigation does reduce noise impact on the surrounding sensitive uses, it is still significant in almost all cases. The 20-foot receivers are predicted to experience the worst noise impact, because their elevated position reduces the effectiveness of the noise barrier around the site and the shielding provided by existing buildings. For receivers to the north and west, the most significant contributions to the noise impact on receptors to the north are from the top drive, mud pumps and metal-on-metal contact (the latter is anticipated from time to time and therefore included in the noise model, even in the mitigated scenario). For receivers to the west, the most significant contributions are from the mud pumps and metal-on-metal contact. The top drive is a little less significant here because of the topography of the site. The predicted noise impacts during the production-only portion of Phase 2 are less than significant. However, the noise impact of drilling-plus-production activities in Phase 2 would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.11-56
Figure 4.11-21 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-57
Figure 4.11-22 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-58
Comparison with the Applicants Noise Impact Study
The noise impact analysis for Phase 2 presented here differs from Noise Impact Study (November 2012) prepared by the Applicants acoustical consultant, Behrens & Associates which concluded that noise impacts during the drilling-plus-production stage of Phase 2 would be less than significant. There are several reasons for this: This analysis has compared the noise impact of the drilling-plus-production stage of Phase 2 with both the requirements of the Hermosa Beach Oil Code and the existing baseline noise level, which was determined to be the noise level during the quietest hour of the night, based on noise monitoring over a full week (including weekends). By contrast, the Behrens & Associates study considered only the noise standard in the Hermosa Beach Oil Code, without considering Project noise levels against baseline levels. The analysis presented here considers Project noise levels at a height of 20-feet above ground; this approach is necessary to reflect noise impact on the many two- and threestory residential uses around the Project Site. Elevated receivers will often experience higher levels of noise than those on the ground, because of reduced shielding effects from walls and other buildings. The Behrens & Associates study only considered receivers at a height of 5-feet above the ground. The SoundPLAN model used for this analysis was set to include both first and second order sound reflections, which was considered important to accurately describe the way noise would propagate through a neighborhood characterized by relatively tall and narrow buildings located quite close together. The Behrens & Associates study was based on first order sound reflections only, an approach which tends to yield lower noise level predictions.
Project Phase 3 - Project Site Construction
Construction activities at the Project Site during Phase 3 are scheduled to last for 14 months. The noisiest portion of the work is expected to occur during an eight-week period when the construction of five steel tanks and installation of mechanical and electrical equipment occurs simultaneously. This part of the site construction has therefore been modeled as representing the worst-case noise scenario during Phase 3, using information about the type and usage of equipment during each provided by the applicants consultant, which is summarized in Table 4.11-24. For the site construction in Phase 3, the Applicant proposes the same noise reduction measures described above for Phase 1. This part of the Project will also comply with the noise control measures required by the 1993 Conditional Use Permit. As part of Phase 3, a 16-foot high permanent masonry wall is proposed around the perimeter of the site. Before the masonry wall is built a 16-foot high temporary sound attenuation barrier with a minimum STC rating of 25 will be in-place at the perimeter of the Project Site; this approach is intended to ensure that no site construction work is carried out in Phase 3 without a perimeter noise barrier being in place. In addition, the Applicant proposes the use of temporary portable noise barriers, a minimum of 8-feet high, which will be positioned around the concrete truck engine, welders and crane engine when these items are in use.
4.11-59
Figure 4.11-23 shows noise contours for the modeled site construction scenario during Phase 3 for a receiver height of 5-feet. Figure 4.11-24 shows noise contours for the same scenario for a receiver height of 20-feet. Table 4.11-25 summarizes the highest predicted noise levels for the receivers closest to the Project Site. These predictions include all of the noise reduction features proposed by the Applicant for Phase 3 as well as the noise control measures required under the 1993 Conditional Use Permit.
Table 4.11-24 Phase 3 Site Construction Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Work Stage Equipment Crane Welders Forklifts Construction of steel tanks and installation of mechanical and electrical equipment (8-weeks). Manlifts Backhoe Concrete Truck Truck
1
Sound Power Level (dBA) 114.7 112.1 111.8 107.7 116.8 116.8 115.8
Quantity in Model 1 3 2 2 1 1 1
Usage Factor1 (%) 40 40 25 10 20 10 10
The percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each day of the modeled scenario. Table 4.11-25 Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Prediction for Phase 3 Construction 62.0 67.4 59.4 65.9 58.4 62.4 63.5 65.5 58.5 Phase 3 Construction + Baseline 65.4 68.7 60.5 66.2 61.6 64.0 63.8 65.7 59.5
Baseline 62.8 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 52.7
Significant?
NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
4.11-60
Figure 4.11-23 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-61
Figure 4.11-24 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-62
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
NV.3
Site construction machinery would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Phase 3
As Table 4.11-25 shows, predicted noise impacts during Phase 3 construction are significant on the north, east and west sides of the site - with the greatest impacts shown at the upper floors of the residences on Cypress Street and Loma Drive.
Mitigation Measures
NV-3a
Provide continuous, 35-foot high noise barriers along the west and north sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC32. Provide continuous 25-foot high noise barriers along the east and south sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25. The gates on the east and south sides of the site should be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-3b
NV-3c
Figures 4.11-25 and 26 show predicted construction noise contours for Phase 3 with all of the additional noise mitigation measures listed above in place (in addition to the mitigations already proposed by the Applicant). Table 4.11-26 summarizes the highest predicted noise levels for receivers closest to the Project Site in this additional-mitigation scenario.
Residual Impacts
The noise impact of site construction equipment in Phase 3 would remain significant at the residences on Loma Drive and Cypress Street, even after mitigation (Class I). Since it is not possible to provide a sound barrier higher than 35-feet on the western side of the site due to municipal code height limitations, this noise impact cannot be further mitigated and is significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.11-63
Table 4.11-26 Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact with Additional Mitigation Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA)
Baseline Prediction for Phase 3 Construction Phase 3 Construction + Baseline
Location
Receive r Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
Significa nt? NO NO NO YES NO NO YES YES NO
62.8 62.8 54.1 54.1 58.8 58.8 52.4 52.4 52.7
57.1 58.9 55.1 57.9 55.6 58.4 57.8 57.4 56.1
63.8 64.3 57.6 59.4 60.5 61.6 58.9 58.6 57.7
Project Phase 3 - Pipeline Construction
During this stage of Phase 3, new Pipelines would be constructed to convey produced oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers offsite. The Pipelines would pass through the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. Construction of the Pipelines is scheduled to take 17 weeks. The Hermosa Beach portion of the pipe construction would extend south from the Project Site along Valley Drive to Herondo Street. The section of the Valley Drive work expected to cause the most noise impact would occur between South Park and 2nd Street and this has been selected for assessment as representing the worst-case scenario for the pipeline construction in Hermosa Beach. The Redondo Beach portion of the pipeline construction would extend northwest from the eastern end of Herondo Street and along Anita Street to the western end of 190th Street. There are three possible alignments for this portion of the pipeline: westbound side of Anita Street, Eastbound side of Anita Street and the Southern California Edison corridor to the south of Anita Street. Each of these possible alignments is overlooked by residential uses on the north and south sides. The section of the Anita Street pipeline between N. Paulina Avenue and Prospect Avenue and the three alignment alternatives associated with this section have been selected for assessment as representing the worst-case scenarios for the pipeline construction in Redondo Beach. The Torrance portion of the pipeline construction would run in an east-west direction, parallel to 190th Street. There are three possible alignments for this portion of the pipeline: extend northwest from the eastern end of Herondo Street and along Anita Street to the western end of 190th Street. There are three possible alignments for this portion of the pipeline: westbound side of 190th Street, eastbound side of 190th Street and the Southern California Edison corridor to the south of 191st Street. Each of these possible alignments is overlooked by residential uses to the north and/or south sides. The section of the Torrance pipeline between Inglewood Avenue and Firmona Avenue and all three alignment alternatives associated with this section have been
selected for assessment as representing the worst-case scenarios for the pipeline construction in Torrance. Table 4.11-27 summarizes the equipment quantities and usage factors (based on information provided by the Applicants consultant) as well as sound power level data from published reference sources which have been the inputs to the Phase 3 pipeline construction noise model. The Applicant proposes the following noise control design features for the pipeline construction portion of Phase 3: Temporary noise reduction barriers, minimum 12-feet high, located on either side of the pavers and trenchers in such a way as the block the line-of-sight between the equipment and the nearest sensitive receiver. The barriers will have an STC rating of at least 25 and will be moved alongside the equipment as the work progresses. Pipeline construction will be limited to daylight hours between 8:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Friday in the City of Hermosa Beach and 9:00am to 3:00pm Monday through Friday in the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. There will be no pipeline construction work on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays.
4.11-65
Figure 4.11-25 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-66
Figure 4.11-26 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-67
Table 4.11-27 Phase 3 Pipeline Construction Noise Models Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Sound Power Level1 (dBA) 111.7 116.7 113.3 116.8 111.7 115.0 111.7 116.8 116.8 111.7 116.7 113.3 116.8 111.7 115.0 111.7 116.8 116.8 Quantity in Model 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 Usage Factor2 (%) 16 16 50 40 16 40 16 50 40 16 16 50 40 16 40 16 50 40
Pipeline Location
Equipment Pipe Fitter Truck Sideboom Truck Trencher Backhoe
Valley Drive City of Hermosa Beach
Water Truck Dump Trucks Flatbed Truck Paver Concrete Truck Pipe Fitter Trucks Sideboom Trucks
Anita Street/ Edison Corridor City of Redondo Beach

th
Trenchers Backhoes Water Truck
190 Street/ Edison Corridor City of Torrance
Dump Trucks Flatbed Trucks Paver Concrete Truck
1 2
Source level, not including attenuation measures, where proposed. The percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each 24-hour period.
Figures 4.11-27 through 4.11-37 show predicted noise contours for each of the modeled pipeline construction location/alignment scenarios. Table 4.11-28 summarizes the highest predicted noise levels at the nearby receivers in each case.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
NV.4
Pipeline construction machinery would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Phase 3
As Table 4.11-28 shows, considerable increases in daily noise level are predicted as a result of the pipeline construction work in Phase 3, indicating clearly significant noise impact in all cases. Due to the nature of the work, further options for mitigation of pipeline construction noise (beyond the measures already proposed by the Applicant and included in the noise model) are
expected to be very limited - and it would therefore not be possible in practice to reduce noise impact on nearby sensitive receivers to less than significant levels at any portion of the Pipeline route.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Residual Impact
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).

Project Phase 4 - Development and Operations
Phase 4 of the Project includes both drilling and production activities on the site, which will overlap. The noise analysis assessed noise levels during drilling and production and during production only (no drilling). Each of these scenarios is discussed below.
Phase 4 Drilling and Production
It is proposed to drill 27 oil and gas wells and three water injection wells in this phase over a 30month period, with drilling equipment operating 24-hours a day during this time. The drilling equipment the Applicant proposes to use is the same as that in Phase 2 and all of the Phase 2 noise reduction measures would also be applied in this phase, including the 32-foot high sound attenuation barrier. The proposed production operations are projected to yield approximately 8,000 barrels of crude oil per day and 2.5 million cubic feet of gas, as per Section 2, Project Description. The production would occur concurrently with the drilling activity during the first 30 months of Phase 4. Once the drilling stage is complete, the 32-foot high noise barrier would be removed (leaving only the 16-foot high masonry wall constructed in Phase 3) and production activity would continue 24-hours a day for the remainder of the life of the Project. Table 4.11-29 summarizes the information about types and quantities of drilling and production equipment in Phase 4, made available by the Applicants consultant. The table also shows overall sound power levels of the equipment - based on field measurements at similar oil production facilities as well as manufacturers data and other published sources.
4.11-69
Figure 4.11-27 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
Figure 4.11-28 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-70
4.11 Noise and Vibration Figure 4.11-29 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
Figure 4.11-30 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-71
4.11 Noise and Vibration Figure 4.11-31 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
Figure 4.11-32 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-72
4.11 Noise and Vibration Figure 4.11-33 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
Figure 4.11-34 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-73
4.11 Noise and Vibration Figure 4.11-35 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
Figure 4.11-36 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-74
4.11 Noise and Vibration Figure 4.11-37 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Torrance Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-75
Table 4.11-28 Phase 3 - Predicted Pipeline Construction Noise Impact Average Daytime Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Scenario / Alignment Most Impacted Receiver Receiver Height (ft) Prediction for Phase 3 Pipeline Construction 88.1 87.7 89.6 88.9 83.0 82.3 80.5 79.6 86.8 Phase 3 Pipeline Constructio n + Baseline 88.1 87.7 89.6 88.9 83.0 82.3 80.5 79.6 86.8 Increase in Daytime Noise Level (dBA) 24.6 24.2 31.2 30.5 24.6 23.9 25.6 24.7 21.9
Significant?
Baseline 63.5 63.5 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 54.9 54.9 64.9
Valley Drive Between South Park & Second Street Anita Street Westbound Side Between Paulina Ave & Prospect Ave Anita Street Eastbound Side Between Paulina Ave & Prospect Ave Southern California Edison Corridor Between Paulina Ave & Prospect Ave 190th Street Westbound Side Between Inglewood & Fermona Avenues 190th Street Eastbound Side Between Inglewood & Fermona Avenues Southern California Edison Corridor Between Inglewood & Fermona Avenues
Residential Uses West of Valley Drive Residential Uses North of Anita Street Residential Uses North of Anita Street Residential Uses North of Paulina Ave Residential Uses North of 190th Street Residential Uses South of 190th Street Residential Uses North if Tower Street
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
64.9
86.2
86.2
21.3
YES
69.7
88.4
88.5
18.8
YES
4.11-76
The Applicant proposes the following noise mitigation measures in Phase 4: Each well pump will be housed in a sound-attenuating enclosure, sufficient to limit its radiated sound power level to 73 dBA. The amine cooler will be fitted with sound attenuating devices sufficient to limit its radiated sound power level to 82 dBA. The amine cooler will be located no higher than 10-feet above ground level in the containment area. Each variable frequency drive cabinets will provide sufficient sound attenuation to limit radiated sound power level of the variable frequency drives to 63 dBA. Acoustically-rated enclosures will be provided for the compressor motors, sufficient to limit the radiated sound power level of the motors to 81 dBA. The compressor fans will be fitted with silencers and otherwise acoustically treated to limit the radiated fan sound power level to 75 dBA. The produced oil pumps, produced water pumps, water booster pumps, DEA charge pumps and regenerator reflux pumps will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit the radiated sound power level of each piece of equipment to 67 dBA. The shipping pumps will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit their radiated sound power level to 73 dBA. The water injection pumps will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit their radiated sound power level to 83 dBA. The vapor recovery compressors will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit their radiated sound power level to 67 dBA. The cooler for the vapor recovery compressors will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit its radiated sound power level to 85 dBA. The glycol regenerator will be acoustically treated in such a way as to limit its radiated sound power level to 73 dBA. The micro-turbines will be housed in acoustically-rated enclosures, sufficient to limit the sound power level radiated by the equipment to 67 dBA. The micro-turbine exhausts will be fitted with mufflers to limit the sound power level at the exhaust outlet to 73 dBA.
The Applicant would also be bound by the noise control requirements of the 1993 Conditional Use Permit, specifically: All pumps will be maintained to minimize noise from worn parts. All oil maintenance equipment, vehicles and non-electrical motors will be equipped with manufacturer-approved mufflers or housed in a sound-proofing device. Noise monitoring will be performed at least once each year for a six-hour period between the hours of 10pm and 7am.
4.11-77
Table 4.11-29 Phase 4 Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Sound Power Level1 (dBA) 110.7 105.4 93.3 75.3 131.7 97.7 77.7 86.7 92.8 86.7 102.8 88.6 90.2 96.2 96.2 102.0 102.1 77.7 77.7 85.0 92.4 92.9 83.3 Quantity in Model 1 2 1 3 1 30 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 30 Usage Factor2 (%) 100 100 100 100 0.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Work Stage
Equipment Hydraulic Power Unit
Phase 4 Drilling 30 month duration. scheduled
Mud Pump Drill Rig Top Drive Shaker Metal on Metal Noise Well Pumps Produced Oil Pump Produced Water Pump Shipping Pump Water Booster Pump Water Injection Pumps Vapor Recovery Compressor Vapor Recovery Unit Cooler
Phase 4 Production At a rate of 800 barrels per day.
1st Stage Compressor 2nd Stage Compressor Compressor Cooler Amine Cooler DEA Charge Pump Regenerator Reflux Pump Chiller Glycol Regenerator Micro-turbines (Inc. Exhaust) Variable Frequency Drives
1 2
Source level, not including noise control design features, where proposed. The percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each 24-hour period.
Figures 4.11-38 and 4.11-39 show the predicted noise contours for the drilling-and-production stage of Phase 4, for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet respectively. Table 4.11-30 shows how the predicted noise levels during the drilling-and-production stage of Phase 4 would impact noise levels at the nearby receivers during the quietest hours of the night. Table 4.11-31 compares predicted noise levels with the noise limit required by the Hermosa Beach Oil Code.
4.11-78
Table 4.11-30 Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Baseline (Lowest 1-hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Drilling + Production 44.1 48.5 40.2 45.5 45.9 49.7 44.1 43.2 45.0 Drilling + Production + Baseline 47.9 50.3 42.1 46.2 46.6 50.0 45.5 44.9 45.5
Significant?
Table 4.11-31 Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Level (dBA) 44.1 48.5 40.2 45.5 45.9 49.7 44.1 43.2 45.0
Location
Complies with 45 dBA Limit? YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES YES
4.11-79
Figure 4.11-38 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-80
Figure 4.11-39 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-81
Impact #
Impact Description Drilling-plus-production activity on the site would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Phase
NV.5
Phase 4
As the preceding tables show, predicted noise levels during the drilling-and-production stage of Phase 4 are significant at almost all of the neighboring sensitive receivers. The most significantly impacted properties are expected to be the homes on Ardmore Avenue. Because the Applicant already proposes quite extensive noise controls for the drilling and production equipment, options for further mitigation are limited to increasing the height and extent of the noise reduction barrier around the perimeter as described below.
Mitigation Measures
NV-5a NV-5b
Provide a continuous, 35-foot high noise barrier around the entire perimeter of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. Provide solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal gates for the east and south designed to deliver a minimum STC of 32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-32 noise barrier in all locations. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck, pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-5c
NV-5d
Figures 4.11-40 and 4.11-41 show the noise contours for this mitigated scenario and the slightly reduced noise impact on neighboring uses is summarized in Table 4.11-32. Table 4.11-33 compares the slightly mitigated predicted noise levels during the drilling-plus-production with the 45 dBA noise limit required by the Hermosa Beach Oil Code.
Residual Impacts
The noise impact of drilling-and-production activities in Phase 4 would remain significant, even after mitigation (Class I). Since it is not possible to provide a sound barrier higher than 35-feet on the western side of the site, this noise impact would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.11-82
Figure 4.11-40 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-83
Figure 4.11-41 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-84
Table 4.11-32 Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact with Mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Baseline (Lowest 1-hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Drilling + Production 43.8 47.7 39.5 44.2 45.0 47.1 44.2 44.4 42.8 Drilling + Production + Baseline 47.8 49.8 41.7 45.1 45.8 47.6 45.6 45.7 43.6
Significant ?
Table 4.11-33 Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Level (dBA) 42.2 47.1 37.4 40.4 44.5 46.7 42.6 42.7 42.4 Complies with 45 dBA Limit? YES NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES
Location Residential Uses North of the Site on 8th Street Residential Uses Northwest of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Residential Uses West of the Site on Loma Drive Veterans Parkway (Center)
Comparison with the Applicants Noise Impact Study
As with Phase 2 the noise impact analysis presented above, noise impacts for Phase 4 differs from the Noise Impact Study (November 2012) prepared by the Applicants acoustical consultant, Behrens & Associates - which concluded that noise impacts during the drilling-plusproduction stage of Phase 4 would be less than significant. The reasons for this difference are the same as those described above in subsection 4.11.4.1 for Phase 2.
Phase 4 Production Only (No Drilling or Re-drilling Occurring)
The production would occur concurrently with the drilling activity during the first 30 months of Phase 4. Once the drilling stage is complete, the 32-foot high noise barrier would be removed
(leaving only the 16-foot high masonry wall constructed in Phase 3) and production activity would continue 24-hours a day for the remainder of the life of the Project. Re-drills would also occur occasionally. Noise impacts during redrilling would be the same as under the drilling scenario discussed above. This subsection discussed the period after drilling or when re-drilling is not occurring, with only production equipment operating. Figures 4.11-42 and 4.11-43 show predicted noise contours for the production-only portion of Phase 4, for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet respectively. Table 4.11-34 shows the predicted noise impact of the long-term production operations at the site on the sensitive receptors nearby.
Table 4.11-34 Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) Baseline (Lowest 1hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.7 1.7 2.3 6.2 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.7 2.3 Significant?
Production
Production + Baseline 46.3 47.3 39.9 43.8 40.0 41.2 41.8 42.6 37.9
5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5
38.2 42.3 36.1 42.6 35.1 38.0 37.2 39.2 34.1
NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
4.11-86
Figure 4.11-42 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-87
Figure 4.11-43 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-88
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
NV.6
Long term production activity on the site would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Phase 4
Mitigation Measures
NV-6a NV-6b
Increase the height of the masonry walls on the north and west sides of the site to a minimum of 27-feet. Apply outdoor acoustical panels to all available surfaces of the north and west walls that face the production operations above a height of 10-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of production noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the east and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72.
Figures 4.11-44 and 4.11-45 show the noise contours for this mitigated long-term production scenario and the reduced noise impact on neighboring uses is summarized in Table 4.11-35.
Table 4.11-35 Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact with mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 Baseline (Lowest 1-hr Nighttime Leq) 45.6 45.6 37.6 37.6 38.3 38.3 39.9 39.9 35.6 Production + Baseline 46.0 46.2 38.9 40.4 39.7 40.7 40.8 41.1 37.6
Production 35.4 37.1 33.1 37.1 34.1 36.9 33.7 35.0 33.3
Significant?
Residual Impacts
The noise impact of long term production activities in Phase 4 would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.11-89
4.11.4.2 Traffic Noise Analysis
The noise impact of additional traffic generated by the Project will be most pronounced on Valley Drive between Pier Avenue and 6th Street and between 6th and Herondo Streets, because: Of all the street segments anticipated to be used by cars and trucks associated with the Project, these segments of Valley Drive have the lowest present-day volumes and will therefore experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic volume due to the Project. Since Valley Drive connects directly to the site, it will necessarily handle all inbound and outbound traffic; further from the site, the traffic will tend to disperse and be distributed between the various route options. There are noise-sensitive residential uses located directly adjacent to both segments of Valley Drive.
Traffic contribution on PCH, 190th or other main streets would be a lower percentage of the total roadway traffic than on Valley Drive and would therefore produce a lower change in noise level increases than the analysis below for Valley Drive. For the purposes of the noise analysis, it has been assumed that all inbound traffic will access the site from the north (Valley Drive between Pier Avenue and 6th Street) and all outgoing traffic will leave the site towards the south (via Valley Drive between 6th and Herondo Streets). Traffic noise CNEL values for Valley Drive have been calculated at the closest residential properties to Valley Drive using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model module in SoundPLAN 7.3 software, using present day and future traffic volumes with as well as the estimated additional trips associated with each of the four phases of the Project. This process has yielded the calculated increase in traffic noise CNEL values with and without each Project phase. Table 4.11-36 summarizes the input data and results of this analysis. As the Table shows, the expected increases in CNEL are no more than 0.1 dBA, which is less than significant.
4.11-90
Figure 4.11-44 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft
4.11-91
Figure 4.11-45 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft
4.11-92
Table 4.11-36 Calculated Traffic CNEL Noise Level Increases on Valley Drive Project Phase Vehicles Total ADT Volume Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT Volume With Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Predicted Increase in CNEL (dBA) Total ADT Volume Medium Duty Trucks Without Project Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT Volume With Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Predicted Increase in CNEL (dBA) Total ADT Volume Medium Duty Trucks Without Project Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT Volume With Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Predicted Increase in CNEL (dBA) Total ADT Volume Without Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT Volume With Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Predicted Increase in CNEL (dBA) Total ADT Volume Medium Duty Trucks Without Project Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT Volume With Project Medium Duty Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Predicted Increase in CNEL (dBA) Without Project Pier Avenue to 6th Street 4,709 85 33 4,734 85 48 0.1 4,758 86 33 4,804 89 51 0.0 4,758 86 33 4,831 86 51 0.1 4,758 86 33 4,806 90 45 0.0 4,939 89 36 4,952 90 40 0.0 6th Street to Herondo Street 4,021 72 28 4,046 72 43 0.0 4,063 72 28 4,109 75 46 0.1 4,063 72 28 4,136 72 46 0.1 4,063 72 28 4,111 76 40 0.1 4,217 76 30 4,230 77 34 0.0
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4 Drilling & Operations
PHASE 4 Operations
4.11-93
4.11.4.3 Vibration Impact Analysis Phases 1 & 3
Demolition and construction equipment in use on the site during Phases 1 and 3 of the Project would produce potentially significant levels of vibration at the property line. Table 4.11-37 lists the equipment the Applicant expects to be used during Phases 1 and 3, together with the anticipated levels of ground vibration each will produce. As shown in Table 4.11-37, ground vibration levels are expected to be significant at the property line while many of the demolition and construction machines are in use. In the case of the vibratory roller and hydraulic concrete buster, the vibration levels will still be significant at a distance of 50-feet from the property line. This equipment would be used for a period of 3-15 days during Phase 1 and 3. At a distance of 10-feet from the property line, all of the listed pieces of equipment are expected to produce ground vibration levels that greatly exceed the 0.01 inches/second significance threshold for vibration. Since the listed items of equipment are a necessary part of Phases 1 and 3 and since the work will - at times - be occurring close to the property line. However, the land uses immediately adjacent to the Project Site are light manufacturing shops that have their own sources of vibration and are not considered sensitive to vibration from outside sources. The closest use nearby that would be sensitive to vibration is Studio 637, a recording studio on the west side of Cypress Street, which is 200-feet from Project Site. At this distance, ground vibration produced by the construction activities would be below the 0.01 inches/second threshold and would be less than significant.
Table 4.11-37 Demolition & Construction Equipment Ground Vibration Levels Vibration Level (in/sec, rms) Equipment at 50-feet at 25-feet at 10-feet Large Hydraulic Excavator 0.007 0.020* 0.078* Backhoe 0.008 0.022* 0.088* Auger 0.008 0.022* 0.088* Large Bulldozer 0.008 0.022* 0.088* Vibratory Roller 0.019* 0.053* 0.208* Tamper 0.003 0.009 0.035* Crane 0.003 0.008 0.031* Trencher 0.005 0.014* 0.054* Large Truck 0.007 0.019* 0.075* Hydraulic Concrete Buster 0.021* 0.060* 0.237* Source: Adapted from Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006), assuming a crest factor of 4. * Asterisk indicates that ground vibration exceeds the 0.01 in/sec significance threshold.
4.11-94
Phases 2 & 4 Vibration
The drilling and production equipment associated with Phases 2 and 4 will produce lower levels of vibration than the demolition and construction used in Phases 1 and 3. Maximum ground vibration levels of 0.006 inches/second (RMS) at a distance of 50-feet from a drilling rig have been measured at the PXP oilfield in Baldwin Hills. The rig being studied in Baldwin Hills was larger than that proposed for this Project and was powered by large diesel generators - which will not be needed for the Hermosa Beach site. However, a vibration level of 0.006 inches/second has been used as a conservative basis for the analysis in this case. The Applicants proposed layout for the site places the drill mast approximately 50-feet from the property line, but there are several pieces of associated equipment (such as mud and well pumps) that are closer to the property line than 50-feet, which introduces the possibility that ground vibration levels at the property line could approach, the 0.01 inches/second significance threshold. Also, there will likely be occasional pulses of vibration from pipe handling and similar intermittent activities that could be introduced to the ground, causing vibration levels at the property line to exceed 0.01 inches/second from time to time. The land uses immediately adjacent to the Project Site are light manufacturing shops that have their own sources of vibration and are not considered sensitive to vibration from outside sources. The closest use nearby that would be sensitive to vibration is Studio 637, a recording studio on the west side of Cypress Street, which is 200-feet from the Project Site. At this distance, ground vibration produced by the drilling and production activities would be below the 0.01 inches/second threshold and would be less than significant.
Valve Box Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the location of the valve box for the tie-in to the crude oil system. Noise impacts could be realized if maintenance activities are required on the valve boxes or fluid noise occurs from components. Therefore, the greater separation distance the better from populated areas. The valve box options 2 and 4 provide the best separation distance.
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the pipeline route for tie-in to the crude oil system. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 involve construction in the roadway, which would require additional construction activities, including asphalt laying, and potential recirculation of traffic during construction, which would generate more noise than Scenario 3, which would be installed within the mostly dirt SCE right-of-way. Scenario 3 would therefore be preferable.
4.11.4.4 Relocation of the City Yard
The proposal to relocate the City Yard to a new site adjacent to City Hall would involve demolition of the existing Hermosa Storage building and clearance of the site. A new facility would be built to replace the existing one and would include a circulation yard flanked by workshops, storage and a small office building. Two options are currently under consideration: a No Added Parking option that would retain the same number of parking spaces as are currently
available at Hermosa Storage; and a Parking Option, that would provide 97 additional subterranean parking spaces. The noise impacts of the City Maintenance Yard relocation have been modeled using SoundPLAN 7.3 software. Three scenarios were studied: demolition phase, construction phase and operations. In each case, the anticipated worst-case noise sources were used as inputs to the model.
Comparison of the two Options Construction Noise
Under the Parking Option, additional construction would be required to construct the underground parking level, thereby increasing the duration of construction noise impact compared to the No Added Parking option.
Operational Noise - Parking Structure
During operations, the Parking Option would introduce additional vehicle parking activity compared to the No Added Parking option and to present-day conditions. However, the increase in vehicle movements would be offset by the fact that the new parking structure would be sunken below grade and enclosed, shielding the closest sensitive uses from most of the parking structure noise. For residential receivers on 11th Street, parking activity associated with the Parking Option would not introduce any additional noise impacts compared to the No Added Parking option or to the present-day. A similar situation would exist for those residential receivers located immediately north of the new Yard site on Cypress Avenue. Residential receivers located further north on Cypress Avenue would be exposed to noise radiating from the parking structure entrance/exit ramp, but the effect on time-averaged noise levels (such as hourly Leq) would be negligible due to the relatively low number of parking spaces and correspondingly low traffic volume. However, the noise of individual events in the parking structure such as - door slams, tire squeals, alarm activation etc. - would be apparent from time to time and would be most noticeable during the late evening and at night, when ambient noise levels are at their lowest. Based on noise measurements made in existing parking structures (MGA 2008), maximum instantaneous noise levels of 50 dBA are estimated for the homes on Cypress Avenue that have direct line-of-sight to the parking structure entrance/exit. While audible, a maximum noise level of 50 dBA is considered less than significant in the context of the existing noise climate in this area. During the baseline noise surveys, instantaneous maximum noise levels in this location (monitoring location Y7 in Figure 4.11-8) were found to frequently exceed 50 dBA - even at night - due to existing noise sources such as vehicle movements on Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive.
Demolition & Construction
The demolition and construction schedule would span approximately 16 months. The noisiest portion of the demolition and site clearance work at the new City Maintenance Yard site is anticipated to be the break-up and removal of existing asphalt and concrete paving, concrete curbs and walls, and underground utilities. The equipment in use during this worst-case demolition stage would be the same as that in the demolition of the existing City Maintenance
Yard (see Table 4.11-13) and would last for an estimated 2 weeks. The noisiest stage of the construction work is expected to be the construction of foundations and slabs and would last for an estimated 2-4 weeks. Equipment types, noise levels and usage factors used in the noise model for the new City Maintenance Yard demolition and construction phases are shown in Table 4.1138. The following noise reducing design features have been included in the noise models for the construction and demolition work at the new City Maintenance Yard site: A typical 12-foot high plywood jobsite fence at the perimeter of the site. Demolition and construction activities limited to between 8am and 6pm Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm on Saturdays. No demolition or construction activities on Sundays or Federal holidays. All consistent with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. All demolition and construction equipment will be regularly serviced and maintained in proper working order, so as not to create excessive noise. Any non-compliant equipment will be immediately removed from service. Equipment maintenance work will be subject to the same time restrictions as the other demolition and construction activities. All mechanical equipment, including mobile equipment, will be switched off when not in use. All personnel working on the Project Site will receive Employee Noise Awareness training, to ensure familiarity with all noise control procedures and the importance of strict compliance. Horns, whistles or other loud devices will not be used. Yelling will be avoided. All personnel communications - outside of emergencies - will be made via walkie-talkies or other electronic communication devices. No radios or other loudspeaker devices will be allowed on the site.
4.11-97
Table 4.11-38 City Maintenance Yard Relocation Demolition & Construction Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data Work Stage Equipment Concrete Buster Demolition Removal of concrete & asphalt paving, walls and utilities. Loader Truck Compressor Concrete Pump Concrete Truck Construction Concrete foundations and slabs. Concrete Vibrator Pump Pneumatic Drill Saw
1
Sound Power Level (dBA) 121.8 110.7 115.8 112.8 113.8 116.8 110.8 110.8 116.8 109.8
Quantity in Model 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Usage Factor1 (%) 10 40 15 50 40 40 40 50 4 12
The percentage of time the equipment is expected to operate during each day of the modeled scenario.
Figures 4.11-46 and 4.11-47 show the predicted noise contour maps for the worst-case demolition and construction scenarios for the new City Maintenance Yard site. The contour values are daily average Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) and the receiver height for these two figures is 5-feet. Figures 4.11-48 and 4.11-49 show the noise contours for the same two scenarios with a receiver height of 20-feet; the 20-foot noise contours are particularly relevant to the residential uses on 11th and Cypress Streets, which are predominantly two and three-story structures, as well as City Hall. Tables 4.11-39 and 4.11-40 compare baseline (existing) noise levels at those receptors closest to the proposed City Maintenance Yard site with the predicted demolition and construction noise levels. The baseline for City Hall is the average daytime noise level measured Monday - Friday. For all other receivers, the baseline is the average daytime noise level measured Monday - Saturday, to represent the worst-case noise impact (see Table 4.11-9).
4.11-98
Figure 4.11-46 Relocated City Maintenance Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-99
Figure 4.11-47 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-100
Figure 4.11-48 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-101
Figure 4.11-49 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-102
Table 4.11-39 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact
Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) Baseline Residential Uses West of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses South of the Site on 11th Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach Community Center Tennis Courts to the East of the Site City Hall 20 Veterans Parkway (Center) 5 53.3 63.3 65.5 57.8 65.8 64.4 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 5 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 Demolition 60.4 73.7 60.8 73.8 56.0 62.3 56.9 58.1 58.0 61.6 Demolition + Baseline 61.5 73.8 61.6 73.8 64.0 65.8 63.4 63.7 63.7 62.2
Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 6.7 19.0 7.7 19.9 0.7 2.5 1.1 1.4 1.4 8.9 12.5 1.1
Significant?
YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO
4.11-103
Table 4.11-40 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact
Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) Baseline Residential Uses West of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses South of the Site on 11th Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach Community Center Tennis Courts to the East of the Site City Hall 20 Veterans Parkway (Center) 5 53.3 63.3 69.5 62.3 69.6 65.8 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 5 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 Construction 65.1 77.0 64.4 77.3 61.2 66.7 61.2 61.6 62.4 66.4 Construction + Baseline 65.5 77.0 64.8 77.3 65.4 68.3 64.8 65.0 65.4 66.6
Significant?
4.11-104
As Tables 4.11-39 and 4.11-40 show, the predicted noise impact of demolition and construction activities on the new City Yard site is significant at many of the neighboring sensitive uses. The most significant impacts occur during the construction phase, when Project-related noise is expected to result in a substantial increase in daytime noise at the back of the homes on 11th and Cypress Streets which directly overlook the site, and also at City Hall.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
NV.7
Demolition and construction equipment would increase noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
NV-7a
Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier along the north, west and south boundaries of the City Yard site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25. Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-7b NV-7c
NV-7d
Residual Impacts
Figures 4.11-50 and 4.11-51 show the predicted noise contour maps for the worst-case demolition and construction scenarios with noise mitigation. The contour values are daily average Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) and the receiver height for these two figures is 5-feet. Figures 4.11-52 and 4.11-53 show the noise contours for the same two scenarios with a receiver height of 20-feet. The noise impact of these mitigated demolition and construction scenarios on the neighboring properties is summarized in Tables 4.11-41 and 4.11-42. As the figures and tables show, these mitigated scenarios reduce demolition and construction noise impact to less than significant levels for receivers east of the site, but at the residences on Cypress and 11th Streets and at City Hall, significant impact remains. The noise impact of demolition and construction associated with the relocation of the City Yard would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
4.11-105
Table 4.11-41 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Mitigation Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 5 20 5 Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Demolition 56.8 56.8 58.3 58.1 54.4 60.4 54.8 56.6 56.1 53.5 54.3 55.9 Demolition + Baseline 58.9 58.9 59.6 59.5 63.8 65.1 63.0 63.3 63.2 56.4 56.8 64.0 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 4.1 4.1 5.7 5.6 0.5 1.8 0.7 1.0 0.9 3.1 3.5 0.7
Location Residential Uses West of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses South of the Site on 11th Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach Community Center Tennis Courts to the East of the Site City Hall Veterans Parkway (Center)
Significant? NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
4.11-106
Figure 4.11-50 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-107
Figure 4.11-51 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-108
Figure 4.11-52 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-109
Figure 4.11-53 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-110
Table 4.11-42 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact With Additional Noise Mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Location Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 5 20 5 Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Construction 60.1 60.4 61.9 62.0 59.7 65.1 59.9 60.0 60.8 59.4 59.9 60.8 Construction + Baseline 61.2 61.5 62.5 62.6 64.9 67.3 64.3 64.3 64.6 60.4 60.8 65.2
Significant?
Residential Uses West of the Site on Cypress Street Residential Uses South of the Site on 11th Street Residential Uses East of the Site on Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach Community Center Tennis Courts to the East of the Site City Hall Veterans Parkway (Center)
Operational Phase
Assessment of operational noise from the relocated City Yard has been based on noise measurements made at the existing facility during the month of December, 2013. 24-hour noise readings - both frequency spectra and overall dBA levels - were made at several locations in the yard, including the vehicle maintenance and building maintenance/wood shops and outside in the circulation/parking areas, trash drop off etc. These source readings were input to the SoundPLAN model, together with a three-dimensional representation of the future buildings on the new site based on the architectural drawings and renderings for the new facility (parking Option). Figure 4.11-54 shows the predicted noise contour maps for the operation of the City Yard in its proposed new location. The contour values are daily average Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) and the receiver height is 5-feet. Figure 4.11-55 shows the noise contours for the same scenario with a receiver height of 20-feet. The predicted noise contours assume a 6-foot high solid masonry wall - as indicated on the architectural drawings.
4.11-111
Table 4.11-43 summarizes the impact of the predicted City Yard operational noise levels at the most affected receivers in the vicinity. In each case, the baseline is the average weekday daytime (8AM - 7PM) Leq noise level (see Table 4.11-9)..
Table 4.11-43 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Operations 42.0 55.3 33.8 45.9 38.8 40.3 40.9 42.2 40.5 48.0 51.4 43.9 Operations + Baseline 55.0 58.1 53.9 54.5 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 54.4 55.5 63.3 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.2 3.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 0.0
Receiver Height (ft) 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 5 20 5
Significant? NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
NV.8
Operational noise from the relocated City Maintenance Yard would increase noise levels.
Generally, the predicted increases in noise level are less than significant. However, at the upper stories of the residences located directly to the west of the site, the predicted increase in daytime noise levels is 3.3 dBA, which slightly exceeds the significance threshold.
Mitigation Measures
NV-8a NV-8b
Increase the height of the masonry wall on the west side of the Yard (the wall that spans between the office and shop building) from 6-feet to 12-feet. No noise-producing activity allowed in the City Yard before 8AM or after 7PM on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies.
NV-8c
For the Parking Option, there shall be no openings in the parking structure enclosure except for the vehicular entrance/exit opening on the north side. The entrance/exit should be located as far to the east as possible, to maximize its distance from the homes on Cypress Avenue. Garage exhaust fans shall be enclosed and fitted with duct silencers on the discharge and intake sides as necessary to limit noise emissions to less than significant levels at the nearby sensitive receivers.
Residual Impacts
Figures 4.11-55, 4.11-56 and Table 4.11-44 show how this mitigation would reduce the predicted noise impact on the residential properties to the west to less than significant levels. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.11-44 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Operations 42.0 54.0 33.9 46.0 38.9 42.7 41.0 42.3 40.7 48.0 51.4 44.0 Operations + Baseline 55.0 57.4 53.9 54.6 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 54.4 55.5 63.4 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 0.1
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
4.11-113
Figure 4.11-54 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS For a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-114
Figure 4.11-55 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-115
Figure 4.11-56 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-116
Figure 4.11-57 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-117
4.11.4.5
Temporary City Maintenance Yard
The permanent relocation of the City Yard would occur in Phase 3, however the Yard would need to be temporarily relocated prior to Phase 1 to allow demolition and construction work to begin at the Project Site. The temporary facility would be located immediately west and south of City Hall on what is now the City vehicle parking lot and access road (see Section 2 Project Description, Figure 2.20). Current proposals for the temporary facility include an 8-foot high concrete block wall around the Yard buildings and open areas.
Demolition & Construction
For residential receivers in the vicinity, the noise impacts during demolition and construction for the temporary facility will generally be of the same magnitude as those predicted for the permanent Yard, with the most affected residences being those located immediately west of the City Hall property on Cypress Street. For City Hall itself, demolition and construction noise impacts will be greater than those predicted for the permanent Yard, because of the immediate proximity of the temporary facility to City Hall.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance yard Project temporary site Residual Impact Class I Significant and Unavoidable
NV.9
Demolition and construction equipment would increase noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
NV-9a
Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier on the north, west and south sides of the site and along those parts of the site boundary adjacent to City Hall. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. If visual and light concerns preclude a 25-foot high noise control barrier close to City Hall - because of visual and light concerns - the noise barrier here should be as tall as possible. Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC25. Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier.
NV-9b
NV-9c
4.11-118
NV-9d
All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
Residual Impacts
As with the permanent Yard relocation, the noise impact of demolition and construction associated with the temporary facility would be significant at the nearby residential uses and at City Hall even after mitigation. The noise impact of demolition and construction associated with the temporary relocation of the City Yard would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Temporary City Maintenance Yard Operations
Assessment of operational noise from the temporary City Yard has been based on the same noise data as that used for analysis of the permanent facility. This data has been input to the SoundPLAN model along with digital representations of the temporary buildings and yard areas. Figures 4.11-58 and 4.11-59 show the predicted noise contour maps for operation of the temporary yard facility, as it is currently proposed for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet above the ground respectively. These maps assume an 8-foot high wall punctuated by pedestrian and vehicle access gates, as shown in the conceptual plan. Table 4.11-45 summarizes the impact of predicted temporary City Yard operational noise levels at the most affected receivers in the vicinity. In each case, the baseline is the average weekday daytime (8AM - 7PM) Leq noise level (see Table 4.11-9).
Impact # Impact Description Phase Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance yard Project temporary site Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
NV.10
Operational noise from the temporary City Yard would increase noise levels.
Generally, the predicted increases in noise level are less than significant. However, at the upper stories of City Hall, the predicted increase in daytime noise levels is 5.8 dBA, which exceeds the significance threshold.
4.11-119
Table 4.11-45 Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Operations 41.2 53.4 34.1 40.0 34.1 37.0 33.5 34.2 35.4 49.3 57.8 36.7 Operations + Baseline 55.0 57.2 53.9 54.1 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 54.8 59.1 63.3 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.8 0.0
Location
Significant?
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO
Mitigation Measures
NV-10a Increase the height of the concrete block Yard wall along the west and south sides of City Hall from 8-feet to 16-feet. NV-10b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to the extended wall surfaces facing the Yard above a height of 8-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of operational noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the west and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72. NV-10c No noise-producing activity allowed in the temporary City Yard before 8 A.M. or after 7 P.M. on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies. Figures 4.11-60 and 4.11-61 show the predicted noise contour maps for operation of the temporary yard facility with mitigation measures NV-9a and 9b in place, for receiver heights of 5-feet and 20-feet above the ground respectively. Table 4.11-46 summarizes the noise impact of
predicted temporary City Maintenance Yard operations with mitigation at the most affected receivers in the vicinity.
Table 4.11-46 Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation Noise Level (Leq, dBA) Baseline 54.8 54.8 53.9 53.9 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 Operations 41.1 53.2 32.5 38.8 32.2 35.1 32.0 32.7 33.6 41.6 52.0 34.8 Operations + Baseline 55.0 57.1 53.9 54.0 63.3 63.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 53.6 55.7 63.3 Increase in Noise Level (dBA) 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 0.0
Location
Significant?
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Residual Impacts
Figures 4.11-60, 4.11-61 and Table 4.11-46 show how this mitigation would reduce the predicted noise impact on the residential properties to the west to less than significant levels. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.11-121
Figure 4.11-58 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-122
Figure 4.11-59 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-123
Figure 4.11-60 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet
4.11-124
Figure 4.11-61 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet
4.11-125
4.11.4.6 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options
Two options are currently under consideration: a No Added Parking option that would retain the same number of parking spaces as are currently available at Hermosa Storage; and a Parking Option, that would add 97 subterranean parking spaces. Under the Parking Option, additional construction would be required to construct the underground parking level, thereby increasing the duration of construction noise impact compared to the No Added Parking option. During operations, the Parking Option would introduce additional vehicle parking activity; however, as the parking structure would be sunken below grade and enclosed, noise levels would be less than significant. Otherwise, for operations, the two options would generate the same noise impacts. The noise study has been based on the Parking Option.
None of the other issue area mitigation measures would increase the peak noise levels. The mitigation measure installing a permanent wall (AE-1b) would reduce noise impacts during operational periods when no drilling rig is present. The permanent wall would also render mitigation measure NV-6a requiring a 27 foot wall no longer applicable. The other issue area mitigation measures would not result in additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
Localized noise impacts are generally restricted to an area within a few blocks from a Project Site. None of the residential cumulative projects would be constructed near enough to the Proposed Project area for noise impacts to overlap, so there would be no operational localized impacts associated with cumulative projects. Traffic levels generated by the other cumulative projects would also not contribute substantially to area traffic noise, and therefore cumulative traffic noise increases would be less than significant.
4.11-126

Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Increase the height of the noise barriers on Review of Before City of the west and north sides of the site to 35design Phase 1 Hermosa feet and upgrade the sound insulation documents Beach performance of the barrier material from and in-field STC-25 to STC-32. inspections Increase the height of the noise barriers on Review of Before City of the south and east sides of the site to 22design Phase 1 Hermosa feet. The sound insulation performance of documents Beach the barrier material in these locations may and in-field remain at STC-25. inspections The gates on the east and south sides of Review of Before City of the site shall be constructed of solid (no design Phase 1 Hermosa holes) plywood or sheet metal and be documents Beach designed to deliver a minimum sound and in-field insulation performance of STC-25. Any inspections gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design Phase 1 Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Increase the height of the noise barriers on Review of Before City of all sides of the site from 32-feet to 35-feet design Phase 2 Hermosa (35-feet is the maximum height allowed). documents Beach Minimum sound insulation performance of and in-field the barrier material should be STC-32. inspections The gates on the east and south sides of Review of Before City of the site shall be constructed of solid (no design Phase 2 Hermosa holes) plywood or sheet metal and be documents Beach designed to deliver a minimum sound and in-field insulation performance of STC-32. Any inspections gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design Phase 2 Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Install pads on the V-door and other Review of Before City of appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the design Phase 2 Hermosa drill deck, pads between drill and casing documents Beach pipe while in storage and pad and timbers and in-field at the boards on the mast to reduce metal- inspections 4.11-127 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Mitigation Measure NV-1a
NV-1b
NV-1c
NV-1d
NV-2a
NV-2b
NV-2c
NV-2d
NV-3b
NV-3c
NV-5a
NV-5b
NV-5c
NV-5d
NV-6a
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party on-metal noise. Provide continuous, 35-foot high noise Review of Before City of barriers along the west and north sides of design Phase 3 Hermosa the site. Minimum sound insulation documents Beach performance of the barrier material should and in-field be STC-32. inspections Provide continuous 25-foot high noise Review of Before City of barriers along the east and south sides of design Phase 3 Hermosa the site. Minimum sound insulation documents Beach performance of the barrier material shall be and in-field STC-25. The gates on the east and south inspections sides of the site should be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design Phase 3 Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Provide a continuous, 35-foot high noise Review of Before City of barrier around the entire perimeter of the design Phase 4 Hermosa site. Minimum sound insulation documents Beach performance of the barrier material should and in-field be STC-32. inspections Provide solid (no holes) plywood or sheet Review of Before City of metal gates for the east and south designed design Phase 4 Hermosa to deliver a minimum STC of 32. Any gaps documents Beach above the gates must be closed off, by and in-field extending the acoustical barrier material inspections from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-32 noise barrier in all locations. All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design Phase 4 Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Install pads on the V-door and other Review of Before City of appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the design Phase 4 Hermosa drill deck, pads between drill and casing documents Beach pipe while in storage and pad and timbers and in-field at the boards on the mast to reduce metal- inspections on-metal noise. Increase the height of the masonry walls on Review of Before City of the north and west sides of the site to a design Phase 4 Hermosa 4.11-128 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measure
NV-6b
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party minimum of 27-feet. documents Beach and in-field inspections Apply outdoor acoustical panels to all Review of Before City of available surfaces of the north and west design Phase 4 Hermosa walls that face the production operations documents Beach above a height of 10-feet above the ground. and in-field The purpose of the acoustical panels is to inspections control reflection of production noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the east and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72.
4.11-129
NV-7b
NV-7c
NV-7d
NV-8a
NV-8b
NV-8c
NV-9a
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise Review of Before City of control barrier along the north, west and design Phase 3 Hermosa south boundaries of the City Yard site. documents Yard Beach Minimum sound insulation performance of and in-field Construction the barrier material should be STC-32. inspections Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise Review of Before City of control barrier along the east boundary of design Phase 3 Hermosa the site. Minimum sound insulation documents Yard Beach performance of the barrier material shall be and in-field Construction STC-25. inspections Access to the site for construction shall be Review of Before City of limited to a gate on the east side in order to design Phase 3 Hermosa maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on documents Yard Beach the north side. Gates shall be constructed and in-field Construction of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal inspections and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC25 noise barrier. All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design Phase 3 Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents Yard Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Construction Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Increase the height of the masonry wall on Review of Before City of the west side of the Yard (the wall that design Phase 3 Hermosa spans between the office and shop building) documents Yard Beach from 6-feet to 12-feet. and in-field Construction inspections No noise-producing activity allowed in the Review of During City of City Yard before 8AM or after 7PM on schedules Phase 3 Hermosa weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and and in-field Yard Beach Sundays except during emergencies. inspections Operation For the Parking Option, there shall be no Review of During City of openings in the parking structure enclosure schedules Phase 3 Hermosa except for the vehicular entrance/exit and in-field Yard Beach opening on the north side. The inspections Operation entrance/exit should be located as far to the east as possible, to maximize its distance from the homes on Cypress Avenue. Garage exhaust fans shall be enclosed and fitted with duct silencers on the discharge and intake sides as necessary to limit noise emissions to less than significant levels at the nearby sensitive receivers. Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise Review of Before City of control barrier on the north, west and south design construction Hermosa 4.11-130 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Mitigation Requirements Responsible Measure Method Timing Party sides of the site and along those parts of documents of temporary Beach the site boundary adjacent to City Hall. and in-field Yard Minimum sound insulation performance of inspections the barrier material should be STC-32. If visual and light concerns preclude a 25-foot high noise control barrier close to City Hall because of visual and light concerns - the noise barrier here should be as tall as possible. NV-9b Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise Review of Before City of control barrier along the east boundary of design construction Hermosa the site. Minimum sound insulation documents of temporary Beach performance of the barrier material should and in-field Yard be STC-25. inspections NV-9c Access to the site for construction shall be Review of Before City of limited to a gate on the east side in order to design construction Hermosa maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on documents of temporary Beach the north side. Gates shall be constructed and in-field Yard of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal inspections and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC25 noise barrier. NV-9d All acoustical barriers around the site shall Review of Before City of offer the following minimum sound design construction Hermosa absorption performance: Center Frequency documents of temporary Beach (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound and in-field Yard Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, inspections 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. NV-10a Increase the height of the concrete block Review of Before City of Yard wall along the west and south sides of design construction Hermosa City Hall from 8-feet to 16-feet. documents of temporary Beach and in-field Yard inspections NV-10b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to the Review of Before City of extended wall surfaces facing the Yard design construction Hermosa above a height of 8-feet above the ground. documents of temporary Beach The purpose of the acoustical panels is to and in-field Yard control reflection of operational noise in the inspections direction of the sensitive uses to the west and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72. NV-10c No noise-producing activity allowed in the Review of During City of temporary City Yard before 8 A.M. or after 7 schedules Phase 3 Hermosa P.M. on weekdays and anytime on and in-field Yard Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-131 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project
Mitigation Measure
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party Saturdays and Sundays except during inspections Operation Beach emergencies.
4.11-132
4.12 Public Services and Utilities
This section details the environmental and regulatory setting of the E&B Oil Development Project (Proposed Project) relevant to public services. It also identifies significance thresholds and impacts to public services related to the Proposed Project. The public services relevant to the Project include: Solid Waste Disposal Police Services
Other sections of the EIR also address public services and utilities. Section 4.5, Energy and Mineral Resources, discusses electricity and natural gas. Section 4.6, Fire Protection and Emergency Response, discusses Fire and Paramedic services. Section 4.9, Hydrology, discusses storm water and drainage systems, Section 4.14, Water Resources, discusses potable and nonpotable water and waste water services. Section 4.10, Land Use and Recreation, addresses the Projects potential effects on parks and recreational services and facilities. Initial evaluation of Project impacts determined that the Project does not have the potential to adversely affect school services.
The Proposed Project will generate solid waste in a variety of forms and types, including hazardous wastes, during demolition, construction and operational phases. It will generate increased demand for police services with the introduction of new land uses and ongoing operations. The following discussion describes local conditions relevant to these two services.
4.12.1.1 Solid Waste
The City of Hermosa Beach solid waste disposal services are provided by a commercial vendor, Athens Services pursuant to an agreement for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services dated May 24, 2013. Athens Services provides service, including recycling, to both residential and commercial users in the City. Solid waste is taken to the Athens United Waste Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Industry where it is sorted and recycled in compliance with State Assembly Bill 341. Waste materials are then transported to a variety of landfills as listed in the Integrated Solid Waste Management agreement; Potential Industries (Wilmington), Chiquita Canyon Landfill (Castaic), Sunshine Canyon Landfill (Sylmar), El Sobrante Landfill (Corona), Puente Hills Landfill in Whittier, California Waste Systems (Gardena), Commerce Refuse-toEnergy (Commerce), Southeast Resource Recovery Facility or SERRF (Long Beach), Waste Resources Recovery (Gardena), Edco Recycling and Transfer (Signal Hill), and San Bernardino County Solid Waste Disposal sites including Mid-Valley. Data from Los Angeles County Public Works Department (Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2012 Annual Report) lists approximately 3,000 tons per day and 5,000 tons per day available capacity for Chiquita Canyon and Sunshine Canyon landfills, respectively.
4.12-1
The remaining life currently permitted for the Chiquita Canyon is 2 years, with a proposed expansion under review, and 20 years for the Sunshine Canyon landfill. City of Hermosa Beach records (Athens Services Monthly Solid Waste Tonnage Report, December 2013) lists the Mid Valley landfill as the disposal site for the majority of solid waste for the month of December, 2013. The County of San Bernardino Public Works Department estimates the approximate life span of the Mid Valley landfill at 45 years (Countywide Integrated Waste Plan Third-Five Year Review Report for the County of San Bernardino, 2012). The City records also indicated that for the month of December 2013, 50.3% of the total waste generated was diverted into a recycling program. Residential hazardous waste disposal is available at a facility operated by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation located in Playa Del Rey. The facility is open on Saturdays and Sundays. The California Integrated Waste Management Board certifies used oil recycling collection centers in the state to encourage recycling of motor oil. Larger quantities of hazardous waste can be disposed of at one of these California hazardous waste disposal facilities: Kettleman Hills Facility in Kettleman City, McKittrick Waste Treatment Site in McKittrick, or Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Facility in Buttonwillow (CalRecycle 2010). The Clean Harbors website lists permitted landfill capacity for the Buttonwillow facility as 10 million cubic yards with current constructed landfill capacity at 950,000 cubic yards. Hazardous waste that the Project generates would be disposed of at one of these facilities. Installation of the Proposed Project Pipelines through the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance is not expected to generate a significant amount of solid waste.
4.12.1.2 Police
The City of Hermosa Beach Police Department provides the police service to the City. The police station is located at 540 Pier Avenue and is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The Hermosa Beach Police Department currently has 29 sworn officers, responded to 17,381 calls between the 12 month period of May 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, approximately forty-eight calls per day (Hermosa Beach Police Department Police Operations Report, August 2013). The Monthly Hermosa Beach Department Report for November 2013 includes monthly data on response times through the month of November as listed below.
Table 4.12-1 Hermosa Beach Police Department Response Times (January-November 2013) Percent Less Than 5 Minutes 80.2 85.4 84.4 75.6 82.0 89.4 83.0
Month January February March April May June July
Average 3:25 3:08 3:03 4:03 3:22 2:56 3:22
4.12-2
Percent Less Than 5 Minutes August 4:02 87.5 September 3:32 83.9 October 3:37 81.3 November 3:29 83.4 * November 2013 Monthly Hermosa Beach Department Report Month Average
The 2013 Hermosa Beach Police Department Police Operations Report contains a recommendation for an appropriate staffing level of approximately 39 sworn officers, which is 10 more than its current headcount of 29. The report further recommends that the Hermosa Beach Police Department add resources in technology and for improved maintenance and/or redesign of the Police Department building. Police protection in Redondo Beach is provided by the Redondo Beach Police Department with the main station located at 401 Diamond Street. The Torrance Police Department main station is located at 3300 Civic Center Drive.
The regulatory framework for relevant public services generally consists of a requirement to provide an adequate supply of services (as defined uniquely by each type of service). Oversight of the public service providers is managed by an assortment of boards, commissions, and other types of local and regional institutions and agencies.
4.12.2.1 State
In October 2011, Assembly Bill 341 was signed into law, setting a 75% recycling goal for California by Year 2020. The legislation mandates that all California commercial or public entities that generate 4 or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, and for those multifamily dwellings of 5 or more units, must arrange recycling services by and following July 1, 2012. Individual jurisdictions determined compliance measures and due dates. In January 2010, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) was established in an effort to streamline state recycling and waste diversion efforts. These responsibilities were formerly administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. CalRecycle is now comprised of the Waste Management Division and the Recycling Division, which manage programs created through the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939). AB 939 required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan, as well as requiring each city to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element was to include a plan for achieving a solid waste goal of 25 percent reductions by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent reductions by January 1, 2000. Senate Bill (SB) 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3 E&B Oil Development Project
the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments should continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste after January 1, 2000. Moreover, in 1997, some of the regulations adopted by the State Water Quality Control Board pertaining to landfills (Title 23, Chapter 15) were incorporated with CalRecycle regulations (Title 14) to create Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.
4.12.2.2 Local Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan
In June 2011, in conjunction with the Cities Green Task Force, the City prepared the Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan, the plan was accepted by City Council in September 2011. The plan focused on water, waste, transportation, building, energy, and marine/coastal issues. Section 6 of the plan details eight waste reduction and recycling programs as follows: Characterize the municipal waste stream and create a plan to reduce, reuse, and effectively recycle wastes (R-1). Characterize the community waste stream and create a plan to reduce, reuse, and effectively recycle wastes (R-2). Provide a comprehensive recycling and diversion program that reduces disposal of waste (trash) and is easy for residences and business to use (R-3). Establish a green waste recycling and continue backyard composting program (R-4). Consider a food waste diversion program to decrease food waste going to landfills (R-5). Improve recycling at multi-family residential dwellings (R-6). Improve the household hazardous waste program (R-7). Set a goal of zero waste by increasing waste stream diversion through education for residences and business (R-8).
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 8.12, Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, regulates wastes handled within the City. Chapter 8.14 regulates hazardous materials in the City. The City has also adopted the CALGreen Code (Chapter 15.48) which regulates construction waste disposal reduction, disposal and recycling, and adopted an enhanced construction waste reduction requirement (Section 15.48.020).
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidelines to assist in the determination of the significance of an impact for Proposed Projects. Impacts to the solid waste utility are analyzed in this EIR by the determining that existing landfills both have the capacity to accommodate the waste generated by the Proposed Project and that the landfills comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. CEQA Appendix G defines potential impacts to public services such as police protection as whether the Proposed Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
E&B Oil Development Project 4.12-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
Impacts to Public Services are evaluated for the Proposed Projects construction and operations at the Proposed Oil Project site, Proposed City Maintenance Yard and along the Pipeline route.
Solid Waste
The Proposed Project will generate solid waste during all four phases of the Project. Solid waste associated with Phase 1, Site Preparation, includes the debris from demolition of the buildings, concrete, asphalt, fencing, and masonry walls at the Project Site at 555 6th Street. Similar debris would be generated at the offsite parking location from demolition of the existing infrastructure on Cypress Avenue. Preparation of the location for the new City Maintenance Yard may also generate similar solid waste. The solid waste from the demolition of the Project Site would be separated and hauled to recycling facilities and thus not impact the local City trash service or the capacity of the landfill used for the Citys trash. It is anticipated that solid waste from the demolition activities at the offsite temporary parking area and location of the new City Maintenance Yard would be handled in the same manner, therefore, the impact to the landfill(s) used for the Citys trash would be less than significant. Solid waste generation for Phase 2 activities would include drilling muds and well cuttings. Most of the drilling muds would be recycled and reused on site with the remainder proposed to be removed by truck and hauled to the Anterra Oxnard Disposal Facility for oil field waste. Well cuttings would be stored in twenty yard bins and hauled offsite to the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow or similar facility. As noted above, the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow facility currently has a permitted available capacity of approximately 9 million cubic yards. Thus, the impact to the Citys trash service, the landfill(s) used for the Citys trash and the landfill used for the Proposed Projects hazardous waste would be less than significant. Phase 3, Final Design and Construction, activities would not generate a significant amount of solid waste. The debris from the removal of the sound wall and tree during this phase would be recycled. Phase 4, Development and Operations is not expected to generate significant quantities of solid waste that would not be handled by standard commercial trash service. All phases of the Proposed Project would generate typical quantities of standard trash that would be disposed and removed with the Citys commercial trash service. As the exiting use of the Project Site, the offsite parking location, and the location of the proposed City Maintenance Yard all currently generate this type of solid waste, trash from the Proposed Project is not expected to impact the Citys commercial trash service or the landfill(s) used for the Citys trash. Similarly, the installation of the Proposed Project Pipelines would also generate some construction related trash, however, the quantity is not anticipated to be significant. Therefore, impacts to existing landfill capacities from all phases of the Proposed Project are considered to be Class III, less than significant.
4.12-5
Police
Construction and operation of the Proposed Project is not expected to cause a significant change to the existing police services at the Project Sites in the City of Hermosa Beach or along the Pipeline route in the Cities of Redondo Beach or Torrance. The Proposed Project does not introduce new land uses or activities that would be expected to generate an increased demand for police services because the Proposed Project site will be staffed 24 hours a day. Recent Police Department Operations Reports have noted a need for improvements in both staffing levels and for improved maintenance and/or redesign of the Police Department building. The Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance yard is not expected to significantly alter this existing situation. Therefore, the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance yard would not require the provision of a new or physically altered governmental facility for police services. Therefore, impacts to police services from all phases of the Project are considered to be less than significant, Class III.
Mitigation measures proposed for other issues areas in this EIR would not increase impacts to public services if they are implemented. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts
Section 3.0, Cumulative Project Description, lists several projects in the City of Redondo Beach that would be considered to have the potential to cumulatively add to the Proposed Project impacts. These projects include additional housing units, retail establishments, hotel rooms, and an energy project. These projects would be expected to generate solid waste (trash) during the construction and operational phases. The Proposed Project, pipeline construction and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard are not expected to generate a significant amount of solid waste. In addition, the solid waste generated in the City is taken by a commercial vendor to a facility that sorts and recycles the waste prior to final disposal. Therefore, the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard projects are not expected to significantly contribute to the cumulative amount of solid waste generated by these other area projects. The Clean Harbors Buttonwillow facility for hazardous waste currently has permitted capacity for up 9 million cubic yards, thus no cumulative impact for hazardous waste disposal is anticipated. As noted in Section 3.0, the City of Hermosa Beach currently has no cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts. Therefore, the less than significant impact to police services from all phases of the Proposed Project and relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not have a cumulative impact to police services.
No mitigation measures are proposed.
4.12-6
4.13 Transportation and Traffic
This section analyzes the potential traffic impacts created by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project has the potential to result in traffic impacts at intersections and along roadway segments in the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance as a result of constructing and operating Phases 1-4 of the Proposed Oil Project (including gas and oil Pipelines) as well as potential localized impacts in the City of Hermosa Beach as a result of relocating the City Maintenance Yard. In addition, this section analyses the potential for the Proposed Project to conflict with transportation-related regulations and traffic safety risks to the public. Tables related to Proposed Project impacts are located at the end of this section due to their size and length.
4.13.1 Summary of Project-Specific Traffic Studies
Two traffic studies have been prepared by the Applicant for the Proposed Oil Project that identify intersections and roadway segments that could be impacted by the Proposed Project, establish baseline traffic conditions, develop projected future baseline conditions without the Proposed Project, estimate the level of traffic that would be generated during construction and operation, and comparison of traffic conditions with and without the Proposed Oil Project. Specifically, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Arch Beach Consulting in November, 2012 (with an August 2013 Technical Memorandum Addendum and Eratta) that focused on the E&B Oil Development Site (current Public Works Maintenance Yard). An independent third-party review of the Arch Beach Traffic Impact Analysis was performed by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. retained by the City of Hermosa Beach. Based on this review, it was determined that the Arch Beach traffic studies are adequate for providing baseline and Proposed Project-related traffic data to support analysis of potential transportation and traffic impacts of Phases 1-4 of the Proposed Oil Project. An additional traffic study was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in January 2014, to evaluate baseline traffic conditions and potential traffic impacts as a result of relocating the City of Hermosa Beachs Public Works maintenance yard. The Maintenance Yard Relocation Traffic Study is included within this EIR as Appendix D. The 2014 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. traffic study also evaluated the potential combined traffic impacts of the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project.
4.13.2 Study Area
The following study intersections were assessed that could be used by the Proposed Project (parenthesis listed at end of intersection denotes the intersections jurisdiction): 1. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)/Artesia Boulevard (Caltrans)
4.13-1
2. PCH/21st Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 3. PCH/Aviation Boulevard( Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 4. PCH/8th Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 5. PCH/5th Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 6. PCH/2nd Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 7. PCH/Herondo Avenue Anita Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 8. PCH/Pier Avenue 14th Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 9. Prospect Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (Hermosa Beach) 10. Prospect Avenue/Aviation Boulevard (Hermosa Beach) 11. Prospect Avenue/Anita Street (Redondo Beach) 12. PCH/16th Street (Caltrans/Hermosa Beach) 13. Ocean Drive/Aviation Boulevard (Hermosa Beach) 14. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue (Hermosa Beach) 15. Ardmore Avenue/Pier Avenue (Hermosa Beach) 16. Valley Drive/11th Street (Hermosa Beach) 17. Valley Drive/11th Place (Hermosa Beach) 18. Valley Drive/8th Street (Hermosa Beach) 19. Valley Drive/2nd Street (Hermosa Beach) 20. Valley Drive/6th Street (Hermosa Beach) 21. Valley Drive/Herondo Street (Hermosa Beach) 22. Flagler Lane/Anita Street 190th Street (Redondo Beach) 23. Blossom Lane Beryl Street/190th Street (Redondo Beach) 24. Meyer Lane Entradero Avenue/190th Street (Redondo Beach/Torrance) 25. Anza Avenue/190th Street (Redondo Beach/Torrance) 26. Inglewood Avenue/190th Street (Redondo Beach/Torrance) 27. Firmona Avenue/190th Street (Redondo Beach/Torrance) 28. Hawthorne Boulevard/190th Street (Redondo Beach/Torrance) 29. Prairie Avenue/190th Street (Torrance) 30. Crenshaw Boulevard/190th Street (Torrance) 31. Western Avenue/190th Street (Caltrans/Torrance) 32. Interstate 405 (I-405) northbound ramps/Artesia Boulevard (Caltrans) 33. I-405 southbound ramps/Artesia Boulevard (Caltrans) 34. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (Torrance) 35. I-405 northbound ramps/182nd Street (Caltrans/Torrance) 36. I-405 southbound ramps/Crenshaw Boulevard (Caltrans/Torrance) 37. Crenshaw Boulevard/182nd Street (Torrance) 38. Hermosa Avenue Harbor Drive/Herondo Street (Redondo Beach) 39. PCH/Catalina Avenue (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) 40. PCH/Irena Avenue (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) 41. PCH/Beryl Street (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) 42. Prospect Avenue/Beryl Street (Redondo Beach) 43. Harkness Lane/Beryl Street (Redondo Beach) 44. Flagler Lane/Beryl Street (Redondo Beach) 45. Ford Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (Redondo Beach) 46. Aviation Boulevard/Artesia Boulevard (Redondo Beach) 47. Inglewood Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (Redondo Beach)
4.13-2
48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.
Kingsdale Avenue/Artesia Boulevard (Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/Artesia Boulevard (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Ford Avenue/Aviation Boulevard (Redondo Beach) Aviation Boulevard/Grant Avenue (Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/I-405 northbound ramps (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/I-405 southbound ramps (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/162nd Street (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/166th Street (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/169th Street (Caltrans/Redondo Beach) Hawthorne Boulevard/Redondo Beach Boulevard (Caltrans/Redondo Beach)
Intersections 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 also would be used by the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project The locations of study intersections (numbers 1-57) are illustrated below in Figure 4.131. In addition to the above intersections, average daily traffic counts were collected at various roadway segments in the study area. Specifically, the following roadway segments (and one freeway segment) with the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project were studied: 1. Pier Ave. from PCH to Valley Dr 2. Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to 11th St 3. Valley Dr from 11th St to 8th St 4. Valley Dr from 8th St to 2nd St 5. Valley Dr from 2nd St to Herondo St 6. Herondo St from Valley Dr to PCH 7. 6th St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave 8. Herondo St/Anita St from Valley Dr to PCH 9. Herondo St/Anita St from PCH to Prospect Ave 10. Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to 6th St 11. Valley Dr from 6th St to Herondo St 12. Prospect Ave. from Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. 13. Prospect Ave. from Aviation Blvd. to Anita St 14. Aviation Blvd. from PCH to Artesia Blvd. 15. N Lucia Ave. from Agate St to Anita St 16. N Maria Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St 17. N Paulina Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St 18. N Prospect Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St 19. N Prospect Ave. from Anita St to North Redondo Beach City Limits 20. Harkness Lane from Agate St to Anita St 21. Harkness Lane from Anita St to Ripley Ave 22. Flagler Lane from Beryl St to 190th St 23. Beryl St from Flagler Lane to 190th St 24. Blossom Lane from 190th St to Havemeyer Lane 25. Anita St from Prospect Ave. to Flagler Lane 26. 190th St from Flagler Lane to Blossom Lane-N Beryl St 27. 190th St from Blossom Ln-N Beryl St to Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave 28. 190th St from Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave. to Anza Ave
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
190th St from Anza Ave. to Inglewood Ave 190th St from Inglewood Ave. to Firmona Ave 190th St from Firmona Ave. to Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) 190th St from Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) to Prairie Ave 190th St from Prairie Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. Prairie Ave. from 182nd St to 190th St Crenshaw Blvd. from 1-405 to 190th St 190th St from Crenshaw Ave. to Van Ness Ave 190th St from Van Ness Ave. to Western Ave I-405 from Artesia Blvd. to Crenshaw Blvd.
The locations of study roadway/freeway segments (numbers 1-38) are illustrated in Figure 4.132.
A description of the existing transportation conditions near the Project Site is presented below including existing roadway, transit, bicycle and conditions.
4.13.3.1 Roadway Network
A brief description of the regional and local roadway network serving the Project Site is provided below.
Regional and Local Roadway Networks Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1)
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is a major coastal access route running north-south along the California coast and through the City of Hermosa Beach, where it is designated as an arterial street. Per the General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element (1990 as amended), PCH is a designated truck route in the City of Hermosa Beach, with four lanes for through traffic plus curbside parking during off-peak hours. During morning peak hours (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) parking is prohibited on the east side of PCH to allow for a third northbound travel lane. Approximately 74-feet wide from curb to curb, PCH carries approximately 47,000 average daily trips south of Artesia Boulevard.
4.13-4
Figure 4.13-1
Traffic Study Intersections Locations
Source: Arch Beach Consulting 2014a
4.13-5
Figure 4.13-2
Location of Roadway Segments Studied
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET3 Resources 2013
4.13-6
Artesia Boulevard
Artesia Blvd. is a four lane Arterial Boulevard which runs from PCH, eastward through Redondo Beach to the Harbor Freeway (I-110) where it becomes the Redondo Beach Freeway or State Route 91. Artesia Blvd. is approximately 80 feet wide with a raised median. Per the Hermosa Beach Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element, Artesia Blvd. is a designated truck route in the City of Hermosa Beach and the City of Redondo Beach.
Pier Avenue
Pier Ave. runs east/west from Hermosa Avenue to PCH. From PCH to Ardmore Ave, Pier Ave. has 2 lanes in each direction, is 72 feet from curb-to-curb and has on-street parking. The average daily trips (ADT) on this segment is 16,000 ADT. West of Ardmore, Pier Ave. is designated a Collector Street with two lanes of traffic in each direction, diagonal parking on the north side, and parallel on-street parking on the south side. It is also designated as a truck route in the City General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element between PCH and Hermosa Avenue.
Herondo Street Anita Street 190th Street
Herondo Street, a Secondary Arterial in the City of Redondo Beach, runs east-west between Harbor Drive and PCH. Anita Street and 190th Street are Major Arterials in the City of Redondo Beach. The combination of these three streets forms an arterial that runs through the Cities of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance. Herondo Street has a raised median, and a continuous left turn lane is present on Anita Street and 190th Street. West of Hawthorne Boulevard, on-street parking is generally permitted along the north side of these streets. On the south side of 190th Street, parking is prohibited east of Meyer Lane and between Flagler Lane and Prospect Avenue on Anita Street. Metered parking is provided on Herondo Street west of N. Francisca Avenue. The Redondo Beach Municipal Code prohibits commercial vehicles weighing 20,000 pounds or more from operating on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH (Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section 3-7.902(b)). The ADT on Herondo Street between Valley Drive and PCH is approximately 10,800 ADT, and approximately 17,000 ADT east of PCH.
Valley Drive
Valley Drive is a two-lane street which runs parallel to Ardmore Avenue on the west side of the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt (Veterans Parkway). Approximately four miles in distance, Valley Drive runs from Herondo Street to PCH in Manhattan Beach. North of the City, it becomes a one-way southbound street segment in Manhattan Beach. In Hermosa Beach, it carries approximately 4,700 ADT between Pier Avenue and 6th Street, and 4,000 ADT between 6th Street and Herondo Street. South of 2nd Street, Valley Drive is restricted to one-way southbound traffic flow to Herondo Street. The curb-to-curb width of Valley Drive is 24 feet throughout the City. It is designated as a collector in the General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element south of Pier Avenue and as a designated truck route southbound only, from Pier Avenue to Herondo Street.
4.13-7
6th Street
6th Street is a local street that generally runs in an east-west direction through the City of Hermosa Beach. 6th Street has one lane of traffic in each direction. Between Valley Drive and Monterey Blvd., 6th street is approximately 30 feet wide with street parking available on either the north or south side in some areas. West of Monterey Blvd., 6th Street is approximately 40 feet wide with parallel street parking on both sides.
N. Francisca Avenue
In Redondo Beach, N. Francisca Avenue continues from Valley Drive at Herondo Street to Beryl Street. Between Valley Drive and N. Catalina Avenue, N. Francisca is 30 feet wide; there is one lane of traffic in each direction and parking alongside the northbound lane. Between N. Catalina Avenue and Beryl Street, N. Francisca Avenue is approximately 45 feet wide with parking along both sides of the street.
Regional and Local Transit
Hermosa Beach is serviced by Beach Cities Transit, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) local bus, and WAVE. All scheduled transit systems routes are located along PCH, Pier Avenue or Hermosa Avenue. There are no transit routes located along Valley Drive near the Project Site or the Proposed City Maintenance Yard.
Line 109
Beach Cities Transit provides local public transit that serves Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo as well as east/west connectivity to the City of Torrance. Route 109 serves Hermosa Avenue and 10th, near the intersection of Hermosa and Pier Avenues in Hermosa Beach. Monday through Friday, Route 109 Northbound runs every 30 minutes from 6:17 a.m. to 8:42 p.m. and Southbound from 7 a.m. to 9:35 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday, Route 109 Northbound runs from 6:22 a.m. to 8:47 p.m. and Southbound from 7:50 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Route 232
Route 232 runs from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to Long Beach with one stop in Hermosa Beach at Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street. Route 232 runs solely along PCH through Hermosa Beach. During weekdays, Route 232 Northbound runs every 30 minutes from 4:44 a.m. to 11:02 p.m. and Southbound from 4:40 a.m. to 12:08 a.m. On Saturday, the Northbound 232 runs every 30 minutes from 4:48 a.m. to 11:02 p.m. and Southbound 232 every 30 minutes from 4:48 a.m. to 11:02 p.m. On Sundays and holidays, the Northbound 232 runs every 30 minutes from 5:39 a.m. to 11:02 p.m. and Southbound from 5:48 a.m. to 12:08 a.m.
Route 130
Route 130 runs from Cerritos to Redondo Beach with one stop in Hermosa Beach at PCH and Artesia Blvd. To serve the beach communities, Route 232 runs along Pier Avenue from PCH and south to Harbor Drive and into Redondo Beach. During weekdays, Route 130 Eastbound runs every 30 minutes from 5:22 a.m. to 8:46 p.m. and Westbound from 6:15 a.m. to 9:36 p.m. On Saturday, the Eastbound 130 runs hourly from 6:16 a.m. to 8:20 p.m. and Westbound 232 from 8:14 a.m. to 10:12 p.m. On Sundays and holidays, the Eastbound 130 runs hourly from 6:20 a.m. to 8:18 p.m. and Westbound from 8:13 a.m. to 10:09 p.m.
4.13-8
WAVE
WAVE provides senior and disabled citizens with dial-a-ride service and offers curb-to-curb transportation throughout Redondo and Hermosa Beaches.
Bicycle Conditions
Bikeways are classified as Class I, Class II and Class III facilities. Class I bicycle facilities are typically known as bicycle paths. This is a dedicated path for bicyclists and pedestrians that do not permit motorized travel. Class II bicycle facilities are also known as bicycle lanes, a portion of the roadway network that has been striped and signed for bicycle use. Class III bicycle facilities are also known as bicycle routes, bikeways that primarily serve to connect other facilities and destinations in the bikeway network but provide a lower level of service than Class I or Class II bikeway facilities. In California, bicycle parking is classified as either Class I or Class II facilities. Class I facilities are designed for long-term use and provide security and weather protection. Class II facilities are designed for short-term use and typically consist of bicycle racks. The Marvin Braude Bike Trail, also known as The Strand is a paved bicycle path that runs mostly along the Pacific Ocean from Will Rodgers State Beach in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles to the Torrance County Beach in Torrance. The path is 22 miles long and is part of the California Coastal Trail. The Strand is a Class I bicycle path in Hermosa Beach and abuts the Citys beach along its length. A Class II bicycle lane also runs parallel to a segment of Hermosa Avenue in the north-south direction before converting to sharrow lanes north of Pier Avenue. A South Bay Bicycle Master Plan has been developed, detailing proposed bike routes (see Figure 4.13-3) and is discussed below under regulatory setting.
Pedestrian Safety
The City of Hermosa Beach contracted with the Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program in 2008 to prepare a summary Pedestrian Safety Assessment (ITA 2008). The report presents findings and recommendations derived from: (i) a benchmarking analysis of the Citys existing pedestrian programs, policies, and practices; and (ii) field walking audits at several focus areas. Walking audits included the streets Valley Drive from Pier Avenue to 11th Street. The report also presents results of historical pedestrian accidents with Hermosa Beach, including accidents at Valley and 11th (in front of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard). No accidents are listed at the Project Site. The report recommends that the City develop a Pedestrian Master Plan and designate a pedestrian/bicycle coordinator and advisory committee to implement the Plan. The report also recommends adding a crosswalk at Valley and 11th Street, immediately in front of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard, and widening sidewalk along Valley Drive and provide a landscape buffer.
4.13-9
Figure 4.13-3
Existing and Proposed Bike Paths in Hermosa Beach
Project Site
Source: Alta 2011
4.13-10
The report also indicates that the primary pedestrian safety public involvement program in Hermosa Beach is the Safe Routes to Schools Committee that meets for grant proposals and other pedestrian-related initiatives. Safe Routes to School programs encourage children to safely walk and bike to school. The City of Hermosa Beach does publish a map showing the safe routes to school (Valley Elementary School is located north of Pier Avenue on Valley Drive), which includes PCH, Pier Avenue, the length of Valley Drive including in front of the Project Site and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard. See Figure 4.13-4. The City has utilized Safe Routes to School funds to continue to improve the network. Adjacent to the Project Site, pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks along the west side of Valley Drive and the south side of 6th Street. The adjacent Greenbelt also facilitates walking proximate to Valley Drive ., although the unpaved surface is not conducive to biking, walking with strollers, skateboarding, etc. (See section 4.10, Land Use and Policy Consistency).
4.13.3.2 Existing Levels of Service
The degree of congestion at an intersection or along a roadway/freeway segment is described by the level of service, which ranges from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions with little delay and LOS F representing over-saturated traffic flow throughout the peak hour. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service for signalized intersections are shown below in Table 4.14-1. Brief descriptions of the levels of service for roadway/freeway segments are shown below in Table 4.14-2. Table 4.14-3 below provides detailed descriptions of each level of service.
Table 4.14-1 Level of Service Definitions Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Control Delay in Seconds (Signalized) 0.0 10.0 seconds 10.1 20.0 seconds 20.1 35.0 seconds 35.1 55.0 seconds 55.1 80.0 seconds 80.1 seconds or greater Control Delay in Seconds (Unsignalized) 0.0 10.0 seconds 10.1 15.0 seconds 15.1 25.0 seconds 25.1 35.0 seconds 35.1 50.0 seconds 50.1 seconds or greater
Level of V/C Ratio or ICU Service (Signalized) A 0.60 B 0.61 0.70 C 0.71 0.80 D 0.81 0.90 E 0.91 1.00 F 1.01 or greater Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2012
4.13-11
Figure 4.13-4
Safe Routes to School
Project Site
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department 2014
4.13-12
Table 4.14-2
Level of Service Definitions for Roadway/Freeway Segments Demand to Capacity Ratio <.34 0.35 0.52 0.53 0.69 0.70 0.92 0.93 1.00 1.01 1.25 1.26 1.35 1.36 1.45 >1.46 Congestion or Delay Free Flow Free to Stable Flow Stable Flow Approaches Unstable Flow Extremely Unstable Flow Forced Flow Heavy Congestion Extremely Heavy Congestion Gridlock
Level of Service A B C D E F (0) F (1) F (2) F (3) Source: Caltrans
Table 4.14-3 Level of Service A
Level of Service Descriptions Description
No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is B fully utilized and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind C turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks D within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every E signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for F short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero. Source: TRB 2000
Traffic counts were collected by the Applicant (and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant, see Appendix D) at the City of Hermosa Beach study locations in late-August 2012 which corresponds to the peak period of beach- and tourist-related traffic in the City. Additional traffic counts were collected on roadway segments in the City of Hermosa Beach in mid-July 2013 to specifically establish baseline truck traffic in the vicinity of the Project Site. Traffic counts were
4.13-13
collected at the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance (inland) intersections and roadway segments in mid-September 2012 when local schools were in session. All signalized study area intersections (in all three cities) were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for weekday peak hour (7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) levels of service (LOS). The ICU method determines the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio on a critical lane basis and determines LOS associated with each critical V/C ratio at the signalized intersection. The unsignalized and Caltrans-controlled intersections (signalized and unsignalized) were also analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations methodology for weekday peak hour LOS. The HCM method determines the average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) and determines LOS associated with each delay value at the intersection. Roadway/freeway segment conditions were determined by dividing traffic volumes by roadway/freeway design capacity to determine a volume to capacity ratio and LOS. The existing ICU and LOS values of potentially impacted signalized and unsignalized intersections from the Applicant (and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant, see Appendix D) are summarized in Table 4.14-4 per the analysis requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. The existing HCM and LOS values of potentially impacted unsignalized intersections and CMP facilities are summarized in Table 4.14-5 per the analysis requirements of the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance, and Caltrans. Multiple intersections are currently operating at a low level of service (LOS F), including 1. PCH and Artesia 3. PCH and Aviation 7. PCH and Anita 23. Blossom Lane and Beryl St/190th St 26. Inglewood Ave/190th Street 27. Firmona Avenue/190th St 36. I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. 46. Aviation Blvd. /Artesia Blvd. 51. Aviation Blvd. /Grant Ave For roadways, only the roadway Herondo/Anita between PCH and Prospect is operating at an LOS of F. As per criteria established by the various jurisdictions, a certain amount of traffic contribution from a project would be allowed, but limited, on these intersections and roadways (see section 4.13.5 below). The existing traffic levels, design capacity of the roadway, and LOS values of potentially impacted roadway/freeway segments are summarized in Table 4.14-6. LOS is determined by the ratio of the traffic levels on a roadway divided by the design capacity of the roadways. Roadways that are carrying more traffic than they are designed to would have a "demand" to capacity ratio of greater than 1.0 and would therefore have an LOS of F.
4.13-14
Table 4.14-4
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) A.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 1.247 F 0.720 C 1.124 F 0.846 D 0.799 C 0.748 C 0.847 D 0.655 B 0.571 A 0.639 B 0.472 A 0.682 B 0.400 A 12.3 sec B 12.2 sec B 7.8 sec A 9.7 sec A 9.3 sec A 8.7 sec A 7.9 sec A 11.0 sec B 31.4 sec D 130.0 sec F 0.834 D 0.836 D 1.101 F 282.5 sec F E 0.912 P.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 0.830 D 0.672 B 1.104 F 0.819 D 0.739 C 0.771 C 1.084 F 0.767 C 0.677 B 0.723 C 0.548 A 0.648 B 0.454 A 20.1 sec C 17.1 sec C 9.2 sec A 11.1 sec B 11.9 sec B 11.0 sec B 9.4 sec A 15.6 sec C 29.9 sec D 612.5 sec F 0.679 B 0.733 C 1.187 F 182.5 sec F 0.912 E
Intersection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. PCH/ Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue/Pier Avenue Valley Drive/11th Street Valley Drive/11th Place Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Drive/2nd Street Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Drive/Herondo Street Flagler Ln/AnitaSt-190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th Street Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St
Jurisdiction Caltrans/CMP Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance
Control signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal
4.13-15
Table 4.14-4
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) A.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay D 0.871 D 0.898 0.764 C 0.532 A 11.0 sec B E 0.948 0.688 B F 1.018 D 0.855 0.487 A D 0.818 0.672 B 0.748 C 0.512 A 9.8 sec A 11.0 sec B 0.648 B 1.006 F 0.900 E 0.585 A 0.792 C 0.616 B 1.011 F 0.594 A 0.710 C 0.588 A 0.724 C 0.564 A P.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 0.973 E 0.871 D 0.781 C 0.866 D 23.9 sec C 0.871 D 0.884 D 0.812 D 0.925 E 0.470 A 0.870 D 0.785 C 0.878 D 0.588 A 12.7 sec B 13.9 sec B 0.63 B 0.968 E 0.929 E 0.621 B 0.805 D 0.687 B 0.961 E 0.602 B 0.685 B 0.563 A 0.592 A 0.491 A
Intersection 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. I-405 SB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Prospect Ave/Beryl Street Harkness Lane/Beryl Street Flagler Lane/Beryl Street Ford Avenue/Artesia Boulevard Aviation Blvd. /Artesia Blvd. Inglewood Ave/ Artesia Blvd. Kingsdale Ave/ Artesia Blvd. Hawthorne Blvd. / Artesia Blvd. Ford Ave/ Aviation Blvd. Aviation Blvd. /Grant Ave Hawthorne Blvd. /I-405 NB ramps Hawthorne Blvd. /I-405 SB ramps Hawthorne Blvd. / 162nd Street Hawthorne Blvd. / 166th St Hawthorne Blvd. / 169th St
Jurisdiction Torrance Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Caltrans/CMP Caltrans/CMP Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Torrance Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach
Control signal signal signal signal 1-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
4.13-16
Table 4.14-4
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections)
A.M. Peak Hours P.M. Peak Hours V/C or V/C or LOS LOS Delay Delay 57. Hawthorne Blvd. / Redondo Bch Blvd. Caltrans/Redondo Beach signal 0.753 C 0.697 B Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Un-signalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provides LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-way stop control). BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D, E, or F in Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Caltrans/CMP intersections). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2012, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b Intersection Jurisdiction Control
4.13-17
Table 4.14-5
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersection) A.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 79.5 sec E 6.1 sec A 90.2 sec F 13.5 sec B 11.3 sec B 7.9 sec A 23.5 sec C 12.1 sec B 7.2 sec A 18.1 sec B 25.5 sec C 58.2 sec E 31.3 sec C 34.0 sec C 33.5 sec C 29.9 sec C 13.8 sec B 36.9 sec D 17.8 sec B 33.6 sec C 29.5 sec C 16.5 B 13.6 sec B 4.3 sec A 8.0 sec A 26.0 sec C 7.0 sec A P.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 26.8 sec C 4.2 sec A 91.2 sec F 12.4 sec B 8.8 sec A 9.2 sec A 35.7 sec D 16.8 sec B 9.3 sec A 12.5 sec B 21.5 sec C 81.5 sec F 32.1 sec C 37.1 sec D 33.4 sec C 29.8 sec C 23.9 sec C 32.7 sec C 24.3 sec C 20.8 sec C 29.7 sec C 15.4 sec B 11.1 sec B 5.9 sec A 12.5 sec B 28.6 sec C 16.7 sec B
Intersection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12. 24. 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 49. 52. PCH/ Artesia Boulevard st PCH/21 Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard th PCH/8 Street th PCH/5 Street nd PCH/2 Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St th PCH/Pier Avenue-14 Street th PCH/16 Street th Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190 St th Anza Avenue/190 Street th Inglewood Ave/190 Street th Hawthorne Blvd. /190 St th Prairie Avenue/190 St th Crenshaw Blvd. /190 St th Western Avenue/190 St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. nd I-405 NB ramps/182 St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. nd Crenshaw Blvd. /182 St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Hawthorne Blvd. / Artesia Blvd. Hawthorne Blvd. /I-405 NB ramps
Jurisdiction Caltrans/CMP Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Caltrans/Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Redondo Beach/Torrance Torrance Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Caltrans/CMP Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Caltrans/Torrance Torrance Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach
Control signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
4.13-18
Table 4.14-5
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersection) A.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 19.6 sec B 19.1 sec B 20.4 sec C 6.8 sec A 22.4 sec C P.M. Peak Hours V/C or LOS Delay 17.6 sec B 12.7 sec B 14.1 sec B 6.7 sec A 24.6 sec C
Intersection 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Hawthorne Blvd. /I-405 SB ramps Hawthorne Blvd. / 162nd Street Hawthorne Blvd. / 166th St Hawthorne Blvd. / 169th St Hawthorne Blvd. / Redondo Bch Blvd.
Jurisdiction Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach Caltrans/Redondo Beach
Control signal signal signal signal signal
Notes: Caltrans and/or Torrance signalized intersections analyzed with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provides LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection. BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2012, 2013b, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-19
Table 4.14-6
Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary Roadway Segment Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000 2,000 Existing Demand 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324 487 Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.34 0.39 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.19 0.26 0.36 0.14 0.24 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.24 0.55 0.59 0.96 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.38 0.54 0.83 0.59 0.87 1.31 0.16 0.24 LOS A B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B A B C D C D F(1) A A
10
Pier Ave. from PCH to Valley Dr Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to th 11 St Valley from th 11 St to th 8 St Valley Dr from th 8 St to nd 2 St Valley Dr from nd 2 St to Herondo St Herondo St from Valley Dr to PCH th 6 St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave Herondo St/Anita St from Valley Dr to PCH Herondo St/Anita St from PCH to Prospect Ave Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to
4.13-20
Table 4.14-6
Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary Roadway Segment Time daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. Capacity 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 Existing Demand 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949 9,519 166 Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.31 0.13 0.22 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.61 0.65 0.72 0.97 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.18 0.26 0.32 0.17 LOS A A A A A A A B B C C D E A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6 St Valley Dr from th 6 St to Herondo St Prospect Ave. from Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave. from Aviation Blvd. to Anita St Aviation Blvd. from PCH to Artesia Blvd. N Lucia Ave. from Agate St to Anita St N Maria Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Paulina Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Anita St to North RB City Limits Harkness Lane from
th
4.13-21
Table 4.14-6
Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary Roadway Segment Time p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily Capacity 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 Existing Demand 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598 3,008 2,930 38,946 Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.24 0.51 0.18 0.26 0.49 0.26 0.34 0.68 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.37 0.33 0.32 0.40 0.52 0.53 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.67 0.63 0.61 0.78 LOS A B A A B A A C A A A A A A A A B A A B B C C C C C C C D
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Agate St to Anita St Harkness Lane from Anita St to Ripley Ave Flagler Lane from Beryl St to th 190 St Beryl St from Flagler Lane to th 190 St Blossom Lane from th 190 St to Havemeyer Lane Anita St from Prospect Ave. to Flagler Lane th 190 St from Flagler Lane to Blossom Lane-N Beryl St th 190 St from Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave. to Anza Ave th 190 St from Blossom Land-N Beryl St to Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave th 190 St from Anza Ave. to Inglewood Ave
4.13-22
Table 4.14-6
Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary Roadway Segment Time Capacity Existing Demand
Demand/Capacity LOS Ratio th 30 190 St from a.m. 4,800 2,302 0.48 B Inglewood Ave. to p.m. 4,800 2,226 0.46 B Firmona Ave daily 50,000 29,756 0.60 C th 31 190 St from a.m. 4,800 2,433 0.51 B Firmona Ave. to p.m. 4,800 2,375 0.49 B Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) daily 50,000 30,551 0.61 C th 32 190 St from a.m. 4,800 2,300 0.48 B Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) to p.m. 4,800 2,386 0.50 B Prairie Ave daily 50,000 30,460 0.61 C th 33 190 St from a.m. 4,800 3,215 0.67 C Prairie Ave. to p.m. 4,800 3,280 0.68 C Crenshaw Blvd. daily 50,000 41,171 0.82 D 34 Prairie Ave. from a.m. 4,800 2,663 0.55 C nd 182 St to p.m. 4,800 2,929 0.61 C th 190 St daily 50,000 36,382 0.73 D 35 Crenshaw Blvd. from a.m. 4,800 3,647 0.76 D I-405 to p.m. 4,800 3,929 0.82 D th 190 St daily 50,000 52,317 1.05 F(0) th 36 190 St from a.m. 4,800 2,910 0.61 C Crenshaw Ave. to p.m. 4,800 2,996 0.62 C Van Ness Ave daily 50,000 33,226 0.66 C th 37 190 St from a.m. 4,800 2,859 0.60 C Van Ness Ave. to p.m. 4,800 3,007 0.63 C Western Ave daily 50,000 36,474 0.73 D 38 I 405 to Crenshaw Blvd. Pk Hr 19,200 16,900 0.88 D I-405 to Artesia Blvd. Pk Hr 19,200 16,400 0.85 D Source: Existing demand from Arch Beach Consulting (2012) and Arch Beach Consulting (2013a). Capacities from City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element, HCM, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Guidelines, and approximate design volumes.
4.13-23
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting 4.13.4.1 State California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages interregional transportation, including the management and construction of the California highway system. In addition, Caltrans is responsible for the permitting and relocation of state roadways. The Proposed Project study area includes four roadways/highways that fall under Caltrans jurisdiction within a portion of all of the Project study area (Interstate 405, Pacific Coast Highway, Hawthorne Boulevard, and Artesia Boulevard). Caltrans establishes performance standards that apply to specific routes and publishes those standards in transportation concept reports. Performance standards in transportation concept reports are often expressed as level of service (LOS) standards. LOS standards are established based on current operating conditions, surrounding land uses, local policies, and current plans for improvement on the facility. LOS takes into account speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience, and operation costs. LOS is typically described from Levels A through F (see Table 4.14-3). Caltrans also regulates vehicles under the California Vehicle Code, including limits on vehicle width (108 inches for standard trucks/vehicles or 120 inches for special construction equipment, not including lights or mirrors, as per CVC 35000-35111) and vehicle length (65-75 feet, CVC 35400).
4.13.4.2 Regional/Local City of Hermosa Beach General Plan
The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element (March 1990) has the following circulation goals and policies.
Objective 1.0
Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes and multi-passenger vehicles for transportation within and through the City and decrease reliance on single passenger automobiles.
Implementation Policy 1.2
Maximize the use and availability of public transit service within the City by residents and visitors.
Objective 2.0
Protect the environment on local residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods.
4.13-24
Make reasonable efforts to maintain volumes below 2,500 vehicles per day on local residential streets, wherever possible.
Locate new developments and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys for access to the development and its parking.
Objective 3.0
Ensure an adequate supply of parking, both on-street and off-street, to meet the needs of both residents and commercial businesses.
Continue implementation of preferential parking districts in residential neighborhoods when requested by residents and shown to be warranted by existing conditions.
Encourage the most efficient use of parking facilities. Where applicable, existing development should consider provisions for compact spaces, tandem parking valet service, shared parking and other innovative means to resolve parking deficiency.
Remodel existing public parking lots and street spaces as necessary to improve efficiency, safety and urban design.
Require all new development to accommodate project-generated parking consistent with encouraging alternative transportation demand management programs. The General Plan includes a minimum level of service policy of LOS C at signalized intersections. The City requires the use of the ICU method to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections. The General Plan Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element contain a map outlining the existing bicycle facilities, as well as key bicycle traffic generating locations, such as the Pier. This map was superseded by the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (Alta 2011) adopted by the City. To implement the overall goal of providing a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system, the Element outlines the following objectives and policies: Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes Encourage bicycle travel city-wide Provide for the transport of bicycles on public transit vehicles wherever possible
4.13-25
Maintain the surfaces of bike paths to maximize safety and ease of travel Require new developments to accommodate parking consistent with TDM programs
The General Plan Safety Element also states that it is an implementation policy to "maintain adequate emergency access in new subdivisions, cul-de-sacs, and street closures."
Coastal Land Use Plan
The City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan (1981), a part of the Coastal Land Use Plan, addresses parking ( with the LUP Amendment 6 and 03-02) with the goals of 1) To provide adequate residential parking; 2) To maintain adequate parking space for both visitor and shoppers; 3) To provide easy access to work-related parking for merchants; 4) To maximize the safety .and accessibility of parking while minimizing noise, traffic congestion and negative visual impacts; 5) To provide an equitable distribution and allocation of parking resources; and 6) To recognize the unique parking needs of the pedestrian oriented downtown business area. Specific policies include, amongst others, the following:

The City should not allow the elimination of existing on-street parking or off-street parking spaces within the coastal zone; The City should control congestion through the granting of parking permits; The City has enacted a permit plan to control parking congestion; and A separation of long-term (beach user) and short-term (shoppers) parking be created in the downtown area to provide adequate and flexible number of parking spaces for commercial demand.
A number of programs have been implemented by the City of Hermosa Beach to address these policies. A future policy defined in the Plan is that "the City should investigate the possibility of lease or purchase of parking lots dispersed throughout the city so as to minimize the impact on the parking demand to the City and its residents".
City of Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program
The Citys Preferential Parking Program allows residents who live or work within an impacted area due to coastal parking demands to obtain parking permits to park at any Yellow Posted Meter without paying the meter or in One-Hour Zones without regard to one-hour limit. In exchange, Coastal Development Permit 5-84-236, as amended, requires the City to maintain 1,100 metered spaces within two blocks of the beach (Yellow Meters) short-term (6 hour) public parking, 440 public 2-3 hour metered commercial spaces on streets and in public parking lots, and 396 free remote long-term (6 to 12 hour) public parking spaces within 8 blocks walking distance of the beach on city streets and city owned parking lots during the hours of enforcement of the preferential residential parking (10 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Of these, 396 spaces must be available on weekends and holidays at specified locations (Clark Building parking lots-51 spaces, Greenbelt-78 located across from Clark Building and Fields, City Hall front lot-29 spaces, City Hall self-storage lot-32 spaces, Community Center-107 spaces, Ardmore & Pier Ave.-34 spaces, Valley Park-35 spaces, Valley Drive-west side-15 spaces, City Maintenance
Yard-15 spaces); and 320 spaces must be available during weekdays (Clark Building parking lots-51 spaces, Greenbelt-78 located across from Clark Building and Fields, Community Center107 spaces, Ardmore & Pier Ave.-34 spaces, Valley Park-35 spaces, Valley Drive-west side-15 spaces). The CDP has been amended from time to time in connection with various city improvement projects.
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (Alta 2011) was developed to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network throughout the Cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next 20 years and has been adopted by the city councils of these cities. The plan provides a set of areawide and city-specific programs and policies and complies with Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account requirements to facilitate funding opportunities. The existing and planned bicycle network for Hermosa Beach is shown in Figure 4.13-3. This includes the existing bicycle paths along the beach and along Hermosa Avenue, as well as planned bicycle paths along Valley Drive, which would pass by the Project Site and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard. According to the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, the City of Hermosa Beach has 1.8 miles of Class I bike path (being the Strand along the beach only), 0.5 miles of Class II bike paths and 2.8 miles of Class III bike paths for a total of 5.1 miles within the City. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan provides a map that displays existing and proposed bicycle facilities. Existing facilities include two bicycle routes in the City of Hermosa Beach. Those routes are along the Strand from the southerly City boundary to 24th Street connecting to the route on Hermosa Avenue from 24th Street to the north City boundary. The Strand is largely recreational as it is shared with pedestrians and roller-skaters. At various times due to high traffic volumes and the wide variety of users this is not a truly viable connector. The Strand bike route connects to a bike path to the north in Manhattan Beach. The Strand path is a designated bike route in Manhattan Beach which continues north along the beach into the cities of El Segundo, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. To the south the Strand continues into Redondo Beach and connects to a designated bike route in Redondo Beach along Harbor Drive. Proposed Class II bike lanes are on Artesia Boulevard from Ardmore Avenue to Prospect Avenue and Herondo Street from Hermosa Avenue to the southern City limits. Proposed shared roadways (sharrows) are on Hermosa Avenue, 22nd Street, Monterey Boulevard, Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue, Pier Avenue, and Prospect Avenue. To date, sharrows on Hermosa Avenue have been implemented.
The Municipal Code provides regulations and standards governing traffic, parking and loading, encroachments on the public right-of-way, and development generally. Minimum parking requirements are generally based on the gross square footage of the buildings, buildings, or other factors as specified as defined in the Zoning Code (Chapter 17.44) development. Parking requirements for the Proposed Project set forth in Section 17.44.030(I)(1) requires off-street comprised of one space for each vehicle used in conjunction with the use; plus one space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area.
4.13-27
The code lacks universal bicycle parking requirements for new and existing development. The Specific Plan Area No. 11 zone (Pier Avenue from between Palm Drive and Palm Drive to Valley Drive) has a separate bicycle parking requirement in which minimum requirements can be based on either square footage or number of employees and shall be in the form of bike rack, fully enclosed spaces or lockers or other secure parking. The Specific Plan Area No. 11 Zone also provides for an in lieu fee when it is not practical to place bike racks on the property. The Municipal Code provides that vehicle parking for any development may be reduced with a Parking Plan approved by the planning commission based on various factors including bicycle and foot traffic. Bicycle parking is reviewed during the planning process by the planner. The code does not provide any other form of guidance. Trip Reduction and Transportation Management in Chapter 17.48 of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code implements the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program and requires that, prior to approval of any development project, the applicant shall make provision for, as a minimum, a number of applicable transportation demand management and trip reduction measures related to ridesharing information, public transit options, bicycle route information, the installation of preferential carpool/vanpool parking, sidewalk requirements, and bus stop requirements.
City of Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan
Section 3 of the City of Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan addresses transportation through policies and infrastructure improvements that encouraging bicycling and walking, including traffic calming, enhancing bicycle route connectors, making 4-lane roads into 2-lane roads with bike routes, expanding sharrows facilities, and securing bicycle storage facilities.
Beach Cities Livability Plan
The Beach Cities Livability Plan (WLCI 2011), fostered by the Healthways Blue Zones (Vitality City) Initiative focuses on how to improve livability and well-being in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach through land-use and transportation systems that better support active living and was adopted by each City. This report developed recommendations, including (1) to develop a regional pedestrian master plan, (2) to adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, (3) to improve and enhance Safe Routes to School programs and (4) to restripe Valley and Ardmore including converting each street to one-way (as exists in Manhattan Beach) with Class III bike route on the street. The report found that: ... along each side of the Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, these two streets would be ideal for both walking and bicycling if vehicle speeds were kept reasonable and if many of the stop controls were removed. Constant starting and stopping along this corridor makes drivers want to speed between stops. It also makes bicycling inefficient and uncomfortable. In fact, during the [reports] site visits, a radar gun found cars traveling at 35 mph, which is unacceptable on these narrow residential streets. The report also stated that "These changes would help to calm traffic and make it easier and safer to park and un-park, to get in and out of driveways, and to make entries from side roads."
4.13-28
City of Hermosa Beach Living Streets Policy
One of the measures on the Beach Cities Livability Plan (through the Blue Zones Community Policy Pledge scorecard program) is to adopt Complete Streets principles. The Council adopted in 2013 a 'living streets' policy that incorporates complete streets plus sustainability principles, and promotes the health and mobility of all Hermosa Beach citizens and visitors by providing high quality pedestrian, bicycling, and transit access to destinations throughout the City. The policy provides a checklist of issues to consider and procedures to evaluate street projects through a comprehensive 'sustainability' lens. It ensures that the various segments of the community are considered when determining how to use and improve the public right-of-way.
City of Redondo Beach General Plan
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan Circulation Element (November 2009) has a minimum level of service policy of LOS D for intersections in the City. The City requires the use of the ICU method to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections. The Redondo Beach Municipal Code prohibits commercial vehicles weighing 20,000 pounds or more from operating on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH (Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section 3-7.902(b)) due to the presence of a steep grade.
City of Torrance General Plan
The City of Torrance General Plan Circulation Element (April 2010) also has a minimum level of service policy of LOS D for intersections in the City. The City requires the use of both the ICU and HCM methods to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections.
City of Manhattan Beach General Plan
The City of Manhattan Beach General Plan Infrastructure Element provides information on the LOS at various intersections in the City. The City requires the use of the ICU method to analyze signalized intersections.
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
The nearest Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP 2010) and Caltrans facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site are: Artesia Boulevard at 1.1 miles to the north. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) State Route 1 (SR 1) at 0.2 miles to the east. Hawthorne Boulevard State Route 107 (SR 107) at 2.7 miles to the east. Interstate 405 (I-405) at 4.6 miles to the east.
Per the Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis, which is Appendix B of the CMP, a CMP-level traffic analysis shall address all CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the Proposed Project would add 50 or more trips during the weekday peak hour and any mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project would add 150 or more trips in either direction during the peak hour. Based on the trip generation, distribution, and assignment of construction and operational project trips (see below), the Proposed Project would generate less than 50 peak
4.13-29
hour trips on a CMP roadway facility; and, less than 150 trips to a CMP freeway facility. Therefore, a CMP level traffic analysis is not required.
Criteria used to determine significance are listed below for each of the jurisdictions that the Proposed Project routes pass through.
4.13.5.1 City of Hermosa Beach
The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element (March 1990) has a minimum level of service policy of LOS C at signalized intersections. The City requires the use of the ICU method to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections. An LOS C has been assumed as the minimum LOS for intersections (signalized and unsignalized). The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at an intersection under the sole jurisdiction of the City of Hermosa Beach if it causes the intersection to degrade to LOS D, E, or F from LOS C or better, or would increase the volumeto-capacity ratio by 0.010 to an intersection that is already operating at LOS D, E or F.
4.13.5.2 City of Redondo Beach
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan Circulation Element (November 2009) has a minimum level of service policy of LOS D for intersections in the City. The City requires the use of the ICU method to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections. The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at an intersection under the sole jurisdiction of the City of Redondo Beach if it causes the intersection to degrade to LOS E or F from LOS D or better, or would increase the volume to capacity by 0.040 to an intersection that is already operating at LOS C, 0.020 to an intersection that is already operating at LOS D or 0.010 to an intersection that is already operating at LOS E or F.
4.13.5.3 City of Torrance
The City of Torrance General Plan Circulation Element (April 2010) also has a minimum level of service policy of LOS D for intersections in the City. The City requires the use of both the ICU and HCM methods to analyze signalized intersections, and the HCM method for unsignalized intersections. The Proposed Project would create a significant impact at an intersection if it causes the intersection to degrade to LOS E or F from LOS D or better, or would increase the volume to capacity by 0.010 to an intersection that is already operating at LOS E or F.
4.13.5.4 Caltrans and Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
For intersections under the primary planning jurisdiction of Caltrans (CMP intersections), a significant impact occurs when the Proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility
4.13-30
by two percent of capacity (V/C 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the Proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by two percent of capacity (V/C 0.02).
4.13.5.5 Roadway/Freeway Segments
The Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance have not identified significant impact criteria for roadway segments. As such, the significance criteria identified in the Los Angeles County CMP for CMP intersections and freeway segments have been adopted for use in this analysis to determine potential impacts to roadway and freeway segments. The CMP identifies a significant impact as an increase by two percent of capacity (V/C 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the segment is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the Proposed Project increases traffic demand on a roadway/freeway segment by two percent of capacity (V/C 0.02) The Proposed Project would create a significant impact if it would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (listed above for area jurisdictions); Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); Result in inadequate emergency access; Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G items related to a change in air traffic patterns would not be applicable.
4.13.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.13.6.1 Transportation/Traffic Design Features, Operational Practices, and 1993 Conditions of Approval
The following summarizes the Proposed Oil Projects design features, operational practices, and 1993 Conditional use Permit conditions that relate to transportation and traffic.
Phase 1 and Subsequent Phases as Applicable Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project, there would be demolition and construction activities resulting in various vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Phase 1 demolition and construction activities at the Project Site would include the following design features and operational practices to address transportation and traffic:
4.13-31
The Proposed Oil Project would include the construction of improvements to the intersection of 6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for the Project-related trucks turning southbound on Valley Drive from 6th Street. These improvements would result in: the removal of a portion of the landscaped area and entry driveway to the Beach City Self-Storage Facility; redesign of the sidewalk on the southwest corner of the intersection; relocation of the stop sign and striping for the northbound lanes on Valley Drive to address the redesign of the southwest corner; removal of a utility pole and underground the utilities on the southwest corner of the intersection; removal of a utility pole and underground the utilities on 6th Street; and the removal of two on-street parking spaces on 6th Street which are part of the Citys coastal Preferential Parking Program. As a part of the intersection improvements, the stop sign and striping for the southbound lanes on Valley Drive would be relocated to allow for adequate line of sight with the addition of the perimeter fencing on the Project Site. In addition, the curb on the northwest corner along 6th Street adjacent to the Project Site would be temporarily provided as a rolled asphalt curb for Phases 1 and 2. The Proposed Oil Project would include implementation of a City-approved Phase 1 Pedestrian Protection Plan that provides specific pedestrian protection measures during the following demolition and construction activities: o During the first five weeks, when the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities along Valley Drive and at the intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive would result in the closure of the sidewalks along Valley Drive and at the intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive. o Between weeks 5 and 8, when the construction of the redesigned intersection at the intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive would result in the closure of the sidewalks on 6th Street and Valley Drive immediately adjacent to the southwest corner of the intersection. o Between weeks 9 and 11, when the installation of electrical service from 8th Street and the Project entrance would result in the closure of the sidewalk along Valley Drive. o Between weeks 26 and 27, when the installation of the temporary landscaping would result in some closures of the sidewalk along Valley Drive.
1993 Conditional Use Permit Conditions (CUP) of Approval
The 1993 CUP includes the following conditions of approval: Parking shall be provided on the site consistent with the submitted parking plan to provide adequate parking facilities for all workers involved in oil recovery operations, including exploratory and production phases. (Section 2. Land Use Development, Condition 9). All truck deliveries shall be limited to daylight hours (9 a.m. 3 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except for an emergency situation, as defined by this CUP and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement, which have been reported to the Director of Public Works in advance of the delivery (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 1).
4.13-32
Equipment deliveries shall be made only during daytime hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 3). Project related truck travel shall be restricted to specific truck routes and access points as approved by the Public Works Department (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 4). Signs shall be installed to direct detour traffic as approved by the Public Works Director. (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 5). The number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency, as defined by this CUP and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 6). Maintenance Yard site (Project Site) access shall be designed to enable trucks to turn into the site without inhibiting traffic movement on Valley Drive or 6th Street (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 7). Minor curb radii reconstruction shall be done by the operator as determined by the City Public Works depending on the length and necessary turning radii for project related trucks (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 8). An evaluation of the structural condition of the existing pavement shall be performed by a soils engineer on all access streets and the proposed truck routes prior to commencing any site preparation or construction and prior to the issuance of any necessary permits. The evaluation shall include as a minimum: o The number, type, size, and weight of trucks for export of materials or product; o The number, type, size and weight of truck deliveries of building supplies, drilling supplies, etc.; o The number, type, size and weight of equipment transported to the site; o Other associated transportation items; and o Other anticipated loading. The evaluation shall contain recommendations as to actions required to maintain said streets and routes in their current condition throughout the planned development phase, planned production phase, and in the close out phase. (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 11). The operator shall perform the actions on the existing pavement as recommended by the soils or highway engineer, the operator will hire a licensed contractor and provide street profiles, drawings, and engineering to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to work commencing (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 12). The City Council may restrict the use of certain streets, alleys, or roadways in connection with the permittees operations. In the event any street, alley, or roadway is damaged by the permittees operations, such damages shall be paid for by the permittee upon demand by the City, and the failure to pay such damages, being the reasonable cost of the repair of any such damaged portions, shall be grounds for the revocation of the permit and the collection of such damages (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 13).
4.13-33
Phase 2 and Phase 4 Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project, four wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig and temporary production equipment would be used to process the extracted oil, gas, and water. The processed oil would be removed from the Project Site by truck and delivered to an offsite location for sale. Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project has been designed to incorporate the following design features and operational practices to address transportation and traffic during drilling activities and temporary production: The electric automated drill rig, with an approximately 87-foot high rig mist, and its associated equipment would be brought to the Project Site on large trucks with trailers permitted by the City and the California Highway Patrol. The permitted loads would be assisted by signage, flagmen, and other traffic control measures as required by the City. The temporary and permanent production equipment would be brought to the Project Site by large trucks with trailers. If determined by the Applicant to be needed, signage, flagmen, and other traffic control measures would be provided to assist vehicles entering the Project Site. A trucking safety program would be implemented to address potential trucking risks associated with the transport of the processed oil to an offsite location for sale. The trucking safety program measures would include the following: o Pre-employment driver screening program; o Random drug and alcohol testing of drivers; o Use of fully certified drivers; o Notification of traffic violations; o Regular and event-related vehicle inspections and maintenance; and o Onboard safety systems consisting of: Onboard brake stroke monitoring systems; Collision mitigation and threat warning systems; Lane departure warning systems; Rear and side collision detection and warning systems; Vehicle stability systems; Tire pressure monitoring systems; Wireless mobile communications; GPS tracking and data monitoring; and Auditing.
Additional Features for Phase 3 and Phase 4 Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project, there would be construction activities resulting in various vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, including trucks used in the export of soil during the implementation of the remedial action plan for the Proposed Oil Project. In addition, there would be construction activities associated with the installation of offsite Pipelines resulting in short-term road closures in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and
4.13-34
Torrance. Phase 3 construction activities would include the following design features and operational practices to address transportation and traffic: The Proposed Oil Project would construct street improvements along the frontage of the Project Site on Valley Drive and 6th Street. The improvements would include the installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The Proposed Oil Project would include implementation of a City-approved Phase 3 Pedestrian Protection Plan that provides specific pedestrian protection measures during the following construction activities: o During the first days during week 5, when the removal of three mature trees would result in the periodic closure of the sidewalk along Valley Drive. o Between weeks 6 and 13, during the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan, when there would be periodic disruption of the sidewalk along Valley Drive. o Between weeks 58 and 59, when the construction of street improvements (new curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 6th Street and Valley Drive would result in the closure of the sidewalk along Valley Drive. o Between weeks 60 and 61, when the installation of the permanent landscaping would result in the closure of the sidewalk along Valley Drive.
1993 Conditional Use Permit Conditions (CUP) of Approval
The construction activities associated with the Project Site that would occur in Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project would comply with the following conditions of approval: Area residents shall be notified of Pipeline construction prior to commencement. Signs shall be installed to direct detour traffic (Section 6. Vehicle Traffic and Circulation On and Off Site, Condition 9) Areas of construction and maintenance activities [for the Pipeline construction] shall be delineated by signs, flagmen, pavement markings, barricades, and lights, as determined by permit requirements of all local agencies (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 4). Where pedestrian activities are affected during [Pipeline] construction, appropriate warning signs shall be installed and pedestrians will be diverted. Pedestrian access to business and residences will be maintained during construction. Special facilities, such as handrails, fences, and walkways shall be provided, if necessary, for the safety of pedestrians (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 5). Obstruction of emergency vehicle operations will be partially mitigated by ensuring that providers of emergency services are kept informed of the location, nature, and duration of [Pipeline] construction activities so alternate routes can be chosen. It is essential that fire department access is maintained to all buildings adjacent to construction activities. For this reason, a minimum of at least one lane for streets undergoing construction will be kept open at all times, and fire hydrants in construction areas will remain accessible (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 6). If public transit stops along Pipeline routes need to be temporarily relocated during construction, the applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate local operators to provide signs directing riders to the temporary stop locations (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 7).
4.13-35
When hauling excavated and waste materials from construction sites, substandard roadways will be avoided and local jurisdiction regulations governing hauling vehicles will be adhered to (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 8). Pipeline construction and operation of earth moving equipment shall be limited to daylight hours between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. and shall not be permitted during weekend periods. Additionally, construction-related trucks should not be operated during peak traffic hours of 7-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. Pipeline construction at major intersections shall be limited to daylight hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to avoid peak traffic periods (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 9). Equipment deliveries shall be made only during daytime hours between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 10). In order to reduce visual impacts and possible safety hazards, storage of pipes and other materials, as well as construction equipment, shall not be permitted on any street during non-construction hours (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 11). Area residents within 300 shall be notified about the Pipeline construction operation prior to commencement of construction (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 12). Detour signs on Pipeline construction routes shall be placed at appropriate locations (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 13). Steel plates covering Pipeline excavation trenches shall be placed to permit traffic movement during non-construction hours (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 14). Pipeline construction along Valley Drive shall be approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a permit (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 18). Trenches shall be covered during non-working hours to minimize traffic circulation problems (Section 13. Pipeline Construction, Condition 21).
4.13.6.2 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for each construction phase of the Proposed Oil Project and the permanent operations of the Proposed Oil Project were developed based on detailed construction and long-term permanent operations information provided by the Project Applicant. Data used in the trip generation analysis included detailed construction activities that would occur during each phase of the Proposed Oil Project, the specific types of vehicles used for each activity (classified as passenger car, 2 axle medium trucks, and 3+ axle heavy trucks), and a detailed schedule, by week, of each activity. To properly assess the truck traffic generated by the proposed construction and operational phases of the Proposed Oil Project against intersection capacity during the A.M. and P.M. peak commute hours, which contain primarily passenger cars, a Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) factor was applied to all trucks generated by the Proposed Oil Project. The PCE factors used in this traffic impact analysis were based on PCE factors contained in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. A PCE factor of 2.0 was applied to 2 axle medium trucks (i.e., one medium truck is equivalent to two passenger cars); and a PCE factor of 3.0 was applied to 3+ axle heavy trucks (i.e., one heavy truck is equivalent to three passenger cars).
4.13-36
Per the 1993 CUP, a maximum of 18 (3+ axle heavy) trucks per day would be allowed to travel to/from the site, except during emergencies. This would equate to a maximum of 36 truck trips per day with 18 trucks entering the site, and the same 18 trucks leaving the site during the same day. Additionally, per the CUP truck traffic (3+ axle heavy trucks) generated by the Proposed Oil Project is limited between the hours of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays. During the hours of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.., it was assumed that daily truck traffic (2 axle medium trucks and 3+ axle heavy trucks) would be evenly spread throughout this six hour period. Construction worker trips would occur as all inbound traffic during the a.m. peak hour as workers arrive to the site, and all outbound traffic during the p.m. peak hour as workers leave the site. No (3+ axle) truck traffic is permitted outside of those hours (9 A.M. to 3 P.M.), and at any time during the weekends and holidays. Therefore, during the A.M. peak hours between 7 A.M. and 9 A.M., no heavy trucks would be leaving the Project Site. However, since truck traffic can enter the site at 9 A.M., there would be some (heavy) truck traffic on the study area roadways during the A.M. peak hour as some trucks would be planning to be at the site at 9 A.M. Similarly, during the P.M. peak hours of 4 P.M. to 6 P.M., no heavy trucks would be entering the Project Site. However, since truck traffic can enter the site up to 3 P.M., there would be some (heavy) truck traffic on the study area roadways during the P.M. peak hour as some trucks would be leaving the site after 3 P.M. and would be traveling on the study area street network. Table 4.14-7 provides trip generation rates for each Proposed Oil Project phase.
Distribution and Assignment of Project Traffic
Trip distribution patterns for Proposed Oil Project traffic were based on two distinct vehicle trip distributions: 1) trips from medium (2-axle) and heavy (3+ axle) trucks primarily originating from the freeways (I-405, SR 91, I-710, etc.); and, 2) trips from employees and construction workers (passenger cars and pickup trucks) originating from both local and regional areas surrounding the Project Site. Figures located in Appendix D illustrates the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the trucks (heavy 3+ axle and medium 2 axle) generated by Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project (Tables are located at the end of this section due to their size and length). Truck traffic would be limited to the City-designated truck routes (per Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance General Plan Circulation Elements) on Artesia Boulevard, PCH, and the Herondo-Anita-190th Street corridor. Local access to the Project Site would occur on Pier Avenue and Valley Drive. It should be noted that there are turn movement restrictions (for all vehicles) at the I-405/Artesia Boulevard interchange where traffic originating from, or destined to, I-405 north of Artesia Boulevard, would not be able to get on Artesia Boulevard, west of I-405. Therefore, those vehicles coming to/from I-405 north of Artesia Boulevard were distributed to the I405/Crenshaw Boulevard interchange to get to/from the Project Site. Traffic coming to/from the south on I-405 were distributed evenly between the I-405/Crenshaw Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard interchanges as there are no turn restrictions for traffic coming from that direction.
4.13-37
Table 4.14-7
Proposed Oil Project Trip Generation Estimates Construction Activity Vehicle Type Daily Out Total 15 0 10 25 45 0 10 55 18 3 25 46 54 3 25 85 18 0 55 73 54 0 55 109 12 30 0 20 50 90 0 20 110 36 6 50 92 108 6 50 170 36 0 110 146 108 0 110 218 24 A.M. Peak Hour In Out Total 2 0 10 12 6 0 10 16 3 1 25 29 9 1 25 36 4 0 55 59 12 0 55 67 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 12 6 0 10 16 3 1 25 29 9 1 25 36 4 0 55 59 12 0 55 67 2 P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 12 6 0 10 16 3 1 25 29 9 1 25 36 4 0 55 59 12 0 55 67 2 2 0 10 12 6 0 10 16 3 1 25 29 9 1 25 36 4 0 55 59 12 0 55 67 2
In 15 0 10 25 45 0 10 55 18 3 25 46 54 3 25 85 18 0 55 73 54 0 55 109 12
PHASE 1 SITE PREPARATION PEAK ACTIVITY Rough grading, excavate well cellar, and place crushed aggregate base material Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) 3+ axle truck 2 axle trucks Cars-pickups
Total 3+ axle truck (3.0) 2 axle trucks (2.0) Cars-pickups (1.0) Total with PCE PHASE 2 EXPLORATORY DRILLING AND TESTING PEAK ACTIVITY Drill three test wells and one water injection well 3+ axle truck PLUS testing of wells 2 axle trucks Cars-pickups Total Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) 3+ axle truck (3.0) 2 axle trucks (2.0) Cars-pickups (1.0) Total with PCE PHASE 3 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PEAK ACTIVITY Construct 16-foot split-faced block perimeter wall 3+ axle truck PLUS Construct or install onsite facility 2 axle trucks Cars-pickups Total Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) 3+ axle truck (3.0) 2 axle trucks (2.0) Cars-pickups (1.0) Total with PCE PHASE 4 DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION PEAK ACTIVITY Drill remaining 27 oil wells and three water 3+ axle truck
4.13-38
Table 4.14-7
Proposed Oil Project Trip Generation Estimates Construction Activity Vehicle Type 2 axle trucks Cars-pickups Daily Out Total 4 8 32 64 48 96 36 72 8 16 32 64 76 152 4 1 8 13 12 2 8 22 8 2 16 26 24 4 16 44 A.M. Peak Hour In Out Total 1 0 1 25 1 26 28 1 29 6 0 6 2 0 2 25 1 26 33 1 34 1 0 8 9 3 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 9 3 0 8 11 P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total 0 1 1 1 25 26 1 28 29 0 6 6 0 2 2 1 25 26 1 33 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 9 3 0 8 11 1 0 8 9 3 0 8 11
injection wells PLUS conduct routine maintenance and operations Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE)
Total 3+ axle truck (3.0) 2 axle trucks (2.0) Cars-pickups (1.0) Total with PCE OPERATIONAL PHASE LIFE OF PROJECT PEAK ACTIVITY 3+ axle truck 2 axle trucks Cars-pickups Total Passenger Car Equivalence (PCE) 3+ axle truck (3.0) 2 axle trucks (2.0) Cars-pickups (1.0) Total with PCE Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2013
In 4 32 48 36 8 32 76 4 1 8 13 12 2 8 22
4.13-39
Figures located in Appendix D illustrates the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the employees and construction workers (passenger cars and pickup trucks) generated by Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project. Local trip distribution percentages for the employees and construction workers were based on logical travel corridors that commuters would use. . The Applicant proposes that during the various phases equipment would travel to the Project Site, some equipment and supplies would be stored within the building at 601 Cypress Avenue for use at the Project Site as needed. Similarly, Appendix D Figures illustrate the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the trucks generated by Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project, the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the employees generated by Phase 2, and the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the trucks generated by Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project. Appendix D Figures illustrate the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the employees and construction workers generated by Phase 3, distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the trucks generated by Phase 4 of the Proposed Oil Project, the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the employees generated by Phase 4, the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the trucks generated by the Operational Phase of the Proposed Oil Project and the trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment for the employees and construction workers generated by the Operational Phase
4.13.6.3 Project Parking
During Phase 1-4, some employees/contractors would park at the Project Site and some employees would park at the proposed parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue providing 20 spaces. During Phase 3, the Applicant proposes to provide parking for an additional 20 employees at an offsite location as described in the Application, but which has not yet been identified; depending on the location of the parking site, workers would walk or be shuttled by the Operator to the Project Site.
4.13.6.4 Project Traffic Conditions Roadways
To evaluate the Proposed Oil Projects potential impact on roadway/freeway segments, the total peak A.M. and P.M. PCE trips and total daily PCE trips associated with each phase of the Proposed Oil Project was added to each roadway/freeway segment to determine if there was a potential to exceed the aforementioned roadway/freeway segment significance criteria applied for this analysis. The results of the roadway/freeway segment impact analyses are shown below in Tables 4.13-19 through 4.13-23. As all of the A.M. and P.M. peak and daily vehicle trips will not all occur on the same roadway/freeway segments, this provides a conservative approach.
4.13.6.5 Project Traffic Conditions Intersections
Tables 4.13-9 through 4.4-18 summarize projected baseline traffic conditions and traffic conditions expected to occur with the addition of Proposed Oil Project vehicle trips for each phase of the Proposed Oil Project for each of the study intersections. Each table also includes a
4.13-40
determination whether an intersection delay or LOS significance threshold is exceeded resulting in a potentially significant impact.
4.13.6.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts
Construction and operation of the Proposed Oil Project would increase traffic on area roadways and intersections. The increased traffic is compared to the significance criteria below.
Conflict with Local Agency Measures of Effectiveness Criteria
As shown in Tables 4.13-9 through 4.13-23, traffic associated with the all phases of the Proposed Oil Project would not exceed any applicable thresholds of significance for potentially impacted intersection and roadway segments. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. The loss of parking and coastal Preferential Parking Program spaces would be inconsistent with the Citys Coastal Land Use Plan and/or Coastal Development Permit 5-84-236, as amended. Realignment of the Valley Drive/6th Street intersection would eliminate two spaces and development of the Project Site at 555 6th Street would eliminate 15 free remote long-term (6 to 12 hour) public parking spaces on weekends during the hours of enforcement of the preferential residential parking (10 a.m. to 10 p.m.). The Applicant states that these 17 spaces could be replaced within the parking lot proposed to be constructed at 636 Cypress Avenue to City standards. The Applicant notes that there may be a conflict in use of some spaces for one hour on Fridays. The replacement program requires an equivalent number of free parking spaces an equivalent distance to the beach as the existing spaces. Onsite and offsite signage would need to be provided and the exact design and signage requirements would be completed during the final permitting stage with the City, as per the City requirements. The parking modifications would require amendment to the Citys Coastal Development Permit 5-84-236. But, as an equivalent number of free parking spaces an equivalent distance to the beach as the existing spaces, is being proposed by the Applicant, impacts would be less than significant.
Increased Hazards due to Design Features or Use
An increase in truck traffic on City roadways could represent a safety hazard to the public, particularly when located in close proximity to sensitive receptors such as cross walks, parks, and areas frequented by pedestrians. The Proposed Oil Project would introduce truck traffic on Valley Drive in close proximity to City Hall, the public library, Community Center, Clark Building/Stadium, Bicentennial Park, Ardmore Park, South Park and Hermosa Valley School. Valley Drive is also a Safe Route to School associated with Hermosa Valley School. Under the Citys coastal Preferential Parking Program, Clark Building/Stadium parking is provided by a row of 51 perpendicular spaces on the west side along Valley Drive, and 78 perpendicular spaces are provided along the east side of Valley Drive adjacent to the Greenbelt. In both cases vehicles head in and back out onto the street. In the case of the 78 spaces, there is adequate paved street width and turning radius so that vehicles backing out can avoid encroaching into the travel lane. Sometimes vehicles park in a tandem manner (one behind the other) during peak times, and the City typically does not ticket this unauthorized parking. In addition to the 78 spaces along the Greenbelt, there are an additional 8 perpendicular parking
4.13-41
spaces reserved for City parking enforcement vehicles along the Greenbelt (across from the City building at 861 Valley Drive). Operation of the Proposed Oil Project would result in a CUP-mandated maximum of 18 truck trips per day. Traffic counts conducted along Valley Drive by Arch Beach Consulting in July 2013 reveal that there were no 3+ axle truck trips on Valley Drive during the three day count period. The introduction of truck trips uncommon under existing conditions in close proximity to sensitive receptors is a potentially significant impact. Although no 3+ axle trucks were counted on Valley Drive during the 2013 traffic counts, Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue is a designated truck route. The City Maintenance Yard houses the Citys public works vehicles and equipment and is used as well by some City contractors performing maintenance functions. Occasionally City staff and City contractors use a limited number of parking spaces along Valley Drive across from the Clark facilities for materials or equipment staging. While the City Maintenance Yard has a propane tank, there are no other fueling facilities at the site, and travel along Valley Drive by fuel trucks/tankers would be highly unusual. The CUP requires that truck traffic accessing the Project Site be limited to between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. As it is assumed that truck traffic will be spread throughout the day, a total of 18 one-way truck trips can be expected along each segment of Valley Drive (entering the site coming south from Pier Avenue to the Project Site, then exiting the site and heading south) during the six hour truck operation period, or about once every 20 minutes.
TR.1
Trucks activity along Valley Drive would cause impacts to pedestrians or other vehicles
Phases 1-4
Students walking to Hermosa Valley School are expected to be in school in the morning (starts as early as 8:15 a.m.) prior to trucks being on Valley Drive. Because the regular school day ends as early as 2:48 p.m. for some students, trucks would still be utilizing Valley Drive while students are walking on adjacent sidewalks. In addition, Hermosa Valley School has 10 minimum days per year, when students are dismissed as early at 12:15 p.m. Also, on Wednesdays, school is dismissed earlier (at 1:45) for some students (HBCSD 2014). As required by the Citys Circulation Element, there are three crossing guards located along Valley Drive near the school (at Pier Avenue and Valley), but none along Valley Drive to the south of Pier Avenue). Although there would only be a limited number of truck trips that would occur while students are commuting (depending on the day), there exists the potential for student safety to be compromised while students are walking to school or for pedestrians during the entire period when trucks are traveling on Valley Drive. The area immediately around the Project Site would
4.13-42
present the greatest risk to pedestrians, due to the requirement for trucks to enter and exit the site, and therefore cross over the sidewalk. Trucks are wider than cars and substantially less maneuverable. Pursuant to Caltrans regulations, truck are required to be less than 108 inches (9 feet) wide, but could be up to 10 feet wide for specialized construction equipment or almost 11 feet wide if mirrors and/or lights are included. The lane width along Valley Drive is 11-12 feet, with pedestrian sidewalks located immediately adjacent in most areas (no landscape buffers). Trucks turning into or out of the Project Site, or driving down Valley Drive, could cause a safety hazard for pedestrians or vehicles driving north on Valley Drive as Valley Drive is only a collector street with limited width. The Proposed Oil Project would include a number of transportation/traffic design features and 1993 Conditions of Approval summarized above (including, but not limited to implementation of a Pedestrian Protection Plan, trucking safety program, limiting truck deliveries between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., and limiting roundtrip truck trips to no more than 18 per day) to enhance safety. However, the use of large trucks in close proximity to pedestrians, children commuting from school, particularly entering and exiting the Project Site when trucks would be crossing over the sidewalk, would be a potentially significant impact. The current configuration of the intersection of Valley Drive and 6th Street is not designed to safely accommodate the turning radius necessary for trucks departing the Project Site. However, the Proposed Oil Project design includes constructing modifications to the intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive as described in the Project Description to provide the necessary truck turning radius and improve the line of sight on Valley Drive to and from 6th Street to maintain public safety. Even so, with the slow moving trucks entering Valley Drive from 6th Street, potential traffic conflicts could arise and this would be a significant impact. The trucks approaching the Project Site would have to enter Pier Avenue from PCH and then turn left from Pier Avenue onto Valley Drive. There are two 4-way stop-sign controlled short intersections between Pier Avenue/Ardmore Avenue and Pier Avenue/Valley Drive, and a short intervening street segment. The Pier Avenue/Valley Drive intersection is also proximate to the Citys Fire Station which fronts Pier Avenue, as well as City Hall, the public library and other public facilities, and serves general vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The City, and the downtown in particular, which is served by Pier Avenue as a major gateway, also provides a venue for many special events and beachgoers from local and regional areas which add to traffic congestion and hazards. This creates congested conditions on Pier Avenue at various times during the day. The short street segment between the Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive and number of turning movements that must be negotiated within a short distance could presents a traffic hazard if trucks are too long to fit into this intersection before turning left and this would be a significant impact Mitigation measures would include increased crossing guard presence at the Project Site, the installation of warning signs/yellow lights that warn drivers of the approaching area where trucks may be entering the roadway and converting Valley Drive to one-way (as recommended in the Beach Cities Livability Plan (WLCI 2011)) which would increase lane width.
4.13-43
Mitigation Measures
TR-1a
For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall fund, through and in consultation with the School District and Safe Routes to School, an afternoon crossing guard to be stationed at the Project Site area to ensure pedestrians passing nearby the Project Site have assistance in crossing the streets and the entrances/exit of the Project Site. Alternately, the Applicant shall ensure that trucks do not travel to and from the Project Site unless school is in session (i.e. truck travel prohibited on Valley Drive after 2:48 p.m., on Wednesdays after 1:45 p.m. or on school minimum days after 12:45 p.m.). The Applicant shall consult with the School District to ensure timing is current. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall install, subject to the approval of the City Public Works Department, warning signs and blinking yellow lights one block north and south (if applicable with possible one-way on Valley Drive) of the Project Site warning vehicle traffic that trucks may be entering and exiting the roadway. Blinking lights shall only operate when trucks are utilizing the roadway (not 24 hours per day). The Applicant shall ensure that all trucks accessing the Project Site and utilizing the Pier Avenue/Valley Drive intersection are less than 65 feet long to prevent safety hazards at the double intersection on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall, with the approval and coordination of the City Public Works Department, restripe Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue to be a southerly directed one-way street. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Valley Drive between 6th Street and 8th Street to allow for sufficient line of sight for trucks entering and exiting the Project Site.
TR-1b
TR-1c
TR-1d
Residual Impacts
The addition of a crossing guard, or the elimination of trucks except during school hours, would reduce the likelihood of increased safety risks related to children traveling from school at the same times that trucks are entering and leaving the Project Site. There are currently crossing guards at Pier Avenue and Valley Drive, but the addition of a crossing guard at the Project Site would help to ensure that the area is safe for pedestrians. Warning signs would help to alert drivers that trucks would be using the roadways and entering and exiting the Project Site, thereby helping to reduce the possibility of traffic accidents. Ensuring that trucks do not extend into Ardmore Avenue when utilizing the Pier Avenue and Valley Drive intersection would reduce the potential impacts on traffic safety and congestion at that intersection. The re-striping of Valley drive would allow cars and trucks more room and eliminate potential conflicts between trucks and vehicles traveling north on Valley Drive. It would also reduce the potential for truck safety impacts on pedestrians as it would increase the separation distance between pedestrians and trucks traveling on Valley Drive. Valley Drive is currently one way in Manhattan Beach north of First St. Converting to one-way would also have the benefit of fulfilling the recommendations by the Bicycle Master Plan (implicit in the proposed Class II bike route along Valley Drive) and the Cities Livability Plan.
4.13-44
While the one-way conversion of Valley Drive would provide benefits in safety and community livability, it would cause a number of trips from/to local businesses and residences and City services to be longer. For example, to travel north from some locations, travelers would have to travel south on Valley Drive to 8th Street or 2nd Street where they could cross over to Ardmore Avenue to travel north. In addition, during Phases 1-3 of the Proposed Project, Bard Street would be closed off by the temporary City Maintenance Yard, thereby requiring City Hall employees to travel south on Valley in order to go north (the Fire Department and Police Department would still have access to Bard Street). Discussions with the Fire Department and the City Public Works Department indicate that converting Valley Drive to one-way would be feasible and would not introduce emergency access issues. The coordination with the Public Works Department, as required under mitigation measure TR-1d, would also require that traffic circulation be studied in order to minimize disruptions. For example, converting Ardmore Avenue to one-way may also be needed in order to ensure that Ardmore Avenue does not have increases in traffic flow. The use of shorter trucks was considered as a mitigation measure. Any truck used to carry crude oil or large construction equipment would still have the same width as a large truck, but would just be shorter. It would also require that more trucks trips be made, there increasing the frequency of truck trips, which would increase safety impacts. Therefore, the use of smaller trucks was not considered mitigation for impacts. With the implementation of these additional measures, safety concerns would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation(Class II).
Impact # Impact Description Construction of the Pipelines along area streets could cause significant traffic circulation/hazard impacts. Phase Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
TR.2
Phases 3
Construction of the natural gas and crude oil Pipeline and valve along Valley Drive, Herondo Street, Anita Street, 190th Street, and possible Hawthorne Street could potentially create traffic impacts that temporarily reduce the capacity of the street system, resulting in substantial increase in the V/C ratio on roads and LOS, or congestion at intersections; inhibit emergency response by paramedic, fire, ambulance, and police vehicles; affect existing roadside parking; and inhibit access to driveways for other land uses. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
TR-2a
Pipeline construction activities within the Pipeline right-of-way shall be limited to weekday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., unless the applicable municipality approves a specific exception to the time limit for periods of limited duration, subject to measures required by the municipality to protect the public health and safety. The applicant shall implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) during Pipeline construction that includes the following pursuant to the
TR-2b
4.13-45
procedures and subject to approval of the applicable municipality: 1) Require the Pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow street construction permits in the affected areas (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities - PCH and Hawthorne Boulevard); 2) Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected Citys standard roadway plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); 3) Revise Pipeline construction schedules to minimize access impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and 4) Ensure that all affected residences and business have adequate emergency access during all times and phases of construction.
Residual Impacts
Construction Traffic Management Plans (CTMP) are regularly required by jurisdictions for construction that occurs within area streets, and these plans have been long demonstrated to be effective in reducing traffic impacts due to construction activities, even though street construction can be temporarily inconvenient to area drivers. With the implementation of the CTMP, the significant but temporary impacts (occurring for a period of 16 weeks, or only 1-2 weeks in any one location) due to the Pipeline construction along the street segments on Valley Drive and the Herondo-Anita-190th Street corridor would be less than significant with mitigation(Class II).
Inadequate Emergency Access
The circulation within the vicinity of the Project Site would not change with the implementation of the Proposed Project; no intersections would be modified (beyond a change in the curbing and turning radius) and access to the surrounding land uses would not be modified by the implementation of the Proposed Oil Project. The Fire and Police Departments are located at the corner of Pier Avenue and Valley Drive and utilize Bard Avenue. While there would be an increase in vehicle traffic through these intersections, the level of traffic would not produce additional congestion (see above) and there would not be impacts on Fire and Police response. Pipeline construction activities would ensure, as per the CTMP, that emergency access would remain in place. Therefore, there would not be significant impacts to emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.
Conflict with Adopted Policies
TR.3
Routing of Proposed Oil Project truck traffic could violate local prohibitions.
Phases 1-4
The applicant proposes to route truck traffic along 190th Street. As discussed above, use of 190th Street by Proposed Project truck traffic is not expected to significantly increase area traffic. However, as noted in Section 4.13.1, the Redondo Beach Municipal Code prohibits commercial vehicles weighing 20,000 pounds or more from operating on 190th Street between Anza Avenue
4.13-46
and PCH (Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section 3-7.902(b) due to the presence of a steep grade and the potential for safety issues. As a result, the Proposed Projects use of 190th Street for heavy truck traffic represents a substantial safety hazard, is inconsistent with local prohibitions and is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
TR-3a
The applicant shall be prohibited from routing Proposed Oil Project-related heavy truck exceeding 20,000 pounds on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH, except during Pipeline construction. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the applicable city. The applicant shall route inbound and outbound heavy (>20,000 pounds) truck traffic along PCH and Artesia Boulevard, which are designated truck routes.
TR-3b
Residual Impacts
Routing inbound and outbound heavy truck traffic to different roadway segments has the potential to increase traffic in areas not evaluated in original analysis. The alternative heavy truck routing is illustrated below in Figure 4.4-5. The detailed traffic analysis for each intersection under this mitigation are shown in Appendix D. Under mitigation measure TR-3b, all inbound project-related trucks would travel to the Proposed Project Site from I-405 via interchanges at Hawthorne Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, and Western Avenue. Then, take Artesia Boulevard westbound to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) southbound, to Pier Avenue westbound, then to Valley Drive southbound. All Proposed Oil Project project-related outbound truck traffic leaving the project site would travel south on Valley Drive, east on Herondo, north on PCH then east on Artesia Boulevard to I-405 via interchanges at Hawthorne Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard (via Hawthorne Boulevard to 190th Street), or Western Avenue (via Hawthorne Boulevard to 190th Street). To analyze the additional truck routes, 13 intersections were added to the analysis study area (intersections 45 57). A Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum prepared by Arch Beach Consulting evaluates the potential traffic-related impacts that could result from implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3b in Appendix D (Arch Beach, 2014). As shown in Appendix D, implementation of the mitigation measures would not exceed any applicable thresholds of significance for potentially impacted intersections. Residual impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.13-47
Figure 4.13-5
Alternative Heavy Truck Traffic Routes
Source: Arch Beach Consulting 2014
4.13-48
4.13.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project is assessed below relative to each of the significance criteria.
Conflict with Local Agency Measures of Effectiveness Criteria
To evaluate the traffic and transportation system impacts of relocating the City Maintenance Yard to the Civic Center properties, the existing City Maintenance Yard was inventoried to count the number of trips produced by the City Maintenance Yard. Existing 24 hour vehicle counts were taken at the existing Maintenance Yards two driveways from November 5 to November 7, 2013. Based on the collected data, the proposed Project Site produces 31 A.M. peak hour trips (15 inbound and 16 outbound), 14 P.M. peak hour trips (7 inbound and 7 outbound), and 233 ADT. The trip distribution was applied to the intersections potentially impacted by relocation of the City Maintenance Yard to determine the significance of traffic impacts. Table 4.13-8 shows the intersection LOS comparison under existing conditions (with the City Maintenance Yard at its current location) and then the projected LOS values for the Proposed Oil Project Phase 3 (as a worst case) as well as operations of the City Maintenance Yard. See Appendix D for the Stantec Traffic Analysis report.
Table 4.13-8 Comparison City Maintenance Yard Relocation with Proposed Oil Project Intersection LOS
Intersection
Existing Conditions (delay in seconds/LOS) P.M. Peak Hour 27.2/D 11.5/B 9.7/A 13.9/B 9.8/A
A.M. Peak Hour Valley Drive/Pier Avenue 12.1/B th Valley Drive/11 Place 9.8/A Valley Drive/11th Street 8.0/A Valley Drive/8th Street 9.8/A Valley Drive/6th Street 7.9/A Note: For the Phase 3 Oil Project traffic levels Source: Stantec, 2014
With Proposed Project + Oil Project Phase 3 Conditions (delay in seconds/LOS) A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour 13.5/B 28.8/D 10.3/B 11.8/B 8.3/A 9.8/A 10.5/B 14.4/B 8.1/A 10.2/B
As shown in Table 4.13-8, relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would not increase traffic in the area such that LOS or intersection delays would substantially degraded. In addition to a direct replacement option, the City is considering a City Maintenance Yard with added parking option. The added parking option would include a maximum of 129 parking spaces, including replacement of the 32 parking spaces reserved for City employees and the public during offset hours under the Citys coastal Preferential Parking Program that would be eliminated (next to City Hall in front of the Hermosa Self-Storage site). Therefore, while a portion of the 129 parking spaces under the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard with added parking option would replace existing parking spaces, the remainder would be available to serve parking needs as determined by the City Council. For example, if the Civic Center were rebuilt these spaces could replace spaces currently onsite, or offset demand created by new development, or supply public or employee needs, or a combination.
4.13-49
Parking stalls themselves do not generate traffic. Parking stalls are tied to uses, which generate the trips, and an increase in parking supply does not necessarily correlate to additional trips generated. However, the attractiveness of the beach community produces a demand for beach parking [that] could be expected to be almost limitless; the more parking provided, the greater the number of visitors who would drive to Hermosa Beach on peak summer weekends (General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking a Element page 59). The additional parking spaces under the Added Parking option would at least cause a change in the traffic distribution in the area and an increase in traffic volumes at Pier Avenue and Valley Drive (the most heavily impacted nearby intersection) as traffic would utilize that intersection to access the new parking structure. In order to estimate this potential impact, an additional 500 daily trips were added to the Pier Avenue/Valley Drive intersection (about 5 trips per parking space per day, or an average of 2.88 hours per vehicle, as per summer demand from the General Plan pg. 58), originating equally from the west and east. The traffic model indicates that the delay at this intersection would increase by 1.1 seconds and would remain at an LOS of C (see Appendix D). Therefore, the addition of 129 parking stalls on the Proposed City Maintenance Yard site is not expected to generate additional congestion at intersections. The temporary City Maintenance Yard would affect circulation in the area around City Hall by closing off Bard Street to through traffic through Phase 3 of the Proposed Project. The Fire and Police Departments would still have access to Bard Street through Pier Avenue. As Bard Street is currently used lightly (as is encouraged by the Police Department), the closing off of Bard Street would not affect traffic circulation. Current Bard Street traffic would be routed through Pier Avenue/Valley intersection, which has additional capacity as discussed above.
Increased Hazards due to Design Features or Use
TR.4
The City Maintenance Yard could introduce an impact to safety or Bicycle/pedestrian safety
Phases 4
The temporary Proposed City Maintenance Yard would eliminate the through access along Bard Street, which would reduce access for bicycles or pedestrians along Bard Street and 11th Place. However, as Bard Street is lightly used and minimal bicycle traffic currently uses Bard Street, this would not generate safety impacts to pedestrians or bicycles. There is no bicycle route along Bard Street or 11th Place. Some bicycle and pedestrian traffic would be re-directed through Pier Avenue/Valley Street intersection, which is heavily used by pedestrians already and the increase would be minimal. The temporary Proposed City Maintenance Yard would allow for pedestrian access through Bard Street and out along 11th Place, but this may not be apparent to most users. Safety impacts related to Fire Department emergency response are addressed under section 4.6, Fire Protection and Emergency Response. The permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be accessed by a new driveway onto Valley Drive. The driveway for the existing Hermosa Beach Self-Storage facility is accessed from 11th Place and does not exit directly onto Valley Drive. Under the Parking Option, a
4.13-50
driveway would also enter/exit the parking area onto 11th Place. Although a driveway onto Valley Drive does not necessarily introduce significant risk, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would have trucks entering and exiting the facility, with potentially limited line of sight from the Proposed City Maintenance Yard walls, which increases in safety concerns. The current City Maintenance Yard also enters and exits directly to/from Valley Drive, but also utilizes the 6th Street entrance/exit. However, the location of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard is also recommended for a pedestrian crosswalk and has been the location of multiple pedestrian/vehicle accidents nearby at 11th Street (both as per the Pedestrian Safety Assessment). The lack of separation between pedestrians and traffic all along Valley Drive is also a potential safety issue (discussed in the Pedestrian Safety Report) that could be remedied in this portion of Valley Drive if the sidewalks are reconstructed as part of this project. Therefore, the addition of a driveway onto Valley Drive with truck traffic would produce a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
TR-4a TR-4b
The City shall design the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard so that it does not enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive. If the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project affects the sidewalk, then the design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to separate the pedestrians from the street.
Residual Impact
Cars and trucks using 11th Place instead of entering from and exiting directly onto Valley Drive would create less safety risk than a direct driveway onto Valley Drive, because the traffic speed on Valley Drive is much faster than on 11th Place. If sidewalks are going to be replaced as part of the Proposed Project, then the Pedestrian Safety Assessment recommendations for using a landscape buffer to enhance pedestrian safety should be a part of the design. With the elimination of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard driveway onto Valley Drive, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Inadequate Emergency Access
The circulation of the area would not change with the implementation of the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. Bard Street would be closed during the temporary Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, but because traffic is currently minimal along Bard Street and there is capacity at nearby intersections, this would not impact area circulation and therefore emergency access. The Fire and Police Departments are located at the corner of Pier Avenue and Valley Drive and utilize Bard Avenue and they would continue to have access through Bard Street during the temporary project activities. While there would be an increase in vehicle traffic through the nearby intersections (primarily Pier Avenue and Valley Drive), the level of traffic would not produce additional congestion (see above) and therefore would not impact Fire and Police response. Therefore, there would not be significant impacts to emergency access and impacts would be less than significant
Conflict with Adopted Policies
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project without added parking would relocate and replace the functions of the existing City Maintenance Yard along with the coastal parking stated above
(32 spaces) and would not introduce new uses or parking, thereby only resulting in the redistribution of existing traffic. It would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy. In fact, the Pedestrian Safety Assessment recommends the development of additional parking structures in the City Hall/Civic Center area.
4.13.8 Impacts of Other Issue Area Mitigation Measures
Some mitigation measures could increase construction requirements associated with the Project, such as additional sound walls, which could increase construction-related traffic. Mitigation measure AE-1b, the construction of a permanent wall, could increase the required truck trips for the hauling of materials to the Project Site. However, none of these mitigation measures would increase the peak day traffic levels as these are limited for heavy trucks by the 18 trucks per day limit in the CUP. None of the mitigation measures would increase safety concerns, affect emergency access or conflict with adopted policies. Therefore, the other issue area mitigation measures would not result in additional impacts.
The potential traffic impacts from the Proposed Project, evaluated above, were evaluated in the context of future traffic conditions projected to occur during each of the four Proposed Project phases to account for forecasted regional growth and development, that would increase the volumes of traffic on roadway networks. Hence, projected regional traffic volume increase estimates have been used for the purpose of evaluating cumulative traffic impacts, and they are assessed in the tables within this section. Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project in combination with expected traffic increases from regional growth and development have already been assessed and would be less than significant. One project, the Anita Lane Reconfiguration Project, would cause a reconfiguration of Anita/Herondo thereby potentially affecting traffic flow along Anita/Herondo between Valley Drive and PCH. The reduction from two lanes each way to one lane each way could reduce traffic LOS. The PCH/Anita/Herondo intersection currently operates at an LOS of F during the peak P.M hours. However, the Proposed Project would not be contributing trucks to this intersection during the peak P.M. hours. In addition, as the PCH traffic is primarily responsible for the low LOS rating, and traffic on Anita/Herondo is light, this modification would not have an impact on circulation in the area with the Proposed Project traffic. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative traffic impact.
4.13-52
Table 4.13-9
Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU - Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay LOS F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A A V/C or Delay 0.823 0.677 1.112 0.825 0.744 0.776 1.092 0.772 0.681 0.728 0.552 0.652 0.457 20.4 sec 17.3 sec 9.2 sec 11.1 sec LOS D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A B Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 1 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 1.256 0.725 1.134 0.854 0.806 0.755 0.859 0.659 0.576 0.643 0.475 0.686 0.403 12.5 sec 12.3 sec 7.9 sec 9.8 sec LOS F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A A Change 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ----P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.824 0.677 1.113 0.825 0.744 0.777 1.093 0.774 0.683 0.728 0.554 0.652 0.457 20.6 sec 17.4 sec 9.2 sec 11.1 sec LOS D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A B Change 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 ----no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue Avenue/Pier
signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 1-way stop
1.256 0.725 1.132 0.852 0.804 0.753 0.852 0.659 0.575 0.643 0.475 0.686 0.403 12.4 sec 12.3 sec 7.8 sec 9.7 sec
Valley Drive/11th Street Valley Drive/11th Place
4.13-53
Table 4.13-9
Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU - Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay LOS A A A B D F D D F F E D E C A V/C or Delay 12.0 sec 11.1 sec 9.4 sec 15.8 sec 30.8 sec 669.9 sec 0.684 0.738 1.195 194.2 sec 0.918 0.980 0.877 0.787 0.872 LOS B B A C D F B C F F E E D C D Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 1 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 9.4 sec 8.7 sec 8.0 sec 11.0 sec 32.9 sec 145.5 sec 0.839 0.842 1.112 309.9 sec 0.908 0.877 0.904 0.769 0.540 LOS A A A B D F D D F F E D E C A Change ------0.000 0.000 0.003 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 12 sec 11.2 sec 9.5 sec 15.9 sec 31.2 sec 691.9 sec 0.686 0.74 1.195 196.9 sec 0.918 0.98 0.879 0.787 0.872 LOS B B A C D F B C F F E E D C D Change ------0.002 0.002 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Drive/2nd Street Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Street Drive/Herondo
all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal signal signal signal signal
9.3 sec 8.7 sec 8.0 sec 11.0 sec 32.2 sec 141.8 sec 0.839 0.842 1.109 300.7 sec 0.908 0.877 0.904 0.769 0.539
Flagler Ln/Anita St-190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd.
4.13-54
Table 4.13-9
Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU - Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay LOS B E B F D A D B C A V/C or Delay 24.5 sec 0.877 0.890 0.818 0.931 0.473 0.876 0.790 0.884 0.592 LOS C D D D E A D C D A Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 1 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 11.0 sec 0.955 0.695 1.027 0.862 0.490 0.824 0.676 0.753 0.516 LOS B E B F D A D B C A Change -0.000 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 24.5 sec 0.879 0.891 0.82 0.931 0.473 0.877 0.791 0.885 0.593 LOS C D D D E A D C D A Change -0.002 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
I-405 SB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Blvd. Avenue/Artesia
1-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
11.0 sec 0.955 0.693 1.025 0.861 0.490 0.823 0.676 0.753 0.515
I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Prospect Ave/Beryl Street Harkness Lane/Beryl Street
all-way 9.9 12.9 9.9 12.9 A B A -B -no stop sec sec sec sec all-way 11.1 14.0 11.1 14 Flagler Lane/Beryl Street B B B -B -no stop sec sec sec sec Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Unsignalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provided LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-waystop control). BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F in Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Caltrans/CMP intersections).
4.13-55
BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Hermosa Beach: LOS C or better to LOS D, E, or F, or, additional 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F in the baseline condition; Redondo Beach and Torrance: LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or, addition of 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition; CMP /Caltrans: project creates LOS F condition and adds 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition; all unsignalized intersections: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 10% of traffic to intersection at LOS E or F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-56
Table 4.13-10 Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections Year 2015 Baseline Intersection PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street PCH/16th Street Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Control signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal A.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 81.9 sec 6.1 sec 93.2 sec 13.6sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 23.7 sec 12.1 sec 7.3 sec 18.2 sec 25.7 sec 59.7 sec 31.5 sec 34.2 sec 33.7 sec 30.0 sec 13.8 sec F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 26.9 sec 4.3sec 93.8 sec 12.5sec 8.9sec 9.3sec 36.6 sec 16.9 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.4 sec 83.7 sec 32.4 sec 37.5 sec 33.6 sec 29.9 sec 24.1 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 1 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 81.8 sec 6.1 sec 93.9 sec 13.6sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 24.1 sec 12.2 sec 7.3 sec 18.2 sec 25.6 sec 60.1 sec 31.5 sec 34.2 sec 33.7 sec 30.0 sec 13.9 sec F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B 27.0 sec 4.3sec 93.9 sec 12.5sec 8.9 sec 9.4sec 36.9 sec 16.9 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.5 sec 83.6 sec 32.4 sec 37.5 sec 33.7 sec 29.9 sec 24.2 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C
Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-57
Table 4.13-10 Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 Blvd. SB ramps/Crenshaw Control signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal A.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 37.4 sec 17.8 sec 34.6 sec 29.6 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec 4.4 sec 8.0 sec D B C C B B A A P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 32.9 sec 24.9 sec 21.0 sec 30.0 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec 5.9 sec 12.6 sec C C C C B B A B Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 1 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 37.3 sec 17.9 sec 34.8 sec 29.7 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec 4.4 sec 8.0 sec D B C C B B A A 33.0 sec 24.9 sec 21.0 sec 30.0 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec 5.9 sec 12.6 sec C C C C B B A B
Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no
Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Ave-Harbor
Notes: Caltrans and/or Torrance signalized intersections analyzed with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provides LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection. BOLD Indicates intersection would operate with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Caltrans/CMP: project creates LOS F condition and add 0.020 V/C, or, addition of 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition per ICU analysis; Torrance: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 0.010V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition per ICU analysis). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-58
Table 4.13-11 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo AveAnita St PCH/Pier Avenue14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue/Pier Avenue Valley Drive/11th signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way 1.256 0.725 1.132 0.852 0.804 0.753 0.852 0.659 0.575 0.643 0.475 0.686 0.403 12.4 sec 12.3 sec 7.8 LOS F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A V/C or Delay 0.823 0.677 1.112 0.825 0.744 0.776 1.092 0.772 0.681 0.728 0.552 0.652 0.457 20.4 sec 17.3 sec 9.2 sec LOS D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 1.256 0.725 1.135 0.855 0.807 0.756 0.865 0.659 0.578 0.643 0.480 0.686 0.403 12.7 sec 12.4 sec 7.9 sec LOS F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A Change 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 ---P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.826 0.677 1.113 0.825 0.744 0.778 1.094 0.775 0.685 0.728 0.557 0.652 0.457 20.8 sec 17.5 sec 9.2 sec Change LOS D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 ---no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
4.13-59
Table 4.13-11 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay sec 9.7 sec 9.3 sec 8.7 sec 8.0 sec 11.0 sec 32.2 sec 141.8 sec 0.839 0.842 1.109 300.7 sec 0.908 0.877 LOS V/C or Delay LOS Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS Change P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay Change LOS Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
Street Valley Drive/11th Place Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Drive/2nd Street Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Drive/Herondo Street Flagler Ln/Anita St190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St
stop 1-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal signal
A A A A B D F D D F F E D
11.1 sec 12.0 sec 11.1 sec 9.4 sec 15.8 sec 30.8 sec 669.9 sec 0.684 0.738 1.195 194.2 sec 0.918 0.980
B B B A C D F B C F F E E
9.8 sec 9.5 sec 8.7 sec 8.0 sec 11.0 sec 33.6 sec 149.7 sec 0.839 0.842 1.114 318.3 sec 0.909 0.878
A A A A B D F D D F F E D
-------0.000 0.000 0.005 -0.001 0.001
11.2 sec 12.1 sec 11.5 sec 9.6 sec 16 sec 31.7 sec 714.7 sec 0.689 0.743 1.195 200.1 sec 0.919 0.980
B B B A C D F B C F F E E
-------0.005 0.005 0.000 -0.001 0.000
no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-60
Table 4.13-11 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or Delay Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. I-405 SB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa AveHarbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Prospect Ave/Beryl Street Harkness Lane/Beryl Street signal signal signal 1-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop 0.904 0.769 0.539 11.0 sec 0.955 0.693 1.025 0.861 0.490 0.823 0.676 0.753 0.515 9.9 sec LOS E C A B E B F D A D B C A A V/C or Delay 0.877 0.787 0.872 24.5 sec 0.877 0.890 0.818 0.931 0.473 0.876 0.790 0.884 0.592 12.9 sec LOS D C D C D D D E A D C D A B Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.904 0.769 0.540 11.0 sec 0.955 0.696 1.029 0.863 0.490 0.824 0.676 0.753 0.516 9.9 sec LOS E C A B E B F D A D B C A A Change 0.000 0.000 0.001 -0.000 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 -P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.881 0.787 0.872 24.5 sec 0.88 0.89 0.82 0.93 0.47 0.88 0.79 0.89 0.59 12.9 sec B Change LOS D C D C D D D E A D C D A B 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.004 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 -no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
4.13-61
Table 4.13-11 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2015 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
V/C or LOS V/C or LOS V/C or LOS Change V/C or Change Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS Flagler Lane/Beryl all-way 11.1 11.1 B 14 sec B B -14 sec B -no Street stop sec sec Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Unsignalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provided LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-waystop control). BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D, E F in Hermosa Beach, and LOS F in Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Caltrans/CMP intersections). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Hermosa Beach: LOS C or better to LOS D, E, or F, or, additional 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F in the baseline condition; Redondo Beach and Torrance: LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or, addition of 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition; CMP /Caltrans: project creates LOS F condition and adds 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition; all unsignalized intersections: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 10% of traffic to intersection at LOS E or F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-62
Table 4.13-12 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street PCH/16th Street Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal 81.9 sec 6.1 sec 93.2 sec 13.6 sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 23.7 sec 12.1 sec 7.3 sec 18.2 sec 25.7 sec 59.7 sec 31.5 sec 34.2 sec 33.7 sec LOS F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 26.9 sec 4.3sec 93.8 sec 12.5sec 8.9sec 9.3sec 36.6 sec 16.9 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.4 sec 83.7 sec 32.4 sec 37.5 sec 33.6 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 81.7 sec 6.1 sec 94.3 sec 13.6sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 24.5 sec 12.2 sec 7.3 sec 18.3 sec 25.6 sec 60.6 sec 31.6 sec 34.3 sec 33.7 sec F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C 27.0 sec 4.3 sec 93.9 sec 12.5sec 8.9sec 9.4sec 37.1 sec 16.9 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.5 sec 83.5 sec 32.4 sec 37.5 sec 33.7 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C
Significant Impact?
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-63
Table 4.13-12 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal 30.0 sec 13.8 sec 37.4 sec 17.8 sec 34.6 sec 29.6 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec LOS C B D B C C B B P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 29.9 sec 24.1 sec 32.9 sec 24.9 sec 21.0 sec 30.0 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec C C C C C C B B Year 2015 plus Construction Phase 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 30.0 sec 13.9 sec 37.3 sec 17.9 sec 35.0 sec 29.7 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec C B D B D C B B 29.9 sec 24.2 sec 33.1 sec 25.0 sec 21.0 sec 30.0 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec C C C C C C B B
Significant Impact?
no no no no no no no no
PCH/Irena Avenue signal 4.4 sec A 5.9 sec A 4.4 sec A 5.9 sec A no PCH/Beryl Street signal 8.0 sec A 12.6 sec B 8.0 sec A 12.6 sec B no Notes: Caltrans and/or Torrance signalized intersections analyzed with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provides LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection. BOLD Indicates intersection would operate with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Caltrans/CMP: project creates LOS F condition and add 0.020 V/C, or, addition of 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition per ICU analysis; Torrance: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 0.010V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition per ICU analysis). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-64
Table 4.13-13 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2016 Baseline A.M. P.M. Peak Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or Delay Delay LOS LOS 1.259 0.726 1.135 0.854 0.806 0.755 0.854 0.661 0.576 0.645 0.476 0.688 0.403 12.4 sec 12.3 sec 7.8 sec F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A 0.829 0.678 1.119 0.827 0.745 0.778 1.095 0.774 0.683 0.729 0.553 0.653 0.458 20.5 sec 17.4 sec 9.2 sec D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A Year 2016 plus Construction Phase 3 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 1.259 0.726 1.139 0.857 0.809 0.758 0.874 0.661 0.584 0.645 0.484 0.688 0.403 12.9 sec 12.5 sec 8.0 sec P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.833 0.678 1.121 0.829 0.745 0.782 1.096 0.780 0.691 0.73 0.562 0.653 0.458 21.4 sec 17.8 sec 9.3 sec Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
LOS F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A
Change 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.020 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 ----
LOS D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A
Change 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.000 ---no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue Avenue/Pier
signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop
Valley Drive/11th Street
4.13-65
Table 4.13-13 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2016 Baseline A.M. P.M. Peak Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or Delay Delay LOS LOS 9.7 11.1 A B sec sec 9.3 12.0 A B sec sec 8.7 11.1 A B sec sec 8.0 9.4 A A sec sec 11.0 15.8 B C sec sec 32.6 31.1 D D sec sec 146.1 690.3 F F sec sec 0.841 0.844 1.111 307.0 sec 0.910 0.859 0.906 D D F F E D E 0.685 0.740 1.198 198.3 sec 0.920 0.982 0.879 B C F F E E D Year 2016 plus Construction Phase 3 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 9.9 sec 9.7 sec 8.7 sec 8.1 sec 11.0 sec 34.8 sec 158.9 sec 0.841 0.844 1.120 334.7 sec 0.911 0.860 0.906 P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 11.2 sec 12.3 sec 11.7 sec 9.7 sec 16.1 sec 32.6 sec 767.8 sec 0.694 0.747 1.20 207.60 0.922 0.982 0.885 Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
LOS A A A A B D F D D F F E D E
Change -------0.000 0.000 0.009 -0.001 0.001 0.000
LOS B B B A C D F B C F F E E D
Change -------0.009 0.007 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.006 no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Valley Drive/11th Place Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Drive/2nd Street Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Drive/Herondo Street Flagler Ln/Anita St-190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St
1-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal signal signal
4.13-66
Table 4.13-13 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2016 Baseline A.M. P.M. Peak Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or Delay Delay LOS LOS 0.770 0.540 11.1 sec 0.957 0.695 1.028 0.863 0.491 0.825 0.678 0.755 0.516 C A B E B F D A D B C A 0.778 0.874 24.7 sec 0.879 0.892 0.819 0.933 0.474 0.878 0.792 0.886 0.594 C D C D D D E A D C D A Year 2016 plus Construction Phase 3 A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.771 0.542 11.1 sec 0.957 0.699 1.032 0.867 0.491 0.826 0.678 0.756 0.517 P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.788 0.875 24.8 0.888 0.894 0.826 0.933 0.474 0.879 0.793 0.887 0.594 Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
LOS C A B E B F D A D B C A
Change 0.001 0.002 -0.000 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001
LOS C D C D D D E A D C D A
Change 0.010 0.001 -0.009 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 no no no no no no no no no no no no
Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. I-405 SB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Prospect Ave/Beryl Street Harkness Street Lane/Beryl
signal signal 1-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
all-way 9.9 12.9 9.9 A B A -12.9 B -no stop sec sec sec all-way 11.1 14.0 11.1 Flagler Lane/Beryl Street B B B -14.0 B -no stop sec sec sec Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios.
4.13-67
Unsignalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provided LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-waystop control). BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D, E F in Hermosa Beach, and LOS F in Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Caltrans/CMP intersections). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Hermosa Beach: LOS C or better to LOS D, E, or F, or, additional 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F in the baseline condition; Redondo Beach and Torrance: LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or, addition of 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition; CMP /Caltrans: project creates LOS F condition and adds 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition; all unsignalized intersections: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 10% of traffic to intersection at LOS E or F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-68
Table 4.13-14 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) Year 2016 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay 82.7 sec 6.2sec 94.2 sec 13.7sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 23.8 sec 12.2 sec 7.3 sec 18.3 sec 25.7 sec 60.2 sec 31.6 sec 34.3 sec 33.8 sec 30.1 sec 13.9 sec 37.5 sec LOS F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B D P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 27.0 sec C 4.3sec A 93.3 sec 12.sec 8.9sec 9.3sec 36.9 sec 16.9 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.5 sec 84.4 sec 32.4 sec 37.6 sec 33.7 sec 29.9 sec 24.2 sec 33.0 sec F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C C Year 2016 plus Construction Phase 3 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 82.4 sec F 27.2 sec C 6.1 sec A 4.3sec A 96.0 sec 13.7sec 11.4sec 8.0sec 25.0 sec 12.3 sec 7.3 sec 18.3 sec 25.7 sec 61.6 sec 31.6 sec 34.4 sec 33.8 sec 30.1 sec 14.0 sec 37.5 sec F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B D 93.4 sec 12.7sec 8.9sec 9.7 sec 37.6 sec 17.1 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.5 sec 84.1 sec 32.5 sec 37.7 sec 33.9 sec 29.9 sec 24.3 sec 33.4 sec F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C C
Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street PCH/16th Street Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd.
signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
4.13-69
Table 4.13-14 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) Year 2016 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue signal signal signal signal signal signal 17.8 sec 34.9 sec 29.7 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec 4.4 sec LOS B C C B B A P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 25.0 sec 21.0 sec 30.1 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec 5.9 sec C C C B B A Year 2016 plus Construction Phase 3 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 18.0 sec 35.5 sec 29.8 sec 16.5 sec 13.7 sec 4.4 sec B D C B B A 25.1 sec 21.1 sec 30.1 sec 15.4 sec 11.2 sec 5.9 sec C C C B B A
Significant Impact?
no no no no no no
PCH/Beryl Street signal 8.1 sec A 12.6 sec B 8.1 sec A 12.6 sec B no Notes: Caltrans and/or Torrance signalized intersections analyzed with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provides LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection. BOLD Indicates intersection would operate with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or LOS F). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Caltrans/CMP: project creates LOS F condition and add 0.020 V/C, or, addition of 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition per ICU analysis; Torrance: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 0.010V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition per ICU analysis). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-70
Table 4.13-15 Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersection) Year 2018 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS LOS Delay Delay 1.265 0.730 1.140 0.858 0.810 0.758 0.858 0.664 0.579 0.647 0.478 0.691 0.405 12.5 sec 12.4 sec 7.8 sec F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A 0.832 0.681 1.124 0.830 0.749 0.781 1.100 0.778 0.686 0.733 0.555 0.656 0.460 20.8 sec 17.6 sec 9.3 sec D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A Year 2018 plus Construction Phase 4 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS Change LOS Change Delay Delay 1.265 0.730 1.143 0.860 0.812 0.760 0.869 0.664 0.582 0.647 0.478 0.691 0.405 12.7 sec 12.5 sec 7.9 sec F C F D D C D B A B A B A B B A 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.011 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ---0.834 0.681 1.125 0.831 0.749 0.783 1.101 0.78 0.69 0.733 0.56 0.656 0.46 21.2 sec 17.7 sec 9.3 sec D B F D C C F C B C A B A C C A 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 ----
Intersection
Control
Significant Impact?
PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo AveAnita St PCH/Pier Avenue14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue/Pier Avenue Valley Drive/11th Street
signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-71
Table 4.13-15 Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersection) Year 2018 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS LOS Delay Delay 11.1 9.7 sec A B sec 12.1 9.4 sec A B sec 11.1 8.7 sec A B sec 8.0 sec 11.1 sec 33.2 sec 155.2 sec 0.845 0.847 1.117 319.9 sec 0.925 0.863 0.910 0.774 A B D F D D F F E D E C 9.4 sec 15.9 sec 31.7 sec 733.2 sec 0.688 0.743 1.204 206.8 sec 0.925 0.987 0.883 0.792 A C D F B C F F E E D C Year 2018 plus Construction Phase 4 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS Change LOS Change Delay Delay 11.2 9.8 sec A -B -sec 12.2 9.5 sec A -B -sec 11.5 8.7 sec A -B -sec 8.0 sec 11.1 sec 34.4 sec 162.7 sec 0.845 0.847 1.121 335.0 sec 0.925 0.864 0.910 0.774 A B D F D D F F E D E C ----0.000 0.000 0.004 -0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 9.6 sec 16.1 sec 32.5 sec 776.7 sec 0.693 0.747 1.204 211.8 sec 0.925 0.987 0.887 0.792 A C D F B C F F E E D C ----0.005 0.004 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000
Intersection
Control
Significant Impact?
Valley Drive/11th Place Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Drive/2nd Street Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Drive/Herondo Street Flagler Ln/Anita St190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St
1-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal signal signal signal
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-72
Table 4.13-15 Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersection) Year 2018 Baseline A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS LOS Delay Delay 0.543 11.1 sec 0.961 0.698 1.032 0.867 0.493 0.829 0.680 0.758 A B E B F D A D B C 0.878 25.1 sec 0.883 0.896 0.823 0.938 0.476 0.882 0.796 0.890 D D D D D E A D C D Year 2018 plus Construction Phase 4 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C or V/C or LOS Change LOS Change Delay Delay 0.544 11.1 sec 0.961 0.700 1.035 0.869 0.493 0.829 0.681 0.759 A B E C F D A D B C 0.001 -0.000 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.878 25.1 sec 0.887 0.897 0.827 0.938 0.476 0.883 0.796 0.891 D D D D D E A D C D 0.000 -0.004 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
Intersection
Control
Significant Impact?
I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. I-405 SB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street
signal 1-way stop signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal
no no no no no no no no no no
Prospect Ave/Beryl signal 0.519 A 0.596 A 0.519 A 0.000 0.596 A 0.000 no Street Harkness Lane/Beryl all-way 13.0 9.9 sec A B 9.9 sec A -13 sec B -no Street stop sec Flagler Lane/Beryl all-way 11.1 14.1 11.1 14.1 B B B -B -no Street stop sec sec sec sec Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Unsignalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provided LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-waystop control).
4.13-73
BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D, E F in Hermosa Beach, and LOS F in Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Caltrans/CMP intersections). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Hermosa Beach: LOS C or better to LOS D, E, or F, or, additional 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F in the baseline condition; Redondo Beach and Torrance: LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or, addition of 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition; CMP /Caltrans: project creates LOS F condition and adds 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition; all unsignalized intersections: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 10% of traffic to intersection at LOS E or F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-74
Table 4.13-16 Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) Year 2018 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street PCH/16th Street Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal 84.3 sec 6.2sec 96.2 sec 13.8sec 11.5sec 8.1sec 23.9 sec 12.2 sec 7.3 sec 18.4 sec 25.8 sec 61.2 sec 31.8 sec 34.4 sec 34.0 sec 30.2 sec 13.9 sec LOS F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS 27.1 sec 4.3sec 95.0 sec 12.6sec 9.0sec 9.4sec 37.5 sec 17.0 sec 9.4sec 12.7 sec 21.5 sec 85.9 sec 32.6 sec 37.9 sec 33.8 sec 30.0 sec 24.4 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C Year 2018 plus Construction Phase 4 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 84.1 sec 6.2sec 97.1 sec 13.8sec 11.5sec 8.1sec 24.5 sec 12.3 sec 7.3 sec 18.4 sec 25.8 sec 61.9 sec 31.8 sec 34.5 sec 34.0 sec 30.2 sec 14.0 sec F A F B B A C B A B C E C C C C B 27.2 sec 4.3sec 95.2 sec 12.7sec 9.0sec 9.6sec 37.9 sec 17.0 sec 9.4sec 12.6 sec 21.5 sec 85.8 sec 32.7 sec 37.9 sec 33.9 sec 30.0 sec 24.4 sec C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C
Significant Impact?
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-75
Table 4.13-16 Year 2018 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) Year 2018 Baseline Intersection Control A.M. Peak Hour Delay Blvd. Prairie Blvd. Avenue/Artesia signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal 37.8 sec 17.8 sec 35.6 sec 29.8 sec 16.6 sec 13.8 sec 4.4 sec 8.1 sec D B D C B B A A 33.2 sec 25.4 sec 21.1 sec 30.3 sec 15.4 sec 11.3 sec 6.0 sec 12.7 sec C C C C B B A B 37.8 sec 17.9 sec 36.0 sec 29.9 sec 16.6 sec 13.8 sec 4.4 sec 8.1 sec D B D C B B A A 33.3 sec 25.5 sec 21.2 sec 30.3 sec 15.4 sec 11.3 sec 6.0 sec 12.7 sec C C C C B B A B no no no no no no no no LOS P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Year 2018 plus Construction Phase 4 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS
Significant Impact?
I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street
4.13-76
Table 4.13-17 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2035 Baseline AM Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C V/C or or LOS LOS Delay Delay 1.303 0.750 1.174 0.883 0.833 0.780 0.883 0.682 0.594 0.665 0.490 0.710 0.415 12.8 sec 12.8 sec 7.9 sec 9.7 F C F D D C D B A B A C A B B A A 0.856 0.700 1.153 0.854 0.770 0.804 1.132 0.800 0.705 0.753 0.570 0.674 0.471 22.4 sec 18.7 sec 9.4 sec 11.3 sec D C F D C D F C C C A B A C C A B Year 2035 plus Operational Phase A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 1.303 0.750 1.175 0.884 0.834 0.781 0.887 0.682 0.595 0.665 0.490 0.710 0.415 12.9 sec 12.8 sec 7.9 sec 9.8 LOS F C F D D C D B A B A C A B B A A Change 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ----P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay 0.857 0.7 1.154 0.854 0.77 0.804 1.133 0.801 0.706 0.753 0.572 0.674 0.471 22.6 sec 18.8 sec 9.4 sec 11.3 sec LOS D C F D C D F D C C A B A C C A B Change 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 ----no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo AveAnita St PCH/Pier Avenue14th Street Prospect Avenue/Artesia Blvd. Prospect Ave/Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave/Anita Street PCH/16th Street Ocean Drive/Aviation Blvd. Valley Drive/Pier Avenue Ardmore Avenue/Pier Avenue Valley Drive/11th Street Valley Drive/11th
signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 1-way
4.13-77
Table 4.13-17 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2035 Baseline AM Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C V/C or or LOS LOS Delay Delay sec 9.5 A 12.5 sec B sec 8.8 A 11.5 sec B sec 8.0 A 9.6 sec A sec 11.3 B 16.7 sec C sec 37.7 E 36.2 sec E sec 236.4 600.0 F F sec sec 0.870 0.872 1.150 412.7 sec 0.952 0.888 0.937 0.796 D D F F E D E C 0.704 0.764 1.240 270.5 sec 0.952 1.016 0.909 0.815 C C F F E F E D Year 2035 plus Operational Phase A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay sec 9.6 sec 8.8 sec 8.0 sec 11.3 sec 38.2 sec 240.2 sec 0.870 0.872 1.151 419.2 sec 0.952 0.888 0.937 0.796 LOS Change P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS Change Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
Place Valley Drive/8th Street Valley Street Drive/2nd
Valley Drive/6th Street Valley Drive/Herondo Street Flagler Ln/Anita St190th St Blossom Lane-Beryl St/190th St Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Firmona Avenue/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St
stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop all-way stop 2-way stop signal signal signal 2-way stop signal signal signal signal
A A A B E F D D F F E D E C
------0.000 0.000 0.001 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.6 sec 11.6 sec 9.6 sec 16.7 sec 36.5 sec 600 sec 0.706 0.765 1.240 272.7 sec 0.952 1.016 0.91 0.815
B B A C E F C C F F E F D D
------0.002 0.001 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-78
Table 4.13-17 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Signalized Intersections) Year 2035 Baseline AM Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour V/C V/C or or LOS LOS Delay Delay Year 2035 plus Operational Phase A.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS Change P.M. Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS Change Significant Impact?
Intersection
Control
I-405 NB 0.903 E 0.903 E 0.000 signal 0.557 A 0.558 A 0.001 no ramps/Artesia Blvd. I-405 SB 1-way 11.2 11.2 B 28.1 sec D B -28.1 sec D -no ramps/Artesia Blvd. stop sec sec Prairie Avenue/Artesia 0.990 E 0.909 E 0.990 E 0.91 E 0.001 signal 0.000 no Blvd. I-405 NB 0.922 E 0.923 E 0.001 signal 0.717 C 0.718 C 0.001 no ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw 1.063 F 1.064 F signal 0.847 D 0.001 0.848 D 0.001 no Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. 0.965 E 0.965 E signal 0.892 D 0.892 D 0.000 0.000 no /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor signal 0.506 A 0.488 A 0.506 A 0.000 0.488 A 0.000 no Dr/Herondo St 0.908 E 0.908 E 0.000 PCH/Catalina Ave signal 0.853 D 0.853 D 0.000 no PCH/Irena Avenue signal 0.699 B 0.818 D 0.699 B 0.000 0.818 D 0.000 no 0.916 E 0.916 E 0.000 PCH/Beryl Street signal 0.780 C 0.780 C 0.000 no Prospect Ave/Beryl signal 0.532 A 0.612 B 0.532 A 0.000 0.612 B 0.000 no Street Harkness Lane/Beryl all-way 10.1 10.1 B 13.5 sec B B -13.5 sec B -no Street stop sec sec Flagler Lane/Beryl all-way 11.4 11.4 B 14.8 sec B B -14.8 sec B -no Street stop sec sec Notes: Signalized intersections analyzed with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology which provides LOS in terms of volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Unsignalized intersections analyzed with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology which provided LOS in terms of average control delay for entire intersection (for all-way stop control), or for critical movement (for 1- or 2-waystop control).
4.13-79
BOLD Indicates intersection is currently operating with unsatisfactory LOS (LOS D, E F in Hermosa Beach, and LOS F in Redondo Beach, Torrance, and Caltrans/CMP intersections). BOLD Indicates intersection would be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project (Hermosa Beach: LOS C or better to LOS D, E, or F, or, additional 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F in the baseline condition; Redondo Beach and Torrance: LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or, addition of 0.010 V/C to intersections operating at LOS E or F in baseline condition; CMP /Caltrans: project creates LOS F condition and adds 0.020 V/C to intersections operating at LOS F in baseline condition; all unsignalized intersections: project creates LOS E or F condition from LOS D or better, or, addition of 10% of traffic to intersection at LOS E or F). Updated information, Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach (2014b). Source: Arch Beach Consultants, 2012, 2014a & 2014b
4.13-80
Table 4.13-18 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) Year 2035 Baseline Intersection PCH/Artesia Boulevard PCH/21st Street PCH/Aviation Boulevard PCH/8th Street PCH/5th Street PCH/2nd Street PCH/Herondo Ave-Anita St PCH/Pier Avenue-14th Street PCH/16th Street Meyer Ln-Entradero Ave/190th St Anza Avenue/190th Street Inglewood Ave/190th St Hawthorne Blvd. /190th St Prairie Avenue/190th St Crenshaw Blvd. /190th St Western Avenue/190th St I-405 NB ramps/Artesia Blvd. Prairie Avenue/Artesia Blvd. I-405 NB ramps/182nd St I-405 SB ramps/Crenshaw Blvd. Crenshaw Blvd. /182nd St Hermosa Ave-Harbor Dr/Herondo St PCH/Catalina Ave PCH/Irena Avenue PCH/Beryl Street Control signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal signal A.M. Peak Hour Delay 94.5 sec 6.4sec 109.1 sec 14.4sec 12.0sec 8.4sec 24.6 sec 12.3 sec 7.5 sec 18.9 sec 26.7 sec 68.0 sec 32.8 sec 35.5 sec 35.1 sec 30.7 sec 14.1 sec 40.2 sec 17.9 sec 40.2 sec 30.5 sec 16.6 sec 14.2 sec 4.5 sec 8.3 sec LOS F A F B B A C B A B C E C D D C B D B D C B B A A P.M. Peak Hour Delay 27.7 sec 4.4sec 107.9 sec 13.3sec 9.3sec 9.8sec 42.2 sec 17.4 sec 9.6sec 13.0 sec 21.9 sec 95.7 sec 33.9 sec 40.0 sec 34.8 sec 30.4 sec 25.8 sec 34.1 sec 29.2 sec 21.7 sec 31.2 sec 15.5 sec 11.8 sec 6.2 sec 13.2 sec LOS C A F B A A D B A B C F C D C C C C C C C B B A B Year 2035 plus Operational Phase P.M. Peak A.M. Peak Hour Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 94.5 sec F 27.8 sec C 6.4sec A 4.4sec A 107.9 F 109.3 sec F sec 14.4sec B 13.3sec B 12.0sec B 9.3sec A 8.4sec A 9.9sec A 24.9 sec C 42.3 sec D 12.4 sec B 17.4 sec B 7.5 sec A 9.6sec A 18.9 sec 26.6 sec 68.3 sec 32.8 sec 35.5 sec 35.1 sec 30.7 sec 14.1 sec 40.2 sec 18.0 sec 40.4 sec 30.6 sec 16.6 sec 14.2 sec 4.5 sec 8.3 sec B C E C D D C B D B D C B B A A 13.0 sec 21.9 sec 95.7 sec 33.9 sec 40.0 sec 34.8 sec 30.4 sec 25.8 sec 34.1 sec 29.5 sec 21.7 sec 31.2 sec 15.5 sec 11.8 sec 6.2 sec 13.2 sec B C F C D C C C C C C C B B A B
Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-81
4.13-82
Table 4.13-19 Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 966 1,112 15,650 421 563 5,834 391 527 5,388 292 475 4,761 253 411 3,659 925 996 12,642 73 74 812 642 920 10,848 998 1,466 17,145 327 491 Existing + Ambient + Project 982 1,128 15,760 437 579 5,944 407 543 5,498 308 491 4,871 269 427 3,769 941 1,012 12,752 89 90 922 658 936 10,958 1,014 1,482 17,255 343 507 % Impact 0.57% 0.57% 0.38% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.95% 0.95% 0.85% 8.00% 8.00% 4.40% 0.95% 0.95% 0.85% 0.95% 0.95% 0.85% 0.80% 0.80% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment Pier Ave. from PCH to Valley Dr Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to th 11 St Valley from th 11 St to th 8 St Valley Dr from th 8 St to nd 2 St Valley Dr from nd 2 St to Herondo St Herondo St from Valley Dr to PCH th 6 St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave Herondo St/Anita St from Valley Dr to PCH Herondo St/Anita St from PCH to Prospect Ave Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m.
Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000 2,000
Existing 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324 487
D/C 0.34 0.40 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.26 0.36 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.55 0.59 0.97 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.38 0.55 0.83 0.59 0.87 1.32 0.16 0.25
LOS A B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B A B C D C D F(1) A A
D/C 0.35 0.40 0.54 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.15 0.25 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.56 0.60 0.98 0.44 0.45 0.37 0.39 0.56 0.84 0.60 0.88 1.33 0.17 0.25
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B B B C D C D F(1) A A
4.13-83
Table 4.13-19 Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 4,746 267 451 4,052 337 559 4,825 756 866 9,236 1,829 2,038 28,268 44 56 455 53 48 611 63 58 634 915 1,040 10,847 657 956 9,593 167 Existing + Ambient + Project 4,856 283 467 4,162 353 575 4,935 772 882 9,346 1,845 2,054 28,378 60 72 565 69 64 721 79 74 744 931 1,056 10,957 673 972 9,703 183 % Impact 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.80% 0.80% 0.73% 0.57% 0.57% 0.38% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 0.44% 0.44% 0.37% 0.44% 0.44% 0.37% 1.60% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment 6 St Valley Dr from th 6 St to Herondo St Prospect Ave. from Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave. from Aviation Blvd. to Anita St Aviation Blvd. from PCH to Artesia Blvd. N Lucia Ave. from Agate St to Anita St N Maria Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Paulina Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Anita St to North RB City Limits Harkness Lane from
th
Time daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m.
Capacity 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000
Existing 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949 9,519 166
D/C 0.32 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.97 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.18 0.27 0.32 0.17
LOS A A A A A A A B B C C D E A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
D/C 0.32 0.14 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.29 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.62 0.66 0.73 0.98 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.26 0.29 0.37 0.19 0.27 0.32 0.18
LOS A A A A A A A B B C C D E A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
4.13-84
Table 4.13-19 Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 242 2,582 177 263 2,486 261 342 3,417 681 704 8,958 55 63 742 1,477 1,520 18,561 1,606 1,561 20,207 2,498 2,563 31,807 2,781 2,582 33,860 3,031 2,953 39,250 Existing + Ambient + Project 258 2,692 193 279 2,596 277 358 3,527 697 720 9,068 71 79 852 1,493 1,536 18,671 1,622 1,577 20,317 2,514 2,579 31,917 2,797 2,598 33,970 3,047 2,969 39,360 % Impact 1.60% 2.20% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 0.44% 0.44% 0.37% 1.60% 1.60% 2.20% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment Agate St to Anita St Harkness Lane from Anita St to Ripley Ave Flagler Lane from Beryl St to th 190 St Beryl St from Flagler Lane to th 190 St Blossom Lane from th 190 St to Havemeyer Lane Anita St from Prospect Ave. to Flagler Lane th 190 St from Flagler Lane to Blossom Lane-N Beryl St th 190 St from Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave. to Anza Ave th 190 St from Blossom Land-N Beryl St to Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave th 190 St from Anza Ave. to Inglewood Ave
Time p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily
Capacity 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000
Existing 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598 3,008 2,930 38,946
D/C 0.24 0.52 0.18 0.26 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.68 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.53 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.63 0.62 0.78
LOS A B A A B A A C A A A A A A A A B A A B B C C C C C C C D
D/C 0.26 0.54 0.19 0.28 0.52 0.28 0.36 0.71 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.07 0.08 0.17 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.52 0.54 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.63 0.62 0.79
LOS A C A A B A B D A A A A A A A A B A A B B C C C C C C C D
4.13-85
Table 4.13-19 Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 2,320 2,243 29,988 2,452 2,394 30,789 2,318 2,405 30,698 3,240 3,306 41,492 2,684 2,952 36,666 3,675 3,960 52,725 2,933 3,019 33,485 2,881 3,030 36,758 17,032 16,528 Existing + Ambient + Project 2,336 2,259 30,098 2,468 2,410 30,899 2,334 2,421 30,808 3,256 3,322 41,602 2,700 2,968 36,776 3,691 3,976 52,835 2,949 3,035 33,595 2,897 3,046 36,868 17,048 16,544 % Impact 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.33% 0.33% 0.22% 0.08% 0.08% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment 190 St from Inglewood Ave. to Firmona Ave th 190 St from Firmona Ave. to Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) th 190 St from Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) to Prairie Ave th 190 St from Prairie Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. Prairie Ave. from nd 182 St to th 190 St Crenshaw Blvd. from I-405 to th 190 St th 190 St from Crenshaw Ave. to Van Ness Ave th 190 St from Van Ness Ave. to Western Ave I 405 at Crenshaw Blvd. I 405 at Artesia Blvd.
th
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily peak hour peak hour
Capacity 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 19,200 19,200
Existing 2,302 2,226 29,756 2,433 2,375 30,551 2,300 2,386 30,460 3,215 3,280 41,171 2,663 2,929 36,382 3,647 3,929 52,317 2,910 2,996 33,226 2,859 3,007 36,474 16,900 16,400
D/C 0.48 0.47 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.62 0.48 0.50 0.61 0.68 0.69 0.83 0.56 0.61 0.73 0.77 0.82 1.05 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.89 0.86
LOS B B C B B C B B C C C D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D D
D/C 0.49 0.47 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.50 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.83 0.56 0.62 0.74 0.77 0.83 1.06 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.89 0.86
LOS B B C B B C B B C C C D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D D
4.13-86
Source: Existing demand from Arch Beach Consulting (2012) and Arch Beach Consulting (2013a). Capacities from City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element, HCM, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Guidelines, and approximate design volumes.
4.13-87
Table 4.13-20 Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 966 1,112 15,650 421 563 5,834 391 527 5,388 292 475 4,761 253 411 3,659 925 996 12,642 73 74 812 642 920 10,848 998 1,466 17,145 327 Existing + Ambient + Project 1,002 1,148 15,820 457 599 6,004 427 563 5,558 328 511 4,931 289 447 3,829 961 1,032 12,812 109 110 982 678 956 11,018 1,034 1,502 17,315 363
Roadway Segment Pier Ave. from PCH to Valley Dr Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to th 11 St Valley from th 11 St to th 8 St Valley Dr from th 8 St to nd 2 St Valley Dr from nd 2 St to Herondo St Herondo St from Valley Dr to PCH th 6 St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave Herondo St/Anita St from Valley Dr to PCH Herondo St/Anita St from PCH to Prospect Ave Valley Dr from
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m.
Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000
Existing 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324
D/C 0.34 0.40 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.26 0.36 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.55 0.59 0.97 0.36 0.37 0.32 0.38 0.55 0.83 0.59 0.87 1.32 0.16
LOS A B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B A B C D C D F(1) A
D/C 0.36 0.41 0.55 0.23 0.30 0.40 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.16 0.26 0.33 0.14 0.22 0.26 0.57 0.61 0.99 0.54 0.55 0.39 0.40 0.57 0.85 0.62 0.89 1.33 0.18
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E C C B B C D C D F(1) A
% Impact 1.29% 1.29% 0.59% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 2.14% 2.14% 1.31% 18.00% 18.00% 6.80% 2.14% 2.14% 1.31% 2.14% 2.14% 1.31% 1.80%
Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
4.13-88
Table 4.13-20 Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 491 4,746 267 451 4,052 337 559 4,825 756 866 9,236 1,829 2,038 28,268 44 56 455 53 48 611 63 58 634 915 1,040 10,847 657 956 Existing + Ambient + Project 527 4,916 303 487 4,222 373 595 4,995 792 902 9,406 1,865 2,074 28,438 80 92 625 89 84 781 99 94 804 951 1,076 11,017 693 992
Roadway Segment Pier Ave. to th 6 St Valley Dr from th 6 St to Herondo St Prospect Ave. from Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave. from Aviation Blvd. to Anita St Aviation Blvd. from PCH to Artesia Blvd. N Lucia Ave. from Agate St to Anita St N Maria Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Paulina Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Anita St to
Time p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m.
Capacity 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600
Existing 487 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949
D/C 0.25 0.32 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.97 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.18 0.27
LOS A A A A A A A A B B C C D E A A A A A A A A A A A B A A
D/C 0.26 0.33 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.19 0.30 0.33 0.40 0.45 0.63 0.67 0.74 0.98 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.26 0.30 0.37 0.19 0.28
% Impact 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.80% 1.80% 1.13% 1.29% 1.29% 0.59% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 1.00% 1.00% 0.57% 1.00% 1.00%
4.13-89
Table 4.13-20 Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 9,593 167 242 2,582 177 263 2,486 261 342 3,417 681 704 8,958 55 63 742 1,477 1,520 18,561 1,606 1,561 20,207 2,498 2,563 31,807 2,781 2,582 33,860 Existing + Ambient + Project 9,763 203 278 2,752 213 299 2,656 297 378 3,587 717 740 9,128 91 99 912 1,513 1,556 18,731 1,642 1,597 20,377 2,534 2,599 31,977 2,817 2,618 34,030
Roadway Segment North RB City Limits Harkness Lane from Agate St to Anita St Harkness Lane from Anita St to Ripley Ave Flagler Lane from Beryl St to th 190 St Beryl St from Flagler Lane to th 190 St Blossom Lane from th 190 St to Havemeyer Lane Anita St from Prospect Ave. to Flagler Lane th 190 St from Flagler Lane to Blossom Lane-N Beryl St th 190 St from Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave. to Anza Ave th 190 St from Blossom Land-N Beryl St to Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave
Time daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily
Capacity 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000
Existing 9,519 166 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598
D/C 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.52 0.18 0.26 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.68 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.53 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.68
LOS A A A B A A B A A C A A A A A A A A B A A B B C C C C C
D/C 0.33 0.20 0.28 0.55 0.21 0.30 0.53 0.30 0.38 0.72 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.53 0.54 0.64 0.59 0.55 0.68
LOS A A A C A A C A B D A A A A A A A A B A A B C C C C C C
% Impact 0.57% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 1.00% 1.00% 0.57% 3.60% 3.60% 3.40% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34%
4.13-90
Table 4.13-20 Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 3,031 2,953 39,250 2,320 2,243 29,988 2,452 2,394 30,789 2,318 2,405 30,698 3,240 3,306 41,492 2,684 2,952 36,666 3,675 3,960 52,725 2,933 3,019 33,485 2,881 3,030 36,758 17,032 Existing + Ambient + Project 3,067 2,989 39,420 2,356 2,279 30,158 2,488 2,430 30,959 2,354 2,441 30,868 3,276 3,342 41,662 2,720 2,988 36,836 3,711 3,996 52,895 2,969 3,055 33,655 2,917 3,066 36,928 17,068
Roadway Segment 190 St from Anza Ave. to Inglewood Ave th 190 St from Inglewood Ave. to Firmona Ave th 190 St from Firmona Ave. to Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) th 190 St from Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) to Prairie Ave th 190 St from Prairie Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. Prairie Ave. from nd 182 St to th 190 St Crenshaw Blvd. from I-405 to th 190 St th 190 St from Crenshaw Ave. to Van Ness Ave th 190 St from Van Ness Ave. to Western Ave I 405 at Crenshaw Blvd.
th
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily peak
Capacity 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 19,200
Existing 3,008 2,930 38,946 2,302 2,226 29,756 2,433 2,375 30,551 2,300 2,386 30,460 3,215 3,280 41,171 2,663 2,929 36,382 3,647 3,929 52,317 2,910 2,996 33,226 2,859 3,007 36,474 16,900
D/C 0.63 0.62 0.78 0.48 0.47 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.62 0.48 0.50 0.61 0.68 0.69 0.83 0.56 0.61 0.73 0.77 0.82 1.05 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.89
LOS C C D B B C B B C B B C C C D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D
D/C 0.64 0.62 0.79 0.49 0.47 0.60 0.52 0.51 0.62 0.49 0.51 0.62 0.68 0.70 0.83 0.57 0.62 0.74 0.77 0.83 1.06 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.61 0.64 0.74 0.89
LOS C C D B B C B B C B B C C D D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D
% Impact 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.75% 0.75% 0.34% 0.19%
4.13-91
Table 4.13-20 Phase 2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) Existing + Ambient + Project
Roadway Segment
Time
Capacity
Existing
D/C
LOS
D/C
LOS
% Impact
Significant Impact?
hour peak 19,200 16,400 16,528 0.86 D 16,564 0.86 D 0.19% hour no Source: Existing demand from Arch Beach Consulting (2012) and Arch Beach Consulting (2013a). Capacities from City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element, HCM, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Guidelines, and approximate design volumes. I 405 at Artesia Blvd.
4.13-92
Table 4.13-21 Phase 3 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 968 1,115 15,691 422 564 5,849 392 529 5,402 292 476 4,773 254 412 3,669 928 998 12,674 73 74 814 644 922 10,876 1,000 1,470 17,189 327 Existing + Ambient + Project 1,035 1,182 15,909 489 631 6,067 459 596 5,620 359 543 4,991 321 479 3,887 995 1,065 12,892 140 141 1,032 711 989 11,094 1,067 1,537 17,407 394
Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000
Existing 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324
D/C 0.35 0.40 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.26 0.36 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.55 0.59 0.97 0.36 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.55 0.84 0.60 0.88 1.32 0.16
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B A B C D C D F(1) A
D/C 0.37 0.42 0.55 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.18 0.27 0.33 0.16 0.24 0.26 0.59 0.63 0.99 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.42 0.59 0.85 0.64 0.91 1.34 0.20
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E D D B B C D C D F(1) A
% Impact 2.39% 2.39% 0.75% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.99% 3.99% 1.68% 33.50% 33.50% 8.72% 3.99% 3.99% 1.68% 3.99% 3.99% 1.68% 3.35%
4.13-93
Table 4.13-21 Phase 3 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 492 4,758 268 453 4,063 337 561 4,838 758 868 9,260 1,834 2,043 28,341 44 57 456 54 48 612 64 59 636 917 1,043 10,875 659 959 Existing + Ambient + Project 559 4,976 335 520 4,281 404 628 5,056 825 935 9,478 1,901 2,110 28,559 111 124 674 121 115 830 131 126 854 984 1,110 11,093 726 1,026
Capacity 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600
Existing 487 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949
D/C 0.25 0.32 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.98 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.18 0.27
D/C 0.28 0.33 0.17 0.26 0.29 0.20 0.31 0.34 0.41 0.47 0.63 0.68 0.75 0.98 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.20 0.28
% Impact 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 3.35% 3.35% 1.45% 2.39% 2.39% 0.75% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 1.86% 1.86% 0.73% 1.86% 1.86%
4.13-94
Capacity 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000
Existing 9,519 166 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598
D/C 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.52 0.18 0.26 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.69 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.52 0.54 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.68
D/C 0.33 0.23 0.31 0.56 0.24 0.33 0.54 0.33 0.41 0.73 0.21 0.21 0.31 0.12 0.13 0.19 0.32 0.33 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.41 0.54 0.55 0.64 0.59 0.55 0.68
LOS A A A C A A C A B D A A A A A A A A B B A B C C C C C C
% Impact 0.73% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 1.86% 1.86% 0.73% 6.70% 6.70% 4.36% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44%
4.13-95
th
Capacity 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 19,200
Existing 3,008 2,930 38,946 2,302 2,226 29,756 2,433 2,375 30,551 2,300 2,386 30,460 3,215 3,280 41,171 2,663 2,929 36,382 3,647 3,929 52,317 2,910 2,996 33,226 2,859 3,007 36,474 16,900
D/C 0.63 0.62 0.79 0.48 0.47 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.62 0.48 0.50 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.83 0.56 0.62 0.74 0.77 0.83 1.06 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.89
D/C 0.65 0.63 0.79 0.50 0.48 0.61 0.53 0.51 0.62 0.50 0.52 0.62 0.69 0.70 0.84 0.57 0.63 0.74 0.78 0.84 1.06 0.63 0.64 0.68 0.62 0.65 0.74 0.89
LOS C C D B B C C B C B B C C D D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D
% Impact 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 1.40% 1.40% 0.44% 0.35%
4.13-96
Roadway Segment
Time
Capacity
Existing
D/C
LOS
D/C
LOS
% Impact
Significant Impact?
4.13-97
Table 4.13-22 Phase 4 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 973 1,120 15,771 424 567 5,879 394 531 5,429 294 478 4,798 255 414 3,688 933 1,003 12,740 73 74 819 647 927 10,932 1,005 1,478 17,277 329 Existing + Ambient + Project 1,007 1,154 15,923 458 601 6,031 428 565 5,581 328 512 4,950 289 448 3,840 967 1,037 12,892 107 108 971 681 961 11,084 1,039 1,512 17,429 363
Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000
Existing 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324
D/C 0.35 0.40 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.27 0.36 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.56 0.60 0.98 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.39 0.55 0.84 0.60 0.88 1.33 0.16
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E B B A B C D C D F(1) A
D/C 0.36 0.41 0.55 0.23 0.30 0.40 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.16 0.26 0.33 0.14 0.22 0.26 0.58 0.62 0.99 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.41 0.57 0.85 0.62 0.90 1.34 0.18
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C E C C B B C D C D F(1) A
% Impact 1.21% 1.21% 0.52% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 2.02% 2.02% 1.17% 17.00% 17.00% 6.08% 2.02% 2.02% 1.17% 2.02% 2.02% 1.17% 1.70%
4.13-98
Table 4.13-22 Phase 4 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 495 4,782 269 455 4,084 339 564 4,863 762 872 9,308 1,843 2,054 28,487 45 57 458 54 49 615 64 59 639 922 1,048 10,931 662 964 Existing + Ambient + Project 529 4,934 303 489 4,236 373 598 5,015 796 906 9,460 1,877 2,088 28,639 79 91 610 88 83 767 98 93 791 956 1,082 11,083 696 998
Capacity 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600
Existing 487 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949
D/C 0.25 0.32 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.62 0.66 0.73 0.98 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.26 0.29 0.36 0.18 0.27
D/C 0.26 0.33 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.19 0.30 0.33 0.40 0.45 0.63 0.67 0.75 0.99 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.30 0.37 0.19 0.28
% Impact 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.70% 1.70% 1.01% 1.21% 1.21% 0.52% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 0.94% 0.94% 0.51% 0.94% 0.94%
4.13-99
Capacity 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000
Existing 9,519 166 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598
D/C 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.52 0.18 0.27 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.69 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.52 0.54 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.68
D/C 0.33 0.20 0.28 0.55 0.21 0.30 0.53 0.30 0.38 0.72 0.20 0.21 0.31 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.32 0.33 0.38 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.53 0.55 0.64 0.59 0.55 0.69
LOS A A A C A A C A B D A A A A A A A A B A A B C C C C C C
% Impact 0.51% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 0.94% 0.94% 0.51% 3.40% 3.40% 3.04% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30%
4.13-100
th
Capacity 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 19,200
Existing 3,008 2,930 38,946 2,302 2,226 29,756 2,433 2,375 30,551 2,300 2,386 30,460 3,215 3,280 41,171 2,663 2,929 36,382 3,647 3,929 52,317 2,910 2,996 33,226 2,859 3,007 36,474 16,900
D/C 0.64 0.62 0.79 0.49 0.47 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.50 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.84 0.56 0.62 0.74 0.77 0.83 1.06 0.62 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.64 0.74 0.89
D/C 0.64 0.63 0.79 0.49 0.48 0.61 0.52 0.51 0.62 0.49 0.51 0.62 0.69 0.70 0.84 0.57 0.63 0.74 0.78 0.84 1.07 0.62 0.64 0.68 0.61 0.64 0.74 0.90
LOS C C D B B C B B C B B C C D D C C D D D F(0) C C C C C D D
% Impact 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.71% 0.71% 0.30% 0.18%
4.13-101
Roadway Segment
Time
Capacity
Existing
D/C
LOS
D/C
LOS
% Impact
Significant Impact?
4.13-102
Table 4.13-23 Operations Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 1,005 1,157 16,287 438 585 6,072 407 549 5,607 303 494 4,955 264 427 3,808 963 1,036 13,156 76 77 845 668 958 11,289 1,038 1,526 17,842 340 511 Existing + Ambient + Project 1,016 1,168 16,331 449 596 6,116 418 560 5,651 314 505 4,999 275 438 3,852 974 1,047 13,200 87 88 889 679 969 11,333 1,049 1,537 17,886 351 522 % Impact 0.39% 0.39% 0.15% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.65% 0.65% 0.34% 5.50% 5.50% 1.76% 0.65% 0.65% 0.34% 0.65% 0.65% 0.34% 0.55% 0.55% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment Pier Ave. from PCH to Valley Dr Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to th 11 St Valley from th 11 St to th 8 St Valley Dr from th 8 St to nd 2 St Valley Dr from nd 2 St to Herondo St Herondo St from Valley Dr to PCH th 6 St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave Herondo St/Anita St from Valley Dr to PCH Herondo St/Anita St from PCH to Prospect Ave Valley Dr from Pier Ave. to
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m.
Capacity 2,800 2,800 29,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 200 200 2,500 1,680 1,680 13,000 1,680 1,680 13,000 2,000 2,000
Existing 959 1,103 15,529 417 558 5,789 388 523 5,346 289 471 4,724 252 408 3,631 918 988 12,544 72 73 806 637 913 10,764 990 1,455 17,012 324 487
D/C 0.36 0.41 0.56 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.15 0.25 0.33 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.57 0.62 1.01 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.40 0.57 0.87 0.62 0.91 1.37 0.17 0.26
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C F(0) B B A B C D C D F(2) A A
D/C 0.36 0.42 0.56 0.22 0.30 0.41 0.21 0.28 0.38 0.16 0.25 0.33 0.14 0.22 0.26 0.58 0.62 1.02 0.43 0.44 0.36 0.40 0.58 0.87 0.62 0.91 1.38 0.18 0.26
LOS B B C A A B A A B A A A A A A C C F(0) B B B B C D C D F(2) A A
4.13-103
Table 4.13-23 Operations Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 4,939 278 470 4,217 350 582 5,022 787 901 9,612 1,904 2,121 29,418 46 59 473 56 50 636 66 61 660 952 1,082 11,288 684 995 9,984 174 Existing + Ambient + Project 4,983 289 481 4,261 361 593 5,066 798 912 9,656 1,915 2,132 29,462 57 70 517 67 61 680 77 72 704 963 1,093 11,332 695 1,006 10,028 185 % Impact 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.55% 0.55% 0.29% 0.39% 0.39% 0.15% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 0.31% 0.31% 0.15% 0.31% 0.31% 0.15% 1.10% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment 6 St Valley Dr from th 6 St to Herondo St Prospect Ave. from Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. Prospect Ave. from Aviation Blvd. to Anita St Aviation Blvd. from PCH to Artesia Blvd. N Lucia Ave. from Agate St to Anita St N Maria Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Paulina Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Beryl St to Anita St N Prospect Ave. from Anita St to North RB City Limits Harkness Lane from
th
Time daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m.
Capacity 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,800 2,800 29,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000
Existing 4,709 265 448 4,021 334 555 4,788 750 859 9,165 1,815 2,022 28,049 44 56 451 53 48 606 63 58 629 908 1,032 10,763 652 949 9,519 166
D/C 0.33 0.14 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.29 0.33 0.39 0.45 0.64 0.68 0.76 1.01 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.26 0.30 0.38 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.17
LOS A A A A A A A B B C C D F(0) A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
D/C 0.33 0.14 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.64 0.68 0.76 1.02 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.27 0.30 0.38 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.19
LOS A A A A A A A B B C C D F(0) A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
4.13-104
Table 4.13-23 Operations Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 252 2,687 185 274 2,587 272 356 3,556 709 733 9,323 58 66 772 1,538 1,582 19,316 1,672 1,625 21,029 2,600 2,667 33,101 2,894 2,687 35,238 3,155 3,073 40,847 Existing + Ambient + Project 263 2,731 196 285 2,631 283 367 3,600 720 744 9,367 69 77 816 1,549 1,593 19,360 1,683 1,636 21,073 2,611 2,678 33,145 2,905 2,698 35,282 3,166 3,084 40,891 % Impact 1.10% 0.88% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 0.31% 0.31% 0.15% 1.10% 1.10% 0.88% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Roadway Segment Agate St to Anita St Harkness Lane from Anita St to Ripley Ave Flagler Lane from Beryl St to th 190 St Beryl St from Flagler Lane to th 190 St Blossom Lane from th 190 St to Havemeyer Lane Anita St from Prospect Ave. to Flagler Lane th 190 St from Flagler Lane to Blossom Lane-N Beryl St th 190 St from Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave. to Anza Ave th 190 St from Blossom Land-N Beryl St to Meyer Lane-Entradero Ave th 190 St from Anza Ave. to Inglewood Ave
Time p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily
Capacity 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 3,600 3,600 30,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000
Existing 240 2,562 176 261 2,467 259 339 3,391 676 699 8,889 55 63 736 1,466 1,508 18,417 1,594 1,549 20,051 2,479 2,543 31,561 2,759 2,562 33,598 3,008 2,930 38,946
D/C 0.25 0.54 0.18 0.27 0.52 0.27 0.36 0.71 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.32 0.33 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.42 0.54 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.56 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.82
LOS A C A A B A B D A A A A A A A A B B A B C C C C C D C C D
D/C 0.26 0.55 0.20 0.28 0.53 0.28 0.37 0.72 0.20 0.21 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.33 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.42 0.54 0.56 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.71 0.66 0.64 0.82
LOS A C A A C A B D A A A A A A A A B B A B C C C C C D C C D
4.13-105
Table 4.13-23 Operations Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Ambient (2015) 2,414 2,335 31,208 2,552 2,491 32,042 2,412 2,502 31,946 3,372 3,440 43,180 2,793 3,072 38,157 3,825 4,121 54,870 3,052 3,142 34,847 2,999 3,154 38,254 17,725 17,200 Existing + Ambient + Project 2,425 2,346 31,252 2,563 2,502 32,086 2,423 2,513 31,990 3,383 3,451 43,224 2,804 3,083 38,201 3,836 4,132 54,914 3,063 3,153 34,891 3,010 3,165 38,298 17,736 17,211 % Impact 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.23% 0.09% 0.06% 0.06% no Significant Impact? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no 19,200 16,400 0.90 D 0.90 D
Roadway Segment 190 St from Inglewood Ave. to Firmona Ave th 190 St from Firmona Ave. to Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) th 190 St from Hawthorne Blvd. (SR 107) to Prairie Ave th 190 St from Prairie Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. Prairie Ave. from nd 182 St to th 190 St Crenshaw Blvd. from I-405 to th 190 St th 190 St from Crenshaw Ave. to Van Ness Ave th 190 St from Van Ness Ave. to Western Ave I 405 at Crenshaw Blvd. I 405 at Artesia Blvd.
th
Time a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily a.m. p.m. daily peak hour peak hour
Capacity 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 4,800 4,800 50,000 19,200
Existing 2,302 2,226 29,756 2,433 2,375 30,551 2,300 2,386 30,460 3,215 3,280 41,171 2,663 2,929 36,382 3,647 3,929 52,317 2,910 2,996 33,226 2,859 3,007 36,474 16,900
D/C 0.50 0.49 0.62 0.53 0.52 0.64 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.70 0.72 0.86 0.58 0.64 0.76 0.80 0.86 1.10 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.62 0.66 0.77 0.92
LOS B B C C B C B B C D D D C C D D D F(0) C C D C C D D
D/C 0.51 0.49 0.63 0.53 0.52 0.64 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.70 0.72 0.86 0.58 0.64 0.76 0.80 0.86 1.10 0.64 0.66 0.70 0.63 0.66 0.77 0.92
LOS B B C C B C B B C D D D C C D D D F(0) C C D C C D D
4.13-106
Source: Existing demand from Arch Beach Consulting (2012) and Arch Beach Consulting (2013a). Capacities from City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element, HCM, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Guidelines, and approximate design volumes.
4.13-107
4.13.10

Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall Review of Prior to City of Hermosa fund, through and in consultation with contracts and Pipeline Beach the School District and Safe Routes to site constructi School, an afternoon crossing guard to on inspections be stationed at the Project Site area to activities ensure pedestrians passing nearby the Project Site have assistance in crossing the streets and the entrances/exit of the Project Site. Alternately, the Applicant shall ensure that trucks do not travel to and from the Project Site unless school is in session (i.e. truck travel prohibited on Valley Drive after 2:48 p.m., on Wednesdays after 1:45 p.m. or on school minimum days after 12:45 p.m.). The Applicant shall consult with the School District to ensure timing is current. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall Review of Prior to City of Hermosa install, subject to the approval of the design Pipeline Beach City Public Works Department, warning documents constructi signs and blinking yellow lights one and site on block north and south (if applicable with inspections activities possible one-way on Valley Drive) of the Project Site warning vehicle traffic that trucks may be entering and exiting the roadway. Blinking lights shall only operate when trucks are utilizing the roadway (not 24 hours per day). The Applicant shall ensure that all Review of Prior to City of Hermosa trucks accessing the Project Site and contracts and Pipeline Beach utilizing the Pier Avenue/Valley Drive site constructi intersection are less than 65 feet long to on inspections prevent safety hazards at the double activities intersection on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall, Review of Prior to City of Hermosa with the approval and coordination of design Pipeline Beach the City Public Works Department, documents constructi restripe Valley Drive south of Pier and site on Avenue to be a southerly directed oneinspections activities way street. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Valley Drive between 6th Street and 8th Street to allow for sufficient line of sight for trucks entering and exiting the Project Site. Pipeline construction activities within Construction During City of Hermosa
Mitigation Measure TR-1a
TR-1b
TR-1c
TR-1d
TR-2a
4.13-108
Mitigation Measure
TR-2b
TR-3a
TR-3b
Proposed Oil Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party the Pipeline right-of-way shall be limited scheduling Pipeline Beach to weekday between the hours of 9:00 and field constructi a.m. and 3:00 p.m., unless the verification on applicable municipality approves a specific exception to the time limit for periods of limited duration, subject to measures required by the municipality to protect the public health and safety. The applicant shall implement a Approval of Prior to City of Hermosa Construction Traffic Management Plan Pipeline CTMP Beach (CTMP) during Pipeline construction constructi that includes the following pursuant to on the procedures and subject to approval activities of the applicable municipality: 1) Require the Pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow street construction permits in the affected areas (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities - PCH and Hawthorne Boulevard); 2) Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected Citys standard roadway plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); 3) Revise Pipeline construction schedules to minimize access impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and 4) Ensure that all affected residences and business have adequate emergency access during all times and phases of construction. The applicant shall be prohibited from Use of Phases City of Hermosa routing Proposed Oil Project-related alternative 1-4 Beach heavy truck exceeding 20,000 pounds route th on 190 Street between Anza Avenue and PCH, except during Pipeline construction. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the applicable city. The applicant shall route inbound and Use of Phases City of Hermosa outbound heavy (>20,000 pounds) truck alternative 1-4 Beach traffic along PCH and Artesia route Boulevard, which are designated truck routes.
4.13-109
TR-4b
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Compliance Verification Requirements Responsible Method Timing Party The City shall design the permanent Review of Phase 3 City of Hermosa Proposed City Maintenance Yard so Plans Beach that it does not enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive. If the permanent Proposed City Review of Phase 3 City of Hermosa Maintenance Yard Project affects the Plans Beach sidewalk, then the design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to separate the pedestrians from the street.
4.13-110
4.14 Water Resources
The water resources section addresses potential impacts of the Proposed Project to water quality as a result of sanitary sewer capacity and wastewater production and disposal. Insufficient sewer capacity could ultimately result in adverse water quality impacts to surface waters and/or the ocean, at the point of effluent discharge. Similarly, wastewater disposal associated with oil and gas drilling could result in adverse water quality impacts to surface waters and groundwater. See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for water quality impacts not related to disposal of wastewater. In addition, this section addresses potential water demand and supply issues associated with the Proposed Project.
4.14.1 Environmental Setting 4.14.1.1 Sanitary Sewer Wastewater
The City of Hermosa Beach provides wastewater collection and treatment services within city limits. The sanitary sewer system network is comprised of approximately 37 miles of sewer lines. Much of the system is believed to have been installed in the late 1920s, although confirmation of this is difficult. The majority of the original system is concrete, with recent replacements of clay pipe. The system is primarily a gravity flow system, with the exception of two pump stations. The effluent collected by sewer lines, ranging in size from 6 to 24 inches in diameter, is discharged into the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County trunk lines, which flow in a north-northwesterly direction toward the City of Manhattan Beach (MBF Consulting, Inc. 2011). The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County trunk lines flow to a Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), located in the City of Carson. The JWPCP is one of the largest wastewater plants in the world and is the largest of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County wastewater treatment plants. The facility provides both primary and secondary treatment for approximately 280 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total permitted capacity of 400 million gallons per day. The plant serves a population of approximately 3.5 million people throughout Los Angeles County. Treated discharge from the plant is transported to the Pacific Ocean through a network of outfalls, which extend 1.5 miles off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, to a depth of 200 feet (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2013).
4.14.1.2 Water Supply
Potable water is provided to the City by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Formed in 1926, the San Jose-based Cal Water serves more than 472,000 customers through 28 Customer and Operations Centers throughout the state. Cal Water is the largest subsidiary of the California Water Service Group, which also includes Washington Water Service Company, New Mexico Water Service Company, Hawaii Water Service Company, HWS Utility Services, and CWS Utility Services. As a whole, the group provides regulated and non-regulated utility
4.14-1
services to approximately two million people in 100 communities. About 95 percent of Cal Waters business is regulated by State utilities commissions (Cal Water 2013). In order to offset the demand for potable water, reclaimed water supply to the City of Hermosa Beach is served by the West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin), which provides drinking water and recycled water to a 185-square mile service area. Historically, West Basins primary supply source was imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. West Basin purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District and wholesales the water to cities and private companies in southwest Los Angeles County. However, given recent concerns over future reliability of these imported supplies, West Basin has been increasing its development of local supplies. Groundwater production within the West Basin service area includes the West Coast Groundwater Basin and pumping from the Central Groundwater Basin into the West Basin service area. West Basin is projecting to more than double current recycled water supplies by 2035, as well as invest in over 20,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of ocean water desalination supply. These sources, coupled with an additional doubling of conserved supply through water use efficiency programs, are expected to cut the overall imported water use nearly in half from 2008 to 2020. West Basins service area uses 220,000 acre-feet of water annually. An acre-foot of water is approximately 326,000 gallons, which is enough to meet the water needs of two average families in and around their homes for one year (West Basin 2011a, 2011b).
4.14.1.3 Surface Runoff Project Site
The Project Site generally drains to the west, toward an existing storm drain inlet. A small portion of the site drains to the east toward Valley Drive. Onsite drainage flows as sheetflow across mostly paved surfaces, away from a slight knoll located in the southeast portion of the site. Two drainage sumps are located onsite, including a sump drain in the entry driveway and a sump drain at the base of a ramp drive in the lower level of the building. The outlet of the latter sump drain is unclear. However, the sump drain within the driveway, as well as all other site runoff, flows into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District storm drain system before ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean, at an outfall at the end of Herondo Street. A portion of the runoff from the Herondo Street storm drain is diverted to the sanitary sewer system prior to ocean outflow, thus reducing discharge of poor water quality from the storm drain (E&B Natural Resources 2012).
Existing City Maintenance Yard Topography and Drainage
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site is gently to moderately sloped, with a 20 foot elevation difference across the site, from east to west. Surface runoff occurs as sheetflow toward an existing storm drain inlet and the Pacific Ocean. The property is fully developed and similarly surrounded by urban development.
Pipeline Route
Beginning at the Project Site, the Proposed Pipeline route trends southerly along Valley Drive, across relatively flat lying topography. The Pipeline then trends easterly up gently to moderately sloping topography, with an elevation gain of approximately 45 feet, at which point the
4.14-2
topography is relatively flat to the Torrance Refinery. Rainwater runoff along the Pipeline route is primarily by surface sheet flow across the paved surfaces, toward the west. The surface runoff flows into storm drains, which empty into the Pacific Ocean.
4.14.1.4 Groundwater
The Project Site is located along the westerly edge of the West Coast Basin, which is bound on the west and south by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Ballona Escarpment, and on the east by the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This fault forms a natural barrier to restrict groundwater flows from the adjacent Central Basin. Three major fresh water aquifers comprise the West Coast Basin, including the 200-Foot Sand (Gage Aquifer), the Silverado Aquifer, and the Lower San Pedro/Pico Aquifer. Groundwater depths in these predominantly confined aquifers reaches more than 1,500 feet in the West Coast Basin, although production wells generally are not this deep (California Department of Water Resources 1961, Cal Water 2011). Most of the groundwater in the West Coast Basin remains at an elevation below sea level due to historic over-pumping; therefore, seawater intrusion barriers have been established. Groundwater in this basin is primarily recharged through injection wells that comprise the seawater intrusion barriers, which include the Dominguez Gap Barrier, designed to prevent intrusion from San Pedro Bay, and the West Coast Basin Barrier Project, designed to prevent intrusion from the Pacific Ocean. However, inflows also come from imported and recycled water purchased by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, areal recharge from precipitation falling on the basin floor, and groundwater underflow from adjacent basins (Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2007, Cal Water 2011). There are no domestic water supply wells located in the vicinity of the Project Site. However, there is at least one nearby well that pumps water for on-site industrial water. This pumping counteracts the inflow from the seawater intrusion barriers (Cal Water 2011).
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting 4.14.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is the primary federal regulation controlling drinking water quality in every public water system in the United States. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorized the EPA to establish and enforce guidelines for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and manmade contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water Act was originally implemented in 1974 with significant amendments in 1986 and 1996. The Safe Drinking Water Act originally set standards for the treatment of individual constituents, including pesticides, trihalomethanes, arsenic, selenium, radionuclides, nitrates, toxic metals, bacteria, viruses, and pathogens. The amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act made some significant changes, most of which resulted in more stringent protection of
4.14-3
drinking water sources. The amended Safe Drinking Water Act also greatly enhanced the existing law by implementing operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water.
4.14.2.2 State Policies and Regulations State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the principal state agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. The SWRCB enforces the water quality standards set forth in the Clean Water Act for the State of California on behalf of the federal EPA. Most SWRCB objectives are based on the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 State Drinking Water Standards. The City of Hermosa Beach lies within Region 4, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. In 2006, the SWRCB adopted Order Number 2006-003 that established General Waste Discharge Requirements for all publicly owned or operated sanitary sewer systems within the State of California. The Waste Discharge Requirements require owners and operators of sewer collection systems to report sanitary sewer overflows in the California Integrated Water Quality System and to develop and implement a Sewer System Management Plan. The Sewer System Management Plan details sewer collection system operations, maintenance, repair, and funding.
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1987
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act governs water quality in California by assigning the overall responsibility for water rights and water quality protection to the SWRCB to develop and enforce water quality standards. The EPA delegated to California the authority to issue NPDES permits for all areas within its boundaries, except Native American territories.
California Toxics Rule (40 CFR Part 131)
Under Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, states must adopt numeric criteria for the priority toxic pollutants listed under Section 307(a) if those pollutants could be reasonably expected to interfere with the designated uses of States waters. Therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other water quality standards provisions to be applied to waters in the State of California. This rule satisfies Clean Water Act requirements and fills the need for water quality standards for priority toxic pollutants to protect public health and the environment. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Policy for implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California in 2000.
Disposal of Oil Field Waste (CCR, Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, Articles 3 and 5)
Oil field waste materials, including but not limited to drilling muds, oily wastes, and brines, generally contain toxic substances and materials that could significantly impair the quality of usable waters and generally constitute Group I wastes. Such waste, which is ordinarily deposited at Class I or Class II-1 disposal sites, may be disposed by other means if such operations do not unreasonably affect water quality because of the type of waste and disposal operation, or an
4.14-4
operation is in compliance with ordinances or regulations of other governmental agencies which adequately protect water quality. In 1980, Congress added section 1425 to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which controls underground injection of waste, giving the states the authority to demonstrate that they maintain an effective program to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board authorizes such disposal options.
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act provides two ways to administratively list chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. A chemical can be listed if a body considered to be authoritative by the state's qualified experts, such as the EPA or Food and Drug Administration, formally identifies the chemical as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. A chemical can also be listed if a state or federal agency has formally required labeling or identifying of that chemical as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. The criteria for the listing these chemicals are outlined in California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 25306.
Groundwater Management Act of 1992
The Groundwater Management Act, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 3030, is designed to provide local public agencies with increased management authority over groundwater resources. Groundwater is a valuable natural resource within California, and AB 3030 ensures safe production and quality by encouraging local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions (Water Code Section 10750).
Senate Bill 610, Water Supply Assessment
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California law to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. The primary purpose of SB 610 is to improve the linkage between water and land use planning by ensuring greater communication between water providers and local planning agencies, and ensuring that land use decisions for certain large development projects are fully informed as to whether sufficient water supplies are available to meet project demands. The lead agency for the project is required to identify the public water system that might supply water to the project and then to request a Water Supply Assessment from the water supplier. If there is no public water system and the project meets the definition of project as defined in SB 610, then the lead agency must prepare the assessment. As indicated in Impact WR.4 below, a Water Supply Assessment would not be required for the Proposed Project.
4.14.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations County of Los Angeles
The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County serves approximately 5.7 million people in Los Angeles County through 24 independent special districts. The service area includes approximately 820 square miles in 78 cities and unincorporated areas within the county. Approximately 1,400 miles of main trunk sewers and 11 wastewater treatment facilities serve the area. The 23 independent special districts are governed by Boards of Directors, consisting of the mayors of each city within the Districts and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors for
4.14-5
unincorporated territories. The City of Hermosa Beach lies within the South Bay Cities District of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
The City of Hermosa Beach is the current owner of the Existing City Maintenance Yard. The Community Development Department is charged with the administration of the ordinances and policies relating to land use and development within the City. In addition, the City Public Works Department adopts and administers engineering standards and permits required for new construction projects.
Wastewater impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Project would: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB; Exceed the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system or treatment plant that serves the project site, thereby requiring new or expanded facilities that would cause a substantial physical adverse change in the environment; Adversely affect the existing wastewater service provider or the existing wastewater facilities by exceeding current and future demands and capacity; or Substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater.
With regard to water supply, the Proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact on the water supply if it: Substantially depletes water supplies. Requires new off-site water supply ( i.e., water not derived from an on-site well or surface water impound) or distributions facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause substantial adverse physical change in the environment. Requires new or expanded water entitlements.
4.14.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.14.4.1 Introduction
The Proposed Project would result in wastewater generation that could potentially impact surface water quality, groundwater quality, and marine water quality. Wastewater would be generated by construction and operational personnel at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, by construction personnel at the Project Site during Phase 1 and 3, as well as by operational personnel at the Project Site during Phases 2 and 4. In addition, the Proposed Oil Project would require new off-site water supplies at the Project Site for Phase 1 and 3 construction, as well as Phase 2 and 4 operations, with well drilling requiring the most water. However, these actions would not substantially deplete water supplies or require new or expanded water entitlements.
4.14-6
4.14.4.2 Proposed Project Design Features Sanitary Wastewater
During Phase I, portable toilets would be used for the 93 construction personnel at the Project Site. During Phase 2, a temporary construction trailer and associated restrooms would be installed in the northeast portion of the Project Site. The sewer lateral that serves the Existing City Maintenance Yard would be extended to the construction trailer, for 84 personnel for an estimated 12 month period. In the event that Phase 3 is completed, the same sewer lateral would be used by a 650 square foot office building and associated restrooms to be constructed onsite, for 181 personnel for an estimated 14 month period. These restrooms would continue to be used during Phase 4, for 86 personnel over a 30 to 35 year period.
Oil Reservoir Wastewater
During Phase 2, water would be separated from the oil and gas stream by a three-phase separator. The water would then be pumped into a treatment system to remove excess oil, including a gas flotation unit and a filter unit. The primary objective of these units would be to clean the water of oil and solids, such as sand. In addition, the extracted water would be tested for sulfatereducing bacteria (SRB) and treated by a biocide if SRB is detected. Replacement water would similarly be tested and treated, as necessary. SRBs are an assemblage of specialized bacteria that thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by oxidation of organic nutrients, with sulfate being reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). SRB treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment. There are numerous antibacterial agents available on the market that could be used for this specific treatment if it is determined to be needed. Upon exiting the filter unit, the water would enter a water surge tank and then be sent to the water injection pumps for injection into the oil-producing reservoir, through an injection well. Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor this oil/gas/water separation process. As also discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the event of a spill during the water separation and wastewater injection process, runoff would be collected and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. The Project Site would be designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the perimeter fence or wall for a 100year storm event. Similar to any precipitation, any spills on the Project Site would be contained, both within process system walls/berms around equipment and site walls/berms around the site. Process walls/berms would be designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel. The injection wells would be designed to meet all of the rules and regulations of the California DOGGR. All of the injection wells would have steel casing that would be cemented in place. All of the produced water would be injected through injection tubing that would run down through the steel casing. The tubing would be placed in the well to a point just above the perforations, located at the zone of water injection, and a packer would be used near the bottom of the tubing to seal it against the casing. The packer prevents water from entering the space between the tubing and casing when water is injected down the tubing. Several tests are typically run to ensure that the well is operating properly and that the injected fluids are confined to the intended injection zone (DOGGR 2013).
4.14-7
Water Supply
During Phase 2, the water line currently located along 6th Street that serves the Existing City Maintenance Yard would be extended to the temporary construction trailer in the northeast portion of the Project Site. Domestic water demand, i.e., for drinking and restrooms, for Phases 2, 3, and 4 would be provided by Cal Water. Water supplies for drilling would be provided by West Basin, via extension of an existing water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. The water district has provided the Applicant with a will serve letter, which is written verification of sufficient water supply, based on substantial evidence. Water demand for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be provided by Cal Water, the Citys water purveyor.
4.14.4.3 Impacts
Impact WR.1 pertains to the following significance criteria: Wastewater impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Project would: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB; Exceed the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system or treatment plant that serves the Project Site, thereby requiring new or expanded facilities that would cause a substantial physical adverse change in the environment; Adversely affect the existing wastewater service provider or the existing wastewater facilities by exceeding current and future demands and capacity; or Substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater.
Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would generate sanitary sewer wastewater that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB; exceed the existing capacity of downstream sewer and wastewater treatment facilities; or adversely affect the existing wastewater service provider or the existing wastewater facilities by exceeding current and future demands and capacity. Phase Residual Impact
Impact #
WR.1
Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
During Phase I, the Existing City Maintenance Yard would be relocated to existing City-owned property, currently occupied by a self-storage facility located adjacent to Hermosa Beach City Hall. The number of employees at the proposed 48,000 square foot facility would be similar to the current number of employees at the Project Site. Although there would be no increase in wastewater production and associated impacts on the downstream Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, it is unclear whether the existing City sewer adjacent to City Hall has the capacity to support the increased sewage volume associated with the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. Overloading sanitary sewer systems can
4.14-8
ultimately result in releases of untreated sewage to surface waters, groundwater, and/or the ocean. Therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Proposed Oil Project
As indicated in Section 4.14.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, during Phase I, portable toilets would be used for the 26 construction personnel at the Project Site. During Phase 2, a temporary construction trailer and associated restrooms would be installed in the northeast portion of the Project Site. The sewer lateral that serves the Existing City Maintenance Yard would be extended to the construction trailer, for 20 personnel for an estimated 12 month period. In the event that Phase 3 is completed, the same sewer lateral would be used by a 650 square foot office building and associated restrooms to be constructed onsite, for 62 personnel for an estimated 14 month period. These restrooms would continue to be used during Phase 4, for 20 personnel over a 30 to 35 year period. It is unclear whether the existing City sewer along 6th Street, as well as downstream Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer and wastewater treatment facilities, has the capacity to support the increased sewage volume associated with the Proposed Oil Project. Overloading sanitary sewer systems can ultimately result in releases of untreated sewage to surface waters and/or the ocean. Therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
WR-1
Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department and the Districts for review and approval. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary.
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measure WR.1, the proposed development would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact WR.2 pertains to the following significance criteria: Wastewater impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Oil Project would: Substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater.
4.14-9
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase
WR.2
The Proposed Oil Project would generate wastewater that could impact surface water quality and the Pacific Ocean.
Phase 2 and 4
As indicated in Section 4.14.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, during Phases 2 and 4 of the Proposed Oil Project, water would be separated from the oil and gas stream by a three-phase separator. The water would then be pumped into a treatment system to remove excess oil, including a gas flotation unit and a filter unit. The primary objective of these units would be to clean the water of oil and solids, such as sand. In addition, the extracted water would be tested for SRB and treated by a biocide if SRB is detected. Replacement water would similarly be tested and treated, as necessary. SRBs are an assemblage of specialized bacteria that thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by oxidation of organic nutrients, with sulfate being reduced to H2S. SRB treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment. There are numerous antibacterial agents available on the market that could be used for this specific treatment if it is determined to be needed. Upon exiting the filter unit, the water would enter a water surge tank and then be sent to the water injection pumps for injection into the oil-producing reservoir, through an injection well. Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor this oil/gas/water separation process. As also discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the event of a spill during the water separation and wastewater injection process, runoff would be collected and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. The Project Site would be designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the perimeter fence or wall for a 100year storm event and process walls/berms would be designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel. Therefore, similar to any precipitation, any spills on the site would be contained, both within process system walls/berms around equipment and site walls/berms around the site. As a result, impacts to water quality within adjacent drainages and Santa Monica Bay would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
WR-2
Implement MM HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d.
Residual Impacts
With implementation of measure WR.2, the residual impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Impact WR.3 pertains to the following significance criteria: Wastewater impacts would be deemed significant if the Proposed Oil Project would: Substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater.
4.14-10
Impact #
Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project would generate wastewater that could impact groundwater quality through injection of produced water.
Phase
WR.3
Phase 2 and 4
Up to four injection wells have been proposed at the Project Site for disposal of produced water, which is mainly salty water trapped in the reservoir rock and brought up along with oil or gas during production. This water can contain minor amounts of chemicals added downhole during production. In addition, produced waters exist under high pressures and temperatures and usually contain oil and metals; therefore, the water must be treated prior to being discharged. Produced water can also contain high concentrations of salts, metals, hydrocarbon and organic compounds, sulfur, treatment and workover chemicals, dissolved gases (particularly carbon dioxide), bacteria and other living organisms, dispersed solid particles, scales, and other pollutants. However, the particular concentrations of these components vary greatly among different oil fields. This salt water can be very damaging if it is discharged into surface water. Instead, all states require that this brine be injected into formations similar to those from which it was extracted (Produced Water Society 2013; U.S. EPA 2013). Approximately 65 percent of the produced water generated in the United States is injected back into the producing formation, 30 percent is injected into designated deep saline formations, and five percent is discharged to surface waters. Over two billion gallons of brine are injected daily into injection wells in the United States. Produced water salinity in the United States generally varies from 100 milligrams/liter (mg/l) to 400,000 mg/l. Seawater has a salinity of 35,000 mg/l. Produced water generally increases as oil and gas is depleted from any given well (Produced Water Society 2013; U.S. EPA 2013). The U.S. EPA classifies oil and gas injection wells as Class II wells. There are approximately 167,000 oil and gas injection wells in the United States and 25,000 such wells in California, most of which are used for the secondary recovery of oil, because the injection of the brine can have the effect of enhancing production of oil and gas from the formations. However, some injection wells are used solely as a disposal well for excess production fluids. Class II wells must adhere to strict construction and conversion standards. A Class II well that follows EPA Federal standards is built very much the same as Class I well, which can be used to dispose of hazardous waste. The California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regulates oil field waste disposal in injection wells and is expected to use this EIR in its permitting review of the Proposed Oil Project. All of the injection wells will be drilled from the Project Site. Wastewater would be processed, as described in Impact WR.2, and pumped back into the reservoirs from which the oil and gas was extracted (Figure 2-8, Applicant Proposed Project Lease Areas Cross Sections). As indicated in Section 4.14.1.4, Groundwater, the Project Site is located along the westerly edge of the West Coast Basin. Three major fresh water aquifers comprise the West Coast Basin: the 200-Foot Sand (Gage Aquifer), the Silverado Aquifer, and the Lower San Pedro/Pico Aquifer. Groundwater depth in these predominantly confined aquifers reaches more than 1,500 feet in the West Coast Basin, although water production wells generally are not this deep.
4.14-11
The injection wells would pass through these fresh water deposits, creating potential water quality impacts as a result of well leakage and/or inadvertent migration of wastewater from the point of injection upward through the formation, as a result of frac-outs, which are uncontrolled releases of produced water from the formation. Frac-outs are not to be confused with fracking (i.e., hydraulic fracturing), which is an oil production method whereby a sandy slurry is purposely injected into the oil producing formation, at very high pressures, in an effort to artificially fracture the formation and increase oil flow to the wellbore. The current mechanism that is creating a stratigraphic and/or structural trap for oil accumulation within the Miocene Puente Formation (the target oil producing formation) would similarly prevent upward migration of injected wastewater (i.e., potential frac-outs) into the overlying aquifers. There are no domestic water supply wells located in the vicinity of the Project Site, thus further minimizing the potential for impairment of beneficial groundwater as a result of produced water injection. As indicated in Section 4.14.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, the injection wells would be designed to meet all of the rules and regulations of the California DOGGR. All of the injection wells would have steel casing that would be cemented in place. All of the produced water would be injected through injection tubing that would run down through the steel casing. The tubing would be placed in the well to a point just above the perforations, located at the zone of water injection, and a packer would be used near the bottom of the tubing to seal it against the casing. The packer prevents water from entering the space between the tubing and casing when water is injected down the tubing. Several tests are typically run to ensure that the well is operating properly and that the injected fluids are confined to the intended injection zone (DOGGR 2013). California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Section 1724.6 requires that approval must be obtained from the DOGGR before any subsurface injection can begin. The operator must provide any data that that is pertinent and necessary for proper evaluation of the oil reservoirs. Such data includes reservoir characteristics of each injection zone, such as porosity, permeability, average thickness, areal extent, fracture gradient, original and present temperature and pressure, and residual oil, gas, and water saturations. The DOGGR regularly review water reinjection pressures, quantities, and schedules in order to prevent subsidence beneath the drilling site. All injection wells are monitored by the DOGGR to ensure that the wells are operating properly and have mechanical integrity. Monitoring includes reviewing operational data and running tests like mechanical integrity tests (i.e., spinner, temperature, and pressure tests and tracer surveys). In addition, most well sites are inspected annually by the DOGGR (DOGGR 2013). Operators of Class II injection wells must file for a permit with the DOGGR. Before a permit is issued, the proposed injection project would be studied by DOGGR engineers and reviewed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. DOGGR engineers would evaluate the geologic and engineering information, solicit public comments, and hold a public hearing, if necessary. Injection project permits include many conditions, such as approved injection zones, allowable injection pressures, and testing requirements (DOGGR 2013). In California, Class II injection wells have proved to be an environmentally safe method of disposal of produced water. A peer review conducted by a national organization, the Ground
4.14-12
Water Protection Council, determined that the DOGGR has a program that effectively protects underground sources of drinking water (DOGGR 2013). In summary, proposed injection wells would pass through and beneath fresh water-bearing sediments within the West Coast Groundwater Basin. Produced water would be treated for excessive solids content prior to reinjection; however, the produced water would be highly saline and could potentially impair groundwater quality in the unlikely event that an injection well leaks in the area near the groundwater. Because 1) the injection wells would be required to meet the DOGGR rules and regulations regarding design and operation; 2) the existing mechanism that is creating the oil trap would prevent upward migration of produced water into overlying water-bearing sediments; 3) and the produced water and other drilling wastes (i.e., incidental spills of petroleum based fluids) would be injected back into the reservoir below the effective base of fresh water, the impacts of injection on groundwater quality would be considered adverse but less than significant. The Applicant has stated in the Proposed Project Application that no high volume/high pressure fracking would occur during oil and gas production activities; therefore, fracking is not proposed and cannot be undertaken under this Proposed Project application and the impact need not be evaluated in this EIR.
Mitigation Measures
Because impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required. Impact WR.4 pertains to the following significance criteria: With regard to water supply, a project would have a significant environmental impact on the water supply if it: Substantially depletes water supplies. Requires new off-site water supply (i.e., water not derived from an on-site well or surface water impound) or distributions facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause substantial adverse physical change in the environment. Requires new or expanded water entitlements.
Impact Description The Proposed Oil Project would require new offsite water supply, but would not substantially deplete water supplies or require new or expanded water entitlements. Phase Residual Impact Class III Less Than Significant
Impact #
WR.4
Water Demand
Phase 1 grading, Phase 3 Pipeline construction, and Phase 3 on-site construction would require approximately 4 acre-feet of water over a 15 month period. The primary water demand by the Proposed Oil Project would occur during Phases 2 and 4 in association with drilling, which
4.14-13
would result in a projected water use of 4.8 acre-feet per year (AFY) over the 30- to 35-year life of the Proposed Oil Project. Drilling of each well would require approximately 130,000 gallons of water (0.4 acre-feet). Four wells are proposed in Phase 2, including three production wells and one water injection/disposal well, and the drilling would occur over a period of four months. The remaining 30 production wells and four injection/disposal wells are proposed in Phase 4 and the drilling would occur over a period of 30 months. Since each well takes approximately one month to drill, during Phase 4, approximately 12 wells would be drilled each year. This would result in a potential water usage of approximately 4.8 AFY for drilling. Phase 4 of the Proposed Oil Project would be designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels of oil per day. Therefore, 8,000 barrels of oil per day could be extracted from the oil reservoir during Phase 4. However, up to 16,000 barrels per day of produced water would be available to inject back into the reservoir, such that it is unlikely that a supplemental water source would be required for replacement water to prevent regional ground subsidence from occurring in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. During construction of the temporary City Maintenance Yard, prior to commencement of construction of the Proposed Oil Project, demand of both City Yard employees and contractors involved in construction of the relocated facility would represent an increased demand. Water for construction activities at the site would be minimal. Subsequently, domestic water use during Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be limited to on-site drinking water and restrooms for on-site employees and a minimal number of contractors.
Water Supply
As indicated in Section 4.14.4.2, Proposed Project Design Features, during Phase 2, the water line currently located along 6th Street that serves the Existing City Maintenance Yard would be extended to the temporary construction trailer in the northeast portion of the Project Site. Domestic water demand, i.e., for drinking and restrooms, for Phases 2, 3, and 4 would be provided by California Water Company (Cal Water). Water supplies for drilling would be provided by West Basin Municipal Water District, via extension of an existing recycled water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. West Basin has provided the Applicant with a will serve letter, which is substantial evidence of sufficient water supply. Reliability of water supplies from Cal Water and West Basin is provided in their respective Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) (Cal Water 2011, West Basin 2011b). The UWMPs demonstrate the water suppliers total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years, during a 20-year projection, as well as the water suppliers existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. The projected supplies and demands are presented in 5-year increments for the 20-year projection. California Water Code 10644(a) requires preparation of updated UWMPs every five years and submittal to the California Department of Water Resources, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. The 2010 West Basin UWMP demonstrates not only how the agency would meet service area retail demands over the next 25 years, but also how the agency plans to provide long-term water reliability through supply
4.14-14
diversification, i.e., less reliability on imported water and increased desalinated water, local groundwater, recycled water, and water conservation.
Water Supply Assessment
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California law to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. The primary purpose of SB 610 is to improve the linkage between water and land use planning by ensuring greater communication between water providers and local planning agencies, and ensuring that land use decisions for certain large development projects are fully informed as to whether sufficient water supplies are available to meet project demands. Under Senate Bill 610, water supply assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects, as defined in Water Code 10912(a), subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Under Water Code Section 10912, Project means any of the following: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area; A mixeduse project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project (California DWR 2003).
Based on these definitions of Project, a water supply assessment would not be required for the Proposed Oil Project. The Project Site is 1.3 acres and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard is similar in size, which is less than the 40 acre threshold that defines a Project under this SB 610 criterion. In addition, the water demand associated with the Proposed Oil Project would be less than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. In 2010, 22,057 average single-family dwellings in the Hermosa Beach/Redondo Beach area used 6,672 AFY of water, which is equivalent to 0.3 AFY per dwelling (Cal Water 2011). Therefore, 500 dwellings would use approximately 151 AFY. As previously indicated, Phase 2 and Phase 4 drilling would use approximately 4.8 AFY of water. Therefore, the water demand for drilling is substantially less than the annual water demand for 500 dwellings. Water demand for Proposed City Maintenance Yard construction, the only increased demand associated with that component, would be minimal. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be considered a Project under this SB 610 criterion and a water supply assessment would not be required.
4.14-15
Based on the reliability of water, as demonstrated in the UWMPs, in combination with the Proposed Oil Project-specific, West Basin will serve letter, water supply related impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

None of these mitigation measures identified in other sections of the EIR would increase the impacts to water resources. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation for water resources is not required.
The residential and commercial/industrial projects in the region would produce sanitary wastewater in the same manner as the Proposed Project. Existing and proposed projects use the City utilities and facilities, and the adequacy of new construction is evaluated on a projectspecific basis, based on available capacity with respect to the cumulative wastewater load on the sewer system at the time of evaluation. The Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project could connect to the existing sewer if the capacity of the existing system is deemed adequate. However, the Proposed Oil Project could alternatively provide portable facilities to meet peak demand on a temporary basis and reduce the overall and cumulative impacts to a no impact classification. All drilling related wastewater and incidental spills at the Project Site would be properly disposed of via well reinjection. The Proposed Oil Project and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would not require the upgrade, modification, or alteration of any additional wastewater or waste handling facility (see discussion of solid waste in the Section 4.12). Thus, no cumulatively significant impacts to the wastewater or solid waste facilities are expected. With respect to water supply, cumulative projects would be governed by Senate Bill 610, as applicable, and project specific water supply analyses. West Basin, which would provide the majority of the water for the Proposed Oil Project, overlies nearly all of the adjudicated West Coast Groundwater Basin. In the early 1940s, extensive over pumping of the basin led to critically low groundwater levels, which resulted in seawater intrusion along the coast. The situation precipitated an adjudication that limits the allowable extraction that could occur in any given year and assigned water rights to basin pumpers. Those adjudicated water rights are in excess of the safe operating basin yield. Therefore, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California purchases imported and recycled water supplies from West Basin for injection by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works at the Dominguez Gap and West Coast seawater intrusion barriers (West Basin 2011b). Based on continued water injection by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, in combination with compliance with cumulative project-specific CEQA review, Senate Bill 610 requirements, and adjudicated water rights, no cumulatively significant water supply impacts would occur.
4.14-16

Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure Requirements Method Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department and the Districts for review and approval. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary. Implement MM HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d. Area study of the proposed sewer line and a 7-day performance capacity test should be performed at select downstream locations to verify the adequacy of the existing sewer. Timing Prior to issuance of permit Responsible Party City of Hermosa Beach
WR-1
WR-2
See HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d
4.14-17
4.14-18
4.15 Environmental Justice
4.15 Environmental Justice 4.15.1 Background
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued the Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898), which was designed to focus attention on environmental and human health conditions in high minority populations and low-income communities and promote nondiscrimination in programs and projects substantially affecting human health and the environment (White House 1994). The order requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all other Federal agencies (as well as state agencies receiving federal funds) to develop strategies to address this issue. The agencies are required to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and or low-income populations. In 1997, the EPAs Office of Environmental Justice released the Environmental Justice Implementation Plan, supplementing the EPA environmental justice strategy and providing a framework for developing specific plans and guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898. Federal agencies received a framework for the assessment of environmental justice in the EPAs Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPAs National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Analysis in 1998. This approach emphasized the importance of selecting an analytical process appropriate to the unique circumstances of the potentially affected community. While many state agencies have utilized the EPAs Environmental Justice Implementation Plan as a basis for the development of their own environmental justice strategies and policies, the majority of California State agencies do not have guidance for incorporating environmental justice impact assessment into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis which is not required. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), for example, has examined this issue and received advice from legal counsel in a memorandum entitled "CEQA and Environmental Justice." This memorandum states, in part, "For the reasons set forth below, we will conclude that CEQA can readily be adapted to the task of analyzing cumulative impacts/environmental justice whenever a public agency (including the Air Resources Board, the air pollution control districts, and general purpose land use agencies) undertakes or permits a project or activity that may have a significant adverse impact on the physical environment. All public agencies in California are currently obliged to comply with the CEQA, and no further legislation would be needed to include an environmental justice analysis in the CEQA documents prepared for the discretionary actions public agencies undertake." Under Assembly Bill (AB) 1553, signed into law in October 2001, the Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is required to adopt guidelines for addressing environmental justice issues in local agencies general plans. Currently, the OPR is in the process of updating the General Plan Guidelines to incorporate the requirements of AB 1553.
4.15-1
4.15.2 California State Lands Commission
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has developed and adopted an Environmental Justice Policy to ensure equity and fairness in its own processes and procedures. The CSLC adopted an amended Environmental Justice Policy on October 1, 2002, to ensure Environmental Justice is an essential consideration in the Commissions processes, decisions and programs and that all people who live in California have a meaningful way to participate in these activities. The policy stresses equitable treatment of all members of the public and commits to consider environmental justice in its processes, decision making, and regulatory affairs, and the policy is implemented, in part, through identification of, and communication with, relevant populations that could be adversely and disproportionately impacted by CSLC projects or programs, and by ensuring that a range of reasonable alternatives is identified that would minimize or eliminate environmental impacts affecting such populations (CSLC 2002).
4.15.3 Approach
This section analyzes the distributional patterns of high-minority and low-income populations on a regional basis and characterizes the distribution of such populations in the vicinity of the proposed Project and within the region. This analysis focuses on whether the proposed Project and all Project Alternatives have the potential to disproportionately affect high-minority population(s) or low-income communities and thus create an adverse environmental justice impact. For the purposes of this analysis and as applied to tables and figures within this section, minority, minority population, low-income, low-income population, and disproportionately high and adverse effects are defined as follows: Minority means a person who is: (1) Black (having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); (2) Hispanic (of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); (3) Asian American (having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian and Alaskan Native (having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition). Minority Population means any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy, or activity. Low-Income means a household income at or below the United States Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Low-Income Population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy, or activity.
4.15-2
Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low-Income Populations means an adverse effect that (1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population.
According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the city of Hermosa Beach in 2012 had a population of 19,574, 10,160 housing units, and employment for 6,845. The population of Hermosa Beach in 2012 was 0.2% of Los Angeles County. Table 4.16-1 provides a statistical summary of race population, housing, and income levels of Hermosa Beach as compared with Los Angeles County and the SCAG region. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. The U.S. Census Bureau provides data on poverty levels for California cities as compared to Los Angeles County and the State of California as a whole. Data for the years 2008 through 2012 show the percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the City of Hermosa Beach as 3.5% as compared to 17.1% for Los Angeles County and 15.3% for the State of California. Data for the neighboring cities Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, show 5.9% and 2.9%, respectively, for the percentage of person living below the poverty level.
4.15-3
Table 4.16-1
City of Hermosa Beach Statistical Summary* Hermosa Category Beach Los Angeles County Hermosa Beach Relative to Los Angeles County [0.2%] 2.4 -40.0% 53.2% -8.0% -6.8% -.1% 1.7% [0.29%] -0.9 39,137 [0.29%] -9.6% 627,000 -7% 9.4% 0 [0.16%] [0.2%] -3,043 .1% SCAG Region 18,242,331 35.2 46.4% 32.1% 12.4% 6.3% .2% 2.5% 5,870,003 3.1 57,465 6,356,479 54.3% 323,000 6.4% 77.8% 31.4 7,462,957 109,491 49,468 3,096,034
2012 Population 19,574 9,884,632 2012 Median Age (Years) 38.0 35.6 2012 Hispanic 8.5% 48.5% 2012 Non-Hispanic White 80.3% 27.1% 2012 Non-Hispanic Asian 5.9% 13.9% 2012 Non-Hispanic Black 1.2% 8.0% 2012 Non-Hispanic American .1% .2% Indian 2012 Non-Hispanic All Other 4.1% 2.4% 2012 Number of Households 9,548 3,249,575 2012 Average Household Size 2.0 3.0 2012 Median Household 93,017 53,880 Income ($) 2012 Number of Housing Units 10,160 3,454,092 2012 Homeownership Rate 44.7% 54.3% 2012 Median Existing Home 957,000 330,000 Sales Price ($) 2011 - 2012 Median Home -2.2% 4.8% Sales Price Change 2012 Drove Alone to Work 84.7% 75.3% 2012 Mean Travel Time to 32 32 Work (minutes) 2012 Number of Jobs 6,845 4,209,116 2011 - 2012 Total Jobs Change 108 54,513 2011 Average Salary per Job 47,623 50,666 ($) 2012 K-12 Public School 1,327 1,569,933 Student Enrollment Source: SCAG, Profile of the City of Hermosa Beach, May 2013.
A conflict with the CSLCs Environmental Justice Policy would occur if the proposed Project would: Have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations at levels exceeding the corresponding median for the County in which the Project is located; or Result in a substantial, disproportionate decrease in the employment and economic base of minority and low income populations residing in the County and immediately surrounding cities.
4.15-4
4.15.6 Policy Impacts
As shown in table 4.16-1, City of Hermosa Beach Statistical Summary, the estimated minority population in the vicinity of the Project Site is 19.7% which is less than a third of the minority population percentage (72.9%) for Los Angeles County as a whole. Of the coastal areas within Los Angeles County, none have a greater proportion of minority populations than the County as a whole. Therefore, the proposed Project will not disproportionately affect minority populations within the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the US Census Bureau data for the years 2008 through 2012, the estimated population with income below the poverty level in Hermosa Beach is 3.5% which is less than one fourth the percentage of the population below the poverty level for Los Angeles County (17.1%). The estimated population with incomes below the poverty level for the neighboring cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach is also well below the population below the poverty level for Los Angeles County. Therefore, the proposed Project would not disproportionately affect lowincome populations with the site vicinity. Due to the short term and temporary impacts associated with Pipeline construction, the installation of the Proposed Pipelines would not disproportionately affect the low income populations of the City of Torrance.
4.15-5
4.15-6
Section 5: Alternatives Screening
5.0 Alternatives Screening
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This section discusses a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project, including alternative sites and a No Project Alternative. Criteria used to evaluate the range of alternatives and remove certain alternatives from further consideration are addressed. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, provide direction for the discussion of alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section requires: A description of ...a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of a Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (15126.6(a)). A setting forth of alternatives that ...shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project (15126.6(f)). A discussion of the No Project alternative, and ...If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (15126.6(e)(2)). A discussion and analysis of alternative locations that would substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR (15126.6(f)(2)(B)).
This EIR has used an alternatives screening analysis to define a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), this alternative screening analysis identifies the alternatives proposed during the scoping process and considered by staff, and explains why some of the proposed alternatives were rejected for further analysis. A detailed analysis and a comparison of the impacts of each of the alternatives that are selected for further evaluation and identification of the environmentally superior alternative is provided in section 6.0. This screening methodology also uses the rule of reason approach to alternatives as discussed in State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)). The rule of reason approach has been defined to require that EIRs address a range of feasible alternatives that have the potential to diminish or avoid adverse environmental impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines state: The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project (Section 15126.6(f)).
5-1
In defining feasibility of alternatives, the State CEQA Guidelines state: Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section 15126.6(f)(1)). If an alternative was found to be technically infeasible, then it was dropped from further consideration. This was the primary feasibility factor that was used to eliminate an alternative without further screening analysis. Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines 15362). In addition, CEQA states that alternatives should attain most of the basic objectives of the project ... (Section 15126.6(a)). If an alternative was found to not attain the basic objectives, then it was also eliminated. The use of a screening analysis for the alternatives ensures that the full spectrum of environmental concerns is adequately considered, and that a reasonable choice of alternatives is selected for evaluation in the EIR. Given the CEQA mandates listed above, the remainder of this section covers: (1) a brief description of a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project; (2) a screening analysis that summarizes and compares the significant environmental effects of each alternative; and (3) an environmental analysis of the alternatives that were selected for further consideration in the EIR, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.0. A summary of the results of the screening analysis is presented in Table 5.1.
5.1 Description of Alternatives and Screening Analysis
A variety of alternatives for the Project was considered in a screening analysis to determine potential alternatives which might produce fewer significant impacts, or reduce the severity of those significant impacts, than the Proposed Project. The approach taken was to list a wide number of possible alternatives and then screen those to only the alternatives that would satisfy the following: The alternative is technically feasible; The alternative would lessen any of the significant Class I impacts of the Proposed Project; and The alternative would attain most of the basic Proposed Project objectives (see section 2.0, Project Description).
5-2
Alternatives considered included the No Project Alternative, those associated with different drilling and processing locations, the modifications to the Project timeline or footprint, different pipeline alignments and different maintenance yard locations or arrangements. As shown in Table 5.1, the following alternatives were selected for further analysis in this EIR, and are analyzed in Section 6.0: No Project Alternative AES Site Alternative Reduced Wells Alternative Reduced Timeframe Alternative Existing Pipelines Alternative Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative
Summary Results of the Alternatives Screening Analysis Alternative Screening Result
Table 5.1
No Project Alternatives Retained for full analysis No Project Alternative: no oil Project and no new maintenance yard (as required by CEQA) Alternative Locations AES Site Retained for full analysis Rosecrans Ave Site Eliminated Exxon/Mobil Oil Torrance Site Eliminated Hermosa Beach Locations Eliminated Greenbelt Eliminated Offshore/Offshore Completions Eliminated Alternative Facility Arrangements Reduced Equipment Eliminated Reduced Wells Retained for full analysis Reduced Timeframe Retained for full analysis Alternative Pipeline/Transportation Routes Existing Pipelines Retained for full analysis Greenbelt North Eliminated Greenbelt South Eliminated Trucking of Crude Oil Eliminated Alternative Maintenance Yard Arrangements/Locations Different Locations Eliminated Alternative temporary site Eliminated Split Location Eliminated Phase 1 Construction of Permanent Yard Retained for full analysis
5.1.1
The CEQA requires that the specific alternative of the No Project be evaluated along with its impacts as part of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (1)). For projects that are other
5-3
than a land use or regulatory plan, the No Project Alternative is the circumstances under which the Project does not proceed. If disapproval of the Project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal for another Project, this No Project consequence should be discussed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)). The CEQA Guidelines go on to say that the Lead Agency should analyze the impacts of the No Project Alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Proposed Project was not approved (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C)). The Applicants Proposed Project is construction and operation of drilling and production facilities for exploration and production of oil and gas resources. The construction of the City Maintenance Yard is also part of the Proposed Project. With the No Project Alternative, the field would not be developed and the resources of the field would not be utilized. Under the No Project Alternative, no new activity would occur at the Project Site and the Maintenance Yard would not be relocated at this time. Because CEQA requires the EIR to analyze the No Project Alternative, it has been retained for further analysis.
5.1.2 Alternative Drilling and Production Locations
This section describes alternative locations that could be used to install drilling and support equipment, which could access the oil reservoir from a location different than the Applicants Proposed Project location. The selection criteria for alternative locations include the following: Distance must be within the reach limits of directional drilling technology and enable recovery of a sufficient percentage of the reserves; Sufficient distance from populations to minimize public health risks, air quality, aesthetics, noise, and vibration impacts; or Utilize historically disturbed areas and preferably within industrial areas to minimize biological and recreational impacts.
The delineation of the western Torrance Oil Field reservoir within the City of Hermosa Beach is well established by a history of wells drilled in the area. In general, the oil resides within the field to the west and north of the Project Site, ranging in depth from 2,600 feet in the south-west areas to 6,000 feet in the north (based upon Applicant submittals related to test well drilling targets). This delineation of the reservoir determines the allowable locations from where wells could be drilled to access the reservoir. Directional drilling enables extraction of oil and gas from multiple layers with a single well, or from a single layer that runs diagonally or even horizontally, thereby allowing more efficient extraction of oil and gas. The ability to extract oil and gas from a reservoir by directional drilling is a function of the depth of the oil- and gas-containing layers (targets) and the size and ability of the drilling rig. In general, the shallower the reservoir, the closer the drilling rig must be to the reservoir. The larger the drilling rig, the farther the drilling rig can be from the reservoir. The ratio of the
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project 5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report
horizontal distance to the vertical distance is called the throw ratio or horizontal to vertical (H/V) ratio. For the Proposed Project test wells, throw ratios range up to 2.8 based on Applicant data. Most likely a throw ratio of 4.0 could be achieved, with a maximum horizontal distance depending on the depth of the portion of the reservoir targeted. All of the targeted areas could be reached from areas located within Hermosa Beach or within the north-western portion of Redondo Beach. For locations farther away, less of the crude oil could be recovered as fewer portions of the crude oil containing reservoirs could be reached. Figure 5-1 shows the areas which were evaluated for alternative locations and the estimated crude oil recovery percentages based on a throw ratio of 4:1 from each of the test well locations and their associated depths to the target. In general, alternative locations would need to be within 0.5-1.0 miles of the Proposed Project site to drill and extract 100% of the resources from the north, east and south ends of the delineated reservoir while not exceeding a horizontal to vertical ratio (throw ratio) of 4.0. Locations farther away would recover less of the reserves. Based on availability of vacant sites and appropriateness of potential oil development, offsite locations were considered at the following areas. 1. 2. 3. 4. Near the corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda/Hwy 1 within the City of El Segundo; A site south of the Exxon/Mobil Oil Refinery in the City of Torrance; On or near the AES property within the City of Redondo Beach; Other Hermosa Beach locations
The locations were screened based on which impacts were likely to increase or decrease as a result of the alternative. Alternatives that were not perceived to have any benefit over the Proposed Project were discarded from further consideration.
5-5
Figure 5-1
Percent of Crude Recovery and Alternative Locations
Notes: Recoverable reserves based on a Horizontal/Vertical "Throw" ratio of 4.0. TW#1 represents the bottomhole target location for test well #1, etc.
5-6
5.1.2.1 Rosecrans Alternative Location
Under this alternative, oil drilling and processing would be located on a parcel (AIN 4138015007) within the southern portion of the City of El Segundo, to the east of the Chevron El Segundo Refinery and to the north-east of the corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda Blvd/Hwy 1. A portion of this area is currently zoned light industrial by the City of El Segundo. The parcel is located between two railroad tracks. See Figure 5-2. The parcels surrounding the parcel are currently empty space or commercial and are zoned commercial center (C-4) by the City of El Segundo. A shopping/eating area is located approximately 300-400 feet to the west and relatively new commercial buildings are located 300400 feet to the east. The Air Products facility is located about 500 feet to the south. The parcel is 7.6 acres in size. Connections to a pipeline system would be simple because Chevron Refinery is located within 1/2 mile. Existing pipelines could be utilized or a new pipeline constructed. Under this alternative, production levels would decrease because some portions of the reservoir would not be accessible (such as zones to the south-west near the termination of test well #1). This location would limit the depth of areas accessible in the far south-western edge of the field to greater than 5,500 feet, with a throw ratio of 4.0. This would also limit the depth of accessible crude zones near the north-western and north-eastern portions of the reservoir to between 2,700 4,000 feet, which would enable some of the crude to be recovered. Given the number of zones and the varying depths, it is difficult to determine the exact reduction in the production levels with this alternative. However, based on the depth of target-producing zones projected for the test well cross sections made available by the Applicant, drilling from the Rosecrans Site could likely produce 50 to 75 percent of the Proposed Project levels.
5-7
Figure 5-2
Rosecrans Alternative Location Detail
Impacts that would be Less than the Proposed Project
Since facilities would be farther from residences than the Project Site, risk of upset and noise impacts would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, particularly at night as the commercial areas around this alternative site would be less sensitive to nighttime drilling and operational noise. There would be a reduction in impacts for aesthetic resources since the facilities would be located in a less aesthetically sensitive area, which is already partially industrialized. Air quality impacts related to odor would be less since the facilities would be
5-8
farther from residences. Transportation impacts related to street construction of pipelines and construction of facilities could be less since vehicles would have easier access to the site (directly along Rosecrans Avenue) and in street pipeline construction would be minimized. In addition, as the City Maintenance Yard would not have to be relocated, construction impacts of the temporary and permanent City Maintenance Yard would also be eliminated.
Impacts that would be Greater than the Proposed Project
This alternative might require significant time-consuming modifications to zoning within the City of El Segundo to allow for the Project, which would create land use impacts. The Project would also be potentially incompatible with the surrounding commercial uses. Due to the reduced recovery of oil and gas, which may render the Project infeasible from this location and potential impediments associated with land use this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
5.1.2.2 Exxon/Mobil Oil Torrance Refinery Alternative Location
Under this alternative, oil drilling and processing would be located on a parcel near the Exxon/Mobil Torrance Refinery (AIN 7352015005 or 7352015005) to the east of the corner of Del Amo Blvd. and Prairie Ave. The Exxon/Mobil Torrance Refinery is located to the immediate north-east of this alternative location and the Torrance City Center is located to the south. This area is currently zoned heavy manufacturing by the City of Torrance. The north parcel currently contains what appear to be some horse stables. The parcels are 29 acres and 7.6 acres in size, respectively. See Figure 5-3. The parcels surrounding the area are zoned heavy manufacturing by the City of Torrance. A Staybridge Suites hotel is located approximately 500 feet to the west across Prairie Avenue and some residential and recreational uses are located about 1,000 feet to the south-west. Connections to a pipeline system would be simple because the Exxon/Mobil Torrance Refinery is located within 1/2 mile. Existing pipelines could be utilized or a new pipeline constructed. Under this alternative, production levels would decrease because some of the zones would not be accessible (such as zones to the west near the termination of test well #1 or #2). This location would limit the depth of accessible crude zones in the far western edge of the field to greater than 5,500 feet, with a throw ratio of 4.0. This would also limit the depth of accessible crude zones near the north-western and north-eastern portions of the reservoir to between 5,400 - 6,500 feet deep, which would enable only the crude in the eastern, onshore portions of the field to be recovered (as per test well information provided by the Applicant). Given the number of zones and the varying depths, it is difficult to determine the exact reduction in the production levels with this alternative. However, based on the depth of target-producing zones projected for the test well cross sections made available by the Applicant, drilling from the Exxon/Mobil Refinery Site could likely produce 30 to 40 percent of the Proposed Project levels.
5-9
Figure 5-3
Exxon/Mobil Refinery Alternative Location Detail
Similar to the Rosecrans Alternative Site, since facilities would be farther from residences than the Project Site, risk of upset and noise impacts would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. There would be a reduction in impacts for aesthetic resources since the facilities would be located in a less aesthetically sensitive area, which is already industrialized. Air quality impacts related to odor would be less since the facilities would be farther from residences. Transportation impacts related to street construction of pipelines and construction of facilities
5-10
could be less since vehicles would have easier access to the site (directly along West 190th and Prairie) and in street pipeline construction would be minimized. In addition, as the City Maintenance Yard would not have to be relocated, construction impacts of the temporary and permanent City Maintenance Yard would also be eliminated.
Depending on the exact parcel selected, this alternative may not be available as it is currently owned by Exxon/Mobil Oil Corporation (as per Los Angeles County zoning records), and the suitable parcel located to the immediate south is owned by Exxon/Mobil California Exploration and Producing Asset Company. No discussions with these owners have taken place about the availability of the parcels. Due to the reduced recovery of oil and gas and potential impediments associated with property ownership this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
5.1.2.3 AES Power Generating Station Alternative Location
Under this alternative, oil drilling and processing would be located on a parcel (AIN 7503013015 on the AES site or AIN 7503014010, which is currently The Dirt Yard site) at or near the AES Power Generating Station located to the south-east of the intersection of Herondo Street and N. Harbor Drive in the City of Redondo Beach. King Harbor is located to the west of the alternative location, residences are located to the north across Herondo Street (within the City of Hermosa Beach) and a parking structure, offices and commercial activities are located to the east of the parcels. The AES parcel is currently zoned "Generating Plant" (P-GP) and the Dirt Yard parcel is zoned Industrial (I-2A) by the City of Redondo Beach. Portions of the AES parcel are currently empty containing the old berms where the generating station fuel oil tanks used to be located. Pads 4 and 5 are the most likely candidates for the alternative located on the AES site (parcel AIN 7503013015) which is 21 acres. The other parcel currently contains the "Dirt Yard" commercial facility at the intersection of Gertruda & Francisca and is about 2 acres in size. See Figure 5-4. The parcels surrounding the AES and Dirt Yard parcels are zoned commercial (C-5A) by the City of Redondo Beach, with the harbor area to the west zoned coastal commercial (CC-4) and a self storage area ("Mini Storage") located to the immediate east of the AES site zoned commercial (C-5A). An office complex and parking garage are also located to the immediate east of the southern portion of the AES parcel near pads 4 and 5. The Dirt Yard is privately owned and has a U.S. Post Office located within 200 feet and a bank located within 500 feet to the immediate east. Connections to a pipeline system would utilize the same pipeline arrangement as the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, since the drilling location would be moved from the Proposed Project location, production levels might change because some of the zones might not be accessible.
5-11
However, as this location would be within a 1/2 mile of the Proposed Project location, drilling would be able to reach all areas of the reservoir. Given the number of zones and the varying depths, it is difficult to determine the exact production levels with this alternative. However, based on the depth of target-producing zones projected for the test well cross sections made available by the Applicant, drilling from the AES Site could likely produce 100 percent of the Proposed Project levels. On November 20, 2012 AES Southland, LLC submitted an Application for Certification (AFC) to the California Energy Commission seeking permission to construct and operate a power generation facility, the Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP), located at the AES site (see Figure 5-4 for an outline of the RBEP exact location). The RBEP is a proposed natural-gas fired electrical generating facility with a gross generating capacity of 511 megawatt (MW), which would replace, and be constructed on the site of, the AES Redondo Beach Generating Station. Other equipment and facilities to be constructed would include natural gas compressors, water treatment facilities, emergency services, and administration and maintenance buildings. The existing Redondo Beach Generating Station Units 1 through 8 and auxiliary boiler No. 17 would be removed as part of the project. (Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are currently retired. Units 5, 6, 7, and 8 are currently in use). The RBEP Project is proposing to utilize the northern half of parcel 7503013015 for construction of the above-ground facilities. The existing AES Power Generating Plant (see Figure 5-4) would be demolished and removed. It is possible that the existing AES Power Generating Plant area, after the equipment has been demolished and removed, could also serve as a drilling and production site. The power plant is a controversial project in Redondo Beach. In 2008 the City passed zoning changes that made any new power plant a conditional use subject to City Council approval and added parks as a permitted use of the AES property. These proposed changes were added to the Redondo zoning ordinances by a vote of the people in 2010. The zoning ordinance states that any new power plant or modification cannot have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses and neighborhoods. A ballot measure, Measure A, was placed on the ballot in March 2013 and called for rezoning the land under the plant to a mixture of up to 40 percent institutional and commercial uses, with the remaining land designated parkland and open space. Power generation would no longer be an allowable use. Measure A was defeated. The RBEP Project is currently under review by the California Energy Commission. The Application for Certification was determined to be Data Adequate at the Commission Business Meeting August 27, 2013. A decision is anticipated by mid to late 2014 (docket number 12AFC-03).
Similar to the other alternative locations, since facilities would be farther from residences than the Project Site, risk of upset and noise impacts would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. There would be a reduction in impacts for aesthetic resources since the facilities would be located in an area which is already industrialized. Air quality impacts related to odor and health risk would be less since the facilities would be farther from residences. However, potential impacts to nearby commercial areas, such as the U.S. Post Office, would be a concern
5-12
depending on which parcel is utilized. Transportation impacts related to street construction of pipelines along Valley Drive would be eliminated. As vehicles would have easier access to the site (directly along Herondo Ave), traffic related safety impacts would be reduced. In addition, as the City Maintenance Yard would not have to be relocated, construction impacts of the temporary and permanent City Maintenance Yard would also be eliminated. This alternative would be located in an area that would be more consistent with the surrounding land uses and would have sensitive receptors farther away. Also, the location would result in fewer visual, noise and risk impacts even with the potential impediments associated with land use.
Figure 5-4 AES Site Location Detail
Note: Blue line designates the potential area for the RBEG project within the City of Redondo Beach.
5-13
Depending on the parcel selected, this alternative may not be available as it is currently owned by AES or other private entities (as per Los Angeles County zoning records). No discussions with these owners have taken place about the availability of the parcels. The RBEP Project is currently very controversial and given the zoning history with the parcel, the placement of drilling activities on the site might not be acceptable to the current Redondo Beach City Council or the community of Redondo Beach. This could create land use incompatibility issues that would be similar to the Proposed Project since it would likely require a vote of the people and other zoning changes similar to the Proposed Project in the City of Hermosa Beach. This location would have the ability to recover all of the oil and gas reserves, this alternative has been retained for further consideration.
5.1.2.4 Other Alternative Locations
In general, the prevalence of residential areas within an acceptable distance of the oil reservoir severely limits the potential options for drilling activities. No alternative locations were identified within the City of Hermosa Beach area that could provide advantages over the Proposed Project location in terms of reducing potentially significant impacts related to the proximity to residences (noise, air quality, odors, aesthetics, etc). The alternative locations considered and eliminated from further consideration included the following: Hermosa Beach - Civic Center/Proposed City Maintenance Yard: This alternative would involve placing an equipment arrangement and drilling facilities similar to the Proposed Project at the existing space next to Civic Center, currently occupied by the Hermosa Self Storage facility. The current City Yard site would remain under its current configuration. However, as the surrounding neighbors to this alternative location would be located closer than the Proposed Project, the impacts would most likely be the same, if not greater, than at the Project Site. Impacts that would likely be greater would include safety and aesthetics as the rig would be closer to residences than the Proposed Project; and noise, because of increased proximity to sensitive receptors. Recoverable reserves would be the same. Therefore, as no potentially significant impacts would be reduced or eliminated, this alternative location was eliminated from further consideration. Hermosa Beach - Community Center: the Community Center parcel is located to the east of Civic Center and currently contains the tennis courts as well as the Community Center. The Community Center is located at 710 Pier Avenue directly across the street from City Hall. The western area containing parking and the tennis courts could be re-arranged to allow for a small drilling site, with the corresponding loss of parking and recreational activities. Residences are located immediately to the south of the Community Center. Because the surrounding neighbors would be located very close, the impacts would most likely be the same, if not greater, than the Project Site. Impacts that would likely be the same or greater would include safety, odors, noise and aesthetics as the rig would be closer to sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project. In addition, the resolution adopted by the City Council in 1976 transferring the property to the City
5-14
from the School District directs that the site shall be acquired for "public recreation and use purposes" (resolution 76-4092, 77-4099). Moreover, the conditions of the sale limited the uses of the property to "a park, recreational, open space, educational or other community purposes" (78-241040). Placing a drilling site on the Community Center site would be in conflict with the terms of the original sale of the property. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Other Hermosa Beach Areas: There are some other Hermosa Beach properties that are vacant or could be vacated, such as Valley Park, Clark Field, South Park, Nobel Park or Bi-centennial Park all of which are zoned open space. The area between 4th and 5th along Ardmore that is currently zoned light manufacturing was also considered. Other areas considered included beach areas or existing parking lot areas. However, as the surrounding neighbors to all of these alternative locations would be located very close, the impacts would most likely be the same as, if not greater than, the Project Site. Impacts that would likely be the same or greater would include safety, odors, noise and aesthetics as the rig would be closer to sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project. Areas closer to the beach could also introduce additional spill risks associated with spills impacting the marine environment. In addition, areas zoned open space could not change their zoning designation without a vote of the people as per Ordinance 86-844. Therefore, as no potentially significant impacts would be reduced or eliminated, these alternative locations were eliminated from further consideration. Greenbelt: This alternative location would involve placing the Project in the Greenbelt immediately adjacent to the Project Site or within the greenbelt at any location within Hermosa Beach or Manhattan Beach (preferably to the south near Herondo St. to minimize pipeline distances). The equipment arrangement would be similar to the Proposed Project. Recoverable reserves would be the same. This would provide some minor improvement in separation distances from some commercial/light manufacturing uses, but diminish separation distances relative to other residential uses directly to the east and south. The roadway along the Greenbelt would provide some separation, but these locations could increase the impacts on residences as many residential areas are located along the Greenbelt and the facilities would be located closer to residences as opposed to the commercial/manufacturing land uses around the Project Site. Because the surrounding neighbors to this alternative location would still be located close by, the impacts would most likely be the same, if not greater, than the Project Site. Therefore, as no potentially significant impacts would be reduced or eliminated, this alternative location was eliminated from further consideration. Offshore Platform: This alternative would involve installing a new platform 1-2 miles offshore with offshore oil and gas processing and connecting pipelines to onshore pipelines. Recoverable reserves would be the same. This alternative would have the advantage of increasing the separation distances from residences, thereby reducing impacts associated with risks, air quality, noise, etc. However, it would increase the impacts from risks of spills to the marine environment; introduce new impacts to aesthetics associated with the visibility of a new offshore platform, and introduce impacts associated with navigational risks from the platform and associated supply vessels. Barriers to permitting of an offshore Platform would also be substantial; offshore platforms have not been permitted in state waters since the 1960s. A ban on state offshore leases has been in place since 1969. Due to the added significant offshore impacts, this alternative location was eliminated from further consideration.
5-15
Offshore Completions: This alternative would involve installation offshore completions with corresponding pipelines connecting to a processing location onshore or directed offshore to area Platforms. Offshore Platform connections would most likely be to Platform Esther (or other Long Beach area facilities, about a 30 mile pipeline). Offshore completions are located entirely underwater and would not produce aesthetic impacts. Drilling of the wells and other well operations would require a temporary drilling barge/platform. A subsea completion refers to a system of pipes, connections and valves that reside on the ocean bottom and serve to gather hydrocarbons produced from individually completed wells and direct those hydrocarbons to a storage and offloading facility that might be either offshore or onshore. Offshore completions are common in the Gulf of Mexico, but not so much in California. This alternative location would require either coordination with another offshore platform for oil and gas processing, or the construction and operation of an onshore oil and gas processing facility, similar in arrangement to the Proposed Project facilities. Like the Offshore Platform Alternative location discussed above, this alternative would have the advantage of increasing the separation distances from residences, thereby reducing impacts associated with risks, air quality, noise, etc. However, it would increase the impacts from risks of spills to the marine environment (from facilities and pipelines) and impacts to aesthetics (while drilling only). Barriers to permitting of an offshore completion also would be substantial. Therefore, this alternative location was eliminated from further consideration.
5.1.3 Alternative Facility Equipment or Production Arrangements
This section describes alternative facility equipment or production arrangements that could be used. These include: A reduction in the size or number of tanks to allow for the installation of a gas metering station onsite (Reduced Equipment Alternative); A reduction in the number of wells drilled to allow for more separation and for the installation of a gas metering station onsite (Reduced Wells Alternative); Limits on the years that the facility could operate (Reduced Timeframe Alternative).
5.1.3.1 Reduced Equipment Alternative
The Proposed Project equipment arrangement would be very confined, because the maintenance yard has limited space to accommodate a drilling and processing operation. Due to the lack of space, the Applicant has proposed that the gas metering station be placed at least a 1/2 mile away from the facility near Herondo Street with two gas pipelines connecting to the metering station. A metering station generally requires about 2,000 ft2 of space, and includes equipment such as meters, valves, piping, etc. Allowing the metering station to be placed within the Proposed Project Site instead of a more remote location would reduce the impacts associated with having two gas pipelines operating. Under the Proposed Projects configuration, the two pipelines are needed to ensure that gas that does not meet the Gas Companys specifications for carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide content can be returned to the E&B Facility for further processing. Having two pipelines increases the risk of a potential release for the transport of gas through the pipelines. Conversely, having the metering station onsite would allow for gauging the quality of
5-16
the gas onsite and not having to potentially have to transport it back for additional processing, thereby reducing potential risk impacts. The Proposed Project equipment layout has two crude oil shipping tanks with a capacity 2,900 BBL each for a total capacity of 5,800 BBL. At full production levels of 8,000 bpd, the crude oil storage would provide about 17 hours of storage. By reducing this to a single tank, and reducing the storage capacity to about 8.5 hours, enough space could be available to fit in the gas metering station and eliminate the need for two pipelines. This alternative would have advantages primarily by reducing the risk of upset impacts because less gas pipeline would be utilized in order to transport the gas to markets. However, this advantage would only be realized if the gas does not meet specifications and the second pipeline is utilized; therefore, the amount of time that multiple pipelines would be in service producing an increased risk would be minimal. Note that under normal operations, the second gas pipeline would be isolated from the first gas pipeline, so that only one gas pipeline is operating at a time. Therefore, as no potentially significant impacts would be reduced or eliminated, this alternative arrangement was eliminated from further consideration.
5.1.3.2 Reduced Wells Alternative
Under this alternative, a reduced number of wells would be drilled in order to 1) reduce the time of drilling from 2.5 years to about 1 year; 2) allow for additional space onsite to be used for increased separation distances from neighbors; and 3) allow for the placement of the gas metering station onsite. Under this alternative, the Applicant would be allowed to drill for a period of only 1 year, which would enable only 12-14 wells to be drilled. With a shorter timeframe, most likely the Applicant would focus on the closest targets, thereby reducing the time of drilling per well and enable more than one well per month to be drilled. This alternative would have the advantage of reducing the risk of an upset, because less time would be spent conducting the most risky activity at the site (drilling). Once wells are drilled, and reservoir pressures subside (as is expected shortly after the wells are completed), the risks of upset are substantially less than during drilling, when reservoir pressures may be higher and there is the risk that a blowout could occur. Also, drilling would take place along only one well cellar, the drilling activities would be placed 20-40 feet farther from the neighbors, thereby potentially reducing the risks associated with releases. This alternative would also have advantages related to aesthetics, because the drilling rig would be on site for less time, and noise would be reduced, because the 24-hour per day activities associated with drilling would be limited to 1 year (although 24-hour per day operations would continue). In addition, air quality and odors also may be reduced because drilling activities produce the highest probability of odor events this alternative would involve less drilling time; therefore, there would be potentially fewer odor events.
5-17
The disadvantage of this alternative is that less crude oil and gas would be produced, most likely less than 4,000 bpd crude oil and 1 mmscfd of gas, or about 50 percent of the Proposed Project. However, because potentially significant impacts would be reduced, this alternative arrangement was retained for further analysis.
5.1.3.3 Reduced Timeframe Alternative
Under this alternative, the Applicant would have a reduced amount of time to drill and produce the wells (10 years) from that provided in the Proposed Project. After the reduced timeframe expires, the Applicant would be required to abandon the wells, and remove all of the equipment and restore the site. Based on estimated production curves from the Applicant through the year 2049, an estimated total of 35 million barrels of crude oil would be produced under the Proposed Project. Within the first 10 years of production, about 63% of this total would be produced, with the amount declining starting about 3.5 years after Phase 4 production begins. The last 10 years of production would account for less than 10% of the total amount of crude oil produced from the field. Note that these production numbers are estimates, and could change substantially once well specific information is obtained during exploratory drilling. Under this alternative, the Applicant would have 10 years to produce crude oil after the first crude oil starts flowing in Phase 4. This reduced timeframe would reduce impacts related to noise, as the Project would operate for a shorter period of time. It would also reduce the risks of upset over the life of the Project as the Project life would be shorter. However, it would not reduce the peak impacts of noise, aesthetics and risk, which would occur during drilling; it would only affect the duration of the impacts associated with operations. The operational impacts that would be reduced in severity would be aesthetics, noise and risks associated with drilling. Drilling of the wells would most likely remain the same as under the Proposed Project. Note that occasional re-drills may occur and the number of these would also be reduced under this alternative. The disadvantage of this alternative is that less crude oil and gas would be produced, most likely limited to less than 63% of the total recoverable reserves. However, as the duration of the exposure to potentially significant impacts would be reduced, this alternative arrangement was retained for further analysis.
5.1.4 Alternative Transportation Arrangements
This section describes alternative pipeline arrangements that could be used. These include: Use of existing pipelines; Trucking of Crude Oil; Use of the Greenbelt as a pipeline route to the north; and Use of the Greenbelt as a pipeline route to the south.
5-18
5.1.4.1 Use of Existing Pipelines
There are some existing pipeline networks in the area that could be utilized and would require shorter connections than those proposed by the Applicant. MacPherson in their original proposal in 1997, planned to utilize a Chevron pipeline that was originally constructed in 1925, although several segments have been replaced as recently as 1984. It was determined that the Chevron pipeline would have required too many repairs and was too old to be utilized. MacPherson instead proposed to connect their proposed crude oil pipeline into the Edison Pipeline and Terminal Company (EPTC) transportation system. The EPTC (now owned by Plains All American) pipeline system formerly serviced the Redondo Beach Generating Station, which has historically used fuel oil as a fuel to power the generating equipment before the plant was converted to natural gas. The fuel oil distribution network owned by Southern California Edison distributed fuel oil from area refineries to the various Edison power plants. According to pipeline maps of the area, there is the potential for the existence of multiple pipelines to run along or near Herondo Street to the Redondo Beach Power Generating Plant. The use of these existing pipelines would eliminate the need to construct a crude oil pipeline from Valley Drive to the Exxon/Mobil Torrance Refinery (approximately 2.5 miles). Some modifications and upgrades most likely would be required to the existing pipelines. A pipeline would still need to be constructed from the Project Site to the Generating Plant along Valley Drive to connect to the existing pipelines. The Applicant has indicated that they have explored this as a possibility and that it is feasible, although no agreements have been made. However, in order to present the worst case impacts in the EIR, the Applicant proposed construction of a crude oil pipeline all the way to the Exxon/Mobil Torrance Refinery. Therefore, because this alternative would reduce the construction requirements associated with building a new pipeline and involves less construction than the Proposed Project, it has been retained for further analysis.
5.1.4.2 Trucking of Crude Oil
The transportation of crude oil by truck is proposed for the initial Phase 1 of the Project. Under this alternative, trucking of crude oil could continue throughout the remaining phases of the Project. This would have the advantage of eliminating the need to construct a crude oil pipeline, thereby eliminating some disturbance to area traffic and the generation of air emissions during construction activities. However, as a pipeline would still need to be installed for a portion of the pipeline route to install the gas pipeline, the additional traffic and air emissions would be associated with only the portion of the crude oil pipeline installed along 190th. The trucking of the crude oil would also introduce close to 50 trucks per day along the proposed truck routes to haul the crude oil for the life of the Project. This would introduce additional air emissions and potential traffic and safety implications associated with this number of trucks. These impacts would be greater than the reduction in impacts associated with the elimination of pipeline construction. Therefore, this transportation scenario has been eliminated from further consideration.
5-19
5.1.4.3 Greenbelt to the North Pipeline Route
The Veterans Parkway Hermosa Valley Greenbelt is located next to the Project Site and was formerly occupied by railroad tracks owned by Santa Fe Railway. The railway was converted to a wood-chip pathway and landscaped. The Greenbelt is a substantial recreational resource in the community and is heavily used by pedestrians, runners and dog walkers. The route travels north from Herondo Street to just south of the Chevron El Segundo Refinery. Installation of the pipeline within this pathway would allow for transportation of the crude oil to area refineries, specifically the Chevron El Segundo Refinery, without affecting area traffic during construction. However, impacts would occur to portions of the Greenbelt during installation of the pipeline. The Greenbelt is generally about 100 feet wide, meaning that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the greenbelt would be disturbed during pipeline installation along a distance of about 500 feet each day. Relandscaping of the area would also be required. The distance from the Project Site to the Chevron Refinery would be about 3.5 miles. This alternative would cause disturbances to the heavily used recreational nature of the Greenbelt. During the construction period there would be substantial inconvenience to the Greenbelt users. Because the majority of the Proposed Project pipeline route would take place within the Southern California Edison (SCE) Right of Way (ROW) (for one of the proposed pipeline options) and would not cause traffic impacts, this alternative would reduce impacts related to the pipeline construction within the Valley Drive pipeline segment only. This alternative would also be in conflict with existing City standards and the CUP, which prohibit the use of the Greenbelt for anything other than recreation. Based on the amount of time required for construction within the Greenbelt and the impacts to recreation, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
5.1.4.4 Greenbelt to the South Pipeline Route
The Proposed Project pipeline route would involve installation of the pipeline within Valley Drive for about 2,000 feet to the south until the SCE Right of Way (ROW) is reached. Thereafter, construction of the pipeline would occur within the SCE ROW and impacts to traffic would be minimal. This alternative would entail construction of the pipeline within the Greenbelt, thereby eliminating impacts to Valley Drive traffic. Construction within the Greenbelt would occur for a period of 10-15 days, with additional time needed to re-landscape the area. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the width of the Greenbelt would be taken up by the construction spread, with about 500 feet being impacted each day. Some traffic impacts would remain along Valley Drive or Ardmore Avenue as construction vehicles and equipment/materials would need to be delivered to the construction area. This alternative would cause disturbances to the heavily used recreational nature of the Greenbelt. The distance that would be required to install a pipeline to the south, and therefore the amount of time causing inconvenience to the Greenbelt, would be limited. This alternative would be in conflict with existing City standards and the CUP, however, for the same reasons stated above in subsection 5.1.4.3, and has therefore been eliminated from further consideration.
5-20
5.1.5
Alternative City Maintenance Yard Arrangements/Locations
This section describes alternative City Maintenance Yard arrangements. These include: Other locations; Other Temporary locations; Split location; and Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction
Each of these is discussed below.

5.1.5.1 Other Locations for the City Maintenance Yard Alternative
Locations that could be used for the City Maintenance Yard would need to have a relatively flat site, with security (fencing and night lighting), self-contained drainage compliant with the Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requirements, utilities, and circulation to accommodate access by large vehicles. Because the City provides essential services and staging, it would be beneficial for the site to be located outside the flood and tsunami zone. The replacement site would need to be designated for industrial uses. The City undertook an analysis and the Director of Public Works and the City Yard Superintendent conducted site visits to evaluate different sites for their suitability as relocation sites. Sites currently owned by the City offer the advantage of land use control. Below are the sites assessed. 1. The Dirt Yard, corner of Gertruda & Francisca (The same as the AES Site parcel AIN 7503-01-4010 assessed above for an alternative drilling and production site); 2. The AES site (parcel AIN 7503-01-3819) north side storage area; 3. SCE Power Line Easement; 4. Verizon surplus parking lot; 5. Industrial Alley (Seventh Street); 6. Community Center; 7. Industrial zoned area between 4th and 5th Streets across from Ardmore Park; 8. Merged maintenance operations with the City of Redondo Beach Site 1 was considered as a potential location even though it is outside of the City of Hermosa Beach. The site is privately owned and is currently operated by "The Dirt Yard". Site 2 was eliminated from further consideration because it is currently only zoned for a power plant or open space and it is intended to be used for a proposed power plant project. Sites 1 and 2 may have difficulties obtaining long term leases due to the City of Redondo Beach Charter Article 27. Site 3 was eliminated for a permanent facility because SCEs practices and policies would not allow the construction of buildings or structures within the SCE power line easement.
5-21
Site 4 was considered to be too small to provide sufficient space for the maintenance yard functions. Site 5, 6 and 8 were considered to be potentially viable locations. Site 7 was not assessed by the City staff, but it is zoned industrial with existing residences. However, because it is located immediately adjacent to residences and across from Ardmore Park, and is limited in size (less than 0.5 acres), it was eliminated from further consideration. Additionally, the location next to the Civic Center was considered by City staff and identified as the Proposed Project. Sites 1, 5, 6 and 8 are discussed below.
The Dirt Yard (Site 1)
This site totals more than 2 acres and was recently purchased by a private party. It is located in close proximity to the City of Hermosa Beach. It would require a level of construction equal to that required for the Proposed Project new maintenance yard, including grading, paving and building construction. But there is enough space for storage and operations. However, the long term availability of the site is not known as it is owned by a private party, and concerns related to the Redondo Beach Article 27 may render this site infeasible for a permanent location. This alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
Industrial Alley Alternative (Site 5)
This site was determined by City staff to have the potential to provide well-organized, interior and exterior space in sufficient quantities to meet most or all of the yards current programmatic needs. The major drawback to this alternative is that it would require purchase of the site and displacement of several long-term tenants. The site consists of several parcels which may be under multiple ownerships, and so would require purchase from these owners. In addition to displacing tenants, use of this site would require improvements to manage drainage and provide security onsite. However, this site does not provide any advantage over the Project Site in terms of reduction or avoidance of significant adverse impacts and, as the availability of the parcels is unknown, this alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
Community Center (Site 6)
The Community Center parking and tennis courts could be re-built and re-arranged to allow for the maintenance yard on the ground floor of a parking structure. This would be a similar arrangement as the Proposed Project Maintenance Yard located next to the Civic Center. The disadvantage is that this area is not zoned industrial. The advantages are that, depending on the exact area proposed, residential areas are not located immediately next to the maintenance operations, thereby potentially reducing noise impacts. Construction of the Maintenance Yard at the Community Center would have similar impacts as the Proposed Project and could cause some loss of recreational activities. In addition, the "public recreation and use purposes" requirement would most likely prevent the development of this site. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
5-22
Merge with Redondo Beach (Site 8)
The City of Redondo Beach maintenance facility is located at 545 Gertruda Avenue within the City of Redondo Beach approximately 2/3 of a mile from the existing Hermosa Beach maintenance yard. Merging of the two operations into one maintenance unit would enable some economies of scale benefits including sharing of equipment, etc. However, the Redondo Beach maintenance facility site is currently at capacity and the City of Redondo Beach Public Works Department indicates that a merged arrangement is feasible in the long term only if new facilities are constructed in a new location, which would generate construction impacts. There might be fewer impacts associated with a cooperation arrangement between the two Cities, although the advantages would primarily be fiscal. As the Redondo Maintenance Site would most likely be located farther away from Hermosa facilities, increased routine travel distances would render this long term permanent arrangement of merging with Redondo Beach not environmentally advantageous at this time. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
5.1.5.2 Alternative Locations for the Temporary Maintenance Yard
Under this alternative, the temporary City yard functions would be relocated to a site that is already or partially developed (for approximately 1.5-2 years), most likely outside of Hermosa Beach. A short-term site could be more feasible than a long term site at "The Dirt Yard" location due to the Redondo Beach Article 27 (Municipal Code) pursuant to which the City of Redondo Beach could issue a temporary permit for up to 2 years. The site might also be more available for a short-term lease than for a permanent facility as the new site owner might not want to sell, but would be willing to lease the facility. However, the Dirt yard site is not developed and construction impacts would be the same for air emissions. Noise impacts would be less as the Proposed Project location as it is located farther from residential areas, but this location is located immediately next door to the Post Office, which would produce noise impacts. Another site, located outside of Hermosa Beach, could also be acquired that may have established indoor space and storage space. Areas to lease would be more available if the location were located more inland, within Torrance for example, where space is not at such a premium. Potentially the site could require less construction, such as a used car dealership or a gas station, with buildings and paved areas already in place. However, a location farther from Hermosa would require more travel by City vehicles, and, as per discussion with City Public Works staff, less responsiveness to City conditions as response times would be longer. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
5.1.5.3 Split Location for the Maintenance Yard Alternative
Under this alternative, the City Yard functions would be split amongst two or more sites, with one site handling vehicle maintenance, another site handling materials storage and yet another site containing offices. This would allow for functions to utilize existing City properties that, individually, are not large enough to accommodate all City Maintenance Yard functions.
5-23
During the City staff review, the Public Works staff felt strongly that it is more efficient to have City Maintenance Yard operations centrally located (with both City staff and contract personnel working out of the same site), and that this efficiency would be lost if the yards current functions were dispersed across multiple sites, an effect that would incur additional management costs. Staff indicated that the storage of materials at a separate site (or sites) is probably an exception to this rule. As storage of gravel, sand and other materials could potentially consume a substantial amount of space, the placement of these functions at another "remote" location with all remaining functions at a single site might allow for efficient use of City property. The "remote" storage location would still need to be relatively accessible from main streets. However, construction of a maintenance facility would still need to take place and this alternative would not substantially reduce or avoid any significant impacts over the Project Site. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from further analysis.
5.1.5.4 Phase 1 Construction of Permanent Yard
Temporary facilities would allow for the Proposed Oil Project testing phase, Phase 2, to be completed before the substantial investment in a new permanent maintenance facility is done. If the Phase 2 testing is unsuccessful, the Maintenance facilities could move back to the old maintenance site and construct new facilities at the old site instead of incurring the demolition impacts associated with preparing the proposed new maintenance yard site. However, the construction of temporary facilities, as defined in the Proposed Project, would incur additional costs and require additional construction and its associated impacts. This alternative would involve proceeding with the construction of the permanent facility prior to Phase 1 of the Proposed Oil Project, so that when the existing City Maintenance Yard is demolished during Phase 1, the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be completed. The advantages of this alternative are a reduction in the amount of construction and the elimination of a temporary City Maintenance Yard, which may introduce additional impacts, such as noise, to the area. This alternative has been retained for further analysis.
5.1.6 Project Objectives
CEQA states that the EIR need examine in detail only the alternatives that the lead agency determines could "...feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project". The Project objectives are detailed in the beginning of section 2.0, Project Description. The ability of each of the alternatives that have been retained for further analysis to achieve these Project objectives is discussed below.
5.1.6.1 No Project Alternative and Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Applicants objectives of the Project as no oil and gas would be developed and no infrastructure would be installed.
5-24
The City's objectives would mostly be met as City facilities would continue as they currently are, would retain consolidated facilities, with no disruption to City functions, would remain compatible with existing surrounding land uses, and with no net loss of parking. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing facilities may not provide high-quality services in an integrated fashion indefinitely as the facilities are deteriorating.
5.1.6.2 AES Site Alternative and Project Objectives
The AES Site Alternative would achieve most of the Applicants objectives in regards to maximizing oil and gas production, utilizing the latest technologies and technological advances, minimizing visual effects and providing safe vehicular ingress and egress. Because the 1993 CUP and the Settlement Agreement are both associated with the specific Project Site within the City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, this objective may not be specifically met. However, the EIR includes this alternative as it would meet all of the other objectives and would substantially reduce significant environmental impacts.
5.1.6.3 Oil Development with Reduced Wells and Project Objectives
The Reduced Wells Alternative would achieve the Applicants objectives in regards to developing the project utilizing the latest technologies and technological advances, minimizing visual effects and providing safe vehicular ingress and egress. The objective of maximizing oil and gas production would be incrementally less successful in achieving this objective than would the Proposed Project due to the reduced amount of oil and gas that would be developed. Under this alternative, all of the objectives for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be met.
5.1.6.4 Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe and Project Objectives
The Reduced Timeframe Alternative would achieve the Applicants objectives in regards to developing the Project utilizing the latest technologies and technological advances, minimizing visual effects and providing safe vehicular ingress and egress. The objective to maximizing oil and gas production would be incrementally less successful in achieving this objective than would the Proposed Project due to the reduced amount of oil and gas that would be developed. Under this alternative, all of the objectives for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be met.
5.1.6.5 Use of Existing Pipelines and Project Objectives
The Use of Existing Pipeline Alternative would achieve all of the objectives of the Applicants Proposed Project as well as all of the objectives for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard.
5-25
5.1.6.6 Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction and Project Objectives
The City's objectives would be met as City facilities would be built, would provide high-quality services in an integrated fashion, would comply with CEQA, would retain consolidated facilities, with no disruption to City functions, would remain compatible with existing surrounding land uses, and with no net loss of parking. The Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction Alternative would achieve all of the objectives of the Applicants Proposed Project as well.
5-26
Section 6: Impacts and Comparison of Alternatives
6.0 Impacts and Comparison of Alternatives
This chapter summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with the Proposed Project and the alternatives. Based upon this discussion, the environmentally superior alternative is selected as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d)(2), state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the next most environmentally preferred alternative must also be identified. This comparison is designed to satisfy the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d), Evaluation of Alternatives, which state that: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) as presented above, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project and the other alternatives. It should be noted that assumptions made regarding the alternatives descriptions could differ from actual proposals and the analyses are not presented to a project-level of detail. The following methodology was used to compare alternatives and the Proposed Project in this EIR: Step 1: Identification of Alternatives. Alternatives screening process (described in Section 5.0) was used to identify a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project. That screening analysis selected alternatives for further consideration. The No Project Alternative is also evaluated in the EIR as required by CEQA. Step 2: Determination of Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts of the selected alternatives are identified in Section 6.1. Step 3: Comparison of Proposed Project with Alternatives. Section 6.2 includes a comparison of the alternatives relative to the Proposed Project. Step 4: Selection of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Section 6.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, provides a detailed comparison of the environmental effects of the Proposed Project and the selected alternatives.
6-1
6.1
Impacts of Alternatives
The alternatives considered for further evaluation include: No Project Alternative; Drilling from the AES Site; Oil Development with Reduced Wells; Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe; Use of Existing Pipelines; and Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction.
The remainder of this section presents an analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives selected for further evaluation.
6.1.1 No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be built and the maintenance yard would remain in its existing location with no new maintenance yard being developed. Therefore, impacts associated with the Proposed Project construction and development would not occur and the area would remain in its current condition. No impacts from the Proposed Project would occur. A more regional, if not global, issue is associated with crude oil production as crude oil is imported to the U.S. from many countries. This issue is discussed in the following paragraphs. If oil production does not occur in the area, this may result in continued importation of crude oils from overseas that would otherwise be produced locally. The supply of crude oil is driven by the demand for refined products (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel). Currently, the demand for refined products is met through supply to California refineries of crude oil from California domestic production, foreign imports of crude oil, imports of crude oil from Alaska, an increasing amount of crude oil brought in by rail and imports of refined products. There are no crude oil pipelines that bring crude oil into California. This means that the only sources of crude oil to meet refinery crude oil demand are from California production, Alaska production, rail transport or from foreign sources brought into ports by tanker ships. California production of crude oil per year has been in decline since 1986, (although there has been a slight increase since 2011 to almost 200 million barrels) when production peaked at slightly over 400 million barrels. The decline has averaged about 1.7% per year since 1995. The production of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil has experienced decline due to the age of the reservoirs. ANS production has declined since its peak in 1989 of about 328 million barrels annually. The average rate of decline since 1995 has been above 4%.
6-2
The combination of declining California and ANS production along with a relatively constant, flat demand for crude oil/refined products in California equates to an increase in foreign crude oil imports. Foreign crude oil imports since 1995 have increased by an average of almost 38%. Rail imports into California from primarily North Dakota have increased to an average of about 2.5 million bbls per year (in 2013). Oil imports delivered to California from foreign sources by ocean going tankers in 2012 came from Saudi Arabia (27%), Ecuador (19%), Iraq (18%), Colombia (12%) and others. The use of foreign crude oil is associated with substantial emissions associated with transportation as foreign crude oil needs to be transported from between 4,000 miles (Ecuador) and 13,000 miles (Saudi Arabia) one-way to get to California. ANS crude travels about 2,500 miles from Alaska. This causes the greenhouse gas (GHG) lifecycle emissions associated with foreign crude oil to be higher than conventionally-recovered California crude oil as well as increasing the worldwide spill risks associated with tankering crude oil and the resulting impacts on marine biology.
6.1.2 AES Site Alternative
Under the AES Site alternative, the drilling and processing facilities would be located at the AES site located in north-western Redondo Beach on the site of the existing, but mostly inactive, power generating facility. The facility could potentially utilize existing pipelines or could install pipelines in a similar fashion as the Proposed Project. Pipeline connections along Valley Drive would no longer need to be installed. The exact location would most likely be within the southernmost empty tank bermed area, designated as Pad 5 in Figure 5-4. This location would allow for future projects at the AES site, such as the RBEP. Impacts of this alternative within each of the issue areas are discussed below. Impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be avoided entirely under this alternative, since the City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated.
6.1.2.1 Aesthetics
The alternative site is located in an industrial zone area with commercial parcels surrounding the site. The site contains old tank berms. The visual impacts and need for mitigation measures would likely be substantially less than the Project Site since it would be located within an area with similar industrial visual character and would be farther away from sensitive viewsheds. The exact location and/or design of the facility on these two parcels is undetermined, so precise visual impact statements cannot be made at this time. The form, mass and scale of the proposed production facility within this viewshed would likely be subordinate to the existing industrial character of the AES facility.
6-3
Impact AE.1, related to visual impacts of the rig, would be reduced to less than significant as the rig would be positioned within an existing industrial area. Mitigation measures associated with AE.1 would still apply, as a soundwall would still be used and the material choice of the rig coverings would still serve to reduce visual impacts. Impacts AE.2 and AE.3, related to views of the site without a drilling rig present and views of the pipeline facilities, would still be applicable as landscaping of the area and pipeline equipment could still be used to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation measures associated with AE.2 and AE.3 would still apply. Impact AE.4 related to night time glare of the drilling rig and facilities would be reduced to less than significant as the rig would be positioned within an existing industrial area. AE.5 related to glare from construction of pipeline facilities would still be applicable as the same pipeline would be constructed as under the Proposed Project. Impacts AE.6 and AE.7 related to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be eliminated since the City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated under this alternative. See Figure 6-1 for a view simulation of the drilling rig at the AES site. In terms of potential cumulative effects, the AES site is currently the subject of a proposal to remove the existing power generation plant and replace it with a new power generating facility, the Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP). If the new power generating facility is built, it would likely generate lower visual quality impacts than the current power plant, but would still retain the industrial nature of the area. In combination with the drilling rig and oil and gas production facilities, the impacts of the alternative drilling and processing site would be less than significant.
6.1.2.2 Air Quality
Construction activities would be similar to the Proposed Project with a similar number and level of activity of construction equipment needed to install processing equipment. Clearing the site might require more or less effort than the Proposed Project depending on the exact location of the alternative and the location of the existing equipment on the AES site. If an area is selected that does not have any equipment, such as the Pad 5 area, then minimal demolition and site preparation activities would be required. Impact AQ.1 would therefore be similar to the Proposed Project and mitigation measures associated with AQ.1 would still apply. Impact AQ.2, related to excavation of contaminated soils, might be applicable as the AES site is known to potentially have contaminated soils. According to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Redondo Beach Electrical Power Plant, potential areas of concern for soil contamination do occur in the general area of the site. If contaminated soils are encountered, emissions would be similar to those identified for the Proposed Project for the peak day.
6-4
Figure 6-1
Simulated View of Drilling Rig at AES Site
Impacts AQ.3 related to regional air quality impacts, would be the same as the Proposed Project. The same equipment would be operating, including the flare and microturbines as well as the same drilling schedule. Mitigation measures associated with AQ.3 would still apply. Impacts related to localized pollutant levels, AQ.4, would be less than the Proposed Project depending on the exact location of the processing equipment. For the Proposed Project, the processing equipment would be located immediately next to public areas, businesses and residences. With the AES site, if it is located within one of the old tank bermed areas for example, distances to receptors would range from 200-400 feet. This would reduce the localized impacts from facility emission sources (flare and microturbines). However, as impacts from PM from the unmitigated Proposed Project would extend close to 700 feet from the site, mitigation measures associated with AQ.4 would still apply. Impacts related to odors, AQ.5, would be applicable as there are still receptors located near the site. Although the receptors would be located farther from the AES site than the Proposed Project Site, odor impacts would be less severe, but odor impacts could still occur. Mitigation measures associated with AQ.5 would still apply.
6-5
As the GHG emissions would be the same as the Proposed Project, GHG emissions, AQ.6, would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures associated with AQ.6 would still apply. As receptors would be located father away from the facility under this alternative, AQ.7, toxic impacts, would be less than the Proposed Project. For cumulative impacts, the AES site is currently the subject of a proposal to remove the existing power generation plant and replace it with a new power generating facility, the Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP). The new power generating facility would generate localized impacts that could impact the same receptors that the alternative drilling and processing site would impact. In combination, these impacts could exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, for localized criteria pollutant emissions or toxic impacts. At this time, the air quality analysis for the proposed AES site is still under revision. However, the original submission to the CEC by AES indicated that the daily PM emissions would total 428 lbs/day and 1,018 lbs/day of NOx. Modeling conducted for the RBEP indicated that the maximum ground level impact of PM for the 24 hour period, which is the period and pollutant producing the highest impacts for the Proposed Project relative to the thresholds, would be 1.85 ug/m3. In combination, the Proposed Project and the RBEP could therefore produce localized impacts that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be a significant impact. This impact could be mitigated through the reduction of combustion sources at the site.
Impact # Impact Description Operational activities could generate emissions that, in combination with the RBEP, exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District local thresholds. Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4. Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
AQ.AES.1
Emissions from the drilling and processing facility, in combination with the RBEP emissions, would potentially exceed the localized thresholds for pollutants due to the emissions in close proximity to a large emitter, the RBEP. These impacts would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
AQ.AES-1
The Applicant shall eliminate all microturbine emissions at the processing site and shall utilize only grid-based power for electricity. Flare activity shall be limited by immediately shutting down all wells in the event of an upset scenario. For additional heat requirements, electricity or some other source (the RBEP) shall be used to avoid localized impacts.
Residual Impacts
By essentially reducing all combustion sources at the facility, localized impacts due to the E&B Project at the alternative AES site would be substantially reduced. Some requirements for heat, for the glycol and amine systems would remain. However, even though these emissions levels would be reduced to about 20% of the level of the microturbines from the Proposed Project, in combination with the RBEP emissions, they could still produce localized impacts. Therefore, under this alternative, the Applicant would be required to use electric power or some other
6-6
source, such as waste heat from the RBEP, for heat. Cumulative impacts would therefore be reduced to less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
6.1.2.3 Biological Resources
Under this alternative, the Project would be located within existing bermed areas within the AES site. Impacts related to BIO.1, impacts from pipeline disturbance, would be similar to the Proposed Project, without the pipeline installation down Valley Drive. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. Impact BIO.2 related to a rupture or leak would be the same under this alternative as the same pipelines would be used as under the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6.1.2.4 Cultural Resources
Construction activities would be similar to the Proposed Project with a similar number and level of construction activity needed to install processing equipment. Clearing the site might require more or less effort than the Proposed Project, depending on the exact location selected for oil development and the location of extant equipment and/or structures on the AES SITE alternative. If an area is selected that does not have any equipment or structures, such as the area to the eastern side of the site where the old tank berms are still located, then minimal demolition and site preparation would be required. This would place the drilling and processing facilities behind the existing AES power generating plant. The Redondo Beach Generating Station (RBGS) was constructed by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and began operation in 1948. RBGS is composed of eight power generating units (four operating power units and four retired units), a standby boiler, an administration building, a guard house, five smokestacks, a switchyard, transmission line towers, and various support facilities such as water tanks, a fuel pump house, and a service water house. These components were built at various times between 1948 and 1968. Historic significance of the plant was evaluated as an element of the proposed Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP) (Data Adequacy Supplement permit AES Southland Development, LLC 2013). This controversial project proposes to replace the RBGS with a new power generating facility. CH2MHILL evaluated the RBGS and concluded that the station was not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). They stated that the generating station is not significant in the context of the history of SCE, the history of steam-generation of electricity, or the history of post-World War II steam generation plants. Assessed under both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and CRHR, the property was not considered eligible for criteria A or 1, respectively. CH2MHIll found that the RBGS was one of several steamgenerating plants built by SCE in the mid-twentieth century. It was built in response to growing demand for electricity experienced by all power providers of the time. The short time-frame for construction of these plants, and their similar technologies and designs, suggested that they were all planned and designed at about the same time using similar technology. Together, this development impacted the nature of power generation in southern California, a trend that
6-7
overshadowed the importance of any single plant. CH2MHill concluded that within the context of the time of construction and of other power plants built, RBGS was not unique and was not considered significant under Criteria C or 3 (CH2MHILL 2012). They also found that RBGS was not associated with the life of a historically significant person (Criteria B or 2), nor was it significant under Criteria D or 4 as a potential source of information important in history. CH2MHIll concluded this property was not significant in accordance with Section 5064.5(a)(2)(3) of the CEQA guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section5024.1(CH2MHILL 2012). The California Energy Commission has not published a finding of significance for the RBGS and it could be argued that this resource played a significant role in the broad patterns of local historical development (Criteria 1 of the CRHR); the development of the power industry in California at a critical period of time. For the purposes of this project, therefore, the RBGS must be considered potentially eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1, until determined otherwise. The proposed use for oil development and processing of the AES alternative site would, however, be limited to parcels AIN 750301-3015 and/or 750301-4010 and all activities would occur to the rear of the RBGS. Under this proposal there would be no physical impacts to standing structures and only limited visual impact as the improvements would be made to the rear of the plant. The rear is a non-crucial, non-character defining view of the RBGS and the installation of oil wells would not be visible in the significant view sheds. There would be no adverse impact to the RBGS were the AES alternative developed by E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation as currently proposed. The literature and records search undertaken at SCCIC for the Proposed Project also partially incorporated the AES site. This research revealed that a previously recorded archaeological site is situated in proximity to the AES SITE alternative in the area where oil development is proposed. As currently defined archaeological site CA-LAN 1872 (19-001872) occupies a narrow strip of land between Beryl Street on the south and Herondo Street on the north. This site was first recorded and tested by Greenwood and Associates in 1990. This stretch of land generally coincides with the approximately 60 foot wide right of way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (Greenwood and Associates 1990). The site is described as a light density shell scatter containing various chert flakes. There was a historical component of the site which includes three 1880s commercial structures. Following testing of the archaeological component, Greenwood and Associates concluded that the site was severely damaged .by various historical activities, including: rail road construction and later demolition, building construction, an extensive network of utility pipes, and dumping of fill dirt (Greenwood and Associates 1990:3). The prehistoric component of the site was thought to be redeposited midden. The AES SITE alternative is also known to encompass the location of a former salt lake as shown on early twentieth century fire insurance maps (Sanborn 1904 to 1946). The California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) lists the property (19-186114) as a California Registered Historical Landmark. A plaque was placed at the site in 1955 on the southeast corner of Harbor Drive and Yacht Club Way in Redondo Beach by the Native Daughters of the Golden West. The plaque reads "This marker locates the site near which the Indians and early California settlers came to obtain their salt, which at many times was more valuable than gold" (Arbuckle 1980). This marker is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the proposed AES Site alternative. However, the HRI indicates the Entire site is occupied by Southern California
6-8
Edison Redondo Generating Station (Arbuckle 1980). Greenwood and Associates only tested a narrow strip of the site revealing re-deposited artifacts along the eastern margin. While Greenwood and Associates note that the site was previously disturbed, the potential for significant prehistoric midden deposits outside of the area tested by Greenwood and Associates remains. Subsurface historical remnants of early structures may also exist. Given the prior identification of an archaeological resource in proximity to the AES Site alternative site and its designation as a California Registered Historical Landmark it should be assumed that this is a significant archaeological resource. Under the scenario of using the AES alternative, impacts to historic landfill deposits and demolition of the historic furnace would not occur, therefore reducing the requirement under mitigation measure CR-1a for developing a site specific historic treatment plan, including collection of artifacts, completion of subsequent analysis and reporting, and the need for permanent curation of artifacts. Nonetheless, it must be assumed that significant historical resources in the form of prehistoric midden deposits potentially exist on the alternative site and that treatment of such a resource would be necessary. Therefore, a similar mitigation measure to CR-1a would be required if the AES alternative were to be selected for development. Mitigation measure CR-1b relates to developing guidelines for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace within the City Maintenance Yard at the proposed Site and documentation of remaining structural elements. This measure would not be needed if the AES alternative location were selected. Impacts related to the inadvertent exposure of human remains would be applicable (CR-1c). Direct evidence of prehistoric archaeological utilization of the area has been documented within or near the AES site (19-001872) and the potential to expose human remains still exists. Therefore, mitigation measure CR-1c would apply. Impacts related to paleontological resources are applicable in the event that excavations at the AES alternative would exceed 15 feet in depth resulting in the exposure of San Pedro Sand deposits. Therefore, mitigation measure CR-2 would apply. For cumulative impacts, the AES alternative site is currently the subject of a proposal to remove the existing power generation plant and replace it with a new power generating facility. If components of site 19-001872 remain intact, the combined development of the AES alternative under the current project and under the RBEP would result in cumulative project impacts to historical resources and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be required.
6-9
Impact #
Impact Description
Phase Phase I Predemolition/ construction
CR.AES.1
Potential subsurface disturbance to archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measures
CR.AES-1a
Prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities, an archaeological investigation shall be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist to verify the extent and integrity of any archaeological deposits. All archaeological deposits that are found to retain integrity shall be presumed to be significant. A treatment plan shall be developed and implemented for recovery of intact archaeological remains prior to implementation of the project. Native American consultation shall be undertaken prior to beginning site development and in the preparation of an archaeological treatment plan.
CR.AES-1b
CR.AES-1c
Residual Impacts
Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA (Section 15126.4(b)(3)(b)). Where preservation in place is not feasible and data recovery through excavation is the only alternative mitigation, a data recovery plan shall be developed. Archaeological deposits have been shown to be present on both the Proposed Project Site and the AES alternative. Recovery of a scientifically significant sample of archaeological remains, reporting of those recovery efforts, and curation of artifacts collected during excavations would result in an impact considered to be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
6.1.2.5 Energy
Under this alternative, the same number of wells would be drilled and the same amount of crude oil and gas would be developed. Therefore, energy impacts would be the same as the Proposed Project.
6.1.2.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Response
Under this alternative, the AES site would have more room than the Proposed Oil Project Site and, therefore, equipment spacing would be less of an issue. Impact FP.1, related to fire detection, emergency response capabilities (including inspections) and fire water, would still apply and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. As the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and Redondo Beach Fire Department work closely together in terms of response, response issues would be the same and mitigation related to the enhancement of inspections and hazmat response would still apply. However, inspection requirements as per
6-10
the mitigation measures, would need to be supplemented and this may require supplementing the Redondo Beach Fire Department instead or in addition to the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. Impact FP.2 related to equipment spacing would still apply, but would most likely be easier to design with less need for thermal barriers. Mitigation measures associated with FP.2 would still apply.
6.1.2.7 Geological Resources
The regional geologic setting of this alternative site would be comparable to the Proposed Project location. The AES Power Generating Facility is located approximately one-half mile south of the Proposed Project. As such, the AES alternative would not be any closer to the active Newport-Inglewood or Palos Verdes faults, located approximately six miles east and two miles west of the Proposed Project, respectively. Further, the AES alternative location is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, and updated by the California Geological Survey, 2010; Geosyntec, 2012; and NMG Geotechnical, 2012). However, the AES site is located within an area of potential liquefaction, as mapped by the State of California (CDMG, 1998 and 1999) (Figure 4.7-4), resulting in potentially greater seismic related impacts than the Proposed Project. Earthquake related Impact GEO.1 would be comparable to the Proposed Project and mitigation measures GEO-1a through GEO-1e would be applicable. The potential for wastewater injection to induce seismicity would be similar to the Proposed Project; therefore, Impact GEO.2 would be similar to the Proposed Project. Since injection pressures would be maintained below the fracture pressures of the injection zones, the potential for induced earthquakes is low. Slope stability related impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project. The alternative site is relatively flat and not susceptible to slope failure; however, temporary slopes created during grading may be susceptible to failure. Impact GEO.3 would therefore be similar as under the Proposed Project and mitigation measure GEO-3 would be applicable. The potential for ground subsidence as a result of oil and gas withdrawal would be similar to the Proposed Project; therefore, Impact GEO.4 would be similar to the Proposed Project. A Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Program would be implemented to detect subsidence as a result of drilling activities to ensure that subsidence would not be allowed to the degree that it could endanger the facility, offsite structures, and the shoreline. Mitigation measures GEO-4a and GEO-4b would be applicable. Grading at the AES site would be less or more than the Proposed Project, depending on the specific geotechnical properties of the site, but excavations associated with pipeline construction would be reduced as less pipeline construction would be required. Less pipeline construction would result in less potential for erosion of spoil piles and offsite siltation of nearby marine waters. With respect to cumulative impacts, the AES site is currently the subject of a proposal to remove the existing power generation plant and replace it with a new power generating facility, the
Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP). Construction of the new power generating facility would generate localized impacts that would be site-specific and mitigable, with no cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project.
6.1.2.8 Safety, Hazards and Risk of Upset
The use of the AES site would provide for some additional separation between the oil development and receptors. Receptors could be located more than 400 feet from the drilling location, depending on the exact location of the drilling rig. As this would be outside of all of the fatality impact zones and most of the injury impact zones, risk levels would be within the acceptable region of the risk profiles. Impact SR.1 related to risk of upset, would be reduced to a Class II. Mitigation measures associated with impact SR.1 would still apply to ensure that the risk levels for injury are in the acceptable region. The location of the drilling rig would need to be located more than 400 feet from the closest receptors in order to ensure that risks are reduced, which, on Pad 5, is possible if the drilling equipment is placed to the northern area of Pad 5 and the area to the north of Pad 5 remains industrial and not used by the public.
Impact # Impact Description Operational activities could generate risk to nearby receptors if the facilitiy is not palced a sufficient distance from receptors. Phase Operations Phase 2 and Phase 4. Residual Impact Class II Less Than Significant with Mitigation
SR.AES.1
Mitigation Measures
SR.1.AES-1
If the AES site is used, the drilling activities shall be placed at least 400 feet from the closest receptor.
Residual Impacts
Residual impacts associated with impact SR.1 would be less than significant, Class II. For cumulative impacts under this alternative scenario, the construction of the RBEP site would not introduce the potential for new oil spills or releases into the area. There would be the potential for flammable gas releases from the RBEP, but these would not be greater than the current power plant arrangement. Therefore, cumulative impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.
6.1.2.9 Hydrology
Clearing of the AES site might require more or less effort than the Proposed Project; depending on the exact location of the alternative, location of the existing equipment, and site preparation necessary in support of drilling and processing. Construction activities would be similar to the Proposed Project with a similar number and level of activity of construction equipment needed to install processing equipment. As a result of potential clearing and grading of the site, underlying
6-12
soils may be exposed, making the site temporarily more permeable. An increase of exposed soil during construction could yield undesirable effects to downstream areas. Sedimentation/siltation generated during site earthworks could potentially alter existing drainage patterns thereby overloading downstream drainage inlets. The use of construction-related materials such as fuels, solvents, and sealants/paints on the site as well as onsite storage, refueling, and maintenance of construction equipment could also potentially contaminate storm water runoff, thus adversely affecting the water quality. On-site watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in runoff. Construction and operations may also contribute to incidental spills of drilling wastes, fuels, solvents, and sealants/paints on the site. Major spills could also occur as a result of failure of oil production equipment or from the pipeline related infrastructure. The runoff from the site would ultimately drain into the Santa Monica Bay, which is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Sections (Impaired Water Bodies). Potential water quality impacts would therefore be similar to Proposed Project Impacts HWQ.1, HWQ.2, and HWQ.3 and correspondingly, mitigation measures HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d and HWQ-3a through HWQ-3c would apply. As the pipeline down Valley Drive would not be constructed, impacts related to pipeline spills would be reduced in severity over the Proposed Project due to a reduction in pipeline length, particularly within areas that are closer to the ocean, but would remain significant and unavoidable, Class I. As the RBEP would be located on the same site, a new power generating facility on the same site would not result in appreciable changes to the surface hydrology of the site and thereby the quantity of site runoff; once the site is cleared and prepared. In addition, the RBEP would be subject to an NPDES/WDR (Waste Discharge Requirements) permit from the California RWQCB, Los Angeles Region. In compliance with this permit, the RBEP would be required to comply with permit conditions, which would include characterization of the amounts and types of wastes generated and expected to be discharged, effluent limitation thresholds for pollutants of concern, as well as compliance monitoring and reporting requirements for the proposed discharge(s). Therefore, potential discharges from the drilling and processing facility, in combination with the RBEP, is not expected to potentially exceed the water quality standards, nor degrade designated beneficial uses of receiving waters.
6.1.2.10 Land Use and Recreation
The use of the AES parcel for the Project Site would have similar land use impacts as the Proposed Project because the current land use and zoning of the AES is not consistent with an oil and gas development project. Further, the current zoning ordinance states that any new power plant or modification cannot have any adverse impact on surrounding land uses and neighborhoods. In March of 2013 a ballot measure, Measure A, was placed on the ballot in the City of Redondo Beach for rezoning the land under the power plant to a mixture of up to 40 percent institutional and commercial uses and the remaining land designated parkland and open space. Measure A was defeated. Therefore, the use of the AES site would require a ballot measure similar to the one required for the proposed Project Site to amend the City of Redondo
6-13
Beach zoning ordinance and land use plan designation. Therefore, the impact and mitigation for land use for the project site is the same for this alternative as the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would no longer apply, since, under this alternative, the City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated. The surrounding land uses of the AES site include commercial, industrial, office and the City of Redondo Beach Harbor (King Harbor). Due to the fact the harbor is a recreational land use, the impacts of an oil spill and the potential for nuisance from noise, odors, and visual impacts from this alternative to recreational land users would be the same as the Proposed Project.
6.1.2.11 Noise
Noise and vibration impacts associated with demolition and construction (NV.1, NV.3 and NV.7) would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, because of more favorable topography and increased distance between the AES site and the nearest sensitive receivers. With mitigation, noise impacts would be less than significant. Impacts related to drilling-plus-production in Phases 2 and 4 (NV.2 and NV.5) and long-term production (NV.6) would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, because of more favorable topography and increased distance between the AES site and the nearest sensitive receivers. With mitigation, noise impacts would be less than significant. Pipeline connections along Valley Drive would no longer need to be installed, so the noise impact associated with pipeline construction (NV.4) would no longer apply to Valley Drive, but would apply to the other sections of pipeline installation.
6.1.2.12 Public Services
The project will not trigger the need for new facilities in Redondo Beach. It is expected that solid waste will go to same landfills as those addressed in the Public Services section for the Proposed Project. This alternative would draw on a similar set of police services as the Proposed Project since the AES Site is in close proximity to the Proposed Project Site. Because Redondo Beach has similar public services as Hermosa Beach, impacts related to public services under this alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Project and would be less than significant.
6.1.2.13 Transportation
Under this alternative, transportation routes for the Phase 2 crude oil trucks and the construction vehicular traffic would be similar to the Proposed Project except that they would not use Valley Drive. The routes along PCH and 190th and Artesia would continue to be used. The AES site access would mostly likely use the Herondo Street and Harbor Drive intersection and access the site from the site access immediately south of that intersection. As traffic is light on Herondo
6-14
Street (as per discussions with Hermosa and Redondo Beach Public Works Departments), and traffic levels and impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project. During Phase 3 RAP implementation, as contaminated soils might not need to be transported (depending on the extent of contaminated soils at the AES site), traffic levels might be lower. Impact TR.1 related to construction and impact TR.2 related to the use of prohibited traffic routes, would be the same as the Proposed Project and the same mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would apply.
6.1.2.14 Water Resources
Potential surface water and groundwater quality impacts associated with generation of increased sewage and operational wastewater would be similar to Proposed Project impacts as both areas use the same wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts WR.1 through WR.3, and correspondingly, mitigation measure WR-1 would apply.
6.1.2.15 Environmental Justice
Environmental justice impacts would be the same as under the Proposed Project because there is no net change in existing conditions and the area and population profiles are similar to the Proposed Project. The site is also already in industrial use, and nearby residences are further away than the Proposed Project and there is even less of a likelihood that environmental justice impacts would occur.
6.1.3 Reduced Wells Alternative
Under the Reduced Wells alternative, fewer wells would be drilled and less crude oil and gas would be produced. Drilling would take place for about 1 year only. Impacts related to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be the same as the Proposed Project and the same mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would apply.
6.1.3.1 Aesthetics
Under this alternative, active drilling visual impact duration would be reduced from 2.5 years to 1 year in Phase 4. When the drill rig is in operation, it will still have the same visual impacts as the Proposed Oil Project under AE.1 and AE.4 (views and glare, respectively). The second westerly cellar would not be drilled, therefore peak impacts to sensitive views to the west would be reduced. The duration of visual impact exposure would be reduced; however the impact would still be considered Significant and Unavoidable. The potential for re-drills of the reduced well count still remains, though this potential may be reduced given that fewer wells would have the potential need for a re-drill. The potential for collective recurring impacts (under AE.1) from re-installation of the rig, 32-foot sound attenuation wall and/or workover rig throughout the lifecycle of the Project remains, but is reduced.
Impacts related to operational views of the facility or pipeline facilities, (AE.2 and AE.3), and impacts related to glare (AE.4) and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project.
6.1.3.2 Air Quality
Impacts associated with construction, AQ.1, would be the similar to the Proposed Project as the same equipment arrangement would have to be installed. Phase 3 construction would be slightly less because it is likely that one less crude oil tank would need to be constructed and only one well cellar would be constructed. Mitigation measures associated with impact AQ.1 would still apply. Impacts related to excavation of contaminated soils, AQ.2, would be the same as the Proposed Project as the same amount of soils would be removed. Impacts related to operational regional emissions, AQ.3, would be less than the Proposed Project during the flaring peak day as the flare would be sized smaller in coordination with the reduced gas input. Emissions on a peak day with the microturbines would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures associated with impact AQ.3 would still apply. Impacts related to operational localized emissions. Impact AQ.4, would be less significant than under the Proposed Project as the flare would be smaller. Emissions on a peak day with the microturbines would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures associated with Impact AQ.4 would still apply. Impacts related to odors, AQ.5, would be similar to the Proposed Project as drilling would still take place and a similar number of components would be onsite. However, drilling would not last as long and therefore the period of highest odor potential (drilling) would be less under this alternative. Mitigation measures associated with Impact AQ.5 would still apply, but impacts would remain Class I. Impacts related to GHG, AQ.6, would be less as less electricity would be required to operate with fewer wells and less crude pumping requirements and fewer wells would be drilled. However, emissions from the microturbines would remain the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures associated with impact AQ.6 would still apply. Impacts related to toxic emissions, AQ.7, would be less than under the Proposed Project. The microturbine and fugitive emissions would be similar, but the use of the workover rig would most likely be less as there would be fewer wells. However, mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts on biological resources would be the same as under the Proposed Project. Impacts BIO.1 and BIO.2 related to construction would not change as most construction related items
6-16
would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts associated with construction would be similar to the proposed project as the same equipment and support structures would have to be installed. Phase 3 construction would be slightly less as probably one less crude oil tank would need to be constructed and only one well cellar would be built. Impacts related to excavation of contaminated soils, would be the same as the Proposed Project, as the same amount of soils would be removed. Mitigation measures developed for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6.1.3.5 Energy
Under this alternative, fewer wells would be drilled and less crude oil and gas would be developed. The amount of energy required to construct the site would be about the same. Energy required to drill the wells would be less and to operate the system would be less as less crude oil and gas would need to be processed. However, as less crude oil and gas would be developed, less energy would also be produced to be used by area consumers.
Under this alternative, impacts on emergency response, fire water related to impact FP.1 would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project as the same equipment arrangement would be required to process the crude oil and gas. Resources and inspection requirements would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project. Impacts FP.1 would be the same and mitigation measures associated with impact FP.1 would still apply. Impacts related to spacing would be less than the Proposed Project as only one well cellar would be constructed and possibly one crude oil tank would not be constructed. However, spacing issues would still remain (see impact FP.2) due to the small site and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts related to slope stability (GEO.3) and erosion (GEO.5) would be the same as the Proposed Project, because construction would be the same as for the Project. However, impacts related to seismicity (GEO.1), wastewater injection (GEO.2), and ground subsidence (GEO.4), would be reduced in duration as the drilling portion of the project would last only one year. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6-17
As fewer wells are drilled under this alternative, there would be less time drilling, which is potentially the most risky activity associated with the Project. This would reduce the risk levels over the Proposed Project. However, the peak risk levels, which are those depicted by the risk profiles, would remain the same under this alternative. Therefore, peak risk levels would be reduced in duration, but would remain significant as per SR.1. Mitigation measures associated with impact SR.1 would still apply. As less crude oil would be transported under this alternative, spill volumes related to pumping would be reduced. Spill volumes under the unmitigated worst case would be reduced by more than 1,200 gallons at the corner of Herondo and Valley Drive.
6.1.3.9 Hydrology
Impacts related to surface runoff (HWQ.1) and demolition, grading, remediation, and construction (HWQ.2) would be the same as the Proposed Project, as construction would be the same as for the Project. However, potential impacts related to operational oil spills (HWQ.3) would be reduced as the spill volume would be less (see section 5.2.3.8 above). However, impacts would remain Class I and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Under this alternative fewer wells would be drilled but the amendments to the land use plans, policies, and land use maps would still be required. Therefore, the impacts to land use would be the same as the Proposed Project. Similarly, the land use amendments necessary for approval for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be the same so the land use impacts would remain the same as for the Proposed Project. Drilling of fewer wells would lessen the potential of an oil spill from the actual drilling activity due to the shorter drilling timeframe; however, the risk of oil spill would remain from the production phase of the Project. Therefore, this alternative would not significantly change the impact of the potential for oil spills to recreational land users and thus the significant and Class I impact would remain. The potential for nuisance impacts from noise, odor, and visual impacts would be reduced by this alternative because the drill rig would be onsite for a shorter time period. However, because these nuisance impacts were determined to be less than significant due to the short term and temporary nature of the impacts, this impact is the same as the Proposed Project.
6-18
6.1.3.11 Noise
Impacts related to construction noise, NV.1, NV.3 and NV.4, would be the same as under the Proposed Project as the facility and the pipelines would still be built. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. Operational noise impacts, NV.2 and NV.5, would be a lower severity as the drilling period would not last as long. The peak drilling noise, however, would remain the same and would therefore remain a Class I. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. Production noise levels, NV.6, would be the same as under the Proposed Project and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
As fewer wells are drilled under this alternative, there would be less waste generated from drilling activities, however, drilling muds and cuttings are either recycled or taken to an approved hazardous waste facility. The solid waste and trash taken to public landfills would remain the same as the proposed Project and the impact would remain less than significant. This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project for Police services.
Impact TR.1 related to construction and impact TR.2 related to the use of prohibited traffic routes, would be the same as the Proposed Project as a similar amount of construction would be required under this alternative and the same routes would be used. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would apply.
Under this alternative, potential surface water and groundwater quality impacts associated with generation of increased sewage and operational wastewater would be less than Proposed Project impacts WR.1 through WR.3 as a result of only one year of Project operations.
Environmental justice impacts would be the same as under the Proposed Project as the area and population profiles are similar to the Proposed Project.
6.1.3.16 Reduced Timeframe Alternative
Under the Reduced Timeframe alternative, the same number of wells would be drilled, and the same rate of crude oil and gas would be produced, but for a maximum 10 year timeframe. At the conclusion of the Phase 4 drilling, all equipment would be removed from the site and the site would be restored.
6-19
Impacts related to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be the same under this alternative as no changes are proposed for that portion of the Proposed Project.
6.1.3.17 Aesthetics
Active drilling visual impact duration for initial Phase 2 and 4 drilling (AE.1) would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project, except that the potential for collective recurring impacts associated with re-drills and workovers would be limited to a 10-year time frame as opposed to 30-35 years. Under a reduced timeframe, the thresholds under which a re-drill or maintenance activity might be considered necessary may be increased in order to maximize efficiency of the allowable production period, thereby increasing the average number of re-drills per year. This would result in a higher probability of a rig being on site in any given month/year, leading to increased collective recurring impact potential over the 10-years of operation. When the drill rig is in operation, it will still have the same significant visual impacts. The visual impacts related to views of operations (AE.2 and AE.3,) or glare (AE.4 and AE.5) would be the same as the Proposed Project, but would be limited to a 10-year duration. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6.1.3.18 Air Quality
Impacts related to construction (AQ.1), contaminated soil excavation (AQ.2), operational regional and local emissions (AQ.3 and AQ.4), odors (AQ.5) and GHG (AQ.6) would be the same as the Proposed Project , but would be reduced in duration as the Project would last 10 years rather than 35. Impact AQ.7, related to toxic impacts, would be reduced because the emissions from operations would last only 10 years, thereby reducing the cancer risks associated with the project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts on biology would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts BIO.1 and BIO.2 related to construction would not change as most construction related items would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts associated with construction, would be the same as the proposed project as the same equipment and support structures would have to be installed. Impacts related to excavation of contaminated soils, would be the same as the proposed project as the same amount of soils would be removed. Mitigation measures developed for the Proposed Project including would still apply.
6-20
6.1.3.21 Energy
Under this alternative, fewer well would be drilled and less crude oil and gas would be developed. The amount of energy required to construct the site would be about the same. Energy required to drill the wells and to operate the system would be the same during the timeframe of the operations (10 years). However, over the life of the project, less crude oil and gas would be processed. Because less crude oil and gas would be developed, less energy would be produced to be used by area consumers over the life of the Project.
Under this alternative, impacts on emergency response, fire water related to impact FP.1 would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project as the same equipment arrangement would be required to process the crude oil and gas. Resources and inspection requirements would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project, but for less duration. Impacts FP.1 would be the same and mitigation measures associated with Impact FP.1 would still apply.
Impacts related to slope stability (GEO.3) and erosion (GEO.5) would be the same as the Proposed Project, as construction would be the same as for the Project. However, impacts related to seismicity (GEO.1), wastewater injection (GEO.2), and ground subsidence (GEO.4), would be reduced in duration.
The Reduced Timeframe alternative would involve drilling the same number of wells as the Proposed Oil Project. The risk levels associated with this alternative would be the same as the Proposed Oil Project over the first 10 years of the Project. After 10 years, the risk levels associated with the Reduced Timeframe alternative would be eliminated as the facilities would be removed. However, the peak risk levels, which are those depicted by the risk profiles, would remain the same under this alternative. Because significant and unavoidable risks are only associated with the drilling, after 10 years, significant and unavoidable risks would only be associated with re-drills, while facility operations would present less than significant risks. Reduced risk impacts due to the reduced timeframe of this alternative would be primarily associated with the less than significant risks during facility operations, as most drilling would have already occurred and reduced reservoir pressures, as the field matures, would reduce the chances for blowouts during re-drills. Although risk levels would be eliminated after 10 years, they would remain significant due to peak drilling levels during the first 2.5 years of drilling, as described in impact SR.1. Mitigation measures associated with impact SR.1 would still apply. Spill volumes under this alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project for the first 10 years. However, after 10 years, the spill risk would be eliminated. Using the probability calculations discussed in section 4.8, the probability of any spill along the entire pipeline over the facility life would be reduced to 15% from 34%.
6-21
6.1.3.25 Hydrology
Impacts related to surface runoff (HWQ.1) and demolition, grading, remediation, and construction (HWQ.2) would be the same as under the Proposed Project, as construction would be the same as for the Project. However, potential impacts related to operational oil spills (HWQ.3) would be reduced in duration as the Project would be reduced to 10 years of production. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Under this alternative the amendments to the land use plans, policies, and land use maps would still be required. Therefore, the impacts to land use would be the same as the Proposed Project. Similarly, the land use amendments necessary for approval for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be the same so the land use impacts would remain the same as for the Proposed Project. Reducing the lifetime of the Project would lessen the potential of an oil spill to the 10 year time frame of this alternative. However, the impact of the potential for oil spills to recreational land users would remain significant and a Class I impact for the 10 year timeframe. Therefore, the impact for this alternative remains the same as the Proposed Project for the life of the Project. The potential for nuisance impacts from noise, odor, and visual impacts would be reduced by this alternative because of the shorter time period of the Project. These nuisance impacts were determined to be less than significant due to the short term and temporary nature of the impacts, and this impact is the same as the Proposed Project.
6.1.3.27 Noise
Impacts related to construction noise, NV.1, NV.3 and NV.4, would be the same as the Proposed Project as the facility and the pipelines would still be built. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. Operational noise impacts, NV.2 and NV.5, would be the same as the Proposed Project as the drilling period would last as long. The peak drilling noise would remain the same and would therefore remain a Class I. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply. However, the duration of operations that would require re-drills or workover rigs would be reduced to10 years, thereby reducing the severity of the impacts and periods of time over the life of the Project when the area experiences noise levels above the thresholds. Production noise levels, NV.6, would be the same as the Proposed Project and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Due to the shorter Project life of this alternative, there would be less solid waste and trash generated and thus less taken to public landfills. However, the impact to solid waste from the
6-22
Proposed Project was determined to be less than significant; therefore, the impact classification for this alternative would remain the same as the Proposed Project. This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project for Police services and the Proposed Project was found to have minimal impacts on police services, and these impacts would be the same for the Redondo Beach police.
Impact TR.1 related to construction and impact TR.2 related to the use of prohibited traffic routes, would be the same as the Proposed Project as a similar amount of construction would be required under this alternative and the same routes would be used. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would apply.
Potential surface water and groundwater quality impacts associated with generation of increased sewage and operational wastewater would be less than Proposed Project impacts WR.1 through WR.3 as the Project would be reduced to 10 years of production.
6.1.4 Existing Pipelines Alternative
Under the Existing Pipelines alternative, existing pipelines along 190th Street would be utilized instead of installing new pipelines along 190th Street. Pipelines would still need to be constructed along Valley Drive. Construction and operations at the Project Site would remain the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts related to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be the same the same as the Proposed Project and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6.1.4.1 Aesthetics
Under this alternative, existing pipelines along 190th street would be utilized instead of installing new pipelines. The pipes are underground and would reduce the potential for temporary impacts as a result of construction. The same mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would apply though the potential for significant impacts would be reduced. Impact AE.1 and AE.2, related to views of the drilling rig and the Project Site, and impacts AE.4 related to glare, would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts AE.3 related to views of the pipeline
6-23
facilities or AE.5, glare from the pipeline facilities, would still be applicable to any aboveground facilities installed as part of the modifications to the existing pipeline.
6.1.4.2 Air Quality
Impacts related to construction emissions (AQ.1) would be reduced under this alternative as less construction would be required to install pipelines only along Valley Drive. However, peak day emissions would remain the same as only the duration of pipeline construction would be changed. Impacts related to site construction (AQ.2) or operations (AQ.3, AQ.4, AQ.5, AQ.6 and AQ.7) would be the same as the Proposed Project , although AQ.6, GHG, would be slightly reduced as the GHG emissions associated with construction would be less under this alternative.
Impacts on biology would be the same as the Proposed Project except along the pipeline route past Valley Drive, where the existing pipeline would eliminate the potential biological impacts from vegetation removal. Impacts BIO.2 related to construction at the Project Site would not change as most construction related items would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Under this alternative, existing pipelines along 190th street would be utilized instead of installing new pipelines. Construction and operations at the Project Site would remain the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with construction, would be similar to the Proposed Project, as the same equipment and support structures would have to be installed, although pipeline trench excavation would be reduced. Impacts related to excavation of contaminated soils would be the same as the proposed project, as the same amount of soils would be removed. Mitigation measures developed for the proposed project including CR-1a, CR-1b, CR-1c, and CR-2 would still apply.
6.1.4.5 Energy
Under this alternative, the amount of energy required to construct the site would be about the same as the Proposed Project. Energy required to drill the wells would be the same and to operate the system would be the same. Less energy would be required for pipeline construction as less pipeline length would need to be constructed. Impacts would be about the same as the Proposed Oil Project.
6-24
Under this alternative, impacts on emergency response, fire water related to impact FP.1 would be the same as the Proposed Project as the same equipment arrangement would be required to process the crude oil and gas. Resources and inspection requirements would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts FP.1 would be the same and mitigation measures associated with impact FP.1 would still apply.
Impacts GEO.1 through GEO.5 would be the same as the Proposed Project with respect to construction and operation of the drilling facilities. However, potential seismic related impacts to the pipeline (GEO.1) and erosion related impacts associated with construction of the pipeline (GEO.5) would be reduced as a result of utilizing existing pipelines for a portion of the pipeline route.
Under this alternative, risk levels at the facility would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would be the same. Spills volumes would be the same as the Proposed Project. However, spill risk would increase as the use of an older pipeline would potentially increase the spill frequency. Although internal inspections would still be conducted to identify corrosion and other issues, the spill frequency would still increase. Historical data (CSFM 1992) on older pipelines shows that pipelines older than 40 years have an increase in spill risks by a factor of 5 times.
6.1.4.9 Hydrology
Impacts HWQ.1 and HWQ.2 would be the same as the Proposed Project with respect to construction and operation of the drilling facilities. Potential surface water quality related impacts associated with operation of an existing pipeline (HWQ.2) would be increased as a result of utilizing existing pipelines that may be more susceptible to spills due to age for a portion of the pipeline route.
Under this alternative the amendments to the land use plans, policies, and land use maps would still be required. Therefore, the impacts to land use would be the same as the Proposed Project. Similarly, the land use amendments necessary for approval for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be the same, so the land use impacts would remain the same as for the Proposed Project.
6-25
The use of existing pipelines may increase the potential for an oil spill from pipelines due to the age of the pipelines as opposed to new pipelines. However, the overall potential for oil spills to recreational land users from the other Project components would remain the same. Therefore, the potential for oil spills to recreational land users for this alternative is the same as the Proposed Project, significant and Class I. The potential for nuisance impacts from noise, odor, and visual impacts would be the same as the Proposed Project.
6.1.4.11 Noise
Noise impacts associated with pipeline construction (NV.4) would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, but would still occur along Valley Drive. Under the Existing Pipeline alternative, all other noise impacts associated with the project would remain unchanged.
The use of existing pipelines under this alternative would not significantly change the amount of solid waste from the Proposed Project. Therefore, the impact classification for this alternative would remain the same as the proposed Project and remain less than significant. This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project with regard to use of and impacts on Police services. The Proposed Project was found to have minimal impacts on police services, and these impacts would be the same for the Redondo Beach police.
In this alternative, construction traffic related to pipeline installation (TR.1) would be reduced as less pipeline construction would be required. Impacts related to construction of the pipeline within the 190th Street would be eliminated and the potential impacts to traffic and circulation during the construction activities would be eliminated. Some impacts to traffic and circulation would remain, however, as the pipelines down Valley Drive would still need to be constructed, but impacts would be reduced. Impacts related to the use of prohibited roadways, TR.2, would be the same as the Proposed Project because the same traffic routes would be used under this alternative as under the Proposed Project.
Potential surface water and groundwater quality impacts associated with generation of increased sewage and operational wastewater would be the same as under the Proposed Project and mitigation associated with impacts WR.1 through WR.3 would apply.
6-26
6.1.5 Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction
Under the Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction alternative, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard permanent location at the self storage facility would be construction prior to Phase 1 of the Proposed Project. The temporary maintenance yard located next to the selfstorage facility and City Hall would not be constructed. All impacts related to the other components of the Proposed Project (i.e., the oil drilling and extraction activities and the pipelines) would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for these other components of the Proposed Project would still apply.
6.1.5.1 Aesthetics
Impacts AE.6 and AE.7, related to views and glare of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be the same as the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, the impacts would just occur earlier in the Proposed Project. As the temporary yard would not be constructed, impacts associated with views of the temporary yard would be eliminated. Although these are not significant from public viewing areas, the 8 foot wall and 17 foot building placed in front of residences located to the west of the temporary site would be eliminated under this alternative.
6.1.5.2 Air Quality
Construction emissions associated with the construction of the temporary maintenance yard would be eliminated as the temporary yard would not be constructed. Impacts related to the permanent City Maintenance Yard under this alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project as the same construction activities would be required.
Impacts on biology would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts BIO.1 and BIO.2 related to construction would not change as most construction related items would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
Impacts on cultural resources would be the same as the Proposed Project. Impacts CR.1 and CR.2 are related to construction and would not change as most construction related items would be the same as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Proposed Project would still apply.
6-27
6.1.5.5 Energy
Energy use would decrease from the Proposed Project due to fewer construction requirements, and therefore less fuel and transportation of materials that would be required.
Fire protection and emergency response issues would be the same as the Proposed Project as, except that, with the elimination of the temporary facilities, impact FP.3 would be eliminated and the functions of the fire department would not potentially be impacted as Bard Street would not be closed to through traffic.
Under this alternative, a new temporary maintenance yard area would not be constructed and construction related impacts (GEO.3 and GEO.5) would be reduced for the period of time that the temporary yard is constructed. Impacts would be the same for the construction of the permanent facility.
Safety and Risk impacts would be the same as the Proposed Project because the temporary facility, which would be eliminated under this alternative, did not introduce any significant safety and risk issues.
6.1.5.9 Hydrology
Under this alternative, construction related impacts (HWQ.2) would be reduced the period of time that the temporary yard is constructed. Impacts would be the same for the construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard.
Under this alternative the amendments to the land use plans, policies, and land use maps would still be required. Therefore, the impacts to land use would be the same as the Proposed Project. Similarly, the land use amendments necessary for approval for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would be the same so the land use impacts would remain the same as for the Proposed Project. This alternative would not change the potential for oil spills to recreational land users; therefore, the potential for oil spills to recreational land users for this alternative is the same as the Proposed Project. The potential for nuisance impacts from noise, odor, and visual impacts would be the same as the Proposed Project.
6-28
6.1.5.11 Noise
Noise impacts related to construction would be reduced under this alternative because less construction would be required. Construction impacts related to the temporary City Maintenance Yard would last for 9 months, and would produce significant and unavoidable Class I impacts (impact NV.7). This period of Class I impacts would be eliminated. The noise associated with the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be the same as the Proposed Project and would remain Class I. Noise associated with the operations of the temporary City Maintenance Yard was determined to present significant and unavoidable impacts to the City Hall and nearby residences. This Class I impact would be eliminated under this alternative.
Under this alternative, the temporary maintenance yard area would not be constructed, therefore, less solid waste and trash would be generated. However, the impact to solid waste for the Proposed Project was determined to be less than significant, thus the impact classification for this alternative would be the same as the proposed Project, less than significant. This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project with regard to use of and impacts on Police services because the temporary City Maintenance Yard, which would be eliminated under this alternative, would not have impacts on police services.
Impacts on transportation under this alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project except that additional trips would be eliminated due to the elimination of construction related traffic to construct the temporary City Maintenance Yard. Because the trips related to the construction of the Proposed Project temporary City Maintenance Yard would occur prior to Phase 1, and would be small in number, these impacts were less than significant. Impacts would be the same for the construction and operations of the permanent City Maintenance Yard.
Under this alternative, the temporary City Maintenance Yard area would not be constructed and potential surface water and groundwater quality impacts associated with generation of increased sewage (WR.1) would be the same as the Proposed Project as the same amount of sewage would be generated under each scenario (with or without the temporary facilities). Impacts would be the same for the construction and operations of the permanent City Maintenance Yard.
6-29
Environmental justice impacts would be the same as under the Proposed Project as the area and population profiles are similar to the Proposed Project
6.2 Proposed Project Options and Scenarios
The Proposed Project has a number of different options and scenarios related to the valve box location, the pipeline route and the No Added Parking/Parking option associated with the Proposed City Maintenance Yard. Although these are not technically alternatives, they have been addressed in this section to identify what options are environmentally preferable. In addition, depending on the results of the Phase 2 testing, the project might not proceed past Phase 2 and this scenario is also addressed herein.
6.2.1 Valve Box Options
Of the four valve box options, none of which create significant and unavoidable impacts, the locations which provide the greatest separation from receptors provide for the least environmental impacts. These would be Valve Box Option 2 and 4 sites. Between these two, Valve Box Option 2, located next to railroad tracks and the industrial Praxair Facility, provides the greatest separation because it is not located next to busy streets, as in Option 4. Of the Valve Box options, Valve Box 2 provides an environmentally superior option as it would be located farthest from receptors, even though there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the other valve box options.
6.2.2 Pipeline Scenarios
Of the three pipeline route scenarios, none of which create significant and unavoidable impacts aside from the potential for crude oil spills, which is the same between all three options, scenario 3 (within the SCE Corridor) avoids transportation and circulation impacts by avoiding construction on streets or lane closures and reduces air quality impacts by reducing paving activities. Other impacts associated with the three alternatives would be the same. Pipeline Scenario 3, which would place the pipeline within the SCE ROW underneath the power lines and not in roadways, would provide an environmentally superior option as it would avoid short-term impacts to traffic, circulation and air quality.
6.2.3 City Maintenance Yard No Added Parking/Parking Option
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project could be built either with an added 97 parking spaces or without the added spaces. The Parking Option would generate additional impacts in air quality due to the additional construction requirements. Some traffic impacts could also be realized through a re-distribution of traffic in order to utilize the new parking spaces, thereby increasing traffic congestion at nearby intersections, such as Valley Drive and Pier Avenue or at Bard Street and Pier Avenue. However, these would not be new trips, just redistributed trips.
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project 6-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Parking Option may allow for reduced congestion in other areas of the City due to an increased availability of parking and may enhance the visitor experience. There are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with either option. Between the two No Added Parking and Parking Options, the No Added Parking produces fewer impacts in the area of less construction time and emissions and the potential for less congestion at the intersections near the Parking area. However, the Parking Option may allow for reduced congestion in other areas of the City due to an increased availability of parking and may enhance the visitor experience. The two options essentially are environmentally equal. Table 6.1 compares the changes in intensity of the various pertinent issue area impacts.
Table 6.1
Proposed Project Options - Impact Comparison City Maintenance Yard Options

Parking No Added Parking
Valve Box Options Impact

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Pipeline Scenarios
1. Aesthetics: views of components 2. Air Quality: odors 3. Air Quality: construction emissions 4. Land use: incompatibility to adjacent uses 5. Noise: noise impacts during construction 6. Noise: impacts during operations 7. Risk of Upset: risks from operations 8. Transportation: impacts during construction None of these options would cause significant and unavoidable impacts. For the less than significant impacts, indicates less severity, indicates greater severity. All impacts in other issue areas would be the same for all options.
6.2.4
Phase 2 Unsuccessful Scenario
During Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project, the crude oil production levels would be assessed by the Applicant to determine if it is feasible to continue to Phase 3, build the full processing facility and invest in the full well drilling program. If the test wells during Phase 2 are unsuccessful, and the Applicant decides not to continue, then the test wells would be abandoned, the test equipment would be removed and the site would be vacated.
6-31
At this point in the Project, remediation would not have been implemented and the site would remain contaminated. Depending on the future use, the site would need to have some level of remediation performed, but that level would be equal to or less than the remediation proposed by the Applicant. Impacts related to the soil excavation, removal and treatment would be the same or less than the Proposed Project. Air emissions related to excavation and trucking of the contaminated soils would be the same or less than the Proposed Project and impacts have therefore been assessed within this EIR for the remedial actions that would be necessary under this scenario. The City Maintenance Yard would need to move from its temporary site to a permanent facility. The permanent facility could be the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, located at the Hermosa Beach Self-Storage facility immediately next to City Hall. The impacts of this scenario have been examined in this EIR as part of the Proposed Project. The City Maintenance Yard could be built and relocated to the current City Maintenance Yard site, which would be vacated by the Applicant under this scenario. The construction requirements of this scenario would be equal to the air emissions, traffic, noise and aesthetic impacts of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project. Air impacts associated with construction, noise impacts associated with operations, aesthetic impacts and traffic impacts would be less than significant. Only noise impacts associated with construction would be significant and unavoidable, as they are for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project under the Proposed Project. Impacts would therefore be the same as the Proposed Project for construction and operation of a new City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street and have been assessed within this EIR.
6.3
Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives
The following discussion compares impacts associated with the Proposed Project with those associated with the No Project Alternative and the other alternatives. These impacts are identified as a result of the analysis provided in Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis and Section 5.0. In cases where the impact from an alternative is in the same class as for the Proposed Project, differences in severity of the impact are analyzed.
6.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative Analysis
The approach taken in this EIR is to provide an assessment of alternatives to the following components of the Proposed Project: Alternative production and drilling sites (location); Alternative operational parameters; Alternative transportation modes; and Alternative City Maintenance Yard construction timing.
6-32
A larger range of potential alternatives was screened in Section 5.0, and a reasonable range of alternatives was selected for further analysis in this Section 6.0. The Environmentally Superior Alternative analysis considers all the options to distill the Environmentally Superior Alternative. CEQA does not require any particular methodology for comparing alternatives to the Proposed Project. In this EIR, each of the alternatives is compared to the corresponding Project component to determine whether the alternative would cause any additional or more severe impacts compared to the Proposed Project or would reduce impacts or the impact severity. In addition, CEQA Section 15126.6 states " An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" and " the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." CEQA 15126.6 also states, in regards to feasibility of an alternative site, that the EIR must assess "whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site". Impacts related to the Proposed Project are shown below in Table 6.2.
6.3.1.1 Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project
In addition to the No Project Alternative, the following alternatives were assessed. AES Site Alternative; Reduced Wells Alternative; Reduced Timeframe Alternative; Existing Pipelines Alternative; and Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative.
As required by CEQA, each of these is compared to the Proposed Project to disclose the respective environmental advantage or disadvantage over the Proposed Project. Table 6.3 and 6.4 provide a comparison between the Proposed Project and the Alternatives for each Class I impact identified in the issue areas. For other issue areas, where mitigation measures identified in the EIR would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level for the alternatives and the Proposed Project, all of the alternatives and the Proposed Project would be the same and no further comparison is required. For significant and unavoidable impacts where the classification would not change, an increase or decrease in severity is denoted with an up or
6-33
Table 6.2
Proposed Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary Significant Unavoidable Impact?

Impact
views of the drilling/workover rig Yes No* night lighting of the rig Yes No Air Quality: odors Yes Yes Biology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes No No Cultural No No Energy No No Environmental Justice No No Fire Protection and Emergency Response No No Geology Hydrology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes Land use: incompatibility to adjacent uses Yes Yes noise impacts during drilling Yes No Noise: noise impacts during construction Yes No No No Public Services Recreation: oil spill impacts on recreational areas Yes Yes Safety and Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Yes No No No Transportation Number of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 10 5 Notes: a Yes with shading = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts classified as less than significant or less than significant with mitigation are discussed within the main EIR document. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics. Aesthetics:
down arrow, respectively. The Y means Yes, indicating where a significant and unavoidable impact occurs. A discussion of each alternative compared to the Proposed Project follows.
No Project Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project
With the No Project Alternative, no development of the oil and gas resources would occur. There would be no drilling and no construction at the Project Site or along pipeline routes. The City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated and rebuilt. None of the impacts associated with the Proposed Project would occur. No new impacts would occur under the No Project Alternative.
AES Site Alternative Compared to Proposed Project
The AES Site Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would be farther from residential and commercial/light industrial locations. This reduces the severity of impact in aesthetics, air quality, noise and safety and risk of upset. This site would eliminate the following significant and unavoidable impacts: Aesthetics: views of the drilling rig; Aesthetics: glare from the drilling rig and operational facilities; Noise: noise impacts from drilling activities; and
6-34
Safety and Risk of Upset: releases and impacts from drilling releases.
In addition, the severity of some Class I impacts would be reduced, including: Air Quality: the impacts on air quality due to odors would be reduced because the facility would be located farther away from receptors, thereby allowing more distance for odors to dissipate and reducing the number of minor upset scenarios that could cause impacts to receptors; Hydrology: the impact on hydrology of spills to the environment would be reduced, because the section of pipeline along Valley Drive would be eliminated, thereby reducing the spill frequency in an area where spills could more readily reach the marine environment; Land Use: the incompatibility of the land use with surrounding neighbors would be less due to the industrial nature of the surrounding land use and the distance to receptors, thereby reducing impacts in land use compatibility issues such aesthetics and noise; Recreation: the impact on recreation resources would be reduced due to the reduced frequency of crude oil spills.
6-35
Table 6.3
Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only Proposed Project Impact
AES Site Alternative


Reduced Timing Alternative

1. Aesthetics: views of the Y * * Y * Y * drilling/workover rig 2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the Y Y Y rig 3. Air Quality: odors Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4. Biology: oil spills into the Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y marine environment 5. Hydrology: oil spills into the Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y environment 6. Land use: incompatibility to Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y adjacent uses 7. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y drilling 8. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y Y construction 9. Recreation: spill impacts on Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y recreational areas 10. Safety and Risk of Upset: Y Y Y risks from drilling Zero 5 10 5 10 5 Number of Significant Impacts 10 5 6 Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. indicates significant and unavoidable but less severity, indicates significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics.
6-36
Table 6.4 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only City Maintenance Yard Phase 1
Constructio n, Drilling Re-drilling Operations
Proposed Project Impact

Existing Pipeline
1. Aesthetics: views of the Y * Y * Y * drilling/workover rig 2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the Y Y Y rig 3. Air Quality: odors Y Y Y Y Y Y 4. Biology: oil spills into the marine Y Y Y Y Y Y environment 5. Hydrology: oil spills into the Y Y Y Y Y Y environment 6. Land use: incompatibility to Y Y Y Y Y Y adjacent uses 7. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y drilling 8. Noise: noise impacts during Y Y Y construction 9. Recreation: spill impacts on Y Y Y Y Y Y recreational areas 10. Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Y Y Y 10 10 5 Number of Significant Impacts 10 5 5 Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. indicates significant and unavoidable but less severity, indicates significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics
Reduced Wells Alternative Compared to Proposed Project
The Reduced Wells Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity of impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset. This alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts. However, it would reduce the severity of the following Class I impacts: Aesthetics: the impacts associated with viewing the drilling rig would be reduced because the drilling rig during Phase 4 would be located onsite only 1 year instead of 2.5 years; Aesthetics: the impacts associated with glare from the drilling rig would be reduced because the drilling rig during Phase 4 would be located onsite only 1 year instead of 2.5 years; Air Quality: the impacts on air quality due to odors would be reduced because drilling would occur for less time, thereby decreasing the potential for drilling-related odors;
6-37
Hydrology: the impact on hydrology of spills to the environment would be reduced, because less crude oil would be produced, thereby reducing the spill volume along the pipeline route in an area where spills could more readily reach the marine environment; Land Use: the incompatibility of the land use with surrounding neighbors would be reduced due to the reduction in impacts from aesthetics, odors and noise; Noise: impacts from noise would be reduced because noise from drilling would have a shorter duration (1 year instead of 2.5); Recreation: impacts to recreational resources would be reduced because of the reduced spill volume from less production; Risk of Upset: impacts to receptors would be reduced due to the reduced duration of drilling, which is the main reason for the significant risk levels.
Reduced Timeframe Alternative Compared to Proposed Project
The Reduced Timeframe Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity of impact in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset. This alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts. However, it would reduce the severity of the following Class I impacts: Aesthetics: the impacts associated with viewing the drilling rig during re-drills would be reduced because the Project would be limited to 10 years; Aesthetics: the impacts associated with glare from the drilling rig during re-drills would be reduced because the project would be limited to 10 years; Aesthetics: the impacts associated with glare from the facility would be reduced because the Project would be limited to 10 years; Air Quality: the impacts on air quality due to odors would be reduced because the facility would be located at the Project Site for 10 years, thereby reducing the odor events over the facility lifetime; Hydrology: the impact on hydrology of spills to the environment would be reduced, because crude oil would be transported for less time along the pipeline route in an area where spills could more readily reach the marine environment; Land Use: the incompatibility of the land use with surrounding neighbors would be reduced due to the reduction in aesthetic, odors and noise; Noise: impacts from noise would be reduced because re-drilling would occur only over a period of 10 years; Recreation: impacts to recreational resources would be reduced because impacts could occur only over a 10 year timeframe; Risk of Upset: impacts to receptors due to the reduced Project life would be reduced because fewer re-drills would occur over the 10 year timeframe than over the Propose Project life.
Existing Pipelines Alternative Compared to Proposed Project
The Existing Pipelines Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project because it would reduce the need to construct pipelines along area streets or within the SCE ROW. This would reduce traffic and circulation impacts during the construction activities as
6-38
well as reduce air emissions due to construction. However, neither of these impacts is significant and unavoidable and this alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts. However, older pipelines have a higher failure rate, and would increase the spill frequency along the pipeline from Valley Drive eastwards, where it would tie in to the existing pipeline. This would increase the severity of impacts in Hydrology due to oil spills, which is currently a significant and unavoidable Class I impact.
Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Compared to Proposed Project
The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative has advantages over the Proposed Project as it would reduce the need to construct a temporary City Maintenance Yard. This would reduce air quality, traffic and circulation, cultural, fire protection, hydrology and water impacts during the temporary site construction activities. However, none of these impacts are significant and unavoidable. The construction of a permanent City Maintenance Yard before Phase 1 would decrease the severity of construction noise impacts by decreasing the duration of construction activities around the Self Storage site and City Hall by 9 months. It would also eliminate the operational noise impacts on City Hall and residences to the west of the temporary City Maintenance Yard site. These noise impacts are significant and unavoidable Class I impacts.
6.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Proposed Project has been designed by the Applicant in an effort to reduce the number of impacts and still obtain the objectives of the Project. The alternatives provide an alternative site, operations, pipeline and phasing that allows for a selection of different components of the Project that could provide for a different mix of impacts. The AES site reduces the greatest number of the Proposed Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the AES Site alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The use of the AES site has a number of potential land use issues, however, related to City of Redondo Beach Charter Article 27 and would most likely require a vote of the people of Redondo Beach and a re-zoning in order to move forward. These land use issues are similar to those presented by the Proposed Project Site within the City of Hermosa Beach. The EIR recognizes that while both the Proposed Project and the AES Site Alternative have similar land use challenges in contrast to the Proposed Project the Applicant has no control over the AES site. The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction provides for advantages over the use of a temporary City Maintenance Yard primarily in the areas of noise and air emissions from increased construction. For noise, the elimination of a temporary City Maintenance Yard would eliminate a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, the Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard construction alternative would be environmentally superior over the Proposed Project.
6-39
Under the AES alternative, the City Maintenance Yard would not need to be moved as the drilling site would be located at the AES site.
6-40
Section 7: Other CEQA-Mandated Sections
7.0 Other CEQA-Mandated Sections
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluations of irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources and project related growth-inducing impacts. The following sections evaluate the Proposed Project in light of these requirements. Chapter 4.0 discusses potentially significant environmental impacts, as described in the State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(a) and (b).
7.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that significant irreversible environmental changes, which would be involved with a Proposed Project, may include the following: Uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project that would be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely; Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts that commit future generations to similar uses; and Irreversible damage, which may result from environmental accidents, associated with the project.
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to produce oil and gas for markets in California. Thus, the Proposed Project by definition involves use of non-renewable resources. Development of the Proposed Project would involve the consumption of some non-renewable and locally limited natural resources (i.e., fossil fuels and water) associated with construction activities. The Proposed Project would also require consumption of non-renewable resources during operations (i.e., natural gas, electricity, and fossil fuels). However, the main goal of the Proposed Project is to develop the non-renewable oil and gas resources using new facility infrastructure on an established oil field. Therefore, the non-renewable resources demand by the Proposed Project is not considered to be significant since the oil field would produce more non-renewable oil and gas than it would consume. The Proposed Project would directly increase the volume of oil and gas extracted and produced locally, but would not increase the overall consumption of oil or gas. The production from the Proposed Project would be used to satisfy existing demand. The Proposed Project could create environmental accidents (e.g., oil spills, gas releases) with the potential to impact resources. Potential impacts can be reduced with adequate design and operating procedures and effective emergency response plans specifying staffing and equipment needs. However, the potential remains for damage as a result of an upset associated with the operation of the Proposed Project.
7-1
Significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable after the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures.
7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Project must be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. In general terms, a project may induce spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any of these four criteria: Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service or the provisions of new access to an area); Economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion); Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning or general plan amendment approval); or Development or encroachment in an isolated area or one adjacent to open space (being different from an infill type of project).
Should a project meet any one of the above listed criteria, it can be considered growth inducing. The impacts of the Proposed Project are evaluated below with regard to these four growthinducing criteria.
7.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth
The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard; the Proposed Project would involve drilling and production of oil and gas. Development of the Proposed Project would not result in the establishment of an essential public service nor would it provide new access to a previously inaccessible area. As a result, future development at the Proposed Project Site would not cause significant growth inducement under this criterion.
7.2.2 Economic Growth
Economic growth could occur in the area during the Proposed Project activities because of construction workers and associated support services during site preparation (Phase 1) and final design and construction (Phase 3). Employment due to the drilling and testing (Phase 3) of the Proposed Project would be limited to increased labor for the drilling operations. Minimal new significant operational (Phase 4) employment would be associated with the Proposed Project. The construction and drilling activities would create some short-term increase to the areas existing revenue base. Given the limited increase in local expenditures associated with the construction and drilling activities, the economic growth associated with jobs and purchases from the Proposed Project would not be significant. However, the City could receive significant funds as a result of the Settlement Agreement with the Applicant. As discussed in previous sections, if the Project is approved and produces oil, the City would collect royalty payments on the gross sales of the oil produced by the Project and would use a portion of its royalties to pay the $3.5 million it would owe E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. under the agreement.
7-2
The Hermosa Beach City School District would also collect additional revenues for the schools from the Project. Depending on how the City chooses to use the projected revenue, economic growth could occur as a result of the Project.
7.2.3 Precedent-Setting Action
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to develop an oil and gas production facility. The City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan do not currently allow for oil development. The Proposed Project Description includes amendments to the Citys land use plans and ordinance that would, if approved, make the Project consistent with those regulations. Thus, approval of the Proposed Project would be a precedent setting action because no oil and gas operations currently exist or are allowed by the current land use plans or the zoning ordinance of the City. However, the land use plan and zoning ordinance amendments would be specific to the Proposed Project and Project Site; no other oil and gas projects would be allowed or could be permitted in the City if the Proposed Project is approved. Therefore, although the Proposed Project would be a precedent-setting action by allowing for oil development and production in the City, due to the fact that only a single Project and single site location would be allowed, the Proposed Project would not create significant growth inducing impacts.
7.2.4 Development of Open Space
Development of open space is considered growth inducing when it encroaches upon urban-rural interfaces or in isolated localities. The Proposed Project does not involve development of open space from an undeveloped use to a developed use; therefore, no growth inducing impacts from the development of open space are associated with the Proposed Project.
7.3 Known Areas of Controversy or Unresolved Issues
According to Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. All proposals related to the development and transportation of oil and gas reserves in urban areas generate controversy and receive a high level of public scrutiny. For this Project, controversy is due to the sensitive nature of coastal resources, the potential for safety impacts to the local population, and the fact that oil and gas development in the City does not currently exist. The Proposed Project would introduce oil drilling and oil and gas production and transportation to an area that does not currently have this type of development. Some people in local communities do not want the Project to move forward, as exemplified by organizations opposing the Project such as Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, Heal the Bay, and other environmental groups. The Project has generated a high level of public interest and controversy (see Appendix H, Notice of Preparation and Comments). Areas of controversy highlighted in comments on the Notice of Preparation include: The development of oil and gas in the City is not allowed by the current land use plans and zoning ordinance; Safety and Risk of Upset and the impacts on nearby residences and businesses;
7-3
Noise, odor, and air quality issues from oil and gas development proximate to residential areas; Aesthetics and views of the drilling rig; Geology and subsidence; Climate change and the use of fossil fuels; Oil spills and the effects on biology; Noise from the Project; The costs of the settlement agreement; Potential impacts to coastal and recreational resources; and Potential impacts to tourism as a main economic resource to the City.
7-4
Section 8: Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
8.0 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan 8.1 Mitigation Monitoring Program
As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hermosa Beach (City) is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the implementation of mitigation measures for this Project, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Lead Agency responsibility originates in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) (Findings) and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting).
8.2 Monitoring Authority and Enforcement Responsibility
The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program (MMCRP) is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts are implemented. A MMCRP can be a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the Project proponent, but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities of the City and any monitors it may designate. The City may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring to other environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary, and some monitoring responsibilities may be assumed by responsible agencies, such as affected jurisdictions and cities. The number of monitors assigned to the Project will depend on the number of concurrent activities and their locations. The City or its designee(s), however, will ensure that each person delegated any duties or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compliance. Any mitigation measure study or plan that requires the approval of the City must allow at least 60 days for adequate review time. When a mitigation measure requires that a mitigation program be developed during the design phase of the Project, the Applicant must submit the final program to City for review and approval for at least 60 days before any activity begins. Other agencies and jurisdictions may require additional review time. It is the responsibility of the environmental monitor assigned to the Project to ensure that appropriate agency reviews and approvals are obtained. The City or its designee will also ensure that any deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program is approved by the City. Any deviation and its correction shall be reported immediately to the City or its designee by the environmental monitor assigned to the Project. The City is responsible for enforcing the procedures adopted for monitoring through the environmental monitor assigned to the Project. Any assigned environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring, notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the City or its designee.
8-1
8.3
Mitigation Compliance Responsibility
The Applicant is responsible for successfully implementing all the mitigation measures in the MMCRP, and is responsible for assuring that these requirements are met by all of its contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as obtaining permits or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation measures include detailed success criteria. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of specific plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.
8.4 General Monitoring Procedures
Environmental Monitors. The City and the environmental monitor(s) are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction or operation process in coordination with the Applicant. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the environmental monitor assigned to the Project must be on site during that portion of the construction or operation that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or other impact for which mitigation is required. The environmental monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed. Construction and Operations Personnel. A key feature contributing to the success of mitigation monitoring will be obtaining the full cooperation of construction and operations personnel and supervisors. Many of the mitigation measures require action on the part of the supervisors or crews for successful implementation. To ensure success, the following actions, detailed in specific mitigation measures, will be taken: Procedures to be followed by construction or operations companies hired to do the work will be written into contracts between the Applicant and any contractors. Procedures to be followed by construction and operations crews will be written into a separate document that all personnel will be asked to sign, denoting agreement. One or more meetings will be held to inform all and train personnel about the requirements of the monitoring program. A written summary of mitigation monitoring procedures will be provided to supervisors for all mitigation measures requiring their attention.
General Reporting Procedures. Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other individuals will be reported to the environmental monitor. A monitoring record form will be submitted to the environmental monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the environmental monitor. A checklist will be developed and maintained by the environmental monitor to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The environmental monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems.
8-2
Public Access to Records. The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the City or its designee on request.
8.5 Mitigation Monitoring Table
Tables 8.1 through 8.11 present a summary of monitoring and reporting plan requirements for the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4 of the EIR as applicable to the Proposed Project. The Table provides the following information, by column: Mitigation Measure (description of the mitigation measure identified in Chapter 4); Monitoring/Plan Requirements (monitoring or plan requirements necessary to verify compliance with the mitigation measure); Method of Verification (this is how the responsible agency can determine if the mitigation measure has been implemented); Timing (this identifies when action needs to be taken on mitigation measure); and Responsible Agency (this is the agency that is responsible for assuring compliance with the mitigation measure).
8-3
Table 8-1
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure EM-1
Requirements Prior to issuance of the first grading and/or construction permits, the Applicant shall enter into agreements with the City to provide funding for the implementation and administration of an environmental monitoring program, including an environmental monitor, to ensure compliance with each Agencys environmental Conditions of Approval. The monitor shall assist the Agencies in condition compliance and mitigation monitoring for all applicable construction and operational stages of the Oil Project, as specified in a scope of work, as approved by the Agencies. The monitoring program shall include a postconstruction program to monitor measures that extend beyond the construction period (e.g., success of landscaping, etc.), as well as monitor certain mitigation measures required during the operational phase. The monitor will prepare a working monitoring plan that reflects the Agencies approved environmental mitigation measures/conditions of approval. This plan will include: 1. Goals, responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for verifying compliance with environmental mitigations; 2. Lines of communication and reporting methods; 3. Daily and weekly reporting of compliance; 4. Construction crew training regarding environmental sensitivities; 5. Authority to stop work; and 6. Action to be taken in the event of noncompliance. The environmental monitor shall be under contract to the Agencies. Costs of the monitor, monitoring program, and any Agency administrative fees, shall be paid by the Applicant. The Applicant shall also be responsible for funding work required by permit conditions requiring use of individuals with special expertise (e.g., geologist, noise engineer, etc.). The Agencies environmental monitor will coordinate the monitoring efforts of the specialist, including communication with the Agencies, reporting and availability (at appropriate times: prior to issuance of construction permits, or during construction, as required by applicable permit conditions). Material choice of electrical drill rig acoustical shroud shall be of neutral sky
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Conditions Before the City of included within start of Phase Hermosa the 1 Beach Development Agreement, including administrative measures to ensure bonding, payment methods and insurance
AE-1a
Approval of
Prior to
City of
8-4
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements color which is selected for its ability to reduce visual impact, in coordination with and approval by the City Community Development Director. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits Beach Specifications and fielddemonstration Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction
AE-1b
AE-2a
AE-2b
The sound attenuation wall shall be replaced by a permanent wall with design features installed at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to provide stability of views and opportunities for positive visual elements that partially mitigate the visual presence of the walls from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16-foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be adjusted to respond to faade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained. The permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and approval of the City Community Development Director. Design of the sound attenuation wall exterior faade shall be required to include design articulations that are complementary to the character, scale, and quality of the surrounding environment. The intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity. The following measures of success shall be met: 1) Articulations of faade decrease scale and proportion of mass into smaller increments that more closely resemble those of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and material use are varied to a level consistent with existing visual environment. Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and growth of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of debris and construction waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet within all planted areas. Wall footings shall be designed to limit encroachment into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be conducted by a certified soil scientist. Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of this mitigation measure; and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they shall be amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette selected.
Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection
Prior to issuance of permits and during construction
Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection
Prior to issuance of permits and during construction
8-5
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AE-2c Requirements Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be selfattaching or structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a density to achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be required on the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking facility. All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20 in height at installation and meet the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species alternate is proposed, it shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the Project Application in the following characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56. Pipeline alignments and valve box locations shall be designed to avoid the removal or modification of trees, hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to the extent feasible. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction
AE-2d
AE-2e
AE-3a
AE-3b
If landscaped areas, streetscapes, plazas and/or parklands are required to be temporarily disturbed, they shall be restored to their previous condition following completion of construction. Avoidance of disturbance shall be the preferred option, especially where landscape elements act to screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or where they act as community gateways (Redondo Beach at Hwy-1). Block color/s selection and pattern (if applicable) shall be complementary to adjacent buildings. A buffer of shrubs and vines shall be planted to match the existing character and quality of the adjacent properties.
Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection
Prior to issuance of permits and during construction Prior to issuance of permits and during construction Prior to issuance of permits and during construction Prior to issuance of permits and during construction
AE-3c
Final acoustical cover material selection shall be required to be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare.
Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance City of Hermosa Beach
8-6
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AE-4a Requirements Colors and finishes of equipment and surfaces within the soundwall (including the interior face of the soundwall, the interior face of the drill rig acoustical cover, and the physical structure of the drill rig within the acoustical shield) shall have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower. All proposed site lighting fixtures associated with the drilling activities shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. Colors and finishes of surfaces within the facility, including the interior face of the soundwall, ground materials (darker or asphalt), wall paints and equipment paints to the extent feasible shall have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower to reduce the potential for glow. Final sound wall material/s selection/s (including gates) shall be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare. All proposed site lighting, including fixtures outside the wall, shall be fully shielded. Fully shielded shall be defined as: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaires lowest light-emitting part (IES/IDA, 2011) The LZ-2 parameters of the Model Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) shall be used to demonstrate that maximum vertical illuminance for the site are not exceeded. For site lighting inside the wall, Table B allowances shall be used. Lighting outside the wall at site entrances shall not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a maximum of 1 footcandle. For the purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the plane of the property line shall be extended to an elevation equal to the height of the electric drilling rig. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Construction Documents and Specifications and Inspection Prior to issuance of permits and during construction City of Hermosa Beach
AE-4b
AE-5a
AE-5b
AE-5c
AE-5d
8-7
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AE-5e Requirements All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2. Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Redondo Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to Cities of Construction issuance of Redondo Documents and permits and Beach and Specifications during Torrance and Inspection construction
AE-6a
AE-6b
Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for security and safety.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AE-7a Requirements The materials, colors and finishes at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality, character and level of architectural detail to those of adjacent structures. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa
AE-7b
AE-7c
The landscape design at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of comparable quality and character to that of the surrounding visual environment. Incorporation of evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are recommended for their ability to provide additional screening capacity of operations areas. The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be required to have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where
8-8
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements building masses do not otherwise define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas shall be employed through either increased screen wall height and/or landscape design. All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction Approval of Prior to City of Construction issuance of Hermosa Documents and permits and Beach Specifications during and Inspection construction
AE-8a
AE-8b
Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall not exceed that which is needed for security.
AE-8c
All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
8-9
Table 8-2
Air Quality and GHGs Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1a
Requirements The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction). Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation. The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project): All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications. Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100-
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party SCAQMD Plan review, Before and site inspections during City of construction Hermosa Both Oil Beach Project and City Yard
AQ-1b
8-10
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided to the City and SCAQMD when each piece of equipment is mobilized. The Applicant shall limit flaring to a total of 5 hours per day at the full flaring capacity (or equivalent) during all emergency or routine flaring events in order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the thresholds. Lower NOx emission combustors or other equivalent measures can also be used to satisfy the requirement. The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least 90 percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control (either through carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing units routed to vapor control systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor immediately above the muds exit point from the wellbore and at other areas above the mud pits where muds may be exposed to the atmosphere in order to ensure that hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90 percent. The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce emissions to below the localized thresholds. The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable flare at the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas encountered during drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas that is flared. The operator shall report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD. The Applicant shall install a detection system that will monitor vapor space on all crude oil tanks. The detection system shall be capable of monitoring pressure in the vapor space of the tanks and notifying the Operator via an alarm when the pressure in the tanks gets within 10 percent of the tank relief pressure. If the tank pressure exceeds the relief pressure, the Operator shall report the incident to the SCAQMD as a breakdown pursuant to Rule 430, and Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
AQ-3a
SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach
AQ-3b
AQ-4
AQ-5a
SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach
AQ-5b
8-11
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements submit a report of the breakdown to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD, which shall detail the corrective actions the Operator shall take to avoid exceeding the tank relief pressure The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to and approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall address potential sources of odors from all site equipment, including wells and drilling operations, temporary operations such as truck loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these odors (e.g., containment, design modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues such as facility information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints, the protocol for handling odor complaints and odor event investigations and methods instituted to prevent a re-occurrence. The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors at all perimeter locations of the facility. At all times during operations, drilling, redrilling and workover operations, the Operator shall maintain monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible or visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm points shall be set at a maximum of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down of drilling or plant operations and notification to appropriate agencies, including the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station to monitor wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall be installed at the site. The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables, and shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are not equipped with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for example; the mud baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be detected at the closest receptor. The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
AQ-5c
AQ-5d
AQ-5e
SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach SCAQMD City of
AQ-5f
8-12
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements level of 100ppm and the installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or smaller) to ensure that leaking components are minimized at the facility. The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented to achieve the required reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications on the protocol, vintage, and registry for any offsite mitigation. The following mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD approval: 1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD protocol; 3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program; 4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII; 5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American Carbon Registry. In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon registries that follow specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to review and prior approval by the City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for acceptable credits include: Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project yielding quantifiable and verifiable reductions or removals. Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or other requirement. Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are reliable, based on applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate documentation. Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is sufficient evidence to show that the reduction occurred and was quantified correctly. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Hermosa Beach Plan review, site inspections Before Phase 4 operations SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach
AQ-6
8-13
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the reduction project is implemented correctly. Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the expected life of the reduction project. Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be quantified and reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions reporting will follow the same reporting format and procedures as required by the Mandatory Reporting Rule. All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate catalyst to reduce Diesel PM emissions. All workover rigs shall utilize electric drive/sources and shall not utilize diesel generators or engines. Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of fugitive emissions. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
AQ-7a
AQ-7b
SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach SCAQMD City of Hermosa Beach
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-1a Requirements The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following: Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61 percent reduction). Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction). Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party SCAQMD Plan review, Before and site inspections during City of construction Hermosa Both Oil Beach Project and City Yard
8-14
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements of speed limits. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction). Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction). Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction). Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation. The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD: All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers specifications. Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel or gasoline generators. All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements. Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes. A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided when each piece of equipment is mobilized. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
AQ-1b
8-15
Table 8-3
Biological Resources Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Requirements To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done outside the breeding season (breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all non- raptor species). If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed during this period, then surveys for nesting birds must be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If nesting birds are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and maintained for the duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings fledge from the nest. The Applicant shall submit for City approval an Emergency Response Plan that would address protection of biological resources and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall, at a minimum, include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and animal species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment and cleanup within 1,000 feet downstream of the Pipeline. The plan shall contain: Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, and duties of all entities involved in oil removal operations; Procedures for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines and facilities; Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge; A description of the necessary onsite equipment and details on the placement of the material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil; Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following a discharge; Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge; Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Plan review, Before and City of site inspections during Hermosa construction Beach
BIO-2
Plan review
Before construction
8-16
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Plan shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of site-specific habitat restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate for mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to restore native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and egress points, staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat areas shall be identified. The Emergency Response Plan shall include species- and site-specific procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of oiled wildlife. The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing any construction activities. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
8-17
Table 8-4
Cultural Resources Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR-1
Requirements Prior to beginning demolition of the existing City Maintenance Yard Building, guidelines shall be developed for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace. Once exposed, detailed documentation of the furnace shall be undertaken. Documentation shall be guided by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This documentation shall include production of high quality 35-mm photographs and plan drawings of building elements exposed, including but not limited to, a floor plan, any character-defining building features, and elevation drawings. All work carried out pursuant to the recordation of the furnace building shall be conducted by, or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994) as an architectural historian. A written report detailing the HAER-like documentation shall be provided to the City upon completion the work. This report shall be produced on archivally stable materials and filed with the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. The design of the New City Maintenance Yard Building shall be compatible in design, styling, material, and massing of the adjacent City Hall complex. The building design should not attempt to replicate the New Formalist style, but it shall not conflict or contrast with the existing building style. The buildings constructed in the New City Maintenance Yard shall be no more than two stories high. They shall not overpower or overshadow the existing building complex. The landscaping associated with the proposed New City Maintenance Yard shall replicate the planting types surrounding the City Civic buildings, to the extent possible, in order to blend the new construction into the existing Complex. The final design of both the new building and landscape should be developed in consultation with an historic architect or architectural historian who meets Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994). Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or building removal within the Proposed Project sites, an Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist with provision for review and input by concerned Native
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Development During Project and building Proponent implementation demolition and of a monitoring within areas of Construction and recorded Contractor documentation historical plan by a resources. qualified archaeologist.
CR-2a
Design Phase
CR-2b
Design Phase
CR-3a
Development and implementation
The monitoring plan shall be
Project Proponent and
8-18
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements Americans and approval by the City. The Plan is to include provisions for archaeological and Native American monitoring, detailed documentation of all early twentieth-century artifact-bearing deposits exposed during grounddisturbing site work, and development of a clear collection policy for both prehistoric and historic artifacts, subsequent artifact analysis, reporting of findings, and disposition and/or curation of any significant artifacts recovered. All reports of findings shall be filed with to SCCIC. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party of a monitoring submitted for Construction plan by a review by the Contractor qualified City of archaeologist in Hermosa consultation Beach and with concerned approval prior Native to beginning American development. tribes. Plan shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Following Following Project construction overProponent any remaining excavation and archaeological Construction deposits must Contractor be stabilized and covered for protection. A The Project paleontological monitoring Proponent resource plan shall be and monitoring and submitted for Construction mitigation review by the Contractor program City of (PRMMP) for Hermosa treatment of the Beach and paleontological approval prior resources will to beginning be developed development. and Plan shall be implemented. implemented prior to and/or
CR-3b Any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the area of the previous City of Hermosa Beach Dump following over-excavation at the Proposed Oil Development Project site must be protected in place. Stabilization and covering of these archaeological deposits shall be monitored by a qualified historical archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994). CR-4
Should Project-related excavations be designed to exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or depths greater than 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise be shown to have the potential to impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits as described above, a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) shall be developed by a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City and implemented prior to or during Project-related ground disturbing activities.
8-19
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party during construction. The Native Upon Project American discovery of Proponent Heritage human and Commission remains. Construction (NAHC) must Contractor be contacted by the Los Angeles County Coroner, and a Most Likely Descendant must be designated. Any further treatment of the remains will occur in consultation with the MLD, the NAHC, and a qualified archaeologist.
CR-5
Ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or redirected. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the site to allow for further examination and treatment of the find. A City representative shall immediately notify the Los Angeles County Coroners office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD.
8-20
Table 8-5
Fire Protection and Emergency Response Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure FP-1a
Requirements The Applicant shall ensure adequate (3,000-5,000 gpm) water supplies are available from the reclaimed water pipeline, the existing hydrant system, or some other source for water supplies that provides sufficient water supply rates, pressure and duration to comply with codes and the LACFD. Installation of a fire pump, or installation of a piping connection to area water mains that can supply the flows, may be required to ensure the appropriate water flow and pressure requirements. The Applicant shall ensure that all area hydrants and water supplies are tested annually as required by NFPA standards for water flows and pressures, and shall ensure that the results are reported to the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. The Applicant shall implement a community alert notification system to automatically notify area residences and businesses in the event of an emergency at the oil field that would require residents to take shelter or take other protective actions. The Applicant shall fund an additional FTE position at the HBFD, or equivalent, for personnel with specific capabilities in inspection and code compliance associated with oil and gas production facilities. This arrangement shall be to the satisfaction of the HBFD. The Applicant shall develop emergency response plans addressing the facility's fire-fighting capabilities pursuant to the most recent NFPA requirements, Los Angeles County Fire Code, LACFD, California Code of Regulation, and API requirements, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the LACFD and the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, fire monitor placement, water capabilities, fire detection capabilities, fire foam requirements, facility condition relating to fire-fighting ease and prevention, and measures to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The plan should also address coordination with local emergency responders and area schools and daycare facilities. The Applicant shall ensure that the emergency response planning includes development and testing of evacuation plans of neighbors for an emergency scenario at the facility, and the Applicant shall implement programs to ensure that all immediate neighbors are included in the notification system.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of water flow 2 Hermosa calcs and tests, Beach annual reviews HBFD
FP-1b
Review and testing of system Training and hiring completed at HBFD Review and approval of plans
Before Phase 2
FP-1c
Before Phase 2
FP-1d
Before Phase 2
City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach HBFD
FP-1e
Review of plan revision
8-21
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure FP-1f Requirements The Applicant shall ensure and make funding available to 1) upgrade the dispatch system and procedures within Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo to implement a CAD-to-CAD system to improve dispatch times; and 2) extend the mutual aide agreements between the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and the Torrance Fire Department to include the Torrance HAZMAT unit, or provide for funding to provide additional equipment and to train a sufficient number of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and/or Manhattan Beach Emergency Response personnel to provide first response HAZMAT capabilities. The Applicant shall ensure that design and construction comply with applicable codes and standards for equipment spacing, particularly those related to flare location and distances to public areas and distances from well drilling equipment to buildings. If this cannot be achieved, additional requirements shall include the construction of thermal radiation barriers or insulation on the crude oil tanks, installation of thermal barriers/walls around the flare stack, increasing the height of the flare stack during drilling, relocation of the flare stack, providing thermal radiation modeling to estimate the impacts of equipment on the crude tanks and process piping and public areas. Fire rated barriers shall be established, as per LACFD requirements, to ensure that all buildings within 100 feet of well drilling would be protected from thermal radiation. The design and construction compliance status shall be verified by third-party audits under the direction of the City. Fire protection measures specific to the crude oil containment system shall be provided, including the installation of automatic fire foam systems along the perimeter of the crude oil containment system and wellhead area and immediately adjacent to combustion or spark producing equipment within or immediately adjacent to the crude oil containment area that would be automatically and remotely activated in the event of a crude oil spill. The highest level electrical classification achievable shall be designated for all equipment located within the crude oil containment area. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of Mutual Aide 2 and Phase 4 Hermosa agreement Beach revision HBFD
FP-2a
Third party audit report review
FP-2b
8-22
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure FP-3 Requirements The City Public Works Department shall coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that fire trucks have adequate access to and from the fire station, and that the temporary City Maintenance Yard does not inhibit the ability of the Fire Department to respond to emergencies. This may require the elimination of some parking along Bard Street to ensure adequate room for fire truck turnarounds, or other measures. Public Works shall incorporate the potential loss of parking into their parking plan. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before the City of design start of the Hermosa documents temporary Beach facility HBFD construction
8-23
Table 8-6
Geological Resources/Soils Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1a
Requirements In coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory, the Applicant shall install an accelerometer at the Project Site to determine site-specific ground accelerations as a result of any seismic event in the region (Los Angeles/Orange County and offshore waters of the Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Channel). The drilling operator shall cease operations and inspect all onsite oil field-related pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure following any seismic event that exceeds a ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13 percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling operator shall not reinstitute operations at the Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be determined that all oil field infrastructure is structurally sound.
GEO-1b
All seismic related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: Drilled-in-place piles or cast-in-drilled-hole piles shall be constructed for foundations in the landfill area, i.e., northeast Project Site, to reduce seismically induced settlement. Ground improvement techniques, including high pressure grout injection, i.e., compaction grouting, shall be used in areas outside the landfill area to reduce seismically induced settlement and allow construction of conventional shallow foundations. Seismic design criteria for horizontal and vertical accelerations, identified in Tables 10 and 11 of the geotechnical report, shall be used during Proposed Project design. The upper 2 to 4 feet of soil over the majority of the Project Site shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Approximately 15 feet of soil shall be removed in the former landfill area and replaced with a minimum of 8 feet of compacted fill. Asphalt pavement and underlying subgrade soils shall be designed to
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Inspection by a Following any City of California seismic event Hermosa Registered Civil that results in Beach Engineer substantial ground accelerations at the Project Site, as predetermined by a Californialicensed geotechnical engineer. Review and Approve City of approval of geotechnical Hermosa geotechnical report prior to Beach report. issuance of grading permit.
8-24
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements accommodate the proposed drill rig. Positive surface drainage shall be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and toward suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water on structural pads shall not be allowed. Injection pressures associated with secondary recovery operations (i.e., water flooding) shall not exceed reservoir fracture pressures as specified in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2, Section 1724.10, and as approved by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party
GEO-2a
GEO-2b
The seismicity monitoring program shall be completed in coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory. In the event that monitoring indicates that Proposed Oil Project-induced seismicity is occurring, water flood operations shall be adjusted to alleviate such seismicity. The drilling operator shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased or decreased levels in water flood operations. All slope stability related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. Temporary excavations shall be stabilized per the latest edition of Cal/OSHA requirements for loose sands, including shoring or laying back of trench walls. Shoring along the northern perimeter of the Project Site shall be designed by an experienced structural engineer due to the proximity to existing buildings that must be protected from potential settlement and lateral movements. Prior to approval of the first drilling permit, the Applicant shall have submitted and the City of Hermosa Beach, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shall have approved a Subsidence Monitoring and Avoidance Program. The Subsidence Monitoring Program shall include: Ground elevation survey methodologies with high vertical resolution; A network of survey or subsidence monitoring locations, including
Comparing pressure measurements on each injection well to formation fracture pressure Coordinate with Cal Tech
During waterflood operations
Monthly
GEO-2c
Following monthly monitoring, as necessary Submit temporary shoring plans and calculations. Prior to permit issuance
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
GEO-3
GEO-4a
Monitor subsidence with GPS technology.
Annually
City of Hermosa Beach and California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal
8-25
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements continuous GPS stations and GPS benchmarks, positioned within and outside the City that are sufficiently spaced to draw conclusions about subsidence within the City; Use of InSAR imagery technology to evaluate regional subsidence patterns both within and beyond the proposed oil field; Sufficient monitoring frequency to establish trends in subsidence in order to distinguish background ground movement from any subsidence caused by proposed oil field operations; Reservoir monitoring, including documentation of produced fluid volume (oil, gas and water) and reservoir pressures at similar frequency to ground elevation measurements; Reporting requirements; and Action levels. Subsidence monitoring reports shall be completed annually. Surveying for both vertical and horizontal ground movement shall be completed along the perimeter and throughout the interior of the oil field, utilizing Global Positioning System technology in combination with a network of ground stations. The continuous monitoring GPS stations shall include: Hermosa Beach Pier. The pier will serve as the furthest offshore point in the monitoring program, and the closest to where the center of the subsidence bowl would be expected to occur. Longfellow Outfall. This Outfall is larger and more structurally stable than some of the other outfalls along the Citys coast. King Harbor Jetty. This location was selected to achieve a distribution of continuous monitoring points along the coast of Hermosa Beach. This will help provide a limited regional picture of the subsidence between survey events. The results shall be forwarded to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of Hermosa Beach for review. In the event that the Global Position System monitoring indicates that subsidence is occurring in and/or around the Proposed Project area, wastewater or water reinjection operations shall be increased to alleviate such subsidence. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Division of Oil, Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Resources (DOGGR)
GEO-4b
Increase wastewater reinjection and/or water
Following monitoring results indicating
California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal
8-26
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements Gas and Geothermal Resources in determining appropriate increased levels of wastewater reinjection operations. The Applicant will also coordinate with the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department, to verify that subsidence has been mitigated sufficiently. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party replenish-ment subsidence Resources (DOGGR) operations and Carpinteria Public Works Department Soil auger and Prior to final City of analytical design Hermosa laboratory Beach
GEO-6
GEO-7a
GEO-7b
A Registered Civil Engineer shall analyze surficial and near-surface soils at the Project Site subsequent to grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of non-expansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Proposed Oil Project design must conform to the recommendations of HDR Schiff (2012), included within Appendix C in NMG Geotechnical (2012), or as per the City Engineer, and should occur prior to completion of the final Project design. All buried metal pipelines shall be coated and placed under impressed cathodic protection. To monitor for internal corrosion, corrosion coupons or equivalent measures can be utilized. External pipe inspections shall be conducted for the exposed pipeline sections to ensure atmospheric coatings are in good conditions. All external inspections shall be documented and reviewed by the operations management and repairs documented, when necessary. In accordance with California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources pipeline regulations (Public Resources Code Sections 3013 and 3782), a pipeline management plan shall be implemented. Mechanical testing, including ultrasonic and hydrostatic testing, shall be completed in coordination with the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff.
GEO-7c
Design for protection against corrosion Under impressed cathodic protection Visual inspections
Prior to final design
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
Monthly
GEO-7d
Prepare under guidance of California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and
8-27
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Geothermal Resources Pour proper During City of concrete construction Hermosa adjacent to Beach corrosive soils
GEO-7e
All concrete in contact with the high sulfate or corrosive soils shall be Type V concrete in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code.
City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO-1c Requirements A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a geotechnical investigation specific to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures. All geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and construction at the site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations. A Registered Civil Engineer shall analyze surficial and near-surface soils at the Project Site subsequent to grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich, expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of non-expansive soils to prevent structural damage and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Submit Prior to permit City of temporary issuance Hermosa shoring plans Beach and calculations. Soil auger and analytical laboratory Prior to final design City of Hermosa Beach
GEO-6
8-28
Table 8-7
Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure SR-1a
Requirements The Applicant shall cause to be prepared an independent third-party audit, under the direction and supervision of the City, of the gas and crude oil plants and pipelines, once constructed, including the well pads, to ensure compliance with Fire Code, applicable API and NFPA codes, EPA RMP, OSHA PSM, and SPCC and emergency response plans requirements. The review shall include a seismic assessment of equipment to withstand earthquakes prepared by a seismic engineer in compliance with Local Emergency Planning Committee Region 1 CalARP guidance. All audit items shall be implemented in a timely fashion, and the audit shall be updated annually, as directed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Departments. The Applicant shall ensure that no spark producing equipment is located within the crude oil spill containment areas, or that spark producing equipment is sufficiently isolated from the crude oil containment area, in order to reduce the potential for crude oil fires. The Applicant shall ensure that all crude-oil truck haulers are trained in HAZMAT (to the HAZWOPER technician level at least) spill response and that each truck carries a spill response kit. The Applicant shall install automatic valves on the gas pipeline that will automatically shut down under a low pressure scenario at the Processing Facility Area for all pipelines leaving the processing plant, and shall install a backflow prevention device at the main gas pipeline tie-in location, to prevent the release of gas from the main transmission pipeline in the event of a rupture in the gas pipeline. The second, return pipeline shall remain isolated from the main gas pipeline during normal operations. The Applicant shall ensure that warning tape is installed above the pipelines within the pipeline trench to warn third parties that pipelines are located below the warning tape and that the pipelines are capable of utilizing a smartpig.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party LACFD Review of audit Before Phase reports 4 operations HBFD and annually thereafter
SR-1b
Review of design documents Site inspections, review of contracts Review of design documents
SR-1c
SR-1d
City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach HBFD
SR-1e
8-29
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure SR-1f Requirements The odorant system shall have its own, smaller containment area around it limiting the spilled pool size to the minimum size attainable, in order to prevent any offsite impacts. Transfer of odorant shall utilize carbon canisters and a canister change-out/maintenance program to ensure that filling of odorant tanks do not cause offsite impacts. Produced gas shall be continuously monitored for hydrogen sulfide and, if H2S levels exceed 100 ppm, the well shall be shut in and abandoned as per DOGGR requirements. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of design 3 construction Hermosa documents Beach HBFD Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections Before Phase 2 drilling City of Hermosa Beach HBFD City of Hermosa Beach
SR-1g
SR-2
The Applicant shall sample soil during Phase 1 grading to ensure that soil lead contamination levels are below 9,500 mg/kg. If soils are encountered above these levels, then those soils shall be removed from the site and transported to a disposal site. This may necessitate implementing the RAP during Phase 1 if substantial amounts of contamination are encountered.
Phase 1
8-30
Table 8-8
Hydrology and Water Quality Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2a
Requirements The Applicant shall properly maintain the associated crude oil pipelines, storage tanks, and processing facilities within and outside the Project Site, including smart-pigging according to State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal requirements and the standards outlined by the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall inspect storage tank and processing equipment at least daily and pipeline inspections on a weekly basis. The Applicant shall install a leak detection system for crude pipelines to the Torrance Refinery. The system shall include pressure and flow meters, flow balancing, supervisor control and data acquisition system, and a computer alarm system in the event of a suspected leak. Temperature, pressure, and flow shall be monitored at each pipeline entry and exit. If any variable deviates by more than 10 percent of the normal operating range, the system shall trigger both audible and visual alarms. Flow balancing shall be conducted every 5 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours with the accuracy defined once the system is established and tested. Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable surfaces and shall be included in a spill trailer maintained onsite. Spills in dirt areas shall be immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and discarded in accordance with local and state regulations. Oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the then-current California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook. .
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of maintenance 4 operations Hermosa reports Annually Beach
HWQ-2b
Review of system design and testing results
HWQ-2c
Review of training and equipment
HWQ-2d
Review of training and incident reports
8-31
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HWQ-2e Requirements A response manual and Oil Spill Contingency Plan, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department, shall be implemented to outline response actions in the event of a spill, including a spill response trailer, equipment, and personnel training. The Plan shall be completed prior to Phase 2. Spill cleanup shall be completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan. The well cellar shall be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent oilbased substances from seeping into groundwater supplies. All drilling muds storage shall be contained within Baker-type enclosed tanks, which shall be sized to accommodate high intensity rainfall events without overtopping. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of reports 2 and Phase 4 Hermosa operations Beach
HWQ-2f
Review of design documents, field inspection Review of design documents, field inspection Review of design documents, field inspection
HWQ-2g The Applicant shall install a check valve in the crude oil pipeline at the Herondo and Valley drive where the crude oil pipeline turns eastward and starts uphill.
HWQ-2h
The Applicant shall fund and install, under the direction of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, an oil/grit separators or oil/water separator located along Herondo Street downstream of Valley Drive, in order to capture small to medium sized spills before they reach the ocean. Installation and maintenance costs shall be provided by the Applicant and the devices shall be inspected by the Applicant to ensure that the "trap" is operational before any storm events.
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
8-32
Table 8-9
Noise and Vibration Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Requirements Increase the height of the noise barriers on the west and north sides of the site to 35-feet and upgrade the sound insulation performance of the barrier material from STC-25 to STC-32.
NV-1b
Increase the height of the noise barriers on the south and east sides of the site to 22-feet. The sound insulation performance of the barrier material in these locations may remain at STC-25.
NV-1c
The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-1d
NV-2a
Increase the height of the noise barriers on all sides of the site from 32-feet to 35-feet (35-feet is the maximum height allowed). Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32.
NV-2b
The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of design 1 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 1 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 1 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 1 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 2 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 2 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections
8-33
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NV-2c Requirements All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of design 2 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 2 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 3 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 3 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections
NV-2d
Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck, pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-3a
Provide continuous, 35-foot high noise barriers along the west and north sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32.
NV-3b
NV-3c
Provide continuous 25-foot high noise barriers along the east and south sides of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25. The gates on the east and south sides of the site should be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-5a
Provide a continuous, 35-foot high noise barrier around the entire perimeter of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32.
Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections
Before Phase 3
Before Phase 4
8-34
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NV-5b Requirements Provide solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal gates for the east and south designed to deliver a minimum STC of 32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-32 noise barrier in all locations. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of design 4 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 4 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 4 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 4 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections Review of Before Phase City of design 4 Hermosa documents and Beach in-field inspections
NV-5c
NV-5d
Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck, pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-6a
Increase the height of the masonry walls on the north and west sides of the site to a minimum of 27-feet.
NV-6b
Apply outdoor acoustical panels to all available surfaces of the north and west walls that face the production operations above a height of 10-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of production noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the east and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72.
8-35
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NV-7a Requirements Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier along the north, west and south boundaries of the City Yard site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Before Phase City of design 3 Hermosa documents and Proposed City Beach in-field Maintenance inspections Yard Project Review of Before Phase City of design 3 Hermosa documents and Proposed City Beach in-field Maintenance inspections Yard Project Review of Before Phase City of design 3 Hermosa documents and Proposed City Beach in-field Maintenance inspections Yard Project
NV-7b
Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25.
NV-7c
NV-7d
Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of schedules and in-field inspections Review of schedules and
NV-8a
Increase the height of the masonry wall on the west side of the Yard (the wall that spans between the office and shop building) from 6-feet to 12-feet.
NV-8b
No noise-producing activity allowed in the City Yard before 8AM or after 7PM on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies.
NV-8c
For the Parking Option, there shall be no openings in the parking structure enclosure except for the vehicular entrance/exit opening on the north side. The
Before Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project During Phase 3 Yard
City of Hermosa
8-36
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements entrance/exit should be located as far to the east as possible, to maximize its distance from the homes on Cypress Avenue. Garage exhaust fans shall be enclosed and fitted with duct silencers on the discharge and intake sides as necessary to limit noise emissions to less than significant levels at the nearby sensitive receivers. Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier on the north, west and south sides of the site and along those parts of the site boundary adjacent to City Hall. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. If visual and light concerns preclude a 25-foot high noise control barrier close to City Hall - because of visual and light concerns - the noise barrier here should be as tall as possible. Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-25. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party in-field Operation Beach inspections
NV-9a
Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections
Before Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
NV-9b
NV-9c
NV-9d
Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise barrier. All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of design documents and in-field inspections Review of
NV-10a
Increase the height of the concrete block Yard wall along the west and south sides of City Hall from 8-feet to 16-feet.
NV-10b
Apply outdoor acoustical panels to the extended wall surfaces facing the Yard
Before Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase 1 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Before Phase
City of
8-37
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Requirements above a height of 8-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of operational noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the west and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72. No noise-producing activity allowed in the temporary City Yard before 8 A.M. or after 7 P.M. on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party design 3 Hermosa documents and Proposed City Beach in-field Maintenance inspections Yard Project
NV-10c
Review of schedules and in-field inspections
Before Phase 3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
8-38
Table 8-10
Transportation and Circulation Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Requirements For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall fund, through and in consultation with the School District and Safe Routes to School, an afternoon crossing guard to be stationed at the Project Site area to ensure pedestrians passing nearby the Project Site have assistance in crossing the streets and the entrances/exit of the Project Site. Alternately, the Applicant shall ensure that trucks do not travel to and from the Project Site unless school is in session (i.e. truck travel prohibited on Valley Drive after 2:48 p.m., on Wednesdays after 1:45 p.m. or on school minimum days after 12:45 p.m.). The Applicant shall consult with the School District to ensure timing is current. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall install, subject to the approval of the City Public Works Department, warning signs and blinking yellow lights one block north and south (if applicable with possible one-way on Valley Drive) of the Project Site warning vehicle traffic that trucks may be entering and exiting the roadway. Blinking lights shall only operate when trucks are utilizing the roadway (not 24 hours per day). The Applicant shall ensure that all trucks accessing the Project Site and utilizing the Pier Avenue/Valley Drive intersection are less than 65 feet long to prevent safety hazards at the double intersection on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall, with the approval and coordination of the City Public Works Department, restripe Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue to be a southerly directed one-way street. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Valley Drive between 6th Street and 8th Street to allow for sufficient line of sight for trucks entering and exiting the Project Site. Pipeline construction activities within the Pipeline right-of-way shall be limited to weekday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., unless the applicable municipality approves a specific exception to the time limit for periods of limited duration, subject to measures required by the municipality to protect the public health and safety.
Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Review of Prior to City of contracts and pipeline Hermosa site inspections construction Beach activities
TR-1b
Review of design documents and site inspections
Prior to pipeline construction activities
TR-1c
Review of contracts and site inspections Review of design documents and site inspections Review of design documents and site inspections
TR-1d
Prior to pipeline construction activities Prior to pipeline construction activities Prior to pipeline construction activities
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
TR-2a
8-39
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TR-2b Requirements The applicant shall implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) during Pipeline construction that includes the following pursuant to the procedures and subject to approval of the applicable municipality: 1) Require the Pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow street construction permits in the affected areas (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities - PCH and Hawthorne Boulevard); 2) Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected Citys standard roadway plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); 3) Revise Pipeline construction schedules to minimize access impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and 4) Ensure that all affected residences and business have adequate emergency access during all times and phases of construction. The applicant shall be prohibited from routing Proposed Oil Project-related heavy truck exceeding 20,000 pounds on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH, except during Pipeline construction. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the applicable city. The applicant shall route inbound and outbound heavy (>20,000 pounds) truck traffic along PCH and Artesia Boulevard, which are designated truck routes. The City shall design the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard so that it does not enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive. If the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project affects the sidewalk, then the design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to separate the pedestrians from the street. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Approval of Prior to City of CTMP pipeline Hermosa construction Beach activities
TR-3a
Use of alternative route Use of alternative route Review of Plans Review of Plans
Phases 1-4
City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach
TR-3b
Phases 1-4
TR-4a
Phase 3
TR-4b
Phase 3
8-40
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TR-4a Requirements The City shall design the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard so that it does not enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive. If the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project affects the sidewalk, then the design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to separate the pedestrians from the street. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Phase 3 Review of City of Plans Hermosa Beach Phase 3 Review of City of Plans Hermosa Beach
TR-4b
Table 8-11 Water Resources Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure WR-1 Requirements Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department and the Districts for review and approval. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary. Implement MM HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Area study of Prior to City of the proposed issuance of Hermosa sewer line and permit Beach a 7-day performance capacity test should be performed at select downstream locations to verify the adequacy of the existing sewer. See HWQ-2a through HWQ2d See HWQ-2a through HWQ2d See HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d
WR-2
8-41
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure WR-1 Requirements Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department and the Districts for review and approval. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary. In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows from the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, sewer upgrades shall be completed to accommodate the increased flows. Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Party Area study of Prior to City of the proposed issuance of Hermosa sewer line and permit Beach a 7-day performance capacity test should be performed at select downstream locations to verify the adequacy of the existing sewer.
8-42
Section 9: List of Preparers and Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation
9.0 List of Preparers and Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation

List of Preparers Name MRS Luis Perez, Senior Project Manager M.A., Organizational Management, Fielding Graduate University B.A., Environmental Science and Public Relations, Northern Arizona University Steven R. Radis, Principal; M.A., Climatology, California State University, Northridge, 1989. B.A., Climatology, California State University, Northridge, 1981; Greg Chittick, Senior Engineer M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1987 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, UCSB, 1985; Years of Experience Contribution
25
Project Management, Project Description, Alternative Screening, Alternatives
26
Project Management, Safety and Risk Project Description, Alternatives, Air Quality, Energy and Mineral Resources, Safety and Risk, Noise, Fire Protection and Emergency Services, Solid Waste, Aesthetics Biological Resources Land Use, Public Services, Recreation, Environmental Justice, Mitigation Monitoring Plan Technical Editor, Report Production Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Transportation and Traffic Aesthetics and Visual Resources Aesthetics and Visual Resources Aesthetics and Visual Resources Geological Resources/Soils Geological Resources/Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Water Resources Geological Resources/Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Water Resources
25
Ted Mullen, Manager M.A., Biological Sciences, UCSB, 1990 B.S., Biology, Loyola Marymount University, 1987 Dean Dusette, Senior Scientist B.A., Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara Brittney Stephens B.S., Business Administration, Chapman University, 2011 Stantec Michael Weber Chuck Lounsberry Edward White Dalton LaVoie James Stone Steven Brady
17
25
14
11 6 45 30
Kristy Edblad
9-1
Lewis Simons Rock Miller Melissa Dugan Steve Rogers Acoustics Steve Rogers SAIC/LEIDOS Perry Russell B.A. Geology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1984 M.S. Geology, California State University, Northridge, 1988 California Professional Geologist (#5777), since 1993 California Certified Engineering Geologist (#1837), since 1993 Applied Earthworks M. Colleen Hamilton M.A. History, University of Missouri, St. Louis (in Historical Archaeology/Architectural History), 1990. B.A. Anthropology/Minor in History, Wright State University, Dayton, 1977. Keith Warren
14 35 15 20
Geological Resources/Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Water Resources Transportation and Traffic Transportation and Traffic Noise and Vibration
23
Soil and Geological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Water and Wastewater
33
Cultural Resources
10
Cultural Resources
Name Ken Robertson Edward Almanza Pamela Townsend Ells Freeman Frank Senteno Mondher Saied Tom Thompson James Crawford David Lantzer Tom Bakaly Lead Agency Preparers City of Hermosa Beach Title Director Project Manager Senior Planner Superintendent Public Works Director Contract Capital Improvement Project Engineer Lieutenant - Support Services Commander Fire Marshall Fire Chief City Manager Agency
Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach (Ed Almanza and Associates) Community Development Department Public Works Public Works Public Works Hermosa Beach Police Department Hermosa Beach Fire Department Hermosa Beach Fire Department City of Hermosa Beach
Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation Other Agencies/Individuals Title Agency Superintendent CalWater Deputy Director California Coastal Commission California State Lands Staff Environmental Scientist Commission
Name Rob Olson Alison Dettmer Cynthia Herzog
9-2
Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation Other Agencies/Individuals Name Title Agency California State Lands Mark LeClair Geologist Commission County of Los Angeles Fire Frank Vidales Acting Chief, Forestry Division Department Customer Service Specialist, Facilities County Sanitation Districts of Los Adriana Raza Planning Department Angeles County Sanitation Districts of Los Grace Robinson Chan Chief Engineer and General Manager Angeles Kathleen M. Andrews Associate Oil & Gas Engineer - Facilities Department of Conservation Department of Transportation, Dianna Watson IGR/CEQA Branch Chief District 7, Office of Regional Planning Native American Heritage Dave Singleton Program Analyst Commission Associate Planner Anita Kroeger City of Redondo Beach Community Services Department Community Services Director Aaron S. Jones City of Redondo Beach Community Services Department Robert Metzger Fire Chief Redondo Beach Fire Department John Mate Transportation Engineer Redondo Beach Michael Witzansky Director Redondo Beach Martin Serna Fire Marshal Torrance Fire Department
9-3
9-4
Section 10: References
10.0 References Aesthetics and Visual Resources
American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004) California Coastal Act, Chapter 3 Article 6 Section 30251 Scenic and Visual Qualities, 2013. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, 1971. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), Officially Designated Scenic Highways: California Green Building Standards Code. July 1, 2012 Supplement. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. California Department of Transportation, Landscape Architecture Program, 2011. City of Hermosa Beach, Local Coastal Plan, 1981. City of Hermosa Beach General Plan; Open Space, Conservation, Urban Design Elements; Parks and Recreation Plan, 1979. City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, accessed online October 2013. City of Redondo Beach, Land Use Element, 1992. City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code, accessed online October 2013. City of Torrance General Plan, Community Resources Element, 2009. City of Torrance Municipal Code, accessed online October 2013. Focus 360, Visual Simulations of Proposed Oil Project Site. January 2014. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES), The Lighting Handbook, Tenth Edition. New York, New York. 2011. U.S.D.O.T., Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, U. S. Department of Transportation Washington D. C. March 1981.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases AEP 2007. Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) on How to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. Comment Draft. White Paper. March.
10-1
AIHA 2008, American Industrial Hygiene Association, ODOR Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards, 1989. American Petroleum Institute (API), 2004. Compendium Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies For The Oil And Gas Industry, Feb, 2004. Brycon 2012, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard CalEEMod 2014, website http://www.caleemod.com/ accessed 1/2014 CalEPA 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor CAPCOA 1999, California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions of Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities, February CAPCOA 2013, CalEEMod Users Guide, July 2013 version 2013.2.2 CARB Air Quality Data, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html CARB 2006. Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing the 1990 Emissions Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions; December 1; Sacramento, CA. CARB. 2007, CARB Compendium Of Emission Factors And Methods To Support Mandatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Subchapter 10, Article 2, sections 95100 to 95133, title 17, California Code of Regulations CARB, 2008. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. CARB 2011, California Air Resources Board, Attachment D: Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document, August 19, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/fed.htm CARB 2011a Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures, July 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/db/search/search_result.htm?q=Status+of+Scoping+Plan+Recommended+Mea sures&which=arb_google&cx=006180681887686055858%3Abew1c4wl8hc&srch_words=&cof=FO RID%3A11&submit.x=15&submit.y=10 CARB, 2011c. California Air Resources Board, Overview of ARB Emissions Trading Program, Revised 10/20/11. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2011/cap_trade_overview.pdf CARB, 2012. California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Facility Emissions Report to the California Air Resources Board 2010. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/reported_data/ghgreports.htm CARB 2013, Climate Change Scoping Plan First Update Discussion Draft for Public Review and Comment, October 2013 CARB, 2013a. California Air Resources Board, Annual Summary of 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Reported to the California Air Resources Board, January 11, 2013, (Excel spreadsheet). www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/reported_data/ghg-reports.htm CARB, 2013b. California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2000 to 2011, issued 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm CARB 2013 Speciation Profiles, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/speciate.htm CARB 2013, Website standards designations, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
10-2
CARB 2014 EMFAC2011 model, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm

CCAR 2009, California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1, January CHB 2011, Sustainability Plan, June 2011 CNS, Canadian Nuclear Society. 1998. 19th Annual Conference. October. Crockett, 2011. Crockett, Alexander, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: Californias Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2 (2011), Article 3. Duffee 1991, with O'Brien, Ostojic, Odor Modeling - Why and How. Page 295, Recent Developments and Current Practices in Odor Regulations, Controls and Technology. Air & Waste Management Association, 1991. EPA 1992, Estimation of Air impacts for the Excavation of Contaminated Soil, EPA-450/1-92-004, table
A-6
EPA 2007. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. USEPA #430-R-07002. EPA 2012. The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2012 (eGrid2012) Technical Support Document. ERGI 2007, Eastern Research Group, Inc, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Emissions From Oil And Gas Production Facilities IPCC 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. 2007. "Third Assessment Report" - 2001 Hegerl, 2007. Hegerl, G.C., et. al., Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Kostka, 2013. Kostka, Stephen L and Michael H. Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act Second Edition, Volume 2, (Oakland, CA: 2013, Continuing Education of the BAR).
New Jersey Department of Public Health (NJDPH). 2004. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet for Hexane; April. New Jersey Department of Public Health (NJDPH). 2007. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet for Pentane; March. New Jersey Department of Public Health, Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet for pentane, March 2007 and hexane, April 2004
NOAA, 2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013, website for global climate data, Earth System Research Lab. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth. OEHHA 2013, Web access to Guidelines and REL, accessed 12/2013 http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/index.html SBCCG 2009, South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report
10-3
SBCCG 2009, South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report SCAQMD 1993, CEQA handbook, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html SCAQMD. 2003, Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, August 2003 SCAQMD 2003, Guidelines for Fugitive Emissions Calculations SCAQMD 2007, Localized Significance Thresholds, https://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html SCAQMD 2008 Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) Study, Final, September, 2008 SCAQMD, 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans, SCAQMD Board Meeting Date: December 5, 2008. SCAQMD 2012, Proposed Rule 1148.2, Drilling and Well Completion Notification and Reporting. SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD 2013, website accessed 11/2013 https://www.aqmd.gov/ USEPA 1994, Handbook Control Techniques for Fugitive VOC Emissions from Chemical PRocess Facilities, EPA 625/R-930005 USEPA 2012, eGRID Documentation US EPA 2013, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 2011 Biological Resources
Allen, M.J. 1982. Functional structure of soft-bottom fish communities of the southern California shelf. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, San Diego. Allen, M. J., H. Pecorelli and J. Word. 1976. Marine organisms around outfall pipes in Santa Monica Bay. J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed. 48, 1881-1893. Baird, P.H. 1993. Birds. In: M.D. Daily, D.J. Reish, J.W. Anderson (eds.). Ecology of the Southern California Bight. Berkeley: University of California Press. 926 p. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).. 2001. Californias Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Resources Agency. Eds.: W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). 2001. A Recommendation for Marine Protected Areas in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared for the California Fish and Game Commission. August 6. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFG 2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 3 (version 3.1.1). Report generated December 16, 2013.
10-4
Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M. S. Lowry. 2005. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2004. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-375. Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques, C.S. Strong, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa, D.L. Jory, and D.L. Whitworth. 1992. Breeding populations of seabirds in California, 1989 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Dixon, California, and San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California. Draft final report to Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, under Interagency Agreement No. 14-12-001-30456. Volumes I and II. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). 2005. From Shore to Sea Lecture Series: 30 Years Watching Pinnipeds at San Miguel Island a talk by Bob DeLong, Marine Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service. August 10. Dohl, T.P., R.C. Guess, M.L. Duman, and R.C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans of central and northern California, 1980-1983: status, abundance, and distribution. OCS Study MMS 84-0045, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Hubbs, C.L. 1977. First record of mating of ridley turtles in California with notes on commensals, characters, and systematics. Calif. Fish and Game 63(4). pp. 262267. Keane, K. 1999. California Least Tern Breeding Survey, 1998 Season. Habitat Conservation and Planning Branch Report, California Department of Fish and Game. Lafferty, K. D. 2001. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 101:315-325. Leatherwood, S. and R. R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 302 pp. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences... 1993. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 1993 receiving water monitoring report, Huntington Beach Generating Station, Orange County, California. 1993 survey. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead. CA. 93-RD-009.49 p. plus appendices. Mattoni, R. and N. Powers. 2000. The Palos Verdes blue: an update. Endangered Species Bulletin 15(6):18-19. Moore, M.D., and A.J. Mearns. 1980. Changes in bottom fish population off Palos Verdes, 19701980. In South. Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj. biennial report, 1979-1980. Long Beach, Calif., p. 21-33. Reeves, R.S., Stewart, B.S., and Leatherwood, S. 1992. Sierra Club Handbook of Seals of Sirenians. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) 2008. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan and Bay Monitoring Reports. Accessed online at : http://santamonicabay.org/smbay/ProgramsProjects/tabid/79/Default.aspx December 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) 1993. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Final Rule Listing for the Coastal Population (58 FR 12864). ___. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species System, Life History of the California Least Tern. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B03X.html. Accessed September 2005. ___. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv + 751 pages. Veterans Parkway Master Planning Document, Manhattan Beach June 2013
Cultural Resources
Altschul, Jeffrey, John G. Douglas, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, Kathleen L. Hull, Don R. Grenda, Jeffrey Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven Shelley, Angela Kelly, and David Maxwell. 2007. Life at the Nexus of the Wetlands and Costal Prairie, West Los Angeles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Volume 20, 2007, pp. 34-42. Society for California Archaeology, Chico, California. Brycon LLC. 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard 555 6th Street Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared by: Brycon, LLC, Costa Mesa, California. Prepared for: E&B Natural Resources Mgt. Corp Bakersfield, California. (E&B Oil Development Project Planning Application Appendix E). California Governors Office of Planning and Research. 2012. CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, Statutes and Guidelines. State of California, Sacramento, California. Converse Consultants, 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. 552 11th Place, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for Cty of Hermosa Beach, Community Development Department, Hermosa Beach, California. City of Hermosa Beach. 2013a.Municipal Code, Chapter 17.53 Historic Resources Preservation, www.hermosabch.org, website accessed October 30, 2013. ____2013b. History. Electronic document, accessible at http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=42, November 1, 2013. ____ 2009 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan. Historic Resources. www.hermosabch.org, website accessed January 27, 2014. Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr. 1999. Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Edited by Helmut E. Ehrenspeck with Perry L. Ehlig and Wendy Lou Bartlett, 1999. Edited by John A. Minch, 2011. Published by and available from the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.
10-6
Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colton, eds. 1991. Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, and Rene L. Vanelloweth. 2008. A Canyon Through Time: Archaeology, History, and Ecology of the Tecolote Canyon Area, Santa Barbara County, California. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Environmental Research Associates. 1993. Phase I Cultural Resources Literature Search For the West Basin Water Reclamation Project. Prepared for West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, California. Prepared by Environmental Research Associates, Los Angeles, California. Finken, Richard D. 2013. A History of Oil Production in Hermosa Beach. <website accessed November 8, 2013, www.hermosabeach.patch.com. > Greenwood and Associates. 1990. Archaeological Site Record (19-001872). Los Angeles Times.1965. Civic Center Complex: City Hall Dedication Date Set by Hermosa. January 10, 1965. King, Chester. 1990. The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. Garland Publishers, New York. Koerper, Henry, and Christopher Drover. 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: A Case for Ca-ORa-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):134. Livingstone, David M., Dennis McDougall, Susan K. Goldberg, and Wendy Nettles .2006. Trails to Rails: Transformation of a Landscape: History and Historical Archaeology of the Alameda Corridor. Prepared for Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Mason, Roger, and Mark Peterson. 1994. Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion. Newport Coast Archaeological Project, Vol. 1. The Keith Companies, Costa Mesa, California. McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California and Ballena Press, Novato, California. McLeod, Samuel A. 2013. Unpublished museum collections records. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. NMG Geotechnical Inc. 2012. E&B Oil Development Project. Geotechnical and Design Report, Hermosa Beach City Maintenance Yard, 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation. (E&B Oil Development Project Planning Application Appendix D.)
10-7
RNL Design. 2013. Memorandum. Subject: Project Description Concept E. City Yard Relocation Study. Submitted to City of Hermosa Beach. July 19, 2013. Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb.1990. Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Rhein, Fern. 1933. The Early History of Hermosa Beach. Electronic document (archived), accessible at http://web.archive.org/web/20120825064957/ http://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org/fernhist.html, November 1, 2013. Rick, Torben C., and Jon M. Erlandson. 2000. Fishing Practices of Early Holocene Coastal California: Preliminary Evidence From Daisy Cave (Ca-SMi-261). Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 13, Judyth Reed, ed., pp. 194201. Society for California Archaeology, Chico, California. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. 19271946. On file Los Angeles County Library. Weeks , Kay D, and Anne E. Grimmer. 1995. Secretary of the Interiors' Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C. Woodring, W. P., M. N. Bramlette, and W. S. W. Kew. 1946. Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills, California, United States Department of the Interior, Geology Survey, Professional Paper 207.
Energy and Mineral Resources
CEC 2000. Weekly California Refinery Production and Stocks Level. CEC 2004, website data on products from a bbl of oil, http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html CEC 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Final Committee Report. CEC 2011, Integrated Energy Policy Report 2011 CEC 2012, Integrated Energy Policy Report Update 2012 CEC 2013, website, accessed 12/2013, http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html CFTB 2012, California Franchise Tax Board, website, year 2012 data, http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/spftrpts.htm USGS Maps accessed online in 2014, http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/
10-8
Fire Protection and Emergency Response
API. 2005. Design, Construction, Operation, Inspection and Maintenance of Tank and Terminal Facilities, API Standard 2610. ___. 2005. Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, API Standard 653. California Code of Regulations. Title 1, Division 5. __. 1995, API 2510 Design and Construction of LPG Installations California Code of Regulations, Title 8. See web references at http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8 CCPS, 2003a, Guidelines for Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical and Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities, pub # 6-83 CCPS, 2003b, Guidelines for Facility Siting and Layout City of Torrance Fire Department, person communication with Capt. Keith Dume. ICMA 2013, Operations Analysis Report, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Hermosa Beach, California, October 2013, Final Report IRI. 1993 to1995. Guidelines for Loss Prevention and Control. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA Codes including 11 (2010), 15 (2012), 22 (2013), 24 (2013), 25 (2014), 30 (2012), and 291 (2013) http://www.nfpa.org Los Angeles County Fire Department Website, http://www.fire.lacounty.gov/ LACFD 2013, letter from County of Los Angeles, NOP comments, Aug 5, 2013, to Mr. Ken Robertson. IFC, 2012, International Fire Code, International Code Council http://shop.iccsafe.org/codes/2012-international-codes/2012-international-fire-code/2012international-fire-code.html
Geological Resources/Soils
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2002. Map of California Geomorphic Provinces. Baum, R.L., Galloway, D.L., and Harp, E.L. 2008. Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines. USGS Open File Report 2008-1164. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1164/. California Division of Mines and Geology. 1999, and updated by the California Geological Survey, 2010. Fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. ______. 1988. Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Special Publication 99.
10-9
California Geological Survey. 1997. Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. California Geological Survey. 2013. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/Index.aspx. California Geological Survey. 2010. Online website Fault Maps, and Special Publication 42, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. City of Long Beach. 2014. Subsidence History. http://www.longbeach.gov/oil/subsidence/story.asp. Earth Mechanics, Inc. (EMI). 2001. Final Ground Motion and Fault Study Report, West Basin, Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro, California. Prepared for the Port of Los Angeles, April 27. Geosyntec Consultants. November 9, 2012. Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Technical Report, E&B Oil Development Project. HDR Schiff, Inc. 2012. Soil Corrosivity Study, E&B Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for NMG Geotechnical, Inc., June 15, and included within Appendix C of NMG Geotechnical (2012). http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2153. McNeilan, T.W., T.K. Rockwell, and G.S. Resnick. 1996. Style and rate of Holocene slip, Palos Verdes fault, southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (B4):8317-8334. Ninyo & Moore. 1992. Geologic, Geotechnical, and Hydrologic Conditions, B Street Realignment Project. Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles Harbor Department. NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 2012. Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report, Hermosa Beach City Maintenance Yard. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation, October 19. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2153. Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2014. Significant Earthquakes and Faults, Chronological Earthquake Index, Long Beach Earthquake. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/longbeach1933.html. Sutch and Dirth. 2003. California Geology Study Manual, Peninsula Range Section. U.S. Geological Survey 2012. Historic Earthquakes, Earthquake Hazards Program. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1933_03_11.php.
Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards
API. 2005. Design, Construction, Operation, Inspection and Maintenance of Tank and Terminal Facilities, API Standard 2610.
10-10
API. 2005. Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, API Standard 653. California Code of Regulations. Title 1, Division 5. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2013. Emergency Response Planning Guidelines accessed online http://www.aiha.org/ Bercha 2013, Bercha Group, E&B Oil Development Project Quantitative Risk Analysis, July 3, 2013. Brycon 2012, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard 555 6th Street Hermosa Beach, California, June 15,2012 and August 2012, respectively. CalOES, California Office of Emergency Services, http://www.calema.ca.gov/hazardousmaterials/pages/spill-release-reporting.aspx California State Fire Marshal (CSFM). 1993. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk Assessment Report. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). 1989. Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. New York NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety; 1989. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). 1989. Guidelines for Process Equipment Reliability Data with Data Tables. New York NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety; 1989. Provides data on process systems and equipment. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and BLEVES. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). 1996. Evaluating Process Plant buildings for External Explosions and Fires. Prepared by The Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 1996. Provides data on process systems and equipment. Chan ST, Ermak DL. 1983 . Recent Developments on the FEM3 and SLAB Atmospheric Dispersion Models. Chan ST, Ermak DL. 1983 . Recent Developments on the FEM3 and SLAB Atmospheric Dispersion Models. California Division of Oil, Gas and of Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Drilling and Operating OIl, Gas and Geothermal Wells in an H2S Environment, 1997, pub number m10. Converse 2005, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, 555 1tth Street, for the City of Hermosa Beach, June 21 CSLC 2014, California State Lands Commissions, discussions with Mark LeClair, January, 2014 DOT 2013, Department of Transportation Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, accessed 12/2013. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/psi.html?nocache=9690
10-11
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1989. Handbook of Chemical Hazards Analysis Procedures. HLID, Hydrocarbon Leak and Ignition Database, Report N0. 11.4/180, May 1992, E&P Forum IFC, 2012, International Fire Code, International Code Council http://shop.iccsafe.org/codes/2012-international-codes/2012-international-fire-code/2012international-fire-code.html Koopman. 1983. Analysis of Burros Series 40m3 LNG Spill Experiments. Lees FP. Loss Prevention In The Process Industries. Volumes 1 - 3. Butterworths, London. 1996. Lydell. 2000. Pipe Failure Probability the Thomas Paper Revisited, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 68, 207-217 Minerals Management Service, Incident Database, http://www.mms.gov/incidents/ viewed in 2007. Minerals Management Service, Performance Measures, http://www.mms.gov/perfmeas/ viewed in 2007. Minerals Management Service, Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Program. 2000. MMS-2000-057. Morgan 1983 SLAB: A time dependant Computer Model for the Dispersion of Heavy gas Releases into the Atmosphere National Fire Protection Association. NFPA Codes including 11 (2010), 15 (2012), 22 (2013), 24 (2013), 25 (2014), 30 (2012), and 291 (2013) http://www.nfpa.org OSHA 2013, website discussion on the hazards of H2S, https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hydrogensulfide/index.html Reliability and Maintainability in Perspective, (R&MIP) 3rd Edition, D.J. Smith, 1988 ISBN 0333-46205-X Rijnmond, 1982, "Risk Analysis Of Six Potentially Hazardous Industrial Objects In The Rijnmond Area, A Pilot Study." A report to the Rijnmond Public Authority, presented by COVO Steering Committee, 1982. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland. A compilation of data on all types of equipment failure is provided. Santa Barbara County. 2000. Comprehensive Plan. Safety Element Supplement. Board of Supervisors Resolution 00-56. February. State of California Safety Orders 2103, CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, accessed 2013 SuperChems Reference And User's Manual. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1991. Thomas, H.M. (1981) : "Pipe and Vessel Failure Probability", Reliability Engineering, 2, pp. 83124
10-12
UK Health and Safety Executive, Development of a Method for the Determination of On-site Ignition Probabilities, Research Report 226, Daycock and Rew, WS Atkins Consultants, Ltd., 2004 USCB 2013, United States Census Bureau, web site access, 2010 census data, accessed 2013, for teh City of Hermosa Beach, http://www.census.gov/ U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999, Remotely Controlled Valves on Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, September 1999, USGS 2013, Earthquake Hazards Program, Banded Deaggregations, accessed 2013 http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggband/2002/index.php WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014), United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975. Referred to as WASH-1400. Provides data on human errors as well as equipment failures, and is one of the most extensive sources of failure-on-demand estimates.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Brycon, LLC. 2012a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Mgt. Corp., June 15. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2152. ______. 2012b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Mgt. Corp., August 30. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2151. ______. 2012c. City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, Proposed Remedial Action Plan, 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Mgt. Corp., October 30. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2150. California Coastal Act, 2013. Public Resources Code Division 20. California Geological Survey. 2013. Tsunami Inundation Maps, Los Angeles County, available online at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAngele s/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_RedondoBeach_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf.
California Water Quality Control Board, 1994. Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Adopted by: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region on June 13, 1994. Converse Consultants, 2005a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, April 22. Converse Consultants, 2005b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, June 10. E & B Natural Resource Management Corporation, 2012. Hydrology and Water Quality Study, E&B Oil Development Project. Prepared by E& B Natural Resource Management Corporation. Prepared in support of Planning Application. November 2012.
10-13
Environmental Data Resources Inc., The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck for Hermosa Beach/11th Place, 552 11th Place, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, Inquiry Number: 01395606.1r, April 7. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, 2006. NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 2012. Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report, Hermosa Beach City Maintenance Yard. Prepared for E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation, October 19. http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2153. USEPA 1999, Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Water Quality Inlets, EPA 832-F-99-029
Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis
California Coastal Act, 1976 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, 1994 City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan, 1981 City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code City of Hermosa Beach Oil Code, 1985 City of Redondo Beach General Plan, 1992 City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code City of Torrance General Plan, 2009 City of Torrance Municipal Code
Noise and Vibration
Arup Acoustics. 2004. Plains Exploration and Production Company, Inglewood Oil Field Noise Impact Study, November. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. USEPA Contract 68-04-0047. City of Hermosa Beach. 2007. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.24, Noise Control. City of Redondo Beach. 1976. Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 24, Noise Regulation. City of Torrance. Torrance, California Municipal Code, Division 4, Chapter 6, Noise Regulation. County of Los Angeles. 1978. Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 12.08, Noise Control. FHWA. 2011. Construction Noise Handbook. FHWA-HEP-06-15. July.
10-14
FTA. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Marine Research Specialists. 2011. Whittier Main Oil Field Development Project, Final Environmental Impact Report. October. MGA 2008, Mestre Greve Associates, Noise Assessment For: The Lab Project City Of San Clemente SoundPlan, http://www.soundplan.eu/english
Public Services and Utilities
City of Hermosa Beach. 2013. Agreement between City of Hermosa Beach and Arakelian Enterprises DBA Athens Services, for Integrated Waste Management Services. May. City of Hermosa Beach Website, http://www.hermosabch.org City of Redondo Beach Website, http://www.redondo.org City of Torrance Website, http://www.torranceca.gov City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department. 2013. Athens Services Monthly Solid Waste Tonnage Report, December 2013. City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach Police Department Police Operations Report, August 2013 City of Hermosa Beach, Monthly Hermosa Beach Police Department Report for November 2013 Clean Harbors (Buttonwillow) Website: http://www.cleanharbors.com County of Los Angeles, Public Works Department. 2013. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2012 Annual Report. County of San Bernardino, Public Works Department. 2012. Countywide Integrated Waste Plan Third-Five Year Review Report for the County of San Bernardino.
Transportation and Traffic
Arch Beach Consulting. 2012. Traffic Impact Analysis, E&B Oil Development Project, City of Hermosa Beach Planning Application, Appendix M. Arch Beach Consulting. 2013a. Technical Memorandum, Daily Traffic Counts in Vicinity of E&B Project Site. Arch Beach Consulting. 2013b. Traffic Impact Analysis Errata, E&B Oil Development Project. Arch Beach Consulting. 2014a. Addendum Traffic Impact Analysis, E&B Oil Development Project.
10-15
Arch Beach Consulting. 2014b. Errata to Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum TIA for E&B Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa Beach. HBCSD 2014, Hermosa Beach City School District website, accessed January 2014, http://www.hbcsd.org/ ITS 2008, Institute of Transportation Studies, Hermosa Beach Pedestrian Safety Assessment, November 2008. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2014. Maintenance Yard Relocation Traffic Study, E&B Oil Development Project. TRB 2000, Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual WLCI 2011, Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Healthways Blue Zones Vitality City: Beach Cities Livability Plan, August 2011.
Water Resources
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/use/sb_610_sb_221_guidebook/guidebook.pdf. Site accessed September 12, 2013. ______. 1961. Bulletin No. 104, Planned Utilization of the Ground Water Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County, Appendix A Ground Water Geology. California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2013. About Cal Water. https://www.calwater.com/about/index.php. Site accessed October 16, 2013. ______. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Hermosa-Redondo District, June. https://www.calwater.com/your_district/uwmp.php?district=rd&Submit=Show+plans. Site accessed October 16, 2013. California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2013. Injection Wells. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOG/general_information/class_injection_wells.htm. Site accessed October 29, 2013. E&B Natural Resources. 2012. Hydrology and Water Quality Study, E&B Oil Development Project, 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. November. MBF Consulting, Inc. 2011. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update. Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach, originally in April 2009, revised March 2011. http://www.hermosabch.org/Search.aspx?sa.x=9&sa.y=13&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11 &q=sewer%20service&cx=014272426406783312333%3Akplopnjmbl8. Site accessed October 15, 2013.
10-16
Produced Water Society. 2013. Produced Water Facts. http://producedwatersociety.com/index.php/produced_water_facts/. Site accessed October 29, 2013. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2013. Wastewater Facilities. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/default.asp#map. Site accessed October 16, 2013. Technical Steering Committee, City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles. 2004. Santa Monica Bach Beaches Bacterial TMDLs Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan. April 7. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/technical_d ocuments/2002-022/04_0407/SMBBB%20TMDLs%20CSMP.pdf. Site accessed January 6, 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Underground Injection Control Program, Oil and Gas Injection Wells (Class II). http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/classii.html. Site accessed October 29, 2013. Water Replenishment District of Southern California. 2007. Battling Seawater Intrusion in the Central & West Coast Basins. WRD Technical Bulletin Volume 13, Fall 2007. http://www.wrd.org/engineering/seawater-intrusion-los-angeles.php. Site accessed October 16, 2013. West Basin Municipal Water District. 2011a. About West Basin. http://www.westbasin.org/about-west-basin. Site accessed October 16, 2013. _____. 2011b. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. http://www.westbasin.org/water-reliability2020/planning/water-resources-planning. Site accessed October 24, 2013.
Environmental Justice
City of Hermosa Beach Website, http://www.hermosabch.org Southern California Association of Governments Website, http://www.scag.ca.gov U.S Census Bureau Website, http://www.census.gov
10-17
10-18

Environmental Impact Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Impact Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E

Public Draft EIR February 2014 SCH# 2013071038

Prepared For: City of Hermosa Beach

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4.7 4.4.8 4.4.9 4.4.10 4.5

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Appendices (on the CD)

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Propo osed Project Location

Source: Project P Applica ation, Amendments and Appendices

Draft Environmental Im mpact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project P

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Each of these is briefly summarized below and is shown in Table ES.2.

Draft Environmental Impact Report

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report