edison-avenue-railroad-grade-crossing-vacation-and-closure ...

ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001 i

Contents

Section Page 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Background.......................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions .................................................................1-1 1.4 Project Description........................................................................................................1-7 1.5 Anticipated Permits and Other Approvals ...............................................................1-8

2.0 Potentially Significant Effects Checklist ............................................................................2-1 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................2-1 2.2 Determination................................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................2-2

I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................2-4 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.......................................................................2-6 III. AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................2-7 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................2-15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................2-17 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................2-18 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................2-21 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................2-23 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................2-26 X. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................2-28 XI. NOISE..............................................................................................................2-29 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................2-32 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................2-33 XIV. RECREATION................................................................................................2-35 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................2-36 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.........................................................2-43 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE......................................2-45

3.0 Application Summary Report ...............................................................................................3-1 3.1 Port Master Plan and Coastal Act Issues ...................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Port Master Plan Issues ...................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 California Coastal Act Issues..........................................................................3-1

3.2 Proposed Staff Recommendations..............................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Findings and Declaration................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Approval with Conditions..............................................................................3-2

4.0 References .................................................................................................................................4-1

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE CONTENTS NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT

ii ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001

Appendices A Air Quality Construction Emissions Calculations

B Air Quality Operations Emissions Calculations

C Edison Avenue Closure Traffic Analysis Report

Tables 1 Accidents at Edison Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing

2 Project Permits and Approvals

3 Ambient Air Quality Standards

4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds

5 Project-Related Maximum Daily Construction Impacts Compared to Regional Significance Thresholds

6 Project-Related Operations Air Quality Impacts Compared to Regional Significance Thresholds

7 Project-Related Air Quality Impacts Compared to Localized Thresholds

8 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet

9 LOS Categories for Signalized Intersections

10 LOS Categories for Stop Controlled Intersections

11 Port/City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Significance Criteria

12 Port/City of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Significance Criteria

13 Existing Intersection LOS Analysis

14 2010 No Project (Without Closure of Edison Avenue) – Intersection LOS Analysis

15 2010 Project (With Closure of Edison Avenue) – Intersection LOS Analysis

Figures 1 Project Regional Setting

2 Project Site within Long Beach Harbor

3 Building Access Plan and Property Ownership in the Vicinity of the Project Site

4 Highways, Streets, Intersections and Traffic Movements in the Vicinity of the Project Site

5 Alternate Routes

ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001 iii

Acronyms

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAP Clean Air Action Plan

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCA California Coastal Act

CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CGS California Geological Survey

CO carbon monoxide

COLB City of Long Beach

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

dBA A-weighted decibel

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

g acceleration due to gravity

GHG greenhouse gas

HCM Highway Capacity manual

I Interstate Highway

ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization

IP Port-Related Industrial

lb pound

LBFD Long Beach Fire Department

LOS level of service

LST localized significance threshold

m meter

MCE maximum credible earthquake

mph miles per hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE ACRONYMS NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT

iv ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOx nitrogen oxides

O3 ozone

PHL Pacific Harbor Line

PM10 particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter)

PM2.5 particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter)

PMP Port Master Plan

POLA Port of Los Angeles

POLB Port of Long Beach

Port Port of Long Beach

SCAB South Coast Air Basin

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SIP State Implementation Plan

SOx sulphur oxides

SR State Route

TRB Transportation Research Board

V/C volume-to-capacity

VdB vibration velocity decibel

VMT vehicle miles traveled

vph vehicles per hour

VOC volatile organic compounds

ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Background The Edison Avenue rail at-grade crossing, located within the Port of Long Beach (Port or POLB), provides a connection between 9th Street to the north and Pier B Street to the south by crossing a series of railroad lines operated by Pacific Harbor Line (PHL). PHL provides rail transportation, maintenance, and dispatching services to the POLB and Port of Los Angeles (POLA). In addition to switching over 40,000 units of carload freight annually, PHL provides rail-switching services for 13 on-dock intermodal terminals in the POLB/POLA complex, and provides dispatching services for approximately 90 intermodal or unit trains per day.

Two mainline tracks and one yard lead track cross Edison Avenue. The grade crossing is not equipped with active warning devices such as flashing lights and gates. It has a high volume of long train and highway vehicular traffic, with train traffic expected to increase in the future. Triple tracks are more dangerous and difficult to protect than single tracks. Motorists often fail to look in both directions to observe trains on multiple tracks and have a tendency to misjudge the speed and distance of large trains. Often the desire to avoid long delays is a strong incentive to bypass active warning lights and race an approaching train.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates railroad grade crossings in California. The CPUC policy is to reduce the number of grade crossings on freight mainlines in California to reduce the hazards associated with at-grade crossings.

The proposed project would permanently close and vacate the Edison Avenue rail at-grade crossing. The regional setting for the proposed project is illustrated in Figure 1 while Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed project within the Long Beach Harbor area.

1.2 Project Objectives The objective of the proposed rail at-grade crossing closure is to increase public safety by eliminating an unguarded grade crossing.

The proposed project would accomplish this objective by closing and vacating the Edison Avenue rail at-grade crossing.

1.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions The project site is located approximately 1,000 feet from the northern extremity of the Long Beach Harbor District that runs along the north side of Anaheim Street. Land use in the area immediately to the north of the project site is industrial and includes outdoor storage, truck and container repair and maintenance activities. Approximately half a mile to the east is Interstate 710 (I-710) and the same distance to the west is State Route 103 (Terminal Island

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE 1.0 INTRODUCTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT

1-2 ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001

Freeway). Immediately to the south are the bulk product facilities (petroleum and gypsum), extensive automobile logistics and storage areas of Pier B and the container terminal of Pier A.

The Edison Avenue at-grade crossing involves four railroad lines: Main 1 (westward), Main 2 (eastward), Pier B yard lead, and Toyota lead. Main 1 and 2 provide connection between Piers B, D, E, F, G, and J, and the Alameda Corridor.

Over the past 5 years, there have been seven reported collisions between trains and roadway vehicles associated with the two main line tracks and Pier B yard lead track as shown in Table 1. In addition, there have been four vehicle collisions, including one injury, near the Toyota lead track.

TABLE 1 Accidents at Edison Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing

Date Time of Day Description

2001, March 4 1:51 Non-injury

2001, May 1 2:31 Non-injury with train

2002, June 27 1:30 Non-injury

2003, February 5 21:16 Non-injury

2003, November 11 17:05 Non-injury with train

2004, January 21 11:11 Non-injury with train

2004, March 5 17:00 Non-injury with train

2004, March 24 19:39 Non-injury with train

2004, June 14 5:35 Non-injury with train

2004, December 30 12:00 Injury

2005, October 29 16:45 Non-injury with train

For reasons of safety, PHL operating rules require trains to cross Edison Avenue at a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour (mph). Under current conditions, the majority of trains use the two main lines and have a crossing duration of 4 minutes and 30 seconds each. Traffic access is interrupted at the crossing, on average, for a total of 4 hours and 40 minutes each day (24-hour period). With the projected increase in rail traffic on the main lines from just under 30 trains daily to 40 daily, it is anticipated that the delay experienced at the grade crossing could increase to 6 hours and 20 minutes between 2010 and 2015.

FIGURE 1Project Regional Setting

ES012007014SCO353670.01.04 ProjReg3.ai 1/07

LA Harbor

LOSANGELES

SANPEDRO

WILMINGTON

101

LONGBEACH

HARBORCITY

CARSON

TORRANCE

BELLFLOWER

LAKEWOOD

COMPTON

LYNWOOD

SOUTH GATE

DOWNEY

BEVERLYHILLS

SANTAMONICA

INGLEWOOD

HAWTHORNE

REDONDOBEACH

LB Harbor

5

90

213

5

5

605

405

710

110

110

405

405

10

42

1

107

47

1

22

39

91

19

60

P a c i f i c O c e a n

N

Miles

KilometersScale

0

0

3 6

5 10

PROJECTLOCATION

ES012007014SCO353670.01.04 ProjLoc3.ai 1/07

North0 1

Approximate scale in miles

FIGURE 2 Project Site within Long Beach Harbor

PIER G

PIER J

PIER J

PIER F

PIER T

PIER D

QUEENSWAY BAY

QUEENSWAY BRIDGE

PIER C

HARBOR SCENIC WAY

ANAHEIM ST.

OCEAN BLVD.

PIER B ST.

PICO

AVE.

SHORELINE DRIVE

HARBOR SCENIC WAY

Cerritos Channel

West Basin

Long Beach Harbor

San Pedro Bay

East Basin Back Channel

Slip

3

Slip

1

PIER E

PIER F

PIER

E ST.

47

710

Project Location

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION


1.4 Project Description The project calls for the permanent closure and vacation of an approximately 200-foot long section of Edison Avenue containing the at-grade railroad crossing located between Pier B Street and 9th Street. The right-of-way for the mainline tracks (most northerly pair of tracks) is owned jointly by POLB and POLA. The Edison Avenue right-of-way north and south of the mainline tracks is owned partly by the Port and partly by the City of Long Beach. Portions of the street dedicated to the City of Long Beach would be vacated. The proposed project would not involve private property (land or buildings) and would not restrict access to private property.

Land designated as a public alley runs behind parcels fronting 9th Street immediately east of Edison Avenue. The land of the first three parcels is unimproved, is adjacent to and parallels the westbound main line, and is owned by the Port. Should rear access be required by the businesses immediately adjacent to the east, the land designated as public alley could be used. The project does not include the improvement of the alley right-of-way except for the installation of signs indicating the single direction (westbound) for traffic movement.

Southbound traffic from 9th Street would be prevented from entering Edison Avenue by the construction of a traffic island and appropriate signing. Traffic barriers would be erected north and south of the railroad tracks to prevent traffic from crossing. The barriers would include a gate on the north side to allow the City of Long Beach Fire Department emergency access and a curb on the south side. Conflicting road lane markings currently on both 9th Street and Pier B Street would be removed and appropriate signage added. Construction would take approximately 2 weeks. The proposed access plan and property ownership in the vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 3.

The short section of Edison Avenue containing the at-grade railroad crossing provides a connection between 9th Street to the north and Pier B Avenue to the south. Figure 4 illustrates the traffic movements in the vicinity.

A number of road intersections in the vicinity of the project could be affected by the closure of the Edison Avenue railroad at-grade crossing, including:

1. Pier B Street/Edison Avenue East (unsignalized) 2. Pier B Street/9th Street/I-710 Southbound ramps (signalized) 3. Anaheim Street /9th Street (signalized) 4. Anaheim Street/Farragut Avenue (signalized) 5. Anaheim Way/Pier B Street (unsignalized) 6. Edison Avenue /9th Street (unsignalized) 7. Pier B Street/Edison Avenue West (unsignalized) 8. Anaheim Street /Santa Fe Avenue (signalized)

With the closure of the Edison Avenue at-grade crossing, alternate routes are available for traffic as shown in Figure 5. It is likely that the following specific segments of these alternate routes would experience increased traffic levels:

• Pier B Street (between Edison Avenue and Pico Avenue);

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE 1.0 INTRODUCTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT


• Pier B Street (between Edison Avenue and Anaheim Way) • 9th Street (between Edison Avenue and Pico Avenue); and • Anaheim Street (between Farragut Avenue and East I Street)

1.5 Anticipated Permits and Other Approvals POLB likely would be required to obtain the permits and approvals listed in Table 2 for the proposed project.

TABLE 2 Project Permits and Approvals

Agency Permit

POLB Harbor Development Permit

City of Long Beach City Council Approve “Notice to Vacate” and “Resolution to Vacate”

City of Long Beach Fire Department Approve closure action

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Approval to close at-grade railroad crossing

CPUC Standard Form G, “Report of Changes at Highway Grade At-Grade Crossings and Separations”

ES012007014SCO353670.01.04 accessplan.ai 1/07

FIGURE 3 Building Access Plan and Property Ownership in the Vicinity of the Project Site

North

ES012007014SCO353670.01.04 traffic.ai 4/07

FIGURE 4 Highways, Streets, Intersections and Traffic Movements in the Vicinity of the Project Site

Index to Intersections

1. Pier B Street (East)/Edison Avenue (unsignalized)

2. Pier B Street/9th Street/I-710 Southbound ramps (signalized)

3. Anaheim Street /9th Street (signalized)

4. Anaheim Street/Farragut Avenue (signalized)

5. Anaheim Way/Pier B Street (unsignalized)

6. Edison Avenue /9th Street (unsignalized)

7. Pier B Street (West)/Edison Avenue (unsignalized)

8. Anaheim Street /Santa Fe Avenue (signalized)

1234

5678

ES012007014SCO353670.01.04 altroutes.ai 6/07

FIGURE 5 Alternate Routes


2.0 Potentially Significant Effects Checklist

The environmental analysis of the proposed project addresses the topics identified on the following Environmental Assessment Checklist. The checklist uses the following terms:

• Potentially Significant Impact − Impacts would be potentially significant, and feasible mitigation has not been identified.

• Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated − Impacts would be adverse and potentially significant, but they could be mitigated feasibly to less than significant.

• Less than Significant Impact − Impacts would be adverse but less than significant.

• No Impact − No adverse impacts or only beneficial impacts would occur.

2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT 2.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST


3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact could occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if substantial evidence indicates that an effect could be significant. If one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries exist when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, Mandatory Findings of Significance, from the Environmental Checklist can be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses can be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration according to CEQA Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier analysis used. Identify and state where existing analyses are available for review.

b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans and zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, should include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting information sources should be cited. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally should address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to environmental effects of a proposed project in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. Significance criterion or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b. Mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE 2.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT


Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less than Significant

Impact No Impact

I. AESTHETICS Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

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

Discussion: a-d) The project site is located close to the northern boundary of the Port less than a half mile from the wharves of Pier B. The topography of the surrounding area varies from relatively flat with low hills near sea level to steeper topography to the north and east. The topography within the Port is virtually flat.

Views from downtown Long Beach and along the ocean bluffs are of Queensway Bay, the Queen Mary, Long Beach Harbor, the Pacific Ocean, and the POLB. Ground-level views along Queensway Bay are of downtown Long Beach, the Shoreline Village area, Long Beach Harbor, and the Pacific Ocean. Ground-level views along Harbor Scenic Drive from the southbound lanes south of Anaheim Street include the Queen Mary, Queensway Bay, Long Beach Harbor, the Pacific Ocean, and the facilities of Piers G, J, and H.

The existing visual character of the area immediately adjacent and to the north of the proposed project site is one of port-related and non port-related uses that include container storage, truck maintenance and service, small industrial establishments, and boat storage yards. Immediately south of Pier B Street are bulk storage and handling facilities and automobile storage yards associated with port activities at Piers A and B.

Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

The proposed project site would not be within, immediately adjacent to, or visible from a state-designated scenic resource or scenic highway. The closest officially designated state scenic highway is a section of State Route (SR)-2 (Angeles Crest Scenic Byway), approximately 25 miles north of the project site at the intersection with I-210 (Pasadena Freeway), north of the City of Los Angeles. The closest eligible state scenic highway is a section of SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway) commencing at SR-19 (Lakewood Boulevard) in Long Beach and extending southward to San Juan Capistrano in Orange County. The project site is not visible from either of these highway segments.



No trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings are on the proposed project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the visual quality of the existing environment and would not adversely affect scenic resources.

Most of the land in the POLB area is dedicated to industrial uses, where the primary visual elements consist of warehouses and industrial buildings, cargo terminals with large gantry cranes and stacked cargo containers, berthed ships, dry bulk storage, and storage tanks and structures.

The project site is located at the southern edge of an area of mixed (and sometimes incompatible) land uses and possesses a number of characteristics of urban blight. The proposed project would not adversely alter the existing aesthetic character of the project site and surrounding area.

Implementation of the proposed project would not include the addition of new sources of light or glare and, thus, would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area.




Impact




Impact No Impact

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

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

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

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?

Discussion: a-c) The site of the proposed project is composed of a dedicated city street and railroad grade crossing and, as such, would not support a designation of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. Therefore, the project would have no impact on farmland resources.

The zoning on the project site is Port-Related Industrial (IP), which is characterized predominantly by maritime industry and marine resources. The IP zone designation does not permit agricultural uses. No Williamson Act contracts apply to the project site, and the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses.

No agricultural resources or operations exist in the POLB or at adjacent areas. Agriculture is not a permitted use at the proposed site, and the project does not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.




Impact




Impact No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

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

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

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

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

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

Discussion: a) The proposed project is under the local jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Under the California Clean Air Act (CAA), SCAQMD is required to develop an air quality management plan (AQMP) for nonattainment criteria pollutants within the air district. SCAQMD has established an AQMP that proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The most recently approved AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board of Directors on August 1, 2003. The proposed project would not affect implementation of the control measures listed in the 2003 AQMP. Many of these control measures apply to stationary sources that are not part of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP. Currently, the Draft 2007 AQMP is under development and provides the strategies to meet the new, more stringent ozone and PM2.5 standards than were in place during development of the 2003 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP is scheduled to be finalized by June 2007.

The POLB/POLA jointly prepared the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and SCAQMD. The CAAP was developed to define implementation strategies to meet shared air quality improvement goals for both Ports. The CAAP includes strategies to reduce emissions from trucks, locomotives, harbor craft, and



cargo handling equipment. These types of sources (trucks, cargo handling equipment) are not part of the proposed project. Therefore, the CAAP would not apply to the proposed project because it is strictly a public safety improvement project.

b) Federal air quality policies are regulated through the Federal CAA. Pursuant to this act, the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following air pollutants (termed “criteria” pollutants): carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter defined as particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter defined as particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead. The Federal CAA was amended in 1977 to require each state to maintain a state implementation plan (SIP) for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. The CARB oversees California air quality policies and is responsible for preparing and submitting the SIP to the EPA. California established state ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) that are generally more stringent and include more pollutants than the NAAQS.

The federal and State ambient air quality standards represent levels established to avoid specific adverse health- and welfare-related effects associated with each pollutant. Table 3 presents the federal and state attainment status for each pollutant. At the federal level, the SCAB has been classified as nonattainment status for the following pollutants: CO, O3, PM2.5, and PM10. At the state level, the SCAB has been classified as nonattainment status for the following pollutants: O3, PM2.5, and PM10.

TABLE 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria Pollutant

Federal Standard (Averaging Period)a

Federal Attainment

Status State Standard (Averaging

Period)b

State Attainment

Status 35 ppm (1 hour) Nonattainmentc 20 ppm (1 hour) Attainment Carbon

Monoxide (CO) 9 ppm (8 hour) Nonattainmentc 9 ppm (8 hour) Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

0.053 ppm (annual arithmetic mean) Attainment 0.18 ppm (1 hour)d

0.03 ppm (annual average)d Attainment

0.07 ppm (8 hour) Nonattainment Ozone (O3) 0.08 ppm (8 hour) Nonattainment

0.09 ppm (1 hour) Nonattainment

15 μg/m3

(annual arithmetic mean) Nonattainment 12 μg/m3

(annual arithmetic mean) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

35 μg/m3 (24 hour)e Nonattainment No separate Standard (24 hour)

Revoked (annual arithmetic mean)f NA 20 μg/m3

(annual arithmetic mean) Nonattainment Particulate Matter (PM10)

150 μg/m3 (24 hour) Nonattainment 50 μg/m3 (24 hour) Nonattainment

0.030 ppm (annual arithmetic mean) Attainment -- --

0.14 ppm (24 hour) Attainment 0.04 ppm (24 hour) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

-- -- 0.25 ppm (1 hour) Attainment

Lead 1.5 μg/m3 (calendar quarter) Attainment 1.5 μg/m3

(30 day average) Attainment



TABLE 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria Pollutant

Federal Standard (Averaging Period)a

Federal Attainment

Status State Standard (Averaging

Period)b

State Attainment

Status Sulfates 20 μg/m3 (24 hour) Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide

0.03 ppm (1 hour) Unclassified

Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ppm (24 hour) Attainment

Visibility Reducing Particles

No Federal Standards Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer — visibility of 10 miles or

more (0.07 — 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative

humidity is less than 70 percent.

Unclassified

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm, as of March 20, 2007. ppm: parts per million, by volume NA: not applicable

Notes: a National standards, other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. b California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. c On February 24, 2006, the ARB transmitted the CO Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin to the EPA for approval.

d On February 23, 2007, the ARB approved a lowered 1-hour NO2 standard and a new annual-average NO2 standard. These changes become effective after regulatory changes are submitted and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, expected later this year.

e On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

f On September 21, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard, due to lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html



Air emissions from the project would result from construction and operational activities. To assess the impact of project-related construction and operational emissions, the SCAQMD has established regional and localized significance thresholds which are presented in Table 4. The SCAQMD regional thresholds are provided for the following pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides (SOx), and CO.

Project sites of 5 acres or less can use the SCAQMD-developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) in lieu of conducting modeling analyses to determine whether or not a project could generate significant localized air quality impacts associated with construction or operation (SCAQMD, 2003 and 2006a). The LSTs are organized in mass rate look-up tables and have been developed for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre sites for various downwind locations ranging from 25 meters (m) to 500 m. These thresholds were developed from modeling analyses designed to comply with the ambient air quality thresholds established by SCAQMD. The LSTs developed by SCAQMD and applicable to the proposed project (NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO) are shown in Table 4. Since the project site is under 1 acre in size, the construction and operational emissions were compared to the SCAQMD LSTs for 1-acre sites. Project emissions less than the SCAQMD LST levels would be considered less than significant.

Following Table 4, construction and operational emissions are summarized and compared to the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds, when appropriate. The air quality impacts of the project are considered less than significant if construction and operation emissions are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

TABLE 4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds

Regional Significance Thresholds Localized Significance Thresholds

(LST)a Pollutant

Construction (lb/day)

Operation (lb/day)

Construction (lb/day)

Operation (lb/day)

NOx 100 55 311 311

VOC 75 55 NA NA

PM10 150 150 242 58

PM2.5 55 55 93 23

SOx 150 150 NA NA

CO 550 550 6,547 6,547

Sources: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html and http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html and http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/PM2_5/PM2_5.html, as of March 20, 2007. NA = not applicable a Based on project location ‘South Coastal LA County’ and assumes a receptor distance of 500 meters for a 1-acre site. LSTs are only applicable to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.



Construction Emissions In PM10 and ozone nonattainment areas such as SCAB, soil-disturbing activities and construction equipment exhaust emissions of NOx and VOC may temporarily affect air quality. Emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction equipment and on-road vehicles were calculated for construction activities at the site. Emission factors from the web-based version of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook were used to estimate construction emissions (SCAQMD, 2007). Construction equipment exhaust was calculated using OFFROAD2007 emission factors available in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 2007). Vehicle exhaust emissions from worker commute trips and on-road truck travel were calculated using EMFAC2007 emission factors available in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 2007). VOC emissions from traffic paint used for pavement striping were assumed to be minor and were not included in the construction emissions calculations. The VOC content of the paint would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings. Appendix A contains the detailed construction emission calculations.

In order to evaluate the significance of the construction emissions, the daily emissions were compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds and the SCAQMD LSTs. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately two weeks and it was assumed that construction would occur in the year 2007. Table 5 presents the estimated worst-case daily construction emissions assuming all construction activities occurred simultaneously. The results show that emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for construction. Furthermore, the SCAQMD LSTs would not be exceeded during construction because the SCAQMD construction LSTs values (see Table 4) are greater than the SCAQMD regional significance threshold values. Therefore, air emissions from the construction phase of the project would be less than significant.

TABLE 5 Project-Related Maximum Daily Construction Impacts Compared to Regional Significance Thresholds

Estimated Emissions (lb/day)a

CO NOX PM10 PM2.5

VOC SOX

Worst-Case Daily Emissions (lb/day) 130 68 5 4 12 0.07

SCAQMD Regional Threshold (lb/day) 550 100 150 55 75 150

Significant? No No No No No No

a Emissions conservatively assume all construction activities would overlap.

Operational Emissions Operational emissions were evaluated for the future conditions with the project (2010). Under existing conditions, vehicles are delayed along Edison Avenue each time a train crosses. Operation emissions for existing conditions (2006) were assumed to be included as part of the ambient air quality. The project proposes to close and vacate the at-grade railroad crossing located between Pier B Street and Ninth Street. The closure of the at-grade railroad crossing would result in a slight increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on nearby



roadways. Operation emissions for the future condition with the project (2010) were estimated for the change in VMT.

Vehicle exhaust emissions were calculated using EMFAC2007 emission factors and the daily automobile and truck VMT provided by the Port. The EMFAC2007 emission factors for light-duty passenger vehicles were used for automobiles and the emission factors for heavy-heavy duty diesel trucks were used for trucks. Appendix B contains the detailed operational emission calculations for this project.

Emissions from locomotives were assumed to be the same for the existing condition (2006) and for the future condition with the project (2010). A locomotive’s engine and drive system operate independently, such that the engine can be operated at a particular speed without respect to the speed of the locomotive itself (Starcrest, 2004). Locomotive engine emissions are based on the engine notch rather than actual speed of the train. Locomotive speed may increase through the vacated railroad crossing; however, it is assumed that the engine would remain in the same notch with or without the railroad crossing. Therefore, the locomotive emissions for the future condition with the project (2010) would be expected to be the same as existing conditions (2006).

In order to evaluate the significance of the operation emissions, the daily emissions were compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds and the SCAQMD LSTs. As shown in Table 6, there would be a slight increase in operation emissions for the future condition with the project (2010). The slight increase in emissions is due to a slight increase in VMT (137 daily automobile VMT and 7 daily truck VMT) for the future condition with the project (2010). The increase in operation emissions would be well below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Next the operation emissions were compared to the SCAQMD LSTs. The SCAQMD LSTs for CO and NOx are greater than the regional significance thresholds; therefore, emissions were not compared to the SCAQMD LSTs for CO or NOx (see Table 4). As shown in Table 7, the incremental increase in operation emissions for the future condition with the project (2010) would be well below the SCAQMD LSTs for PM10 and PM2.5. Since operation emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds or the SCAQMD LSTs, the impact to air quality would be less than significant.

TABLE 6 Project-Related Operation Air Quality Impacts Compared to Regional Significance Thresholds

Estimated Emissions (lb/day)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC SOx

Incremental Increase With Project (Year 2010)b

1.2 0.4 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.002

SCAQMD Regional Threshold (lb/day) 550 55 150 55 55 150

Significant? No No No No No No



TABLE 7 Project-Related Operation Air Quality Impacts Compared to Localized Thresholds

Estimated Emissions (lb/day)

PM10 PM2.5

Incremental Increase With Project (Year 2010) 0.02 0.02

SCAQMD Localized Threshold (lb/day) 58 23

Significant? No No

CO Hot Spot Analysis The purpose of this CO hot spot analysis is to evaluate whether roadway intersections affected by the project would cause or contribute to a localized violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS for CO. According to the Guideline for Modeling CO from Roadway Intersections, “…the criteria for intersection modeling depend on whether the project has the potential to create an adverse air quality impact by either significantly increasing traffic or reducing distances from receptors where the public has general access” (EPA, 1992). The slight increase in peak hour traffic at nearby intersections, due to re-routing traffic required by the project, would not be considered a significant increase in traffic because these intersections would operate at LOS C or better (see Edison Avenue Closure Traffic Analysis report). Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not change the distance of vehicle emissions to receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to produce a CO hot spot and the impact is expected to be less than significant.

Assembly Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In August 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 is the first bill in the United States to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. AB 32 establishes a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve reductions in GHG emissions (CARB, 2006). In addition, AB 32 makes CARB responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions (CARB, 2006). Recently, CARB requested approval from the EPA to implement a GHG reduction measure for motor vehicles beginning with the model year 2009. If implemented, this measure would have a long-term benefit of reducing GHGs from motor vehicles. AB 32 does not link regulation of GHG emissions to individual projects that would be evaluated under CEQA. At this time, no formal guidelines or thresholds have been established by the state to evaluate GHG emissions under CEQA. There would be increased vehicle emissions associated with construction activities and also during the operations phase as a result of increase vehicle miles traveled. However, these emissions are minimal and would have a less than significant impact on air quality. Thus, although GHG emissions would be expected to increase, the potential impact would also be less than significant.

c) The SCAB attainment status for each criteria air pollutant is presented in Table 3. At the federal level, the following pollutants have been classified as nonattainment status: CO, O3, PM2.5, and PM10. At the state level, the following pollutants have been classified as nonattainment status: O3, PM2.5, and PM10. As shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 above, the estimated air emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD



regional or localized significance thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, or VOC. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant of concern for which the project region is designated nonattainment.

d) As discussed above, the localized impacts from construction and operation of the project would be expected to be less than significant. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be anticipated to be less than significant.

e) Short-term odors might result from project construction activities due to the use of diesel-powered heavy equipment. However, the construction would be located in a fenced site away from receptors and the site would have no public access. Due to the short-term nature of construction odors, the controlled access, and the distance to the nearest receptors, odors would be highly unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. During operation of the project, no potential additional sources of odors are expected. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.




Impact




Impact No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:

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

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, or coastal tidal area) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

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

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

Discussion: a-f) Two state and federally listed endangered species, the California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) and the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), regularly use the harbor area. Additionally, the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is a state-listed endangered species that is known to nest in areas within POLB.

The California least tern is a small seabird that migrates from tropical wintering areas to southern and central California in May to breed. California least terns nest in coastal areas



adjacent to shallow marine and estuarine habitats, where they can feed on fish at the water surface by diving into the water. One nesting colony for the California least tern is a 15-acre site on the southeast portion of Pier 400 within the POLA, approximately 4.5 miles from the site.

California brown pelicans forage along the coast of California all year, but appear in smaller numbers during the breeding season (approximately January through June). Brown pelicans have been observed year-round in the harbor area, although their numbers fluctuate seasonally due to an influx in the summer of post-breeding pelicans from Mexico. In the Outer Harbor, pelicans rest on the middle breakwater, an area with little human disturbance. Pelicans are diving birds that feed exclusively on fish and have been observed foraging in open waters off Terminal Island.

The state-listed peregrine falcon nests and forages in the harbor area. Peregrine falcons reside in the San Pedro Bay area and have been observed on Terminal Island on the Schuyler Heim Bridge and the Gerald Desmond Bridge and flying over the Outer and Inner Harbor areas.

Several state species of special concern are known in the harbor area and possibly could occur in the project area. These include the elegant tern (Sterna elegans), black skimmer (Rhynchops niger), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), common loon (Gavia immer), and California gull (Larus californicus).

Implementation of the project is not expected to affect the least tern, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, or state species of special concern because they do not nest or forage in the project area.

The project area is located in an urban setting and is entirely paved with no landscaping or natural vegetation present on the project site. No streams, rivers, lakes, riparian vegetation, or federally protected wetlands exist on the site or on any areas immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the project would not affect marine mammals.

Project implementation would not affect fish or harbor waters regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; nor would the proposed project impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Because the project would not affect biological resources, it would not conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological resources.

No adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other habitat conservation plans include the area of the Port. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.




Impact




Impact No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:

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

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

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

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

Discussion: a-d) The project site is located in the North and Northeast Planning Districts of POLB that comprise older sections of the Port. Major development in this section of the Port occurred in the 1930s with the construction of Piers A, B, and D at the eastern end of the Cerritos Channel.

Implementation of the proposed project would involve only minimal ground disturbance and would not cause a change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. Additionally, paleontological resources would not be affected and human remains would not be disturbed.




Impact




Impact No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

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

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

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

Discussion: a-e) The principal damaging effects of earthquakes are surface rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction. Approximately 17 active faults exist within a 60-mile radius of the project site. No known active or potentially active faults cross the project site and, therefore, ground surface rupture due to an earthquake is not anticipated on the project site.

Of fault zones in the general vicinity, those with the greatest potential to affect the project site include the Palos Verdes Hills, Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, and San Andreas faults.

The Palos Verdes Hills fault is an active northwest-southeast trending fault zone, located about 2.5 miles to the west. The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) for the Palos Verdes



Hills fault is magnitude 7.0. An earthquake of this magnitude at a distance of 2.4 miles is expected to produce mean peak ground accelerations on the order of 0.45 g (g represents acceleration due to gravity) (CDMG, 1992).

The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is an active fault located almost 4 miles east-northeast of the site. The MCE for the Newport Inglewood fault is magnitude 7.0. An earthquake of this magnitude at a distance of 4 miles is expected to produce a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.43 g (CDMG, 1992).

The Whittier fault zone is an active fault located about 19 miles northeast of the site. The MCE for this fault is reported to be magnitude 7.5. An earthquake of this magnitude at a distance of 19 miles is expected to produce a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.19 g (CDMG, 1992).

The San Andreas fault zone is an active fault zone located about 50 miles northeast of the site. The MCE for this fault zone is anticipated to be magnitude 7.8. An earthquake of such magnitude at a distance of 50 miles is expected to produce a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.1 g (CDMG, 1992).

If a major seismic event were to occur on the faults described above, significant peak horizontal ground accelerations could cause extensive damage to many areas in the region. However, the proposed project does not include the construction of any buildings and would not expose people to any adverse effects.

Earthquake-related effects can include liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when porewater pressure in loose, saturated, granular soils exceeds confining pressure due to earthquake-induced ground shaking. When these conditions occur, soil strength dramatically decreases resulting in a near-liquid state of the soil. Liquefaction can cause damage to building foundations or other structures and occurs most commonly where loose, cohesionless, granular, sand and silty sand deposits coincide with shallow groundwater conditions. Gravelly deposits and deposits with greater than 15 percent clay are less likely to liquefy.

The Port is in an area of historic occurrences of liquefaction and one where local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements (CDMG, 2006).

In the absence of buildings, the proposed project would not place people at a substantial risk due to liquefaction, and no impacts would be anticipated.

The project site is not in an area that has previously recorded landslides or an area identified as having the potential for landslides (CDMG, 1999). The proposed project site is located in a topographically flat area with no steep slopes, hills, mountains, or inclines adjacent to it that would pose a threat of landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would not place people at a substantial risk due to landslides, and no impacts would be anticipated.

Implementation of the proposed project would include only minor ground disturbance associated with placement of barriers to block crossing of the railroad tracks by vehicles. Soil erosion would be minimal, if any, and no adverse impacts would be anticipated.

During construction, compliance with storm water pollution prevention practices and with SCAQMD rules and regulations (such as Rule 403 for fugitive dust), would ensure that



wind or water erosion of soils would be minimized. After construction activities are complete, the project would not result in wind or water erosion of soils.

Subsidence has been a major problem in the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor areas in the past due to crude oil extraction. In 1958, secondary injection of water into oil-depleted zones was initiated, resulting in an eventual reduction of subsidence and a partial rebound of much of the subsided area. The project is outside of the area of subsidence and would have no impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would not include the construction of buildings or footings. Thus, expansive soils at the project site (should they occur) would not pose a substantial risk to life or property. No impact is anticipated.

The proposed project does not include the construction or operation of buildings that could accommodate persons. Thus, no septic tanks or other wastewater disposal system would be affected by the proposed project.




Impact




Impact No Impact

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:

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

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

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

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

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

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

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

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



Discussion: a-f and h) Implementation of the proposed project could include demolition of small sections of highway pavement. However, no contaminated soil is anticipated at the project site. Construction activity would include use of hazardous materials associated with typical construction projects, such as batteries and lubricants for heavy equipment. These materials would be used in a manner consistent with existing regulations.

The proposed project site is located at the northern edge of the Port and not within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The Eugene Fields Elementary School is less than half a mile north of the proposed project site. Other than as discussed above, activities at the proposed site would not include the transport, use, or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes.

The proposed project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List, 2005).

The proposed project site is approximately 5 miles from the Long Beach Municipal Airport and is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The proposed project site is not adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

g) Closure of the Edison Avenue railroad at-grade crossing would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed closure has received conditional approval from the City of Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD, 2005). A condition placed upon approval by the LBFD was that the Anaheim Street on-ramp to southbound I- 710 be re-opened. This on-ramp is currently operational. Traffic barriers would be erected north and south of the railroad tracks to prevent traffic from crossing. The barriers, however, would include a locked gate providing access for authorized emergency vehicles and personnel. Additionally, PHL operates a 24-hour emergency telephone number that fire, police, and other emergency personnel can use should they require that the grade crossing be cleared of a train blocking the crossing.




Impact




Impact No Impact

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:

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

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

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

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite?

e) Create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

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

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

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?



Discussion: a-j) During the minor construction activities that could occur during implementation of the proposed project, the project site would be managed in accordance with storm water pollution prevention practices and applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The proposed project would not measurably change the extent of existing paved area and, therefore, would not deplete groundwater supplies or affect groundwater recharge.

The grade of the proposed project site would not be altered through implementation of the project and drainage from the site would be accommodated by the existing stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not affect surface bodies of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.

The site would be managed in accordance with storm water pollution prevention practices. Additionally, erosion from existing hardscaped surfaces would not occur, which would reduce the potential for substantial erosion. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality.

The proposed project does not include housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map.

The proposed project site is located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Implementation of the project would not involve the construction of buildings or structures that could impede or redirect flood flows.

The proposed project is not near a reservoir with a dam and is not in a dam inundation area; therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of flooding associated with the failure of a levee or dam.

Seiches are earthquake-induced waves that occur in a confined body of water, such as a lake, reservoir, or bay. Based on the distance between the project site and the Cerritos Channel and Turning Basin in the northern section of the Port, the potential for damage resulting from a seiche is remote.

Locations within both the POLB and POLA are subject to the effects of tsunamis generated by distant and local seismic events. A recent report prepared for the Port by Moffat and Nichol (2006) assessed tsunami hazard. Seven potential tsunami sources were modeled which included four local tectonic scenarios, two local submarine landslide scenarios, and one distant tsunami source scenario. It should be noted that not every large earthquake is expected to generate a tsunami based on historical occurrences of tsunamis and seismic activity throughout the world. Based on the seismicity, geodetics, and geology, a large locally generated tsunami from either local seismic activity or a local submarine landslide would probably not occur more than once every 10,000 years and this estimate is believed to be conservative.



In addition to evaluation of the local tsunamigenic sources, a review was made of historical tsunamis arriving at POLA/POLB from remote sources. The primary remote sources with significant water level fluctuations were Chile and Alaska. Other remote sources do not seem to generate substantial tsunami amplitudes along the southern California coastline.

The review presented in the report suggests that the maximum mean wave height resulting from the identified sources is approximately 0.75 m. The results suggest the historically recorded tsunamis in POLA/POLB may be the maximum to be expected from remote sources.

Model results for the seven scenarios simulated suggest the worst-case scenario for POLA/POLB is for one of the potential local events (a Palos Verdes landslide scenario). Water levels could exceed adjacent deck elevations in some localized areas with water levels slightly in excess of 7 m along Pier 400 in POLA and along the Navy Mole in POLB. These water levels would be expected to overtop the adjacent wharves in these areas. However, for the bulk of the area within POLA/POLB, limited overtopping is expected for this scenario and no overtopping is expected for the other scenarios.

The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from the potential effects of a tsunami.

The proposed project site is not near a hillside and would not be subject to damage from a mudflow. Maps prepared by the CGS Seismic Hazards Mapping Program indicate that the proposed project site is not located within a landslide zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death caused by mudflow.




Impact




Impact No Impact

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

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

Discussion: a-c) The proposed project site is located near the northern boundary of the Long Beach Harbor District and straddles POLB Harbor Planning District 1 (North Harbor) and POLB Harbor Planning District 2 (Northeast Harbor). The dividing line between the two planning districts is the northern right-of-way of the railroad lines running between Pier B Street and 9th Street. Planning District 1 consists of numerous small, independently owned land parcels devoted to port-related and non port-related uses that include container storage and truck maintenance and service. Planning District 2 is the oldest part of the harbor and includes Piers B, C, and D.

The proposed project falls within the West Long Beach Industrial Redevelopment Project Area, which was adopted on July 1, 1975. The redevelopment area consists of approximately 1,368 acres held in approximately 600 different ownerships. Most redevelopment activity is focused north of the proposed project site between Anaheim Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The purpose of the redevelopment effort is to provide assistance in the removal of blighting conditions, to aid in the creation of a healthy industrial environment, speed the transition away from residential uses, and to significantly increase job opportunities in the area. The proposed project does not conflict with any goals or objectives of the West Long Beach Industrial Redevelopment Project Area.

Although the proposed project would discontinue the connection between Pier B Street and 9th Street via Edison Avenue, it would not physically divide an established community.

The proposed project would not conflict with the goals expressed in the Port Master Plan (PMP), i.e., encourage more effective use of existing land in the Port and acquire private property and increase primary port use. The project is consistent with the permitted uses in the North and Northeast Harbor Planning Districts.

As discussed in the PMP, the Port has no natural terrestrial habitats that are of significant value, and most efforts of the Port are focused on marine habitat. The proposed project site



is a dedicated, paved city street and contains no vegetation or area that could provide value as wildlife habitat. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.




Impact




Impact No Impact

X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:

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

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

Discussion: a-b) The proposed project site is located within the Wilmington oil field; discovered in 1932, it is the third largest oil field ever found in the United States. The field runs roughly southeast to northwest through the Los Angeles Basin, stretching from the middle of San Pedro Bay through Long Beach and east of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The field originally contained approximately 3 billion barrels of reserves. As of 2002, approximately 90 percent of its original reserves had been recovered, leaving approximately 300 million barrels. There are a number of plugged and abandoned oil wells in the vicinity of the proposed project site as identified on maps published by the State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (2003).

The proposed site does not contain oil extraction operations and there are no other known mineral resources on the site that could be negatively impacted by implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with oil and gas activities in the vicinity, result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XI. NOISE Would the project result in:

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

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

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

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

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

Discussion: a) The noise ordinance adopted by the City of Long Beach and outlined in Section 8.80.150 of the City Municipal Code, identifies noise standards for five land use districts. The proposed site is located in District 4 (predominantly industrial in nature), where the exterior noise limit is defined as 70 dBA (A-weighted decibels) at any time (COLB, 2006). However, construction noise regulations established in the noise ordinance do not apply to construction activities at the Port.

Construction-related noise effects would be associated with the operation of equipment and vehicles. Potential noise effects from construction activities are assessed using a standard reference for construction noise (EPA, 1971). These data are presented in Table 8.



TABLE 8 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet

Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet

(dBA) Noise Level at 100 Feet

(dBA)

Earthmoving

Front Loaders 79 73

Backhoes 85 79

Dozers 80 74

Tractors 80 74

Graders 85 79

Pavers 89 83

Trucks 82 76

Materials Handling

Concrete Mixers 85 79

Concrete Pump 82 76

Crane 83 77

Concrete Crushers 85 79

Stationary

Pumps 76 70

Generator 78 72

Compressors 81 75

Impact

Pile Driver 100 94

Jack Hammers 88 82

Pneumatic Tools 86 80

Other

Saws 78 72

Vibrators 76 70

Source: EPA, 1971

As shown in Table 8, heavy equipment can generate noise levels ranging from about 76 to 89 dBA when measured at 50 feet and 70 to 83 dBA when measured at 100 feet, without implementation of noise-reduction measures. As with all construction equipment noise, these noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site, with a decrease of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Typically, changes in noise levels that are less than 3 dBA are not noticed by the human ear, a change of 5 dBA is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as either a doubling or halving of sound level.



Noise-sensitive land uses generally are defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the designated use of the land. Typically, noise-sensitive land uses include residential, hospitals, churches, libraries, and schools, as well as nature and wildlife preserves and parks.

Given the distance involved, it is estimated that construction noise levels would be below 60 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor (Eugene Fields Elementary School) located less than half a mile from the proposed project site. This noise level would not exceed thresholds established in the Noise Element of the General Plan and Chapter 8.80 Noise of the City of Long Beach Municipal Code (COLB, 1975). Noise impacts would be less than significant.

b) No heavy construction is anticipated at the proposed project site. As a result of the closure and vacation of Edison Avenue, train speeds could increase from the current 10 mph up to 20 mph. While no specific impact criteria exist for freight trains, human response (at 50 ft from the source) to groundborne noise and vibration varies from a perception level of 65 velocity decibels (VdB) to 85 VdB (annoying), depending on the frequency of train events per day. A freight locomotive traveling at 50 mph could produce groundborne vibrations near 67 VdB at 300 feet from the tracks (FTA, 2006). Since the trains will be traveling at only 20 mph, and due to the attenuating effect of distance (0.75 miles), groundborne vibration and noise are not likely to be experienced in residential areas to the north. These areas are more likely to be influenced by heavy truck and bus traffic on Anaheim Street. Groundborne vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant.

c-d) Noise impacts during construction would be temporary and less than significant. Following completion of the at-grade crossing closure, railroad trains could increase their speeds up to 20 mph. Such an increase in speed would not significantly increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project.

A temporary increase in noise levels would be expected during the construction phase of the project. However, these noise effects are not likely to be perceptible at the closest noise-sensitive receptor located north of the project site, outside Port property.

e-f) The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. People working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

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

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

Discussion: a-c) The proposed project does not include the development of housing or other uses that would result in direct or indirect growth inducement in the community. All construction workers would reside in existing housing in the region. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth.

The proposed project site is located in the northern section of the Port. No residential development is permitted in the Port and land uses just to the north are predominantly industrial and commercial in nature. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial

adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

Discussion: a) The project would not increase regional population and, therefore, would not increase demand for new schools, parks, or library facilities. The proposed project is designed to reduce the number of traffic accidents associated with the railroad at-grade crossing and could, thus, slightly reduce the number of calls for service of emergency personnel and equipment at this location.

The LBFD has reviewed the proposed closure project and expressed concerns over their ability to provide adequate fire protection service due to the closure of Edison Avenue. The Port Engineering Division met with LBFD to discuss the project. A memo was sent to Fire Chief David Ellis noting several current/future projects that would compensate for the loss of the Edison Avenue Crossing (Port, 2004). Projects include installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Anaheim Street and Farragut Avenue, which would facilitate the use of Anaheim Way as an alternate access route to the area. Fire Station 24 on Pier S Avenue is currently under construction and can provide service to the affected area. Caltrans is planning to replace the SR-47 Commodore Schuyler Heim lift bridge with a fixed-span bridge, which would lead to shorter and more reliable travel times between Fire Station 24 and Pier B.

In a letter from Battalion Chief Steve Lewis to the Port, the LBFD granted conditional approval of the closure (LBFD, 2005). A condition placed upon approval by the LBFD was that the Anaheim Street on-ramp to southbound I- 710 be re-opened. This on-ramp has been repaired and is currently operational.



The project calls for installing permanent closure measures such as traffic barriers north and south of the railroad tracks to prevent traffic from crossing. The barriers, however, would include a locked gate providing access for authorized emergency vehicles and personnel.

The proposed project would not affect the provision of fire protection services to the surrounding areas adjacent to the project area. The impact is considered less than significant.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of

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

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

Discussion: a-b) Implementation of the proposed project would not increase employment in the region. Accordingly, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion:

a,b and e) The removal of the Edison Avenue at-grade rail crossing requires the closing of a short segment of Edison Avenue between Pier B Street and 9th Street. Approximately 4,000 vehicles use this segment of Edison Avenue daily and its closure would require drivers to divert to nearby streets to reach their destinations. Eight study intersections were selected for detailed analysis based on expected travel patterns following the closure of this segment of Edison Avenue. A copy of the traffic study conducted in support of the analysis presented in this section is attached as Appendix C. These intersections are listed below and illustrated in Figure 4. For each of the study intersections, conditions during the morning, mid-day and evening peak hours on a typical weekday were analyzed.

1. Pier B Street / Edison Avenue East (unsignalized) 2. Pier B Street / 9th Street /I-710 SB Ramps (signalized)



3. Anaheim Street / 9th Street (signalized) 4. Anaheim Street / Farragut Avenue (signalized) 5. Anaheim Way / Pier B Street (unsignalized) 6. Edison Avenue / 9th Street (unsignalized) 7. Pier B Street / Edison Avenue (unsignalized) 8. Anaheim Street / Santa Fe Avenue (signalized)

With the closure of the at-grade rail crossing, it is likely that specific segments of alternate routes would experience increases in traffic volume. Segments likely to experience such increases include the following:

• Pier B Street (between Edison Avenue and Pico Avenue) • Pier B Street (between Edison Avenue and Anaheim Way) • 9th Street (between Edison Avenue and Pico Avenue) • Anaheim Street (between Farragut Avenue and East I Street)

Traffic analysis employs a number of performance standards and measurements in order to assess impacts associated with changing conditions brought about by implementation of a project. Standards and measurements used in this analysis are presented below.

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative indication of the operating condition of an intersection, represented by traffic congestion, delay, and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. For signalized intersections, representative LOS and V/C ratios are as shown in Table 9. LOS values range from A (excellent conditions) to F (extreme congestion), with LOS D (V/C of 0.90) typically considered to be the threshold of acceptability.

TABLE 9 LOS Categories for Signalized Intersections

LOS V/C Ratio Traffic Conditions

A 0 to 0.60 Little or no delay or congestion

B >0.60 to 0.70 Slight congestion or delay

C >0.70 to 0.80 Moderate delay or congestion

D >0.80 to 0.90 Significant delay or congestion

E > 0.90 to 1.00 Extreme congestion or delay

F >1.00 + Intersection breakdown or demand in excess of capacity

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000

For signalized intersections likely to be impacted by the proposed project, LOS values were determined by using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, consistent with the protocols established for traffic analysis by the Port. The ICU calculation assumes a per-lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for each travel lane of the intersection (through or turning lane). A capacity value of 2,880 vph was used for dual left turn lanes. A clearance factor of 0.10 (10%) of the total intersection cycle length is included in the ICU calculation.



Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology (TRB, 2000) for stop-controlled intersections (two-way and multi-way stops). For unsignalized intersections, the HCM methodology analysis determines the average total delay for each vehicle making any movement from the stop-controlled minor street, as well as left turns from the major street. Just as with the ICU methodology, the HCM delay forecast translates to a LOS designation, ranging from LOS A to LOS F, using the delay ranges shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10 LOS Categories for Stop Controlled Intersections

LOS Control Delay per Vehicle

(seconds per vehicle [s/veh])

A 0-10

B > 10-15

C > 15-25

D > 25-35

E > 35-50

F > 50

Source: TRB, 2000

The proposed project is located within the boundary of the Port and within the City of Long Beach. However, potential impacts associated with diverted traffic would also likely extend to highways and streets located in the adjacent City of Los Angeles. Thus, significance criteria (or thresholds) related to traffic impacts developed and applied by the Port, City of Long Beach, and City of Los Angeles are used in the assessment of potential impacts. These significance criteria are shown in Table 11 and Table 12.

TABLE 11 Port / City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Significance Criteria

Future w/o Project LOS Future w/Project LOS and/or Change in V/C

A, B, C or D To E or F, and 0.02 or greater

E, F 0.02 or greater

Source : Environmental Protocol, Port of Long Beach Planning Division



TABLE 12 Port / City of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Significance Criteria

Future w/Project LOS Change in V/C

C > 0.70 – 0.80 0.04 or greater

D > 0.80 – 0.90 0.02 or greater

E, F > 0.90 0.01 or greater

Source : Environmental Protocol, Port of Long Beach Planning Division

At unsignalized intersections, a project impact would not be considered significant if the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better with the proposed project. If the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F, the protocol calls for the intersection to be reanalyzed using the signalized intersection methodology for the purpose of determining significance of impacts using the above criteria.

Peak-hour traffic volume data for the study intersections were collected to quantify the existing traffic conditions. Morning and afternoon peak period turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections in December, 2006. Trucks use more roadway capacity than the passenger cars because of the size and acceleration capabilities. Therefore, truck traffic was converted to equivalent passenger car volume using a Passenger Car Equivalent factor of 1.1 for bobtails and 2.0 for chassis, containers, and other types of trucks. Existing peak hour operating conditions (for each of the three peak periods) are summarized in Table 13. For the signalized intersections, the V/C ratio is reported as a decimal (less than 1.0). For unsignalized intersections, the delay is reported as a whole number. The V/C ratio and delay values were used to determine the LOS grade.

TABLE 13 Existing Intersection LOS Analysis

2006 Existing Conditions

AM Peak Hour Mid Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Intersections

(S) Signalized

(U) Unsignalized LOS Delay or V/C LOS Delay or V/C LOS Delay or V/C

1. Pier B St / Edison Ave (East)* (U) A 10 A 9 B 11

2. Pier B St / 9th St / I-710 SB Ramps (S) A 0.52 A 0.45 A 0.53

3. Anaheim St / 9th St (S) A 0.48 A 0.47 B 0.62

4. Anaheim St / Farragut Ave (S) A 0.44 A 0.43 B 0.61

5. Anaheim Way / Pier B St (U) A 8 A 8 B 10

6. Edison Ave / 9th St * (U) B 11 B 11 B 11

7. Pier B St / Edison Ave (West) (U) A 8 A 9 B 11

8. Anaheim St / Santa Fe Ave (S) B 0.61 A 0.58 D 0.80

* Delay reported for northbound stop-controlled approach only



As shown in Table 13, all of the study intersections except one currently operate at LOS B or better during the morning, midday, and evening peak hour. The exception is the intersection of Anaheim Street and Santa Fe, which operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour.

The study intersections were also analyzed for the Year 2010 under No Project conditions, and the results are summarized in Table 14. For a conservative analysis, the current version of the Port’s transportation model was used to forecast Year 2010 traffic, including all sources of traffic and future growth within and adjacent to the POLB/POLA.

TABLE 14 2010 No Project (Without Closure of Edison Avenue) - Intersection LOS Analysis

2010 No Project Conditions


Intersections

(S) Signalized


1. Pier B St / Edison Ave (East)*

(U) B 11 B 10 B 12

2. Pier B St / 9th St / I-710 SB Ramps (S) A 0.58 A 0.49 B 0.58

3. Anaheim St / 9th St (S) A 0.42 A 0.41 A 0.58


5. Anaheim Way / Pier B St (U) A 8 A 8 A 10

6. Edison Ave / 9th St * (U) A 10 B 10 B 11

7. Pier B St / Edison Ave (West) (U) A 8 A 9 B 10

8. Anaheim St / Santa Fe Ave (S) A 0.53 A 0.53 D 0.80

* Delay reported for northbound stop-controlled approach only

As shown in Table 14, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS in the morning, mid-day and evening peak hour. The LOS values are very similar to those under current conditions. Most of the changes are due to delay or V/C ratios near the threshold values for a change in LOS grade.

Project impacts were determined by analyzing the study intersections for Year 2010 under the conditions that would result if the proposed project were implemented. The results are summarized in Table 15.



TABLE 15 2010 Project (With Closure of Edison Avenue) - Intersection LOS Analysis

2010 With Project Conditions


Intersections

(S) Signalized


1. Pier B St (East) / Edison Ave*

(U) B 10 A 10 B 14

2. Pier B St / 9th St / I-710 SB Ramps (S) B 0.62 A 0.56 B 0.59

3. Anaheim St / 9th St (S) A 0.42 A 0.41 A 0.56


5. Anaheim Way / Pier B St (U) A 8 A 8 A 10

6. Edison Ave / 9th St * (U) -- -- -- -- -- --

7. Pier B St (West) / Edison Ave (U) -- -- -- -- -- --

8. Anaheim St / Santa Fe Ave (S) A 0.45 A 0.44 C 0.76

* Delay reported for northbound stop-controlled approach only ** Intersection no longer exists with project in place

As shown in Table 15, all of the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the project in place. Comparing existing condition in 2006 (Table 13) with conditions in 2010 with closure (Table 15) shows that the project will cause the study intersections to experience either a slight increase or decrease in delay or volume/capacity ratio. However, no intersection would degrade to an unacceptable LOS. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the study intersections.

The proposed project would have only minor, short-term impacts to traffic conditions during construction. Construction would last for only approximately two weeks, and as shown in Appendix A, limited amounts of equipment and worker trips would be required during this period (e.g., between 2 and 6 worker trips would be generated per day depending on the construction activity).

Traffic barriers would be erected north and south of the railroad tracks to prevent traffic from crossing. The barriers, however, would include a locked gate providing for access by authorized emergency vehicles and personnel. Impacts would be less than significant.

c, d, f, and g) The proposed project does not include an air transportation component and its implementation would not influence air traffic patterns.

The primary objective of the proposed at-grade rail crossing closure is to increase public safety by eliminating an unguarded grade crossing. Implementation of the project will eliminate accidents and safety hazards at the site.

Implementation of the proposed project would not include any requirement to provide vehicle parking or adversely affect parking in the vicinity.



Public bus service does not currently utilize the at-grade crossing, and there are no plans in the future to add bus service that would use the at-grade crossing. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:

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

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

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

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

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that the provider has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand of the project in addition to the existing commitments of the provider

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the project?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion: a-g) The proposed project does not include the construction of buildings. Minor construction activities would include the erection of traffic barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing the railroad tracks. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in population and, thus, would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.



The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities since existing drainage conditions would remain unchanged.

No measurable increase in water demand would occur and the amount of water that would be used during construction would be minimal compared to the use of water at POLB. The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources; no new or expanded entitlements would be needed.

Implementation of the proposed project would not appreciably increase wastewater flow; therefore, the proposed project would not affect wastewater treatment capacity.

Ground disturbance would be minimal, and the disposal of any solid waste would be accomplished by private contractors. Any materials that can be recycled will be recycled. Other materials would be transported to numerous approved landfills in the Los Angeles region. The amount of material to be disposed of is expected to be within the permitted capacity of the existing landfills that serve the Port (POLB, 2001). Once completed, the project would not generate solid waste. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated relative to compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.




Impact




Impact No Impact

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion: a-c) Project-related construction activities include minor modifications to an existing at-grade railroad crossing and no aspects of the project would alter or come in contact with the Long Beach Harbor. The proposed site currently is paved and contains no vegetation or areas that provide value as wildlife habitat and contains no recorded historical, archaeological, or paleontological resource sites.

Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Several other development projects are currently under construction, are planned, or have been completed recently within the Port, including container terminal developments, industrial developments, and other waterfront plans. The proposed closure of the Edison Avenue at-grade railroad crossing is not dependent upon implementation of future projects or vice



versa. Future projects would receive the appropriate level of documentation for compliance with CEQA and/or the National Environmental Policy Act.

No significant adverse impacts, either direct or indirect, have been identified for the proposed project.


3.0 Application Summary Report

3.1 Port Master Plan and Coastal Act Issues 3.1.1 Port Master Plan Issues The Edison Avenue at-grade railroad crossing is located within the POLB Harbor Planning District 1 (North Harbor) and POLB Harbor Planning District 2 (Northeast Harbor) as defined in the PMP.

Implementation of the proposed closure and vacation project would be consistent with Goal 1 for District 1, which is to encourage more effective use of existing land in the Port. The proposed project would increase public safety by eliminating an unguarded grade crossing. The proposed project would not conflict with the goals of District 2, which are to acquire private property and increase primary port use.

The objectives of District 1 include promoting growth in port-related industries, modifying and consolidating oil recovery facilities, retaining and promoting improvements to existing road and rail networks, providing direct linkages between the Port and the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF), and improving Anaheim Street. The proposed project would provide a safety improvement to an existing road. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with the objectives of District 2, which include relocating existing coastal-dependent uses and petroleum terminals to other areas in the harbor and reducing non-coastal dependent activities throughout this district.

The permitted use for District 1 includes Port-Related Facilities and the permitted uses for District 2 include Primary Port, Port-Related, Hazardous Cargo, Ancillary Port, Oil Production, and Navigation. As a Port-Related Facility, the Edison Avenue at-grade railroad crossing facility is a permitted use within District 1 and 2. The proposed project to close and vacate this crossing would be consistent with the Port-Related Facilities category because the area does not require access to berthing facilities or water frontage but is heavily dependent on primary Port operations.

3.1.2 California Coastal Act Issues The proposed project has few issues related to the California Coastal Act (CCA). Relevant sections of the CCA are listed below, with a brief discussion of each.

Section 30604 Conformance with Local Coastal Plan The proposed project conforms with the PMP.

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE 3.0 APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT


Section 30708 (a) Minimize substantial adverse environmental impacts The Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to CEQA has shown no significant adverse environmental impacts.

Section 30715 (a) Appealable Development

The proposed project is not appealable to the Coastal Commission; the Board of Harbor Commissioners’ action is final.

3.2 Proposed Staff Recommendations The staff recommends that the Board of Harbor Commissioners take the following actions on this project.

3.2.1 Findings and Declaration The Board of Harbor Commissioners finds and adopts as its findings that the project description, project background, and analysis of Port planning issues and related projects, are as set forth in the Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report attached hereto, which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The Board of Harbor Commissioners finds and adopts as its findings that the analyses contained in this Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report reflect the independent judgment of the Board of Harbor Commissioners acting as the governing board of the City of Long Beach Harbor Department.

3.2.2 Approval with Conditions The Board of Harbor Commissioners grant a Level II Harbor Development Permit subject to the conditions below for the proposed project on the grounds that the proposed project, as conditioned, would be in conformance with the Coastal Act and the permitted uses of the North and Northeast Harbor Planning Districts.

Standard Conditions The permit is subject to the standard Harbor Development Permit Conditions.

Special Conditions 1. Permittee shall coordinate with the Port Terminal Services Division at (562) 590-4180

and all facilities that may be affected by the permitted project. Permittee shall not interfere with any facility operations.

2. Permittee shall be responsible for all damage to underground structures and utility lines occurring as a result of the proposed project.

3. Prior to calling Dig Alert, permittee shall inform the Port’s “Dig Alert Coordinator,” (562) 590-4169, of all excavation activities. When calling Dig Alert, permittee shall

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT 3.0 APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT


provide Dig Alert with the Harbor Development Permit Number. After calling Dig Alert, permittee shall mark the excavation area with the Dig Alert “Ticket Number.”

4. Prior to project commencement, permittee shall submit three copies of a traffic management plan to the Director of Planning for approval and a copy of the work schedule to the Director of Security. The plan must also incorporate an emergency response section outlining emergency services access routes during project construction and a construction schedule avoiding transportation disruption during peak traffic hours within the Harbor District. The Permittee shall at all times have an approved copy of the traffic management plan at the project site.

5. Permittee shall conduct project site preparation and construction activities in a manner which minimizes dust and the release of materials into harbor waters.

6. Permittee shall adhere to the railroad right-of-way requirements (attached to Harbor Development Permit) when working within, adjacent to, or above the railroad right-of-way.

7. Permittee shall coordinate with Bob Giannoble (Chief Engineer) of Pacific Harbor Line at (310) 984-5780, 48 hours prior to project commencement to coordinate all work within the railroad right-of-way. Permittee shall provide railroad flagging at all times when working within the railroad right-of-way.

8. Permittee shall post ample signage notifying the public of the closure and the alternate routes, well in advance of the actual closure.

9. Prior to project commencement, the permittee shall coordinate with the Port Security Division, Terminal Services Division, Port tenants, and other emergency personnel to develop an emergency response plan for terminals affected by the street closure.

10. Permittee shall coordinate with utility agencies/companies to ensure that permanent closure measures will not hinder access to or the ability of utility agencies/companies to operate and maintain their utility facilities at the site.

11. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, all work within a 100-meter radius of the find shall be temporarily suspended until a certified archaeologist can evaluate the resource’s significance. After the find has been appropriately managed, work in the area may resume.

12. All warning devices shall be removed within 90 days after the railroad exercises abandonment authority or permanently discontinues service over the line. The entity responsible for the maintenance of warning devices shall be responsible for the removal of warning devices. See CA MUTCD for additional rules.


4.0 References

California Air Resources Board (CARB). Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm. Accessed March 20, 2007.

California, State of; Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1992. Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California (Rock and Stiff-Soil Sites). Prepared for Internal Use by Caltrans, DMG Open File Report 92-1

___________. 2006. Seismic Hazard Zonation Program. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/MapProcessor.asp. Accessed January 2007.

California, State of; Department of Conservation; Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. 2003. Map 129. September 12. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/dist1/129/Map129.pdf. Accessed January 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2007. Edison Avenue Closure Traffic Analysis. February 12.

City of Long Beach (COLB). 1973. The City of Long Beach General Plan, Conservation Element.

___________. 1975. The City of Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element.

___________. 1988. The City of Long Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element.

___________. 2006. Web site: http://www.ci.long-beach.ca.us/apps/cityclerk/lbmc/title-08/chapter-8-80.htm. Accessed January 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. NTID 300-1. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek & Newman.

___________. 1973. Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1.

___________. 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections, EPA-454/R-92-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. November.

City of Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). 2005. Letter from Steve Lewis, Battalion Chief, Fire Prevention to Louis Rubenstein, April 28.

Moffat and Nichol. 2006. Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Final Draft Report.

Port of Long Beach (POLB). 1999. Long Beach Harbor Department, Port Master Plan, Including Changes Through Amendment No. 14. July.

___________. 2001. Environmental Impact Report and Application Summary Report for the Piers D/E/F Terminal Redevelopment Project. January.

___________. 2004. Closing Edison Avenue Between Pier B Street and Ninth Street Memorandum. February.

PORT OF LONG BEACH EDISON AVENUE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING VACATION AND CLOSURE 4.0 REFERENCES NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT


South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. June.

___________. 2006. CEQA Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/ch4.doc. Web site: Accessed March 16, 2007.

___________. 2006a. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds. October.

___________. 2006b. Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/07AQMP.html. Accessed March 20, 2007.

Starcrest. 2004. 2002 Baseline Air Emissions Inventory for the Port of Long Beach. March.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2000. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.

ES012007014SCO/POLBEDISONAVENEGDEC_BS2501.DOC/070290001

PUBLIC NOTICE

PORT OF LONG BEACH LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976, the Port of Long Beach certified Port Master Plan (PMP), and the California Environmental Quality Act, notice is hereby given to all interested persons and organizations that a Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report and a Level II determination and Proposed Staff Recommendations under the PMP have been prepared for the:

Port of Long Beach Edison Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing Vacation and Closure

The Port of Long Beach (POLB) proposes to permanently close and vacate an approximately 200-foot-long section of Edison Avenue, containing the at-grade railroad crossing located between Pier B Street and 9th Street. The purpose of the project is to increase public safety by eliminating an unguarded grade crossing. Southbound traffic from 9th Street would be prevented from entering Edison Avenue by the construction of a traffic island and appropriate signage. Traffic barriers would be erected north and south of the railroad tracks to prevent traffic from crossing. Conflicting road lane markings currently on both 9th Street and Pier B Street would be removed and appropriate signage added.

Copies of the Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report and Proposed Staff Recommendations will be available to the public at the Harbor Department Administration Building, 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, California. Please submit any comments regarding the proposed project to this office as soon as possible but no later than August 3, 2007. Persons wishing additional information may telephone the Harbor Department, Planning Division at (562) 590-4160. DATED: July 2, 2007 By Order of the Board of Harbor Commissioners Richard D. Steinke, Executive Director


Appendix A Air Quality Construction Emissions Calculations


Appendix B Air Quality Operations Emissions Calculations


Appendix C Edison Avenue Closure Traffic Analysis Report

edison-avenue-railroad-grade-crossing-vacation-and-closure ...

Documents