Docstoc

CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

Document Sample
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Powered By Docstoc
					                   CrTYOF                          RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM

TO:                 HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:               JOEL ROJAS, AI                      RECTOR OF          PLANNING,
                    BUILDING AND CO                  ENFORCEMENT
DATE:               FEBRUARY 3,2009
SUBJECT:                                            .
                    BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORTI\. (),
REVIEWED:           CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER                   UJL
Project Manager:    Kit Fox,   AICP,   Associate   Planner~            .

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file the current report on the status of border issues.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This month's report includes:

•     A follow-up report on the Harbor Area Planning Commission's public hearing and
      other recent developments regarding the Ponte Vista project at 26900 South
      Western Avenue in San Pedro;
•     A brief follow-up report regarding of the recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
      Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the China Shipping
      Container Terminal project in the Port of Los Angeles;
•     A follow-up report on the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission's review of the
      Silverdes medical office condominium project at 828 Silver Spur Road in Rolling
      Hills Estates;
•     A brief follow-up report regarding the review of the Draft Environmental Impact
      Statement/Environmentallmpact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the San Pedro Waterfront
      project in the Port of Los Angeles;
•     A report on the "first look" review by the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and
      Planning Commission of the proposed Promenade on the Peninsula mixed-use
      project at 520, 550 and 580 Deep Valley Drive in Rolling Hills Estates;
•     A report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
      Wilmington Waterfront project in the Port of Los Angeles; and,



                                                                                    3-1
•     A report on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
      modernization of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) serving the ports
      of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

BACKGROUND

The following is the regular monthly report to the City Council on various "border issues"
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City's website at:

http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planninq/border issuesl2009120090203 Borderlssues StatusR
pt.cfm

DISCUSSION

Current Border Issues

Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro)

The Harbor Area Planning Commission (HAPC) was originally scheduled to review the
Ponte Vista project on November 18, 2008, but the hearing was canceled at the last minute
and rescheduled for December 2,2008. On November 21,2008, the Los Angeles City
Planning Department released the draft Staff report for the December 11, 2008, public
hearing before the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (CPC).

The draft Staff report recommends denial of the Ponte Vista project as proposed, on the
basis of inconsistency with the Los Angeles General Plan Framework and the Wilmington-
Harbor City and San Pedro community plans, as well as the latest and best trends and
practices in urban in-fill development. The draft report also recommends denying the
developer's appeal of the recent denial of the vesting tentative tract map associated with
the project, and recommends not certifying the project's EIR. The report goes on to offer
constructive guidelines to revise the Ponte Vista project so as to achieve a design that
would be more compatible with the surrounding communities in both San Pedro and
Rancho Palos Verdes. These guidelines include limiting the density of the project so as to
allow between 775 and 886 dwelling units on the site.

Shortly after the release of the draft Staff report recommending denial of the project, the
developer asked for the continuance of the December 11, 2008, CPC public hearing. On
December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department agreed to reschedule the
CPC hearing for February 12, 2009. In the meantime, however, the project was still set for
HAPC review on December 2,2008.

As reported previously, project opponents had challenged the HAPC's authority to conduct
a public hearing on the Ponte Vista project on the basis that three (3) of the five (5)
Commissioners had conflicts of interest. The matter was referred to the Los Angeles City
Attorney's office. Ultimately, two (2) Commissioners recused themselves from discussion
of the project. In addition, one Commissioner resigned from the HAPC (reportedly for
reasons not related to the Ponte Vista project) and another was unable to attend the
December 2,2008, meeting. Therefore, the only Commissioner available and eligible was
HAPC President Michael Ponce.


                                                                                     3-2
On December 2, 2008, HAPC President Ponce conducted a "special meeting,"
accompanied by HAPC Staff and representatives of the Los Angeles City Planning
Department. Planning Staff presented an overview of the draft Staff report and
recommendation. The developer's legal counsel appeared briefly but made no
presentation. Among the crowd of roughly a hundred (100) people, there appeared to be
no project supporters or members of the developer's public outreach team. Of the twenty
(20) or so public speakers, only the developer's attorney spoke in favor of the project. The
other speakers-including representatives of the Northwest and Coastal San Pedro
neighborhood councils, the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita, and several
homeowners' associations-all voiced support for the draft Staff report. Los Angeles City
Councilwoman Janice Hahn was also in attendance, and she encouraged the developer to
carefully consider Planning Staff's recommendations and to revise the project accordingly.
At the conclusion of public testimony, HAPC President Ponce "discussed" the matter and
made a "recommendation" in support of Councilwoman Hahn's comment, although he
noted that he believed that the maximum permitted density of the project should be allowed
to exceed the current R-1 zoning.

On December 12, 2008, the Daily Breeze reported that developer Bob Bisno had been
"ousted" by the project's major investor, Credit Suisse. Shortly after the first of the year,
the Ponte Vista website stated that the developer intended to ask for a continuance of the
February 12, 2009 CPC hearing. On January 12, 2009, Staff confirmed that the CPC
hearing on Ponte Vista had been rescheduled for Thursday, April 9, 2009, at 8:30 AM at
Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. The CPC will consider
both the development applications and the appeal ofthe vesting tentative tract map denial.
Staff plans to attend this and any future public hearings, and will continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.

Berth 97-109 (China Shipping) Container Terminal, Port of Los Angeles

In June 2008, the Staff forwarded comments on the re-circulated Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Berth 97-109 (China
Shipping) Container Terminal project to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Los
Angeles. On December 8, 2008, Staff received the attached responses to these
comments. The Board of Harbor Commissioners certified the DEIS/EIR and approved the
project on December 18, 2008.

Silverdes Medical Office Condominiums, Rolling Hills Estates

On December 15, 2008, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider the 16-unit Silverdes medical office condominium project. The Staff
report suggested that all of the necessary findings could be made to approve the proposed
project and certify its Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Staff report also included
responses to our previous comments on the EIR, including those of our City Geologist and
Traffic Engineer. In some cases, our comments resulted in corrections to the EIR, but in
general they were simply acknowledged. Rolling Hills Estates Planning Staff concluded its
analysis of the proposed project by recommending that the matter be continued to January
20, 2009, for the adoption of a resolution recommending approval to the Rolling Hills
Estates City Council.

The public hearing was attended by a few Rancho Palos Verdes residents, two (2) of
whom expressed concern about the project's proposed height variance for an architectural
tower and its potential impact upon local slope stability. The Planning Commission briefly
                                                                                       3-3
discussed the merits of the proposed height variance before ultimately approving a motion
to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the proposed project to the Rolling Hills
Estates City Council. The Planning Commission adopted this resolution on January 20,
2009, and the City Council is tentatively expected to consider this matter on February 10,
2009. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.

San Pedro Waterfront Project, Port of Los Angeles

In December 3, 2008, the Staff forwarded the attached comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the San
Pedro Waterfront project to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Los Angeles.
The 75-day public comment period ended on December 8, 2008. Staff will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.

New Border Issues

Promenade on the Peninsula Mixed-Use Project, Rolling Hills Estates

On December 15, 2008, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and Planning Commission
met jointly for a "first look" at the Promenade on the Peninsula mixed-use project at 520,
550 and 580 Deep Valley Drive. The project proposes sixty-six (66) residential
condominiums and 16,620 square feet of additional retail space at the existing Promenade
on the Peninsula mall. Six (6) of the proposed residences would be designated as
affordable to low-income families. The project is located within Rolling Hills Estates' Mixed-
Use Overlay District (MUOD), which permits residential densities of up to twenty-two (22)
dwelling units per acre. This equates to a base density of fifty-five (55) units. However, the
project applicant has requested a 20-percent density bonus under State law, along with a
requested development concession to substantially exceed the 44-foot building height with
up to five (5) stories of condominium units above the existing commercial buildings. The
additional retail space would be constructed within the mall proper and in the existing
surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Crossfield Drive and Deep Valley Drive.

The Staff report noted that, given the height and number of stories proposed, Staff was
concerned that the project appeared too massive. Staff recommended that the residential
units be located in a less stacked and more dispersed manner. Staff fu rther recommended
that no residential component be more than two (2) stories above existing commercial uses
ifthe units remain where currently proposed. If the residential uses were proposed in other
portions of the project site, Staff recommended that they be integrated into the existing
shopping center such that the overall height of the affected commercial area is no higher or
more massive than the existing condition. Staff also expressed concern about the
adequacy of off-street parking for the shopping center and residential uses, especially
since the new commercial building would reduce the number of available parking spaces.
In discussions with Staff, project representatives indicated a willingness to consider
integrating a small "boutique" hotel within the project.

At the joint meeting, the project proponents presented a revised project that reduced the
height of the residential components of the project; increased the anticipated number of
dwelling units to sixty-eight (68); and increased the size and height of the proposed retail
building in the surface parking lot near Crossfield Drive and Deep Valley Drive. The Rolling
Hills Estates City Council and Planning Commission questioned the potential to "re-
purpose" the former Saks Fifth Avenue space as a small hotel; the adequacy of the
existing parking structure to meet the needs of the proposed project; the staging and
                                                                                       3-4
phasing of construction so as to minimize disruption to existing businesses in the mall; the
validity of the developer's assumptions about the positive effects of residential units on the
mall, in light of the City's recent economic analysis of the Peninsula Center district; the
design and orientation of some of the proposed dwelling units with respect to the
availability of natural light and ventilation; and shade effects upon the existing open areas
of the mall. There was general support of project components that would provide more
street-level retail space along the perimeter of the mall, especially along Drybank Drive.
However, several Council members and Commissioners appeared skeptical about the
project as a whole.

Staff expects that an Initial Study (IS) will be prepared for the project in the future. Staff
intends to comment on the IS once it iS,released for public review, and will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.

Wilmington Waterfront Project, Port of Los Angeles

On December 18, 2008, Staff received the Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the Wilmington Waterfront Project. Major project components
include improvements in the following three (3) areas:

   Avalon Development District (Areas     ~'   & 'B')

   /I   Area 'A' (within the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan area)
           o Green Technology Light Industrial Development:                A programmatic
               assessment of infrastructure improvements (including stormwater
               improvements, dry utility lines, potable waterlines, and wastewater lines) is
               included to support up to 150,000 square feet of light industrial development,
               consistent with current zoning, generally located between Broad Avenue
               (east) and Lagoon Avenue (west), 'C' Street (north) and Harry Bridges
               Boulevard (south). Businesses related to green technology development will
               be encouraged. No specific development proposals forthis area have been
               received.
           o Park Development: A 1-acre passive park located on the vacant Railroad
               Green located between Island Avenue and Fries Avenue.
           o Waterfront Red Car Museum: Adaptive reuse of the historic 14,500-square-
               foot Bekins Storage property located at 245 Fries Avenue/312-326 W. 'C'
               Street for a Waterfront Red Car Museum.
           o Pedestrian Enhancements: Sidewalk and streetscape pedestrian-oriented
               enhancements along the following avenues, streets, and boulevards:
               Lagoon, Fries, Marine, Harry Bridges, Avalon, and 'C.'
   /I   Area 'B' (within the proposed Port Plan and Port Master Plan [PMP] areas)
           o Commercial Development: Development of up to 58,000 square feet of
               maritime visitor-serving commercial uses, such as an open-air mercado.
           o Street Realignments and Enhancements: Realign and improve Avalon
               Boulevard and Broad Avenue (also part of the Avalon Waterfront District).

   Avalon Waterfront District

   /I   Waterfront Promenade: This area includes a waterfront promenade with viewing
        piers; 12,000 square feet of restaurant/retail development, 7-acre plaza, and a 200-
        foot Observation Tower with a pedestrian ramp.

                                                                                        3-5
   •   Land Bridge and Elevated Park: This element includes a 10-acre Land Bridge with
       an elevated park and a pedestrian "water" bridge enhanced by an integrated water
       feature that will provide the surrounding community with open space and improved
       pedestrian access to the waterfront. The Los Angeles Department of Water and
       Power (LADWP) Marine Tank site will need to be demolished and remediated.
   •   Avalon Triangle Park: Located south of Harry Bridges Boulevard, between Broad
       Avenue and Avalon Boulevard, Avalon Triangle Park is not part of the proposed
       Project, but it would be included within the area that would be encompassed by the
       proposed Port Plan and PMP boundary expansion.
   •   Avalon Boulevard, Broad Avenue, and Water Street Realignment: The project
       proposes to downgrade and vacate Avalon Boulevard south of A Street, realign
       Broad Avenue to the waterfront, and realign Water Street to run adjacent to the
       Pacific Harbor Rail Line, which is proposed to travel under the proposed Land
       Bridge to improve pedestrian circulation and provide space for the waterfront
       promenade.

   Waterfront Red Car Line/Multi-Modal California Coastal Trail (CCT)

   •   Harbor-Area Linkages: The proposed Project would extend the historic Waterfront
       Red Car Line and multi-use pedestrian/bicycle CCT from San Pedro to connect to
       the Wilmington community. The extension of the Waterfront Red Car Line/CCT
       would begin at the intersection of Swinford Street and Harbor Boulevard, proceed
       along Front Street, onto John S. Gibson Boulevard, and then along Harry Bridges
       Boulevard to Avalon Boulevard.

The Wilmington Waterfront Project DEIR was circulated for a 57-day public review period,
which ended on January 30, 2009. A public meeting to receive comments on the DEIR
was held on January 15, 2009. Staff attended the public meeting and submitted the
attached to comments to the Port of Los Angeles on January 20,2009. Staff will continue
to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.

Intermodal Container Terminal Facility Modernization, Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach

On January 12, 2009, Staff received the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NaP/IS) forthe
proposed modernization of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) serving the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The ICTF currently serves as a transfer point to
interstate rail lines for containerized freight entering the ports. The project proposes to
upgrade and modernize the existing facility with the goals of:

   •   Reducing emissions at the ICTF by replacing diesel-powered equipment with
       electric-powered equipment;
   •   Providing additional near-dock rail capacity and container throughput by increasing
       operation efficiencies consistent with the Ports' Rail Master Plan Study and
       minimizing surface transportation congestion and/or delays;
   •   Providing enhanced cargo security through new technologies, including biometrics;
       and,
   •   Continuing to promote the direct transfer of cargo from port to rail with minimal
       surface transportation congestion and/or delays.



                                                                                     3-6
The NOP/IS will be circulated for a 48-day public review period, which will end on February
25, 2009. A public scoping meeting will be held on February 11, 2009, at 6:00 PM at
Stephens Middle School, 1830 W. Columbia St., Long Beach, CA 90810. Staff intends to
comment on the NOP, and to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.


Attachments:
                                  nd
    • Agenda for December 2 Harbor Area Planning Commission meeting
    • Draft CPC Staff report for Ponte Vista project
    • Daily Breeze article regarding rescheduled CPC hearing (published 12/2/08)
    • Daily Breeze article regarding "ouster" of Bob Bisno (published 12/12/08)
    • Daily Breeze article regarding new proposal for Ponte Vista (published 1/13/09)
    • Response to Comments for China Shipping DEIS/EIR (received 12/8/08)
    • Daily Breeze article regarding China Shipping project (published 12/18/08)
                               th
    • Notice & December 15 Staff report for Silverdes project in RH E
    It Staff comments on the San Pedro Waterfront DEIS/EIR (dated 12/3/08)
                              th
    • Notice & December 15 Staff report for Promenade on the Peninsula project in RHE
    • Peninsula News alticle regarding Promenade on the Peninsula project (published
       12/18/08)
    It Notice of Availability & Reader's Guide for Wilmington Waterfront DEIR (dated
       12/4/08)
    • Staff comments on the Wilmington Waterfront DEIR (dated 1/20/09)
    • Notice of Preparation and project description for ICTF project (received 1/12/09)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20090203_ Borderlssues_ StaffRpt.doc




                                                                                     3-7
   Informacion e n EspaJiol acerca de estajunta puede ser obtenida lIamando al (213) 978-1300

                            HARBOR AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
                                     SPECIAL MEETING
                            TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2,2008, 4:30 P.M.
                             BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AUDITORIUM
                                     100 W. 5th STREET
                                     SAN PEDRO, 90731


Michael Ponce, President
Joeann Valle, Vice President
Gloria Lockhart, Commissioner
Eleanor R. Montano, Commissioner
Camilla Townsend, Commissioner

James Williams, Commission Executive Assistant I


POLICY FOR DESIGNATED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM No.
Pursuant to the Commission's general operating procedures, the Commission at times must necessarily limit
the speaking times of those presenting testimony on either side of an issue that is designated as a public
hearing item. In all instances, however, equal time is allowed for presentation of pros and cons of matters to
be acted upon. All requests to address the Commission on public hearing items must be submitted prior to
the Commission's consideration of the item.

EVERY PERSON WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S
REQUEST FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT STAFF.

All concerned parties who wish to submit written materials on agenda items should submit them to the
Commission Office, 200 North Spring Street, Room 272, Los Angeles, 90012, by noon of the day prior to the
date of the meeting at which the item is to be heard (15 copies must be provided). Day of hearing
submissions (15 copies must be provided) are limited to 2 pages plus accompanying photographs,
posters, and PowerPoint presentations of 5 minutes or less. Non-complying materials will NOT be
distributed to the Commission.

TIME SEGMENTS noted * herein are approximate. Some items may be delayed due to length of discussion
of previous items.

The Commission may RECONSIDER and alter its action taken on items listed herein at any time during this
meeting or during the next regular meeting, in accordance with the Commission Policies and Procedures and
provided that the Commission retains jurisdiction over the case.

AGENDAS are posted for public review in the Main Street lobby of City Hall East, 200 No. Main Street, Los
Angeles, California, and are accessible through the Internet World Wide Web at www.lacitv.org/PLN.Click
the "Meetings and Hearings" quick link. APC agenda are available under any of the seven service
areas.

If you challenge these agenda items in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing agendized here, or in written correspondence on these matters delivered to
this agency at or prior to the public hearing.

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.5, the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day
following the date on which the City's decision became final pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6. There may be other time limits which also affect your ability to seek judicial review.

GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS:
CEQA - Calif. Environmental Quality Act                     ND - Negative Declaration
EIR - Environmental Impact Report                           MND - Mitigated Negative Declaration
                                                            CE - Categorical Exemption




                                                                                                         3-8
1.   DIRECTOR'S REPORT

     A.     Items of interest


2.   COMMISSION BUSINESS

     A.     Advance Calendar


     B.     Commission Requests



3.   CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                   Council District: 15
     CEQA: ENV 2005-4516-EIR                      Expiration Date: N/A
     Plan: Wilmington-Harbor City                 Appeal Status: N/A

     Public Hearing - Completed on June 26, 2008

     Location: 26900 S. Western Avenue

     Proposed Project:
     Establishment of a Specific Plan for approximately 61.5 gross acres to allow demolition and
     removal of 245 residential units, a community center, and commercial building (all a part of
     former U.S. Navy housing) for the new construction of 1,950 residential units and 10,000
     square feet of commercial space. The proposed Specific Plan residential component would
     be comprised of 1,000 condominium units, 100 townhomes and 850 senior condominium
     units (age restricted to those 55 and older). Building heights would vary from three to four
     stories or from 50-65 feet. Subterranean and semi-subterranean parking for residents and
     guests would be provided below the residential buildings and guest parking would also be
     available along the interior streets. An approximately six-acre public park is also being
     proposed.

     Applicant: Bisno Development Company; Representative: Allan Abshez

     STAFF RECOMMENDS: REVIEW AND COMMENT ONLY, NO ACTION TAKEN
     David Olivo, (213) 978-1197



4.   PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

     The Commission shall provide an opportunity in open meetings for the public to address it,
     for a cumulative total of up to thirty (30) minutes, on items of interest to the public that are
     within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. (This requirement is in addition to
     any other hearing required or imposed by law).



     PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK MUST SUBMIT A SPEAKER'S REQUEST FORM. ALL

HARBOR AREA PLANNING COMMISSION                             2                  December 2, 2008


                                                                                                 3-9
       REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND
       ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
       COMMISSION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
       PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

       Individual testimony within the public comment period shall be limited as follows:

       (a)     For non-agendized matters, up to three (3) minutes per person and up to ten (10)
               minutes per subject.

       (b)     For ~gendized matters, up to two (2) minutes per person and up to ten (10) minutes
               per subject. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THESE ITEMS WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL
               SUCH TIMEAS EACH ITEM IS CALLED FOR CONSIDERATION. The Chair of the
               Commission may allocate the number of speakers per subject, the time allotted each
               subject, and the time allotted each speaker.




               The next regular meeting of the Harbor Area Planning Commission
               will be held at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, DECEMBER 16, 2008, at the:


                                  Harbor Commission Board Room
                                425 S. Palos Verdes Street, 2nd Floor
                                    San Pedro, California 90731


                  An Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer


As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does
not discriminate. The meeting facility and its parking are wheelchair accessible. Sign language
interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or other services may be provided
upon request. To ensure availability of services, please make your request no later than three
working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by calling the Commission Secretariat at (213) 978-
1300.




HARBOR AREA PLANNING COMMISSION                                3                  December 2, 2008


                                                                                                 3-10
                           DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
                                         RECOMMENDATION REPORT
                                                                                                   IIF
                                                                                                   JlI
                                                                                                   LOS ANGELES CITY
                                                                                                   PLANNING
                                                                                                   OEPARTMENT




 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 Date: December 11, 2008
                                                                  CASE NO.:      CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA
 Time: after 8:30 a.m.*
                                                                  CEQA No.:      E;NV-2005-4516-EIR
 Place: City Hall
                                                                  Related Case: VTT-63399
        City Council Chambers - Room 340
                                                                  Council No.:   15
        200 N. Spring Street
                                                                  Plan Area:     Wilmington-Harbor City
        Los Angeles, CA 90012
                                                                  Certified NC: Harbor City
                                                                  GPLU:         Low Residential
                                                                  Zone:          R1~1XL and OS-1XL
 Public Hearing:          June 26, 2008                           Applicant:     Bisno Development Company
 Appealable Status:       Zone change is appealable by            Representative: Allan Abschez
                          the applicant to the City Council
                          if denied in whole or in part. Per
                          LAMC Sec. 12.32 D

 Expiration Date:         December 11, 2008


 PROJECT LOCATION: 26900 South Western Avenue

 PROPOSED PROJECT: Est~bli$hment of a Specific Plan for approximately 61.5 gross acres to allow
 demolition and removal of245"residential units, a community center, and commercial building (all a part of
 former U.S. Navy housjn~l for the neeif' construction of 1,950 residential units and 10,000 square feet of
 commercial space, The 'P,(Qposed Sl;iecific Plan residential component would be comprised of 1,000
 condominium units, 100 towh'tj~rnes a!id850 senior condominium units (age restricted to those 55 and older).
 Building heights would vary from three'{ofoUr stqries orfrom 50-65 feet. Subterranean and semi-subterranean
 parking for residentsand,guests would.be provided below the residential buildings and guest parking would also
 be available along thein,terior streets, An approximately six-acre public park is also being proposed.

 REQUESTED ACTIONS:
             '.!-,                ',;,   :.

 1.      PursuAintto Section 11.5:6 of the Municipal Code, a General Plan Amendment. to the Wilmington-
         Harbor Gity Community pj~h from "Low Residential" and "Open Space" to "Medium" Density Residential
         land use.     .'.
 2.      Pursuant to Section 12.32 of the Municipal Code, a Zone Change from the existing R1-1XL and OS-
         1XL to a new SPecific Plan Zone created as part of this action. (Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan)
. 3.     Pursuant to Section 12.32 of the Municipal Code, the establishment of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro
         Specific Plan forthe proposed Project.
 4.      Pursuant to Section 65864-65869.5 of the California Government Code and City implementing
         procedures, a Development Agreement between BDC Ponte Vista Partners LLC and the City of Los
         Angeles. The Development Agreement is intended to provide reasonable assurances to the Applicant
         with respect to his ability to implement proposed Project approvals while providing the City with Public
         Benefits. The term length for the proposed Development Agreement is 25 years.
 5.      Pursuant to Section 21082.1 (C)(3) Certification of ENV-2005-4516-EIR as the Environmental Impact
         Report for the above referenced Project, and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
         required findings for the adoption of the EI R, and Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
         setting forth the reasons and benefits of adopting the EIR with full knowledge that significant impacts
         may remain.




                                                                                                           3-11
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1.       Disapprove a General Plan Amendment to the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan from "Low
         Residential" and "Open Space" to "Medium" Density Residential land use.
2.       Disapprove a Zone Change from the existing R1-1 XL and OS-1 XL to a Specific Plan Zone proposed to
         be created as part of this action.
3.       Disapprove the establishment ofthe Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan proposed to be created as
         part of this action.
4.       Disapprove a Development Agreement between BDC Ponte Vista Partners LLC and the City of Los
         Angeles.
5.       Not Certify Environmental Impact Report ENV-2005-4516-EIR, Not Adopt a Statement of Overriding
         Considerations, and Disapprove the Mitigation Monitoring Program.


S. GAIL GOLDBERG, AICP
Director of Planning



John Dugan, AICP                                                           Jon Foreman, Hearing Officer
Deputy Director




                                                                           David Olivo, Planning Associate



ADVICE TO PUBLIC: *The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there may be
several other items on the agenda. Written communications may be mailed to the Commission Secretariat, Room 272, City
Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Anf;leles, CA 90012 (Phone No. 213-978-1300). While all written communications are
given to the Commission for CQnsideratiQO, the initial packets are sent the week prior to the Commission's meeting date.
Challenges to these agenda items in court'may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing agendized
herein, or in written correspdhd~nce on thesematters delivered to this agency at or prior to the public hearing. As a covered
entity under Title II of the Amei-ieans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of
disability, and upon request, will pilqyid,e reaspnaPIEl,apcommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and
activities. Sign language interpretersjassistive Iisteni~gdeyices, or other aUXiliary aids and/or other services may be
provided upon request; TOel1sure avan~pility of services, requests must be made not later than three working days (72
hours) prior to the meeting by calling the~(lmmission Secretariat at (213) 978-1300.




                                                                                                                    3-12
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS



Project Analysis                                                                       A-1

      Background
              Site History
      Project Summary
      Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Use
      Previous Relevant Cases
      Summary of Public Hearing and Written Communications and Other Public Input
      Issues


Findings                                        ~                          ;...•• ~    F-1

      General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation
      General Plan/Charter Findings
      Zone Change Finding
      Specific Plan Finding
      Development Agreement Finding
      Environmental (CEQA)


Planning Department Guideline$;for a Revised Specific Plan                             S-1


Exhibits
                              .             .

      A      Council Resoh.iti~ft.05-2731
      S      Maps
             B-1 Vicinityt\l1ap
             8-2 Land Us~ map
             B..3 Aerial Photograph
             B~4Long Range land Use Diagram - West /Coastal los Angeles
             8-5·  .'ate
                      Plan




                                                                                      3-13
CPC 2006·8043·GPA·ZC·SP·DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                                      PROJECT ANALYSIS


BACKGROUND

A Council Resolution (Exhibit A - Council File 05-2731) was initiated by Council District 15 on
December 13, 2005 to implement a proGess culminating in a Specific Plan for the future
redevelopment of the former Navy housing site, also known as Ponte Vista. The resolution called for
the Department of City Planning (DCP) to work with the developer and the communities of San
Pedro, Harbor City and Wilmington to create and process a Specific Plan. The purpose was to
address the neighborhood context for the Specific Plan, proposed uses, development criteria,
design, and community amenities.

Site History

The federal government acquired ownership of the sit~ in 1942. In 1962, the Navy Gonstructed 245
housing units on the site to house Navy personnelWno were stationed at the Lori'g: Beach Naval
Shipyard. The site was annexed from an unincorporatedCountyof Los Angeles area to the City of
Los Angeles in 1980. The Navy housing site was closed in 1999 when the Naval Shipyard was
closed through the Base and Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). After various legal
procedures outlined in BRAC, the Navy aV\larged some 19.58 acres of the property to Volunteers of
America, a homeless support organization arid put out to auction the remaining 41.95 acres for sale
to the public.

In 2005, Bisno Development Company (BDC) successfully purchased 41.95 acres of the site
from the Navy and then purQn~,$~d the remaining 19.58 acres from Volunteers of America to
complete ownership of the entire 61.53 acre site.


PROJECT SUMMARY

On September 14,2006, Sisno b~V!3lopmentCompany (BDC) submitted a proposed Specific Plan
which would allow 2,300 mUlti-faniily'residential units on the 61.5 acre site (approximately 45 units
per netac:re) and 10,000 sq".fare feetofal:'tdllary retail space. The Plan called for 25%, or 575, ofthe
residential units to be age-restricted housing (housing for those 55 years of age and older) located in
a gated, separately designated area. These residential units would be situated over subterranean
and semi-subterranean parking garages. The Project also included landscaped common areas
(community clubhouses and pools, a waterscape concourse and a senior community park), gated
private roadways, a pUblicly accessible six-acre park and a pUblic roadway connecting Mary Star of
the Sea High School to Western Avenue.

On June 18, 2007, after several months of public input, BDC publicly presented the current Specific
Plan, a revised proposal that reduced the number of units to 1,950 residential units (approximately
39 units per net acre) and increased the percentage and number of age-restricted housing units to
44%, or 850, units. The new proposal also includes 10,000 square feet of ancillary retail space and
100 condominium units designed as three-story townhouses. Building heights were reduced along
Western Avenue to a maximum of 40 feet and to four stories, or 55 feet, over podium in other areas.
 The revised Specific Plan for the Project was officially submitted to the City of Los Angeles on
November 13, 2007.




                                                                                                3-14
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                        A-2
Ponte Vista Specific Plan



SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES

The Ponte Vista site (Exhibit B-1 - Vicinity Map) consists of approximately 61.5 acres of land and is
located at 26900 South Western Avenue in the City of Los Angeles, approximately two miles
northwest of downtown San Pedro and 1.5 miles west of the Port of Los Angeles. The Project site is
located within the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Planning Area, and it is directly adjacentto the
San Pedro Community Planning Area to the south. The Ponte Vista site is designated for Low
Density Residential (Exhibit B-2 - Land Use Map) in the Community Plan and currently zoned R1-
1XL for single-family residential uses limited to a 30-foot height. The northern portion ofthe site is
designated for Open Space and zoned OS-1XL; however, this Open-~pace designation appears to
be a cartographic error that occurred when the site was annexed toth~ City of Los Angeles.

The site itself is the location of the former U.S. Navy San Pedro housing cOrnplex built for personnel
ofthe Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Constructed in the earIY1,960's, the res!a~ntial units consist of
122 attached residential structures (duplexes) and one detached residential single-family structure,
for a total of 245 residential units. There are 208 re~idEmtial units with three bedrooms and 37 four
bedroom residential units. All of the existing struGtl../f~$ are singh~ story with front and rear yards.
There is also a 2,161 square-foot community center'and a 3,454 square-foot retail convenience
store. The site was closed in 1999, and all the buildings are vacant and in a state of disrepair. They
will be demolished for the proposed Project.

The elevation ofthe site ranges from 101 to ~49feet above mean sea level (msl), sloping downward
from the northeast to the southeast. The highest area of the Project site occurs along a steep-cut
slope that forms the site's northern boundary. It is located just north of the subdivision's
northernmost backyards along Samuel DupontAvenue and John Montgomery Drive. A concrete
drainage swale runs eastl"",~~,r~19ng this cut sl~pe. The southwestern portion of the Project site
contains an approximat~1Y six-act~,~rea building pad that was previously improved and operated as
a fire-fighting trainingJa.~iJity. It W8~Jemoved in 19~0. The area is now an empty lot containing a
road ramp to Western Av~nue, utilitY infrastructure, and an untended baseball diamond, located at
the southwestern corner of;~~~~it~:~9~h9fthe baseball diamond, a drainage ditch enters the site
from a subterra.Rceanculvert ul1~erWesterl1ljAvenue. The drainage ditch extends southeasterly until
it exits the site through~nother $u~terranean culvert near the southern boundary of the site. The
ditch, currently lined onifsnorthern,Si,de with concrete and on its southern side with deteriorated
asphalt,. is in a neglected anddilapidat~dstate. A tree canopy believed to be less than 30 years old
has developed in the vicinity of the drainage ditch.



Directly adjacent to ,the north (Exhibit B-3 - Aerial Photograph) is the 330-acre U.S. Navy Defense
Fuel Support Point (Df751?). The site is federally owned and not under the jurisdiction of the City of
Los Angeles. The Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan designates the site as Open Space, and
a footnote in the Plan designates the site as an A1 Zone. The DFSP site is mostly open space and
not accessible to the public. The property is partially developed with fuel storage tanks both above
and below ground. The property is also a known habitat for the Palos Verde Blue Butterfly and the
California Gnatcatcher.




                                                                                                3-15
CPC 2006-8043-GPA·ZC-SP-DA                                                                        A-3
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




West of the Project site, across Western Avenue in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is the 120-acre
Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. South of Green Hills, and directly across the street from the
Ponte Vista site and within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is a detached single-family subdivision
consisting of 721 homes (Rolling Hills Riviera) that is designated Low Density Residential.



Adjacent to the Project site on the south are several multi-family resid~ntial developments. Three
parcels, totaling 5.5 acres, are developed with 348 units at R3 densities in three-to-four story above-
grade buildings. The properties are designated for Medium density R~sidential and Neighborhood
Commercial on the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan and zoned (t)(Q)C2-2 and R1-1. The
predominant development to the south of the Project site, and east of the R3gensity buildings, is a
multi-family residential complex known as liThe Garde,ns". This complex consists of about 1,100
townhomes in two-story buildings with attached ga~~~es. The Gardens is located within the San
Pedro Community Plan and is designated for Low Meoi,um II density Residential and zoned RD2-
1XL. Further south, along the eastern side of Western Avenue, is a commercial strip center zoned
[Q]C2-1XL and planned as Neighborhood Commercial.



The Mary Star of the Sea High School is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project site.
The campus is 27.5 acres and accommodates 600 students. The school site is zoned R1-1XL and
designated for Low Density Residential. The schoolis currently operating under a Conditional Use
Permitthatwas issued byt~li~~iW,planning Comrrlission in 2001. South ofthe Mary Starcarnpus is
a single-family subdivi~'i()n desi~nated by the San Pedro Community Plan for Low Density
Residential land-use.... Itis zoned RT-1XL.

Local Circulation

Western Avenue is a designateaMajor Highway (State Highway Route 213) and is a major
north/sQ.ufh transportation corridor th~t begins in Hollywood and ends its 28-mile length at the San
Pedr9,q.p~stline. To the we~t, it separ~t~f3the City of Los Angeles from the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes afldJl? the only access'e,treet to the site. Western Avenue, while a Major Highway, does not
have significant transit service. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) operates only one major
route, Metro un~ 205, along W~stern Avenue which runs at 30-minute headways during AM and PM
peak hours. There. is also limited AM and PM peak transit service run by local transit operators that
provide connectivitY"tq parts efthe South Bay. There is little pedestrian activity along this stretch of
Western Avenue duetotbe open space formed by the DFSP site, the Green Hills Memorial Park
Cemetery, and the backyards ofthe single-family dwellings in Rancho Palos Verdes. Although the
Harbor Freeway (1-110) is located two miles east of the Project site, there is no direct connection to
the freeway from Western Avenue, and drivers must use Anaheim Street or the Pacific Coast
Highway north of Ponte Vista to access 1-110.




                                                                                                3-16
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                       A-4
Ponte Vista Specific Plan



RELATED CASES

On November 4, 2008, the Advisory Agency disapproved Vesting Tentative Tract No. 63399 to
subdivide the 61.5 acre property into 33 lots. The Advisory Agency found that the density of the
proposed map is not consistent with the surrounding residential land uses and not suitable for this
site as per the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan since it is not situated near a transit corridor
or a conveniently accessible commercial center so as to discourage automobile use. The applicant
filed an appeal on November 13, 2008.


SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS>AND OTHER PUBLIC INPUT

Public Hearing

On June 26, 2008, a public hearing attended by approxirnately600 people was held at the Cabrillo
Marine Aquarium Auditorium in San Pedro to provide public testimony to a Hearing Officer also
acting as the Advisory Agency for the concurrent'V:E)sting Tentative Tract No. 63399. Of those
attending, 94 people testified on the matter: 51 attendees spoke in support ofthe Specific Plan, and
43 individuals spoke in opposition.

Organizations and groups speaking in support included the Gentral San Pedro Neighborhood
Council, AFL-CIO Labor Union, Los Angeles"'Orange County BuildingTrades Council, Harbor City
Business Coalition, Harbor City-Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce, South Bay Association of
Chambers, and Mary Star of the Sea High School.

Organizations and groups,~p~~kjQg in oppositior'lincluded the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council, Harbor City Nelghborhq~g Council, Co~stal San Pedro Neighborhood Council, City of
Rancho Palos Verde.s,,9ity of Lo~ita, Rolling HIlls Rivera Homeowners Association, and the
Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association.

CouncilmemberJ,anice Hahn Of Council Distr;ict 15 spoke in opposition to the requests.

Testimony for supporting,the Project:
   -Affordable housing
   ,. EmRloyment opportLirJities especially for the construction trade
   '" Addition~1 housing including housing for the elderly
   - Safe and secure project design

Testimony given to dppose the Project:
   .. Excessive hOlising density proposed
   .. Existing zoning and land-use designation
   • Increased traffic and its impact on the community
   • Public service impacts on schools, water and power
   '" Market rate units that are not affordable
   • Design and layout not compatible with surrounding community

Written Communications

Correspondence in the form of letters, e-mails, and public-hearing submitted comments have been
received. The majority ofthese comments are in the form ofform letters, petitions, and cards. The



                                                                                              3-17
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP·DA                                                                      A-5
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


comments echo similar concerns expressed at the public hearing in oral testimony. Of the 11,320
written comments received, 10,564 were in opposition and 756 in support of the Project. The
Applicant has also submitted 11 binders that included copies of form letters and cards in support of
the Specific Plan signed by approximately 16,334 people.

Ponte Vista Community Advisory Committee (CAG)

The Community Advisory Committee for the,Ponte Vista Project in San Pedro was formed in the
summer of 2006 by City of Los Angeles 15th District Councilmember, Janice Hahn. The CAC was
created to facilitate discussion and understanding of the Ponte Vista Project and to make
comprehensive recommendations to the Councilmember on what the Project should include and
how the Project should proceed. The Councilwoman's office. chose CAC members from the
communities surrounding the Project site who would be impactecl by the Ponte Vista development.
Councilmember Hahn designated her staff to attend CAC meetitlgs and to work with the City of Los
Angeles Planning Department and the Ponte Vista develQpment team, BDCPonte Vista Partners,
LLC (BDC). The CAC and BDC chose an outside consultant to function as a facilitator for CAC
meetings and to create a process to provide recommendations to the Councilmember.

The CAC meeting process began in September of 2006. A total of 16 public meetings were held. In
addition to committee members, public attendance generally ranged between 40-100 people. As
part ofthe process, presentations were made by the developer's consultants" and City departments,
including Transportation and Planning. During this process BDC revised the original proposal from
2,300 units to 1,950 units. On January 18,2007. a public forum, attended by approximately 300
people, was held by the CAC to hear comments from the community based on the information that
was available at that time.

The majority of the CAC di<;i. not ~,l:Jpport the proposed Plan and issued their final recommendation
(by a 10-1 vote) on August 21,2007 to leave the current R-1 zoning intact.


ISSUES

Land Use and Zoning

Genera/Plan Framework

The General Plan Framework (Framework) was first adopted in 1996 and was re-adopted by the City
Council in 2001. The Framework is a citywide document that sets a long-term strategy for growth in
the City of Los Ang.eles. The City's General Plan Framework incorporates a diagram that generally
identifies and descri~es the various centers, districts, and mixed-use boulevards in a citywide
perspective. One oftheobjectives of the Framework is to preserve single:-family neighborhoods by
focusing growth away from these neighborhoods and into "targeted growth areas" such as centers,
districts and mixed-use boulevards.

Exhibit B-4 - The Long Range Land Use Diagram in the Framework for West/Coastal Los Angeles
identifies the area at and around the intersection of Avalon Boulevard and Anaheim Street, located
three miles east of the site in Wilmington, and downtown San Pedro, located two miles southeast of
the site, as the Community Commercial and Regional Centers in the Harbor area. The diagram also
recognizes Pacific Avenue and Gaffey Street in San Pedro as the closest Mixed-Use Boulevards.
Because ofthe designations, these areas have been identified by the Framework element as having
the best capacity to accommodate higher-intensity uses, including higher-density residential, since
they have the best access to community and health services and public transit.


                                                                                             3-18
 CPC 2006-8043·GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                        A-6
 Ponte Vista Specific Plan



 A re-designation of the Ponte Vista site to Medium density Residential would not implement the
 policies ofthe Framework to place higher-density growth where it can best be accommodated. The
 site is not located in an identified center or district, nor is it located along a Mixed-Use Boulevard.
 The surrounding uses are predominantly lower-density residential including single-family and multi-
 family residential. A General Plan Amendment to Medium density Residential would alter the
 intensity of land uses in the neighborhood and would not be in keeping with maintaining the
 prevailing, established single-family or lowep·density multi-family neighborhoods.

 Wilmington-Harbor City and San Pedro Community Plans

 Community plans apply the growth and development policies defined in the Framework as they
 relate to a smaller geographic area. The Ponte Vista site is Within thEl Wilmington-Harbor City
 Community Plan. The subject property is also located adjacenfto the San Pedro Community Plan
 Area and land-use impacts from the Ponte Vista site do affe,ct the San Pedro community, as well.

 In evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed Specific Plan at the Ponte Vista site, there are two
 key goals of the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan: 1) preserving and enhancing the positive
 characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods, while providing a variety of compatible new
 housing opportunities, and 2) maximizing the development .opportunities around the future transit
 system, while minimizing any adverse impacts. In addition, one must bear in mind that a
 fundamental premise of the Wilmington-Harbor City Plan is "limiting residential densities in various
 neighborhoods to the prevailing density ofdevelopment in these neighborhoods".

 The proposed General Plan Amendment from Low Re§idential to Medium Residential density
 designation is inappropriate for this site for two primary reasons. First, the density is not compatible
 with the land uses that arl?:5u:tj~c~,nt or near the Ponte Vista~ite. The proposed Specific Plan for
 1,950 residential units on49.5 net~gres would allow for a residential density of 39 units per net acre.
 This density correspoO(:ts to the Medium Residential Land Use designation in the General Plan and
 the R3 zone categ6rY.A~ a comparison, this is nearly three times the density of the 800 acre
 "Gardens", a residential multhfflmilY;col7l1PIElx that abuts the subject property on the south. Although
 the Gardens property is desfgri~t~d LoW:Mic:li~m!!·Residential density and zoned RD2-1 XL, or up to
 29 units per.riefaare,this deveIQp..ment has been built out at approximately 13.5 dwelling units per
 net acre (comparable to the Low Medium I Residential density) and includes approximately 1,100
 units.

  Three smaiIer, higher-density, multi-family buildings, the largest accommodating 136 apartment units
  at 75 units per ~pre, also abutthe site to the south. However, these parcels are anomalies and do
. not re11ect the majority of the surrounding residential community for they have land-use designations
  of Neighborhood Commercial or Medium density Residential which permits the R3 residential
  density. These eXistingR3deveiopments are developed on significantly smaller parcels totaling less
  than six acres, and, in terms of area, are less than 10% of the 60-acre Ponte Vista site. Thus, they
  are too small to establish the density standard for the Ponte Vista site. Stable single-family
  neighborhoods are located to the west in Rancho Palos Verdes, directly across Western Avenue and
  southeast of the site, south of Mary Star of the Sea High School. A new development occupying
  over 60 acres at a Medium density Residential designation would alter the predominant intensity of
  residential land uses in the neighborhood. Given the difference in density of the proposed Specific
  Plan, compared to the surrounding residential development, the scale and density of a Medium
  density Residential project on such a large site would create a significant "island" of dense
  development in a relatively low-density area that does not provide the access required for such a
  large population at this location.




                                                                                                 3-19
 CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                          A-7
 Ponte Vista Specific Plan


 Second, higher-density residential development should be guided to identified centers or mixed-use
 boulevards in the Harbor area that are in accordance with policies laid out in the Community Plans.
 Both the Wilmington-Harbor City and San Pedro Community Plans include policies that encourage
 higher-density residential uses near commercial and transit corridors in order to reduce vehicular
 trips. In addition, the San PedroCommunity Plan also designates downtown San Pedro as both a
 Community Commercial and Regional Center where higher-density growth, including residential,
 should be focused. In fact, there are various efforts that have been undertaken by the Department of
 Planning, the Community Redevelopment Ag~ncy and the Port of Los Angeles that have led, and will
 lead, to more City capital expenditures on public right-of-way improvements in downtown San Pedro.
 To take advantage of these ongoing efforts, new, higher-density residentiaLdevelopment should be
 directed to areas such as downtown San Pedro where new residents can benefit from planning
 efforts and City capital expenditures on infrastructure improvem~nts, such as new pedestrian
 walkways and nearby pedestrian improvements at the Port.

 Design

 The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan proposes a security-guarded condolTlinium complex
 composed of 1,950 residential units, including 100 thref?-story townhomes located;in the center of
 the Project (Exhibit B-5 - Site Plan). The remaining market-rate andsenior units are contained in 21
 buildings, some of which are designed up to 4 stories and are 55 feet in height (above podium up to
 10 feet high) with semi-subterranean parking. A street loops. through the center of the site which
 serves as the primary access to these buildings. The northwest portion of the site has a similar,
 albeit smaller, roadway configuration that serves the age-restricted units clustered in this area.

 The Specific Plan allows for building levels up to 55 feet in height over podium. However, as
 proposed, semi-subterranean parking levels upto 10feet abovethe sidewalk adjacent to the nearest
 street height are excluded . ill t1'le calculation of t>uilding heights. This "extra" height would allow a
 bUilding up to 65 feet at>ove the~i~,ewalk where the measurement is taken. The height would be
 incompatible with the vast majority Of buildings in surrounding parcels, which are predominantly one
 or two stories. The surrounding properties are limited to a 30-foot height limit with the exception of
 the Medium density Reside'l:Iti~1 projectabutting the site on the south. The permitted building heights
 would be significantly taller tnan the surrol.lRclil:)gneighborhood, creating a distinct high-intensity
 residential community that is not in keeping with the prevailing heights.

  A 20~footlandscape buffer would delineate the Specific Plan boundaries along Western Avenue.
  There are three entrances intothe development, although two ofthe entrances would not be open to
  the public. Agated northern entrance would lead directly into the senior-housing component ofthe
  Project and a private street atthe southern portion would lead directly to Mary Star of the Sea High
. School. The mainentrance would be located between the two entrances and would be a fairly grand
  entrance with a double row oftrees. Anyone entering would have to go through an ungated security
  station. The overall appearance from Western Avenue would be of a gated and exclusive
  community not open to the public, and there is no other similar project in the immediate vicinity.

 The existing land-use pattern in this area does not easily promote pedestrian access. The large
 Navy Defense Fuel Supply Depot to the north, as well as Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery on
 the west side of Western Avenue, do not contribute pedestrians to Western Avenue and separate
 the site from the commercial uses to the north. The Specific Plan does not provide for commercial
 uses along Western Avenue. Instead, the proposed 10,000 square feet of commercial use is located
 within the Ponte Vista site and would require a potential non-resident pedestrian to walk into the
 development, past the security-guard station. The overall layout of the Specific Plan is not
 pedestrian friendly because of landscape buffers and limited pedestrian access.



                                                                                                   3-20
 CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                      A-8
 Ponte Vista Specific Plan


 Circulation

 Neither vehicles nor pedestrians are well served by the street patterns surrounding the Ponte Vista
 site. The street patterns are suburb.an in nature, and Western Avenue is the only north/south street
 that runs through the area.' The land uses along Western Avenue are compartmentalized and
 spatially separated, suggesting that any development built at Ponte Vista would require dependence
 on the automobile as the primary means of transportation, even to nearby neighborhood and
 commercial services.

 The only access to the Ponte Vista site is Western Avenue, a major north/south arterial that serves
 major portions of the San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes communities. The Harbor Freeway (1-
 110) is located three miles northeast of the site and accessed from either Anaheim Street or Pacific
 Coast Highway. The Ponte Vista site has poor regional access. Three large parcels occupied by
 the Navy's DFSP site, the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park, and the LosAngeles Harbor College
 impede direct access to the Harbor Freeway.

 In addition, transit options to the site are limited at best. Western Avenue is classified as a Major
 Highway in the General Plan but does not serve as a significant public-transit route. Bus service to
 the site is limited to one major route, Metro Line 205, which runs $t30-minute headways during AM
 and PM peak hours. The line provides access to the nearest transit center, located near the
 interchange of the 110 and 91 freeways, approximately 8 miles to the northeast.

 Although the traffic generated by the proposed Plan could be mitigated (primarily through Automated
 Traffic Surveillance and Control, or ATSAC) there would still be traffic congestion after its
 implementation. Western Avenue experiences congestion during peak hours and funerals. Level-of-
 service (LOS) at nearby intersections at Western Avenue at Palos Verdes Drive and Capitol Drive,
 located north and south of the ~ite., respectively, would remain at LOS F (very congested) even after
 mitigation measures are implemented for the Project.

 A Medium density Residential project at this location would conflict with the intent of the General
 Plan Framework and bothtf:\eWilmington-Harbor City and San Pedro Community Plans. Each of
 these documents .ernphasizes,the need to pl~~e'hjgher-density residential projects near commercial
 centers and/orrriajortransit rOutes. to reduce vehicular trips. The closest identified Community
 Commercial or Regiort$ICenter near the Ponte Vista site that can ideally accommodate the
 proposed density is downtown San Pedro, located two miles south of the Ponte Vista site.

 Senior Housing

  The proposed Specific Plan includes a component for 850 age-restricted, market-rate residential
. units for individuals5~ years and older. The senior-housing units are located within six separate
  buildings with a sepatate, gated driveway entrance from Western Avenue. Residents ofthese units
  would have separate recreation amenities, community facilities, and open space, separated from the
  rest of the development.

 The Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan has a policy to guide the development of senior
 housing. This policy suggests that community facilities and services, and public transportation be
 located within reasonable walking distance. The Ponte Vista site is not within reasonable walking
 distance of community services and has only limited public-transit access. Existing commercial
 development in the area has been designed primarily for automobile access. The frail elderly cannot
 easily traverse the wide parking lots between the sidewalk and the buildings or climb the steep grade
 on Western Avenue. Other pedestrian-inhibiting factors include the volume of vehicular traffic along
 Western Avenue and the isolated open-space nature of the sidewalk created by the 1OO-foot width of


                                                                                              3-21
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                         A-9
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


that street.

Locating senior housing on this site would not allow for reasonable access to health, community, and
commercial facilities and·services for seniors without the use of an automobile. The Ponte Vista site
is not an appropriate location for such a significant number of exclusively senior housing. Therefore,
the Planning Department does not recommend an exclusively senior-housing component at this site
since it does not meet the fundamental intent of this policy.

Density Bonus

If a proposed Specific Plan is approved, there is potential to qualify forand request a density bonus,
pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.22 A.25. ,In addition to the Specific Plan
density, this would allow for up to a 35% density bonus, potentially allowing for up to 53 units per net
acre if the proposed Specific Plan were approved. This would include a 20% density bonus that is
allowed for senior housing.




                                                                                                3-22
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan



                                           FINDINGS

1.    General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation. The subject property is located within
the   Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan area, which was adopted by the City Council on
      July 14, 1999 (pursuant to Council File 98-1619 and CPC-97-0050-CPU). The Community
      Plan Map designates the subject property for two land uses, Low Density Residential with
      the corresponding zones of RE9, RS, R1, RU, RD6 and RD5, and Open Space with
      corresponding zones of OS and A 1. A cartographic error erroneously designated a
      portion of this property as Open Space with its OS zone rather th~mthe correct Low Density
      Residential designation and its corresponding R1 zone. This error can be corrected in the
      future as either a technical correction or by a new Zone Change/Specific Plan.

      The proposed General Plan Amendment by the applicant would change the land-use
      designation of the Ponte Vista to Medium density Residential. The: new zone would be a
      Specific Plan exclusive to this site.


2.    Los Angeles City Charter Sections 556 and $58 and Los Angeles Municipal Code
      Section 12.32(C)(7) requires that any General Plan Amendment be in substantial
      conformance with the purposes, intent and provisions of the City's General Plan.

      The proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium density Residential and the proposed
      Ponte Vista Specific Plan do not comply with Cnarter Sections 556 and 558, and they are not
      in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent and provisions of the City's General
      Plan. The Applicant's proposed Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are not compatible with
      the City's GeneraIPtan".F~amework or the objectives and policies of the Wilmington-Harbor
      City Community Plan.

      The General Plal1~famework was originally adopted in 1996 and re-adopted by the City
      Council in 2001. The'Cfene:ra':P!~~Framework is a strategy for long-term growth in the City
      of LosA!1g~l~s,andit s~t~a cityWideOQ;fltext to guide development of community plans and
      otl;ler General JPlan elemel1lts, Implementation of the General Plan Framework is achieved
      through the vari6ti$updates~'ff0l1'lmunityplans, ordinances, standards and guidelines, as
      well as through development-rs)l'iew procedures for projects submitted by a private property
      owner or developer. Based on tl1e following objectives and policies, the Planning Department
      Finds that the proposeq Project does not meet the following objectives and policies of the
      City's adopted General. Plan Framework:

      Objective 3.2 Provide for the spatial distribution of development that promotes an
                    improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicular trips, vehicle
                           miles traveled, and air pollution.

      Policy 3.2. 1   Provide a pattern of development consisting of distinct districts, centers,
                      boulevards, and neighborhoods that are differentiated by their functional
                      role, scale, and character. This shall be accomplished by considering
                      factors such as the existing concentrations of use, community-oriented
                      activity centers that currently or potentially service adjacent
                      neighborhoods, and existing or potential public-transit corridors and
                      stations.




                                                                                            3-23
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                     F-2
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


     Policy 3.2.4    Provide for the siting and design of new development that maintains the
                     prevailing scale and character of the City's stable residential
                     neighborhoods and enhances the character of commercial and industrial
                     districts.

     Objective 3.4 Encourage new multi-family residential, retail commercial, and office
                   development in the City's neighborhood districts, community, regional, and
                   downtown centers, as.well as along primary transit corridors/boulevards,
                   while, at the same time, conseNing existing neighborhoods and related
                   districts.

     Policy 3.4. 1   ConseNe existing stable residential neighborhoods and lower-intensity
                     commercial districts and encourage the majority of new commercial and
                     mixed-use (integrated commercial and residential) development (a) in a
                     network of neighborhood districts, cpmmunity, regiOlJ/fJI, and downtown
                     centers, (b) in proximity to rail and bus transit stationsliJnc;l
                     corridors, and (c) along the City's major boulevards, refetted to as districts,
                     centers, and mixed-use boul@Vfi!.rds, in accordance with the Framework
                     Long-Range Land-Use Diagram.

     Objective 4.3 ConseNe scale and character of residential neighborhoods.

     One of the features of the General Plan Framework is to identify certain areas for long-term
     growth. To accomplish this, the Framework Plan has established a Long-Range Land-Use
     diagram for the various regions of the City. The Ponte Vista site is located within the
     West/Coastal Los Angeles area and is not identified for nigher-density residential land uses
     in the General PI~'l. Fr~mework. Thepfoposed Specific Plan is not located within a
     Neighborhood Qisfrict, a;~ommunity Center, a Regional Center, a Downtown Center or a
     Mixed-Use B9l.l1~~vard. Th'~~~ areas have been identified in the Framework as having the
     best capacity tb:aqcommodate denser reslCiential development since they have the best
     access to community. andb~.alth services, facilities and transit. In the Harbor City,
     Wilmington,and San P.E!ctrb areas~.tJlte:@efleral Plan Framework does identify downtown San
     Pedro,locatedtwo miles:~outh of the site, and the area around the intersection of Avalon
     Boulevard and Anaheim Street in Wilmington, located three miles east of the Ponte Vista
     site, as the RegionalCenter and Community Centers for the Harbor area. In addition, these
     areas are also identified for Mixed-Use Boulevards. Denser residential development should
     be focused at these rocations and not at a location such as the Ponte Vista site that has
     limited access to services, facilities, and public transit. It also has not been identified for
     targetedgfowth in the Framework Plan, and, therefore, is not in conformance with Objective
     3.4.

     The proposed Specific Plan would result in a development of 1,950 units on 49.5 net acres, a
     density of 39 units per acre, corresponding to Medium density Residential. The nearest
     Medium density Residential use abuts the site to the south, on property designated for
     Neighborhood Commercial and Medium density Residential. However, in comparison with
     the Ponte Vista site, the existing abutting R3 density properties total less than six acres,
     while the Ponte Vista site is over 60 acres. The largest concentration of Medium density
     Residential land uses in the Plan area is located approximately 2 miles to the north in Harbor
     City, where the Pacific Coast Highway intersects with Western Avenue and Vermont Avenue.
     The predominant development in the surrounding area is known as "The Gardens" which
     abuts the southern boundary of the Ponte Vista site on property areas designated as Low
     Medium II density Residential and zoned RD2-1XL. The Gardens occupy approximately 80


                                                                                             3-24
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                      F-3
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


     acres with 1,100 garden-style two-story townhomes with attached garages. Residential
     development to the west, on the other side of Western Avenue (located in the City of Rancho
     Palos Verdes), and southeast of the Ponte Vista site (south of Mary Star of the Sea High
     School) is designated for Low Density Residential and developed with single-family
     dwellings. The 330-acre U.S. Navy Defense Fuel Support Point abuts the Project site to the
     north and is designated as Open Space, and the adjacent Mary Star ofthe Sea High School,
     to the east, is designated for Low Density Residential and zoned R1-1XL, operating under a
     Conditional Use Permit for a school'ip the R1 Zone. Based on the surrounding land uses
     and Plan designations, the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan is not consistent with the
     prevailing scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood as identified in Policy 3.2.4.

     The Ponte Vista site is not located within reasonable walking distance to a transit station, a
     transit corridor, or a high-activity center. The closest cornmercial~ervices are located along
     the east side of Western Avenue, just south of the Project site"(approximately 500-feet
     south). However, walking or transit is generally not.a viable option to:.~,pcess these services
     since they are laid out in a linear fashion within,sttip rnalls or plaza Shopping centers, with
     large parking lots in between the sidewalk and' the buildings.              .

     The existing land-use pattern in this area does not easily promote pedestrian access. The
     large Navy Defense Fuel Supply Depot to the north, as well as Green Hills'Memorial Park
     Cemetery on the west side of Western Avenue, does not contribute pedestrians to Western
     Avenue and separates the site from t.he commercial uses to the north. The proposed Ponte
     Vista Specific Plan would create a20':foot landscape buffer, between Western Avenue and
     the buildings in the development. The Spe<;:~fic Plan does notprovide for commercial uses
     along Western Avenue, and the proposed 1O,QOQ;sguare feet of commercial use is located
     within the development and would reguire apotentiaJ.non-resident pedestrian to walk into
     the development pa~t;~;~ecurity guard.station. Amending the land-use designation to
     Medium density . ~esid~nt!~I:would significsmtly increase the density on-site (approximately
     four times the: ~*j~ting dert'sitY permitted) and, in turn, increase the number of vehicle trips
     generated. The~tClPosed:Specific Plan is not located within close proximity to available
     public transit and, therf?for~;ts'Qot in substantial conformance to Objective 3.2.
                ,   ,        ~,           ...:   "   '\

     The proposed Ponte Vis~ikS,pecific Platf proposes condominium buildings on 19 separate
     parcels that hav~m~ss, oeJrKand height (some up to 65 feet high) that are not compatiole
     *lth the predomiriamtscale hl}~~~:atljacent area, which is generally one or two-story single
     ancLmulti-family stru~~res. The:rargest proposed condominium ouilding would contain 152
     unifsl.larger than ari! existing residential structure in the surrounding area. Existing
     residential developmefm in the immediate area is primarily composed of lower density
     residential,both single and multi-family. The Specific Plan proposes an internal circulation
     pattern andls;yout th~t creates an isolated suodivision of Medium density Residential that is
     denser, bulkier. and taller than the majority of the surrounding land uses. Entering the
     residential community would reguire passing a security guard house, and accessing the
     senior-housing area would reguire an additional security check. The proposed Ponte Vista
     Specific Plan is not conserving the existing scale and character of the residential community
     and is not in suostantial conformance to Objective 4.3.

     The Wilmington-Haroor Citv Community Plan contains the following Oojectives and Policies
     to guide decision makers on land-development applications:

      Objective 1-2 To locate new housing in a manner which reduces vehicular trips and makes it
                    accessible to services and facilities.



                                                                                             3-25
CPC 2006~8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                      F-4
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


     Policy 1-2.1    Locate higher residential densities near commercial centers and major bus
                     routes where public-service facilities, utilities, and topography will
                     accommodate this development.

     Objective 1-3 To preserve and enhance the varied and distinct residential character and
                   integrity of existing single and multi-family neighborhoods.

     Policy 1-3. 1   Seek a high degree offlrchitectural compatibility and landscaping for new intill
                     development to protect the character and scale of eXisting residential
                     neighborhoods.

     Housing         Encourage reuse of the existing U. S. Navy housing areas at the John
                     Montgomery and Palos Verdes sites, in a manner that will provide needed
                     housing in the community without adversely impacting the surrounding
                     area.

                     Locate senior-citizen housing projects in neighborhoods' Within reasonable
                     walking distance of health and community facilities, services, and public
                     transportation.

     The subject site is located on a major vehicular thor()liIghfare, Western Avenue a designated
     Major Highway. Western Avenuewould be the only ingres~/egress for the residents in the
     development. Though ancillary retail$p.ace is proposedw"hin the subdivision, virtually all
     services will still need to be accessed via automobile. Western Avenue does not have
     significant transit service. Bus service to the site, is limited to one line, the Metropolitan
     Transit Authority's Metro Line 205, whiGh rUl,1$ at 30 minute headways during AM and PM
     peak hours. Freew~y~cqess is located approximately three miles northeast of the site with
     northbound andsoufhbduncl ramps at Anaheim Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The
     proposed Spe9ificPlan is not located within close proximity to major bus routes and therefore
     is not in sUbsfaritlalconformance to Objective 1.2 and Policy 1.2.1.

     Effort sho~lcI be mad~JQirisure¢QI'TlP§l!ibilitywith development of this site and existing
     nearby residential develo;proent. The Plan supports preservation of the existing scale of a
     neighborhood,and, any plan, 'including a specific plan, should provide for Community Plan
     ~pnsistency. Resid~l,1~ial devel~lJment to the west and southeast of the site is designated
     Lo.w Density Residential and d~veloped with single-family dwellings. To the south, "The
     Gardens" complex is the most sizeable multi-family development in the immediate vicinity
     and, thpLigh designated for Low Medium II, is built to Low Medium I densities. The design of
     "The Garqal'ls" condominium complex is garden townhomes with attached garages. With the
     exception ofthe three parcels, totaling less than six acres, immediately abutting the site to
     the south along',\iYesfern Avenue and designated for Neighborhood Commercial and Medium
     density Reside~t1al, there are no other Medium density Residential areas acljacent to the site.
     An exception can be made for the adjoining R3 density projects because these parcels are
     built to the Plan designation and were not developed as a result of a General Plan
     Amendment. However, in the Ponte Vista case, the Applicant has submitted a proposed
     Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for a density and design that is considerably
     more intense than the eXisting surrounding land uses. The proposed actions would
     significantly change the character of the neighborhood due to the incompatibility in density
     between the proposed Plan and the majority ofthe multi-family and single-family residential
     units that directly abut, or are near to, the site. As such, the proposed density ofthe Project
     on such a large site would overwhelm and dominate the scale of the surrounding
     neighborhood. This is not consistent with Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1.


                                                                                             3-26
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                     F-5
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




3.   Zone Change Finding. Pursuant to Section 12.32.C of the Municipal Code, an application
     has been made to change the zoning on the Ponte Vista site from R1-1XL to a Specific Plan
     Zone for the Ponte Vista Specific Plan, a Zone that currently does not exist. Adding a
     Specific Plan Zone would require an amendment to Section 12.04 of the Municipal Code to
     add a Ponte Vista Specific Plan Zon,e.

     The new zone for the Ponte Vista Specific Plan is not in conformity with public necessity,
     convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.

     In order for the Planning Department to approve a new Ponte Vista Zone to include in the
     Municipal Code, an approved Specific Plan with regulations and standards must also be
     adopted by ordinance. Specific Plans policies must be irlconformance with the General Plan.
      Based on the findings for denying the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan as
     described in previous Finding No. 2 a zone change to an undefined Specific Plan Zone
     cannot be approved at this time. There are no regulatory controls to implement by changing
     the zone on the site, and it is not good zoning practice to have a unenforceableZone placed
     on private property.


4.   Specific Plan Finding. Pursuant to Section 12.32.Cof the Municipal Code, land use
     legislative actions, an application has been made for the Ponte Vista Specific Plan, a Specific
     Plan that currently does not exist.

     The Specific Plan submitted for the Ponte Vista site is not in conformity with the public
     necessity, conveni~l;(ctf!,g.eneral welfare and good zoning practice.

     In order for the.; Planning De.partment to approve a proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan, the
     Specific Plan must be adopted by ordinance and must be in conformance with the General
     Plan. In order to implernepUhe SpecIfic Planas proposed, the site requires a General Plan
     Amendment to Mediur:n density He$idential. Los Angeles Municipal Code states that a
     SpeclficPIa.n shall provillle for executidh of the General Plan and shall provide for public
     needs, convenience, andgel1eral welfare. The regulations, policies, and standards
     contained in the currently propQ$edSpecific Plan are designed to implement the applied for
     Medium density Residential. The Ponte Vista Specific Plan as proposed does not support
     the loWer density land-use designation that is more appropriate for this location and based on
     the findings for denying 'the General Plan Amendment as described in previous Finding No.
     2, the Specific Plan cannot be approved at this time.


5.   Development Agreement Finding. State Government Code Sections 65864 through
     65869.5 authorizes municipalities to enter into binding Development Agreements with
     persons having legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such
     property. Government Code Section 65867.5 (b) requires findings that the provisions of a
     development agreement are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
     plan.

     The Applicant has requested that the City consider a Development Agreement for the
     proposed Project for a term of 25 years. In consideration of the Development Agreement,
     the Developer has offered public benefits as part of the entitlement. Public benefits offered
     include: the creation of senior housing; 20% of the total number of units for workforce


                                                                                            3-27
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                         F-6
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


       housing; dedication of approximately 6 acres of land to the City of Los Angeles for use as a
       public park; private open space to be available to the general pUblic during certain hours;
       construction of a dedicated pUblic street connecting Mary Star of the Sea High School to
       Western Avenue; funding for various off-site traffic and circulation mitigation measures;
       contribution to the Western Avenue Corridor Improvement Project; and funding for the
       purchase of a shuttle bus (DASH) to run along Western Avenue.

       The Planning Department is recommending disapproval of the General Plan land-use
       designation as submitted for Medium density Residential. In addition, the Planning
       Department is recommending disapproval ofthe submitted Specific Plan. Inasmuch as the
       proposed Development Agreement does not comply with theGEmeral Plan, Findings cannot
       be made to approve the Development Agreement as submitlecj.


6.     Environmental (CEQA). The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Ponte Vista
       Project, ENV 2005-4516-EI R (SCH No. 2005091 OBa) was prepared by Christopher A. Joseph
       & Associates for the City of Los Angeles inqompliance with the Californl, Environmental
       Quality Act. The scope of the EIR coverecfal!)~oject with 2,300 units. SUb~equent to the
       circulation of the Draft EIR, the project was re~1:ieed to the current 1,950 residential units,
with   the same commercial square footage. The reques:fed entitlements remained the same.

       Environmental Impact Report Process. On September 15, 2005, the City of Los Angeles
       issued a Notice of Preparation (NO'Fii).fes?,rding the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Ponte
       Vista Project in order to solicit comment~ron_AI;) proposed content ofthe Draft EIR. The draft
       EIR was circulated for public review and comm~Mton November 2,2006, initiating a 90-day
       public review period (45 days longer than required) pursuant to CEQA and its implementing
       guidelines. The 9,9;'.Q!llY'review period provided interested public agencies, groups, and
       individuals the opf:lortuhitY'~<;l comment on the contents and accuracy of the EIR document.
       The Final EIR~as release¢l::on June 13, 2'008 and a public hearing was held on June 26,
       2008. A copy 6ftfreJ~ocumehtwas also posted online. Documents constituting the record of
       proceedings on whi~~;JhefE:I'I8:/:l€lspeen prepared are available at the City of Los Angeles,
       DepartmeQlqfCity PlsQ.!.'}iog, EH\iirotimeotllll Review Section, 200 North Spring Street, Room
       75Q,iLOSf\hg~r~S? CA gtt()~2.

       The EIR concluded that potenljally significant impacts would not occur in the following
       categories:

       Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; and Mineral
       Resources;

       The EIR identified potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation measures which would
       reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level for the following impacts:

       Air Quality; Biological Resources; Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset; Hydrology and
       Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services
       (Fire, Police, Schools, Parks and Recreation, and Libraries); Transportation and Traffic;
       Utilities and Service Systems (Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste).

       The EIR identifies three categories that result in significant unavoidable impacts for the
       proposed Project:

       Air Quality (Construction); Noise (Construction); Noise (Operational Little League use).


                                                                                                3-28
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                    F-7
Ponte Vista Specific Plan



     Although mitigation measures are identified for Air Quality and Noise impacts identified
     above, the mitigation measures would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than
     significant during periods of construction and when the little league fields are in use.

     Four alternatives were evaluated in the EIR. The alternatives were:

     •   Alternative A: No project alternative with single-family homes as currently permitted.
     e   Alternative B: Increased percentage of senior housing with 2,300 residential units, half
         (1,150 units) of senior housing and the remaining half as m~tket-rate housing units.
     e   Alternative C: A reduced project of 1,700 residential units (a 26% percent reduction)
         consisting of 1,275 market-rate units and 425 market-rate senior units, and 7,400 square
         feet of retail space.
     •   Alternative D: Alternative site.

     STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

     The implementation ofthe proposed Project;m~y have significant and adverSe effects on the
     environment as identified above, specifically imp~cts rel~tedto Air Quality and Noise during
     construction, and Noise generated by the use of ~f:1eproposed baseball fields for Little
     League games. In accordance with State CEQAGl:li~elines Section 15093(a), CEQA
     requires the decision-making age~~yto balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
     technological or other benefits of a pr6po~ed project againsfjtsunavoidable environmental
     risks. If the specific economic, legal,. social,.technological or other benefits of a proposal
     outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmentateffects, the adverse environmental effects
     may be considered "acceptable". Project benefits are defined as those improvements or
     gains to the communltYth~.twould not occur in the absence ofthe proposed Project. In order
     to adopt the EI~ and appr9ye the Project, the City Planning Commission must make a
     Statement of QYerriding C6rt~iderations andfjnd that approval of the proposed Project would
     result in significal"lt;·unavoi~ble impacts related to Air Quality and Noise, but that these
     effects are outweighedbythebeQefits of theproposed Project.
                            ,   "        ,




     At this time, thePlanningpepartment is not recommending adoption of the General Plan
     Amendment or 5peGific Pla(lJhat would trigger the identified environmental impacts, and,
     therefore, a Statern~n:t of Overricli'hg Considerations is not required by the City Planning
     Commission.

     MITIGATtON MONITORING PROGRAM

     In accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the Lead Agency is
     required to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for a Project's conditions of approval. A
     Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is described, in full, in Section V of the Final EJR for
     the proposed Project and is incorporated herein by reference.

     The Planning Department is not recommending approval of the proposed General Plan
     Amendment and Specific Plan that would result in the need for mitigation measures as
     Conditions of Approval, and, therefore, the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project
     cannot be adopted.




                                                                                           3-29
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA                                                                              S-1
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


          PLANNING DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR A REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN

In developing a Specific Plan that could be consistent with the City's General Plan land-use policies,
a balance should be struck between the housing needs in the Harbor area and the protection of the
community adjacent to the Ponte Vista site. The objectives and the policies of the City's General
Plan Framework and the adopted Community Plans guide the development of a particular site or
community. The Ponte Vista site, at approximately 61 acres, offers a unique opportunity for the City
and the developer to create a well-designe~ residential community that is compatible with the
existing community and yet meets the objectives, goals, and policies of the City's General Plan.

Based on adopted policy, analysis of the site, surrounding land uses.ahd public input, the Planning
Department recommends a Specific Plan developed to a Low Medium I Residential density to better
reflect the intent, purposes and policies of the City's General Plan Framework and the Wilmington-
Harbor City Community Plan. This recommendation would allow residential development at the
prevailing scale of existing multi-family residential development in the immediate area. Itwould also
meet an important objective of the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan, which is to
accommodate some of the population growth that i$ projected for the Harbor area. The Specific
Plan should be revised to include the policies, stand~rds, and regulations to implement the Low
Medium I Residential density.

Per the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan, the Low Medium I Residential designation allows
for densities of 9 - 18 dwelling units per netacre. Although the n~t ~creage of a development varies
depending on the final design of the subcUvision, a general rule of thumb is that 20-30% of the
acreage for a large property be set aside forpubliclmprovements (e.g., streets, dedications, etc.).
Since the Ponte Vista site is approximately 6t.5 grossl:lCfes, the resulting net acreage would allow
approximately 775 to 886 residential units at this.. site if developed to the maximum of 18 units per net
acre, depending on the d~$igr), I~yout and otherparameterslaid out in a Specific Plan. A density
bonus would allow for upto a 35°!li increase, which would increase the range to 1,046 to 1,196 units.


land Use

The recommendation to changet1':lEa existing Low Residential density to Low Medium I is based on
the follOWing: page 111-1 (!)fthe Wilmihgton-Harbor City Plan states that a fundamental premise of the
Plan is "limiting residentra.Ldensities in· various neighborhoods to the prevailing density of
developm~l1t in these ne/ghborhooQS".            This is an important factor in determining the
appropriateness of any development at this site. The Ponte Vista site is one of the last undeveloped
parcels of this size in the area' and offers an opportunity to significantly meet the housing needs of
the community.

While there are subdivi~i.(i)f'is that are exclusively single-family residential near the site, the prevailing
density and scale of de.velopment in the area is a mix of low-density, single-family residences and
Low Medium density multi-family residential. The largest most comparable multi-family development
is the adjacent "Gardens" condominium development. This condominium complex, spread over 80
acres, is developed at 13.5 dwelling units per net acre. Although the "Gardens" complex is zoned
RD2-1XL and designated as Low Medium II density, it is built to Low Medium I density Residential
that fits unobtrusively into the neighborhood and acts as a buffer to the single-family neighborhood,
located directly southeast of Ponte Vista, and also buffers it from commercial development along
Western Avenue. A continuation ofthe Low Medium I scale of development on the Ponte Vista site
would promote the policy of the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan to protect existing single-
family neighborhoods from new, out-of-scale development. The Low Medium I Residential
designation would allow the opportunity to add new housing to the community while maintaining a


                                                                                                      3-30
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC·8p·DA                                                                        8-2
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


density that is compatible with the existing single-family neighborhoods. Low Medium I densities are
often used as buffer zones between single-family residences and more intense multi-family and
commercial uses. Western Avenue is designated a Major Highway, and multi-family uses are
appropriate for this street classification.


Housing

A General Plan Amendment to Low Medium I Residential density would roughly double the amount
of dwelling units on this site compared to the existing single-family designation. The density
recommended by the Planning Department would also meet anotherobjeetive of the Wilmington-
Harbor City Community Plan, which is to promote the provision of ad~quate housing for all persons.
Re-designating the property to the Low Medium I density Residential Jand-use designation would
better meet the housing needs in the Harbor area, more so than maintaining the land-use
designation as Low density Residential.

Some additional residential units are necessary to help meet the housing needs for&c!;ist in the City's
General Plan Framework, but they must be dispersed:throughout the Community Plan area. The
Framework projects there will be a shortage of housing units to. meet the needs of the forecasted
population in the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan area by the year 2010. The Plan
forecasts a need for 4,000 additional housing units by 2010, which cannot all be accommodated on
acreage currently designated for residential land use. The anticipated growth could be
accommodated without development of thei Ponte Vista site by increasing mixed-use development
on commercially zoned sites and in other redevelopment areas. However, some additional housing
on this site could be consistent with the Community Plan objectives.


Design

The Department of City Planning recommends a re"ised Specific Plan be prepared with policies,
standards and regulatiorisP9nsi§!~li!t.Ytith~ a Low Medium I density Residential designation that
reflects a great~r~nsibility ~lthresp~Gtto·t~e .~:Gale of prevailing residential development in the
neighborhood. This Jnpludes nei'$pts of no rTIc:fre than two-to-three stories above natural grade,
consistent with the prevailing heig'fl~in the immediate area. The following design and site plan
parameters describe in greater detailt)\lf!!type of development that is more appropriate for the site:

1. The development shouldl1ot be gated, and all roads should be public.

2. Right-of-way and dedication areas should be a minimum of 20% of the entire site.

3. Buildings should enhance and frame pUblic space and not be set within largely unusable swaths
   of green space. Green space should be concentrated into key areas so as to be usable by the
   largest number of people. These spaces can then provide for a variety of uses - including
   passive open space, nature and jogging paths, playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts.

4. The Specific Plan should favor more roadways and pathways, not fewer, provided that the roads
   accommodate a multiplicity of travel modes (bike, foot, car), are not excessively wide, and
   contain an extensive planting of shade trees in the parkway zone. In addition to these roads, the
   Specific Plan should consider greenways reserved for pedestrians and bicyclists, and along
   which dwellings can be fronted.




                                                                                               3-31
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-5P-DA                                                                       5-3
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


5. There should be only two vehicular entrances to the site from Western Avenue: at Avenida
   Aprenda and Green Hills Drive.

6. The edge along Western Avenue between the buildings and the sidewalk should be soft and
   permeable. A setback should be provided and should contain shade trees. Significant
   decreases in grade should be avoided, as well as fencing and blank walls. Individual entrances
   to ground-level units should be required, and a parkway should be planted along Western
   Avenue with fast-growing canopy trees. Breaks should be provided in the streetwall for roads,
   and pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Improvements to existing medians on Western Avenue
   should also be considered.

7. The overall site plan should respond to the significant topographical variations located to the
   north and to the south ofthe site, so as to avoid the extensive 'use ofretaining walls and grading.
   Additionally, taller buildings (no more than 3 stories high) should be located closer to the east of
   the site, where the grade is lower than at Western Avenue, and along the northern edge of the
   site. Two-story buildings should be located towards the western edge ofthe site and throughout
   the central portions of the development.

8. Internal streets and greenways should be organized so as to allow views of the Harbor.

9. Alleyways or car courts should be used to minimize driveways where townhomes are placed.

10. Underground parking that is provided for the multi-family dwellings should not extend more than
   three vertical feet above the surface grade. Any visible security grilles and ventilation openings
   should be screened with landscaping.

11. A roadway connection thrpugh the site from Western Avenue to Mary Star High School should
   be provided. This roadway shpuld not act asa barrier to neighboring residential development.

12. Connections to Fitness Drive and The Gardens condominium complex should be provided in the
   form of bicycle and/or p~dElstr,ianp~ths. A pedestrian/bicycle connection to Taper Avenue via
   Mary Star oUhe Sea High,S<::hool sholJIQ,~I~qbe provided.

13. Block sizes shouldre.main smafl,at a maximum of 350 feet in length.

14. A small, mixed-use component shOuld be provided, in the form of small retail spaces. This
    component should overlook a central park or square.

15. Sustainable bUilding materials and elements should be incorporated into the entire project -
   including, but notlimitedto, window placement, high-performance glazing, and building designs
   that favor natural ventilation and cross-breezes. Additionally, landscaped areas should consist
   of non-invasive, low-water, native and non-native species.


Entitlements

The Planning Department's recommendation for the Ponte Vista site does not convey approval of a
potential project just by meeting the recommendations. Development of the site to Low Medium I
density Residential would require a General Plan Amendment, a Code Amendment to create a
Specific Plan, and submittal of a revised Specific Plan with policies, standards and regulations
incorporating these general parameters to insure a quality development that meets the City's
General Plan objectives. The recommendations serve as the overall guideline for the development;


                                                                                               3-32
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-5P-DA                                                               5-4
Ponte Vista Specific Plan


however, any potential project would require a review process by the Planning Department that
includes, but is not limited to, environmental analysis, public hearings, and approvals by the
appropriate agencies and decision makers.




                                                                                       3-33
CPC 2006·8043·GPA-ZC-SP-DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                               EXHIBIT A
                       COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-2731
                        CPC-2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA




                                                     3-34
                                          PLANNtNG and LAND USE MGT.
                                 RESOLUTION                    f"")ERSONNEL
                                                                              oEC 13 Z005

      WHEREAS, the 61.5 acre former Navy Housing Site on Western Avenue
in the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan Area presents an important
opportunity for the future of the Harbor City, San Pedro and Wilmington
communities; and

      WHEREAS, the Navy Housing Site has been sold for private
development, and the present owner is applying for a general plan amendment
and zone change for the property to create a master-planned residential
community; and

      WHEREAS, the Navy Housing. Site provides a potential location for
important amenities desired by the community; and

        WHEREAS, the future use of the Navy Housing Site deserves the utmost
care and attention by the City of Los Angeles to ensure that its future
redevelopment is of the highest quality, responds to opportunities, and ensures
that future uses are compatible with the surrounding community; and

       WHEREAS, the Council Office, the communities of San Pedro, Harbor
City and Wilmington and the developer are working together on the futu re plans
for the site, and

      WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 166859, the City has established
a Major Project Review Trust Fund as a mechanism to recover full the actual cost
of reviewing applications for and preparing andlor evaluating associated
documentation of major projects; and

       WHEREAS, major projects such as this development put an extraordinary
and disproportionate burden on the City's resources and increasingly interfere
with the City's ongoing planning responsibilities as well as timely review of other
projects; and

       WHEREAS, the Sisno Development Co. LLC has indicated a desire to
enter into a Supplemental Fee Agreement to compensate the City and Planning
Department for actual costs of the City's resources allocated to the processing of
such discretionary actions; and

       WHEREAS, the City Planning Director has determined that the Sisno
Development plans qualify as a "Major Project" as defined In Section 5.400 of
the City Administrative Code; and

      WHEREAS, the Supplemental Fee Agreement mechanism is consistent
with Executive Directive 12, which directs City agencies to recover the actual

                                                                           DEC 1 3 2.00~




                                                                                  3-35
cost of their services, and with the fee provisions of the California Government
Code Section 66451.1 (b) and 65456. '

      NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF LOS ANGELES
RESOLVES to initiate a Specific Plan for the future redevelopment of the Navy
Housing Site. The Planning Department should work with the communities of
San. Pedro, Harbor City and Wilmington and the developer to process the Plan.
The Plan shall address proposed uses, development criteria, design, and
community amenities.

       THE CITY COUNCIL FURTHER RESOLVES that (1) position authority be
approved for one new City Planning Associate, Code 7941, in the Department of
City Planning, for a period of one year. and (2) the Department of city Planning
be authorized to fill this position, with backfill authority.

       THE CITY COUNCIL FURTHER RESOLVES to (1) authorize the
Planning Department to enter into a Supplemental Fee Agreement with the Bisno
Development Company for the review and processing of the Specific Plan and
other related discretionary actions, in connection with its development of the
former Navy Housing Site on Western Avenue. (2) Authorize the appropriation
and transfer of funds~ upon request of the Director of Planning, from the Major
Project Trust Fund No 524 to the following Fund, Department, and Accounts:
City Planning Fund 100, Department 68, Account No. 1010 (Salaries General),
Account No. 1090 (Salaries Overtime), Account No. 6010 (Office &
Administrative Expense), Account No. 6020 (Operating Expense), and Account
No. 7300 (Equipment).

      THE CITY COUNCIL FURTHER AUTHORIZES the inclusion in the
2006-2007 Personnel Authority Resolution of one position of City Planning
Associate in the Department of City Planning for the period of July 1, 2006
through June 30, 2007.



                    PRESENTED BY: ~~~~~~                     __




                    SECONDED BY




                                                                                   3-36
CPC 2006·8043·GPA·ZC·SP·DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                                   EXHmITB-l
                                  VICINITY MAP
                            CPC-2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA




                                                         3-37
                                                                                                                                    ·                   p1\D                                       ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       \
                                                                                                           .~(ST"--7$' ~~.... 1-')
                                                                                                             /:   l<v~
                                                                                                                                   1-
                                                                                                                 t>-\i-I"IE,4At, ) VI
                                                                                                                           ~N
                                                                                                                                                         usc,'
                                                                                                                                                        PRA\"'~
                                                                                                                                                                                                  L            I
                                                                                                             ~ "'/">                                                               VI                                   j

                                                                                                           "            s M C ",-I                                                                             i        I


                                                                         ~            \~~~ ~I                                  \)~J£RS«:J                                                                      vi
                                            ,~\,               ~~ 'S                                                      ~~ IlvJ fi ~\)
                                                                                                                               3:


                                                              Q::' ~ ~                                                            "bL..-'~<'>
                                            $
                                                              "4J;;:~                                                                                    VI\
                                                                                                                                                               ,NC~
                                4p~ G ~"'i~ ~~~'" '-~                                                                                             '''>-/~
                                                                                      ...         \                                               I                                y-"



                                                                                                                                                     ~OU
                                    ,~'-!
                    ""Rl"~ ~~DR -f'..~ ~NAI/IIL /) \ <~'S
                                                       PENINSULA             VERDE                    '\                                !        '\     P.f>I'41            It\.


                        -'~ ~~
                          ,,~.~~ I ~                  ~'~                                                                                                              GAJAN\~N ~R
         ~1.L.L~:~~.~ -::: \r-\;(~
        \~!.~",~~f~~ ('1f5 ~.:.'iw"~RESERVATION
                ,
                ,.."
                '.          ','-RR ,-ONe>
                                          I'r-.
                                          9:-1
                                                   .     ..
                                                                                  I    \"-                     VI'1        \p!\ r-c'/ '
                                                                                                                                                  !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -

              ,ilL
                  S7' "0,' IO'~
                 I

        ~,'1'~{i':.-" ~\~ ;:;[~ I
                                                                   <li,/lf        '1,(,                        w.tJP!\1f'.                                                                    \ '
                          D'R                                                                                                                    ....                   NAVAL                 \,
                ,KE    "i"
                        <S)"'
                                   ."r ~                                      "-/'      I                                                             , , " -


                                                  ~ ~/                                                                                                         ~
              o \          DfI h                                                        I              I                                                      " RESERVATION...
                                                                                                                                                                ,)
                    i
                                ~
                                      I"

                                                                   ~,"-'                                                                     !-~ ~\~
                                                                                                                                                 )                                                         )


                                                                                                                           '~! " / /!NAVAL \\ ' \ .. ,'o/~~_;v/iq"
         ,          't"'" ,"'s ...","',      "        I                                                                                           /
             ",--"'t.IEWf!!A             4i,j ' "                                                                                   ("     t-, '\                           , I\                                                      \
                    _                "", , !   .... i                                                                     \
                                                                                                                             Proiect Site)              Ci):
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          7jT'-II;;;;"~-~'..~.~.." , ~·. l'T~"·l·~=:r.;;::=="""--"""'it::r--~~
E
                                                                                                                                                                                    '----/~'0
                                                                                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                                         1\                                     \         ","","Iii_A.'

                                                                                                                                                                        .~~ERVATION /         !                                                  lOlL          I-                             \
                                                                                                                                                                        ----......~                                                                       \
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I REFINERY
                                                                                                                                                                         ~"'
                                                                                                                                                                        TAPt / \\   {!                                                                                        \       0.


                                                                                                                                                                         ~\~ ,--\                                                                                              ~
        Cl
I
        0::                                                                                                                                                                         i              .....           i                             \              \             \       v                     s
                                                                                                                                                               ..                   \                                                            ,,--A          \
\~
 ~
                                                                                                                                                               "0"\I SANDWOOD ""
                                                                                                                                                               ~ I~ ~ '"
                                                                                                                                                                       ;£                                               o:J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  \   I                  i--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                   ~                                                        ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I

                                                                                                                                                                                               PL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~
                                                                                                                                                               £NGLANDER 5T
                                                                                                                                                               STATLER ST --\
                                                                                                                                                               ---
                                                                                                                                                                                             COOPER
                                                                                                                                                                                                  HS
                                                                                                                                                                                             STATLER                   gB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        g                                                                                t

    \                                                                                             STONEWOOD
                                                                                                                               cT
                    ~ANTA fENf\
                           o
                                                  DR )        .!   J--
                                                              lUg; t;
                                                                         8
                                                                                            1 THISTLEWOOD WY
                                                                                                                      g
(
              TOSCANINI            1;;0                       H,~ l~         r:                 DR                        N . . " .."       "V          ,·u   ~
        Source: Rand McNally, The Thomas Guide Digital Edition, 2003/4. State of California. -                                ~I                          nn"",-




                                                                                                                                                              ~
                                                                                                                                                                                         o                                          1/2                                             Figure 11-1
                           CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
                           Environmental Planning and Research
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Project Location and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Scale (Miles)                                     Regional Vicinity Map

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3-38
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                               EXHIBIT B-2
                              LAND USE MAP
                        CPC-2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA




                                                     3-39
RESIDENTIAL
                                            CORRESPONDING
LOW DENSITY                                    ZONES

D       LOW
                2
                                            REa.RS.R I,Im.
                                            RDO.RD5
                                                                    13
                                             CORRESPONDING
MULTIPLE FAMILY                                 ZONES
                                        2
        LOW MEDIUM I                           R2'.RD:l.RD4.IlZ3.
                                               IlU.IlU.RWI

                                               RD 1.5.RD2.RW2.
                                               RZ2.5

                         4
         MEDIIlM



COMMERCIAL l
                                    ~7
         NEIGHBORHOOD                       CI.C1.5.C2.C4.
         COMMERCIAl.                        (lAS3.r




•
•
         GENEllAL
         COMMERCIAL

         COMMUNlW
         COMMERCIi\!.
                             ~7




                                  s.p
                                            CI.5.C2.C4.
                                            RAS3.P

                                            CIl.C2.C4.RAS3.
                                            p.rn

INDUSTRIAL 5,10

                                                        12
        LIMITED                               CM,MI~I     .MI.r
        INDUSTRIAL




•
•
        LIGHT II
        INIJUSllUAL

        HEAVY
        INDUSTRIAl.
                                                 12
                                              MR2.M2.P


                                              M3.r


OPEN SPACE.
PUBLIC FACILITIES

        OPEN                                 OSAI
        81'1\(;,:
                    13
        PUBLIC                                1'1'
        l'ACILITIR8




                                                                         3-40
CPC 2006·8043·GPA-ZC-SP·DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                               EXHIBIT B-3
                          AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
                        CPC-2006-8Q43-GPA-lC-SP-DA




                                                     3-41
3-42
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                               EXHIBIT B-4
                      LONG RANGE LAND-USE DIAGRAM
                        WEST/COASTAL LOS ANGELES
                             CPC-2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA




                                                          3-43
               INTRooucnON
               Thl:l (lol'l('la! Plan f.rarilt....vofio 13 Jo l')l)f! ~"Oi.l(> . .:11':;....<'1(11., i;"Qltij.'f(!hlllll,.ril) Weh...lb ~lr,'l11"IY, 1115 .j '_Jl',ll;HI Qi~I1Wflt   Of tll~ Wlf)!~(;]ll~)t' wlld\ lXlks t~ tllp hlll.1U" M IlXlwwd trt !M" illld
               r(!pliv.~ Ci)OC(.~ l!l~ A!l~k>~ il'f}{1lJ'm Cl;y;!.'tl1tl Pl<Ul!..'ldw!lyj 1I1191;1~ ~.<W~llit It:l:Ils ill 11m ('llV .1$,.) wl'Cl~1 Ut.l f'AIl'lli\"'r.~\. lt1o.dl;'~ II olywuil.l ca;U(!~1 ·.~~lhm 'Io1lKll 1(.1c;11 pl<J/)~mlQ
               h!m5 p!3*1' B01h llw "r.lmht", r.mri ,tl.l;ll~I~(% o! lJrftt.1h ~w :iJMIt<4
               TI,l' ffelnt!'MJrk mh tcrlh~ I:.flOC!:IJI",,1 r(!ln.ttntmhtp !ml\',Iti'lI ll~l tn{' <1M tr;~l'~lwlt,~!tl)tf \)11.) {:11'f~i'1ro tllttl~ <UlII ,jdw,,~ nnv l'lrllf u'W (~11e~m'i, y,~ldl bt!um d.w.l11x! l!!l' clm~;If:IN
                                    tll lin- r.t!'/ i1~ 11 I:k.U MoO!"",!! OW' (!:Ill", Tltl: M?N tatCi;j"f1('~ . "k.lyhk,hff::J,l O{f.1I1t1. Gl.lll'lIIllJt'iII'i CI~l1ll'l, RJ~gll':'l'"ll t"~nlcr. {l'l',\,nlw.'ri Ct;llll\f iltld ~t:J.ed I.be Iltlijhtl.v,h
               -'lIlIJ !W"lC1117ll
               1IU; brOt~ny dl%tllhw.i jwitll Mflqm; 01 ~"lt1mi~:/dm1til'1. Illl!rght.>; Ilnd                       Ilttt
                                                                                                                 flll'tP~~ld lIS11~~ ,lJltlll~IWl'i1tfj '~l!J'Wr~                  1m
                                                                                                                                                                          !hlll; hintl r~".I(l tina \l~~' di<.lQf<.'R'l'o liw ik!1rt~llll:lll;';; r"Uocl .. rlW~!l
               land ll~} r,t')udJm!J~'t; l(rlll'ld tIl 1M r.ity'~ alr\);):(tJ ~h~fW llri.l.tn. !;\~>tJfb;lll ami Ilrl'\1'.1 LJnd II~) p."Iw.m~ . Pll"~m\IiItKI\ tr.IVC r~'fll-'1~1 <r,>,c-r wn.. ,11 dlfh~ref'il Mtt)~ .}fJIl III jfili~r;t$lt h:.:lti(llt:'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      \11
               ItltJii lfif,'1l't3tlYild (ocl.lllCUrl:-1J;>jhx.1" ~U*J r~latrr}!l~fllC ImlWf'1m I~ltd u.~ ill~J tr.lMillalrl.illv...-fJ
               Bm:..:ww "I'i C:lt)"\Wjr, lhE' ~mmlM'tlrS: wnMl1 ~~rl(IClJlal~ ~'i<lf'{ dati,lJ nllm~IClm, the<Cllllwm.I€1!t'f fl;Hl~ fmM bo /:;.1.:.e'1l teo lQi\' fUtall1el(,rmm,,/btilli ,15 In tJQI~flo:L:;:r\l~" hm.luu, W£!~1tEl~
               ml~m&l"l)r. illrJ II?J1f,lhl'l. lhill liln wdnlrl Ih!llilHl~\O OO!ttlhed bot !11l,l ErmllW.-Jfir.

               2~;;?:;:J:,:r~::;~~:~=~~ ~l~r~:~t.~~/:~)::::~';~:::;t~::::~~~f:;'~~;=~~>Jr)~~~~.,:~~~!~~s J~~~b~: ~:~/r~~~r.~ ~,~~~~~jr~:~~~~I.~,~~:;~~~:~::~::,~~;~:
               Pte.:I1.U dell?/mJfUl!i1UlK       ;:}I"(I   trlmUI If! rill'! CrMllfflfn!!\' prm~1f                                                                                                      .       ~



                                                                                     LEGEND
                                                                                     Distrlcas. Centers & Mixed Use Boulevards
                                                                                                         Nllghorhood,DbtrieI
                                                                                                         A fom! fltImt fOl' tr"rJ01lf1:l111lg I(lS~t'ill ~lb.'.ll'tlO):1.~ ourJ C~l.mr~~l d &.'tr.l\11 1:11 kl",-1l~,W;l H.. ID.n ?>t~~":<1!I~, (Ii"l~,: Q=Je~ll
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             >
                                                                                                         Wt!f.:~~ ~l~.\ dllld CI'llt' liltl!LtUm. ~l'l'.<ln p:n!r,1.110Clal (rlhr;Pll, q;m~4~'1l't ml'l't'1~'V l'tm.'M. ptw~lM. l~rl!f4.t.l.11a;lli'l\~ wrl W'R<'I

                                                                                                         p~::~~:~J:::,~;:~~U-::;I=~j:~:~::~~~~I~~:~~I~~:~~~ ~~:~~1;;;~~~~~=~
                                                                                                         d5ti.lt Ii   !lOOt i'SlL%IMIO t$1,fJ~      W' 1~ mlclMoX1(-nro1t1~ l·llI1.~~mtYtMt1dlr:w

                                                                                                        ComAnulIty Cem:er
                                                                                                           tllC~ p(l<I'l! 4('1:~lil'r,v~'1tl}>:ljJ reMfl.f1t«'.l1 OlllW"!tQ!MQd~ and ¢l)ntM'lVflillllhWtlfl'f r.~ ,~~ l;.,lch@<l*IMIJ<Jlh!:"'!>&'It!l/'.'W!'Us,tlf
                                                                                                         11.
                                                                                                         M"K.a~J.<:nd.e.uI!'.P~o\mf~MiOOllocdi!>'i1~. ~etllld&iim;II~Tilr>~t, ',11~IC:I'lW 1)I~(Jlrol:«-'Jwrr:::rnlt~>A C{1rH1:.lrjt,y

                                                                                                         ~:~~ :~:,~~:r~~;~~!~~~~~5~~1;()~~~\~,~~C:~~~~i:~~~.c~/~~:vt C:;;~~ ~=~~iil~;~::~t~~~:~:I~al~fci~
                                                                                                         f.lJIfOlll¥:lr~ ~M trll'llI:\'flll'ft~ CllNe'n;,;r. sm'JOO:        l.... !,'~'" tJ'~m.\I!~ ill!'.lll tK~~G;I;fl M!:VIJ.:W II) i!l:l1l11ll00f(l'>;"M{m \'(\iI)' t)/\ ;.,c.,h'l.t
                                                                                                         m001 ~;)ll '.r,'fl\'ll. t1l."f.i'\
                                                                                                         IlqJooaICeme,
                                                                                                         :J~ ;::;~~f~~;j,I'~::~'~~~==~!~I~I~~~~=~~I~\r~~~~~:;~;,;~~~~,~~l:',~:./:~::I::~=
                                                                                                         ill'll! U/illNl'-11»i\ ~~1'Il(,* 61'5\l'd<li;-. drtl.arw.1 'lYr.lW   v,     ~lGlmIC.tml~'1< Will      I '}!I wiUMl tJ!J't JAlW.¥l tJI l l_l<l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~~           ~,l!/ll~ !WIll"   11
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ft     II}

                                                                                                                                             ~:~~~~l~::tf~~~llt~=~~l~;~~~~~~~,{l~~il~~~01~~'~~f~i;;~~~)
                                                                                                         ~:~\(t~::~~~::~~:=r;~~~~~Ir~~~r~~l{~1
                                                                                                         DDWI\IClWft Conh.

                                                                                                          ::~~~~~l~li:'~~:~::::~~~~;;;~~~j:~r)~~l!:l~~~,;r:~"kJ:~~~V::=;                                                                                                        t~~~~
                                                                                                          ilflJ'Ot
                                                                                                         tCefill!.!!.ol 6                                          MId If'ltl
                                                                                                                         h"i.dqylltliCf~. flMl"C"",~1 JI1M:llu"J[:(l~. ~rlfl·u.';$ l~tMI In.w:~ 'C~lllJM"f>XlM~ 10c>1r;,,,,"~                                           'Cr.>.:I~i"IlU;f)

Project Site                                                                        IIIIHIIIIIIIII
                                                                                                                      n~ O::MnKl'/III ~lIrfl' i~ W::ltl1ft'i!l'fh.'ml1:tJjIl~t'll

                                                                                                         Milled Un IoIltfYlfd
                                                                                                                                        tqia f.>oor    I                                tuM l.al:olll(l m l:t: ,1Ml'Ii'$' flAA'l tjlJlk~t


                                                                                                         nn.!'S~ corlWd 10M ti1{~ t'l11911l>~ooa rli~l"t~~ liN.1~Ul~1l.\I/l1'r. '~lllllj)l illuj Dl';'.....JllW;>', f.1!Jllo;<Jr., MiWlJ t!>".;ll ,»wIOl:m(f;",
                                                                                                         \1I.~'lQ~ 2lk'n~ lhr;tll bfull~~,t§. iMth fM> S:CIlti!, dt'flfJt'l wd M'9M {If iWlll.~J~\ll!fIl M:r.o\It;.)I~I1!ll wHIr 1m! ~,W,la;u'(J1NI t2lm~
                                                                                                         ttllJlU.tllt'l,drt~U11 tvIr~:l- c;1 Mi~ tlwfblllwrJ"lk. \','~I fall ""'thin I\Iqlf "" f'lUll~ M(f:;il !(m~ Ilm~ 1. rr I 'lPl~ ~ 0 I -wI k1~y-,,\I...
                                                                                                         li1ll1t~1'.rI;mdbv I· Ul Z'<';f.(ll)' WIW!I\\l\:lI/f $m:eblt~;. W'l t:I ::I. III G,~lI,)tt 1111;\I!d ll.l~ f:tl~:'t.IIP.>;l' tW~W('H~ tel~f"~ il!'~lr~:llt;,~ W'hlu'J'::I~·
                                                                                                         V/,lhitl tf:'{ll.~ M-m'J Uwit~~rili. iI:.ll ~~OO l.:r II ~1!fIt:IY Illltmltl,'t;ll/~Mn-lu.[lil'~$




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     3-44
CPC 2006·8043·GPA·ZC·Sp·DA
Ponte Vista Specific Plan




                                    EXHIBITB·5
                                     SITE PLAN
                             CPC-2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA




                                                          3-45
o
,       200       400        800    1000
                                        i
              Scale (Feet)
Source: MVE & Partners, June 8, 2007.



               CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
               Environmental Planning and Research



                                                     3-46
L.A. delays Ponte Vista hearing - The Daily Breeze                                                    Page 1 of2




                                                       Doug Epperhart of the Coastal San Pedro
  L.A. delays Ponte Vista                              Neighborhood Council. "I think they saw a freight
  hearing                                              train coming at them, and all they wanted to do
                                                       was stop it.

  By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer                    "I don't know what more they can do or say at
                                                       this point that is going to change anything."
  Posted: 12/01/2008 10:40:14 PM PST
 A showdown next week before the Los Angeles
                                                       John Dugan, deputy director of the Los Angeles
 Planning Commission over San Pedro's Ponte
                                                       Planning Department, said a request for more
 Vista housing proposal has been postponed, with
                                                       time to study a city recommendation is generally
 city planners agreeing Monday to grant the
                                                       granted.
 developer's request for a 45-day extension.
                                                       Swanson said the developers especially want to
 A Ponte Vista spokeswoman said more time is
                                                       challenge the city staff's recommendation
 needed to study the city Planning Department's
                                                       against clustering senior housing on the Western
 Nov. 21 recommendation denying the project.
                                                       Avenue property.
  The issue, which was to be discussed Dec. 11,
                                                       Planners said the 61.5-acre property across
  now will tentatively go before the commission on
                                                       from Green Hills Memorial Park was too isolated
  Feb. 12 at a meeting in downtown Los Angeles.
                                                       and not close enough to a transit center, a
                                                       service many seniors would need.
  The City Council will have the final say on
  whether the project is approved.
                                                       "We've stated all along that we'd purchase a
                                                       DASH shuttle bus for the Department of
  "We feel that the staff report was (released) very
                                                       Transportation that would extend along Western
  late," said Bisno Development spokeswoman
                                                       Avenue to the Ponte Vista property, to provide a
  Elise Swanson. "The department had our specific
                                                       loop for shopping," Swanson said. "We also will
  plan for over two years, and we would like more
                                                       provide a senior shuttle service, and we've
  time to evaluate the staff recommendation. We
                                                       discussed other possibilities with the MTA."
  didn't feel we'd be adequately prepared for the
  Dec. 11 hearing."
                                                       The project also would include some on-site
                                                       retail services, she said, such as a dry cleaners,
  Ponte Vista critics read the move as a sign of
                                                       coffee shop and dentist office.
  trouble within Bisno Development ranks.
                                                       Epperhart said the delay will benefit opponents.
  "I think they're running incredibly scared," said

Advertisement




                                                                     (310) 540-4141

           Daily delivery is $2/week &
          weekend delivery is $1/week.
                         www.dailbreeze.com




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11117154                                                               3-47
                                                                                                      12/2/2008
L.A. delays Ponte Vista hearing - The Daily Breeze                                              Page 2 of2




  "Every time we go out and talk to people we get    ruling will be made.
  more people on our side," he said. "Now we have
  another month and a half to do -that."             WANT TO GO?

  Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn          What: Harbor Area Planning Commission hearing
  hopes developer Bob Bisno will be open to          on proposed Ponte Vista housing development in
  downsizing Ponte Vista.                            San Pedro.

  "Hopefully, during this delay, Mr. Bisno will go   Where: Port of Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club,
  back to the drawing board and come up with a       100 W. Fifth St., San Pedro.
  new project that will work for this location and
  has a better chance of being approved," Hahn       When: 4:30 p.m. today.
  said in a written statement.
                                                     Information: 310-732-4515.
 The staff recommendation found that the Ponte
 Vista proposal for 1,950 homes is inconsistent      donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
 with the city's General Plan and suggested that
 no more than about 1,100 homes be built.

  Bisno said that number would not be enough to
  support the amenities the developer has
  promised to fund.

  Meanwhile, a Harbor Area Planning Commission
  meeting remains on track for 4:30 p.m. today at
  the Port of Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club.

  No decision is being made at that meeting. The
  local commission will only listen to arguments
  and "advise," sending their comments on to the
  city's Planning Commission.

  And at least two of the panel members were
  expected to recuse themselves and not attend
  due to links with groups that have in the past
  supported Ponte Vista. Even without a quorum,
  however, the meeting can take place because no

Advertisement



                                                                   (310) 540-4141

          Daily delivery is $2/week &
         weekend delivery is $1/week.
                    www.dailbreeze.com




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11117154                                                          3-48
                                                                                                 12/2/2008
Developer of San Pedro's Ponte Vista plan is ousted - The Daily Breeze                                Page 1 of2




                                                       serious trouble since last month, when the Los
  Developer of San Pedro's                             Angeles Planning Department recommended that
  Ponte Vista plan is ousted                           it be rejected.

                                                       Dispensing with Sisno's arguments, the planning
  By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer                         staff found that no more than 1,200 condos
                                                       should be built on the site, and perhaps as few
  Posted: 12/12/200811:18:30 PM PST
                                                       as 775. Sisno initially seemed ready to fight that
 Sob Sisno, the developer who polarized San
                                                       ruling at the Planning Commission this week, but
 Pedro with his plans for a 1,950-unit condo
                                                       later the developers asked to postpone the
 complex, has been ousted from the project's
                                                       hearing to February.
 development team.
                                                       Even if the project continues, Sisno's ouster is a
 A division of Credit Suisse bank, Sisno's top
                                                       major milestone in the history of the
 investor, has assumed control of the
                                                       development. Community members said that his
 controversial Ponte Vista project, the
                                                       personal style was too obstinate and that he
 development team announced Friday.
                                                       insisted on a massive project long after it
                                                       became clear that doing so would split the
 Though Sisno's departure was hailed by
                                                       community into warring factions.
 neighbors who have battled him over density and
 traffic issues for three years, it may not mean
                                                       "His business plan was 'My way or the
 the end of the project.
                                                       highway,'" said Jerry Gaines, who served on a
                                                       citizens committee that studied the project.
 The project's lobbyist said Friday that Ponte
                                                       "Now you got people that don't want to speak to
 Vista would still move forward under the
                                                       each other, and a lot of unrest that was not
 direction of DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, a
                                                       necessary."
 subsidiary of Credit Suisse.
                                                       Sisno rallied support from local businesses that
 "Anyone who becomes a spokesman for a
                                                       wanted more customers, and labor groups that
 development project becomes a lightning rod,"
                                                       were eager for more construction jobs. He also
 said lobbyist Steve Afriat, speaking of Sisno. "The
                                                       tried to sweeten the deal by offering to build a
 temperature's going to be turned down now
                                                       park for the Eastview Little League, and built a
 because there's a new sheriff in town. DLJ is
                                                       cadre of loyal San Pedro residents.
 committed to working with the community."
                                                       Sut many other residents said he was never
  The Ponte Vista development, slated for 61.5
                                                       flexible enough on their central concern: the
  acres of former Navy land, has appeared to be in
                                                       number of condos. His initial proposal was for

Advertisement



                                                                     (310) 540-4141

          Daily delivery is $2/week &
         weekend delivery is $1/week.
                       www.dailbreeze.com




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11223280
                                                                                                     3-49
                                                                                                     12/15/2008
Developer of San Pedro's Ponte Vista plan is ousted - The Daily Breeze                                    Page 2 of2




 2,300 units, which struck many in the community        "I feel very positive that Credit Suisse saw the
 as wildly unrealistic because it would jam             writing on the wall," Hahn said. "I believe I'll have
 Western Avenue with traffic and put a strain on        a better working relationship now. I would like
 the city's services.                                   the developer to go back to the drawing board,
                                                        start over, and design a project that would have
 Neighbors in San Pedro and Rancho Palos                a better chance of being approved."
 Verdes, which is just across the street from the
 old Navy site, rallied against the project. In 2007,   Allan Abshez, the project's attorney, said that
 Bisno came back with a concession: he would cut        nothing has changed and the development team
 the number of housing units to 1,950.                  still intends to go before the Planning
                                                        Commission on Feb. 12.
 "That was no concession at all," said John
 Greenwood, who chaired the advisory committee.         Afriat said, however, that DLJ is willing to be
 "I think he just fell in love with the plan. I don't   flexible about the number of condos.
 think Bisno ever had a Plan B."
                                                        "Is it 1,950?" he asked. "No. It doesn't have to be
  If he was inflexible, it may have been because        1,950. It's not 1,200 either, though. That's a little
  he needed to recoup his $125 million investment       thin."
  in the land. His margins must have tightened
  even further as the housing bubble popped -           gene.maddaus@dailybreeze.com
  making it increasingly difficult to turn a profit.

  "My guess is the people with the sharp pencils at
  Credit Suisse decided this is a losing
  proposition," said Doug Stern, a Rancho Palos
  Verdes councilman. "If a lender is stepping in,
  they think they're at substantial risk of not
  getting their money back."

  In an interview, Afriat would not comment on
  the reason for Bisno's departure, or even confirm
  that he had been ousted by his investors.

  But Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn
  said Afriat had told her that Credit Suisse
  decided to remove Bisno.


Advertisement



                                                                      (310) 540-4141

          Daily delivery is $2/week &
         weekend delivery is $1/week.
                    www.dailbreeze.com




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11223280
                                                                                                          3-50
                                                                                                          12/15/2008
Developer ready to rework San Pedro housing project - The Daily Breeze                                              Page 1 of2




                                                                   and the most recent plan still in place. Criticism
  Developer ready to                                               centers around the project's density and traffic
  rework San Pedro housing                                         impacts on Western Avenue.

  project                                                          Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn said
                                                                   she has met with Fentin and believes the
                                                                   developer is willing to take a second look at the
  By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer                                 housing plans.
  Posted: 01/13/200910:16:45 PM PST
 With Sob Sisno out of the picture, developers of                  "He told me that they're now willing to come
 the proposed Ponte Vista housing project in San                   back and work with the community," said Hahn,
 Pedro say they are ready to launch a new push to                  who addressed the neighborhood council this
 find community consensus on a revised plan.                       week. "He has agreed to focus groups as a way
                                                                   to hear more about what the community wants
 The 1,950-home development has been in limbo                      and to get more input."
 since late last year when Sisno, the head of the
 development team, was asked to step down.                         Swanson said the meetings will be with "key
                                                                   stakeholders" in the community. The format of
 Ted Fentin of Credit Suisse, Sisno's largest                      the sessions - which could be with individuals
 investor, is taking the lead in a move to find a                  and groups on some occasions - is being worked
 compromise the community will accept.                             out this week, she said.

  "(He) is committed to working with you in                        Ponte Vista began with a proposal for 2,300
  developing a revised plan," development                          homes and was scaled back to 1,950 to be built
  spokeswoman Elise Swanson told members of the                    on former Navy housing land along Western
  Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council on                      Avenue. City planners gave the plan a thumbs
  Monday night. "There is a spirit of cooperation.                 down, however, setting the stage for a
  We are moving forward with community                             showdown before the Planning Commission.
  outreach."
                                                                   That now has been pushed back until April,
 The project, likely in a revised form, is                         giving developers an opportunity to revise the
 tentatively scheduled to go before the Los                        proposal.
 Angeles Planning Commission on April 9.
                                                                   "It's got to be a way scaled-down project," Hahn
  In a related action Monday, the neighborhood                     said in remarks to the neighborhood council. "I'd
  council approved a letter to the city's Planning                 like to see something built there, but it has to be
  Department criticizing the Ponte Vista process                   a project that will not devastate Western Avenue.

Advertisement




                                                              Ii
                                                    PrinterStitial@ ads by Format Dynamics.
                                                                                                  FormatDynamics®




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci 11448188
                                                                                                                  3-51
                                                                                                                   1/14/2009
Developer ready to rework San Pedro housing project - The Daily Breeze                             Page 2 of2




  I'm encouraged by what I've heard so far."

  Swanson called the upcoming period one that
  will offer a "fresh, new approach."

  "We're going out in a good-faith effort to re-
  engage the community to find a compromise,"
  she said. "And we hope that the community will
  engage with us in a good-faith effort."

  Not everyone is optimistic, however.

  "This is not new management or a different
  outlook," said Pat Nave, a staunch opponent of
  Ponte Vista.

  donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com




Advertisement




                                               PrinterStitial@ ads by Format Dynamics.
                                                                                         FormatDynamics'f




http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11448188
                                                                                                   3-52
                                                                                                    1/14/2009
  THE PORT
  OF LOS ANGELES          425 S. Palos Verdes Street   Post Office Box 151       San Pedro, CA 90733-0151    TELITDD 310 SEA-PORT    www.portoflosangeles.org

Antonio R. VlIIaraigosa   Mavor, City of Los Angeles

      Board of Harbor     S. David Freeman       Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza           Kaylynn L. Kim   Douglas P. Krause   Joseph R. Radlslch
      Commissioners       President              Vice President
Geraldine Knatz. Ph.D     Executive Director
                                                                                                                             RECEIVED
                 December 5,2008                                                                                                    DEC    08   2008
                                                                                                                            PLANNING, BUILDING AND
                                                                             .                                                CODE ENFORCEMENT
                 SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE BERTH 97-
                          109 [CmNA SHIPPING] CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT
                          RECIRCULATED DRAFT EISIEIR

                 Thank you for your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement! Environmental
                 Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the following project in the Port of Los Angeles:

                                               Berth 97-109 [China Shipping] Container Terminal

                The response to your comments on the Recirculated Draft EIS/EIR are transmitted in this
                mailing. The Final EIR will be released on December 12, 2008. Copies will be sent directly
                to you and the entire Final EIR will be posted on the Port's website
                (www.portoflosangeles.org). The Board of Harbor Commissioners is scheduled to consider
                certification Final EIR and approval of the proposed Project at 8:30 a.m. on December 18,
                2008 at Banning's Landing Community Center, 100 East Water Street, Wilmington CA. The
                Board will also consider comments on the Final EIR and the proposed Project and
                Alternatives at the hearing. If you require any additional information, please contact Lena
                Maun-DeSantis at (310) 732-3950.



                 Sincerely,




       (~lf:p
       ,0
                              .
                            APPY, Ph.D.
                Director of Environmental Management



                RGALMD
                ADPNO.030127·081




                                                                                                                                           3-53
Responses to Comments                                                                  Los Angeles Harbor Department




Rancho Palos Verdes

11-1     The professional protocols that have been established for conducting visual analyses call for
         selecting views for simulation and analysis that are sensitive, are accessible to the public, and are
         generally representative of views seen in a larger viewing area. The referenced photograph from
         the vicinity of Clevis Road and Palos Verdes Drive East was included in the Recirculated Draft
         EIS/EIR because it provides a good rep:resentation of the views toward the Project site from a
         range of viewpoints in Rancho Palos 'Verdes and because it provides a sound basis for
         understanding how the presence of the Project would affect views from other Rancho Palos
         Verdes viewing locations. As the distance from the Project site increases, the Project site
         becomes a smaller part of the overall field of view, and the potential for visual impacts is reduced.
         As can be seen from Photograph 18 in the Recirculated Draft EIS/EIR, the Project site represents
         a very small part of the composition that comprises the views from the vicinity of Clevis Road
         and Palos Verdes Drive. Because of this, no substantial view impacts or view blockages were
         anticipated; therefore, no simulations from this perspective were performed.
B-2      Following public release of the Recirculated Draft EIRlEIS, CARB developed a long-term
         mortality methodology for particulate matter of less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic
         diameter (PM 2.5) that would be appropriate for individual projects. The methodology is similar to
         that used in the Recirculated Draft EIRlEIS, but it is based on a more conservative estimate of the
         relative risk of premature death.
         Based on the new CARB methodology, the long-term impacts associated with the proposed
         Project after mitigation would be:
                1. An increase in the mortality incidence rate from baseline in 2005
                2. An increase in the mortality incidence rate from baseline in 2010
                3. A decrease to below baseline in the mortality incidence rate for future project years 2015,
                   2030, and 2045
         The incremental increase in 2005 would be 0.138 premature deaths. The incremental increase in
         2010 would be 0.078 premature deaths. However, in subsequent analysis years, the long-term
         incidence rate would decrease below the baseline, resulting in a net improvement in the mortality
         incidence rate. Specifically, the incremental change would be -0.043 premature deaths in
         2015, -0.008 premature deaths in 2030, and -0.010 premature deaths in 2045. These results
         represent an analysis of long-term mortality from the overall Project to the surrounding
         community.
         The eastern boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is just outside the O.OI-microgram-per-
                            3
         cubic-meter (flg/m ) PM 2.5 annual concentration isopleth during the maximum impact year, as
         predicted by the AERMOD dispersion model. This means that the increase in annual PM 2.5
         concentrations associated with the mitigated Project would be less than 0.01 flg/m 3 during all
         Project analysis years. Therefore, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would not see a measurable
         increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations associated with the mitigated Project relative to baseline
         conditions.
11-3     The Project would contribute virtually no truck traffic to Gaffey Street or any other non-freeway
         roadway west ofInterstate (1-) 110. The vast majority of trucks are oriented to and from the north
         and east, with origins and destinations many miles from the Port. The truck origins and
         destinations are not in the local area west of the Port or west of 1-110; thus, none or very few

December 2008                                                                                            Berth 97-109
                                                        2-36                                Container Terminal Project




                                                                                                              3-54
           trucks would ever be expected to use streets to the west ofI-llO. The majority of trucks would
           use 1-110 itself and Alameda Street to reach the Project area. Some employee trips might occur
           on Gaffey or other streets west of 1-110. Again, this would be a very small proportion of
           employee trips and would include only those who live near the Project terminal. Nearly all
           employee trips are expected to use 1-110 to reach the Project area. Thus,.the 1-110 freeway acts
           as a natural barrier to travel and is the main travel corridor to the Project site. Cumulative
           impacts on Gaffey Street and other streets west of 1-110 likely would be the result of other
           cumulative projects in the San Pedro, not a result of the proposed Project. In addition, the
           background ambient traffic growth rate &11d cumulative project analysis that was applied in the
           Recirculated Draft EISIEIR would account for any contribution of expected projects, including
           the subject Project.
11-4       Regarding the areas west of the Harbor Freeway and Gaffey Street, these locations would have
           lower exposure to noise from the proposed Project than the Knoll Hill receivers that have been
           included in the evaluation due to the greater distance of these areas from the Project site and
           shielding from intervening structures. However, given the existing noise exposure from 1-110 at
           the referenced locations of concern, they would not experience the same impacts as anticipated
           for other locations closer to the site. Furthermore, the nearest areas in Rancho Palos Verdes are
           approximately 0.75 miles away from the project site. At such locations, potential Project-related
           contributions to overall noise levels would be much lower than those at receiver locations
           adjacent to the Project. This is due to the distance attenuation that would reduce Project noise
           levels to a point where they would not contribute to overall noise levels. Therefore, no significant
           noise impacts are expected at the referenced areas in Rancho Palos Verdes.




Berth 97-109
Container Terminal Project                              2-37                                          December 2008




                                                                                                           3-55
                            C~ITV ()f::


     17 June 2008




     Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers             Port of Los Angeles
     Los Angeles District                                Environmental Management Division
     % Dr. Spencer D. MacNeil                            C/o Dr. Ralph Appy, Director
     PO Box 532711                                       425 S. Palos Verdes St.
     Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325                          San Pedro, CA 90731

     SUBJECT:       Comments on Re~Circulated Draft EIS/EIR for the Berths 91-109
                    Container Terminal (China Shipping) Project

     Dear Drs. MacNeil and Appy:

     The following are the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' comments on the Re-Circulated Draft
     EIS/EIR for the above-mentioned project         We previously commenled on the project in
     correspondence dated 3 October 2006.

     1.    With respect to Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Section 3.1), the City appreciates
           that, as we had previously requested, a photograph representing a "typical" harbor
           view from Rancho Palos Verdes was taken in the vicinity of CleVis Road and Palos
           Verdes Drive East for inclusion in the Re-Circulated DEIS/EIR. However, we note
           that more extensive "before-and-after" view simulations in the document are still
           limited to a handful of s~tes nearer to the proposed project and located mostly east of
           the Harbor Freeway and Gaffey Street. Why were similar simulations not prOVided
           for all of the sites from which photographs were taken?

     2.    With respect to Air Quality (Section 3.2), it is clear that this project would have both
           construction-related and operational air quality impacts upon surrounding
           communities. As we noted in our previous com mends of 3 October 2006, the
           baseline air quality conditions for this project are based upon a small number of
           sampling sites, only two (2) of which are located in or adjacent to residential areas.
           TI:ere still appears to have been no sampling conducted west of the Harbor Freeway
           and/or Gaffey Street; the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located at least a mile west
           of these thoroughfares. Figure 3.2-10 appears to depict an increase in annual
           particulate matter (i.e., PM 10 ) concentration in the extreme easterly portion of the
           Crty (i.e., 0.1 IJgJm 3 ) that is directly attributable to the proposed project. What are tile
           likely human health effects of slIch a change upon the residents of our City? Has a
           corresponding analysis of annual PM25 concentration been conducted? If so, what
           human heallh effects does it identify for our residents?




15
                                                                                                3-56
       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Port of Los Arlgeles
       17 June 2008
       Page 2


       3.         With respect to Ground Transportation (Section 3.6), as we noted in our previous
                  comments of 3 October 2006, there appears to have been no consideration of
                  project-related traffic west ot the Harbor Freeway and/or Gaffey Street. Although the
                  likelihood of project-related traffic being diverted all the way to Western Avenue-our
                  City's major north/south arterial on the east side-seems remote, it does not seem to
                  us remote that the cumulative effects of this project's construction and operational
11-3              traffic with the large number of new residential units proposed tn the San Pedro area
                  would be insignificant. For example, the list of cumulative traffic generators (Table
                  3.6-2) does not include the proposed 1,S50-unit Ponte Vista project on Western
                  Avenue at the former Navy housing site, nor does it include the numerous other
                  mixed-use and residential developments in northwest and central San Pedro. We
                  continue to believe that the analysis of the cumulative ground transportation impacts
                  of the project is inadequate.

       4.         With respect to Noise (Section 3.11), there (again) appears to have been no
                  consideration given to project-related noise impacts for areas west of the Harbor
                  Freeway and/or Gaffey Street. Most of the proposed noise mitigation measures deal
                  with short-term, construction-related impacts and none reduces these impacts to
                  less-than-significant levels. Many Rancho Palos Verdes residents find that sounds
                  from the harbor area are amplified as they move uphill to the west. With the ports of
                  Los Angeles and long Beach moving increasingly to 24-hour operations, we believe
                  that the long-term operational noise impacts upon our residents may be significant.
                  Why has no noise monitoring been conducted at higher elevations to the west of the
                  project site? What kind of mitigation measures might be imposed to reduce long-
                  term operational noise impacts to surrounding communities?

       Thank you for the opportunity to comment again on this important project. If you have any
       questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5228
       or via e~mail at kitf@rpv.com.

       Sincer~,
             j/      -,
        I{
       kU Fa, A~CP
       Al:isociate Planner

       cc:        Mayor Stern and City Council
                  Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
                  Carol lynch, City Attorney
                  Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement


       M:\Border IssueslCllina ShipPing Contain!;! T(;lfTninar~){)06061l_ACOE-POLA EIS--EIRComments.doc




                                                                                                          3-57
Port terminal expansion OK'd - The Daily Breeze                                                      Page 1 of2




                                                      Expansion plans for the China Shipping terminal,
  Port terminal expansion                             now located at Berths 97-109, call for dredging
  OK'                                                 the terminal's berthing areas, bUilding 2,500 feet
                                                      of new wharf and nearly doubling its size to 142
                                                      acres by 2030.
  By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
                                                      The project is also expected to result in a
 Article Launched: 12/18/200811:11:14 PM PST
                                                      52percent reduction in smog-forming nitrogen
 After six years of delays and legal wrangling,
                                                      oxides, more than 70percent less particulate
 China Shipping Holding Co. will finally undergo a
                                                      matter and a 95percent reduction in sulfur
 massive $85million expansion at the Port of Los
                                                      oxides, which come from ship exhaust fumes,
 Angeles under a plan approved Thursday by the
                                                      port officials said.
 Board of Harbor Commissioners.
                                                      C~ina Shipping will also build a berth equipped
 The shipping terminal will be able to process
                                                      with Alternative Maritime Power technology,
 nearly 70 percent more cargo containers while
                                                      allowing ships to literally plug into a generator
 producing fewer diesel emissions over the next
                                                      and operate on electrical power while docked.
 two decades, according to the project's
 environmental impact report.
                                                      "China Shipping has been a cooperative partner
                                                      with the Port of Los Angeles by implementing
 If the plan was denied, China Shipping likely
                                                      cutting-edge environmental technology," said
 would have pulled operations out of the Port of
                                                      Zhang Bing, president of China Shipping's
 Angeles, officials told the harbor commission.
                                                      operations in North America.
 "It strikes me that we have everything to gain
                                                      The National Resources Defense Council asked
 for the environment as well as the economy by
                                                      the harbor commission to delay a decision on the
 going forward with this," said S. David Freeman,
                                                      project, pending the outcome of the Federal
 president of the harbor commission.
                                                      Maritime Commission's ruling on the legality of
                                                      the port's Clean Trucks Program.
  In a related move, the commission awarded a
  $6.7million construction management contract to
                                                      Environmental mitigation measures contained in
  Pasadena-based Parsons Water and
                                                      the China Shipping terminal plan and other port
  Infrastructure Inc. to oversee the China Shipping
                                                      expansion projects hinge on implementation of
  and TraPac terminal expansion projects. The
                                                      the program, which aims to reduce diesel truck
  $1 02million TraPac expansion plan was approved
                                                      emissions by 80percent within five years. If the
  a year ago.
                                                      program is invalidated, then the port's lofty
                                                      expansion plans would likely be scrubbed, said

Advertisement



                                                                    (310) 540-4141

           Daily delivery is $2/week &
          weekend delivery is $1/week.
                         www.dailbreeze.com




http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_11267955
                                                                                                     3-58
                                                                                                     12/19/2008
Port terminal expansion OK'd - The Daily Breeze                                                 Page 2of2




 David Pettit, an NRDC senior attorney.              plan.

 "I think if the Clean Trucks Program stands up,     The City Council approved a $22.2million
 then I think this is a project worth supporting,"   settlement with China Shipping in 2005 to cover
 Pettit said. "But with the FMC's malicious          the costs of a two-year delay in opening the
 activities, it's not entirely clear whether the     company's terminal. The port also agreed in 2003
 Clean Trucks Program will stand up in court or      to pay for $50million worth of environmental
 not."                                               improvements in the Harbor Area as part of a
                                                     settlement with community groups.
 China Shipping also plans to construct several
 buildings, a truck entry gate and add               art.marroquin@dailybreeze.com

 10 cranes that threaten to block views of the
 Vincent Thomas Bridge. To compensate for that,
 port officials added 60 community mitigation
 measures to the project, including a new park
 along Beacon Street to create an outlook area to
 the historic bridge.

 "If we delay the project, we're going to further
 delay implementing the mitigation measures,
 which we need to improve our air quality," said
 Harbor Commissioner Kaylynn Kim. "This is also a
 good opportunity to grow the port and add jobs."

 China Shipping opened its 75-acre terminal at
 the Port of Los Angeles in June 2004, but the
 terminal operator had run into a series of legal
 hurdles that prevented any kind of meaningful
 expansion.

 A coalition of homeowners and
 environmentalists had complained that the
 project's initial environmental review was
 incomplete. To make up for that, port officials
 took a second look at work already completed on
 the terminal, along with the proposed expansion

Advertisement



                                                                  (310) 540-4141

          Daily delivery is $2/week &
         weekend delivery is $1/week.
                   www.dailbreeze.com

                                                         Print Powered By




http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_11267955
                                                                                                3-59
                                                                                                12/19/2008
                                                                           CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
                                                                                      PLANNING DEPARTMENT
                                                                                 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
                                                             -;f~!""n
                                                             (.udO               Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
                                                                                   Telephone-(31 0) 377-1 577
                                                                                            Fax-(310) 377-4468
                                                                                www.RollingHillsEstates-Ca.gov




                                     PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates will hold a
public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, to consider the following:

 TITLE:                 PA-24-07 (Silverdes Medical Office Condominiums)

 ADDRESS                828 Silver Spur Road

 APPLICANT:             Mr. Rick Edler

 DATEffIME:             December 15, 2008, 7:30 p.m.

 DESCRIPTION:           A request for a Precise Plan of Design (PPD), a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP), a
                        Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM), a Grading Plan, a Variance to exceed the
                        maximum permitted building height, and an Environmental Impact Report under
                        the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with
                        mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment for the
                        construction of a 29,642 square foot medical office condominium building on a
                        28,946 square foot site.

Any and all persons interested are invited to participate.

Plans for the proposed project are available for public inspection and any questions should be directed to
Niki Cutler, AICP, Principal Planner at (310) 377-1577, extension 115. Any comments regarding this project
should be submitted before the scheduled meeting. Information is available upon request at the Planning
Department at City Hall, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on Friday.

If you .challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the Planning Commission (or City Council) at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.




                                                                    Date




                                                                                                      3-60
                                          Staff Report
                                         City of Rolling Hills Estates




DATE:          DECEMBER 15, 2008

TO:            PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:          NIKI CUTLER, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER

SUB~IECT:      PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 24-07 (SILVERDES)
               APPLICANT: RICHARD EDLER
               LOCATION: 828 SILVER SPUR ROAD


OVERVIEW

The following is a request to approve:

1. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow medical office uses in the Commercial General (C-G)I
   Mixed Use Overlay Zone;

2. A Precise Plan of Design (PPD) for construction of a 29,642 square foot medical office
   condominium building and associated site and building improvements;

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67997 for the sale of the medical office condominiums;

4. A Grading Plan;

5. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height for an architectural tower; and

6. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act
   (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on
   the environment.

BACKGROUND

Application Filed:                    9/11/06*
Application Deemed Complete:          7/30107
Public Notices Mailed:                12/4/08
Public Notices Posted:                12/4/08
Public Notices Published:             12/6/08

*Original application was for a 39,800 square foot medical office condominium building. Plans for the
current project were submitted on 10/12/07.

Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required under Section 17.28.020(0)(5) and of
the Municipal Code for medical office uses to be located within the Commercial-General (C-G)



                                                                                               3-61
Zone. The purpose of th!=l Conditional Use Permit is to ensure that a proposed use is not
detrimental to existing uses or to those permitted in the zoning district. Conditional Use Permit
procedures are set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Municipal Code.

Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) is required under Section 17.58.020 of the
Municipal Code to provide a master plan of development for the entire site. The purpose of the
PPD is to ensure that the proposed site improvements on commercially-zoned properties do not
result in any detrimental impacts to the surrounding community and to protect the public peace,
health, safety, and welfare. PPD procedures are set forth in Chapter 17.58 of the Municipal
Code.

Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required under Section 66426 of the California
Government Code and Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code for the sale of the medical office
condominiums.

Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with appropriate mitigation
measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment.

The subject property is .66 acres in size and located at 828 Silver Spur Road. The site is a
former location of an Arco service station and is currently vacant. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is Commercial General, and the site is located in Planning Area Number
6.

To the north of the subject property is Little Silver Spur Road and a hillside located in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. To the east of the subject property, across Beechgate Drive, is a two-
story commercial building. To the south, across Silver Spur Road, is the Town and Country
Shopping Center. To the west, across Little Silver Spur Road, is a two-story commercial
building.

The following is a list of previous planning ministerial permits for the subject property:

..   OC-10897: Arco service station - Replace paypoint machine.

•    OC-14002: Arco service station - Replace pipes for gas tanks and concrete; provide
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

•    OC-8303: Arco service station - Demolish all structures and remove all improvements
     including asphalt, landscaping, piping and tanks.

•    OC-2006 and OC-3406: Soil remediation for former Arco service station.

The applicant originally proposed a 39,800 square foot (sf) medical office building on the project
site. Four Variances would have been required for the project as originally proposed. As a
result of a "first look" meeting with the Planning Commission, City Council, and community on
8/28/07, the applicant revised the project to its current form. The revised project was presented
at a joint Planning Commission/City Council public meeting on 10/23/07.

DISCUSSION

Project Overview

The applicant proposes to construct a 29,642 sf medical office condominium building on a .66
acre parcel. The building would consist of three stories above-grade as visible from Silver Spur
                                                                                               2


                                                                                               3-62
 Road and two levels as visible from Little Silver Spur Road. Two levels of below grade parking
 are proposed. The second underground parking level would provide 49 parking spaces, and the
 first underground parking level would provide 47 parking spaces. The ground-floor (street level)
 of the building would provide 4,166 sf of leasable area for general office uses in two suites
 adjacent to Beechgate Drive and Silver Spur Road, courtyard areas including two water
 features, and a loading zone in the westerly portion of the project site. Ground-level pedestrian
 access is proposed via a 15'-wide corridor in the easterly potion of the project site adjacent to
 Silver Spur Road. Twenty-six parking spaces would be provided on this level within the parking
 garage. The parking garage, as well as the underground parking levels, would be accessed by
 a curb cut on Silver Spur Road in the southwesterly portion of the project site.

 The second-floor plan indicates 11,374 sf of medical office uses in six suites, landscaping, and
 ten parking spaces. Given that the project site slopes upward approximately 15' from Silver
 Spur Road to Little Silver Spur Road, these ten parking spaces would be surface spaces
 accessible from a curb cut on Little Silver Spur Road. A condition of approval would require that
 these spaces be reserved as handicapped spaces or for building employees to minimize the
 number of left turns from Beechgate Drive on to Little Silver Spur as requested by members of
 the community.

 The third level plan indicates 10,873 sf of leasable area in eight medical office suites. Balconies
 and terraces are also provided on this level.

 The project architecture is Mediterranean in style featuring decorative tiles, roof scallops,
 exposed wood rafter tails, wood trellises, decorative arches, wrought iron accents, and a
 smooth stucco finish. The building would be painted white in color with darker earthen-tone
 accents and window trims. Hip roof and flat areas (generally for equipment wells) are indicated
 on the roof plan, and roof tiles would be reddish-brown in color. Red awnings are also proposed
 along Silver Spur Road. A materials and color board will be on display at the public hearing.

 Section 17.30.050(F) of the Municipal Code limits buildings to 44' in height or three stories.
 Plans indicate that the maximum building height will be 44' with an architectural tower projection
 proposed at 54' in height. Further discussion of building height is provided in the Variance
 section below.

 Section 17.30.050(E) of the Municipal Code requires that lot coverage not exceed 45%. The
 proposed building footprint is 12,492 sf or 43% of the project site in conformance with Code
 requirements.

  Section 17.30.050(L) of the Municipal Code requires that at least 20% of the total site be
  landscaped (including easements and excluding landscaping on rooftops), with at least 10%
  provided in the parking lot area, and a substantial portion in the setback area. Plans indicate
  that approximately 5,805 sf (20%) of the project site would be landscaped inclusive of
  landscape in courtyard and setback areas. Specific landscaping material information has not
  been submitted at this time; however, a condition of approval for the project shall require the
. applicant to submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval of the Park and Activities
  Commission.

 Regarding setbacks, Section 17.30.050(D) of the Municipal Code requires a minimum of 5' and
 average of 15' between a building and the street. Plans indicate that the building setbacks vary
 between 5' and 11' with the majority of the building located 5' along the property line adjacent
 to Little Silver Spur Road and between 8' and 11' along the property line adjacent to Beechgate
 Drive and Silver Spur Road. Given that an approximately T-wide sidewalk exists between the
 property line and street on Little Silver Spur Road and a 10'-wide sidewalk exists between the


                                                                                                  3


                                                                                              3-63
property line and street on Beechgate Drive and Silver Spur Road, the project is in conformance
with setback requirements.

Section 17.30.050(G) of the Municipal Code indicates that the parking requirement in the C-G
Zone is one space per 200 sf of gross leasable area (gla) with a provision that parking in excess
of this minimum may be required for conditionally permitted uses. The project proposes 22,247
sf of gla of medical office uses and 4,166 sf of gla of general office uses for a total parking
requirement of 132 spaces. The project proposes 132 spaces in conformance with Code
requirements. As recommended by the City Traffic Engineer, and agreed to by the applicant, a
condition of approval will prohibit the future use of the general office space by a restaurant
tenant given the generally greater parking d(:lmand of restaurant uses.

Zoning Applicability

Grading Plan

The grading application (Attachment 1) indicates 22,370 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut will occur for the
project. No fill is proposed. The maximum length of cut is 163 feet and the maximum depth of cut
is 28 feet. Grading is primarily proposed to accommodate the two proposed levels of
underground parking. A condition of project approval will require that the applicant provide a
haul route plan for review and approval by the City Engineer to identify routes for vehicles
accessing the project site, staging areas, and worker parking areas.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP)

A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the establishment of medical office uses in the
C-G Zone. Section 17.68.010 of the Municipal Code indicates that conditionally permitted uses
may be allowed when such uses are necessary to the development of the community, and
which uses are in no way detrimental to existing uses or to those permitted in the district. In no
case shall a CUP be issued for a specifically prohibited use.

The proposed medical office space serves an important need in the community. The continued
provision of medical office uses in the commercial district is desired and has become a priority
for the City. The proposed medical office use would not be detrimental to existing uses or to
those permitted in the district given that other medical office uses exist in the district. Further,
the project EIR has carefully examined all environmental impacts of the project (including those
affecting other land uses) and determined that any potential impacts can be mitigated. Given
that medical office is a conditionally permitted use, approval of a CUP for a medical office use
would not permit a specifically prohibited use.

Precise Plan of Design (PPD)

A PPD is required for the development of any structure in the commercial district. Chapter
17.58 of the Municipal Code indicates that the purpose of a PPD is to ensure that the following
are designed and/or arranged so that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular
safety and welfare are provided, and no adverse effect on surrounding property will result:

1.     Buildings, structures, and improvements;
2.     Vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation;
3.     Setbacks;
4.     Height of buildings;
5.     Location of services;
6.     Walls and fences;
7.     Landscaping;
                                                                                                  4


                                                                                              3-64
8.     Lighting; and
9.     Signing.

Staff believes that Items 1 through 6 above have been adequately designed and/or arranged in
the proposed p"roject. Items 7 through 9 (Landscaping, Lighting, and Signing) will be addressed
through project conditions of a approval requiring review and approval of a project landscape
plan by the Park & Activities Commission, review and approval of a project lighting plan by the
Planning Director, and review and approval of a master sign plan by the Planning Commission
at a future date.

Variance

The applicant proposes a 20' x 20' architectural tower in the southeasterly corner of the project
near the intersection of Beechgate Drive and Silver Spur Road. The tower element exceeds the
maximum building height of 44' by 10' for a total height of 54'. It can be noted that a similar
Variance for an additional 10' for an architectural tower was granted for the Silver Spur Court
project at the southwest corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Silver Spur Road.

Staff believes that the tower adds architectural interest and visual prominence to the building.
Staff further believes that Silver Spur Road, a scenic corridor, is enhanced by the attractive
architecture of the proposed building inclusive of the architectural tower. The Draft EIR
considered the impact to views of the architectural tower, and it was determined that the tower
would not significantly block views from any surrounding properties. Should the Planning
Commission wish to support the Variance for height for the architectural tower, staff will include
Variance findings in the project resolution.

Tentative Tract Map

The applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project (included separately).
The map indicates a one-lot subdivision for the sale of medical office condominiums. Regarding
Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code requires that the plan must
be prepared by a registered civil engineer for all public works improvements to be constructed
as a condition of the subdivision and for all site development including (but not limited) to
grading, drainage facilities, and structures in accordance with the City standards. Furthermore,
plans for all irrigation and landscaping subject to the approval of the Planning Director and a plot
plan showing details of the entire development and all improvements to be constructed are
required. In addition, the project must be consistent with the General Plan land use designation
and corresponding Municipal Code. Pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission's actions shall be as an advisory agency only, and all actions of the
Planning Commission with reference to tract maps shall be reported to the City Council who
shall act approve, deny or conditionally approve the map. Given that all proposed entitlements
are bundled for review by the Planning Commission and that the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
requires approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission Resolution for the project shall
provide a recommendation only to the City Council regarding the subject request.

General Plan Applicability

The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a comprehensive, long-range plan designed to
serve as a guide for the physical development of the City. The General Plan consists of an
integrated and internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. The
Municipal Code is a tool to implement the General Plan's goals, policies, and implementation
measures. The City's present General Plan was adopted on August 18, 1992 (Housing Element
on July 25, 1994) in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 5 of the Government Code. It

                                                                                                  5


                                                                                              3-65
should be noted that the City is in the process of updating the Housing Element which should be
completed early next year.

The City's General Plan indicates that the subject property is located in Planning Area 6 and
designates the property as Commercial General. Overlay designations applicable to the
property are the Mixed-Use Overlay, Hazards Management Overlay, and Scenic Corridor
Overlay as further discussed below:

..   The Mixed-Use Overlay allows for the construction of residential units at a density of 22
     dwelling units per acre for properties in the commercial district. Residential development is
     not proposed as part of this project.

..   The Hazards Management Overlay designation is applied to properties in the commercial
     district in consideration of the proximity of the district to the Cabrillo Fault. Extensive
     geotechnical reports were prepared for the project which address, in part, seismic safety.
     Peer review of these reports was provided by Arroyo Geotechnical on behalf of City staff to
     ensure their adequacy.

..   The Scenic Corridor Overlay applies to all properties on major roadways, where scenic
     vistas, as designated in the Conservation Element of the General Plan, are located. Silver
     Spur Road to the south of the project site is a designated scenic corridor. The Conservation
     Element of the General Plan (pages 5-19 and 5-20) indicates standards that must be
     adhered to for future development along scenic corridors. Generally, these standards strive
     to ensure that street views will not be diminished by future development. Standards are
     established for grading such that the visibility of cut hillsides will be minimized from scenic
     corridors, and for exterior lighting to ensure that lighting will be minimal and directed away
     from the scenic route. Review of landscaping to ensure that views of corridors are not
     blocked, and the undergrounding of utility lines are also discussed. Adversely impacting
     land uses, and interfering signs are not permitted. Structures must be harmonious with
     surrounding uses and not block or impair the view of any scenic corridor.

     The proposed project will not result in a visibly cut hillside, nor are adversely impacting land
     uses proposed. Conditions of approval will require a master plan for lighting for review and
     approval by the Planning Director, and for landscaping for review by the Park and Activities
     Commission in consideration of these standards.           A master plan of signage will require
     further review by the Planning Commission. While it is unclear in the General Plan what
     views are to be protected on Silver Spur Road, it can be noted that the proposed structure
     will block a portion of the view of the hillside to the north of the project site for the length of
     the structure; however, the structure itself will improve the appearance of the scenic corridor
     over the existing vacant condition by adding an architecturally attractive and harmonious
     building and landscaping to the street scene. For these reasons, staff believes that the
     proposed building meets the intent of the scenic corridor standards.

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)

The proposed development has been defined as a project under CEQA, and it was determined
that an EIR is the appropriate environmental document to consider the project's potential
environmental impacts. The City contracted with LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare the Draft EIR.
A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from 12/10/07 to
1/31/08. A public scoping meeting to discuss issues to be examined in the Draft EIR was held
on 1/16/08.


                                                                                                      6


                                                                                                 3-66
The Draft EIR was circulated for a public comment period of 60 days from 9/15/08 to 11/14/08.
The Draft EIR was provided to the Planning Commission on 9/18/08. A Notice of Completion of
the Draft EIR was provided to all affected properties within a 500' radius of the project, adjacent
cities, the Mixed-Use Interest List, Homeowner's Association Presidents, and other government
agencies, and was also posted at the office of the Los Angeles County Clerk-Recorder. The
notice provided a brief description of the project and how to obtain detailed information about
the project including the Draft EIR. A public meeting to present the Draft ErR to the community
was held on 10/23/08. Staff received six comment letters regarding the project during the public
comment period. The comment letters are presented herein as Attachment 2 within staffs
Response to Comments document.

The Draft EIR analyzes the project's potential impacts on the environment and includes
mitigation measures to address any potential impacts. Copies of the Draft EIR were made
available at City Hall, on the City website, and at the Peninsula Center Library during the public
comment review period. The Draft EIR concludes that, with proper mitigation as specified, the
proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Traffic impacts have been discussed at length at recent public hearings for commercial district
projects. Therefore, staff provides discussion of potential traffic impacts and mitigation here.

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by DKS Associates for the project. Although the
site was a former service station, all trips generated by the proposed use are considered new
trips given that the site has been vacant for several years. The riA indicates that the proposed
project will generate 69 trips (55 inbound, 14 outbound) in the a.m. peak period and 99 trips (26
inbound, 73 outbound) in the p.m. peak period. Two intersections would be impacted by project
traffic at Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road and at Palos Verdes Drive North/Crenshaw Boulevard,
and the applicant would be responsible for mitigation for these intersections.

Mitigation at Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road consists of restriping the existing northbound
shared through/right turn lane on Drybank Drive to a shared left/through/right turn lane, and
modifying the traffic signal to allow for split phasing in the northbound and southbound
directions. To accommodate new left-turns off of Drybank Drive onto Silver Spur Road,
mitigation further requires the installation of appropriate signage to restrict on-street parking on
the north side of Silver Spur Road for approximately 60' (in addition to approximately 20' that is
currently red-curbed). This will result in the loss of approximately 2 or 3 on-street parking
spaces on the north side of Silver Spur Road. At Palos Verdes Drive North/Crenshaw
Boulevard, the applicant will be required to modify the traffic signal to allow for right-turn overlap
phasing for the northbound approach on Crenshaw Boulevard.

When considered with other area projects, the proposed project will cumulatively contribute to a
significant impact at the intersections of Silver Spur Road/Hawthorne Boulevard and Silver Spur
Road/Deep Valley Drive. Last October, the City established a Traffic Impact Fee program to
address improvements at these and other intersections to improve traffic flow. The applicant
will be required to pay Traffic Impact Fees pursuant to the City's program to contribute toward
these improvements. Improvements at these intersections will occur when warranted by
cumulative      traffic   impacts     by    this    and  other commercial    district  projects.
As reviewed by the City Council, improvements at Hawthorne Boulevard/Silver Spur Road will
include additional lanes and restriping, and improvements at Silver Spur Road/Deep Valley
Drive will include installation of a new traffic signal.

The City's Traffic Engineer will be available at the public hearing to answer questions.




                                                                                                    7


                                                                                                3-67
RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Open the Public Hearing;

2. Take Public Testimony

3. Discuss the issues;

4. Close the Public Hearing; and

5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Planning
   Application No. 24-07, as well as certification of the associated Environmental Impact
   Report, for the next Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 2009.

EXHIBITS

Attached
1. Applicant's Grading Application
2. Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments -              Silverdes Medical Office
    Condominiums Project

Separate
1. Project Plans
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67997

Pa24-07 pm.doc




                                                                                           8


                                                                                       3-68
                                                                                                                     5
                              CITY OF                                 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
                                                                      PLANNING, BUILDING, &CODE ENFORCEMENT

13 November 2008


                                                                                  VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

Niki Cutler, Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274

SUBJECT:         Comments in Response to the Notice of Availability of a Draft
                 Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Silverdes Medical
                 Office Condominium Project (PA-24..Q1)

Dear~r:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above-mentioned project. We have
reviewed the DEIR. and offer the following comments:

1.    . The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed the DEIR and technical                                           5-1
        appendices with respect to Geology and Soils impacts.                                    A copy of the
        consultant's comments is encrosed.

2.      The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the DEIR and technical appendices with
        respect to Transportation and Circulation impacts. A copy of the traffic
        engineer's comments is enclosed.

3.      The discussion of Aesthetic impacts in the DEIR identifies only the
        undergrounding of an electrical eqUipment pedestal as an impact warranting
        mitigation. Based upon public comments at the October 23, 2008, meeting,                                         5-2
        however, the City believes that light and glare impacts upon upslope residential
        properties in Rancho Palos Ver~es may also warrant mitigation.

4.      The discussion of Land Use and Planning impacts in the DE1R notes that the
        proposed project is consistent with the City's zoning standards with the exception
        of the requested height variance, and concludes that, with the approval of the                                   5-3
        variance by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, environmental
        impacts will be less than significant. However, since the requested variance is
        only to permit a desired cosmetic feature (rather than a critical building
        component), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains skeptical about the



                              30940 HAWfHORNE BLVD.   I   RANCHO PALOS VERDES,   CA 00275-5391

                                                                                                                     3-69
PLANNINC/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310) 544·5228/ BUILDINC (310) 265·7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 / E-MAIL PlANNINC@RPV.COM
 Nlki Cutler
 13 November 2008
 Page 2


         justification for the requested variance. even if its approval has no significant
         environmental impacts upon our residents.
                                                                                                   if\   5-3


 5.      The discussion of project alternatives in the DEIR identifies the so-called
         "General Office Land Use Alternative" as environmentally superior to the
         proposed project with regard to traffic, air quality, land use and planning, noise,
         and traffic and circulation impacts.           Under this alternative, the physical
         components of the project would not change, but uses would be limited to
         general (Le., non-medical) office uses, which would be expected to generate less
         traffic than medical office uses. However, the DEIR notes that this alternative
         would not fulfill the project objective to "[continue] provision of medical office uses     5-4
         in the City's main commercial area." With all due respect, the City of Rancho
         Palos Verdes suggests that the declining availability of medical office uses in the
         Peninsula Center area is due in no small part to the City of Rolling Hills Estates'
         past approval of residential and mixed-use projects that have displaced or will
         displace existing medical office uses. As such, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
         supports the consideration of the "General Office Land Use Alternative"· for this
         property.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you
have' any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
(310) 544-5228 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.

Sincerely,



e±
Associate Planner

enclosures

cc:      Mayor Stem and City Council
         Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
         Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement




M:\Border Issues\Silverdes Project\20081113_EIRComments.doc




                                                                                             3-70
                                                                                                          5


 October 27,2008                                                                               PN 97082-1765


 Kit Fox, Associate Planner
 Plamring, Building and Code Enforcement
 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391

 Subject:          Third Party Review of Geology and Soils Analysis for the Silverdes Medical Office
                   Condominiwn Project Draft Enviromnental Impact Report, 828 Sliver Spur Road,
                   Rolling Hills Estates, California

 References:       See Attached

 Dear Mr. Fox:

 At your request and authorization we have reviewed the referenced docmnents associated with the
 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) by LSA Associates, Inc. dated September 2008 for the
 proposed Silverdes Medical Office Condominium project. It is our understanding that the project will
 consist of a 16 unit, 3 story office complex with subterranean parking at 828 Silver Spur Road in
 Rolling H:i11s Estates.
                                                                                                               5-5
   The subject site is located approximately 50 feet from the toe of slope below the residences on
   Golden Arrow Drive with the Silver Spur access road between the project and the toe ofslope. It
   should be remembered that this slope has had numerous surficial stahility issues in the past. It does
   not appear that the consultants have directly addressed this issue. However, based on the proposed
   project, distance from the nearest slopes, depth of excavations, shoring and the use of drill piles, it
   does not appear that construction ofthe project would have an impact on the adjacent slopes below
.' the Rancho Palos Verdes residences from a geotechnical perspective. Our review of the documents
   provided the following other questions.

 1. Section 4.4 page 3 of the DEIR, footnote, indicates that a 2004 geotechnical engineering
    investigation report by Geoteclmologies was used for information regarding the Cabrillo Fault.
    This report, according to the footnote was preformed specifically for the subject site and was             5-6
     dated October 1,2004. This report was not provided as part ofAppendix D ofthe DEIR nor was
     it referenced by any ofthe subsequent geoteclmical reports provided in the DEIR.

            1221 E. Dyer Road, SUite 105, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 755-1355 Fax (714) 755-1366
                       The Trusted Name in Geotechnical Consulting For Over Twenty Years




                                                                                                          3-71
  CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES                                                         PN 97082-1765
  October 27, 2008

  2. Section 4.4 page 5 of the DBIR, Seismic Design Standards. indicates that the site is within
     Seismic Zone 4 as specified in the Uniform Building Code. It is our understanding that the City of
     Rolling Hills Estates has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code which is based on the         5-7
     2007 California Building Code. The use of Seismic Zones for design is no longer applicable. The
     project would need to be designed in accordance with Section 1613 ofthe Los Angeles COlUlty
     Building Code/California Building Code. It 'should be noted that Appendix D includes a report by
     Coastline Geotechnical that provides cu:r;rent seismic coefficients.

  3. The FaultsIFaults Zones shown on Figure 4.4.1 are incorrect. This figure needs to be revised.

  We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the City ofRancho Palos Verdes. Please     5-8
  call if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter.

  Sincerely,

  ZEISER KLING CONSULTANTS, INC.



nan v<?e~
~    es M. Lanc
       , Jr.
{ ~ cipal Engin
  CEG 1927
  Expires 6/30/10
                                          Geologist
                                                                ~'gO
                                                                ~~~~er
                                                                RCE57939
                                                                Expires 6/30/10

  JL:lw

  Dist.:                     (3) Addressee

  Attaclnnents: Reference List




  S:lshmd\pIojoctsI1997197D82197082.1765 ElR review 10-08.doc




                                                                                                  3-72
 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES                                                             PN 97082-1765
 October 27,2008



                                                                   REFERENCES

               LSA Associates, DEIR, Silverdes Medical Office Condominium Project, Rolling Hills
               Estates, California, Section 4.4, Geology and Soils and Section 5.0, Alternatives to the
               Proposed Project, dated September 2.008

               LSA Associates, DEIR., Silverdes Medical Office Condominium Project, Rolling Hills
               Estates, California, Appendix D, dated September 2008 consisting of the following:

               Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed
               Mixed Use Building, 828 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, California, dated
               December 28, 2006, Project No. 2494C-I06

               Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering
               Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 828 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates,
               California, dated February 11, 2008, Project No. 2494C-028

               Arroyo Geotechnical, Geotechnical Review, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 828 Silver Spur
               Road, Rolling Hills Estates, California, dated March 21, 2008, Arroyo Project No. 15227-
               0424

               Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Response to Geotechnical Review Arroyo
               Geotechnical for Willdan, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 828 Silver Spur Road, Rolling
               Hills Estates, California, dated April 25, 2008, Project No. 2494C-048

               Arroyo Geotechnical, Geotechnical Review, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 828 Silver Spur
               Road, Rolling Hills Estates, California, dated April 28, 2008, Arroyo Project No. 15227-
               0424




S,'sllar<:d\projectsll997191082\91082-116S ElR review 10-08.00<:                            SilverdesEIRRc:vic:w




                                                                                                             3-73
MEMORANDUM                                    RANCHO PALOS VERDES
          TO:      KIT FOX, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
        FROM:      JOANNE ITAGAKI, CONSULTANT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
        DATE:      October 22, 2008
   SUBJECT:        DRAFT EIR REVIEW OF SILVERDES PROJECT IN CITY OF
                   ROLLING HILLS ESTATES - DATED SEPTEMBER 2008

I have reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Silverdes Medical Office
Condominium/Retail Project located at 828 Silver Spur Road in the City of RoIling Hills
Estates. These comments are based on my review of Appendix H, Traffic Impact
Analysis, the Transportation and Circulation section (Section 4.10), Alternative to the
Proposed Project section (Section 5.0) of the DEIR. The Traffic Impact Analysis was
conducted by DKS Associates (OKS) and is dated June 24, 2008.
                                                                                             5-9
Traffic Impact Analysis - Appendix H

   1.   Section 2.0 Project Description, Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution - This figure
        identifies a high percentage of U-turns occurring on Silver Spur Road at
        Roxcove Drive and at Drybank Drive. There are intermediate points between
        Roxcove Drive and Drybank Drive in which U-turns could be accomplished. Is
        the high percentage of U-turns at these two intersections an overestimation of
        the traffic impacts at the intersections? Why or why not?

   2.   Section 4.0 Future Traffic Conditions, 2010 Opening Year - The ambient
        growth rate applied for this analysis was 1.0 percent per year (total 3.0
        percent). This growth rate was based on the LA County Congestion
        Management Program (CMP, 2004). The eMP 2004 indicates the South Bay                5-10
        area is expected to have a growth of 1.026 to 1.058 from 2005 to 2010. This is
        a growth rate of approximately 0.64 percent per year. Isn't the 1.0 percent per
        year growth rate overestimating the impacts of regional growth and thus
        creating a "higher" base 2010 ICU value? If so, this might reduce the traffic
        impacts of the project. How is this resolved?

   3.   Section 4.0 Future Traffic Conditions, Traffic Volumes - The approved/pending
        projects list for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes did not include the following
        projects:
         • CVS Pharmacy - Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altamira
         '" Crestridge Villas and Peninsula Seniors Center - Crestridge west of             5-11
             Crenshaw Boulevard
         $   Saint John Fisher - Crenshaw Boulevard at Crest Road
        Confirm that these projects were not in process when the Silverdes Project
        analysis began.




                                                                                      3-74
DRAFT EIR REVIEW OF SILVERDES PROJECT iN
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTAYES
DATED SEPTEMBER 2008
November 10. 2008
Page 2 of3

   4.   Section 4.0 Future Traffic Conditions, Mitigation Measures - The mitigation
        measures regarding the signal modifications (split phase at Drybank
        Drive/Silver Spur Road and right-tum-overlap at Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos
                                                                                            5-12
        Verdes Drive North) should be clarified to indicate the modifications are
        required full time (24 hours a day). The second paragraph indicates the traffic
        impacts occur in the p.m. peak. hours. The mitigation, therefore, could be
        interpreted to only be needed quring the p.m. peak hour. Clarify the mitigation
        measures.

   5.   Figures 7 and 8 - The traffic volumes of the Project Access and Little Silver
        Spur should be shown on both these figures.                                        15-13
   6.   Appendix B - Existing PM Deep Valley Dr/Silver Spur - The traffic volumes for
        the westbound direction is incorrect. The volumes shown are for the Existing       5-14
        AM. The traffic analysis for this intersection must be re-calculated for ALL
        scenarios as it appears this error was carried throughout.

  7.    Appendix 8 - 2010 Opening Year Conditions - What is the "LLG" volume that
        is added in the analysis sheets for this scenario? How was this value
                                                                                           5-15
        determined? Why is there a "User Adj" factor applied to some intersections
        (Sliver Spur/Peninsula Ctr.) and not to otherS (Silver SpurlHawthome)? Which
        is the correct traffic volume for analysis?

  8.    Appendix B - 2010 Opening Year plus Project Conditions - Why is there a
        "User Adj" factor applied to some intersections (Silver Spur/Peninsula Ctr.) and
        not to others (Silver Spur/Hawthorne)? Which is the correct traffic volume for
        analysis?

  9.    Appendix 8 - 2010 Opening Year plus Project Conditions - Why are the "Final         5-17
        Sat." values for Silver Spur/Crossfield Dr in the AM hand corrected? What is
        the reason for this change?

  10.   Appendix 8 - 2010 Opening Year plus Project Conditions - Roxcove/Silver            5-18
        Spur Rd in the AM shows a traffic volume of 29 westbound left turns. Figure 8
        shows 25. Which value is correct?

  11.   Appendix B - 2010 Opening Year plus Project Conditions - Roxcove/Silver
        Spur Rd in the PM shows a traffic volume of 44 westbound left turns. Figure 8      5-19
        shows 24. Which value is correct?




                                                                                     3-75
DRAFT EIR REVIEW OF SILVERDES PROJECT IN
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
DATED SEPTEMBER 2008
November 10, 2008
Page 3 of3

Transportation and Circulation Section 4.10

    12.     Section 4.10.3 Methodology - The second paragraph contains a· typographical                              15-20
            error. The ambient growth should be 3.0 percent (not 30 percent).

    13.     Any comments made on the Traffic Impact Analysis of Appendix H must also
            be applied to any information found in Section 4.10 of the DEIR.                                         15-21

Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me.


Copy: Siamak Motahari, Senior Engineer


Q:\!n16887 RPV TE services\Development RevieW\Sllvercles Project - RHE\Comments to DEIR Sept 2008 (11-10-08).doc




                                                                                                                   3-76
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                        SILVERDES MEDICAL OFFICE CONDOMIMIUM PROJECT
DECEMBER 2008                                                          DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
                                                                                    RESPONSE TO COMMENTS




RESPONSE TO CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES LETTER
5-1      Introductory comment acknowledged.

5-2      As stated in the Draft EIR, the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 17.42) prohibits lighting that
         results in the direct illumination of other properties in residential and commercial districts. In
         addition, indirect lighting of neighboring properties may not exceed 1 footcandle at the
         property line for commercially zoned neighboring properties and 0.4 footcandle for all other
         adjoining properties.

         Lighting associated with the proposed project (i.e., street-side safety lighting and light
         emitted from the medical office uses) would be directed onto the project site and not directed
         toward any adjoining properties or the residential uses located north of the project site,
         consistent with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code. As the proposed project
         would comply with the City's Municipal Code, no additional mitigation is required.

5-3      The City of Rancho Palos Verdes statement regarding the justification for the height variance
         is acknowledged.

5-4      The commenter's support of consideration of the General Office Land Use Alternative is
         acknowledged.

5-5      Introductory comments and acknowledgement that construction of the project would not have
         an impact on the adjacent slopes below Rancho Palos Verdes residences from a geotechnical
         perspective are acknowledged.

5-6      The referenced Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared October 1, 2004, by
         Geotechnologies was prepared for the project site. However, the referenced report was not
         prepared for the proposed project specifically. Therefore, the referenced report was used
         strictly for information regarding the existing setting (i.e., Cabrillo Fault), and project-
         specific information (i.e., potential for subsidence, liquefaction, ground shaking, surface fault
         rupture, landslide/slope failure, lateral spreading, erosion, or expansive soils) was taken from
         the geotechnical reports listed in Appendix D of the Draft EIR. In addition, the October 1,
         2004, Geotechno10gies report was available for review at the City's Planning Department.

5-7      The commenter is correct in that the City has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code
         based on the 2007 California Building Code. However, this does not change the analysis of
         the Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 requires the City Building Official (or designee)
         and the City Engineer (or designee) to review and approve final design plans to ensure that
         grading, excavation, foundation, and other structural element design, drainage, and inspection
         recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (December 2006)
         and the Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Report (February 2008) are incorporated
         into the design plans. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (December 2006) and the
         Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Report (February 2008) contain the current
         applicable seismic coefficients.

5-8      The data source used in the referenced Figure 4.4.1 is from the California Department of
         Conservation, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Mapping Program, 2002,


P:\RHT0702A\Response To Comments\RTC.doc «12/05108"                                                       20


                                                                                                     3-77
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.                                        SILVERDES MEDICAL OFFICE CONDOMIMIUM PROJECT
DECEMBER 2008                                                          DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
                                                                                    RESPONSE TO COMMENTS




         Geographic Infonnation System Files of Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones for
         the Southern Region. The commenter did not specify the infonnation that is incorrect in the
         figure; therefore, we are unaware of any inaccuracies in the infonnation provided.

5-9      While there are locations between the intersections of Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road and
         Roxcove Drive/Silver Spur Road to make V-turns, V-turns are prohibited at some ofthese
         locations. Therefore, to provide a more conservative analysis, V-turns were assigned at the
         intersections of Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road and Roxcove Drive/Silver Spur Road,
         where they are currently pennitted.

5-10     The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) used the City-approved 1.0 percent per year growth rate
         based on the evidence of higher-than-typical growth on the Peninsula (versus the entire South
         Bay area as indicated by the extensive related projects list). The higher growth rate would
         create a higher 2010 base, which decreases the 2010 level of service (LOS) values. This
         higher 2010 base will increase the traffic impacts based on the City's impact criteria, since a
         significant impact can be caused by a 1 percent change in LOS E and F, rather than a 2
         percent change in LOS C and D. Furthennore, the TIA indicates the project's fair share of all
         significant cumulative traffic impacts is based on its contribution to "new" traffic, including
         traffic from all related projects in the study area. The project's cumulative impacts will be
         further mitigated through its payment toward the City's Traffic Impact Fee, which will be
         required regardless of whether the project contributes toward a specific impact.

5-11     While the three related-projects mentioned by the commenter are located within one mile of
         the study area, they are relatively low trip generators (or would have a high percentage of
         pass-by trips) and are not anticipated to impact the study area. These three cumulative
         projects were not in progress when the NOP was issued for the project or the Silverdes TIA,
         and its revisions, were in preparation.

5-12      The signal modifications noted in the mitigation measures: (1) a split phase at Drybank
          Drive/Silver Spur Road and (2) a right-turn-overlap at Crenshaw BoulevardlPalos Verdes
          Drive North, will be required at all times.

5-13      The traffic volumes do not need to be illustrated on Figure 7 because this figure is titled 2010
          Opening Year Traffic Volumes and does not include the project. The City of Rolling Hills
          Estates appreciates the correction to Figure 8 of the TIA. Figure 8 ofthe TIA has been
          revised accordingly as documented in the Errata listed in Appendix A of this document.
          Please note that the revisions to Figure 8 of the TIA do not change any conclusions or figures
          of the Draft EIR.

5-14      The City of Rolling Hills Estates appreciates the correction to the existing p.m. Deep Valley
          Drive/Silver Spur Road intersection. The existing p.rn. peak-hour traffic volumes at the
          intersection of Deep Valley Drive/Silver Spur Road has been revised accordingly as
          documented in the Errata listed in Appendix A of this document. With this correction, the
          intersection is currently operating at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Because this
          intersection was (incorrectly) forecast to operate at LOS D in the TIA, the (correct) LOS F
          value maintains the original finding that this intersection is operating with unsatisfactory LOS




P:\RHT0702A\Response To CommentsIRTC.doc <<12/0S/OS"                                                    21


                                                                                                    3-78
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.                                        SILVERDES MEDICAL OFFICE CONDOMIMIUM PROJECT
DECEMBER 2008                                                          DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
                                                                                    RESPONSE TO COMMENTS




          (LOS D or worse). The existing and forecast traffic volumes still do not warrant the
          installation of a traffic signal.

5-15     The "LLG" volume that was added to the analysis sheets for this scenario is the additional
         cumulative traffic volumes that were provided by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG) for
         the Mediterranean Village development. In order to keep the analysis consistent for both the
         Silverdes and Mediterranean Village developments, data from LLG was directed to be used
         by City staff. This data is provided in Appendix C of the TIA. The City of Rolling Hills
         Estates appreciates the correction; the "User Adj" adjustment factor at the intersection of
         Silver SpurlPeninsula Center was an error and has been corrected as documented in the Errata
         listed in Appendix A of this document.

5-16     The "User Adj" adjustment factor at the intersection of Silver Spur Road/Peninsula Center
         was an error for this intersection only. The adjustment factor has been changed to 1.00 from
         the analysis, and the LOS tables and analysis, and has been corrected as documented in the
         Errata listed in Appendix A of this document. The revised factor does not change the findings
         of the TIA.

5-17      The text was hand-corrected since the TRAFFIX model miscalculated the LOS for the
          intersection of Crossfield Drive/Silver Spur Road. The TIA has been corrected as
          documented in the Errata listed in Appendix A of this document.

5-18      Figure 8 - 2010 plus Project Opening Year Traffic Volumes illustrates 4 U-turns and 25 left
          turns in the a.m. peak hour. This results in 29 westbound left turns, which is reflected in the
          analysis.

5-19      Figure 8 - 2010 plus Project Opening Year Traffic Volumes illustrates 20 U-turns and 24 left
          turns in the p.m. peak hour. This results in 44 westbound left turns, which is reflected in the
          analysis.

5-20      Section 4.10.3 of the Draft EIR has been corrected as documented in the Errata listed in
          Appendix A of this !=locument. The change is a clarification and does not alter the conclusions
          of the EIR.

5-21      All modifications to the TIA have been applied to Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR as
          documented in the Errata listed in Appendix A of this document.




P:IRHT0702AIResponse To CommentslRTC.doc <<12/05/08"                                                        22


                                                                                                    3-79
                             CllY OF
                                                                 PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT

3 December 2008




U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Dist.                         Los Angeles Harbor Department
Regulatory Division, Ventura Field Office                               0/0 Dr. Ralph G. Appy
ATTN: Dr. Spencer D. MacNeil                                            425 S. Palos Verdes St.
2151 Alessandro Dr., Ste. 110                                           San Pedro, CA 90731
Ventura, CA 93001

SUBJECT:         Comments on the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion (NOAI
                 NOC) for a Draft EIS/EIR for the San Pedro Waterfront Project

Dear Dr. MacNeil and Dr. Appy:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the
above-mentioned project. We have reviewed the DEIR and attended the public hearing
held on October 27, 2008, and we share many of the concerns about the proposed
project that were expressed by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and other
speakers, to wit:

1.     The Ports 0' Call area is in dire need of renovation and rehabilitation. However,
       in so doing, existing visitor-serving businesses should not be disrupted or
       displaced, to the maximum extent practicable. The Ports 0' Call Restaurant and
       other long-established visitor-serving businesses are a part of the San Pedro
       waterfront community. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be disappointed
       to see these local landmarks eliminated and replaced by generic, mass-market
       restaurants and shops that are not reflective of the character and history of San
       Pedro. We also agree with Councilwoman Hahn's comment that prime,
       waterfront real estate should not be devoted to parking structures.

2.     The cruise ship industry is clearly a major economic driver in the waterfront area,
       and the success of this industry can have positive effects upon the larger
       regional economy of the communities surrounding the Port of Los Angeles.
       However, we are concerned that the proposal to construct a second cruise ship
       terminal in the Outer Harbor is not the most efficient and environmentally-
       sensitive means of accommodating the future growth of this industry. The City of
       Rancho Palos Verdes believes that expanding and consolidating the existing
       cruise ship facilities in the Inner Harbor-as depicted in Project Alternative 4-



                             30940 HAWlHor~NE BLVD. / RANCHO PAlOS VERDES,   CA   90275-5391

                                                                                                            3-80
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX {310l544-5293 / E-MAIL PLANNINC@RPV.COM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & L.A. Harbor Department
3 December 2008
Page 2


         would eliminate the need for redundant parking and passenger-processing
         facilities at two (2) separate locations, as is currently proposed. Eliminating the
         proposed second cruise ship terminal at Kaiser Point would also minimize
         aesthetic impacts upon Cabrillo Beach, and avoid maritime safety and security
         conflicts with the West Channel marina.

3.       Several speakers at the October 27th hearing requested the consideration of a
         "Sustainable Waterfront Plan" as an alternative to the proposed project. Such a
         plan could provide improved pedestrian, vehicular and transit linkages between
         the waterfront area and other portions of San Pedro; could provide greater
         environmental benefits to the community in terms of habitat restoration, improved
         air quality and greater energy efficiency; and could be less expensive and
         quicker to implement than the proposed project. As such, the City of Rancho
         Palos Verdes supports the analysis and inclusion of a "Sustainable Waterfront
         Plan" alternative in the DEIS/EIR, as suggested by the L.A. Waterfront Working
         Group and other speakers at the October 2th hearing.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
(310) 544-5228 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.

Sincerely,


 );/~
Kit Fox, AICP
Associate Planner

cc:      Mayor Clark and City Council
         Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
         Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement




M:\Border Issues\San Pedro Waterfront   Project\20081203~COE-POLA_EIS-EIRComments.doc




                                                                                        3-81
3-82
                                       Staff Report
                                       City of Rolling Hills Estates




DATE:          DECEMBER 15, 2008

TO:            MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:          DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
               NIKI CUTLER, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER

SUBJECT:       JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
               REGARDING     PROPOSED  MIXED-USE   RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
               PR9JECT AT THE PROMENADE ON THE PENINSULA MALL (520, 550, AND
               580 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE)

OVERVIEW

The purpose of this "first-look" workshop is to facilitate group discussion and to receive initial
feedback from the City Council/Planning Commission on the proposed mixed-use
residential/commercial project at the Promenade on the Peninsula Mall.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Notification Sent to Mixed-Use Interest List: 12/3/08

An application for a mixed-use residential/commercial project at the Promenade on the
Peninsula Mall was filed with the City on 6/10/08. Project plans are provided separately to this
report. Preliminarily, it appears that the project would require a request for a Conditional Use
Permit, a Precise Plan of Design, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 66927, and a Grading Plan
for the construction of 66 condominiums and 16,620 square feet of commercial space on a 4.7
acre property in the Commercial-General (CG/Mixed-Use Overlay) Zone. It should also be
noted that the project as originally designed would appear to require several Variances,
although additional information would be necessary before a determination on required
Variances can be made.

The original project proposes five levels of residential uses above the existing two-story retail
corridor in the central portion of the Promenade property just north of the parking structure
(formerly Deep Valley Drive). Enhancements to the building faQade and an expansion of the
mall building in the northeasterly corner and along Drybank Drive are also proposed. Further, a
new pad building is proposed in the existing surface parking area near Marmalade Cafe in the
western portion of the mall property.

Of the residential units, the applicant proposes six units to be affordable to low-income families.
Given the affordable component, the applicant is entitled to a 20% density bonus over density
otherwise permitted. Thus, 55 base units and 11 density bonus units for a total of 66 units are
proposed for the project.




                                                                                             3-83
In addition to the density bonus, the applicant is entitled to one incentive or concession of
development standards under California Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(A). The project
would exceed the maximum permitted building height (87' proposed; 44' permitted) to
accommodate the residential units, and the applicant has requested a concession for building
height.

Staff met with Promenade representatives on several occasions to discuss the original project.
Given the height and number of stories proposed, staff's initial comments indicated that the
project appears too massive. Staff recommended that the residential units be located in a less
stacked and more dispersed manner. Staff further recommended that no residential component
be more than two stories above existing commercial uses if the units remain where currently
proposed. If the residential uses are proposed in other portions of the project site, staff
recommended that they be integrated into the existing shopping center such that the overall
height of the affected commercial area is no higher or more massive than what is existing. Staff is
also concerned about the availability of adequate parking for the shopping center and residential
uses, especially since the new proposed pad building would reduce the existing number of
available parking spaces. Staff's discussion with project representatives also revealed some
willingness on the part of the property owner to integrate a small "boutique" hotel within the
proposed project which staff has supported in concept.

Promenade representatives also met individually with Council members. Pursuant to these
discussions and discussions with staff, project representatives have developed an alternative to
the originally proposed project. The alternative is presented separately to this report and
stamped 12/10/08. Although the plan is presented for discussion purposes at the workshop,
there has not been adequate time for staff to prepare a detailed analysis as the plan was
recently received. Initially, however, the plan appears to indicate that the project has been
reduced by two levels in the residential portion near the parking structure, and a more horizontal
distribution of units is shown. Instead of one row of larger units over the existing retail levels,
two rows of smaller units are proposed. The plan also indicates that the number of units has
been increased from 66 to 68 in the alternative plan. New retail space continues to be indicated
near the intersection of Drybank Drive and Silver Spur Road, and the pad building near
Marmalade Cafe has been increased from a one-level 10,000 square foot building to a two-story
building of 20,000 square feet.

Project representatives will be available at the workshop to discuss the project and alternative,
provide a Powerpoint presentation, and answer questions.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council/Planning Commission provide comment and direction
on the proposed mixed-use residential/commercial project at the Promenade on the Peninsula
Mall.

EXHIBITS

Separate
1. Project Plans (6/10/08)
2. Alternative Project Plans (12/10/08)
cm.firstlook.12.15.08.doc




                                                                                                 2


                                                                                            3-84
Print Version                                                                                            Page 1 of2




Back to the drawing board for Promenade proposal

By Douglas Morino, Special to the News
Wednesday, December 17, 20087:08' PM PST

RHE - An ambitious plan to redesign the Promenade on the Peninsula by adding residential units met fierce
opposition during a joint Rolling Hills Estates City Council and Planning Commission meeting Tuesday night.

The mixed-use project, proposed by the Stoltz Management Co. and Awbrey Cook McGill Architects, was
unveiled to city officials and the public during a "first-glance" workshop. The redesign calls for 68 residential
units and 30,000 square feet of additional retail space to be built within the mall.

"Retailers see [the center] as being stagnant and we're in a position were we need to move forward," said
Mark Curcio, vice president of retail properties for the Pennsylvania-based Stoltz Management Co. The firm
bought the property in November 2006.

Still in the early design stages, the proposal calls for two levels of apartments and town homes to be built
above the existing two-story retail corridor next to the parking structure.

Additionally, the exterior of the Promenade on Silver Spur Road and Drybank Drive would be lined with retail
shops and cafes. A boutique hotel on the property also has been discussed.

"Adding residences will put people on the streets. It'll add to the vitality of the shopping center - people
want to go were people are," said Elizabeth Griggs, general manager of the Promenade. "It will promote
healthy interaction and will truly become a source of civic pride."

Although cost estimates were not disclosed at the meeting, funding for the project would be provided by
Stoltz. Proponents of the project hope adding residential units and "opening up" the Promenade will spark an
economic surge within the sleepy commercial area.

"Adding residential units will improve retail," said Curcio. "It's essential to attracting high-level retailers."

The Rolling Hills Estates mall has gone through several incarnations since its initial development in 1981. In
1998 the mall underwent a $65-million remodel with hopes that it would rival Santa Monica's successful
Third Street Promenade. Yet retail sales on the Peninsula have been slow during the past years, despite
strong commercial sales throughout the region.

In May 2006, Saks Fifth Avenue left, leaving the mall without a high-end anchor tenant. A 2007 economic
report of the commercial district funded by the city of RHE stated that adding new living spaces to the area
would not lead to revitalization.

"Although new development will increase demand in the district, new consumer demand alone will not be
sufficient to stimulate or revitalize the commercial districts retail sector," the report, completed in December
2007, stated.

Councilman Steve Zuckerman called elements of the proposal "awkward" and expressed concern about
parking availability should the mall go through an extensive redesign.

"[The project] may be good for the Stoltz company and its shareholders, but I think it could be a very
dangerous move," said Zuckerman.




http://pvnews.com/articles/2008/12/18/local_news/news3.prt
                                                                                                         3-85
                                                                                                         12/18/2008
Print Version                                                                                        Page 2 of2


Referring to the parking garage as "under utilized," Curcio cited a survey by the management firm finding
that during peak usage times the l,800-space garage only reached GO-percent capacity.

Members of the public who attended the meeting expressed similar concerns to those of city officials.

"I've watched the mall tank four times," said RHE resident Cat Spydell. "What we need are shops that work
for the community. I can't even buy an ink cartridge for my computer on the Hill."

Nearly 90 percent of all general merchandise and food and drink purchases are made off the Peninsula,
according to the 2007 economic report.

"It seems like this project is more than the community needs," added Spydell, who works at Ice Chalet in
the mall. "There is a missing gap between people who shop here and people who own property here."

Stoltz will continue with the design process and resubmit an updated proposal to city officials at a later date,
said Griggs.

To comment on this story, go to   www.pvnew5.Corn.




 •llum"~~UI1_<:lfAWMy·EQ_MtGll~;Al'dli~
The rendering above depicts what the proposed Promenade on the Peninsula redesign would look like.




http://pvnews.com/articles/2008/12/18/10cal_news/news3.prt
                                                                                                    3-86
                                                                                                    12/18/2008
  LA
  THE PORT
  OF LOS ANGELES          425 S, Polos Verdes Street   Post Office Box 151   Son Pedro, CA 90733-0151    TEL/TOO 310 SEA·PORT    www.portollosangeles.org

Anlonio R. Villaraigosa   Mayor, City of Los Angeles

      Board of Harbor     S. David Freeman        Jerilyn LOpez Mendoza      Kaylynn L. Kim   Douglas P. Krause   Joseph It Rodisich
      Commbsloners        PresIdent               Vice President
Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D     Executive Dltector
                                                                                                                          RECE ED
                                                                                                                                DEC 18 2008
                                                                                                                          pLANNING, BUILDING AND
              December 4, 2008
                                                                                                                            CODE ENFORCEMENT



               SUBJECT:



               The Los Angeles Harbor Department (Port) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report
               (Draft EIR) for the following project in the City of Los Angeles and Port of Los Angeles:

                                                 Wilmington Waterlront Development Project

               The Draft EIR is included for your review, in accordance with current City of Los Angeles
               Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970,
               Article I; the State CEQA Guidelines, Article 7, Sections 15086-15087: and the California Public·
               Resources Code Sec1ion 21153.

               Availability:

               The Draft EIR is available for review at: L.A. Public Ubrary, Central Branch, 630 West 5 lh Street,
               Los Angeles California; L.A. Public Library, San Pedro Branch, 921 South Gaffey Street, San
               Pedro, California; and the L.A. Public Library, Wilmington Branch, 1300 North Avalon,
               Wilmington, California. The Draft EIR is also available for public viewing at the Los Angeles
               Harbor Department, 425 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California. The pUblic notice
               and the entire document are available at the Port of Los Angeles web site:
               http://www.portoflosangeles.org. Electronic copies of the Draft EtR on CO and a limited number
               of hard copies are available at the Environmental Management Division offices at 222 W. 5 1h
               Street, Suite 1080, San Pedro, CA 90731.

               Public Meeting:

               The Port will conduct a public meeting to receive public comment on the Draft EIR for this
               project on January 15,2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Banning's Landing Community Center located at
               100 E. Water Street, Wilmington, CA 90744. Participation in the public meeting by federal, state
               and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged. This
               meeting will be conducted in English with simultaneous English/Spanish translation services
               provided.




                                                                                                                                         3-87
3-88
        WILMINGTON WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
           ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS SUMMARY
                                           DECEMBER 2008

Release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Los Angeles Harbor Department (Port) has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft
EIR) for the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project. The purpose of this analysis is to inform the
public of the proposed Project, alternatives, any potential environmental effects and measures identified
to reduce significant environmental impacts. Community input was gathered during the scoping phase of
the environmental review process and issues raised are addressed in the Draft EIR. Read on to learn more
about the project and how you can get involved.

Renewing LA's Waterfront
The Wilmington Waterfront Development Project is focused on connecting the community with the
waterfront, creating open space, and developing visitor-serving commercial and green technology
business development opportunities in and around the Port.




                                                    1
                                                                                 LA
                                                                                 THEPOR"
                                                                                 OF LosAl\lellLl!S




                                                                                                     3-89
                                Project Objectives


•   Construct a project that will serve as a regional draw and attract visitors to the waterfront in
    Wilmington.
    Elements of the Wilmington Wateifront Development Project are designed to make the area a
    regional destination and compliment revitalization efforts in downtown Wilmington.

•   Design and construct a waterfront park, promenade, and dock to enhance the connection of the
    Wilmington community with the waterfront while integrating design elements related to the
    Port's and Wilmington's past, present, and future.
    The Wilmington Wateifront Development Project will connect the community to the waterfront
    with a new pedestrian land bridge, a wateifront promenade, an observa~ion tower, and
    recreational and open spaces.

•   Construct an independent project that integrates design elements consistent with other area
    community development plans to create a unified Los Angeles waterfront through the integration
    of publicly oriented improvements.
    The Wilmington Wateifront Development Project is part of the Wilmington Wateifront Master
    Plan and Development Program, which involves a variety of land uses within the proposed
    project area and surrounding the proposed Project. The Program is a planning process that
    involved the design of the proposed Project and the Harry Bridges Boulevard Buffer. Although
    the Harry Bridges Boulevard Buffer is a separate and independent project that was approved
    under the TraPac EIRIEIS, the Harry Bridges Buffer and the proposed Project integrate similar
    design elements in order to create a unified Los Angeles Wateifront.

•   Enhance the livability and economic viability of the Los Angeles Harbor area, Wilmington
    community, and surrounding region by promoting sustainable economic development and
    technologies within the existing commercial Avalon Development District.
    The Port is improving the livability and economic viability of the Los Angeles Harbor Area, the
    Wilmington community, and surrounding region by increasing public access to the wateifront,
    creating open space, and developing commercial uses and streetscape and infrastructure
    improvements to support green technology business opportunities in the Avalon Development
    District (Areas A and B).

•   Integrate environmental measures into design, construction, and operation to create an
    environmentally responsible project.
    The Port is committed to green growth. Sustainability policies will be reflected in project design,
    construction, and implementation.




                                                2


                                                                                                 3-90
Proposed Project

The proposed Project is composed of several elements and planning actions spread over approximately 94
acres. Development under the proposed Project would occur in the following three areas:

•   Avalon Development District (areas A and B);
•   Avalon Waterfront District; and
•   Waterfront Red Car Line/Multi-Modal California Coastal Trail




                                                                      .......
                                                                      r:::r
                                                                          ~~ll<xo,,*",           ll~fIo""""'m.fi~A
                                                                      _S<JolhWlliringtmGmlo~n • • A_Do~.fll!Wlrtfl
                                                                         ~<ltl""taf~         _1l""""'(Ii~Io!'odi
                                                                          1\o<lC>r~          .ll_~~~


See Fi!?ure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, ofthe Draft EIR.
The proposed Wilmington Waterfront Development Project includes the creation of 11 acres of green
open space, 8 acres of plazas, waterfront promenade, floating docks, water features, a pedestrian "water"
bridge, a 200-foot observation tower, a Waterfront Red Car Museum, and commercial and industrial
development. Jurisdictional boundary adjustments are required for the Port Element of the City's General
Plan, Wilmington Harbor-City Community Plan, and Port Master Plan. The re-designation of land uses
and rezoning within the proposed project area would also occur under the proposed Project. The project
would be implemented in two phases. Site maps identifying elements included in the Interim Phase
(2009-2015) and at Full Build Out (2015-2020) are followed by descriptions of each project element
within the Avalon Development District, Avalon Waterfront District, and Linkage areas.




                                                         3


                                                                                                           3-91
                                   Interim Phase: 2009 - 2015
 Red Car
 Museum
                                                                                         Railroad
                                                                                         Park
                                                                                         (1 acre)
Light
Industrial
(Green Tech)
Development
75,000 sf
                                                                                        Avalon
                                                                                        Development
                                                                                        District B:
                                                                                        Commercial
                                                                                        Development
                                                                                        58,000 sf




  Avalon
                                                                                        Pedestrian
  Waterfront
                                                                                        Water
  District                                                                              Bridge



 Land Bridge/                                                                             Water
 Elevated Park                                                                            Feature
 (4 acres)

                                                                                        Observation
                                                                                        Tower


 Waterfront
 Promenade



                 See Figure 2-24 in Chapter 2, Project Description, ofthe Draft EIR.




                                                             4


                                                                                       3-92
                                  Fu II Project Bu ild Out: 2015 • 2020
Light Industrial
(Green Tech)
Development
75,000 sf
Total: 150,000 sf




 Avalon
 Development
 District A


 Avalon
 Development
 District B:
 Commercial
 Development
 58,000 sf



  Land Bridge/
  Elevated Park
  (6 acres)
  Total: 10 acres



   Avalon
   Waterfront
   District

  Restaurant
  12,000 sf


                    See Figure 2-4 in Chapter 2, Project Description, ofthe Draft EIR.




                                                              5


                                                                                         3-93
Avalon Development District (Area A and B)
The Avalon Development District is an industrial area located in south Wilmington. The Avalon
Boulevard commercial corridor, which bisects the Avalon Development District, is the primary
commercial corridor in Wilmington, with the "center of town" located around the intersection of Avalon
Boulevard and Anaheim Street about Y:z mile from Harry Bridges Boulevard. Avalon Boulevard currently
terminates in the proposed project area at the water's edge. The Avalon Development District includes
approximately 31.5 acres and has been divided into two areas, A and B, defined by the proposed
boundary change of the Port and Wilmington. Harbor-City Community Plan areas. The elements or
actions associated with the Avalon Development District primarily include the following:

Area A (within the Wilmington Harbor-City Community Plan area)

II   Green Technology Light Industrial Development - a programmatic assessment of infrastructure
     improvements (including stormwater improvements, dry utility lines, potable waterlines, and
     wastewater lines) is included to support up to 150,000 square feet of light industrial development,
     consistent with current zoning, generally located between Broad Avenue (east) and Lagoon Avenue
     (west), C Street (north) and Harry Bridges Boulevard (south). Businesses related to green technology
     development will be encouraged. No specific development proposals for this area have been received.
..   Park Development-a I-acre passive park located on the vacant Railroad Green located between
     Island Avenue and Fries Avenue.
II   Waterfront Red Car Museum-adaptive reuse of the historic l4,500-square-foot Bekins Storage
     property located at 245 Fries Avenue/3l2-326 West C Street for a Waterfront Red Car Museum.
II   Pedestrian Enhancements-sidewalk and streetscape pedestrian-oriented enhancements along the
     following avenues, streets, and boulevards: Lagoon, Fries, Marine, Harry Bridges, Avalon, and C.
Area B (within the proposed Port Plan and Port Master Plan areas)
II   Commercial Development-development of up to 58,000 square feet of maritime visitor-serving
     commercial uses, such as an open air Mercado.
II   Street Realignments and Enhancements- Realign and improve Avalon Boulevard and Broad
     Avenue (also part of the Avalon Waterfront District).

Industrial and Commercial Land Uses

Development proposed around Avalon Boulevard, in the industrial area between Lagoon and Broad
Avenues, north of Harry Bridges Boulevard and south of C Street, and referred to as Area A in this
document to denote that it would remain under the jurisdictional boundary of the Wilmington Harbor-
City Community Plan, would build upon the area's existing character, providing opportunities for in-fill
development of light industrial uses. The proposed Project would provide pedestrian amenities such as
enhanced sidewalks and street trees along Island, Fries, and Marine Avenues, Avalon and Harry Bridges
Boulevards, and C Street. Infrastructure improvements would be completed to allow for up to 150,000
square feet of light industrial uses oriented towards green technology development over the next 12 years
with a buildout year of 2020. In addition to the infrastructure improvements within the industrial areas,
the proposed Project would develop up to 58,000 square feet of commercial development, such as a
pedestrian-oriented Mercado, one block south of Harry Bridges Boulevard between Avalon Boulevard
and Marine Avenue in the location denoted as Area B due to its proposed incorporation into the Port Plan
and PMP boundary areas, both of which would expand north to Harry Bridges Boulevard.



                                                    6



                                                                                                   3-94
Nearly all development within the Avalon Development District would occur on vacant land. Except for
a few parcels detailed below, privately owned parcels and buildings would not be modified. Most of the
existing uses would see streetscape improvements and pedestrian enhancements that may temporarily
affect individual building accessibility due to construction activities.

In a few cases, existing privately owned parcels in the Avalon Development District and in small portions
of the Avalon Waterfront District would need to be acquired by LARD in order to implement the
proposed realignment of Avalon Boulevard. Parcels that would be subject to acquisition, either through
negotiations, which may include the exchange of land within the Avalon Development District or if
necessary through eminent domain, would inclUde parcels located at 115, 121, 131, and 133 North
Avalon Boulevard.

Railroad Green Park

A passive open space would be built within an eXlstmg abandoned railroad right-of-way. This
approximately I-acre Railroad Green would cross the area diagonally and provide public access, seating,
and passive recreation opportunities. Landscaping and open lawn would be installed.

Waterfront Red Car Museum

A Waterfront Red Car Museum would be located one block north of the proposed Waterfront Red Car
alignment at the Bekins Storage Property. The Bekins Storage Property is a collection of potentially
historic buildings and warehouse structures built in 1916. These structures, including a l4,500-square-
foot building, would be adaptively reused to house the Waterfront Red Car Museum. Rehabilitation
would be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines to Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings.

Traffic Improvements

To improve area traffic circulation, while enhancing pedestrian safety and appeal, selected streets are
proposed for improvements. A portion of Avalon Boulevard, south of A Street, would be vacated to
prioritize pedestrian use and activity at the 58,000-square-foot commercial parcel. In addition, an
improvement to connect Lagoon Avenue to Pier A Street would be built during construction of the
proposed Project. This improvement, known as the South Wilmington Grade Separation, is a separate·
project and has been previously assessed under CEQA. It would consist of an elevated road extending
from Harry Bridges Boulevard, passing over the existing railroad tracks, and connecting to Pier A Street
and Fries Avenue. Once complete, it would allow better access to the proposed project area and nearby
industrial sites, and would also reroute some of the truck traffic currently using Harry Bridges Boulevard.

Avalon Waterfront District
The Avalon Waterfront District is composed of the following elements:

•   Waterfront Promenade--this area includes a waterfront promenade with viewing piers; 12,000
    square feet of restaurant/retail development, 7-acre plaza, and a 200-foot Observation Tower with a
    pedestrian ramp.
•   Land Bridge and Elevated Park- includes a 10-acre Land Bridge with an elevated park and a
    pedestrian "water" bridge enhanced by an integrated water feature that will provide the surrounding
    community with open space and improved pedestrian access to the waterfront. The Los Angeles


                                                    7



                                                                                                    3-95
      Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Marine Tank site will need to be demolished and
      remediated.
III   Avalon Triangle Park-located south of Harry Bridges Boulevard, between Broad Avenue and
      Avalon Boulevard. Avalon Triangle Park is not part of the proposed Project, but it would be included
      within the area that would be encompassed by the proposed Port Plan and PMP boundary expansion.

III   Avalon Boulevard, Broad Avenue, and Water Street Realignment-the project proposes to
      downgrade and vacate Avalon Boulevard south of A Street, realign Broad Avenue to the waterfront,
      and realign Water Street to run adjacent to the Pacific Harbor Rail Line, which is proposed to travel
      under the proposed Land Bridge to improve pedestrian circulation and provide space for the
      waterfront promenade.

Waterfront Promenade and Visitor-Serving Amenities

The waterfront promenade would be the central public amenity of the Avalon Waterfront District, and
would be anchored by visitor-serving development and recreational attractions along the waterfront. A 7-
acre outdoor plaza designed for gatherings and events would be constructed at the location of the existing
Banning's Landing Community Center parking area, which would. be relocated north, under the
pedestrian water bridge. Restaurant and visitor-serving retail uses totaling 12,000 square feet would be
incorporated into the waterfront boardwalk in Phase n. The waterfront promenade would incorporate
approximately 43,220 square feet of new over-the-water viewing piers and two floating docks with a
combined size of 5,870 square feet. These piers and floating docks would require approximately 750
concrete piles for support, while the replacement of approximately 17,880 square feet of existing viewing
piers would require approximately 478 concrete piles.

The public floating docks could accommodate up to 9 vessels simultaneously, supporting up to 36 boat
trips a day. At a future date, it is possible a water taxi service could travel between the proposed Project
and San Pedro. Other waterfront promenade amenities could include a water feature, shade structures,
signage, landscaping, and public art.




                                                      8



                                                                                                     3-96
Observation Tower

The observation tower would be a 200-foot area landmark, visible from the nearby Port businesses and
communities of Wilmington and San Pedro. It would incorporate a tall, vertical architectural element that
would mimic a sail. The tower would be illuminated at night with accent lighting until midnight, similar
to the Vincent Thomas Bridge. Both elevators and stairs would provide public access to the observation
deck.




Land Bridge and LADWP Marine Tank Site

LADWP owns the Marine Tank Farm just north of Banning's Landing between Fries Avenue and Avalon
Boulevard, north of Water Street and south of A Street, which it leases to the Valero Energy Corporation.
Two large liquid bulk storage tanks and a third smaller tank constrain public access to the water's edge.
As a component of the proposed Project and beginning in 2011, the property would be dedicated for
recreational use and the liquid bulk tanks and associated structures would be removed. Any potential soil
and/or groundwater contamination would be remediated pursuant to DTSC, RWQCB, or other oversight
agency standards. Several existing structures associated with the LADWP site would be demolished,
including the two 450,000 bbls oil storage tanks, the smaller 30,000 bbls tank, and six other structures,
totaling 18,500 square feet.

LADWP could rebuild similar tanks with similar capacities at an offsite location not yet detennined. One
potentially feasible site would be the Olympic Tank Fann site 1.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project
site on the southeastern comer of Alameda and Robidoux Streets in Wilmington. The Olympic Tank
Fann is characterized by nine existing liquid bulk storage tank and the land is void of natural vegetation.
The two areas large enough to accommodate the Marine Tank Fann storage tanks have previously
supported storage tanks.

Prior to the removal of the Marine Tank Fann storage tanks and ancillary buildings, a major section (6
acres) of the proposed 10-acre Land Bridge would be constructed and operated under the Phase I: Interim
Plan. See site map on Page 4. The upper promenade, with a plaza and large water feature using recycled
water, would be located immediately over the railroad and Water Street crossing. It would consist of the


                                                    9



                                                                                                    3-97
     southern portion of the future large elevated park, including terraced seating for public gatherings.
     Directly west of the Land Bridge, a planting screen would buffer the Land Bridge from the LADWP
     peaker power units to the west, which would continue to operate during construction and operation of the
     proposed Project.




Land Bridge and Pedestrian Water Bridge Cross Section: See Figure 2-15 in Chapter 2 ofthe Draft EIR.

                                            This portion of the Land Bridge would include a pedestrian water
                                            bridge to the east of the LADWP Marine Tank Farm, connecting
                                            the landscaped Entry Plaza to the waterfront. The pedestrian water
                                            bridge would provide unimpeded pedestrian and bicycle access to
                                            the waterfront. The pedestrian bridge is referred to as a "water"
                                            bridge because of the architect-designed water feature that would
                                            run its length. It would consist of a steel structure with a linear
                                            water feature integrated into its outside edge, and would link the 1-
                                            acre Entry Plaza, located at the southeast comer of Avalon and
                                            Harry Bridges Boulevards, to the waterfront promenade.

                                            During Phase II: Full Buildout, beginning in approximately 2015,
                                            the proposed Project would complete construction of the Land
                                            Bridge on the decommissioned LADWP Marine Tank Farm site.
                                            Landscaping in this area would include sloped open lawn,
                                            ornamental gardens, and terraces with decomposed granite.
    Pedestrian Water Bridge



     When completed, the Land Bridge and adjacent pedestrian water bridge would connect the Wilmington
     community with the waterfront promenade via the I-acre Entry Plaza. The cross-sections above illustrate
     the Land Bridge and pedestrian water bridge.

     Traffic Improvements
     Vehicular circulation around the Avalon Waterfront District would undergo modifications to improve
     traffic flows and pedestrian access to the waterfront. To increase the amount of land available at the
     waterfront, Water Street would be moved north and realigned from its present east-west configuration to
     run alongside the Pacific Harbor Line railroad tracks, south of the LADWP Marine Tank Farm, in a
     diagonal northeast-southwest direction. Additionally, with the vacation of Avalon Boulevard south of A
     Street, Broad Avenue would replace Avalon Boulevard as the main access street for automobile traffic on
     the east side of the proposed project site and continue through to the waterfront, providing vehicular


                                                        10


                                                                                                        3-98
access to the waterfront promenade and Banning's Landing Community Center. As part ofthe proposed
Project, a passenger drop-off roundabout would be constructed adjacent to the community center.

Surface Parking

To accommodate the new restaurant and recreational vehicular traffic, three surface parking areas would
be constructed. On the map below, Area A would provide 51 spaces accessible from Fries Avenue; Area
B would provide 71 spaces north of Banning's Landing under the pedestrian water bridge accessible from
the newly realigned Broad Avenue. Both of these surface areas would be constructed during Phase I.
Parking Area C would be constructed during Pliase II, providing 148 spaces west of the Land Bridge, on
the existing LADWP Marine Tank site. This area would be accessible from A Street.




      Lel$1i!ld
      ---Phi>JiKt e.(lund~ryLi~
      _       ·Pha~el:   Interim
              a~Sl.·l'i\rli:iA9'Spaltte.
              b~11   Fral1(!rlIiJ $pllt~
      ~"hasen:         Full Builoout
              C.,14l>ParklngSpaciErs



  See Figure 2-15b in Chapter 2, Project Description, ofthe Draft EIR.


Linkages: Red Car Line & California Coastal Trail
The proposed Project would extend the historic Waterfront Red Car Line and multi-use pedestrian/bicycle
CCT from San Pedro to connect to the Wilmington community. The extension of the Waterfront Red Car
Line/CCT would begin at the intersection of Swinford Street and Harbor Boulevard, proceed along Front
Street, onto John S. Gibson Boulevard, and then along Harry Bridges Boulevard to Avalon Boulevard.




                                                      11



                                                                                                 3-99
Project Sustainability
The Wilmington Waterfront Project is intended to showcase the Port's commitment to sustainability. The
following sustainable design project features are consistent with the Port's Sustainability Program and
policies:




..   Reclaimed water will be used for the proposed water features and landscaping maintenance to
     decrease the proposed Project's need for potable water;

"    Drought-tolerant plants and shade trees will be included in the planting palette;

"    Stormwater management design features include the use of a French drain system, bioswales, and
     permeable pavement at the surface parking locations to reduce stormwater runoff and provide natural
     filtration of pollutants;
..   Consistent with the Port's Green Building Policy, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
     (LEED) Certification (minimum Silver) is required for all new development over 7,500 square feet
"    Port sustainable engineering design guidelines would be followed in the siting and design of new
     development and use recycled and regional construction materials.
"    Port sustainable construction guidelines would be followed for construction of the project.
"    Specific water quality design features and water conservation measures are discussed in Chapter 3.14,
     "Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography" and Chapter 3.12 "Utilities".
"    Specific noise reduction design features, such as siting commercial uses at the waterfront (i.e. 12,000
     square feet of restaurant/retail) more than 100 feet from the heavily used San Pedro Branch Line and
     TraPac ICTF lead track (as specified in Chapter 3.9, "Noise").
II   Specific air quality and energy efficiency design features as specified in Chapter 3.2, "Air Quality and
     Meteorology," and Chapter 3.12, "Utilities".
II   Pedestrian access to the waterfront and throughout the project site will be improved through the
     extension of the California Coastal Trail and Waterfront Red Car Line, pedestrian water bridge,
     elevated park/Land Bridge and waterfront promenade.
"    The proposed Project will create more public docking opportunities and improve waterside access to
     the Wilmington Waterfront. A water taxi service stop could also be accommodated.
"    Aesthetic design features include the public art, including up to two major sculptural pieces, that will
     be integrated into the project area. Views of the waterfront and Wilmington community will be
     created through the construction of the elevated park, pedestrian bridge, and observation tower. The
     project will also implement the Wilmington Waterfront Development Program Lighting Design
     Guidelines to improve efficiency and reduce glare as discussed in Chapter 3.1, "Aesthetics".




                                                     12


                                                                                                    3-100
Proposed Planning/land Use Changes
The proposed Project would include amendments to the Port of Los Angeles Plan (Port Plan), the
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan (CP), the Port Master Plan (PMP) and zone changes to the
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code.

The Port Plan jurisdictional boundary would be extended from Water Street north to Harry Bridges
Boulevard and from Broad Avenue in the east to Marine Avenue in the west, to include the single block
of the Avalon Development District south of Harry Bridges Boulevard, the Avalon Triangle Park
development site, and the Avalon Waterfront District, resulting in a corresponding retraction of the
Wilmington-Harbor City CP jurisdictional boundary, as shown in the figure below.




                                                                      .. ........ Pl'()j$:.fSt~
                                                                              .·p~~~iPJaif~~~
                                                                      'il.~$~W!tml~~(:(~
                                                                               <Pi:!(lI.ltidatY

See Figure 2-20 in Chapter 2, Project Description, ofthe Draft EIR.




                                                        13


                                                                                                  3-101
The PMP jurisdictional boundary would be extended to match the Port Plan adjustment, which would
include the single block of the Avalon Development District south of Harry Bridges Boulevard, the
Avalon Triangle Park development site, and the Avalon Waterfront District to be consistent with the Port
Plan jurisdictional boundary change, as shown in the figure below:




See Figure 2-22 in Chapter 2, Project Description. ofthe Draft EIR.


Additionally, Avalon Boulevard would be downgraded using a General Plan Amendment. Finally,
several amendments to existing land use designations and zone changes would be required, including the
following:

         ill     Amend Port Plan eXlstmg land use designation of General/Bulk Cargo &
                 Commercial/Industrial Uses non-hazardous in PA 5 to add Recreation (this would include
                 the waterfront area and the area where Triangle Park would be located);
         II      Amend Port Master Plan's existing land use designations for PA 5 (General Cargo,
                 Liquid Bulk, Dry Bulk, Commercial Fishing, Industrial, Institutional, Other) to add
                 Recreation and Commercial (non-fishing related) land uses; and
                 Amend the Los Angeles Municipal Zoning Code within the previous Port Master Plan
                 boundary to add Recreation, consistent with the Tidelands Trust to accommodate
                 proposed project components (e.g., waterfront promenade, Observation Tower,). The
                 zoning for the Triangle Park site would also be amended to Open Space.




                                                        14


                                                                                               3-102
What is CEQA and How are Impacts Determined?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted by the California Legislature in 1970 and
requires public agency decisions makers to consider the environmental effects of their actions. CEQA
applies to projects proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government
agencies, in this case the Port of Los Angeles (Port). Proposed projects undergo an environmental review
process to determine whether there may be any environmental impacts. If a proposed project has the
potential to significantly affect the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) is prepared.

    •    A Notice of Preparation (NOP), which announces the preparation of an EIR and presents to the
         public for feedback a brief project overview and likely environmental impacts.
    ,.   A Draft EIR, which fully analyzes the proposed Project, project alternatives, and environmental
         impacts. Upon completion, the Draft EIR is made available for public review.
    •    A Final Em (FEIR), which responds to comments on the Draft EIR and is presented to the Board of
         Harbor Commissioners (Port decision makers) for its decision on whether or not to approve the
         proposed Project.

This summary primarily discusses CEQA impacts and mitigation, as the CEQA analysis includes
the entire project and all mitigation measures.

Proposed Project Impacts
An EIR is both a public disclosure document and a decision-making tool. The purpose of the
environmental review process included in the EIR is to: Identify impacts of a proposed project on the
environment; Identify potential alternatives to the project to reduce impacts; and indicate ways to avoid or
mitigate, if possible, significant impacts.

In instances where significant impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, the project could still be approved
if there are economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits that outweigh unavoidable significant
environmental effects (referred to as overriding considerations).

In EIRs, environmental impacts are determined in a step-wise process:

    1.   Analyze the environmental conditions when the analysis began (called baseline conditions).
         Normally, baseline conditions are the conditions at the time the notice of preparation (NOP) is
         provided to the public. The NOP for the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project was
         released in March 2008.
    2. Analyze the environmental conditions over the life of a project. The end of the planning horizon
       for the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project is 2020.
    3. Compare baseline and project conditions. The difference between baseline and project conditions
       (the delta) is compared to thresholds. At the Port, we use a threshold guideline established by the
       City of Los Angeles (the City of Los Angeles CEQA guidelines, which include the South Coast
       Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) air emissions thresholds).
    4. If the delta exceeds the threshold, the impact is considered significant. If the delta does not
       exceed the threshold, the impact is considered less than significant.




                                                    15


                                                                                                   3-103
      If the analysis fmds that there are significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures, if available, are
      applied to reduce the impacts. If mitigation is not able to reduce impacts below the threshold, impacts
      remain significant and unavoidable. The following is a summary of the environmental impacts that
      would be created by the construction and operation of the proposed Project, if approved.

      Summary of Proposed Project Impacts
      Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Air Quality, Geology, Noise.

      Less-than-Significant Impacts after Mitigation:        Biological Resources,            Cultural Resources,
      Groundwater and Soils, Transportation (Ground and Marine), Utilities.

      Less-than-Significant Impacts: Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning,
      Population and Housing, Public Services, Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography.



      Project Mitigation
      Mitigation measures have been applied to the greatest extent feasible to reduce project impacts. A
      complete list of mitigation measures applied across all impact areas is provided below. * For a more
      complete description of project elements and mitigation measures, view the Draft EIR at
      www.portojlosangeles.org.

Air Quality                                                    Geology
• AQ-I: Harbor Craft Engine Standards                          oGEO-I: Seismic Design
o AQ-2: Dredging Equipment Electrification                     Groundwater and Soils
o AQ-3: Fleet Modernization for Onroad Trucks                  • GW-I: Soil Management Plan or Phase II EA
o AQ-4: Fleet Modernization for Construction                   o GW-2: Site Remediation
o AQ-5: Additional Fugitive Dust Controls                      o GW-2a: Remediate Former Oil Wells in the Industrial District
o AQ-6: Best Management Practices                                (Area A), Waterfront District (Area B), and CCT (Area C).
o AQ-7: General Mitigation Measure                             o GW-2b: Remediate Soil along Existing and Former Rail Lines
o AQ-8: Special Precautions near Sensitive Sites               o GW-2c: Health Based Risk Assessment for Marine Tank Farm
o AQ-9: Construction Recycling                                 o GW-3: Contamination Contingency Plan for Non-Specific
o AQ-IO: Energy Efficiency                                       Facilities and Unidentified Sources of Hazardous Materials
o AQ-ll: Renewable Energy                                      Noise
o AQ-12: Water Conservation and Efficiency                     oNOI-I: Construct temporary noise barriers, use quiet
o AQ-13: Solid Waste Measures                                  construction equipment, notify residents, construction hours,
o AQ-14: Land Use Measures                                     construction days, idling prohibitions, equipment location
o AQ-15: Transportation and Motor Vehicles                     Transportation
Biology                                                        • TC-I: Develop and implement a Traffic Control Plan
o BIO-I: Inner Harbor Mitigation Bank                            throughout proposed project construction
Cultural Resources                                             o TC-2: Reconfigure the southbound approach of Avalon
oCR-I: Future Cultural Resources Studies along Red Car Line      Boulevard at the intersection of Avalon Boulevard and
o CR-2: Incorporate the Tracks into the Design Plan              Anaheim
o CR-3: Monitoring/Treatment Plan Prior to Demolition          Utilities
o CR-4: Monitor in Vicinity of Government Depot Portion of     o UT-I: Secondary Sewer Line Installation
  the Wilmington Waterfront District                           o UT-2: Water Conservation and Wastewater Reduction
o CR-5: Stop work if Previously Unidentified Cultural          o UT-3: Recycling of Construction Materials
  Resources are Encountered                                    o UT-4: Recycled Content Materials Use
" CR-6: Nonrenewable paleontologic resources                   o UT-5: AB 939 Compliance




                                                              16


                                                                                                            3-104
Project Alternatives
An EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project. The following three
alternatives to the Proposed Project were analyzed to compare the merits of the alternatives. A summary
of the impacts of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR and the alternatives considered but eliminated
from further analysis is included in Chapter 5.0 Project Alternatives.

Project Alternative 1- Reduced Development: No Avalon Development District

As compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 1 would reduce the development footprint by not
improving the Avalon Development District (Areas A and B). Instead, this alternative would only
develop the Avalon Waterfront District and provide program-level planning for the Waterfront Red Car
Line. Alternative 1 would not include streetscape and pedestrian enhancements in Avalon Development
District A. Nor would it develop the infrastructure to support approximately 150,000 square feet of
development for light industrial uses (for green technology businesses) or the 58,000 square feet of
retail/commercial uses (such as a Mercado). In addition, Alternative 1 would not include implementation
of the Waterfront Red Car Museum, rehabilitation of the 14,500-square-foot Bekins Property, or
development and landscaping of the I-acre Railroad Green. The Avalon Development District would
remain underdeveloped in its existing condition. Alternative 1 would develop the Avalon Waterfront
District in the same manner as the proposed Project. Extension of the Waterfront Red Car Line and
California Coastal Trail would also occur.

Project Alternative 2- Reduced Construction and Demolition: LADWP Marine
Tank Farm to Remain

Alternative 2 is an alternative development scenario that would reduce the amount of construction and
demolition activities by leaving the LADWP Marine Tank Farm in place and reducing the size of the land
bridge by only building the Phase 1 portion. Alternative 2 would also develop the Avalon Development
District (Areas A and B). Since the LADWP Marine Tank Farm would remain in place, no site
remediation would occur and the land bridge would not connect to the Avalon Development District.
Access to the waterfront would still be provided by the proposed pedestrian "water" bridge, but the land
bridge would terminate at the LADWP Marine Tank Farm site boundary. This would result in an
approximately 4-acre Phase I land bridge park, roughly 6 fewer acres than the proposed Project. Other
than not including the Phase II portion of the land bridge and not removing the LADWP Marine Tank
Farm, Alternative 2 would propose the same elements as the proposed Project.

Project Alternative 3- No Project

The No Project Alternative considers what would reasonably be expected to occur on the site if no future
discretionary actions occurred. LARD would not issue any discretionary permits or discretionary
approvals, and would take no further action to construct or permit the construction of any portion of the
proposed Project. This alternative would not allow implementation of the proposed Project or other
physical improvements associated with the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no construction
impacts associated with a discretionary permit would occur.




                                                   17


                                                                                                3-105
                              Key Community Issue: Air Quality
        Criteria Pollutant Emissions
        The criteria pollutants of greatest concern in the air quality assessment are ozone (03), carbon monoxide
        (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOz), sulfur dioxide (SOz), and suspended particulate matter PMIO and PM2.5.
        Nitrogen oxides (NO x) and sulfur oxides (SOx) are the generic terms for NO z and SOz, respectively,
        because NO z and SOz are naturally highly reactive and may change composition when exposed to
        oxygen, other pollutants, and/or sunlight in 'the atmosphere. These oxides are produced during
        combustion.

        The city of Los Angeles uses the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds
        to determine significance. For the air quality analysis, the CEQA baseline is subtracted from the project
        emissions at different years and the difference is compared to the SCAQMD thresholds. If the difference
        exceeds the thresholds then the proposed Project has a significant impact for that particular criteria
        pollutant. The different years evaluated include 2011 (highest level of project construction and overlap
        between proposed Project construction and proposed Project operation), 2015 (end of Phase I of proposed
        Project) and 2020 (completion of Phase II and full project buildout).


                                       SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds
                                                                          Cancer      Acute Non-   Chronic Non-
               VOC     NO x      SOx       PM10       PM 2.5    CO        Risk        Cancer       Cancer
Operation      55      55        150       150        55        550       10 in a
               lbs/day lbs/day   lbs/day   lbs/day    lbs/day   lbs/day   million
Construction   75      100       150       150        55        550
               Ibs/day lbs/day   lbs/day   lbs/day    lbs/day   lbs/day


        Baseline

        CEQA baseline emissions include emissions from sources that were operating in the baseline year of
        2008 and would include those sources planned for demolition, or which would no longer be operational at
        the completion of the proposed Project. The peak daily existing 2008 emissions include two 59,000-
        square feet LADWP oil tanks, industrial land uses in the Avalon Development District and Avalon
        Waterfront District, and Banning's Landing Community Center located on the south side of Water Street.

        Proposed Project

        Emissions are assumed to begin in 2009 and continue until 2020. Construction emissions are assumed to
        start in the third quarter of 2009 and concluding around the fourth quarter of 2017. Operation emissions
        are assumed to start in 2011 and extend until 2020.

        Unmitigated Project

        As shown below, the proposed project unmitigated peak daily emissions minus the CEQA baseline would
        be above CEQA thresholds and thus significant under CEQA for NOx and PM IO during construction. The
        proposed project operational unmitigated peak daily emissions minus the CEQA baseline, at project build



                                                           18



                                                                                                        3-106
out (2020), would not be above CEQA thresholds. Therefore, the unmitigated operation of the proposed
project would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants (refer to the graphic below).



        600


        500

                                                                                              Il!I CEQA Baseline 2008

        400



  -
                                                                                              I!lI SCAQMD Operational Threshold"'
  >-
   10
  "'0
  V>    300 + - - - - -__1-1l1li---...- . - - - - - - - - - - - -
  ::8                                                                                         IW   Unmitigated Project Construction
                                                                                                   (2011)

        200                                                                                   IllI Unmitigated Project Operation
                                                                                                   (2020)


        100


         o
                 voe           eo         NOx         SOx           PMlO         PM2.5
                                         Criteria Pollutants
*SCAQMD Thresholds are the same for construction and operation with the exception for VOC which is 75 lbslday for construction and 55
lbslday for operation and NOx which is 100 lbslday for construction and 55 lbslday for operation as identified in the SCAQMD Daily Emissions
Threshold Table above. This graphic identifies the operational thresholds which provide a conservative analysis ofthe data.




Due to the lengthy construction period of the proposed Project, some operational activities would overlap
with some construction activities. Therefore, the unmitigated combined total of operational and
construction emissions for years 2011 and 2015, during which construction and operation activities would
occur simultaneously, were evaluated in the air quality analysis. For the year 2011 the combined total of
construction and operational proposed project unmitigated impacts is expected to be significant for NOx
and PM\o, while for 2015, the combined total is expected to be significant only for NO x (see graphic
below).




                                                                     19



                                                                                                                                 3-107
                   600



                   500               i-
                                      i
                                                  -----l1li---------.------------

                                        I




                                                                                                                                                                                           ......... l1li CEQA   Baseline 2008
                  400

                                                                                                                                                                                                 Ii SCAQMD Operational
   >-
   (0                                                                                                                                                                                               Threshold*
  -.... 300
  "0

   '"
  ::e                                                                                                                                                                                            ill!! Unmitigated Project Operation
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Overlap with Construction
                   200                                                                                                               ..    _                    _                                Ii ff~~}{igatedProject Operation

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Overlap with Construction
                                                                                                                                                                                                    (2015)
                   100               +----


                            o
                                                     VOC                                           CO               NOx        SOx       PM10                            PM2.5
  •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _ •••••••••• ~ •••••• _ ••••••• _ ••••••••••••••••••• _    __   h __   _
                                                                                                                     Criteria Pollutants
                                                                                                                         __ •• _ _             _   _   ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _ . _                                __          .




*SCAQMD Thresholds are the same for construction and operation with the exception for VOC which is 75 Ibs/day for construction and 55
lbs/day for operation and NOx which is 100 lbs/day for construction and 55 Ibs/day for operation as identified in the SCAQMD Daily Emissions
Threshold Table above. This graphic identifies the operational thresholds which provide a conservative analysis ofthe data.




Mitigated Project

The mitigation measures included for construction and operations were based on PCAC-recommended
measures, the Port of Los Angeles Sustainable Construction Guidelines. After application of mitigation,
the proposed project's peak daily construction emissions for PM IO are reduced to below significance;
however NOx emissions are still above the threshold. After the application of mitigation measures the
emissions of the proposed project operation that occur simultaneously with construction is reduced to a
less-than-significant level for PM IO in both 2011 and 2015. However, NO x emissions remain significant
for year 2011 (see graphic below). Mitigation is not needed for the proposed Project operation in 2020
because all impacts were less than significant, as discussed above under "Unmitigated Project." Please
see discussion beginning on page 3.2-2 of Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR for a complete discussion of
criteria pollutants.




                                                                                                                                          20



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3-108
    600



    500
            r
            +-----lIIII-----------------




    400
                                                                                              II CEQA Baseline 2008


                                                                                              II SCAQMD Operational Threshold"

    300
                                                                                              lIIi Mitigated Project Construction
    >-
    co                                                                                           (2011)
  "0                                                                                          II Mitigated Project Operation
  ';:;,
  £200                                         ---------------                                   Overlap with Construction (2011)
                                                                                              II Mitigated Project Operation
                                                                                                 Overlap with Construction (2015)


    100 - - - -




        o
                voe          eo          NOx          SOx         PM10        PM2.5
                                    Criteria Pollutants
*SCAQMD Thresholds are the same for construction and operation with the exception for VOC which is 75 lbslday for construction and 55
lbslday for operation and NOx which is 100 lbslday for construction and 55 lbslday for operation as identified in the SCAQMD Daily Emissions
Threshold Table above. This graphic identifies the operational thresholds which provide a conservative analysis ofthe data.




Recreational Health Impacts
Health Risk Assessments are everywhere these days, from news reports on toxic air contaminants, to
annual information provided on water safety in utility bills, to guidelines posted on fishing piers on the
amount of fish people should consume. Reports discuss average risks over time from all types of
environmental pollution and lifestyle choices. With all this information, how do you know when a risk is
serious? Often, health risk assessments are thought of as cancer studies, but risk can refer to both chronic
(like heart disease) and acute (like asthma) diseases and can be designed to study a range of
symptoms/diseases. Health Risk Assessments are tools used by regulators to predict the risk related to a
certain level of exposure and base decisions, often land use planning and consumption advisories, on the
estimated risk.

Health Risk Assessments are not diagnosis studies. People often mistakenly think a risk assessment will
tell them whether a current health problem or symptom was caused by exposure to a pollutant. Simply,
health risk assessments are often confused with epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies look at
past exposure and try to link that exposure, often in a population, to a disease. Health risk assessments, on
the other hand, estimate if current or future exposures will result in health risks to a broad population.




                                                                    21


                                                                                                                                 3-109
Risk assessments commonly report cancer risk as some additional chance in a large population. For
example, risk expressed as 1 in a million means that there is one chance in 1,000,000 of an event
occurring. Regulators often set acceptable risk values for air contaminants. These risk numbers are
derived from conservative assumptions meant to protect the most vulnerable of a community's citizens.
For example, to estimate a residential receptor's risk from air contaminants, the standard model assumes
the resident (person) is exposed to the air contaminants while breathing at the 80th percentile breathing
rate for 24 hours a day, 350 days a year, over a 70 year period.


At the Port of Los Angeles, we have adopted the threshold of less than lOin a million as being an
acceptable increased cancer risk level for new projects. Health Risk Assessments also examine the risks
from acute and chronic non-cancer exposure. For acute and chronic non-cancer exposure, we use the
reference exposure levels (RELs) developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards
Assessments (OEHHA). A REL is the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are
anticipated for specified exposure duration. A Hazard Index of 1.0 or less indicates that the exposure
would present an acceptable or insignificant health risk (i.e., no adverse health impact).

Baseline

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) published the draft MATES-III in January
2008, which characterizes the ambient air toxic concentrations and potential human exposures in the
South Coast Air Basin. MATES-III was fmalized in September 2008. MATES-III developed an updated
toxics emissions inventory and conducted air dispersion modeling to estimate ambient levels and the
potential health risks of air toxics. The study identified the area covering the two ports, including the
proposed Project site, were predicted to have cancer risk values ranging from 1,100 to 2,900 in a million.
The highest modeled risk in the south coast air basin was at the Ports.

Unmitigated Project

The proposed Project operations are not expected to produce significant health risk impacts on the
surrounding community. However, the proposed Project is located adjacent to substantial Port-related
activities that generate emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) and other Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs), including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the LADWP Harbor Generating Station
(HGS) and Harry Bridges Boulevard. Therefore, people visiting the proposed project site could be
exposed to elevated levels of TACs from these adjacent emission sources. In addition, studies conducted
by CARB show that the area in the vicinity of the Ports, including the proposed Project site, exhibits
levels of DPM and health risks that are higher than most other areas within the south coast air basin.
Because the proposed Project would attract sensitive individuals (such as children and the elderly) to a
location that most likely has a higher risk than their place of residence, a recreational health risk impact
would result. While most visitors would probably receive a relatively slight increase in health risk
(mainly because the modeled risk assumes regular - almost daily - use of a subject area), the possibility
exists that a frequent visitor could accumulate a significant long-term cancer or non-cancer health risk
(such as cardiovascular ailments). The possibility also exists that any visitor could receive a significant
short-term (acute) health risk (such as asthma) if the visit takes place during a high level of adjacent
industrial activity coupled with worst-case meteorological conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project
would expose visitors to significant recreational health risk impacts associated with air pollutants from
other sources.




                                                    22


                                                                                                   3-110
LADWP Harbor Generating Station

In 2004, LADWP conducted a health risk assessment of the TAC emissions from the HGS to determine
whether the HGS would expose park visitors to high health risks and whether future HGS operations
would be impacted. The HRA estimated the maximum cancer risk at the proposed Project site to be 6.3
per million when evaluated with 70-year residential exposure assumptions (24 hours a day, 350 days a
year for 70 years). The maximum chronic and acute hazard indices computed for emissions from the HGS
are 0.3 for chronic and 0.96 for acute on the project site. LADWP is currently performing an update to the
2004 study, and results are expected in late 2008 or early 2009.

Mitigated Project

The significant impact is an indirect impact associated with emissions from emission sources outside the
control of the proposed Project, no additional mitigation measures are proposed. In the short term, the
recreational health risk impact on project visitors would remain significant. In the long term, levels of
pollution from both Port facilities and all Port-related trucks traveling along Harry Bridges Boulevard will
substantially diminish in accordance with the CAAP. Specifically, DPM from trucks is anticipated to
diminish by 80% over the next 5 years under the Port's Clean Trucks Program. The Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach have instituted voluntary programs to reduce DPM emissions from port operations
including installation of diesel oxidation catalysts on yard equipment, funding the incremental costs of
cleaner fuels, cold-ironing of ocean-going vessels, and providing monetary support to the Gateway Cities
truck fleet modernization program. In addition, all major Port of Los Angeles development projects will
include a health risk assessment to further quantify TAC emissions and target mitigation to reduce the
impact on public health. Other current regulations and future rules adopted by CARB and EPA will
further reduce air emissions and associated cumulative impacts in the proposed project region. Please
refer to Section 3.2 and Section 3.2.4.3 ofthe Draft EIRfor a more detailed discussion on Health Risks.



Ultrafine Particles

New research is being done on ultrafine particles (UFPs), particles classified as less than 0.1 micron in
diameter. UFPs are formed usually by a combustion cycle, independent of fuel type. UFPs are emitted
directly from the tailpipe as solid particles (soot-elemental carbon and metal oxides) and semivolatile
particles (sulfates and hydrocarbons) that coagulate to form particles. The research regarding UFPs is at
its infancy but suggests the UFPs might be more dangerous to human health than the larger PMIO and
PM2.5 particles (termed fme particles) due to size and shape. Because of the smaller size, UFPs are able to
travel more deeply into the lung (specifically the area of the lungs known as the alveoli) and are deposited
in the deep lung regions more efficiently than fine particles. UFPs are inert (meaning they do not react
with other substances); therefore, normal bodily defense does not recognize them. UFPs might have the
ability to travel across cell layers and enter into the bloodstream and/or into individual cells. With a large
surface area-to-volume ratio, other entities might attach to the particle and travel into the cell as a kind of
"hitchhiker." Current UFP research primarily involves roadway exposure. Preliminary studies suggest
that over 50% of an individual's daily exposure is from driving on highways. Levels appear to drop off
rapidly as one moves away from major roadways. CARB is currently measuring and studying UFPs at the
San Pedro Bay Ports. Work is being done on filter technology, including filters for ships, which appears
promising. The Port began collecting UFP data at its four air quality monitoring stations in late 2007 and
early 2008. The Port actively participates in CARB testing at the Port and will comply with all future
regulations regarding UFPs. Please refer to Section 3.2 and Section 3.2.2.5 ofthe Draft EIRfor a more
detailed discussion on Ultrafine Particles.



                                                      23


                                                                                                      3-111
Greenhouse Gas Errlissions
The air quality analysis for the proposed Project and alternatives includes estimates of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The emission sources for which baseline GHG emissions were calculated include
motor vehicles, harbor craft emissions, and the Waterfront Red CarLine. Mitigation measures employed
to reduce GHGs are consistent with AB32 Guidelines, the Port Climate Action Plan, and the May 2008
Attorney General GHG CEQA Guidance Memp. Please refer to Table 3.2-23 for emissions estimates
and Section 3.2 and Section 3.2.4.1.3 ofthe Draft EIRfor a more detailed discussion regarding GHGs.




                                                  24



                                                                                              3-112
     Key Community Issue: Hazards/Hazardous Materia.ls
Baseline

The handling, storage, and transport of hazardous material are generally limited to the LADWP Marine
Tanks, existing gas and petroleum pipelines, business operations located within the Avalon Development
District, and the off-site the LADWP Harbor Generating Station (HGS).

Proposed Project

The Wilmington Waterfront Development Project would be located in an area of existing industrial uses.
Some of these existing industrial uses, such as the LADWP Marine Tank Farm which stores raw gas oil,
would be removed under the proposed project to allow for the full build out of the proposed project.
Demolition would occur under Phase I of the proposed Project; however there would be a number of
proposed project elements constructed under Phase I that would be operational before or during the
removal of the tanks (i.e. pedestrian bridge, waterfront promenade, etc). Furthermore, the HGS would
remain after the proposed project is built. This industrial use handles, stores, and uses hazardous
materials such as Diesel No.2 and aqueous ammonia.

LADWP Marine Tank Farm

A hazardous footprint analysis was not required for the raw gas oil handled at the LADWP Marine Tank
Farm, based on the chemical characteristics of the commodity, including a flashpoint above 140 degrees
(F) and the limited ability to produce a toxic vapor cloud. Under the proposed Project the contents of the
tanks and associated pipelines would be drained through the oil pipe distribution system prior to
demolition and/or removal. Hazardous impacts associated with the LADWP Marine Tank Farm would be
less than significant.

LADWP Harbor Generating Station

The HGS has a total of three liquid bulk storage tanks, located at two separate sites, which handle and
store diesel oils. One site is at the HGS, located west of Fries Avenue; the other site is located at Fries
Avenue and A Street, north of the Peaker Units. The HGS also includes the liquid bulk storage of aqueous
ammonia. A risk analysis for the diesel oils and aqueous ammonia was performed using appropriate
chemical characteristics and reasonable potential accident cases or scenarios in consultation with
LADWP. Under the potential accident cases involving the diesel storage tanks, the radiant heat footprints
generated by the analysis of the two separate sites do not overlap any portion of the proposed Project site.

Specifically, for aqueous ammonia the EPA RMP guidance uses the Emergency Response Planning
Guidelines (ERPGs) to assist in the Planning for catastrophic releases to communities. ERPG-2 of 200
ppm for aqueous ammonia represents the endpoint for exposure to aqueous ammonia without irreversible
or serious health effects to the individual. Under the potential accident cases involving a release of
aqueous ammonia, the footprint of the toxic vapor cloud generated that includes the toxic endpoint of
200ppm does not overlap with the proposed project site. Therefore, impacts to the proposed Project
associated with the Harbor Generating Station would be less than significant. A description of the safety
procedures and mechanisms used at the HGS can be found on page 3.7-5 of the Draft EIR. A 2001 EIR
prepared by SCAQMD also analyzed the probability of an accidental ammonia release during the
permitting process for construction of the peaker units. For further discussion about the assumptions used
in both studies, please see Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ofthe Draft EIR.



                                                    25


                                                                                                   3-113
                           Key Community Issue: Noise
The Wilmington Waterfront Development Project would be located in an area of existing industrial uses.
The operation of the proposed project would not generate objectionable noise; however, it is expected to
experience periodic loud noises from the adjacent industrial land uses, including rail tracks and trains, and
the LADWP Harbor Generating Station Peaker Units.

Noise levels are regulated by the US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(US. DOT FHA), the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, and the City of Los Angeles General Plan
Noise Element. Noise levels are generally defined in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL). These are average noise levels during a 24 hour period with sensitivity for nighttime levels.

Depending on the land use, several different noise levels can be used as criteria to promote health and
well being and ensure appropriate land use compatibility. A noise threshold of 67 dBA CNEL for parks
and recreational uses is used as criteria for determining significance in the noise analysis. This is based
on the threshold between 65 and 70 dBA CNEL identified in the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles
Guidelines for Noise Compatibility Land Use. Furthermore, the US. DOT FHA Noise Abatement
Criteria is listed as approaching 67 dBA CNEL for picnic and recreation areas.

Unmitigated Project

The construction of the proposed project from 2009 to 2017 would generate noise levels above the levels
identified in the Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, construction noise would be significant.
Traffic generated by the proposed project would only increase noise from 0 to 2 dBA CNEL above the
existing baseline; therefore, traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
                                    Edges of the project area would be exposed to noise levels in excess of
                                    67 dBA CNEL. These areas include the pedestrian water bridge and the
                                    northern-most portion of the Land Bridge. While the affected area of
                                    the Land Bridge would be subjected to noise from the Peaker Units
                                    above 67 dBA CNEL, this area provides access to and from the parking
                                    area and does not provide any stationary amenities.

                                    Rail traffic associated with the existing rail lines will be experienced
                                    above the noise threshold on the pedestrian water bridge. However,
                                    visitors are not anticipated to congregate on the bridge for long periods
                                    of time, but rather use the bridge as a mode of transport to arrive at the
                                    water's edge, moving away from the sound of the rail traffic when it
                                    occurs. Since areas affected by noise levels in excess of the 67 dBA
                                    CNEL standard would be limited to the park edges and park visitors
                                    would be able to move to the quieter, interior areas of the park, the
  Rail Noise on Land Brid!!e
                                    noise impacts from the Peaker Units and trains are considered less than
                                    significant. Noise from the trains would not exceed the 77 dBA CNEL
Mitigated Project                   threshold for commercial uses within the Avalon Waterfront District.

Construction noise levels of the proposed project cannot be mitigated to below significance. Mitigation is
included; however, impacts will still be significant and unavoidable during the period of construction.
Since all other noise impacts were determined to be less than significant for the unmitigated project, no
additional mitigation is necessary. For more information, please see Section 3.9, Noise, ofthe Draft EIR.




                                                     26


                                                                                                    3-114
                           Key Community Issue: Traffic
Baseline

Estimates of future traffic conditions both with and without the proposed Project were necessary to
evaluate the potential impact of the proposed Project on surface transportation. The baseline, or Without
Project, condition represents future traffic conditions without the addition of the proposed Project; while
the baseline plus proposed Project represents future traffic conditions with the proposed Project in place.
The traffic study focuses on weekday peak hour traffic because it represents the worst overall traffic
conditions with the greatest potential for impact.

Proposed Project

While the proposed project may generate a slightly higher number of trips on the weekend or during
special events, the background traffic conditions are substantially lower due to reduced business activities
on weekend days. While some Port terminals remain open and in operation, the intensity of activities
including freight and transportation operations at these terminals is significantly less. It is anticipated that
approximately six times a year a special event could be held at the proposed Project with approximately
1,500 people in attendance. These events would occur at non-peak hours generally on certain holidays.

Unmitigated Project

Traffic generated from these events would be temporary and at non-peak traffic hours. Furthermore, all
special events planned at the proposed project site must comply with existing City of Los Angeles and
LARD Special Event permit procedures, which require a traffic control plan, the identification of detour
routes for non-attendees, emergency access routes to avoid emergency response disruption, and temporary
parking locations with possible shuttle service to ensure compliance with local and state fire and
emergency access and evacuation regulations. Any traffic impacts related to special events would be
temporary and occur at times when the circulation system is operating at high level of service, allowing
for the accommodation of additional traffic associated with the special event. The traffic control plan
would ensure emergency access is maintained and detour routes are well planned minimizing impacts on
the local community. Therefore, impacts associated with special events and traffic are less than
significant and do not require mitigation. For more information, please see the following sections ofthe
Draft EIR: Section 3.11, Transportation and Circulation- Ground and Marine and Section 3.13, Public
Services which describes existing regulations and permits required for special events.




                                                      27


                                                                                                      3-115
                            Public Participation Guide
During the Draft EIR review phase, we urge you to take advantage of the many opportunities to
participate.

 Attend a Public        A public meeting on the Draft EIR will be held to provide input and learn more
 Meeting                about the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project. Comments made at the
                                      public meeting will be addressed in the Final EIR.
                                                      January 15, 2009
                                                            6 p.m.
                                           Banning's Landing Community Center
                                                     100 E. Water Street
                                                      Wilmington, CA.

 Submit Comments        Comments sent by mail must be postmarked by January 30, 2009 and should
 via Mail               be sent to the following address:

                        Dr. Ralph Appy
                        Director of Environmental Management
                        Los Angeles Harbor Department
                        425 South Palos Verdes Street
                        San Pedro, CA 90731
 Submit Comments        Comments sent bye-mail should be sent by January 30, 2009 to:
 via E-mail                                      ceqacomments@portla.org

                        •   Send your comments in letter format as an attachment to the e-mail.
                        •   Include a mailing address in the comment letter.
                        •   Type "Wilmington Waterfront Project" in the e-mail subject line.
 Visit our Websites     Project information provided by the Port of Los Angeles can be found at:
                        www.portoflosangeles.org.
 Call with Questions    For questions on the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project
                        environmental review, please contact Jan Green Rebstock, with the Port of Los
                        Angeles, at (310) 732-3949.


                                 Thank Youfor Your Interest!




                                               28


                                                                                            3-116
EIR Process Overview
Milestones
                             WeAre Here

                                                                        I.I__
                                                    __F_i_lla_I_E_I_R_...        E_I_R_C_e_r_tI_Ofi_C_ati_O_oll_....




The environmental review process is intended to allow the Port to gather comments from the public and
agencies about the content and analysis of affected resources and potential impacts as a result of
constructing and operating the proposed Project.

    •   The Draft EIR will undergo a 57-day comment period from December 4,2008 through January
        30,2009. During this time, the Port will accept written comments and will host a public meeting
        on January 15, 2009 to present its findings and provide opportunity for public comment. The
        public meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the Banning's Landing Community Center at 100 E.
        Water Street in Wilmington, CA. The Wilmington Waterfront Development Project
        environmental study team is required to respond to comments in the Final EIR.
   •    The EIR is a decision-making tool used by local officials to consider the effects of the proposed
        Project on the environment. The EIR is an informational document and does not recommend
        approval or denial of a project.
   •    You may request an electronic or hard copy version of the Draft EIR by calling 310.732.3675.
        You may download a copy of the Draft EIR at www.portoflosangeles.org or view it at the
        following locations:
        o Los Angeles Public Library, Central Branch, 630 West 5th Street, Los Angeles California
        o Los Angeles Public Library, Wilmington Branch, 1300 North Avalon, Wilmington,
             California
        o Los Angeles Public Library, San Pedro branch, 921 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro,
             California
        o Los Angeles Harbor Department, Environmental Management Division Offices, 222 W. 6th
             Street Suite 1080, San Pedro California




                                                   29


                                                                                                          3-117
                              CITY OF
                                                                  PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT

20 January 2009




Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Director of Environmental Management
Los Angeles Harbor Department
425 S. Palos Verdes St.
San Pedro, CA 90731

SUBJECT:         Comments on the Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Draft EIR for the
                 Wilmington Waterfront Project

Dear Dr. Appy:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above-mentioned project. We have
reviewed the DEIR and attended the public hearing held on January 15, 2008.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is very impressed by the obvious community support
for this project. We recognize the importance of the Port of Los Angeles as an
economic driver in the South Bay, and that improving pUblic access to the waterfront is
a key factor in this economic success. For these reasons, we have similarly supported
public access improvements in San Pedro. The Wilmington Waterfront project will also
serve to increase trail linkages. which are very important to our residents. by improving
a segment of the California Coastal Trail.

Again. thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you
have any questions or need additional information. please feel free to contact me at
(310) 544-5228 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.




70'
KitFO~
Associate Planner

cc:     Mayor Clark and City Council
        Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
        Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
M:\8order Issues\Wilminglon Waterfront Project\20090120_POLA_EIRCommenls.doc




                            30940 HAWIHOllNI' BlVD. / I~ANCH() PALOS Vmms. CA 90275-5391
PLANNINC/CODE ENfOIKFMF.Nl (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING (310) 265·7800 / DE Pl. fAX (310) 544-5293/ E-MAil PLANNINC@RPV.COM

                                                                                                          3-118
                                                 Intermodal Container Transfer Facility - Joint Powers Authority



January 8, 2009


SUBJECT:        lN1TIAL STUDYINOTICE OF PREPARATION (ISINOP) FOR AN
                ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE
                INTERMODAL CONTAlNER TRANSFER FACILITY EXPANSION
                AND MODERNIZATION PROJECT


The Intennodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Joint Powers Authority (JP A) has
prepared an Initial StudylNotice ofPreparation (lSINOP) for the Environmental hnpact
Report (EIR) for the following project:

                Interrnodal Container Transfer Facility Expansion and
                Modernization (ICTF) Project

The ISINOP is included for your review, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Article I; the State CEQA Guidelines,
Article 7, Sections 15082-15083; and the California Public Resources Code Section
21153.

Availability:

Copies of the ISINOP will be available for review starting January 9, 2009 at the: Los
Angeles Public Library, San Pedro Branch, 921 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro,
California; Los Angeles Public Library, Wilmington Branch, 1300 North Avalon,
Wilmington, California; and the Long Beach Public Library, Main Branch, 101 Pacific
Avenue, Long Beach, California.. Copies of the ISINOP can also be obtained at
http://www.ictf-jpa.org, or by sending a request to Sam A. Joumblat, Executive Director,
Intennoda1 Container Transfer Facility Joint Powers Authority, P.O. Box 570, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0570, or by calling (562) 590-4133.

Public Meeting:

The ICTF JPA will conduct a public meeting to receive public comments on the ISINOP
for this project on February 11 th at Stephens Middle School, 1830 West Columbia Street,
Long Beach, CA, 90810 from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Participation in the public meeting by
federal. state and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is
encouraged. This meeting is to be conducted in English with simultaneous
English/Spanish translation services provided.




    925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA 90802           425 S. Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, CA 90731
    Tel: (562) 590-4133 I, Fax: (562) 901·1727       Tel: (310) 732·3750 I Fax: (310) 831·9778
                              Mailing Address:       Mailing Address:
   P.O. Box 570, Long Beach, CA 90801-0570           P.O. Box 151, San Pedro, CA 90733·0151
                                                                                             3-119
                                               Intermodal Container Transfer Facility - Joint Powers Authority




Comments:

Written comments on the ISINOP will be received until February 25,2009 and should be
sent to:

Sam A. Joumblat, Executive Director
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility Joint Powers Authority
P.O. Box 570
Long Beach, CA 90801-0570

or via e-mail at info@ictf-jpa.org. Comments sent via email should include the project
title in the e-mail's subject line and a valid mailing address with the e-mail.

For additional information, please contact Mr. Ed Rogan at (562) 740-1067.




    925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA 90802         425 S. Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, CA 90731
    Tel: (562) 590-41331 Fax: (562) 901-1727       Tel: (310) 732-3750 I Fax: (310) 831-9778
                            Mailing Address:       Mailing Address:
   P.O. Box 570, Long Beach, CA 90801-0570         P.O. Box 151, San Pedro, CA90733-0151
                                                                                           3-120
                                             Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                           Project Description

                                                                     Chapter One
                                                             Notice of Preparation
                                                              Project Description


1.0     Introduction
The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NaP) and Initial Study (IS) is to inform
responsible and trustee agencies, public agencies, and the public that the Intermodal
Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) will be preparing an
environmental impact report (EIR) for the ICTF Modernization Project (proposed Project).
The proposed Project EIR will be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The JPA seeks
comments from agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of this EIR. For
agencies, the JPA seeks comments regarding the scope and content of environmental
information that is relevant to each agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the
EIR and the various actions and activities to be evaluated in the EIR.

The ICTF JPA is a public entity created in 1983 to oversee the development of the ICTF to
enhance the efficient flow of intermodal (truck and rail) cargo through the Port of Los
Angeles (POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB) (collectively, the "San Pedro Bay
Ports" or "Ports"). The ICTF is a rail yard designed and operated by the Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP). The ~IPA is the local agency with jurisdiction over the ICTF and is
the lead agency under CEQA for the proposed Project. The ~IPA is administered by a
governing board and is separate and apart from the Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

The San Pedro Bay Ports are the largest manmade harbor in the Western Hemisphere,
serving as the largest container port in the United States and the eighth largest in the world.
Essentially considered a large industrial complex, the San Pedro Bay Ports are an important
hub in the international supply chain, encompassing 7,500 acres of land and water, and
include: automobile, container, omni, break-bulk, and cruise ship terminals; liquid and dry
bulk facilities; and extensive transportation infrastructure for moving truck and rail cargo.

The existing ICTF operational core is located within the City of Los Angeles on 148 acres of
POLA property and operated by UP via a sublease from the ~IPA. The core parcel is
supported by two adjacent parcels to the west within the City of Carson, which provide
wheeled container storage and include (1) an approximately 15-acre UP-owned parcel; and
(2) an approximately 74-acre Watson Land Company-owned parcel. UP leases the 74-acre
Watson Land Company parcel for storage and handling of freight, cargo containers, and
truck chassis in conjunction with the ICTF operations. The ICTF operates in conjunction
with the UP's Dolores Rail yard located to the west of the ICTF along Alameda Street within
the City of Carson.
ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                       January 2009




                                                                                      3-121
                                              Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                            Project Description

1.1     Project Summary and Overview
The proposed Project is known as the ICTF Expansion and Modernization Project. The
ICTF is a rail yard operated by the UP that currently transfers containerized cargo from the
terminals of the Ports to trains for distribution throughout the United States, and transfers
cargo to the Ports from locations throughout the United States for export abroad.

The proposed Project would increase the number of containers handled at the ICTF from
the current annual average of 725,000 to an estimated 1.5 million annual average. In
addition, the proposed Project would modernize existing equipment and rail yard operation
methods by replacing the existing diesel-fueled rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes with
electric-powered wide-span gantry (WSG) cranes, which can service several loading tracks
and shuttle containers between container stacks and adjacent loading tracks more efficiently
than existing equipment. In order to accommodate the WSG cranes, the existing yard tracks
must be reconfigured and new tracks added.

1.2     Project Background
Between 1982 and 1986, POLA, POLB, and Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(acquired by UP in 1996) jointly developed and bond-financed the ICTF through a public-
private partnership. As part of the partnership, POLA issued a permit to the ICTF ~IPA
granting the JPA the right to use the premises for the ICTF. In turn, the ~IPA sub-leased its
interest in the premises to Southern Pacific. As successor-in-interest to Southern Pacific,
UP now owns and operates both the sub-lease estate and the facilities located at the ICTF,
which comprises approximately 148 acres. In addition, ICTF operations are also conducted
on 74 acres of adjacent property that UP leases from Watson Land Company, as well as
another adjacent 15 acres that UP owns. The ICTF was specifically designed to provide
near-dock infrastructure required to handle the rapidly growing international container
shipping demand and to enhance the flow of container traffic through the POLA and the
POLB.

1.3     Proposed Project Goals
Project goals included the following elements:

                II   Reduce emissions at the ICTF by replacing diesel-powered equipment
                     with electric-powered equipment;

                II   Provide additional near-dock rail capacity and container throughput by
                     increasing operation efficiencies consistent with the Ports' Rail Master
                     Plan Study and minimize surface transportation congestion and/or delays;

                II   Provide enhanced cargo security through new technologies, including
                     biometrics; and,

ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                      January 2009
                                                 2



                                                                                    3-122
                                               Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                             Project Description

                •   Continue to promote the direct transfer of cargo from port to rail with
                    minimal surface transportation congestion and/or delays.

Project goals will be further defined in the Draft EIR.

1.4     Project Location
The ICTF is located approximately 5 miles from the POLA and the POLB at the terminus of
State Highway 103, known as the "Terminal Island Freeway" (see Figures 1 and 2). The
ICTF's operational core is located on 148 acres of POLA land sub-leased by UP from the
JPA within the City of Los Angeles. The ICTF covers a narrow area between East
Sepulveda Boulevard and East 233rd Street, just south of the 1-405 freeway. The ICTF
operates in conjunction with the UP's Dolores Rail yard, located west of the ICTF within the
City of Carson. The main portion of the Dolores Rail yard covers a narrow area
approximately one-half mile in length along the Alameda Corridor, connected to the ICTF
with a series of parallel tracks approximately 1.4 miles long on the north end and 0.9 mile
long on the south end.

The core ICTF operation is supported by two adjacent parcels to the west, both located
within the City of Carson. The adjacent parcels include an approximately 15-acre parcel
owned by UP, and an approximately 74-acre parcel owned by the Watson Land Company.
UP leases the Watson Land Company parcel for storage and handling of freight and cargo
containers and truck chassis in conjunction with ICTF operations.

Land uses surrounding the ICTF are primarily heavy industrial and designated as
"Manufacturing, Heavy" by the City of Carson and "Heavy Industrial" by the City and POLA.
In addition, medium-density residential areas are located to the east of the ICTF within the
City of Long Beach. Surrounding land uses include the following:

                •   North: East 223rd Street and the 1-405. Heavy industrial land uses
                    extend beyond these roadways.

                •    Northeast: Medium-density, single-family residential neighborhoods exist
                     on Hesperian Avenue and East 223rd Street in the City of Long Beach.

                •   East: Land owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), containing
                    nursery plants, located to the north and south of an SCE substation, is
                    farmed under high-voltage transmission power lines associated with the
                    SCE substation. A nursery plant truck loading facility also exists to the
                    south of the SCE substation. Land uses including single family dwellings,
                    mobile homes, apartments and schools within the City of Long Beach are
                    located east of the ICTF and SCE properties.



ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                      January 2009
                                                3



                                                                                    3-123
                                              Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                            Project Description

                •   South: East Sepulveda Boulevard is located directly south of the ICTF.
                    The Terminal Island Freeway is located to the southeast of the ICTF.
                    Industrial uses, including a storage tank facility, warehousing, container
                    storage, and truck trailer parking and servicing are located further to the
                    south. Medium density residential areas are located to the east of the
                    Terminal Island Freeway within the City of Long Beach.

                •   Also to the south, BNSF Railway has submitted an application to the
                    POLA to develop a property to the south of the ICTF for a new rail loading
                    and unloading facility with operations similar to those at ICTF. This
                    proposed project, referred to as the Southern California International
                    Gateway (SCIG) is in the environmental review process.

                •   West: A vacant structure, formerly housing a gun club, is located on the
                    far west side of the Watson Land Company property, adjacent to
                    Alameda Street within the City of Carson. The Watson Land Company
                    parcel and the Desser parcel, located immediately to its north, are largely
                    underlain by a former organic refuse landfill. The Watson Land Company
                    parcel is currently used for the storage and handling of cargo containers
                    and truck chassis to support ICTF operations.

1.5     ICTF Proposed Project Details
The proposed Project would increase the capacity to handle containers at the ICTF from the
current annual average of 725,000 to an estimated 1.5 million annual average by
modernizing existing equipment and equipment operating methods. The truck traffic is
currently estimated to be about 1.1 million one-way truck trips per year, and the proposed
Project will increase the number of truck trips to about 2.268 million one-way truck trips per
year. In addition, the proposed Project will increase the number of annual rail trips from
4,745 to about 9,490. The proposed Project would increase container-handling capacity by
reconfiguring existing and adding new train tracks within the ICTF, and replacing the existing
diesel-fueled rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes with electric-powered wide-span gantry
(WSG) cranes. These electric WSG cranes can service several loading tracks and shuttle
containers between container stacks and adjacent loading tracks more efficiently than
existing equipment, while reducing air emissions associated with the use of diesel fuel. A
plot plan of the existing ICTF is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the proposed Project
plot plan. As with the existing operation, the ICTF would continue to operate 24 hours per
day, seven days per week. A summary of the existing ICTF operations and the proposed
Project modifications is provided in Table 1.

Trucks transporting containers (referred to as drayage trucks) currently enter and exit the
ICTF via the Sepulveda Boulevard Gate. The existing gate at the northern 223rd Street
Facility boundary would continue to be used for emergency ingress and egress only. The
proposed Project would alter traffic flow into the ICTF to create a one-way flow of truck traffic
ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                         January 2009
                                                4



                                                                                        3-124
                                                Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                              Project Description

within the ICTF. A new gate is proposed at Alameda Street to be used by trucks for
entrance (only) to the ICTF. Truck traffic exiting the ICTF would continue to use Sepulveda
Boulevard, through a reconfigured gate.




                   Reseda




                     N

                    A
  (E./~.·") Environmental Audit, Inc 0
               I
   ',.,~._.-




                                         ICTF REGIONAL MAP

  Project No. 2606



ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                    January 2009
                                                 5



                                                                                   3-125
                                                  Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                                Project Description




      <D          ICTF I UNION PACIFIC

      <2>         WATSON LAND CO.

      @           DESSER (PROPOSED)

      @           DOLORES RAILYARD

                  PREDOMINATELY                               SOURCE! USGS TOPOGI?APHIC 7.5 MINUTE SERIES
                                                                      Long 8eao11 CO/IfOmra
                  RESIDENTIAL AREA                                    Quo<:JrangIe (RBvfsed 1981)


(t:I\i) Environmental Audit, Inc.                                          rs;w_w
                                                                           o            2,000'
                                                                                               I


                                    ICTF PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION

Project No. 2606                                                                                   Fi ure
N:12606ISitelocMnp{tOV,1).o:Ir



lelF Modernization and Expansion Project                                              January 2009
                                                   6



                                                                                                   3-126
                                                   Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                                 Project Description




                                                               177 (est., however, Project will
Project Area Gross Acres                         233             preserve access to 74 acre
                                                                        Watson arcel
                                  Control Tower                No Change
                                  Administration Building      No Change
                                  Inspection Building          No Change
                                  Customs Office               No Change
                                  Entrance Office              No Change
                                  Terminal Contractor          No Change
                                  Building                     No Change
                                  North-End Gate               No Change
                                  Emergency Supply             No Change
Structures                        Building                     Removed
                                  Emergency Storage Area       Removed
                                  Hostler Maintenance          Removed
                                  Equipment Building           Removed
                                  Crane Maintenance Pad        Six electrical substations*
                                  Fueling Station              Crane Parts Building and
                                                                  Service Center*
                                                               Gate house including offices,
                                                                   restrooms, canopies*
                                                               Alternative Fuels Station*
Railroad Tracks                        6 loading, 1 support              12 loading
Yard Hostlers (diesel-
                                                  73                   2 (non-diesel)
fueled)
RTG Crane (diesel-fueled)                         10
WSG Crane (electric-                                                          °
powered)
Sideloaders (incl. piggy-
                                                  °                          39


packers, top picks and                            3                           1
Reach Stackers)
Annual One-Way Truck
                                              1,087,086                  2,268,000
Trips
Annual Rail Trips                               4,745                       9,490
Total Number of Access
                                                  1                           2
Gates
light Poles                                60 100-foot poles      160 40- to 60-foot poles
                                      20,000 gallon diesel
                                          storage tank          1,000 gallon alternative fuel
Fuel Tanks
                                      1,000 gallon gasoline                 tank
                                          stora e tank
 * New Structures
ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                          January 2009
                                                       7


                                                                                         3-127
                                               Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                             Project Description

        1.5.1 Rail Yard Operations
        The ICTF currently receives inbound trains from the Ports and other distribution
        facilities throughout the United States, loads and unloads intermodal trains, stores
        intermodal containers and chassis, assembles and ships outbound trains, and
        repairs freight cars and intermodal containers/chassis.

        UP performs train switching 0l?erations at the adjacent Dolores Yard, which is
        located between Alameda Street and the Alameda Corridor. The Dolores Yard is
        used to park trains until they can be brought into the ICTF or until a full train is built
        and ready to depart. UP operates switcher locomotives within the Dolores Yard and
        ICTF to support these activities. The Dolores Yard is also used to store, service,
        inspect and fuel locomotive engines that are used at ICTF.

        The ICTF is not long enough to build or store a unit train (train with a single
        destination), or to store arriving trains carrying containers to the Ports. Arriving trains
        enter the ICTF from the Dolores Yard via the 223rd Street Bridge and grade
        separation. Arriving trains are split and held at Dolores, and departing trains are
        assembled in the Dolores Yard. In addition, smaller trains coming from the on-dock
        Port facilities or out of the ICTF must be assembled in the Dolores Yard before
        departing.

        The proposed Project does not include physical modifications to the Dolores Yard.
        However, the Dolores Yard will handle additional ICTF trains and would result in an
        increase in trains handled at Dolores and other local rail yards. The proposed
        Project is not expected to alter the movement of trains to and from the ICTF.
        However, the proposed Project will add six additional tracks within the ICTF and will
        increase the annual number of rail trips from 4,745 to about 9,490.

        1.5.2 Cranes/Lift Equipment
        The proposed Project currently includes adding 39 WSG electric cranes configured
        into three sets or modules each serving four rail loading tracks. New electric WSG
        crane loading tracks would be constructed in the east electric WSG crane module,
        leaving existing tracks 801 and 802 in place (see Figure 3). Two additional tracks
        would be constructed west of existing track 802 to complete the first electric WSG
        crane module. The second electric WSG crane module includes realignment of
        existing track 809 to the east; the existing track 810 would remain in place.
        Construction of two new tracks west of existing track 810 would complete the center
        electric WSG crane module. The westerly electric WSG crane module would not
        align with existing railroad track, but includes four new loading tracks constructed just
        west of the center electric WSG crane module, creating a back-to-back or mirrored
        electric WSG crane configuration.



ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                           January 2009
                                                 8


                                                                                          3-128
      o
      .,.,
      -1

      5:
      o
      0-
      CD
      :3
      ;;:;"
      III
      g

                          ~
      ::l
      ro                                                                                                                              To the Ports of
      ::l
                          .   ~         ...."""'-._.   ':-.        ~ ..         san -Pe~ro. Bron<:h                                   Los Ange~es
      0-
      m
                                                                                                            ~                        .-_.._,--_.. and
                                                                                                                                              ,
                                                                                                                                                         l0!'9 Beach

      x                                                                                                                                                                ~----~
     -0                        ~
      III                      Sub
      ::l                     Station
      (Jl
      0"
      ::l
      lJ                                                                                                                                                           l:r'""""==~=O
     Q.                                                                                                                                                          .~
      CD                                                                                                                                                         Qj
      n.
                                                                                                                                                              fj
                                                                                                                                                             ~
                                                                                                                                                             ~
                                                                                                                                                            Q
                                                                                                                                                         ~J!1'
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ("')
co
                                                                                                                                                                                                          :::r
                                                                                                                                                                                                          m
                                                                                                                                                                                                         "C
                                                                                                                                                                                                          .....
                                                                                                  DOS"""
                                                                                                                                     f)"
                                                                                                                                      EEEE±'±fL~
                                                                                                                                                  500'
                                                                                                                                                    __    =   1000'                                       CI)
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ""'l

                                                                          ~~~sk~~
                                                                                   (!£AS<l)
                                                                                                           ~ RttFER 'STORI\CE AREA
                                                                                                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ::s
                                                                                                           ~~,~=
                                                                          ---,_.- YARD lRAQ( AUGNI.IENT
                                                                                                                  (lIPim O\\tl£ti)                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                      "tiS-
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ., -.
                                                                                                                                                                        sbu~;      HOR Enf!ioeermg
                                                                                                                                                                                                     -2. £
                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD 0
                                                                 EXI~TING SITE Pi..AN
                                                                                                                                                                                                     a ....
      c....
                                                              (eTF PROPOSED PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                     C"tl
                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD ~
     III
     ::l
     C
     III
     ..:<
     N
      o
              ~:':~'I.W                                                                                                                                                               F_laura 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                     _
                                                                                                                                                                                                     cn"O
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Qm
                                                                                                                                                                                                     . .,
                                                                                                                                                                                                     "Om
      o
      to                                                                                                                                                                                             !:!:!:!:
                                                                                                                                                                                                     o    0
                                                                                                                                                                                                     ::s ::s



                                                                                                                                                                                                3-129
                                             Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                           Project Description

        Additional railroad track would be constructed in the easterly two-thirds of the ICTF
        site (see Figure 4). Track turnouts would be closer together in the ladder area, and
        aisle crossings at the north and south end would require the fabrication and
        installation of welded steel crossing panels.

        Adding track would require partial reconstruction of the north and south lead tracks
        (see Figure 4). A total of 20 new turnouts (to permit a train to cross from one line to
        another) would be constructed to reconstruct the ladder and leads used to separate
        railroad cars onto one of several tracks. The new electric WSG cranes will transfer
        containers between trucks and the stacking area, as well as between adjacent
        stacking areas. In addition, this design eliminates the need for 71 of the 73 existing
        diesel-fueled yard hostlers.     The two remaining yard hostlers would use an
        alternative non-diesel fuel source, such as biodiesel, propane or liquefied natural gas
        (LNG).

        Replacing existing diesel-fueled RTG cranes with electric WSG cranes and
        reconfiguring the tracks to accommodate these WSG cranes are the central
        proposed Project components that would allow container throughput to increase from
        an annual average of 725,000 to 1,500,000, and significantly reduce diesel fuel
        related emissions.

        The WSG cranes would allow containers to be stacked higher than the current
        configuration. The replacement of wheeled-crane parking operations with container
        stacking reduces the area required for container storage, which would allow the ICTF
        to accommodate the increase in overall container storage and throughput while
        reducing adverse air quality impacts. Also, the efficiency of the electric WSG cranes
        is expected to reduce the area required for truck chassis and container storage. As
        a result, the 74 acres that UP currently leases from the Watson Land Company is not
        expected to be needed for storage and handling of freight and cargo containers.
        Nevertheless, UP is proposing to keep the leased Watson Land Company parcel for
        possible other related ICTF uses. Currently, however, no new development or
        activity is included on the Watson Land Company parcel as part of the proposed
        Project.




ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                       January 2009
                                               10



                                                                                      3-130
      o
      =ii
      s:



                                                          . .-
      o
      CL
      ~
      :::l
      N'
      f!l.
      O·
                                                 ~                                                                                                                                                    To fhe Ports of




                                                G
                                                    ;-~::-~
                                                 ~ ~.                                              .~:;:'.:::..                   pe~:. _~ron¢h         .~.=-.:..                    ~-" ~ ~ ..- Los AO~~:;;.~;;~_;;;':;;;~~;;d;;;L;;:..~ng~B;;_;;.~;;;h~,.~_
      :::l
      m
      ::>
                                  4;--?,f.-e.
                                                 .             ~l
                                                                                                                           Son
                                                                                                                                                             - -             .

                                                      §~
      CL
      m                                              Station
                                                                          '@
      x
      u
      m                                         -------....r--.
       :J
      (J>
      O·
      :::l
       V
      g.
      (j)
      ~




--"
                                                                                                                                                  "'."."'\'-::-­
                                                                                                                                                  ~..--
                                                                                                                                                  ,-.-.
                                                                                                                                                  .'-
                                                                                                                                                             ....      ' -       -



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (')
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ::T


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -
--"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ""'l
                                                                                                                                                                    GENERAL NOlES
                                                                                                                                                                    sa: lEIWlNAl CROSS SEClJQNi,FOH                 AOOmONAL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ::.:s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ..
                                                                                                                                                                    Gft"tJN(> Nt> PAW«; IHFORM...r.OIf
                                                               flO.....                                                                                                                                                                                                                CD
                                                               ---_.- t:oX. 'TRACK AUGNMDrT     - - - Nf.W tRACK           AUQ4tE.~T
                                                                                                --~IWL~T

                                                                                                                  ..                                                                                                                                                               z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ., _
                                                               ~~C:OlnAiH£Jt



                                                               ~~r:n~
                                                                          STORAGE IN SER\IIet
                                                                          ("""n ......)
                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                ~ ~ RAn. GnAOfiG
                                                                                                ~ PAIJEUEKT CRADlHG
                                                                                                                   "",,",,,,,,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -Cg,.
                                                                          (LfA"')

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      SOURCE: HOR Engineering
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .2.    g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CD 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                a ....
      <-
      III
                                                                                        PROPOSED SITE PLAN
                                                                                      ICTF PROPOSED PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                c-c
      :::l
      C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CD CD
      m                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         tn"'C
      .:<    :~:"Z_~.,.....   w                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Figure 4      g. .,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                - ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                --
      I'V
      o                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         "'C~
      o
      m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                o' o'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ::::J ::::J




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           3-131
                                             Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                           Project Description

        1.5.3 Truck loading
        Truck loading and unloading would occur in a truck aisle where vehicles would pull
        through 45-degree angled stalls. The electric WSG crane slewing (rotating)
        capability allows containers to be lifted off trucks from any angle and placed in the
        desired orientation on a platform. Containers not placed on trains or tracks will be
        stacked.

        A new Terminal Operating System (TOS) is proposed to manage the stacking and
        movement of containers to their train or truck destinations in a timely manner. The
        TOS would upgrade the existing Optimization Alternatives Strategic Intermodal
        Scheduler (OASIS) system used to control and track inventory at the ICTF, and
        would manage trucker appointments, shuttling of containers between modules, and
        lift operations. Due to the electric WSG crane spacing, the TOS would continuously
        update service call orders to the crane operators so that the truck, train, and stack
        service orders would move containers more expeditiously between trucks, trains, and
        container stacks, increasing the overall ICTF operation efficiency and reducing truck
        loading/unloading times.

        1.5.4 Access and Circulation of Truck Traffic
        A paved roadway system would be built to allow truck movements and container
        loading under the electric WSG cranes. Trucks would follow a prescribed route
        dictating one-way circulation flow between crane modules to avoid disruptive and
        inefficient movements. Existing pavement would remain in place where practical.

        1.5.5 Structures
        Presently, all existing structures are proposed to be retained, with the exception of
        the service building and the fueling station. The proposed Project includes the
        following new structures:

                ..   -Crane Repair/Parts Storage Building located at the terminus of
                     Intermodal Way. This building would function as a structure to repair
                     cranes and store parts associated with those cranes.

                ..   Alameda Street Gate including gate house, offices, restrooms, and
                     canopies will serve as the new and only truck entrance into ICTF via
                     Alameda Street. The gate house conceptual building would function as
                     an administrative building with associated employee facilities parking.

        1.5.6 Storm Drainage
        The proposed Project would modify the existing ICTF storm drainage system. The
        existing 78-inch reinforced concrete main that runs from east to west in the
        approximate center of the ICTF and drains to the Dominguez Channel would
        continue to collect stormwater runoff. The proposed storm drainage system would
ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                      January 2009
                                               12



                                                                                     3-132
                                             Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                           Project Description

        include a series of sloped, cast-in-place trench drains, or catch basins and curb
        inlets, constructed along new tracks. New storm drainage improvements will be
        designed to be consistent with the ICTF's existing Los Angeles County Standard
        Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSUMP), as required under its existing National
        Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

        1.5.7 Lighting
        The proposed Project design includes the removal of over 60, 80 to 85-feet tall, high-
        mounted light poles, and the installation of approximately 160 poles that are 60 feet
        and 40 feet in height. Similar to procedures used for standard street lighting,
        proposed fixture spacing of approximately 100-feet would allow the electric WSG
        cranes to operate above the top of the poles and luminaries, while still allowing
        illumination at a 2- to 3-foot candle level. Selection of a final electric WSG crane
        configuration design would determine lighting height, spacing, and other
        specifications. The new fixtures, similar to those presently used at the ICTF, would
        be hooded to direct light downward within the ICTF and away from surrounding
        properties.

        1.5.8 Electricity Supply
        The proposed Project is expected to require a peak demand of 30 megawatts (MW)
        of electrical power. The actual peak demand would be dependent on the number of
        electric WSG cranes, reefer container receptacles, and lights that are in use at any
        given time. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) would
        provide power from a primary power feed on the south side of the ICTF. LADWP or
        SCE would provide secondary power from a feed on the north side of the ICTF.
        Each utility feed would provide an estimated 34,500 volts. Each utility feed would
        connect to a transformer, which would step down the voltage to 12,000 volts for
        distribution throughout the ICTF.

        Each of the six proposed electrical substations would serve one-half of the cranes in
        each WSG crane module. Selected substations would serve reefer container
        receptacles and yard Ijghts. The power distribution system would be placed
        downstream of the substations in trenches running the length of the ICTF. These
        trenches would house conduits, power cables, and communication cables for the
        electric WSG cranes. The electric WSG cranes would be linked to a data
        communication network with fiber optic cables imbedded in each cable reel.
        Substation equipment for the crane power system would require between 5,000 to
        10,000 square feet.

        1.5.9 Fuels
        The proposed Project would eliminate the need for onsite diesel and gasoline fueling
        facilities. As a result, the existing 20,000-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank

ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                      January 2009
                                               13



                                                                                     3-133
                                              Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                            Project Description

        and the 1,OOO-gallon above-ground unleaded gasoline storage tank would be
        removed. Potential fuels to be used for the two remaining yard hostlers include
        biodiesel, propane or LNG. A new tank for storage of biodiesel or alternative non-
        diesel fuels would be installed. The new tank would include all required secondary
        containment infrastructure.

        The currently proposed location for the new fueling facility and storage tank is near
        the west wall of the existing chassis repair building in the northern area of the
        existing ICTF footprint. The tank and fueling facility installation would comply with all
        federal, state, and local requirements.

        A 2-week to 1-month supply of alternative fuel or biodiesel is expected to be stored
        and dispensed at the ICTF. Fuel deliveries would be undertaken by certified
        handlers via approved routes. Conservative estimates for biodiesel or alternative
        fuel volumes are as follows:

                •   If biodiesel is used, an above-ground, SaO-galion capacity fuel tank with
                    required secondary containment would be constructed. The tank would
                    be mounted on saddles fixed on a concrete pad near the fuel dispenser.

                •   If propane or LNG is used, an above-ground, 1,OOO-gallon capacity
                    dispenser tank with required secondary containment would be
                    constructed. The tank would be mounted on a concrete pad.

        Project design requires that the fueling of yard trucks (Le., small rail yard service and
        personnel trucks) would occur outside of the ICTF at local gas stations in the vicinity
        of the ICTF. No gasoline or diesel fuel storage would be required or would occur
        within the ICTF. Any remaining diesel-fueled equipment (such as the top pick) would
        be fueled, as needed, directly from a fuel delivery truck that would come onto the
        ICTF periodically for that purpose. Locomotives would continue to be fueled at the
        Dolores Rail yard. Existing privately-owned pipeline corridors along the southeastern
        and southern project boundaries would not be disturbed as part of the proposed
        Project. No other pipelines would be impacted.

        1.5.10 Water and Sewer
        Existing LADWP drinking water and wastewater disposal services would continue
        after completion of the proposed Project. New drinking water lines, fire suppression
        utilities (pipes, valves, hydrants, etc.), and sewer lines serving new buildings and
        equipment would be linked with existing infrastructure.

        1.5.11 Pressu rized Air
        New air compressors and new air pits are proposed to be constructed to provide
        adequate air pressure and outlets for proposed additional tracks and trains. The

ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                         January 2009
                                                14



                                                                                        3-134
                                              Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                            Project Description

        need to retrofit the existing compressed air system would be evaluated if main air
        pipes require replacement.

        1.5.12 Construction Activities
        The proposed Project is expected to be constructed over multiple stages, beginning
        on the east side of the ICTF, while maintaining the number of operational loading
        tracks at current levels throug~out the construction period. Construction of the
        proposed Project is estimated to take 3 to 4 years for completion.

        New loading track construction would progress in pairs from east to west, beginning
        with construction of new loading tracks 803 and 804 on the eastern ICTF boundary.
        As new loading tracks are completed and placed into service, the next pair of tracks
        would be constructed. Each construction stage would take approximately 4 to 6
        months.

        The operating methods are proposed to be modified to make existing tracks 801 and
        802 available to swap lift operations between tracks and to shift associated truck
        traffic to opposing sides of the tracks. This flexibility, in conjunction with adding the
        new track 4 in Stage 1, provides a means of completing the east electric WSG
        module as the first major milestone. The proposed Project would maintain current
        parking and container storage capacity during construction. The proposed Project
        requires that some early container stacking be implemented to offset lost surface
        stalls during construction. The staged construction sequence requires that the
        parking stalls be converted to container stacking. RTG cranes capable of stacking
        containers up to three units high and three or four wide would be used on a
        temporary basis during the construction period to store up to 450 stacked containers,
        compared with the existing 200 wheeled-parking stall configuration.

        Finally, the proposed Project, if necessary, would convert a storage lot to temporary
        container stacking using 60-foot-wide span RTG cranes, which would be evaluated
        as part of construction impacts in the EIR. The storage lot is located near the
        existing Sepulveda Boulevard gate. Temporary asphalt-concrete runways would
        likely be required in this area, depending on the duration of the container stacking
        operations.

        The various construction stages are based on a conventional 40-hour work week,
        with crews beginning work between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., and ending work between
        3:30 and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Peak construction periods would require
        the employment of between 100 to 150 construction workers. It may be necessary to
        extend the construction schedule described above to weekend days and/or second
        shift work that could include two 1O-hour work shifts up to 7 days a week for shorter
        periods of time. However, any such weekend and/or second-shift work will comply


ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                         January 2009
                                                15


                                                                                        3-135
                                               Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                             Project Description

        with all applicable city ordinances, and appropriate permits will be obtained prior to
        commencing such work.

        1.5.13 Hazardous and Environmentally Sensitive Materials
        During the course of Project operations, UP will continue to use its current
        procedures for the containment and cleanup of any hazardous or environmentally
        sensitive materials found to be I~aking from container cargo, in conformance with all
        applicable laws.

1.6     Clean Air Action Plan and Other Regulatory Programs
The Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) has been developed through the collaborative efforts of
the Ports, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other
public and industry stakeholders. The CAAP includes industry-specific mitigation measures
and incentive programs, including the Clean Trucks Program, to reduce air emissions and
health risks associated with operations at the Ports. CAAP control measures applicable to
the proposed Project are identified below:

        1.6.1 HDV-1 Performance Standards for On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles
              (HDV)
        The control measure is focused on maximizing the reductions from frequent (7 or
        more calls per week) and semi-frequent (3.5 to less than 7 calls per week) caller
        trucks that service both Ports. This control measure sets forth the following "clean"
        truck definitions:

                ..   All frequent caller trucks, and semi-frequent caller container trucks model
                     year (MY) 1992 and older, calling at the San Pedro Bay Ports will meet or
                     be cleaner than the EPA 2007 on-road emissions standard (0.01 grams
                     per brake horsepower in one hour (g/bhp-hr) for PM) and the cleanest
                     available nitrogen oxides (NOx) at time of replacement.

                ..   Semi-frequent caller container trucks MY1993-2003 will be equipped with
                     the maximum CARB-verified emissions reduction technologies currently
                     available.

        The measure then sets target dates by which trucks will either be replaced or
        retrofitted to meet the above standards. In order to accommodate this massive
        transformation of the existing truck fleet, Port, SCAQMD, and other public funding
        will be required. The program also sets forth suggested strategies to maximize the
        use and emissions reductions of "clean" trucks calling at both ports.




ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                        January 2009
                                                16


                                                                                       3-136
                                               Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                             Project Description

        1.6.2 CHE-1 Performance Standards for Cargo Handling Equipment
              (CHE)
        This measure sets fuel neutral purchase requirements for CHE, starting in 2007. The
        focus is moving the yard tractor fleet to either the cleanest available diesel or the
        cleanest available alternative fuel engines meeting EPA on-road 2007 or Tier IV PM
        and NOx standards, and for other equipment for which these engines are not
        available, the installation of the cleanest CARB VDECs. It also requires that by 2010,
        all yard tractors operating at the Ports will have the cleanest engines meeting EPA
        on-road 2007 or Tier IV engine standards for PM and NOx. All remaining CHE less
        than 750 horsepower (hp) will meet at a minimum the 2007 or Tier IV standards for
        PM and NOx by 2012. Finally, the measure calls for all remaining CHE greater than
        750 hp to meet Tier IV standards for PM and NOx by 2014 and prior to that, be
        equipped with the cleanest available VDEC.

        1.6.3 RL-2 - Existing Class 1 Railroad Operations
        This measure effects only existing Class 1 railroad operations on Port property
        (SPBP-RL3 effects all new or redeveloped rail yards). The goal of this measure is to
        secure an agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Class 1
        railroads, and use other contractual mechanisms, to reduce emissions from their
        existing operations on Port properties that do not have a CEQA action pending in the
        next 5 years (Le. new or redeveloped rail yard). This measure lays out stringent
        goals for switcher, helper, and long haul locomotives operating on Port properties. By
        2011, all diesel-powered Class 1 switcher and helper locomotives entering Port
        facilities will be 90 percent controlled for PM and NOx, and will use 15-minute idle
        restrictors. Starting in 2012 and fully implemented by 2014, the fleet average for
        Class 1 long haul locomotives calling at Port properties will be Tier III equivalent (Tier
        2 equipped with Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) and Selective Catalytic Reduction
        (SCR) or new locomotives meeting Tier 3) PM and NOx and will use 15-minute idle
        restrictors. Class 1 long-haul locomotives operate on USLD while on Port properties
        as of the end of 2007. Technologies to get to these levels of reductions will be
        validated through the Technology Advancement Program.

        1.6.4 RL-3 Control Measures for New and Redeveloped Rail Yards
        Rail facilities include many emission-producing activities, including the operation of
        switching and line-haul locomotives, idling of switching and line-haul locomotives,
        loading and unloading of railcars by CHE, and HDVs servicing the yards. New rail
        facilities, or modifications to existing rail facilities located on Port property, will
        incorporate the cleanest locomotive technologies, meet the requirements specified in
        SPBP-RL2, utilize "clean" CHE and HDV, and utilize available "green-container"
        transport systems. A list of these technologies will be provided for project proponents
        to consider in developing new facilities or redeveloping existing facilities, and the
        measures will be formalized in lease requirements.

ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                          January 2009
                                                17



                                                                                         3-137
                                              Chapter One: Notice of Preparation
                                                            Project Description

        In addition to the CAAP, CARB and EPA have adopted regulations that require
        emission reductions from equipment at rail yards such as CHE, HDV, and trains. The
        resulting emission reductions will be attributed to these existing programs, but will
        not be considered benefits of the proposed Project. Those emission reductions or
        environmental benefits that go over and above the existing emission reduction
        programs will be considered benefits of the proposed Project.

1.7     Cumulative Analysis
In accordance with CEQA, the EIR will include an analysis of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects in the area. Included as a subset of this will be an analysis of the
synergistic effects of the proposed Project and the adjacent Southern California International
Gateway Project being proposed by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad.

1.8     Alternatives
Consistent with CEQA, the EIR will include an evaluation of a reasonable range of
alternatives that would meet most of the Project objectives. In addition to the mandatory No
Project Alternative, other alternatives to be evaluated for feasibility and reduction of
environmental impacts will include a reduced capacity alternative, alternative locations for
the facility, including the use of on-dock and inland Port facilities, alternative transportation
system technology, and alternative technology delivery systems from the Port to the Project
site.




ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project                                         January 2009
                                                18



                                                                                        3-138

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:117
posted:8/8/2011
language:Spanish
pages:138