Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project Draft EIR

Transcription

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project Draft EIR ES.1 Introduction In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15123, this section of this environmental impact report (EIR) contains a summary of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project (proposed project) and its environmental effects. More detailed information regarding the proposed project and its potential environmental effects is provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations of this EIR. This EIR has been prepared by the City of Long Beach (City) as the Lead Agency in conformance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. Included in this summary is an overview of the purpose and organization of the EIR, a summary of the project and its location, a description of the project objectives and characteristics, an overview of project alternatives, a general description of the terminology used in the EIR, a summary of the project s impacts and proposed mitigation measures. ES.1.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR and Environmental Review Process In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section , the purpose of this EIR is to identify the significant environmental impacts of the project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects could be mitigated or avoided. The Draft EIR is being provided to the public for review and comment. After public review and comment, a Final EIR will be prepared that would include responses to comments on the Draft EIR received from agencies, organizations, and individuals. The Final EIR would then provide the basis for decision-making by the City and other agencies. Other agencies (state, regional, and local), as described in Chapter 1, Introduction, that have jurisdiction over an element of the proposed project or a resource area affected by the proposed project are expected to use this Draft EIR as part of their approval or permitting process. This Draft EIR would support permit applications, construction contracts, and other actions required to implement the proposed project and to adopt mitigation measures that are intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. ES.2 Draft EIR Organization The EIR is organized into chapters as identified and briefly described below. The chapters are further divided into sections (e.g., Section 3.2, Air Quality): Executive Summary: This chapter presents a summary of the proposed project and the identified environmental impacts. It describes mitigation measures that would be implemented and the level of significance both before and after mitigation (as fully analyzed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, ES-1

2 Executive Summary ES.3 Project Summary ES.3 Impacts, and Mitigation Measures). It also provides a summary of alternatives to the proposed project, a summary of known controversial issues, and a summary of issues to be resolved. Chapter 1, Introduction: This chapter presents a project overview; a discussion of the purpose and use of this EIR; a discussion of the environmental process; and the organization of this EIR. Chapter 2, Project Description: This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project and its location. It also identifies project objectives, project characteristics, the development schedule, and the intended uses of the EIR, including permits and approvals that would be required to implement the project. Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: For each environmental issue, this chapter describes the existing environmental and regulatory settings, evaluates and reaches significance conclusions for project-specific and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, identifies mitigation for impacts determined to be significant, and discusses the level of significance after implementation of those mitigation measures. Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations: This chapter identifies impacts considered to be significant and unavoidable. In additional, the growth-inducing effects and significant irreversible environmental changes associated with construction or operations of the proposed project are also identified. Chapter 5, Alternatives: This chapter provides information regarding project alternatives to be considered by decision makers in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section The alternatives analysis evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. In addition, this chapter summarizes the alternatives that were considered but rejected from further consideration because they did not meet project objectives, were determined to be infeasible, or did not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Chapter 6, Report Preparers: This chapter lists the individuals, firms, and lead agency that were involved in preparing this EIR. Chapter 7, Abbreviations/Acronyms and Glossary: This chapter lists and defines abbreviations/acronyms and technical terms used in this EIR. Appendices: This EIR includes appendices that provide either background information or additional technical support for the analysis. Project Summary Beach Oil Minerals Partners (BOMP, the Applicant) proposes to consolidate their existing oil operations and implement a wetlands habitat restoration project (proposed project) that would provide new public access opportunities to a portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. The proposed project would occur on four individual sites, which together comprise the project site. These sites are described in detail below and are commonly known as the Synergy Oil Field site, the City Property site, the Pumpkin Patch site, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) site. Existing oil operations on the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites would be phased out over time, and new oil production facilities would be constructed and operated on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites. The northern portion of the Synergy Oil Field site would be remediated, if ES-2

3 Executive Summary ES.4 Project Location necessary, and restored to a natural wetland area that would be operated as a wetlands mitigation bank. 1 Oil operations on the southern portion of the Synergy Oil Field site and on the City Property site would continue for a fixed period of time of up to 40 years, but would ultimately be phased out as new operations are established on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites. The proposed project also includes the construction of a new office building and storage structure on the Pumpkin Patch site to support the oil operations. Once the offices are relocated to the Pumpkin Patch site, the proposed project would relocate the existing office building on the Synergy Oil Field site to another location on the Synergy Oil Field site, repurpose it for use as a visitors center, construct a small parking area, and construct a perimeter trail to provide public access to the portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands restored as part of this project. ES.4 Project Location The proposed project is located within the City of Long Beach, which is within the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County, California. The City is bounded by the Cities of Carson and Los Angeles, the neighborhood of Wilmington, and the Port of Los Angeles to the west; the Cities of Compton, Paramount, and Lakewood to the north; and the Cities of Hawaiian Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach to the east. The Pacific Ocean borders the City to the south. Figure ES-1, Regional Location, shows the regional location of the proposed project. The proposed project is also located entirely within the existing Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) Planned Development District (Planned Development District 1 [PD-1]), which encompasses approximately 1,472 acres and consists of land south of 7th Street, east of Bellflower Boulevard, east of the Long Beach Marine Stadium and Alamitos Bay docks, south of Colorado Street, and north and west of Long Beach s southern boundary, in the southeast corner of the City. It borders the County of Orange to the east and south and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. SEADIP/PD-1 is currently being reviewed and updated by the City as part of the proposed Southeast Area Specific Plan Update (SEASP). The SEASP, if approved, will serve as the zoning for the site, replacing the existing PD-1, including development standards (setbacks, densities, heights, buffers, etc.) and design guidelines. The proposed project site is generally bordered by the Los Cerritos Channel to the north, beyond which is a residential development; Studebaker Road to the east, beyond which is the AES Power Plant site, and the San Gabriel River; the San Gabriel River to the southwest, beyond which are undeveloped areas; and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the west, beyond which is commercial development and Alamitos Bay. Figure ES-2, Project Site and Local Vicinity, illustrates the project site relative to its immediate surroundings. 1 Mitigation banking is the preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC) of a wetland, stream, or habitat conservation area which offsets, or compensates for, expected adverse impacts to similar nearby ecosystems. The approval and establishment of the mitigation bank, including the wetlands restoration plan that will be implemented, is subject to a separate regulatory process overseen by the interagency review team (IRT) consisting of State and federal resources agencies, and led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ES-3

4 Long Beach Airport HAWAIIAN GARDENS Redondo Beach Carson 405 Rancho Palos Verdes Compton UV Long Beach!\ 5 Cerritos 605 Project Sites Seal Beach Pacific Ocean UV1 405 Huntington Beach SIGNAL HILL CYPRESS LOS ALAMITOS UV 1 ROSSMOOR LONG BEACH UV UV 1 WESTMINSTER 0 1 Miles Pacific Ocean UV 1 SEAL BEACH Project Site Boundaries SOURCE: ESRI Long Beach Cerritos Wetland Figure ES-1 Regional Location

5 Studebaker Rd Los Cerritos Channel Steamshove l Slough Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\15xxxx\D150712_Long_Beach_Cerritos_Wetland\Fig2-2_LocalVicinity_Updated.mxd, janderson 7/7/2017 Alamitos Bay 0 1,000 Feet UV 1 Synergy Oil Field Site 2nd St City Property Site LCWA Site Pumpkin Patch Site 2nd St San Gabriel River Haynes Cooling Channel Project Site City Property Site LCWA Site Pumpkin Patch Site Synergy Oil Field Site SOURCE: ESRI Long Beach Cerritos Wetland Figure ES-2 Project Site and Local Vicinity

6 Executive Summary ES.5 Project Objectives The proposed project is composed of four individual sites. The four individual sites total approximately 195 acres. Each site s location and ownership is provided in more detail below: ES.5 Synergy Oil Field site: The Synergy Oil Field site consists of an approximately 150-acre property located at 6433 East 2nd Street. The site is bounded by PCH to the west, 2nd Street to the south, Studebaker Road to the east, and the Los Cerritos Channel to the north. The site is owned by Los Cerritos Wetlands, LLC. (APNs: , , , , , and ) City Property site: The City Property site is an approximately 33-acre site located at 2nd Street and Shopkeeper Road. The site is bounded by Shopkeeper Road to the west, 2nd Street to the north, undeveloped land to the east, and the San Gabriel River to the south. The site is owned by the City of Long Beach. LCW Oil Operations, LLC holds rights to operate oil production facilities on the City Property site subject to a surface use agreement and easement. (APNs: and ) Pumpkin Patch site: The Pumpkin Patch site comprises an approximately 7-acre property located at 6701 PCH. The site is undeveloped except for an oil well and associated pipeline, and is used seasonally as a pumpkin patch and Christmas tree lot. The site is bounded by PCH to the west, the San Gabriel River to the south, the commercial-retail uses at the Marketplace to the north, and the undeveloped land associated with the City Property to the east. A Lyon Living affiliate owns the site. (APNs: , , and ) Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority site: The LCWA site consists of an approximately 5-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Studebaker Road and 2nd Street. The site is bounded by 2nd Street to the south and Studebaker Road to the west and is adjacent to industrial development to the north and east. The site is owned by the LCWA. (APN: ) Project Objectives The project objectives are identified below to describe the underlying purpose of the proposed project and to guide the selection of potential project alternatives. These project objectives represent a combination of both the Lead Agency s and the Applicant s intent and purpose in moving forward with the project. Restore historic tidal connection to a greater portion of the degraded Los Cerritos Wetlands through establishing a wetlands mitigation bank that will result in restoration and creation of a self-sustaining 78-acre restored coastal wetlands habitat, including habitat for special-status plant and animal species. Restore tidal salt marsh habitat and associated subtidal, intertidal, transitional, and upland habitats, taking into consideration potential sea level rise due to climate change. Provide public access and education opportunities through construction of a trail and interpretive facility, and future conveyance of privately owned property into public ownership through a land exchange. Reduce the footprint of oil production operations on both privately owned and City-owned portions of the Los Cerritos Wetlands to less than 10 acres of property with minimal habitat impacts. Improve the efficiency of oil production operations through the eventual phase out of early-20th-century oil production equipment and replacement with more-efficient and modern equipment and operations that will utilize the latest technology and operational advancements related to safety, energy, and production efficiency and concentrate production on a smaller footprint. Protect coastal dependent energy development by optimizing oil and gas production from the oil reserves within the City s jurisdiction that will help fund the costs of wetlands restoration and continue to provide ES-6

7 ES.6 Executive Summary Project Characteristics ES.6 a source of revenue to the City of Long Beach as well as short-term and long-term employment opportunities. Provide environmental clean-up of old landfills on private property proposed for oil production and wetlands protection, and contaminated soils on the oil field site. Assist the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority in accomplishing its purpose to provide for a comprehensive program of acquisition, protection, conservation, restoration, maintenance and operation and environmental enhancement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands area consistent with the goals of flood protection, habitat protection and restoration, and improved water supply, water quality, groundwater recharge, and water conservation by providing for the eventual transfer through a land exchange of an approximately 156-acre, privately owned oil field into the Authority s ownership, the construction of a new visitors/interpretive center, and new public access trail. Help implement the Los Cerritos Wetlands Conceptual Restoration Plan by relocating existing oil production activities and making available the former oil field for wetlands restoration and future transfer of the property from private ownership to LCWA stewardship. Enhance gateway entry points to the City over existing industrial conditions and improve pedestrian walkability. Help achieve State-wide goal of sustainability by reducing reliance on foreign oil and inter-state natural gas pipelines by developing locally sourced and consumed resources using energy-efficient technology. Reduce energy use environmental impacts, efficiently use project-sourced natural gas, and increase project reliability/safety with a microgrid that integrates multiple on-site energy sources with highefficiency controls on energy-using equipment. Project Characteristics As described above, the project site consists of the Synergy Oil Field site, City Property site, Pumpkin Patch site, and LCWA site. The proposed project would phase out, over time, the existing oil production facilities from the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites and establish two new oil production sites on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites. In addition, the proposed project would implement a wetlands habitat restoration project that would remediate, if necessary, and restore acres of the northern portion of the Synergy Oil Field site. Revegetation of the southern acres of the Synergy Oil Field site would occur as oil equipment, wells, and related facilities are removed over time. New public access opportunities would be provided through the relocation and renovation of the Bixby Field Office building into a visitors center and construction of a new perimeter access trail. A majority of the construction activities contemplated by the proposed project would occur over the first 4 years, with the drilling of new oil wells occurring over a period of approximately 8 to11 years, and full production of the two new operating areas anticipated to be within 11 years, with phase out of the existing wells occurring over a 40- year period with 50 percent of the existing wells phased out in the first 20 years and the remaining approximately 26 wells phased out over the next 20 years. The following eight project activities could occur within a given year: Demolition and Remediation Well Plugging and Abandonment Grading Site Improvement Work and Restoration Activities Construction of Non-Oil Facilities ES-7

8 Executive Summary ES.6 Project Characteristics Construction of Oil Facilities Well Drilling Operations The phasing and actions necessary to implement the proposed project are described in greater detail below. ES.6.1 Project Activities by Site The proposed project would include a number of activities at each site, some temporary activities occurring simultaneously, and other activities occurring over the course of several years. The information in the sections below describes the project activities by site and by year, including what would occur on each site during that year, including demolition or removal activities, construction activities, well plugging and abandonment activities, and long-term operational activities. ES Synergy Oil Field Site Activities during Year 1 would include demolition and remediation; grading; site work and restoration such as construction activities, planting and irrigation, mitigation and monitoring; and operations. Grading would conclude in Year 2, as would site work and restoration (though the monitoring would continue). Operations would be ongoing. Demolition and remediation would be initiated again in Year 2and would conclude in Year 3. Operations would continue and construction of non-oil facilities would be initiated, including the visitors center. In Year 4, construction of non-oil facilities would conclude and operations would continue. Well plugging and abandonment may begin in Year 4. Consistent with the well removal phasing schedule, half of all wells would be removed within 20 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date, which is estimated to be 4 years after the start of construction. At this time, it is not known which wells would be removed. All remaining wells would be removed within 40 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date. Operation of the visitors center and related operational oil facilities activities would continue for the life of the project. Table ES-1, Synergy Oil Field Site Activities, depicts the activities that are described above and that would occur on the Synergy Oil Field site over the life of the proposed project. Table ES-1 Synergy Oil Field Site Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Quarter Year 24 Year 44 Demolition and Remediation a Well Plugging and Abandonment Grading b Site Improvement Work and Restoration Activities c Construction of Non-Oil Facilities d Operations e a. Remove tank farm #1 and pipelines, remediating as needed; Remove tank farm #2 after LCWA tanks are operating. b. Install berm and sheetpile wall (restoration area); elevate building pad for visitors center; grade public access trail c. Complete plant installation; install sidewalks, bicycle trails, and fencing along site perimeter; improve parking area and public access trail; revegetate previously disturbed areas d. Relocate existing Bixby Ranch office building and repurpose for use as visitor center; complete public access trail e. Reduce future oil production potential by 75% at receipt of building permits; conduct well workover operations; reduce existing wells by 50% at 20 years and the balance at 40 years ES-8

9 ES.6 Executive Summary Project Characteristics ES City Property Site Activities conducted during Year 1 include demolition and remediation (as needed), grading, and site work and restoration. Activities conducted during Year 2 include construction of oil facilities and the start of operations, which would continue through Year 3. Well plugging and abandonment could potentially occur starting in Year 4. Consistent with the well removal phasing schedule, half of all wells would be removed within 20 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date, which is estimated to be 4 years after the start of construction. Because the plugging and abandonment of the 13 wells on the City Property site are premised upon the production activities of the existing wells that are currently operating on the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites, at this time it is not known how many of the 13 wells on the City Property site would remain in operation by Year 22 and could range from 0 to all 13 continuing to operate. Operation of the pipeline would continue for the life of the project. All remaining wells would be removed within 40 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date. Operation of the pipeline would continue for the life of the project. Table ES-2, City Property Site Activities, depicts the activities that are described above and that would occur on the City Property site over the life of the proposed project. Table ES-2 City Property Site Activities Quarter Demolition and Remediation a Grading Site Improvement Work and Restoration Activities b Year 1 Year Year 3 Year 4 Year 24 Year 44 Beyond Construction of Oil Facilities c Well Plugging and Abandonment Operations d NOTES: a. Remove pipeline and tank farm, and remediate as needed (consistent with the existing Surface Use Release Agreement and Grant of Easements (SURGE) agreement. b. Install sidewalk and bicycle lanes; revegetate as needed c. Construction of Pipeline, including jack and bore under 2nd St and Studebaker Road. d. Operations of pipeline is limited to the maintenance of the pipeline only. ES Pumpkin Patch Site Activities conducted during Year 1 include remediation (as needed) and grading. Activities conducted during Year 2 include site work and restoration, and construction of oil facilities. Construction of the oil facilities would continue through the year. Construction of non-oil facilities, such as a new office building, warehouse, energy system microgrid, and well drilling would be initiated in Year 3 and would conclude in Year 4. Well drilling would continue through Year 4. Facility operations would be initiated in Year 4, as would the potential for well plugging and abandonment. Well drilling would conclude during Year 11. Facility operations would continue, as would the potential for plugging and abandonment of the last remaining well. Consistent with the well removal phasing schedule, half of all wells would be removed within 20 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date. Facility operations would continue for the life of the project. All remaining wells would be removed within 40 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date. Facility operations would continue for the life of the project. ES-9

10 Executive Summary ES.6 Project Characteristics Table ES-3, Pumpkin Patch Site Activities, depicts the activities that would occur on the Pumpkin Patch site over the life of the proposed project. Table ES-3 Quarter Demolition and Remediation a Grading Site Improvement Work and Restoration Activities b Pumpkin Patch Site Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year Year 11 Year 24 Year 44 Beyond Construction of Non- Oil Facilities c Construction of Oil facilities d Well Plugging and Abandonment Well Drilling e Operations f a. Remove pipeline; remove landfill, if necessary. b. Revegetate previously disturbed areas; construct perimeter wall and parking area, improve site ingress/egress; install sidewalks/bike lanes c. Construct office and warehouse; landscape; install entrance monument; energize facilities (includes solar and EV charging stations) d. Construct well cellars, tanks, water treatment facilities and oil separation facilities e. 6 wells per site are expected to be drilled annually; drilling is expected to conclude within 8+ years. f. Maintain oil processing facilities; conduct well workover operations as needed; also constitutes establishment of Occupancy Date associated with well plugging and abandonment. ES LCWA Site Activities conducted during Year 1 include remediation, if needed, and grading. No demolition is anticipated as the site has no existing structures. Activities conducted during Year 2 include site work and restoration, construction of oil facilities, and construction of non-oil facilities. Construction of the oil facilities as described above would continue through the year. Construction of non-oil facilities would conclude in Year 3. Well drilling would be initiated, as would facility operations. Construction of oil facilities as described above would conclude in Year 4. Well drilling and operations would continue through Year 4. Well drilling would conclude during Year 14 or Year 15, and facility operations would continue throughout the life of the project. Table ES-4, Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Site Activities, depicts the activities that would occur on the LCWA site over the life of the proposed project. ES-10

11 ES.6 Executive Summary Project Characteristics Table ES-4 Quarter Demolition and Remediation a Grading Site Improvement Work and Restoration Activities b Construction of Non-Oil Facilities c Construction of Oil facilities d Well Drilling e Operations f Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Site Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year a. Remediate as needed. b. Construct perimeter wall; improve site ingress/egress; establish utility connections; install sidewalks and bicycle lanes c. Construct natural gas combustion system (including gas turbines and cogeneration facilities) and energize facilities. d. Construct well cellars, tanks, water treatment facilities, oil separation system. e. 6 wells per site are expected to be drilled annually; drilling is expected to last approximately 11+ years. f. Maintain oil processing facilities and natural gas combustion system; conduct well workover operations as needed. Year 14 Beyond ES.6.2 Construction Schedule and Workforce Schedule The project schedules for each site are provided above in Table ES-1, Table ES-2, Table ES-3, and Table ES-4. Over the course of 4 years, demolition and remediation, grading, site improvement work and restoration, construction of oil facilities, and construction of non-oil facilities would occur. Well drilling would be initiated in Year 3. Six wells per site (Pumpkin Patch and LCWA) per year would be drilled. Well drilling on the Pumpkin Patch is expected to take approximately 8 years; and well drilling on the LCWA site is expected to take approximately 11 years. Over the life of the life of the project, the wells may need to be redrilled/worked over. These activities would be restricted to 50 hours per week. Beginning in Year 4, the existing wells would be plugged and abandoned on the Synergy Oil Field, City Property, and Pumpkin Patch sites. Within 20 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date, half of all wells would be removed and abandoned. The balance of the wells would be removed and abandoned on or before the 40-year anniversary of the New Occupancy Date. Additionally, if an oil well produces less than one full barrel of oil per day for a period of 18 consecutive months, the well would be plugged and abandoned immediately. Construction and Drilling Workforce Between 110 and 160 workers would be required for construction activities per day. It is expected that most construction workers would meet on the Synergy Oil Field site and go to their respective construction sites on work buses. Approximately 40 to 60 personnel would be needed throughout the drilling process, which is expected to occur over a period of 8 to 12 years; drill rig workover operations would require substantially less. ES-11

12 Executive Summary ES.7 Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR ES.6.3 Land Conveyances To implement the proposed project, a land conveyance, or the general transfer of legal title of property from one entity to another, would occur. Specifically, the LCWA would convey in fee the LCWA site to the Applicant for the purpose of allowing the Applicant to drill approximately 70 oil wells on the LCWA site and to conduct oil production activities on the LCWA site. Additionally, the Applicant would convey in fee, by metes and bounds description (general boundary), approximately 1.42 acres containing the relocated office building on the Synergy Oil Field site and public access improvements (Studebaker Trail and Outlook Terrace) and the northern acre restoration area to the LCWA. The Applicant also intends to record an offer to dedicate the remaining acre southern portion of the Synergy Oil Field site to LCWA. Although the land will be offered to LCWA, LCWA may elect not to accept title until all oil operations have been plugged and abandoned and the site remediated, if necessary. ES.6.4 Development Schedule It is anticipated that the proposed project would be implemented and phased over time, beginning in 2018 and construction completed in ES.7 Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR The intent of the alternatives analysis in an EIR is to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of a project. Based on the significant environmental impacts of the project, the aforementioned objectives established for the project, and the feasibility of the alternatives considered, the following alternatives to the project are evaluated in this section. As some impacts associated with the alternatives analyzed below would be the same or similar to the proposed project (depending upon the resource area), this chapter should be read in conjunction with the impact analyses contained in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, which provides more detailed information on the individual resource areas and impacts of the proposed project. The Significance Thresholds and the methodology utilized in this chapter are the same as those utilized in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Therefore, for additional information regarding methodology, reviewers should reference the individual resource chapters for further details. ES.7.1 Alternative 1: No Project (No Build) Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section (e) requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the No- Project Alternative. Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, none of the proposed project components would be constructed and implemented and existing conditions would remain unchanged. The following would occur under the No Project Alternative: The Synergy Oil Field site would continue to operate the existing oil production facilities and no restoration of the wetlands on the northern portion of the site would occur. There would be no removal of abandoned pipeline and tank farms on the site. Plugging and abandonment of the oil wells would not occur. Well removal would not occur during the 40 years from establishment of the New ES-12

13 ES.7 Executive Summary Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR Occupancy Date. The Bixby Ranch Field Office building would not be rehabilitated and would remain in its current location on the site within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone and the visitors center, overlook terrace and picnic areas, trail, and associated parking lot would not be constructed. None of the proposed bikeway and sidewalk improvements on 2nd Street, Studebaker Road, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) would occur under this alternative. The Synergy Oil Field site would not be transferred to LCWA as part of the land exchange proposed by the project. The City Property site would continue to operate its existing oil production facilities concentrated in the southwestern portion and northern perimeter of the site. There would be no removal of abandoned pipeline and tank farms on the site. Plugging and abandonment of the oil wells would not occur. Well removal would not occur during the 40 years from establishment of the New Occupancy Date. The aboveground pipeline system and utility corridor through the site along the western oil service road (to connect the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites) would not be constructed. Neither of the two routes for the cased bored crossing for the utility bundle across the intersection of Studebaker Road and 2nd Street would occur. None of the proposed bikeway and sidewalk improvements on Westminster Avenue/2nd Street would occur under this alternative. The Pumpkin Patch site would continue to be used seasonally for the sale of pumpkins and Christmas trees and closed to the public for the remainder of the year, and would continue to operate its one active oil well. Plugging and abandonment of the single active oil well would not occur. The 24-foot oil tanks, tank storage area, well cellars, and oil processing facilities would not be constructed. A new office building and warehouse would also not be constructed. Up to 50 new wells would not be drilled. Additionally, landfill removal, if deemed necessary, would not occur. No gateway monuments would be constructed on PCH as a part of this alternative. None of the proposed bikeway and sidewalk improvements on PCH, Studebaker Road would occur under this alternative. The LCWA site would remain undeveloped and used on a temporary lease basis for equipment storage and staging under this alternative. The 70-foot oil tank, 35-foot water tank, 50-foot multi-use tanks, tank storage area, well cellars, oil processing facilities, and energy system microgrid (including photovoltaic, electric charging stations, and four gas turbines) would not be constructed. Up to 70 new wells would not be drilled. None of the proposed bikeway and sidewalk improvements on Studebaker Road and Westminster Avenue/2nd Street would occur under this alternative. ES.7.2 Alternative 2: No Project/ Development Consistent with Existing Zoning Alternative The No Project/Development Consistent with Existing Zoning Alternative would involve no change to the existing operations on the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites. As no new development would be proposed on the Synergy Oil Field or City Property site, bikeway and sidewalk improvements along 2nd Street, Studebaker Road, and PCH (adjacent to the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites) would not be provided. All other project components, including the wetland restoration, visitors center, overlook terrace, and Studebaker Trail on the Synergy Oil Field site and the City Property site would not be implemented as a part of Alternative 2. Furthermore, the aboveground pipeline/utility corridor would not be constructed on the City Property site under Alternative 2, which would avoid potential impacts to the wetland areas on the City Property site. Alternative 2 would involve development consistent with existing City zoning (SEADIP) on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites. This could result in commercial development (business park, office commercial, light industrial, restaurants and hotel) on the Pumpkin Patch site and light industrial development on the LCWA site. This alternative would still maintain the buffer area in Alternative 5, Relocated Pipeline Alternative. ES-13

14 Executive Summary ES.7 Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR Based on allowable development intensity, coupled with the development standards of the City s zoning, Alternative 2 could include the construction of nearly 58,000 square feet (sf) of retail and service uses (such as grocery stores, general retail, banks, personal services, etc.), along with 295 parking spaces on the Pumpkin Patch site. Under this alternative, the LCWA site could be developed with an approximately 26,900 sf of industrial warehouse/office uses and approximately 123 parking spaces. Bikeway and sidewalk improvements may be implemented adjacent to the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites in connection with the proposed development on those sites. ES.7.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Production Alternative Alternative 3 would develop the project; however, the number of new oil wells installed would be reduced on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites. Given the reduction in oil production on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites, the phasing duration for relocating and plugging and abandoning the existing oil wells on the Synergy Oil Field and City Property sites could be extended beyond 40 years under this alternative. The remaining project components, including the wetland restoration, visitors center, new office building, overlook terrace, Studebaker Trail on the Synergy Oil Field site, aboveground pipeline and utility corridor on the City Property site, and bikeway and sidewalk improvements, would be implemented as a part of Alternative 3. Given the reduced production, the storage tank heights on both the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites would be less than 35 feet to be consistent with the current SEADIP height restrictions. The number of turbines on the LCWA site would also be reduced from four to three. The reduced number of new oil wells on the Pumpkin Patch and LCWA sites would result in the reduction of potential oil production of the project under Alternative 3. ES.7.4 Alternative 4: SCE Substation Alternative Under Alternative 4, a large Southern California Edison (SCE) substation would be constructed at the LCWA site. The Synergy Oil Field Site and City Property sites would be developed with the same project components as the proposed project, including the well plugging and abandoning, wetland restoration, visitors center, new office building, overlook terrace, Studebaker Trail on the Synergy Oil Field site, aboveground pipeline and utility corridor on the City Property site, and bikeway and sidewalk improvements. The Pumpkin Patch site would be developed with the same project components as the proposed project, including 24-foot oil tanks, a tank storage area, well cellars, oil processing facilities, new office building and warehouse, and bikeway and sidewalk improvements on PCH and Studebaker Road. In addition, transmission lines providing electricity to the Pumpkin Patch site would be required under Alternative 4. Although it is not known, it is possible that a second substation on the Pumpkin Patch site may also be required under this alternative. The LCWA site would be developed with a large SCE substation, rather than the microgrid including the turbine power generation and photovoltaic components of the proposed project. Natural gas produced as byproduct of oil extraction would not be used on site, but instead sold into the regional grid or trucked off site. Although the project characteristics at the remaining sites would remain unchanged under this alternative, upgrades to SCE transmission lines connecting to the SCE substation on the LCWA site would be required. ES-14

15 ES.8 Executive Summary Terminology Used in this Environmental Analysis ES.7.5 Alternative 5: Relocated Pipeline Alternative The Relocated Pipeline Alternative would relocate the aboveground pipeline and utility corridor to the wider oil service road located on the eastern portion of the City Property site. This alternative would reduce impacts to habitat areas on the City Property site that would occur with construction of the aboveground pipeline and utility corridor under the proposed project. This alternative would avoid sensitive habitat areas and would still allow for consistency with the LCWA s Conceptual Restoration Plan. In addition, this alternative would provide a larger buffer between future tidal wetlands and existing freshwater wetlands that should be protected from salt water influence. Furthermore, this alignment would create more area for alkali meadow habitat to be restored, which is important since approximately 30 acres of alkali meadow would be lost due to tidal flooding that is proposed by the LCWA s Conceptual Restoration Plan. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative proposes two routes for boring between the City Property and LCWA sites. Figure 2-20, Aboveground Pipeline Corridor and Utility Corridor, in Chapter 2, Project Description, depicts one option for the cased bored crossing. As shown, the 42-inch cased bored crossing would travel diagonally from the southwest corner of the LCWA site, cross under 2nd Street, to the northeast corner of the City Property site, day lighting once it reaches the City Property. The second option for boring would have a 42-inch cased bored crossing initiate at the southwest corner of the LCWA site, cross under Studebaker Road perpendicularly, day light at the southeast corner of the Synergy Oil Field site, cross under 2nd Street perpendicularly, and day light again at the northeast corner of the City Property site. In order to avoid impacts due to the presence of the Newport-Inglewood Fault that traverses the City Property site, the project could not place the pipeline underground. Therefore, an aboveground alignment for the pipeline was proposed. Under the proposed project, the pipeline and utility corridor would be situated along the alignment of the western oil service road in order to maximize the amount of freshwater wetlands that could be restored in the future. This would be consistent with the LCWA Conceptual Wetlands Restoration Plan goal of maximizing freshwater wetland restoration opportunities; however, the eastern oil service road is wider and contains larger areas that have been previously disturbed and is lacking in vegetation as compared to the western oil service road. Thus, locating the Relocated Pipeline Alternative on the eastern oil service road would minimize disturbance to existing wetlands and sensitive vegetation that are present along the alignment of the western oil service road. Although Alternative 5 would result in less saltwater wetland restoration opportunities, it would increase freshwater wetland restoration opportunities and, thus, would also be consistent with the LCWA Conceptual Restoration Plan. The remaining components proposed as a part of the project would remain the same under this alternative. ES.8 Terminology Used in this Environmental Analysis In evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed project and the project alternatives, the level of significance is determined by applying the threshold of significance (significance criteria/thresholds) presented for each resource evaluation area. The following terms are used to describe each impact and, where significant impacts are determined, how mitigation measures are addressed: No Impact: A designation of no impact is given when the project would not cause a physical environmental impact. Less-than-Significant Impact: A less-than-significant impact is identified when construction or operation of the proposed project would not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be ES-15

16 Executive Summary ES.9 Scope of Analysis and Mitigation Measures ES.9 eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws and regulations or the implementation of identified mitigation measure(s). Significant Impact Public Resources Code Section defines a significant impact as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. The thresholds identified in each section of this EIR and the CEQA definition of significant impact are applied to reach this conclusion. Feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to the project must be identified and adopted if they would avoid or substantially reduce the significant impact. Significant Unavoidable Impact: A significant unavoidable impact is identified when the impact exceeds the defined significance criteria and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws and regulations and/or implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation refers to measures that have been proposed to avoid or lessen potentially significant impacts. Mitigation measures include: Avoiding the impact completely by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and/or Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Scope of Analysis and Mitigation Measures To determine the appropriate scope of analysis for this EIR, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) from April 28, 2016, through May 27, 2016, as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections and The NOP was circulated to solicit input from interested public agencies (e.g., responsible and trustee agencies) and interested individuals on the scope and content of this EIR. A copy of the letters and comments received during the NOP comment period are provided in Appendix A to this EIR. The City held a scoping meeting during the 30-day scoping period on May 11, 2016, to solicit comments and inform the public of this EIR. This EIR addresses the environmental issues determined to be potentially significant as identified and disclosed in the Initial Study and based on input from agencies and interested individuals provided during the Scoping Meetings and comment letters on the NOP. ES.9.1 Scope of Analysis Based on the NOP/IS, the following 18 resources areas were carried forward for further evaluation in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Seismicity, and Soils ES-16

17 ES.9 Executive Summary Scope of Analysis and Mitigation Measures Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Employment Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utility and Service Systems Energy Consumption The NOP/IS determined that the project would not have potentially significant impacts associated with agricultural resources because the project site is located within a highly urbanized area currently in use as an oil field; no farmland, forest land or timberland, agricultural uses, or related operations are present within the project site or surrounding areas; and the project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland or agricultural use, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act Contract (CDC 2013). Thus, no impact s related to agricultural resources would occur, and this topic is not evaluated in the EIR. The full discussion for this determination is provided in the NOP/IS in Appendix A of this EIR. ES.9.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, analyzes 18 environmental resources areas. The potential for environmental impacts of the proposed project on the environment were analyzed for each of the resource areas for both construction (e.g., short-term impacts throughout the construction period) and operation (e.g., long-term impacts) of the proposed project. Sections ES.9.3 through ES.9.5 summarize the less-than-significant impacts, significant impacts that can be mitigated, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. ES.9.3 Summary of Less-Than-Significant Impacts As shown below in Table ES-5, Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures/Project Requirements, on page ES-21, the EIR has determined that implementation of the proposed project (construction and/or operation) would result in a less-than-significant impact on seven of the 18 resources areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources ES-17

18 Executive Summary ES.9 Scope of Analysis and Mitigation Measures Population and Employment Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems ES.9.4 Summary of Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated As shown in Table ES-5, the EIR has determined that implementation of the proposed project (construction and/or operation) would result in a less-than-significant impact for the following eleven resources areas with the implementation of mitigation measures: Aesthetics Air Quality (operation) Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Seismicity, and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Noise Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources Energy Consumption The following is a list of impacts that have been determined less than significant with mitigation under the proposed project. Impact AES-3: The project would not result in substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the site. Impact AES-4: The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or night views in the area or that would substantially impact other people or properties. Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts: The project would not result in cumulative impacts to aesthetics. Impact AQ-2b: The project would not violate the air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation for operational-related NO X emissions. Impact AQ-3b: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) during operations. Impact AQ-4: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in excess of the localized significance thresholds and would not result in CO hotspot impacts. Impact AQ-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. ES-18