Final Certified Environmental Impact Report

E & B Oil Drilling & Production Project
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Public FINAL EIR
June 2014
SCH# 2013071038
Prepared By:
Marine Research Specialists
Prepared For:
City of Hermosa Beach

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES-1
PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... ES-1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................... ES-2
Proposed Oil Project ...................................................................................................... ES-4
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project ...................................................................... ES-4
Timeframe ...................................................................................................................... ES-5
PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ ES-6
PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .......................... ES-7
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... ES-7
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... ES-8
Biology ........................................................................................................................... ES-9
Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... ES-9
Land Use ........................................................................................................................ ES-9
Noise .......................................................................................................................... ES-10
Recreation .................................................................................................................... ES-10
Safety and Risk of Blowout .......................................................................................... ES-11
ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................... ES-11
No Project Alternative .................................................................................................. ES-11
Drilling from the AES Site ............................................................................................. ES-12
Reduced Wells Alternative ........................................................................................... ES-12
Reduced Timeframe Alternative ................................................................................... ES-12
Existing Pipelines Alternative ....................................................................................... ES-12
Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction ............................................................. ES-12
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .................................... ES-12
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................................................. ES-16
KNOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES .................................. ES-17
Table Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project and Alternatives ..
..................................................................................................................................... ES-19
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 The Environmental Impact Report Process ........................................................... 1-4
1.2.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report ............... 1-4
1.2.2 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ......................................................... 1-7
1.2.3 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant .................................................. 1-7
1.3 Proposed Project Approvals .................................................................................. 1-8
1.4 EIR Contents and Guide for the Reader .............................................................. 1-10
1.4.1 EIR Contents .............................................................................................. 1-10
1.4.2 Significance Criteria .................................................................................... 1-12
1.5 Final EIR Preparation and Certification Process ................................................. 1-13
1.6 CEQA Findings for Proposed Project Approval ................................................... 1-14
1.7 Mitigation Monitoring ........................................................................................... 1-15
Final Environmental Impact Report i E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
1.8 Background ......................................................................................................... 1-15
1.8.1 Project History ............................................................................................ 1-15
1.8.2 Lawsuits and Settlement Agreement .......................................................... 1-16
2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2 Proposed Project Objectives ................................................................................. 2-4
2.3 Historical and Current Operations ......................................................................... 2-5
2.4 Proposed Oil Project Phases ............................................................................... 2-10
2.4.1 Phase 1 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 2-10
2.4.1.1 Phase 1 Construction Activities ............................................................ 2-10
2.4.1.2 Phase 1 Site Preparation Detailed Schedule ........................................ 2-18
2.4.1.3 Phase 1 Site Preparation Personnel and Equipment Requirements .... 2-19
2.4.1.4 Phase 1 Truck Routes .......................................................................... 2-19
2.4.2 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing ....................................................................... 2-20
2.4.2.1 Phase 2 Site Geology and Drilling Objectives ...................................... 2-20
2.4.2.2 Phase 2 Construction and Drilling Activities ......................................... 2-24
2.4.2.3 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Schedule ................................................. 2-38
2.4.2.4 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Personnel & Equipment Requirements ... 2-39
2.4.3 Phase 3 Final Design and Construction ..................................................... 2-40
2.4.3.1 Phase 3 Onsite Construction ................................................................ 2-40
2.4.3.2 Phase 3 Offsite Pipeline Construction .................................................. 2-46
2.4.3.3 Phase 3 Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 2-55
2.4.3.4 Phase 3 Schedule ................................................................................ 2-55
2.4.3.5 Phase 3 Personnel and Equipment Requirements ............................... 2-57
2.4.4 Phase 4 Development and Operations ....................................................... 2-58
2.4.4.1 Phase 4 Drilling..................................................................................... 2-58
2.4.5 Drill Remaining Wells ................................................................................. 2-59
2.4.5.1 Phase 4 Processing and Operations .................................................... 2-60
2.4.5.2 Phase 4 Schedule ................................................................................ 2-68
2.4.5.3 Phase 4 Vehicle Requirements ............................................................ 2-69
2.4.6 Parking Requirements ................................................................................ 2-69
2.4.7 Project Life and Decommissioning ............................................................. 2-73
2.4.8 Project Scheduling Summary ..................................................................... 2-75
2.5 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project ............................................................ 2-75
2.5.1 Construction Phases .................................................................................. 2-76
2.5.2 Phase 2 Unsuccessful ................................................................................ 2-77
2.5.3 Temporary City Maintenance Yard ............................................................. 2-77
2.5.4 Permanent City Maintenance Yard ............................................................. 2-77
2.5.4.1 Parking Option ...................................................................................... 2-78
2.5.4.2 No Added Parking Option ..................................................................... 2-82
2.6 Agency Use of the Document .............................................................................. 2-82
2.6.1 Local and Regional ..................................................................................... 2-82
2.6.2 State ........................................................................................................... 2-83
2.6.3 Federal ....................................................................................................... 2-83
2.7 Potential Project Permits ..................................................................................... 2-83
2.7.1 Discretionary Permits and Approvals ......................................................... 2-83
3.0 Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Description of Cumulative Projects ........................................................................ 3-2
3.1.1 City of Hermosa Beach ................................................................................. 3-2
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project ii Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
3.1.2 City of Redondo Beach ................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 City of Torrance ............................................................................................ 3-3
4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting ................................................. 4.0-1
4.0.1 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................. 4.0-1
4.0.2 Oil Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.0-2
4.0.3 Formulation of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program ........... 4.0-3
4.0.4 Cumulative Projects Impact Analysis ................................................................. 4.0-4
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ............................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1.1 Assessing Existing Visual Environment ..................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1.2 Evaluating Project Impacts ........................................................................ 4.1-2
4.1.1.3 Assessment of Key Observation Points .................................................... 4.1-4
4.1.1.4 Lighting and Glare Methodology ................................................................ 4.1-6
4.1.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4.1-7
4.1.2.1 Local Setting .............................................................................................. 4.1-7
4.1.2.2 Light and Glare ........................................................................................ 4.1-12
4.1.3 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................... 4.1-13
4.1.3.1 California Coastal Act .............................................................................. 4.1-13
4.1.3.2 Title 24 – Part 11 – California Green Building Standards Code .............. 4.1-13
4.1.3.3 City of Hermosa Beach ............................................................................ 4.1-14
4.1.3.4 City of Redondo Beach ............................................................................ 4.1-15
4.1.3.5 City of Torrance ....................................................................................... 4.1-16
4.1.4 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................... 4.1-17
4.1.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 4.1-17
4.1.5.1 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Design Features ............................... 4.1-17
4.1.5.2 Dimensions of Major Visible City Maintenance Yard Project Components .......
................................................................................................................. 4.1-27
4.1.5.3 Dimensions of Major Visible Proposed Oil Project Components ............. 4.1-28
4.1.5.4 Proposed Oil Project Viewshed Mapping ................................................ 4.1-29
4.1.5.5 Key Observation Points View Simulations ............................................... 4.1-32
4.1.5.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts .................................................................. 4.1-91
4.1.5.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts ................................ 4.1-105
4.1.6 Comparison to Applicant Studies ................................................................... 4.1-109
4.1.7 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts ............................................... 4.1-109
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.1-110
4.1.9 Mitigation Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4.1-111
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................ 4.2-1
4.2.1.1 Meteorological Conditions ......................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1.2 Existing Air Quality Criteria Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants .......... 4.2-3
4.2.1.3 Existing Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................... 4.2-12
4.2.1.4 Existing Site Emissions ........................................................................... 4.2-20
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.2-20
4.2.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Regulatory Setting ...................................................... 4.2-20
4.2.2.2 GHG Regulatory Setting .......................................................................... 4.2-23
4.2.4.1 Design Features ...................................................................................... 4.2-35
Final Environmental Impact Report iii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
4.2.4.2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements ......................................... 4.2-35
4.2.4.3 Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................... 4.2-36
4.2.4.4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions ................................................. 4.2-44
4.2.4.5 Potential Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................. 4.2-58
4.2.4.6 Compliance with Area Air Quality Management Plans ............................ 4.2-67
4.2.4.7 Valve Box Options ................................................................................... 4.2-72
4.2.4.8 Pipeline Route Options ............................................................................ 4.2-72
4.2.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options ................................. 4.2-72
4.2.5 Comparison to Applicant Studies ..................................................................... 4.2-72
4.2.6 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts ................................................. 4.2-73
4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 4.2-73
4.2.8 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ................................................................................ 4.2-74
4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1.1 Onshore Resources ................................................................................... 4.3-2
4.3.1.2 Offshore Resources ................................................................................... 4.3-3
4.3.1.3 Rare, Endangered, and Special Status Species ....................................... 4.3-7
4.3.1.4 Sensitive Habitats .................................................................................... 4.3-15
4.3.2.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................ 4.3-17
4.3.2.2 State Resource Regulations .................................................................... 4.3-20
4.3.2.3 Local Regulations .................................................................................... 4.3-23
4.3.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts ........................................ 4.3-32
4.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Records and Literature Search ........................................................................... 4.4-5
4.4.3 Paleontological Records Search ........................................................................ 4.4-6
4.4.4 Cultural Resources Survey ................................................................................. 4.4-8
4.4.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 4.4-13
4.5 Energy and Mineral Resources ................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1.1 Electricity ................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1.2 Natural Gas ............................................................................................... 4.5-2
4.5.1.3 Transportation Fuels .................................................................................. 4.5-2
4.5.1.4 Minerals ..................................................................................................... 4.5-3
4.5.1.5 Energy Conservation and Alternative Energy Sources ............................. 4.5-3
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................. 4.5-6
4.5.2.1 Federal ...................................................................................................... 4.5-6
4.5.2.2 State .......................................................................................................... 4.5-7
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project iv Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
4.5.3 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................ 4.5-9
4.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Response ................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.1.1 Response Capabilities ............................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2.1 Codes and Standards ................................................................................ 4.6-5
4.6.2.2 Federal and State Regulations .................................................................. 4.6-9
4.6.2.3 Equipment Spacing ................................................................................. 4.6-12
4.6.4.1 Design Features and CUP Requirements ............................................... 4.6-17
4.6.4.2 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Impacts ............................................. 4.6-18
4.6.4.3 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts .................................. 4.6-25
4.7 Geological Resources/Soils ........................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.1.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1.2 Local Geology ............................................................................................ 4.7-3
4.7.1.3 Geologic Hazards ...................................................................................... 4.7-4
4.7.1.4 California Building Code (CBC) ............................................................... 4.7-12
4.7.1.5 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 ................................ 4.7-12
4.7.1.6 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 .................................................... 4.7-13
4.7.1.7 California Coastal Act .............................................................................. 4.7-13
4.7.1.8 California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources .................... 4.7-13
4.7.1.9 2012 Los Angeles County NPDES Permit ............................................... 4.7-14
4.7.1.10 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element .............. 4.7-14
4.7.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.7-15
4.7.3.2 Proposed Project Design Features .......................................................... 4.7-15
4.7.3.3 Applicant Prepared Studies ..................................................................... 4.7-21
4.7.3.4 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.7-21
4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards ............................................................................ 4.8-1
4.8.1.1 Study Area and Scope ............................................................................... 4.8-2
4.8.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................................. 4.8-3
4.8.1.3 Existing Site Hazards .............................................................................. 4.8-33
4.8.1.4 Existing Site Contamination ..................................................................... 4.8-34
Final Environmental Impact Report v E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
4.8.1.5 Existing Site Spill Potential ...................................................................... 4.8-38
4.8.2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations ................................................................ 4.8-40
4.8.2.2 California Laws and Regulations ............................................................. 4.8-46
4.8.2.3 Local Laws and Regulations .................................................................... 4.8-52
4.8.2.4 Other Applicable Guidelines, National Codes, and Standards ................ 4.8-54
4.8.2.5 Regulatory Oversight ............................................................................... 4.8-56
4.8.2.6 Oil Spill Response Organizations ............................................................ 4.8-56
4.8.4 Proposed Project Impacts ................................................................................ 4.8-58
4.8.4.1 Design Features ...................................................................................... 4.8-58
4.8.4.2 CUP Requirements .................................................................................. 4.8-59
4.8.4.3 Characteristics of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Odorant ......................... 4.8-61
4.8.4.4 Release Scenarios at the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipeline Route 4.8-64
4.8.4.5 Frequency Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines ....... 4.8-72
4.8.4.6 Consequence Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines .. 4.8-73
4.8.4.7 Risk Analysis of the Proposed Oil Project Site and Pipelines ................. 4.8-76
4.8.4.8 Proposed Project Impacts ....................................................................... 4.8-81
4.8.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Risks ...................................... 4.8-92
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1.1 Proposed Oil Project Site Topography and Drainage ................................ 4.9-1
4.9.1.2 Existing City Maintenance Yard Topography and Drainage ...................... 4.9-1
4.9.1.3 Pipeline Route Topography and Drainage ................................................ 4.9-1
4.9.1.4 Surface Water and Hydrology ................................................................... 4.9-2
4.9.1.5 Groundwater .............................................................................................. 4.9-4
4.9.1.6 Water Quality ............................................................................................. 4.9-5
4.9.1.7 Natural Oil Seeps ...................................................................................... 4.9-6
4.9.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies .............................................................. 4.9-7
4.9.2.2 State Policies and Regulations .................................................................. 4.9-9
4.9.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations ................................................................ 4.9-11
4.9.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.9-13
4.9.4.3 Applicant Prepared Studies ..................................................................... 4.9-14
4.9.4.4 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.9-15
4.10 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis ................................................ 4.10-1
4.10.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1.2 Recreation ............................................................................................... 4.10-4
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project vi Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
4.10.2.1 Federal .................................................................................................... 4.10-6
4.10.2.2 State ........................................................................................................ 4.10-6
4.10.2.3 Local ........................................................................................................ 4.10-8
4.10.3 Significance Criteria ........................................................................................ 4.10-11
4.10.4 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 4.10-12
4.10.4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................... 4.10-13
4.10.4.2 Recreation ............................................................................................. 4.10-21
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.10-23
4.10.7 Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis ........................................................... 4.10-23
4.10.7.1 Hermosa Beach General Plan ............................................................... 4.10-23
4.10.7.2 City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code ................................................ 4.10-34
4.10.7.3 City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan ........................................... 4.10-36
4.10.7.4 Coastal Act ............................................................................................ 4.10-39
4.10.7.5 Redondo Beach ..................................................................................... 4.10-39
4.10.7.6 Torrance ................................................................................................ 4.10-42
4.11 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1.1 Characteristics of Noise ........................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1.2 Characteristics of Vibration ...................................................................... 4.11-5
4.11.1.3 Project Area - Existing Noise and Vibration Environment ....................... 4.11-7
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.11-17
4.11.2.1 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards .............................................. 4.11-17
4.11.2.2 City of Redondo Beach Noise Standards .............................................. 4.11-22
4.11.2.3 City of Torrance Noise Standards ......................................................... 4.11-25
4.11.3.1 Oil Production Site ................................................................................. 4.11-29
4.11.3.2 Pipeline Construction and Trucking Routes .......................................... 4.11-29
4.11.3.3 Relocated City Yard ............................................................................... 4.11-30
4.11.3.4 Significance Criteria Rationale .............................................................. 4.11-30
4.11.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 4.11-32
4.11.4.1 Proposed Oil Project Noise Impacts & Mitigation .................................. 4.11-32
4.11.4.2 Traffic Noise Analysis ............................................................................ 4.11-91
4.11.4.3 Vibration Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 4.11-94
4.11.4.4 Relocation of the City Yard .................................................................... 4.11-96
4.11.4.5 Temporary City Maintenance Yard ...................................................... 4.11-119
4.11.4.6 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options ............................. 4.11-127
4.11.5 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts ............................................. 4.11-127
4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 4.11-127
4.11.7 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................................................................ 4.11-128
4.12 Public Services and Utilities ..................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................. 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................... 4.12-3
Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan ................................................................. 4.12-4
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code ...................................................................... 4.12-4
4.12.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................................. 4.12-5
4.12.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.12-5
Solid Waste ...................................................................................................... 4.12-5
Final Environmental Impact Report vii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Police ........................................................................................................... 4.12-6
4.12.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.12-6
4.13 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.1 Summary of Project-Specific Traffic Studies .................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.2 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4.13-2
4.13.3.1 Roadway Network ................................................................................... 4.13-4
4.13.3.2 Existing Levels of Service ...................................................................... 4.13-11
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.13-24
4.13.4.1 State ...................................................................................................... 4.13-24
4.13.4.2 Regional/Local ....................................................................................... 4.13-24
4.13.5.1 City of Hermosa Beach .......................................................................... 4.13-30
4.13.5.2 City of Redondo Beach .......................................................................... 4.13-30
4.13.5.3 City of Torrance ..................................................................................... 4.13-30
4.13.5.4 Caltrans and Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program . 4.13-30
4.13.5.5 Roadway/Freeway Segments ................................................................ 4.13-31
4.13.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................. 4.13-31
4.13.6.1 Transportation/Traffic Design Features, Operational Practices, and 1993
Conditions of Approval ......................................................................................... 4.13-31
4.13.6.2 Project Trip Generation ......................................................................... 4.13-36
4.13.6.3 Project Parking ...................................................................................... 4.13-40
4.13.6.4 Project Traffic Conditions Roadways ..................................................... 4.13-40
4.13.6.5 Project Traffic Conditions Intersections ................................................. 4.13-40
4.13.6.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts ................................................................ 4.13-41
4.13.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project ....................................................... 4.13-50
4.13.8 Potential for Public Parking Impacts ............................................................... 4.13-53
4.13.9 Impacts of Other Issue Area Mitigation Measures .......................................... 4.13-53
4.13.10 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................... 4.13-53
4.13.11 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ........................................................................... 4.13-109
4.14 Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.1.1 Sanitary Sewer Wastewater .................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1.2 Water Supply ........................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1.3 Surface Runoff ......................................................................................... 4.14-2
4.14.1.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4.14-3
4.14.2.1 Federal Regulations and Policies ............................................................ 4.14-4
4.14.2.2 State Policies and Regulations ................................................................ 4.14-4
4.14.2.3 Local Policies and Regulations ................................................................ 4.14-6
4.14.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.14-7
4.14.4.3 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.14-9
4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 4.14-20
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project viii Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
4.15 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.1 Background ............................................................................................. 4.15-1
4.15.2 California State Lands Commission ........................................................ 4.15-2
4.15.3 Approach ................................................................................................. 4.15-2
4.15.4 Environmental Setting ............................................................................. 4.15-3
4.15.5 Significance Criteria ................................................................................. 4.15-4
4.15.6 Policy Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.15-5
5.0 Alternatives Screening ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Description of Alternatives and Screening Analysis .............................................. 5-2
5.1.1 No Project Alternative ................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.2 Alternative Drilling and Production Locations ............................................... 5-4
5.1.2.1 Rosecrans Alternative Location .............................................................. 5-7
5.1.2.2 Exxon/Mobil Oil Torrance Refinery Alternative Location ........................ 5-9
5.1.2.3 AES Power Generating Station Alternative Location ............................ 5-11
5.1.2.4 Other Alternative Locations .................................................................. 5-14
5.1.3 Alternative Facility Equipment or Production Arrangements ...................... 5-16
5.1.3.1 Reduced Equipment Alternative ........................................................... 5-16
5.1.3.2 Reduced Wells Alternative.................................................................... 5-17
5.1.3.3 Reduced Timeframe Alternative ........................................................... 5-18
5.1.4 Alternative Transportation Arrangements ................................................... 5-18
5.1.4.1 Use of Existing Pipelines ...................................................................... 5-19
5.1.4.2 Trucking of Crude Oil ............................................................................ 5-19
5.1.4.3 Greenbelt to the North Pipeline Route .................................................. 5-20
5.1.4.4 Greenbelt to the South Pipeline Route ................................................. 5-20
5.1.5 Alternative City Maintenance Yard Arrangements/Locations ..................... 5-21
5.1.5.1 Other Locations for the City Maintenance Yard Alternative .................. 5-21
5.1.5.2 Alternative Locations for the Temporary Maintenance Yard ................. 5-23
5.1.5.3 Split Location for the Maintenance Yard Alternative ............................. 5-23
5.1.5.4 Phase 1 Construction of Permanent Yard ............................................ 5-24
5.1.6 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 5-24
5.1.6.1 No Project Alternative and Project Objectives ...................................... 5-24
5.1.6.2 AES Site Alternative and Project Objectives ........................................ 5-25
5.1.6.3 Oil Development with Reduced Wells and Project Objectives .............. 5-25
5.1.6.4 Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe and Project Objectives ..... 5-25
5.1.6.5 Use of Existing Pipelines and Project Objectives ................................. 5-25
5.1.6.6 Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction and Project Objectives ........... 5-26
6.0 Impacts and Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Impacts of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.1 No Project Alternative ................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.2 AES Site Alternative ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.3 Reduced Wells Alternative ......................................................................... 6-15
6.1.4 Existing Pipelines Alternative ..................................................................... 6-23
6.1.5 Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction ............................................ 6-27
6.2 Proposed Project Options and Scenarios ............................................................ 6-30
6.2.1 Valve Box Options ...................................................................................... 6-30
6.2.2 Pipeline Scenarios ...................................................................................... 6-30
6.2.3 City Maintenance Yard No Added Parking/Parking Option ........................ 6-30
6.2.4 Phase 2 Unsuccessful Scenario ................................................................. 6-31
6.3 Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives .............................................. 6-32
Final Environmental Impact Report ix E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
6.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative Analysis ........................................... 6-32
No Project Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project ................................. 6-34
AES Site Alternative Compared to Proposed Project .......................................... 6-34
Reduced Wells Alternative Compared to Proposed Project ................................ 6-35
Reduced Timeframe Alternative Compared to Proposed Project........................ 6-37
Existing Pipelines Alternative Compared to Proposed Project ............................ 6-38
Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Compared to Proposed Project .. 6-38
6.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................... 6-38
7.0 Other CEQA-Mandated Sections ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects ............................................................... 7-1
7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ....................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth .......................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Economic Growth ......................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.3 Precedent-Setting Action .............................................................................. 7-3
7.2.4 Development of Open Space ....................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Known Areas of Controversy or Unresolved Issues .............................................. 7-3
8.0 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............................ 8-1
8.1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Monitoring Authority and Enforcement Responsibility ........................................... 8-1
8.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsibility .................................................................... 8-2
8.4 General Monitoring Procedures ............................................................................. 8-2
8.5 Mitigation Monitoring Table ................................................................................... 8-3
9.0 List of Preparers and Agencies/Individuals Consulted During EIR Preparation ...... 9-1
10.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 10-1
Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................................................................................... 10-1
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................ 10-1
Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 10-5
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 10-6
Energy and Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... 10-8
Fire Protection and Emergency Response ..................................................................... 10-9
Geological Resources/Soils ............................................................................................ 10-9
Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards .............................................................................. 10-12
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 10-14
Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency Analysis ....................................................... 10-16
Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 10-17
Public Services and Utilities .......................................................................................... 10-17
Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................. 10-18
Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 10-18
Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 10-20
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project x Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Appendices (on the CD)
Appendix A- Project Description Design Data
Appendix B - Air Emission Calculations
Appendix C - Risk Assessment Calculations
Appendix D - Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix E - Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix F – Geology Reports
Appendix G – Cultural Resources Technical Study
Appendix H – Notice of Preparation, Scoping Document, Comments, and Responses
Appendix I – Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation
Appendix K – Public Notification List
Appendix L – 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632)
Appendix M – Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B
Appendix N – Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March 2,
2012.
Appendix O – Aesthetics - Visual Simulations.
Appendix P – Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan policies regulating oil and gas recovery.
Appendix Q - Comments on the DEIR and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report xi E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Tables
Table ES.1 Proposed Project Schedule Summary .......................................................... ES-5
Table ES.2 Proposed Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary .................... ES-7
Table ES.2 Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only ....
................................................................................................................. ES-14
Table ES.3 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant
Unavoidable Impacts Only ....................................................................................
................................................................................................................. ES-15
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Project ................... ES-17
Table 1.1 Project Planning Information ............................................................................ 1-2
Table 2.1 Proposed Project Schedule Summary ............................................................. 2-4
Table 2.2 Proposed Oil Project Design Parameters ...................................................... 2-11
Table 2.3 Phase 1 Project Schedule .............................................................................. 2-19
Table 2.4 Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Summary ...................................................................... 2-21
Table 2.5 Phase 2 Drilling Chemicals ............................................................................ 2-32
Table 2.6 Phase 2 Testing Chemicals ........................................................................... 2-37
Table 2.9 Phase 3 and 4 Processing Equipment Listing ................................................ 2-45
Table 2.12 Phase 4 Drilling Chemicals ............................................................................ 2-68
Table 2.15 Proposed Oil Project Parking Requirements .................................................. 2-71
Table 2.16 Proposed Oil Project Scheduling Summary ................................................... 2-76
Table 2.17 E&B Oil Drilling &Development Project Permits/Approvals ............................ 2-84
Table 2.18 Relocation of City Maintenance Yard Project Permits/Approvals .................. 2-86
Table 4.2-1 Historical Meteorological Data ...................................................................... 4.2-2
Table 4.2-2 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................... 4.2-5
Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Air Quality Data for Southwest Coastal LA County Sub-Region
(Project Area) ................................................................................................ 4.2-7
Table 4.2-4 Global Warming Potential of Various Gases ............................................... 4.2-14
Table 4.2-5 Electricity Generation Resource Mix and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.2-15
Table 4.2-6 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................ 4.2-34
Table 4.2-7 Construction Criteria Emissions .................................................................. 4.2-38
Table 4.2-8 Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated ................................................. 4.2-41
Table 4.2-9 Operational Criteria Emissions .................................................................... 4.2-46
Table 4.2-10 Operational Criteria Emissions: Mitigated ................................................... 4.2-48
Table 4.2-11 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source PM ............................ 4.2-50
Table 4.2-12 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source PM: Mitigated ............ 4.2-51
Table 4.2-13 GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 4.2-63
Table 4.2-14 Phase 4 Equipment Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................... 4.2-65
Table 4.2-15 Health Risk Assessment Results: Unmitigated ........................................... 4.2-66
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xii Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Table 4.2-16 Health Risk Assessment Results: Mitigated ................................................ 4.2-67
Table 4.3-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area ........ 4.3-8
Table 4.4-1 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 4.4-23
Table 4.5-1 California Energy Sources and Annual Consumption ................................... 4.5-1
Table 4.5-2 Energy Consumption in California by Sector and by Form ........................... 4.5-3
Table 4.6-1 Fire Stations Available to Respond to an Emergency at the Project Site ..... 4.6-2
Table 4.6-2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Guidelines .............................................. 4.6-5
Table 4.6-3 Applicable IRI, CCPS, NFPA, & API Equipment Spacing Requirements .... 4.6-13
Table 4.7-1 General Stratigraphic Section for Hermosa Beach Oil field Area .................. 4.7-3
Table 4.8-1 Frequencies for Common Events .................................................................. 4.8-8
Table 4.8-2 Frequencies for Fatality Events ................................................................... 4.8-11
Table 4.8-3 DOT National Gas Transmission Pipelines Incident Causes ...................... 4.8-12
Table 4.8-4 Thermal Radiation Serious Injury and Impacts ........................................... 4.8-22
Table 4.8-5 Overpressure Damage ................................................................................ 4.8-23
Table 4.8-6 Toxicological Effects of H2S ........................................................................ 4.8-26
Table 4.8-7 Fatality and Serious Injury Rates ................................................................ 4.8-28
Table 4.8-8 Event Tree Probabilities .............................................................................. 4.8-31
Table 4.8-9 Regulatory Oversight Responsibilities ........................................................ 4.8-56
Table 4.8-10 Facility Release Scenarios .......................................................................... 4.8-67
Table 4.8-11 Blowout and Loss of Well Control Frequencies .......................................... 4.8-71
Table 4.8-12 Scenario Failure Rates ................................................................................ 4.8-72
Table 4.8-13 Population Information ................................................................................ 4.8-77
Table 4.8-14 Potential Proposed Oil Project Pipeline Spill Volumes ................................ 4.8-87
Table 4.8-15 Pipeline Spill Frequencies and Rain Events: Herondo Area Only ............... 4.8-91
Table 4.10-1 Proposed Project General Land Use Plan Conflicts ................................. 4.10-13
Table 4.10-2 Proposed City Maintenance Yard General Land Use Plan Conflicts ........ 4.10-19
Table 4.11-1 Common Environmental Noise Levels ........................................................ 4.11-2
Table 4.11-2 Noise Control Metrics .................................................................................. 4.11-5
Table 4.11-3 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration .................................................. 4.11-6
Table 4.11-4 Summary of Existing Ambient Leq Noise Levels Around the Project Site .... 4.11-9
Table 4.11-5 Summary of Existing Ambient L50 Noise Levels Around the Project Site .. 4.11-10
Table 4.11-6 Existing Ambient Noise Levels Around the Project Site - Additional Statistics .....
............................................................................................................... 4.11-10
Table 4.11-7 Comparison of Noise Monitoring Results from the Truck and Pipeline Routes ....
............................................................................................................... 4.11-11
Table 4.11-8 Truck and Pipeline Route Ambient Noise Measurement Summary* ......... 4.11-14
Table 4.11-9 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation
Site ............................................................................................................ 4.11-15
Table 4.11-10 Recalculated Daytime Ambient Noise Levels around the City Yard Relocation
Site ............................................................................................................ 4.11-16
Table 4.11-11 Baseline Vibration Levels (2013) .............................................................. 4.11-16
Table 4.11-12 Baseline Vibration Levels (2012) .............................................................. 4.11-17
Table 4.11-13 Phase 1 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ........... 4.11-34
Final Environmental Impact Report xiii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Table 4.11-14 Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact ........................................... 4.11-36
Table 4.11-15 Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact ....................................... 4.11-36
Table 4.11-16 Phase 1 - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Mitigation ........................... 37
Table 4.11-17 Phase 1 - Predicted Construction Noise Impact with Mitigation ........................ 42
Table 4.11-16 Phase 2 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ........... 4.11-45
Table 4.11-17 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact ................... 4.11-48
Table 4.11-18 Phase 2 Noise Models - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ................... 45
Table 4.11-19 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact ........................... 48
Table 4.11-20 Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code ................................ 48
Table 4.11-21 Phase 2 - Predicted Test Production (Only) Noise Impact ................................ 49
Table 4.11-22 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact with Mitigation ... 53
Between 5AM and 2AM .................................................................................... 53
Table 4.11-23 Phase 2 - Predicted Drilling & Test Production Noise Impact with Mitigation ... 54
Including Super-Quiet Mode Operation, Between 2AM and 5AM ..................... 54
Table 4.11-24 Phase 2 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) ..... 54
Table 4.11-25 Phase 2 - Predicted Test Production (Only) Noise Impact with Mitigation ........ 60
Table 4.11-26 Phase 3 Site Construction Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level
Data................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.11-27 Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact ........................................ 62
Table 4.11-28 Phase 3 - Predicted Site Construction Noise Impact with Mitigation ................ 66
Table 4.11-29 Phase 3 Pipeline Construction Noise Models Equipment Usage and Noise
Level Data ......................................................................................................... 67
Table 4.11-30 Phase 3 - Predicted Pipeline Construction Noise Impact .................................. 75
Table 4.11-31 Phase 4 Noise Model - Equipment Usage and Noise Level Data ..................... 76
Table 4.11-32 Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact ................................... 78
Table 4.11-33 Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code ................................ 78
Table 4.11-34 Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact with Mitigation............ 82
Between 5AM and 2AM .................................................................................... 82
Table 4.11-35 Phase 4 - Predicted Drilling + Production Noise Impact with Mitigation............ 83
Including Super-Quiet Mode Operation Between 2AM and 5AM ...................... 83
Table 4.11-36 Phase 4 - Compliance with the Hermosa Beach Oil Code (with Mitigation) ..... 83
Table 4.11-37 Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact ........................................ 85
Table 4.11-38 Phase 4 - Predicted Production (only) Noise Impact with mitigation ................. 90
Table 4.11-39 Calculated Traffic CNEL Noise Level Increases on Valley Drive ...................... 95
Table 4.11-40 Demolition & Construction Equipment Ground Vibration Levels ....................... 96
Table 4.11-41 City Maintenance Yard Relocation Demolition & Construction Equipment Usage
and Noise Level Data ........................................................................................ 98
Table 4.11-42 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact .............................. 104
Table 4.11-43 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact ........................... 105
Table 4.11-44 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Demolition Noise Impact with Mitigation ...... 107
Table 4.11-45 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Construction Noise Impact With Additional
Noise Mitigation............................................................................................... 112
Table 4.11-46 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact ............................ 113
Table 4.11-47 Relocated City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation .... 114
Table 4.11-48 Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact ........................... 121
Table 4.11-49 Temporary City Yard - Predicted Operational Noise Impact with Mitigation ... 122
Table 4.12-1 Hermosa Beach Police Department Response Times (January-November
2013) ................................................................................................................... 3
Table 4.13-1 Level of Service Definitions Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ... 4.13-11
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xiv Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Table 4.13-2 Level of Service Definitions for Roadway/Freeway Segments .................. 4.13-13
Table 4.13-3 Level of Service Descriptions .................................................................... 4.13-13
Table 4.13-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU – Signalized Intersections)
............................................................................................................... 4.13-15
Table 4.13-5 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM – Caltrans and Torrance
Intersection) .............................................................................................. 4.13-18
Table 4.13-6 Existing Roadway/Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary ............ 4.13-20
Table 4.13-7 Proposed Oil Project Trip Generation Estimates ...................................... 4.13-38
Table 4.13-8 City Maintenance Yard Relocation with Proposed Oil Project – Intersection LOS
Comparison ............................................................................................... 4.13-50
Table 4.13-9 Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU -
Signalized Intersections) ........................................................................... 4.13-54
Table 4.13-10 Year 2015 plus Phase 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM –
Caltrans and Torrance Intersections ......................................................... 4.13-58
Table 4.13-11 Year 2015 plus Phase 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU –
Caltrans and Torrance Intersections ......................................................... 4.13-64
Table 4.13-14 Year 2016 plus Phase 3 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Caltrans and
Torrance Intersections) ............................................................................. 4.13-70
Signalized Intersection) ............................................................................. 4.13-72
Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) ........................................................ 4.13-76
Table 4.13-17 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU
– Signalized Intersections) ........................................................................ 4.13-78
Table 4.13-18 Build out Year 2035 plus Phase 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM
– Caltrans and Torrance Intersections) ..................................................... 4.13-82
Table 4.13-19 Phase 1 Roadway Segment Analysis ....................................................... 4.13-84
Table 4.13-23 Operations Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................. 4.13-104
Table 4.15-1 City of Hermosa Beach Statistical Summary* ............................................. 4.15-4
Table 5.1 Summary Results of the Alternatives Screening Analysis ............................... 5-3
Table 6.1 Proposed Project Options - Impact Comparison ............................................ 6-31
Table 6.2 Proposed Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary ..................... 6-34
Table 6.3 Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only ....
.................................................................................................................... 6-36
Table 6.4 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant
Unavoidable Impacts Only ............................................................................. 6-37
Table 8-1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ..................................................................... 8-4
Table 8-2 Air Quality and GHG’s .................................................................................... 8-10
Table 8-3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 8-16
Table 8-4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 8-18
Final Environmental Impact Report xv E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Table 8-5 Fire Protection and Emergency Response .................................................... 8-21
Table 8-6 Geological Resources/Soils ........................................................................... 8-24
Table 8-7 Safety, Risk of Upset and Hazards ................................................................ 8-31
Table 8-8 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 8-34
Table 8-9 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................ 8-37
Table 8-10 Transportation and Circulation ....................................................................... 8-46
Table 8-11 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 8-48
List of Figures
Figure ES.1 Proposed Project Location ............................................................................ ES-3
Figure 2.1 Proposed Project Location ............................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.2 Historical Wells Drilled in the Los Angeles Basin ............................................. 2-6
Figure 2.3 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2.4 Project Site and Area Land Uses (Zoning Map) ............................................... 2-9
Figure 2.5 Project Site and Pipeline/Electrical Connections ........................................... 2-12
Figure 2.6 Proposed Oil Project Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan ..................................... 2-15
Figure 2.7 Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas ................................................................. 2-22
Figure 2.8 Applicant Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas Cross Section .......................... 2-23
Figure 2.9 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan - Project Phase 2 ......................................... 2-25
Figure 2.10 Typical Well Bore and Casing ........................................................................ 2-30
Figure 2.12 Phase 2 Process Flow Diagram ..................................................................... 2-34
Figure 2.12 Truck Routes from Highway 405 to Project Site ............................................ 2-35
Figure 2.13 Truck Routes to Highway 405from theProject Site ........................................ 2-35
Figure 2.14 Phase 3 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................... 2-43
Figure 2.15 Proposed Pipeline Routes .............................................................................. 2-49
Figure 2.16 Typical Pipeline Construction Spread ............................................................ 2-52
Figure 2.18 Phase 4 Process Flow Diagram ..................................................................... 2-60
Figure 2.17 Phase 4 Site Plan with Drilling Rig ................................................................. 2-63
Figure 2-18 Cypress Parking Area ................................................................................... 2-74
Figure 2.19 Estimated Production Levels .......................................................................... 2-75
Figure 2.20 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Temporary Location .................. 2-79
Figure 2.21 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility Parking Option ..
.................................................................................................................... 2-80
Figure 2.22 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility No Added
Parking Option ............................................................................................... 2-81
Figure 4.1-1 Viewshed Analysis- Electric Drill Rig (Areas where the Drill Rig Can Be Seen)
4.1-30
Figure 4.1-2 Viewshed Analysis- Workover Rig (Areas where the Rig Can Be Seen) .... 4.1-31
Figure 4.1-3 View Location Map ...................................................................................... 4.1-37
Figure 4.1-4a KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ..
................................................................................................................. 4.1-38
Figure 4.1-4b KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking
Option.......................................................................................................... 4.1-39
Figure 4.1-5a KOP 2: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option ....
................................................................................................................. 4.1-40
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xvi Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Option.......................................................................................................... 4.1-41
................................................................................................................. 4.1-42
Option.......................................................................................................... 4.1-43
................................................................................................................. 4.1-44
Option.......................................................................................................... 4.1-45
................................................................................................................. 4.1-46
Option.......................................................................................................... 4.1-47
Figure 4.1-9 KOP 6: During Phase 2 and Phase 4 with Drill Rig ..................................... 4.1-48
Figure 4.1-10 KOP 7: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig ................................................ 4.1-49
Figure 4.1-11 KOP 10: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig .............................................. 4.1-50
Figure 4.1-12 KOP 10: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34 ........ 4.1-51
Figure 4.1-13 KOP 11: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................. 4.1-52
Figure 4.1-14 KOP 11: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34 ........ 4.1-53
Figure 4.1-15 KOP 11: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations ............................................ 4.1-54
Figure 4.1-17 KOP 12: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 2 .......... 4.1-56
Figure 4.1-18 KOP 13: Completion of Phase 1 Improvements ......................................... 4.1-57
Figure 4.1-20 KOP 13: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 2 ......... 4.1-59
Figure 4.1-22a KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1 ......................................... 4.1-61
Figure 4.1-22b KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1 WIDE ANGLE ................. 4.1-62
Figure 4.1-23a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 ......................................... 4.1-63
Figure 4.1-23b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE ................. 4.1-64
Figure 4.1-24a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 ........... 4.1-65
Figure 4.1-24b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 WIDE
ANGLE ........................................................................................................ 4.1-66
Figure 4.1-26 KOP 15: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4 ......................................... 4.1-68
Figure 4.1-27 KOP 15: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17 ...................................... 4.1-69
Figure 4.1-28 KOP 15: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 17 ......... 4.1-70
Figure 4.1-30 KOP 17: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17 ....................................... 4.1-72
Figure 4.1-33 KOP 18: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4 ......................................... 4.1-75
Figure 4.1-34 KOP 18: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 18 ....................................... 4.1-76
Figure 4.1-37 KOP 19: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 2 (rig not visible) ................ 4.1-79
Figure 4.1-38a KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 ....................................... 4.1-80
Figure 4.1-38b KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 WIDE ANGLE ............... 4.1-81
Final Environmental Impact Report xvii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Figure 4.1-39 KOP 19: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 34: WIDE
ANGLE ........................................................................................................ 4.1-83
Figure 4.1-41a KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig ................................................. 4.1-85
Figure 4.1-41b KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig: WIDE ANGLE ........................ 4.1-86
Figure 4.1-41c KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig and Crane: WIDE ANGLE ...... 4.1-87
Figure 4.1-42a KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2 ........... 4.1-88
Figure 4.1-42b KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2: WIDE
ANGLE ........................................................................................................ 4.1-89
Figure 4.1-44 Example of A Permanent Wall with Façade ................................................ 4.1-94
Figure 4.1-45 View Simulation of Drilling Rig at Night ..................................................... 4.1-101
Figure 4.1-46 Example Oil and Gas Processing Site Night Views .................................. 4.1-104
Figure 4.2-1 Wind Rose for King Harbor Meteorological Station ....................................... 4.2-3
Figure 4.2-2 PM2.5 Annual Compliance Status - 2011 ..................................................... 4.2-10
Figure 4.2-3 Ozone Annual Compliance Status - 2011 ................................................... 4.2-11
Figure 4.2-4 California GHG Emissions 2000-2011 ........................................................ 4.2-17
Figure 4.2-5 Acute Impacts Health Index ........................................................................ 4.2-68
Figure 4.2-6 Chronic Impacts Health Impacts ................................................................. 4.2-69
Figure 4.2-7 Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Unmitigated .............................................. 4.2-70
Figure 4.2-8 Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Mitigated ................................................... 4.2-71
Figure 4.3-1 Sensitive Biological Resources ................................................................... 4.3-14
Figure 4.3-2 Marine Protected Areas .............................................................................. 4.3-18
Figure 4.7-1 Regional Fault Map ....................................................................................... 4.7-2
Figure 4.7-2 Liquefaction and Landslides Map .................................................................. 4.7-8
Figure 4.8-1 Steps Involved in Developing a Quantitative Risk Assessment .................... 4.8-5
Figure 4.8-2 Existing Maintenance Facility Risk Profiles: Fatalities and Injuries ............. 4.8-36
Figure 4.8-3 Storm Drain System in the Facility Vicinity .................................................. 4.8-39
Figure 4.8-4 Storm Drain System Pictures ...................................................................... 4.8-40
Figure 4.8-5 Consequence Analysis Results: Fatality and Serious Injury ....................... 4.8-74
Figure 4.8-6 Areas That Could Be Potentially Exposed .................................................. 4.8-75
Figure 4.8-7 Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Gas Pipeline: Fatalities .................. 4.8-79
Figure 4.8-8 Risk Profiles for the Fixed Facility and Pipeline: Injuries ............................. 4.8-80
Figure 4.8-9 Pipeline Profile ............................................................................................ 4.8-86
Figure 4.9-1 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Proposed Project Area ............... 4.9-3
Figure 4.9-2 Location of Barrier Injection Wells in the Proposed Project Area .................. 4.9-5
Figure 4.10-1 Proposed Project Location .......................................................................... 4.10-5
Figure 4.10-2 Project Site and Area Land Uses .............................................................. 4.10-12
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Monitoring Locations around the Project Site ........................................... 8
Figure 4.11-2 Typical Noise Monitor Installation ....................................................................... 9
Figure 4.11-4 Noise Monitoring Locations along the Truck and Pipe Routes (2012 Study) .... 12
Figure 4.11-8 Noise Monitoring Locations around the City Yard Relocation Site .................... 15
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xviii Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Figure 4.11-9 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a
Receiver Height of 5-ft ...................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.11-10 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a
Figure 4.11-11 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITION for a
Receiver Height of 20-ft .................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.11-12 Phase 1 - Predicted Daily Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for
Figure 4.11-13 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a
Figure 4.11-14 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION for a
Figure 4.11-15 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a
Figure 4.11-16 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) for a
Figure 4.11-17 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .............................................................. 55
Figure 4.11-18 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during DRILLING & TEST PRODUCTION with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ............................................................ 56
Figure 4.11-19 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .............................................................. 58
Figure 4.11-20 Phase 2 - Leq Noise Contours during TEST PRODUCTION (ONLY) with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ............................................................ 59
Figure 4.11-21 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver
Height of 5-ft...................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4.11-22 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during SITE CONSTRUCTION for a Receiver
Height of 20-ft.................................................................................................... 65
Figure 4.11-23 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive
Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet .................................................................. 69
Figure 4.11-24 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Valley Drive
Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet ................................................................ 69
Figure 4.11-25 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Anita Street
Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ............................................... 70
Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet ............................................. 70
Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................ 71
Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................. 71
Figure 4.11-29 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach
Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................ 72
Figure 4.11-30 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Redondo Beach
Edison Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................... 72
Figure 4.11-31 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street
Westbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ............................................... 73
Figure 4.11-32 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction 190th Street
Eastbound Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................ 73
Figure 4.11-33 Phase 3 - Leq Noise Contours during Pipeline Construction Torrance Edison
Corridor Scenario, Receiver Height of 5-feet .................................................... 74
Final Environmental Impact Report xix E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Figure 4.11-34 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term DRILLING & PRODUCTION
for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .............................................................................. 79
for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ............................................................................ 80
with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-ft ...................................................... 86
with Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-ft .................................................... 87
Figure 4.11-38 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver
Height of 5-ft...................................................................................................... 88
Figure 4.11-39 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION for a Receiver
Height of 20-ft.................................................................................................... 89
Figure 4.11-40 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation
for a Receiver Height of 5-ft .............................................................................. 92
Figure 4.11-41 Phase 4 - Leq Noise Contours during Long Term PRODUCTION with Mitigation
for a Receiver Height of 20-ft ............................................................................ 93
Figure 4.11-42 Relocated City Maintenance Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON
for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................................ 100
Figure 4.11-43 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a
Receiver Height of 5-feet ................................................................................ 101
Figure 4.11-44 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON for a Receiver
Height of 20-feet.............................................................................................. 102
Figure 4.11-45 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION for a
Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................................. 103
Figure 4.11-46 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation
Figure 4.11-47 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................ 109
Figure 4.11-48 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during DEMOLITON with Mitigation
for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................................................... 110
Figure 4.11-49 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during CONSTRUCTION with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................................... 111
Figure 4.11-50 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS For a
Figure 4.11-51 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a Receiver
Height of 20-feet.............................................................................................. 116
Figure 4.11-52 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation
Figure 4.11-53 Relocated City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with Mitigation
for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................................................... 118
Figure 4.11-54 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a
Figure 4.11-55 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS for a
Receiver Height of 20-feet .............................................................................. 124
Figure 4.11-56 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 5-feet ........................................................ 125
Figure 4.11-57 Temporary City Yard - Leq Noise Contours during OPERATIONS with
Mitigation for a Receiver Height of 20-feet ...................................................... 126
Figure 4.13-1 Traffic Study Intersections Locations .......................................................... 4.13-5
Figure 4.13-2 Location of Roadway Segments Studied .................................................... 4.13-6
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xx Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Figure 4.13-3 Existing and Proposed Bike Paths in Hermosa Beach ............................. 4.13-10
Figure 4.13-4 Safe Routes to School .............................................................................. 4.13-12
Figure 4.13-5 Alternative Heavy Truck Traffic Routes ..................................................... 4.13-49
Figure 5-1 Percent of Crude Recovery and Alternative Locations .................................... 5-6
Figure 5-2 Rosecrans Alternative Location Detail ............................................................. 5-8
Figure 5-3 Exxon/Mobil Refinery Alternative Location Detail .......................................... 5-10
Figure 5-4 AES Site Location Detail ................................................................................ 5-13
Figure 6-1 Simulated View of Drilling Rig at AES Site ....................................................... 6-5
Final Environmental Impact Report xxi E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Acronyms
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APEHA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazards Act
API American Petroleum Institute
AQMP Air Quality Management Plans
bbl barrels
BOP blow out prevention
BOP blowout prevention
bpd barrels per day
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal-ARP California Accidental Release Program
CalISO California Independent System Operator
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CNDDB California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio
CSFM California State Fire Marshal
CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio
CUP conditional use permit
D/C demand to capacity ratio
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
eGRID Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xxii Final Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents
Acronyms
ERME Environmental Resource Management Element
fc footcandles
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FMZ fuel modification zone
Fs factor of safety
ft3 cubic feet
g/cc grams per cubic centimeter
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographical information system
gpm gallons per minutes
h2s hydrogen sulfide
HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HHMD Health Hazardous Materials Division
HRA health risk assessment
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IRI Industrial Risk Insurers
ITE Institute of Traffic Engineers
km kilometers
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatt
LACoFD County of Los Angeles Fire Department
LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Ldn day-night noise level
Leq equivalent sound level
LNG natural gas liquids
LOS level of service
LPG liquefied petroleum gases
LTs low temperature separation
m/s meters per second
m3 cubic meters
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mmscfd million standard cubic feet per day
MMTCE million metric tons of carbon equivalent
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resources Zone
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
No. number
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
O3 ozone
OCR overconsolidation ratio
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Final Environmental Impact Report xxiii E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Table of Contents
Acronyms
OS open space
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
psia pounds per square inch, absolute
psig pounds per square inch, gauge
QRA Quantitative Risk Analysis
RMP Resource Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRA source receptor area
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TNT Trinitrotoluene
UFC Uniform Fire Code
URBEMIS Urban Emissions Software
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C Vehicles to capacity ratio
VOC volatile organic compounds
vpd Vehicles per day
vph Vehicles per hour
yd3 cubic yards
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project xxiv Final Environmental Impact Report

Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines to assess potential
significant environmental impacts of a Proposed Oil Drilling and Production Project in the City
of Hermosa Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach is the public agency with principal
responsibility for review of the Proposed Project and is therefore the lead agency for preparation
of the FEIR.
The decision to approve or deny E&B’s Oil Drilling and Production Project and the
Amendments associated with Oil Development will be made by the voters in Hermosa Beach, in
accordance with a Settlement Agreement entered into by the City, the Applicant and Macpherson
Oil Company. Decisions on relocation and design of the City Maintenance Yard will not be part
of the ballot measure and will be considered by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and
City Council, as necessary.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Wilmington-Torrance Oil Field was discovered in the Los Angeles Basin at the turn of the
century. In 1919, the State of California granted to the City of Hermosa Beach, in trust, the
tidelands within the Torrance Oil Field. Oil drilling increased in the Los Angeles Basin into the
1930s. The resulting issues related to the oil drilling practices of that time period caused the
voters in several cities to pass ordinances banning oil drilling. In the City of Hermosa Beach,
where many oil wells had been drilled (including Stinnett Oil Well No. 1 at the City
Maintenance Yard), a citywide oil and gas drilling prohibition was passed in 1932.
In 1984, Ballot Measures P and Q were passed by the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach,
granting exceptions to the drilling ban that authorized oil development on two City-owned
parcels, the City Maintenance Yard and the South School site. Subsequently in 1985, the City
adopted the Oil Code within the City’s Zoning Ordinance (a component of the City’s Municipal
Code) that established terms and conditions governing oil drilling and development in the City,
including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for oil and gas production on the
City-owned parcels.
In 1986, the City selected the Macpherson Oil Company (Macpherson) to develop an oil
production facility to recover oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons from the City Maintenance Yard.
Also in 1986, Macpherson and the City entered into a lease that provided Macpherson with the
right to conduct oil and gas operations within the City. The original 1986 Lease was amended
many times, with a 1992 amended Lease between Macpherson and the City setting forth the
agreement under which the development of the project was slated to proceed (Oil and Gas Lease
No. 2). Under the provisions of the Lease, the City applied to the California State Lands
Commission to allow drilling for oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons in the tidelands area and for
approval of the Lease which occurred in 1993.
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-1 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Executive Summary
The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Macpherson project that was
certified on May 9, 1990 along with the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations. On that
same date, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to make oil drilling a
permitted use with a CUP in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone and to allow an exception to
the 35-foot height limit requirement in the M-1 zone for a temporary period during drilling
operations.
In 1995, Hermosa Beach voters approved Proposition E, which restored the ban on oil drilling in
the City. The applicability of Proposition E to Macpherson’s project was subsequently
challenged in court and in 1998, the City Council voted to stop the oil project based on safety
concerns.
E&B’s proposed Oil Drilling and Production Project is the result of a 2012 Settlement
Agreement between the City, E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (Applicant), and
Macpherson Oil Company (for itself and Windward Associates) (“Macpherson”) to resolve a
lawsuit by Macpherson Oil Company against the City regarding oil drilling at the site of the
existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Macpherson was seeking in excess of $750
million in damages against the City for breach of its lease. The Settlement Agreement provided
for the dismissal of the lawsuit, limited the City’s potential liability, and provided the Applicant
(Macpherson sold its interests to E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation) with the
potential opportunity to proceed with the oil drilling project conducted from an urban drill site.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B), the Applicant, is proposing the E&B
Oil Drilling & Production Project (Proposed Oil Project) on a 1.3 acre site located in the City of
Hermosa Beach (City). The site for the Proposed Oil Project (Project Site), as shown in Figure
ES.1, would be located at 555 6th Street, bounded on the east by Valley Drive and on the south
by 6th Street, approximately seven blocks east of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. Oil and gas
pipelines constructed and used by the Project would extend from the Project Site to one of four
potential valve box locations for the oil line and to a Southern California Gas (SGE) metering
station for the gas line. The Project Site is owned by the City and is currently used as the City
(Public Works) Maintenance Yard. The Applicant has leased the Project Site from the City for
the implementation of the Proposed Oil Project.
The Proposed Project is composed of two parts: 1) the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard
(Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project); and 2) the development of an oil and gas facility on
the current City Maintenance Yard site. In order to clear the current City Maintenance Yard site
for the construction of the proposed oil and gas facility, the City Maintenance Yard would be
temporarily relocated. If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site
would be economically viable, construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be
completed.
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report

Executive Summary
Figure ES.1 Proposed Project Location
Hermosa Beach
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices

Executive Summary
Proposed Oil Project
The Applicant proposes the development of an onshore drilling and production facility site that
would utilize directional drilling of 34 wells (30 oil wells, four wells for water disposal/injection)
to access the oil and gas reserves in the tidelands (pursuant to a grant from the State of California
to the City) and in an onshore area known as the uplands. Both of these areas are located within
the Torrance Oil Field within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, the Proposed Project would
result in the installation of offsite underground pipelines for the transportation of the processed
crude oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers, extending through the Cities of Redondo
Beach and Torrance. The Applicant proposes a laydown site for supply staging/storage within
the basement level of the industrial building at 601 Cypress Avenue during the construction
phases. The Applicant also proposes to construct a parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue for use by
some of its construction employees/contractors on weekdays and by the public at other times.
The Proposed Oil Project would occur in the following four phases:
• Phase 1: Site Preparation, including relocation of the City Maintenance Yard to the
temporary facility;
• Phase 2: Drilling and Testing of three oil wells and one water disposal/injection well;
• Phase 3: Final Design and Construction of both the oil and gas facility and the permanent
City Maintenance Yard; and
• Phase 4: Development and Operations, including drilling of the remaining wells over 30
months and re-drill of wells periodically through the life of the Project.
The Applicant proposes a facility designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil and 2.5 million standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of produced gas at
completion of the drilling stage of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4. Prior to the initiation of
each phase of the Proposed Oil Project, it would be required that plans be submitted by the
Applicant to the City and other permitting authorities for review and approval. These would
include coastal development permits, oil and gas well permits, demolition plans, grading plans,
utility and electrical plans, cement/foundation plans, landscaping plans, street and ROW
improvement/modification plans, and construction plans, amongst others.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
The City Maintenance Yard is proposed to be relocated to a temporary facility to be established
on the rear (westerly) portion of the City Hall site (1315 Valley Drive) prior to the initial phase
of the Proposed Oil Project so that the maintenance operations could continue when the existing
City Maintenance Yard is demolished as part of Proposed Oil Project activities. The construction
of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be undertaken on the site now occupied by
Hermosa Self-Storage (552 11th Place) after the Applicant completes the testing phase of the
Proposed Oil Project in Phase 2. The permanent City Maintenance Yard and the oil and gas
facility on the Project Site would be constructed at the same time.

Executive Summary
The permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options: a Parking Option,
which would add a net 97 parking spaces with a below grade parking garage, and a No Added
Parking Option, which would maintain the same amount of parking that is currently available.
Timeframe
It is estimated that it will take approximately 3.25 years from the commencement of the
Proposed Project until the commencement of Phase 4, when the permanent oil and gas facility
would be operational. Phase 1 would occur for approximately six months. Prior to Phase 1
activities, the temporary City Maintenance Yard would be installed.
Phase 2 would occur for approximately 12 months. The drill rig would operate continuously for
24 hours per day, seven days per week, until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for
each well has been reached. It is estimated it would take approximately 30 days per well for four
wells including installation, rigging and demobilizing of the drill rig at each well site for a total
of 120 days for drilling activities; the actual drilling process would occur 24 hours a day.
If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would be economically
viable, the Applicant would begin Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project and Phase 3 would occur
for a period of approximately 14 months. This would include time for site remediation on the
Project Site.
Phase 4 would occur for a period of approximately 30 to 35 years, the first 30 months of which
would include the drilling of the remaining wells and re-drill of wells periodically through the
life of the project. A 35-year period allowing for drilling into the tidelands and uplands and
production is provided for under the existing Lease (Oil and Gas Lease No. 2).
Table ES.1 shows the overall project timeline.
Table ES.1 Proposed Project Schedule Summary
Phase
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Temporary City Yard
Oil Project Phase 1
Oil Project
Phase 2
Drill
Test
Permanent City Yard
Oil Project Phase 3*
Oil Project
Phase 4*
Drill
Operate Continuously for 30+ years
Re-drills Average 30 days/year, max 150 days/yr**
Note: * If the Test phase is determined to be successful, Phases 3 and 4 would occur. For construction
only. Does not include permitting timeframe, which would occur in advance of construction for each
phase.

Executive Summary
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the description of the Proposed Project is to contain “a clearly written statement of objectives”
that would aid the lead agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the
EIR and would aid decision makers in preparing findings and, if necessary, a statement of
overriding considerations. The City is the lead CEQA agency which is preparing the EIR,
considering the EIR for certification and placing the Proposed Project on the ballot. Project
approvals will be made by the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach
As part of the Project Application, the Applicant provided its stated objectives for the Proposed
Oil Project, which consist of the following:
• Develop the Proposed Oil Project consistent with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and
the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, with the utilization of directional drilling
techniques from the Project Site, which is the current City Maintenance Yard;
• Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the City’s
jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to the City;
• Provide an oil and gas development project on the Project Site that utilizes the latest
technology and operational advancements related to safety and production efficiency in
order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet the applicable
environmental requirements;
• Conduct construction and drilling activities on the Project Site incorporating
technological advancements, operational practices, and design features related to air
quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potential impacts on the
adjacent community and the environment;
• Provide landscaping, hardscape, signage, lighting, and other design features to minimize
the visual effects of the Proposed Oil Project on the adjacent community; and
• Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safe vehicular
ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and the ongoing operation of
the Proposed Oil Project.
Pursuant to the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach, E&B,
and Macpherson Oil Co., the City’s primary objective is to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act and place on the ballot a measure allowing the City of Hermosa
Beach electorate to decide whether or not to approve the Applicant’s Proposed Oil Project and a
Development Agreement to vest the Project so that, if approved, the Project cannot later be
invalidated by a vote of the people.
In the event that voters approve the Proposed Oil Project, the City would need to relocate the
City Maintenance Yard. Under those conditions, the City's objectives for relocation of the City
Maintenance Yard would be to:
• Provide City Maintenance Yard facilities that support provision of high-quality City
services in an integrated and cost-efficient manner;
• Consolidate City facilities and functions for maximum efficiency and flexibility;
• Minimize disruption of City functions during relocation of the City Maintenance Yard;

Executive Summary
• Ensure the relocated City Maintenance Yard is compatible with surrounding uses; and
• Ensure there is no net loss of public and employee parking spaces as a result of both the
Proposed Oil Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the
Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission.
PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The Proposed Oil Project would generate potentially significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts in the following areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biology
• Hydrology
• Land Use
• Noise
• Recreation
• Safety and Risk of Upset
Each of these is briefly summarized below and is shown in Table ES.2.
Aesthetics
An 87-foot electric drill rig with three-sided acoustical shield would be installed at the Project
Site at the beginning of Phase 2 for about 4 months, then during Phase 4 for 30 months, then
periodically thereafter for re-drills for up to an maximum average of 30 days per year or a
maximum of 150 days once every 5 years. The rig would introduce, primarily into the
foreground and middleground environments, a visually dominant vertical feature which is
distinct in form, mass, height, material and character from structures in the viewshed of locations
which are considered to have high sensitivity. The effects of light, shade and shadow would
produce contrasting geometric vertical planes and would project into a typically uniform (or
otherwise naturally varied) sky backdrop.
Night views of the open (illuminated) side of the drill rig, with the pattern and scale of this
illuminated feature, would be out of character with existing nighttime views. Similar to day time
impacts, this vertical feature would project above the horizontal plane of the existing illuminated
environment and would become a focal element. The duration of exposure, number of sensitive
viewers, and nature of the visual change would result in impacts that would be significant.
During periods of Phase 4, the 110-foot workover rig could be present on site for up to 90 days
per year. The open truss structure of the workover drill rig introduces a focal element of
industrial character into viewsheds of primarily residential and light industrial character. The
workover rig would not operate at night (after 6 pm).

Executive Summary
Table ES.2 Proposed Oil Project - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Summary
Impact
Significant Unavoidable
Impact?
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Aesthetics: views of the drilling/workover rig Yes Yes/No*
night lighting of the rig Yes No
Air Quality: odors Yes Yes
Biology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes
Cultural No No
Energy No No
Environmental Justice No No
Fire Protection and Emergency Response No No
Geology No No
Hydrology: oil spills into the marine environment Yes Yes
Land use: incompatibility to adjacent uses Yes Yes
Noise: noise impacts during drilling No No
noise impacts during construction Yes No
Public Services No No
Recreation: oil spill impacts on recreational areas Yes Yes
Safety and Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Yes No
Transportation No No
Number of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 9 6/5*
Notes: a Yes with shading = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. Impacts
classified as less than significant or less than significant with mitigation are discussed within the main EIR
document. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics up to 90 days
per year.
Mitigation measures include the selection of materials and lighting to minimize glare and
reflectivity and the installation of a permanent 32-foot wall. Some of the impacts would be
mitigable, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impacts when the drill rig or workover rig are not present would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Air Quality
Due to the close proximity of the site to neighbors, businesses and the public (within 100 feet of
businesses, 160 feet of residences, 55 feet of the Greenbelt and 20 feet of the public sidewalks),
numerous scenarios could cause odors offsite. These could include various maintenance
activities such as line, tank or vessel openings; workovers removing well hole equipment (pumps
or tubing), thereby exposing the well equipment to the atmosphere; minor accident scenarios;
and drilling activities including muds handling that could cause short-duration, intermittent
odors, or pump leaks. Because odor thresholds for certain compounds found in the oil and gas
industry are very low, in the parts per billion range, release of these compounds can cause odor
impacts offsite. Therefore, due to the close proximity of neighbors, odor impacts could impact
surrounding areas and would be a significant impact.

Executive Summary
Mitigation measures proposed to reduce the frequency of odor events include the implementation
of systems that direct odor-causing releases to flare-type systems, the implementation of systems
to notify operators when releases could or do occur, and the use of odor masking materials.
Increased vigilance associated with SCAQMD Rule 1173 (related to controlling "leaker"
components) can also reduce emissions from fugitive components, but impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impacts related to construction and operational emissions, health risk and GHG would produce
significant impacts but would be less than significant with mitigation.
Biology
Oil spills and ruptures from the installed pipelines could result due to geologic hazards,
mechanical failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error during operations. A spill of
crude oil could spread through storm drains to the beach and potentially to the numerous
sensitive habitats and species present in the Pacific Ocean. Oil spills and cleanup activities
would potentially result in impacts to biological resources. Direct impacts on wildlife from oil
spills include physical contact with the oil, ingestion of oil, and loss of food and critical nesting
and foraging habitats.
Implementing the proposed mitigation measures, including developing emergency response
plans with specific criteria, implementing infrastructure preventative maintenance, and
conducting structural integrity tests and routine inspections, would reduce the likelihood and
severity of potential oil spills and exposure impacts to sensitive biological resources, but impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
The fully enclosed drain systems proposed by the Applicant would retain any spills at the Project
Site on-site, therefore, potential spills at the Project Site would not produce a significant impact.
Hydrology
As described under Biology, a release from the pipeline between the Project Site and Prospect
Avenue, near the corner of Herondo Street and Valley Drive, could produce a worst-case oil spill
of 16,799 gallons that could drain directly into subsurface soils and/or to the ocean through storm
drains. Mitigation measures, in addition to those listed for Biology, include spill training, the
required spill control equipment, the installation of a check valve into the crude oil pipeline at
Herondo Street and the installation of an oil separator in storm drain systems of Herondo Street.
These mitigation measures would reduce the frequency or severity of an oil spill reaching the
ocean, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
The drilling, construction, and potential future operations would be in close proximity to land
uses zoned as open space (parks, baseball fields and the Greenbelt) and residential. Proposed Oil
Project activities during all phases may generate significant noise, odor and visual impacts that

Executive Summary
would be incompatible with these adjacent land uses. Mitigation measures are proposed to
reduce these impacts in the respective issue areas, but impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Noise
The predicted noise impact of demolition and construction activities in Phase 1 and 3 of the
Proposed Oil Project is significant at many of the neighboring sensitive uses. The most
significant impacts occur during the construction phase, when Project-related noise is expected
to result in an increase in daytime noise levels over existing noise levels at the homes to the
northwest and west of the Project Site.
Predicted noise impacts during the Phase 2 and Phase 4 drilling stages and during Phase 4 re-drills
are significant along the entire perimeter of the Project Site. Mitigation measures include
increasing the height of walls (where allowable by code), adding additional noise protection, and
essentially not allowing drilling late at night, would reduce impacts to less than significant with
mitigation.
Noise levels when drilling is not occurring during Phase 2 and 4 would be less than significant.
During re-drills, noise levels would be the same as those during drilling.
Noise levels during the construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard, both the temporary
and permanent sites, would also exceed the noise thresholds. Noise mitigation includes the use
of noise barriers, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise levels during the operations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Recreation
During a rain event, a potential oil spill from the oil pipeline along Valley Drive or at the
intersection of Valley Drive and Herondo Street could drain directly into storm drains and flow
to the ocean. Even without rains, the capacity of the storm drains is such that an oil spill could
still reach the ocean, depending on the arrangement of sand at the mouth of the ocean discharge.
An oil spill along the coastline could affect beach areas, leading to beach closures and boating
restrictions in contaminated areas during and potentially after cleanup. Public perception of the
recreational quality of the areas beaches (Hermosa, Manhattan, Redondo, etc) could also be
affected, causing a reduction in beach recreational activities for a substantial period of time.
Mitigation measures previously discussed under Hydrology and Biology would further reduce
the frequency and severity of an oil spill reaching the ocean, but impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.

Executive Summary
Safety and Risk of Blowout
The potential for a blowout resulting from drilling into potentially pressurized areas within
drilled reservoirs presents a significant offsite risk. Although it is not known at this time which
reservoir areas, if any, are pressurized to the extent that pressures could produce a blowout,
historical data from drilling in Redondo Beach indicates that such potential does exist.
Pressurization once the wells are placed into production (after drilling) would last for only a
short period of time (estimated at 30 days based on the Redondo Beach wells), but could still
result in a blowout during drilling. The Applicant indicated in their Application that wells would
be pressurized for a short period after drilling.
Mitigation includes the installation of back-flow prevent devices on the gas pipeline,
minimization of the ability of equipment to ignite a spill of crude oil at the Project Site, and
timely and thorough audits. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impacts when drilling is not occurring would be less than significant with mitigation.
ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR identify feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects of the Project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(d) this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides sufficient information about each
alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project
and the other alternatives. It should be noted that assumptions made regarding the alternatives’
descriptions could differ from actual proposals, and the alternatives analyses are not presented to
a project-level of detail.
The alternatives considered for evaluation in this EIR include:
• No Project Alternative;
• Drilling from the AES Site;
• Oil Development with Reduced Wells;
• Oil Development with Reduced Timeframe;
• Use of Existing Pipelines; and
• Phase 1 Permanent Yard Construction.
Each of these is summarized below.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be built, and the City
Maintenance Yard would remain in its existing location without development of a new
maintenance yard. There would also be no removal of contaminated soil and site cleanup.

Executive Summary
Therefore, impacts associated with the Proposed Project construction and development would
not occur, and the area would remain in its current condition. No impacts from the Proposed
Project would occur.
Drilling from the AES Site
Under this alternative, the drilling and processing facilities would be located at the AES site
located in north-western Redondo Beach on the site of the existing power generating facility.
The facility could potentially utilize existing pipelines, or new pipelines could be installed,
similarly to the Proposed Project. Pipeline connections along Valley Drive would no longer
need to be installed.
Reduced Wells Alternative
Under this alternative, fewer wells would be drilled, and less crude oil and gas would be
produced. Drilling would be limited to approximately 1 year only.
Reduced Timeframe Alternative
Under this alternative, the same number of wells would be drilled and the same rate of crude oil
and gas would be produced as under the Proposed Oil Project, but only over an allowed 10 year
timeframe. At the conclusion of the 10 year period, all equipment would be removed from the
site, and the site would be restored.
Existing Pipelines Alternative
Under this alternative, existing pipelines along 190th Street would be utilized instead of
installing new pipelines. Pipelines would still need to be constructed along Valley Drive.
Construction and operations at the Project Site would remain the same as under the Proposed
Project.
Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction
Under this alternative, the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be constructed
prior to Phase 1 at the location currently in use by the Beach Cities Self Storage facility. The
temporary maintenance yard located adjacent to the Beach Cities Self Storage facility and City
Hall would not be constructed.
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Under the No Project Alternative, no development of the oil and gas resources would occur.
There would be no drilling and no construction at the Project Site or along Pipeline routes. The
City Maintenance Yard would not be relocated and rebuilt. None of the impacts associated with

Executive Summary
the Proposed Project would occur. No new impacts would occur under the No Project
Alternative. Tables ES.2 and ES.3 summarize the comparison.
The AES Site Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project primarily
because it would be farther from residential and commercial/light industrial locations. This
reduces the severity of impact to aesthetics, air quality and safety and risk of upset. This
alternative would eliminate the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Aesthetics: views of the drilling rig;
• Aesthetics: glare from the drilling rig and operational facilities; and
• Safety and Risk of Upset: drilling releases and impacts from drilling releases.
In addition, the severity of some Class I impacts would be reduced, including those to air quality,
hydrology, land use and recreation.
The Reduced Wells Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project
primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity
of impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset due
to the reduced amount of time that drilling would occur. This alternative would not eliminate
any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts.
The Reduced Timeframe Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project
primarily because it would reduce the duration of some impacts. This would reduce the severity
of impact in the areas of aesthetics, air quality and odors, noise and safety and risk of upset due
to the reduced amount of time that impacts would occur. This alternative would not eliminate
any significant and unavoidable Class I impacts.
The Existing Pipelines Alternative has environmental advantages over the Proposed Project
because it would reduce the need to construct pipelines along area streets or within the SCE
ROW. This would reduce traffic and circulation impacts and would reduce air emissions
resulting from construction activities. However, neither of these impacts is significant and
unavoidable, and this alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts.
This alternative would, however, increase the oil spill frequency along the pipeline from Valley
Drive eastward, where it would tie into the existing pipeline, because older pipelines have a
higher failure rate. This would increase the severity of impact to hydrology and biology due to
oil spills, which is currently a significant and unavoidable Class I impact under the Proposed
Project.
The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative has advantages over the Proposed
Project, as it would reduce the need to construct a temporary City Maintenance Yard. This
would reduce severity of impacts to air quality, transportation and traffic, cultural resources, fire
protection, hydrology and water impacts during the temporary site construction activities.
However, none of these impacts are significant and unavoidable. The construction of a
permanent City Maintenance Yard before Phase 1 would decrease the severity of construction
noise impacts by decreasing the duration of construction activities around the Beach Cities Self
Storage site and City Hall by 9 months. These noise impacts are significant and unavoidable

Executive Summary
Class I impacts. It would also eliminate the operational noise impacts on City Hall and
residences to the west of the temporary City Maintenance Yard site.

Executive Summary
Table ES.3 Proposed Project Versus Alternatives - Significant Unavoidable Impacts Only
Impact
Proposed Project
No Project
Alternative
AES Site
Alternative
Reduced Wells
Alternative
Reduced Timing
Alternative
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
1. Aesthetics: views of the
drilling/workover rig Y Y/N* Y/N* Y↓ Y/N* Y↓ Y/N*
2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the
rig Y Y↓ Y↓
3. Air Quality: odors Y Y Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y Y↓ Y↓
4. Biology: oil spills into the
marine environment Y Y Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓
5. Hydrology: oil spills into the
environment Y Y Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓
6. Land use: incompatibility to
adjacent uses Y Y Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y Y↓ Y↓
7. Noise: noise impacts during
construction Y Y↓ Y Y
8. Recreation: spill impacts on
recreational areas Y Y Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓ Y↓
9. Safety and Risk of Upset:
risks from drilling Y Y↓ Y↓
Number of Significant Impacts 9 6/5* Zero 6 6/5*↓ 9↓ 6/5*↓ 9↓ 6/5*↓
Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. ↓ indicates significant and unavoidable but less severity, ↑ indicates
significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics up to 90 days per
year.

Executive Summary
Table ES.4 Proposed Project Versus Project Component Alternatives - Significant
Unavoidable Impacts Only
Impact
Proposed Project
City Maintenance
Yard
Phase 1
Existing
Pipeline
Construction,
Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Construction
, Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
Construction
, Drilling
Re-drilling
Operations
1. Aesthetics: views of the
drilling/workover rig Y Y/N* Y Y/N* Y Y/N*
2. Aesthetics: night lighting of the
rig Y Y Y
3. Air Quality: odors Y Y Y Y Y Y
4. Biology: oil spills into the marine
environment Y Y Y Y Y↑ Y↑
5. Hydrology: oil spills into the
environment Y Y Y Y Y↑ Y↑
6. Land use: incompatibility to
adjacent uses Y Y Y Y Y Y
7. Noise: noise impacts during
construction Y Y↓ Y↓
8. Recreation: spill impacts on
recreational areas Y Y Y Y Y↑ Y↑
9. Risk of Upset: risks from drilling Y Y Y
Number of Significant Impacts 9 6/5* 9↓ 6/5* 9↑ 6/5*↑
Shaded = significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. ↓ indicates significant and
unavoidable but less severity, ↑ indicates significant and unavoidable but greater severity. *During
Workovers significant unavoidable impacts would occur for aesthetics up to 90 days per year..
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The Proposed Project has been designed by the Applicant in an effort to minimize the number
and significance of impacts and still meet the objectives of the Project. Alternatives include
options for an alternative site, operations, pipeline, and phasing, allowing for a selection of
different Project components and, consequently, a different mix of impacts.
The No Project Alternative would produce the fewest number of significant impacts and would
therefore be environmentally superior. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 [e][2],
if the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, then the EIR shall designate the next
best alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The AES Site Alternative reduces
the greatest number of the Proposed Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, the AES Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. Use of the AES site, however, presents a number of potential issues related to City
of Redondo Beach Charter Article 27 and would most likely require a vote of the people of
Redondo Beach and a re-zoning in order to move forward. However, these barriers are similar to
those under the Proposed Project and are therefore not considered to pose greater challenges
where the proponent cannot reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site.

Executive Summary
The AES Site Alternative would achieve most of the Applicant's objectives in regard to
maximizing oil and gas production, utilizing the latest technologies and technological advances,
minimizing visual effects and providing safe vehicular ingress and egress. As the 1993 CUP and
the Settlement Agreement are both associated with the specific Project Site within the City of
Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, the objective to develop a project that is consistent with the
CUP and Settlement Agreement would not be specifically met under this alternative.
The Phase 1 City Maintenance Yard Construction Alternative is advantageous over the use of a
temporary City Maintenance Yard, primarily because it would reduce the significance of impacts
to noise and air quality. The elimination of a temporary City Maintenance Yard would eliminate
a potentially significant and unavoidable impact to noise. Therefore, the Phase 1 City
Maintenance Yard construction alternative would be environmentally superior over the Proposed
Project.
Under the AES Site Alternative, the City Maintenance Yard would not need to be moved, as the
drilling site would be located at the AES site.
KNOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES
According to Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall identify “areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public.” All
proposals related to the development and transportation of oil and gas reserves in urban areas
generate controversy and receive a high level of public scrutiny. For this Project, controversy is
due to the sensitive nature of coastal resources, the potential for safety impacts to the local
population, and the fact that oil and gas development in the City does not currently exist.
The Proposed Project would introduce oil drilling and oil and gas production and transportation
to an area that does not currently have this type of development. Some people in local
communities do not want the Project to move forward, as exemplified by organizations opposing
the Project such as Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, Heal the Bay, and other environmental groups. The
Project has generated a high level of public interest and controversy (see Appendix H, Notice of
Preparation and Comments). Areas of controversy highlighted in comments on the Notice of
Preparation include:
• The development of oil and gas in the City is not allowed by the current land use plans
and zoning ordinance;
• Safety and risk of upset and the impacts on nearby residences and businesses;
• Noise, odor, and air quality issues from oil and gas development proximate to residential
areas;
• Aesthetics and views of the drilling rig;
• Geology and subsidence;
• Climate change and the use of fossil fuels;
• Oil spills and the effects on biology;
• Noise from the Project;
• Settlement agreement costs;
• Potential impacts to coastal and recreational resources; and

Executive Summary
• Potential impacts to tourism as a main economic resource to the City.

Executive Summary
Table Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project and Alternatives
Table ES-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Project
Impact Class I = Significant adverse impact that remains significant after mitigation.
II = Significant adverse impact that can be eliminated or reduced below an issue’s significance criteria.
III = Adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issue’s significance criteria.
IV = Beneficial impact.
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Class Recommended Mitigation Measures
Section 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
AE.1 The Proposed Oil
Project during the
drilling phases
(drilling or re-drilling)
or with a workover
rig present has the
potential to cause a
substantial
degradation to the
character and
quality of the
existing site and its
surroundings,
including designated
scenic highways and
vistas.
I AE-1a Material choice of electrical drill rig acoustical shroud shall be of neutral sky color which is
selected for its ability to reduce visual impact, in coordination with and approval by the City
Community Development Director.
AE-1b The sound attenuation wall shall be replaced by a permanent wall with design features
installed at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to provide stability of views and opportunities for
positive visual elements that partially mitigate the visual presence of the walls from the Hermosa
Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be
allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16-foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be
adjusted to respond to façade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained.
The permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and approval
of the City Community Development Director.
Project when no rig
is present has the
substantial
degradation to the
character and
quality of the
surroundings.
II AE-2a Design of the sound attenuation wall exterior façade shall be required to include design
articulations that are complementary to the character, scale, and quality of the surrounding
environment. The intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from the Hermosa Greenbelt
and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity. The following measures of success
shall be met: 1) Articulations of façade decrease scale and proportion of mass into smaller
increments that more closely resemble those of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and
material use are varied to a level consistent with existing visual environment.
AE-2b Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and growth
of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of debris and construction
waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet within all planted areas. Wall footings

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
shall be designed to limit encroachment into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be
conducted by a certified soil scientist. Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of
this mitigation measure; and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they
shall be amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette
selected.
AE-2c Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be self-attaching or
structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a density to
achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be required on
the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking facility.
AE-2d All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20’ in height at installation and meet the
American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species alternate is proposed, it
shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the Project Application in the following
characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a
minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56.
AE.3 The Pipeline project
has the potential to
cause a substantial
degradation to the
character and
quality of the
surroundings.
II AE-3a Pipeline alignments and valve box locations shall be designed to avoid the removal or
modification of trees, hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to the extent feasible.
AE-3b If landscaped areas, streetscapes, plazas and/or parklands are required to be temporarily
disturbed, they shall be restored to their previous condition following completion of construction.
Avoidance of disturbance shall be the preferred option, especially where landscape elements act to
screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or where they act as community gateways (Redondo
Beach at Hwy-1).
AE-3c Block color/s selection and pattern (if applicable) shall be complementary to adjacent
buildings. A buffer of shrubs and vines shall be planted to match the existing character and quality
of the adjacent properties.
Project with the drill
rig has the potential
to create a new
source of light or
glare that would
adversely affect
nighttime views in
the area.
I AE-4a Final acoustical cover material selection shall be required to be fully opaque. Fully opaque
shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish
shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare.
AE-4b Colors and finishes of equipment and surfaces within the soundwall (including the interior
face of the soundwall, the interior face of the drill rig acoustical cover, and the physical structure of
the drill rig within the acoustical shield) shall have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower.
AE-4c All proposed site lighting fixtures associated with the drilling activities shall demonstrate
compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory
measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall
be LZ-2.
Project area lighting
II AE-5a Colors and finishes of surfaces within the facility, including the interior face of the soundwall,
ground materials (darker or asphalt), wall paints and equipment paints to the extent feasible shall
have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower to reduce the potential for glow.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
create a new source
of light or glare that
would adversely
affect day or
nighttime views in
the area.
AE-5b Final sound wall material/s selection/s (including gates) shall be fully opaque. Fully opaque
shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its surface. The exterior finish
shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing glare.
AE-5c All proposed site lighting, including fixtures outside the wall, shall be fully shielded. Fully
shielded shall be defined as: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light
emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by
reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane
through the luminaire’s lowest light-emitting part (IES/IDA, 2011).
AE-5d The LZ-2 parameters of the Model Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) shall be used to
demonstrate that maximum vertical illuminance for the site are not exceeded. For site lighting
inside the wall, Table B allowances shall be used. Lighting outside the wall at site entrances shall
not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a maximum of 1 footcandle. For the
purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the plane of the property line shall be extended to an
elevation equal to the height of the electric drilling rig.
AE-5e All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G
ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement.
The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
AE.6 The Pipeline Project
create a new source
of light or glare that
would adversely
affect views in the
area.
II AE-6a Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate
permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent features which prevent light
spillage beyond the property line.
AE-6b Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for security and
safety.
AE.7 The Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project has the
substantial
degradation to the
character and
quality of the
surroundings.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
II AE-7a The materials, colors and finishes at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of
comparable quality, character and level of architectural detail to those of adjacent structures.
AE-7b The landscape design at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of
comparable quality and character to that of the surrounding visual environment. Incorporation of
evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are recommended for their ability to provide
additional screening capacity of operations areas.
AE-7c The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be required to
have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where building masses do not otherwise
define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas
shall be employed through either increased screen wall height and/or landscape design.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Project)
AE.8 The Proposed
Maintenance Yard
Project has the
potential to create a
new source of light
or glare that would
adversely affect
views in the area.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II AE-8a All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent features
which prevent light spillage beyond the property line.
AE-8b Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall
not exceed that which is needed for security.
AE-8c All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G
ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement.
The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.
Section 4.2 Air Quality and GHG’s
AQ.1 Construction
activities would
generate NOx and
PM emissions that
exceed South Coast
Air Quality
Management District
thresholds.
(Also applicable to
the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II AQ-1a The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes
SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and SCAQMD CEQA
Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include the following (this mitigation
is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project):
- Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a construction site (61
percent reduction).
- Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a moveable sprinkler
system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified by lab sample or moisture probe (69
percent reduction).
- Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed limits.
- All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped with a fabric cover and
maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent reduction).
- Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane, and edged by
rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to
80 percent reduction).
- Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared, according to SCAQMD
Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (90 percent reduction).
- Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction
issues, such as dust generation.
AQ-1b The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or
equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable to both the
Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project):

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
- All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’
specifications.
- Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather than portable diesel
or gasoline generators.
- All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100-horsepower engines shall meet
Tier 3 NOx requirements.
- Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes.
- A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology documentation, or the
CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of equipment shall be provided to the City and
SCAQMD when each piece of equipment is mobilized.
AQ.2 Construction
activities would
generate emissions
from contaminated
soil excavation.
III None
AQ.3 Regional Impacts:
Operational
activities would
generate emissions
that exceed South
Coast Air Quality
Management District
VOC and NOx
regional thresholds.
II AQ-3a The Applicant shall limit flaring during Phase 4 to a total of 5 hours per day at the full flaring
capacity (or to an equivalent volume of flared gas) during all emergency or routine flaring events in
order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the thresholds. Lower NOx emission
combustors or other equivalent measures can also be used to satisfy the requirement.
AQ-3b The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least 90
percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control (either through
carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing units routed to vapor control
systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor immediately above the muds exit point from
the wellbore and at other areas above the mud pits where muds may be exposed to the
atmosphere in order to ensure that hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90
percent.
AQ.4 Local Impacts:
Operational
activities would
generate PM
emissions that
exceed South Coast
Air Quality
Management District
local thresholds.
II AQ-4 The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an
equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce emissions to
below the localized thresholds. The City shall be responsible for ensuring that the applicant will be
subject to permit conditions that limit emissions from the set of microturbines, not just individual
permit units.
AQ.5 Operational
activities could
I AQ-5a The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable flare at
the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas encountered during

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
generate emissions
that produce offsite
odor impacts.
drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas that is flared. The operator shall
report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD.
AQ-5b The Applicant shall install a compressor seal vent collection system. In the event of a seal
leak, vapors shall be collected and sent to the vapor recovery system or flare for destruction.
AQ-5c The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to and
approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall address reducing the
frequency from potential sources of odors from all site equipment, including wells and drilling
operations, temporary operations such as truck loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these
odors (e.g., containment, design modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues
such as facility information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints,
the protocol for handling odor complaints and odor release investigations and methods instituted to
prevent a re-occurrence. The Plan shall require that all odor complaints and issues be immediately
communicated to the City and that the City shall have the authority to implement and enforce
contingency measures to ensure that any nuisance odors from the facility are eliminated.
AQ-5d The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall provide
for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total hydrocarbon vapors
at all perimeter locations of the facility as well as at strategic locations near processing equipment.
At all times during operations, drilling, redrilling and workover operations, the Operator shall
maintain monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide
and total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible and
visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be triggered by the
detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm points shall be set at a maximum
of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down
of drilling or plant operations and the lower level requiring notification to appropriate
agencies, including the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station
to monitor wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall be
installed at the site. The Air Monitoring Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the
SCAQMD.
AQ-5e The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables, and
shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are not equipped
with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for example; the mud baker-type
tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be detected at the closest receptor.
AQ-5f The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak
Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action level of 100ppm, the
installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or smaller) and the use of IR
cameras or equivalent during monthly detections to ensure that leaking components are minimized
at the facility.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
AQ.6 Potential operations
and drilling at the
Project Site would
increase
greenhouse gas
emissions.
II AQ-6 The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the threshold of
10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the
SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented to achieve the required
reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications on the protocol, vintage, and registry
for any offsite mitigation. The following mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD
approval:
1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD protocol;
2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD protocol;
3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program;
4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII;
5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American Carbon Registry.
In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon registries that follow
specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to review and prior approval by the
City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for acceptable credits include:
• Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project yielding quantifiable
and verifiable reductions or removals.
• Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or other requirement.
• Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are reliable, based on
applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate documentation.
• Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is sufficient evidence to
show that the reduction occurred and was quantified correctly.
• Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the reduction project is
implemented correctly.
• Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the expected life of the
reduction project.
Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be quantified and
reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions reporting will follow the same
reporting format and procedures as required by the Mandatory Reporting Rule.
AQ.7 Potential operations
and drilling at the
Project Site would
emit toxic air
contaminants.
II AQ-7a All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and be
equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate filter to reduce Diesel PM emissions. Workover
rigs operated at the project site shall have cumulative total DPM emissions below 1.5 lbs/year or
shall utilize electric drive/sources.
AQ-7b Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of fugitive
emissions.
Section 4.3 Biological Resources
BIO.1 Pipeline installation II BIO-1: To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with the

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
near potential avian
breeding habitat has
the potential to
impact non-listed
sensitive species
including avian
species protected by
the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and
Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done outside the breeding season
(breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15
through August 31 for all non- raptor species). If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed
during this period, then surveys for nesting birds must be conducted by a qualified, City-approved
Biologist, within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If
nesting birds are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor
species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and maintained for the
duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings fledge from the nest.
BIO.2 A rupture or leak
from oil Pipelines
result in a
substantial adverse
effect on native
species and
habitats, sensitive
species, and
biologically
important habitats
associated with the
Pacific Ocean.
I BIO-2: The Applicant shall submit for City approval and shall implement an Emergency Response
Plan that would, in compliance with the California State Oil Spill Contingency Plan (CDFW, OSPR
2014), address protection of biological resources and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed
during an oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Plan shall, at a minimum,
include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and
animal species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup
operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment and cleanup
measures and responsibilities. The plan shall contain:
Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, duties of all entities involved in oil removal
operations, and methods of emergency action agency coordination during and after
an oil spill;
Agreements and statements from all resource agencies involved in an oil response and
removal operation;
Procedures and frequencies for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines and
facilities;
Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge;
A description of the necessary onsite equipment and details on the placement of the
material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil;
Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following a
discharge;
A description of sensitive biological resources in the SMB that should be prioritized for
clean-up activities in the case of an oil spill into the marine environment;
Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge;
Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures.
The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR).
When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Action Plan
shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of site-specific habitat

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate
for mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to
restore native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and
egress points, staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat
areas shall be identified. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall include
species- and site-specific procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of
oiled wildlife.
The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing
any construction activities.
Section 4.4 Cultural Resources
CR.1 The Project has the
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
historical resource,
such as the furnace
remnant due to
building demolition.
II CR-1 Prior to beginning demolition of the existing City Maintenance Yard Building, guidelines shall
be developed for the careful exposure of extant elements of the historic brick and mortar furnace.
Once exposed, detailed documentation of the furnace shall be undertaken. Documentation shall be
guided by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This documentation shall
include production of high quality 35-mm photographs and plan drawings of building elements
exposed, including but not limited to, a floor plan, any character-defining building features, and
elevation drawings.
All work carried out pursuant to the recordation of the furnace building shall be conducted by, or
under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994) as an
architectural historian. A written report detailing the HAER-like documentation shall be provided to
the City upon completion the work. This report shall be produced on archivally stable materials and
filed with the Hermosa Beach Historical Society.
CR.2 The Project has the
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
historical resource
through indirect
impacts to the
Hermosa Beach City
Hall Complex
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
II CR-2a The design of the New City Maintenance Yard Building shall be compatible in design, styling,
material, and massing of the adjacent City Hall complex. The building design should not attempt to
replicate the New Formalist style, but it shall not conflict or contrast with the existing building style.
The buildings constructed in the New City Maintenance Yard shall be no more than two stories
high. They shall not overpower or overshadow the existing building complex.
CR-2b The landscaping associated with the proposed New City Maintenance Yard shall replicate
the planting types surrounding the City Civic buildings, to the extent possible, in order to blend the
new construction into the existing Complex. The final design of both the new building and
landscape should be developed in consultation with an historic architect or architectural historian
who meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as
revised in 1994).

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Maintenance Yard
Project)
CR.3 A substantial
adverse change in
the significance of
an archaeological
resource, such as
dump deposits, due
to ground
disturbance and
over excavation.
II CR-3a Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or building removal within the Proposed Project sites,
an Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist with provision for
review and input by concerned Native Americans and approval by the City. The Plan will also
address worker safety during building demolition and ground disturbing activities and during the
implementation of the Remedial Action Plan.The Plan is to include provisions for archaeological
and Native American monitoring, detailed documentation of all early twentieth-century artifact-bearing
deposits exposed during ground-disturbing site work, and development of a clear collection
policy for both prehistoric and historic artifacts, subsequent artifact analysis, reporting of findings,
and disposition and/or curation of any significant artifacts recovered. All reports of findings shall be
filed with to SCCIC. (Also applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
CR-3b Any significant archaeological deposits remaining in the area of the previous City of Hermosa
Beach Dump following over-excavation at the Proposed Oil Development Project site must be
protected in place. Stabilization and covering of these archaeological deposits shall be monitored
by a qualified historical archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-39 as revised in 1994).
CR.4 Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or unique
geological feature.
II CR-4 Should Project-related excavations be designed to exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump,
or depths greater than 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise be shown to have the potential to
impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits as described above, a Paleontological Resources
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) shall be developed by a qualified paleontologist in
consultation with the City and implemented prior to or during Project-related ground disturbing
activities. The Plan will also address worker safety during building demolition and ground
disturbing activities and during the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan.
CR.5 The Project could
have a substantial
impact if it results in
the disturbance of
any human remains,
including those
interred outside of a
formal cemetery.
(Also applicable to
the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II CR-5 Ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery shall immediately be halted or
redirected. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the site to
allow for further examination and treatment of the find. A City representative shall immediately
notify the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office by telephone. By law, the Coroner will determine
within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the
Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if
the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the
treatment of human remains and associated burial objects and the plan will be implemented under
the direction of the MLD.
Section 4.5 Energy and Mineral Resources

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
No Impacts Identified
Section 4.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Response
FP.1 Oil development
activities at the site
could be deficient in
water supplies,
detection systems,
access or
emergency
response.
II FP-1a The Applicant shall ensure adequate (3,000-5,000 gpm) water supplies are available from
the existing water lines and hydrant system, by extending the 8 inch water main or some other
source for water supplies that provides sufficient water supply rates, pressure and duration to
comply with codes, standards and requirements of the LACFD and the HBFD. Installation of a fire
pump, or installation of a piping connection to area water mains that can supply the flows, may be
required to ensure the appropriate water flow and pressure requirements. The Applicant shall
ensure that all area hydrants and water supplies are tested annually as to the NFPA standards for
water flows and pressures, and shall ensure that the results are reported to the City of Hermosa
Beach and the Hermosa Beach Fire Department.
FP-1b The Applicant shall coordinate with the HBFD to integrate a community alert notification
system for the proposed project into the City's existing alert system to automatically notify area
residences and businesses in the event of an emergency at the project site that would require
residents to take shelter or take other protective actions. The Applicant shall implement programs
to ensure that all immediate neighbors are provide ample opportunity to participate in the
notification system.
FP-1c The Applicant shall fund an additional FTE position at the HBFD, or equivalent, for personnel
with specific capabilities in inspection and code compliance associated with oil and gas production
facilities. This arrangement shall be to the satisfaction of the HBFD.
FP-1d The Applicant shall develop emergency response plans addressing the facility's fire-fighting
capabilities pursuant to the most recent NFPA requirements, Los Angeles County Fire Code,
LACFD, California Code of Regulation, and API requirements, in coordination with and to the
satisfaction of the LACFD and the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department. These plans shall
include, but not be limited to, fire monitor placement, water capabilities, fire detection capabilities,
fire foam requirements, facility condition relating to fire-fighting ease and prevention, and measures
to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The plan should also address coordination with local
emergency responders and area schools and daycare facilities.
FP-1e The Applicant shall ensure that the emergency response planning includes development of
evacuation plans of neighbors for an emergency scenario at the facility,. The plan shall be
reviewed by the LACFD, HBFD and the City annually and updated as needed. The relevant
portions of the plan shall be distributed to the public utilizing a method determined by the reviewing
Agencies.
FP-1f The Applicant shall ensure and make funding available to 1) upgrade the dispatch system
and procedures within Hermosa/Torrance/Redondo to implement a CAD-to-CAD system to improve
dispatch times; and 2) extend the mutual aid agreements to become automatic aid agreements
between the Hermosa Beach Fire Department, Redondo Beach Fire Department and the Torrance

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Fire Department and to include the Torrance HAZMAT unit, or provide for funding to provide
additional equipment and to train a sufficient number of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and/or
Manhattan Beach Emergency Response personnel to provide first response HAZMAT capabilities.
FP-1g The Applicant shall ensure, during Phase 2 and Phase 4, that the site shall have sufficient
water containment capabilities, as per guidance and approval of the Fire Department. Area storm
drains along 6th Street and Cypress Avenue shall be equipped with flapper-type valves to enable
the closure of the storm drain system in the event of potential overflow.
FP.2 Oil development
activities at the site
could be deficient in
equipment spacing
pursuant to
applicable codes
and standards.
II FP-2a The Applicant shall ensure that design and construction comply with applicable codes and
standards for equipment spacing, particularly those related to flare location and distances to public
areas and distances from well drilling equipment to buildings. If this cannot be achieved, additional
requirements shall include the construction of thermal radiation barriers or insulation on the crude
oil tanks, installation of thermal barriers/walls around the flare stack, increasing the height of the
flare stack during drilling, relocation of the flare stack, providing thermal radiation modeling to
estimate the impacts of equipment on the crude tanks and process piping and public areas and the
design and construction of blast walls as per API 752. Fire rated barriers shall be established, as
per LACFD requirements, to ensure that all buildings within 100 feet of well drilling would be
protected from thermal radiation. Thermal assessments shall be completed to ensure that the
thermal radiation from the flare is within acceptable levels (as per API RP 521) and does not
produce damage to other equipment or nearby walls/soundwalls. The design and construction
compliance status shall be verified by third-party audits under the direction of the City.
FP-2b Fire protection measures specific to the crude oil containment system shall be provided,
including the installation of manual fire foam systems with automatic detection and notification (to
both the operators and the HBFD) capable of foaming in the perimeter of the crude oil containment
system, wellhead area and the area immediately adjacent to combustion or spark producing
equipment within or immediately adjacent to the crude oil containment area. The system shall be
capable of being remotely activated from a safe location in the event of a crude oil fire. The highest
level electrical classification achievable shall be designated for all equipment located within the
crude oil containment and wellhead area.
FP.3 The temporary City
Maintenance Yard
Facilities could
interfere with the
Fire Department
response activities.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
II FP-3 The City Public Works Department shall coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that
fire trucks have adequate access to and from the fire station, and that the temporary City
Maintenance Yard does not inhibit the ability of the Fire Department to respond to emergencies.
This may require the elimination of some parking along Bard Street to ensure adequate room for
fire truck turn-arounds, or other measures. Public Works shall incorporate the potential loss of
parking into their parking plan.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Maintenance Yard
Project)
Section 4.7 Geological Resources/Soils
GEO.1 The Proposed
Project would
potentially expose
people and
structures to
seismically induced
ground shaking.
II GEO-1a In coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory, the Applicant shall install
an accelerometer at the Project Site to determine site-specific ground accelerations as a result of
any seismic event in the region (Los Angeles/Orange County and offshore waters of the Santa
Monica Bay and San Pedro Channel). The drilling operator shall cease operations and inspect all
onsite oil field-related pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure following any seismic event
that exceeds a ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13 percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling
operator shall not reinstitute operations at the Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be
determined that all oil field infrastructure is structurally sound.
GEO-1b All seismic related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be
incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. These measures shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
- Drilled-in-place piles or cast-in-drilled-hole piles shall be constructed for foundations in the landfill
area, i.e., northeast Project Site, to reduce seismically induced settlement.
- Ground improvement techniques, including high pressure grout injection, i.e., compaction grouting,
shall be used in the landfill area to reduce seismically induced settlement and allow construction of
conventional shallow foundations.
- Seismic design criteria for horizontal and vertical accelerations, identified in Tables 10 and 11 of the
geotechnical report, shall be used during Proposed Project design (including incorporation of
updated seismic design criteria from the 2013 California Building Code).
- During Phase 1, the upper 2 to 4 feet of soil in the vicinity of the proposed well cellars shall be
excavated and replaced with compacted fill. In addition, the basement under the maintenance
building shall be removed and filled in with compacted fill.
- During Phase 3, the eastern portion of the site shall be excavated approximately 7 feet deeper than
the majority of the proposed building pad, with a minimum of 3 feet of overexcavation below design
grades, and recompacted to provide a uniform fill blanket below proposed tanks, compressors, and
other equipment.
- Asphalt pavement and underlying subgrade soils shall be designed to accommodate the proposed
drill rig.
- Positive surface drainage shall be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and
toward suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water on structural pads shall not be allowed.
GEO-1c A Registered Civil Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a
geotechnical investigation specific to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project structures. All
geotechnical recommendations provided in the report shall be followed during grading and
construction at the site. The geotechnical evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, an

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations.
GEO.2 Wastewater injection
would potentially
induce seismicity in
the vicinity of the
Proposed Project.
II GEO-2a Injection pressures associated with wastewater injection shall not exceed reservoir
fracture pressures as specified in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 2,
Section 1724.10, and as approved by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources.
GEO-2b In coordination with the Caltech Seismological Laboratory, the Applicant shall install an
accelerometer at the Project Site to determine site-specific ground accelerations as a
result of any seismic event in the region (Los Angeles/Orange County and offshore
waters of the Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Channel). Readings from the
accelerometer shall be recorded at the Oil Field and transmitted in real-time to the
Caltech Seismological Laboratory. The drilling operator shall cease operations and
inspect all onsite oil field-related pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure
following any seismic event that exceeds ground acceleration at the Project Site of 13
percent of gravity (0.13 g). The drilling operator shall not reinstitute operations at the
Project Site and associated pipelines until it can be determined that all oil field
infrastructure is structurally sound.
GEO-2c In the event that monitoring indicates that Proposed Oil Project-induced seismicity is
occurring, wastewater injection operations shall be adjusted to alleviate such seismicity. The
drilling operator shall first receive approval from the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources prior to any change (increase) in the injection operations.
GEO.3 The Proposed
Project is not
located in an area at
risk of
landslides/mudflows;
defined as areas
with slopes greater
than 10 percent.
II GEO-3 All slope stability related recommendations provided by NMG Geotechnical (2012) shall be
incorporated into the Proposed Oil Project design. Temporary excavations shall be stabilized per
the latest edition of Cal/OSHA requirements for loose sands, including shoring or laying back of
trench walls. Shoring along the northern perimeter of the Project Site shall be designed by an
experienced structural engineer due to the proximity to existing buildings that must be protected
from potential settlement and lateral movements.
GEO.4 The Proposed Oil
Project would
potentially result in
ground subsidence
from oil and gas
withdrawal.
II GEO-4a Prior to approval of the first drilling permit, the Applicant shall have submitted and
the City of Hermosa Beach and the California Coastal Commission shall have approved a
Subsidence Monitoring and Avoidance Program, for both onshore and offshore areas. The
onshore monitoring plan shall be completed throughout the life of this Project, in accordance with
Appendix A, Subsidence Monitoring Program, of the Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Technical
Report, E&B Oil Development Project (Geosyntec Consultants 2012), included as Appendix _F of
this EIR. The offshore monitoring plan shall be completed throughout the life of this Project in

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
accordance with the Offshore Subsidence Monitoring Program and Possible Mitigation Measures,
Hermosa Beach, California (Coastal Environments 1998), included as Appendix _F of this EIR.
The latter shall be updated, as applicable, to reflect advances in science since 1998. In addition,
Section 7.6, Mitigation of Onshore Subsidence, of the latter report, shall not be applied to this
mitigation measure, as the onshore monitoring program would be completed in accordance with the
Geosyntec Consultants (2012) report.
GEO-4b The Subsidence Monitoring Program shall include:
Ground elevation survey methodologies with high vertical resolution, including onshore surface
elevations and offshore bathymetric elevations;
Prior to Phase II drilling, establishment of a network of onshore and offshore survey or subsidence
monitoring locations, including continuous GPS stations, GPS benchmarks, and tautly anchored
offshore monitoring points, positioned within the City, outside the City, and in offshore areas, that
are sufficiently spaced to draw conclusions about subsidence within the zone of influence of the
Project;
Because subsidence can occur for a variety of reasons, establishment of control points outside the
zone of influence to allow differentiation of possible subsidence effects related to other activities;
Use of InSAR imagery technology to evaluate regional subsidence patterns both within and beyond
the proposed oil field;
Sufficient monitoring frequency to establish trends in subsidence in order to distinguish background
ground movement from any subsidence caused by proposed oil field operations;
Reservoir monitoring, including documentation of produced fluid volume (oil, gas and water) and
reservoir pressures at similar frequency to ground elevation measurements;
Reporting requirements; and
Action levels, as specified in the onshore and offshore subsidence monitoring reports.
Surveying for both vertical and horizontal ground movement shall be completed along the perimeter
and throughout the interior of the oil field, including both onshore and offshore areas, utilizing
Global Positioning System technology in combination with a network of ground stations. The
onshore continuous monitoring GPS stations shall include:
Hermosa Beach Pier. The pier will serve as the furthest offshore point in the onshore monitoring
program.
Longfellow Outfall. This Outfall is larger and more structurally stable than some of the other outfalls
along the City’s coast.
King Harbor Jetty. This location was selected to achieve a distribution of continuous monitoring
points along the coast of Hermosa Beach. This will help provide a limited regional picture of the
subsidence between survey events.
GEO-4c An onshore and offshore baseline subsidence report shall be completed and made
available to the City of Hermosa Beach and the California Coastal Commission at least two months

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
and no more than six months prior to planned commencement of Phase II drilling operations.
Subsidence monitoring reports shall be completed annually and the results shall be forwarded to
the California Coastal Commission and the City of Hermosa Beach for review, no more than one
month following the end of each annual monitoring cycle. In addition, results shall be forwarded to
the adjoining City of Redondo Beach and City of Manhattan Beach.
GEO-4d In the event that the Global Position System monitoring indicates that significant
subsidence, as defined by the onshore and offshore subsidence monitoring reports described in
GEO-4a, is occurring in and/or around the Proposed Project area, wastewater or water reinjection
operations shall be increased to alleviate such subsidence. The Applicant shall coordinate with the
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, which will approve increased levels of
wastewater or water reinjection operations in accordance with the approved Subsidence Monitoring
Program. The Applicant will also coordinate with the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works
Department, to verify that subsidence has been mitigated sufficiently.
GEO-4e In the unlikely event that subsidence related mitigation induces seismicity, corrective
actions related to subsidence shall proceed until baseline surface elevations have been achieved,
as subsidence related damage would likely be more pronounced in comparison to damage
associated with Project related micro-seismicity. Upon reestablishment of baseline elevations,
drilling operations shall cease until a balance between subsidence avoidance and induced
seismicity avoidance can be established, as agreed upon by the California Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources and the City of Hermosa Beach.
GEO.5 Site grading could
increase erosion
and impact water
quality offsite.
III
GEO.6 Expansive soils
could be present at
Proposed Project
Sites.
(Also applicable to
the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II GEO-6 A Registered Civil Engineer shall analyze surficial and near-surface soils at the Project Site
subsequent to grading and prior to on-site construction, to determine whether expansive soils are
present. Similarly, soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site and along the
proposed pipeline route shall be analyzed for soil expansion potential. In the event that clay-rich,
expansive soils are present, foundations shall be designed to accommodate expansive soils and
pipelines shall be placed within a blanket of non-expansive soils to prevent structural damage
and/or failure. Foundation and pipeline design shall be reviewed and approved by a Registered
Civil Engineer.
GEO.7 Corrosion could
potentially damage
the structural
components and
pipelines which
II GEO-7a Proposed Oil Project design must conform to the recommendations of HDR Schiff
(2012), included within Appendix C in NMG Geotechnical (2012), or as per the City Engineer, and
should occur prior to completion of the final Project design.
GEO-7b All buried metal pipelines shall be coated and placed under impressed cathodic
protection. To monitor for internal corrosion, corrosion coupons or equivalent measures can be

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
would result in a
pipe burst and
subsequent oil spill.
utilized.
GEO-7c External pipe inspections shall be conducted for the exposed pipeline sections to
ensure atmospheric coatings are in good conditions. All external inspections shall be documented
and reviewed by the operations management and repairs documented, when necessary.
GEO-7d In accordance with California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
pipeline regulations (Public Resources Code Sections 3013 and 3782), a pipeline management
plan shall be implemented for the Project Site. Similarly, in accordance with United States
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulations,
a pipeline management plan shall be implemented for proposed pipelines located beyond the
perimeter of the Project Site. These plans shall include, but not be limited to mechanical testing,
including ultrasonic and hydrostatic testing..
GEO-7e All concrete in contact with the high sulfate or corrosive soils shall be Type V
concrete in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code.
Section 4.8 4.8 Safety, Risk of Upset, and Hazards
SR.1 Operational and
drilling activities
would generate
offsite risks that
exceed the
thresholds.
I SR-1a The Applicant shall cause to be prepared an independent third-party audit, under the
direction and supervision of the City, of the gas and crude oil plants and pipelines, once
constructed, including the well pads, to ensure compliance with Fire Code, applicable API and
NFPA codes, EPA RMP, OSHA PSM, DOGGR and SPCC and emergency response plans
requirements. All audit items shall be implemented in a timely fashion, and the audit shall be
updated annually, as directed by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Departments. The final
installation of the facilities shall include a seismic assessment, including walkthroughs, of
equipment to withstand earthquakes prepared by a registered Structural Engineer in compliance
with Local Emergency Planning Committee Region 1 CalARP guidance and the seismic
assessment shall be updated, with walkthrough inspections, annually to ensure compliance with the
codes and standards at the time of installation.
SR-1b The Applicant shall ensure that the crude oil spill containment areas shall be designed as
Class I Division I areas according to NFPA and NEC, or that spark producing equipment (such as
the flare) would be isolated from the containment area, in order to reduce the potential for crude oil
fires. The refrigeration system shall utilize non-flammable refrigerant.
SR-1c The Applicant shall ensure that all crude-oil truck haulers and a sufficient number of onsite
personnel (at least two per shift) are trained in HAZMAT (to the HAZWOPER technician level at
least) spill response and that each truck carries a spill response kit.
SR-1d The Applicant shall install automatic valves on the gas pipeline that will automatically shut
down under a low pressure scenario at the Processing Facility Area for all pipelines leaving the
processing plant, and shall install a backflow prevention device at the main gas pipeline tie-in
location, to prevent the release of gas from the main transmission pipeline in the event of a rupture
in the gas pipeline. The second, return pipeline shall remain isolated from the main gas pipeline

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
during normal operations.
SR-1e The Applicant shall ensure that warning tape is installed above the pipelines within the
pipeline trench to warn third parties that pipelines are located below the warning tape and that the
pipelines are capable of utilizing a smartpig.
SR-1f The odorant system shall have its own, smaller containment area around it limiting the spilled
pool size to the minimum size attainable, in order to prevent any offsite impacts. Transfer of
odorant shall utilize carbon canisters and a canister change-out/maintenance program to ensure
that filling of odorant tanks do not cause offsite impacts.
SR-1g The comingled produced gas shall be continuously monitored for hydrogen sulfide. If H2S
levels in the produced gas from any individual well exceeds 100 ppm, then that well shall be shut in
and abandoned as per DOGGR requirements. Wells shall be tested when fluids first flow, when the
well is placed into production and periodically thereafter in order to ensure that all wells operate
below 100 ppm H2S.
SR.2 Grading at the site
could mobilize soil
contamination.
II SR-2 The Applicant shall sample soil during Phase 1 grading to ensure that soil lead
contamination levels are below 9,500 mg/kg and that soil contaminated with TPH are below the
regulatory guidelines. If soils are encountered above these levels, then those soils shall be
removed from the site and transported to a disposal site. This may necessitate implementing the
RAP during Phase 1 if substantial amounts of contamination are encountered.
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
HWQ.1 New grading,
construction,and soil
remediation could
degrade surface
water quality
III No mitigation required.
HWQ.2 A rupture or leak
during oil drilling
operations, from
pipelines, or from
other infrastructure
could substantially
degrade surface
water and
groundwater quality
I HWQ-2a The Applicant shall properly maintain the associated crude oil pipelines, storage
tanks, and processing facilities within and outside the Project Site, including smart-pigging
according to State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal requirements and the standards
outlined by the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall visually inspect onsite storage tanks and
processing equipment at least daily and provide a visual inspection of the crude oil pipeline right-of-way
on a weekly basis.
HWQ-2b The Applicant shall install a leak detection system for crude pipelines to the selected
valve box location. The system shall include pressure and flow meters, flow balancing, supervisor
control and data acquisition system, and a computer alarm system in the event of a suspected leak.
Temperature, pressure, and flow shall be monitored at each pipeline entry and exit. If any variable
deviates by more than 10 percent of the normal operating range, the system shall trigger both
audible and visual alarms. Flow balancing shall be conducted every 15 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours,

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
and 48 hours with the accuracy defined once the system is established and tested.
HWQ-2c Personnel at the site shall be trained in equipment use and containment and cleanup
of an oil spill. Dry cleanup methods, such as absorbents, shall be used on paved and impermeable
surfaces and shall be included in a spill trailer maintained onsite. Spills in dirt areas shall be
immediately contained with an earthen dike and the contaminated soil shall be dug up and
discarded in accordance with local and state regulations.
HWQ-2d Oil spills shall be contained and cleaned according to measures outlined in the then-current
California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook.
HWQ-2e A United States Environmental Protection Agency, Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department, shall be
implemented in the event of a spill. The Plan, which shall include a spill response trailer,
equipment, and personnel training, shall be completed prior to Phase 2 and Phase 4, and in
compliance with the California State Oil Spill Contingency Plan (California Department of Fish and
Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response 2010) and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Oil Spill
Contingency Plan (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011). Spill cleanup shall be
completed under the oversight of the lead regulatory agency, with respect to oil spills, as identified
in the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan.
HWQ-2f The well cellars shall be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent oil-based
substances from seeping into groundwater supplies. All drilling muds storage shall be contained
within Baker-type enclosed tanks, which shall be sized to accommodate high intensity rainfall
events without overtopping.
HWQ-2g The Applicant shall install a check valve in the crude oil pipeline at the Herondo and
Valley drive intersection, where the crude oil pipeline turns eastward and starts uphill.
HWQ-2h The Applicant shall fund and install, under the direction of the Hermosa Beach Public
Works Department, an oil/grit separators or oil/water separator located along Herondo Street,
downstream of Valley Drive, in order to capture small to medium sized spills before they reach the
ocean. Installation and maintenance costs shall be provided by the Applicant and the devices shall
be inspected by the Applicant to ensure that the "trap" is operational before any storm events.
HWQ-2i The Applicant shall utilize a smaller 6" ERW pipe and a heat and impact resistant
coating at a minimum comparable to a 3-layer fusion bonded epoxy (such as BrederoShaw 3LPP)
and weld coverings equivalent to sleeves with epoxy primer. Specification of the pipe and coating
shall approved by the City.
HWQ-2j The Applicant shall install a 3 sack slurry starting 6 inches above the pipe to the
base of the pavement or ground surface and lay strips of warning tape over the top to prevent third-party
damage.
Section 4.10 Land Use/Recreation/Policy Consistency
LUPR.1 The Proposed II

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Project conflicts with
established land use
plans, policies, and
land use maps.
LUPR.2 Potential noise,
odors, and visual
impacts generated
from the Proposed
Project could be
incompatible with
adjacent land uses.
I
LUPR.3 The Proposed
relocation of the City
Maintenance Yard
conflicts with
established land use
plans, policies, and
land use maps
II
LUPR.4 Accidental oil
release and
potential cleanup
from operation of the
oil pipeline would
conflict with current
and projected
recreational users.
I
LUPR.5 Potential noise,
odors, and visual
impacts generated
from the Proposed
Project could create
a nuisance to
recreational area
users.
III
Section 4.11 Noise and Vibration
NV.1 Demolition and
construction
I NV-1a Increase the height of the noise barrier on all sides of the site to 24-feet (24-feet is the
maximum feasible height for a noise barrier during Phase 1). Minimum sound insulation

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
machinery would
increase noise
levels.
performance of the barrier shall remain at STC-25.
NV-1b The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be 24-feet high, consistent with the
height of the acoustical barrier around the perimeter of the site. The gates shall have no holes or
gaps in them and shall be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25.
NV-1c All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption
performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient,
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV.2 Drilling + Production
activities would
increase noise
levels.
II NV-2a Increase the height of the noise barriers on all sides of the site from 32-feet to 35-feet (35-
feet is the maximum height allowed by zoning). Minimum sound insulation performance of the
barrier material shall be STC-32.
NV-2b The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall have no holes or gaps in them and
shall be designed to deliver a minimum STC of 32. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off,
by extending the acoustical barrier material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical
integrity of the STC-32 noise barrier in all locations.
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-2d Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck,
pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast
to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-2e Provide full acoustical enclosures around the mud pumps. The enclosures shall be factory-assembled
by a manufacturer with a proven track-record of building noise-reducing enclosures for
industrial applications. The total sound power level radiated by the enclosure shall not exceed 77
dBA, including noise contributions from: the access door(s), observation windows, ventilation
openings and ventilation fans (if required).
NV-2f Provide enhanced inlet and outlet silencers for the Hydraulic Power Unit enclosure and
upgrade the walls, roof and floor of the enclosure as necessary to limit the total sound power level
radiated by the enclosure to 77 dBA.
NV-2g The acoustical shroud around the drilling rig mast shall be comprised of acoustical blankets
with a minimum STC rating of 25. The acoustical blankets shall provide continuous coverage of
three sides of the mast and shall cover the uppermost 26-feet of the fourth side.
NV-2h Provide acoustical treatment within the combustor fan housing and/or at the ventilation
openings, as necessary to limit the total sound power level radiated by the housing (including
contributions from the door and ventilation openings) to 86 dBA.
NV-2i Eliminate use of the combustor during drilling in Phase 2.
NV-2j During the drilling portion of Phase 2, implement a “Super-Quiet Mode” of operation between
the hours of 2AM and 5AM, during which time drilling would essentially be suspended to minimize

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
noise. Super-Quiet Mode would impose the following additional measures and limitations: no pipe-handling
of any kind anywhere on the project site, shakers switched off, top drive and rig floor
completely enclosed on four sides by acoustical blankets with a minimum STC rating of 25,
operation of the top drive limited to “exercising” the pipe string only, top drive travel limited to the
bottom half of the drilling rig mast. Super-Quiet Mode shall be implemented from the outset of
drilling work during Phase 2; however, if monitoring shows consistently that noise emissions for
normal drilling operations (with mitigation measures NV2a through NV2i in place) would result in
less-than-significant impact during all or part of the period between 2AM and 5AM, the Applicant
may, at the discretion of the City, be permitted to reduce the hours Super-Quiet Mode operations,
or eliminate Super-Quiet Mode altogether.
NV.3 Test Production
activities would
increase noise
levels.
feet is the maximum height allowed). Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material
should be STC-32.
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV-3d Provide acoustical treatment within the combustor fan housing and/or at the ventilation
openings, as necessary to limit the total sound power level radiated by the housing (including
contributions from the door and ventilation openings) to 86 dBA.
NV.4 Site construction
machinery would
result in a
substantial increase
in ambient noise
levels.
I NV-4a Increase the height of the noise barrier on all sides of the site to 24-feet (24-feet is the
maximum feasible height for a noise barrier during Phase 3). Minimum sound insulation
performance of the barrier shall remain at STC-25.
NV-4b The gates on the east and south sides of the site shall be 25-feet high, consistent with the
height of the acoustical barrier around the perimeter of the site. The gates shall have no holes or
gaps in them and shall be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance of STC-25.
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
NV.5 Pipeline construction
machinery would
result in a
in ambient noise
levels.
I None
NV.6 Drilling-plus-production
activity
on the site would
result in a
in ambient noise
levels.
feet is the maximum height allowed by zoning code). Minimum sound insulation performance of the
barrier material shall be STC-32.
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14. In the event that a permanent 35-foot wall is built, the interior
surfaces of the wall (i.e. those facing inwards towards the drilling and production operations) shall
be treated with exterior grade acoustical panels offering equivalent sound absorption performance
to that specified in this Measure above a height of 10-feet from the ground.
NV-6d Install pads on the V-door and other appropriate areas, timbers and pads on the drill deck,
pads between drill and casing pipe while in storage and pad and timbers at the boards on the mast
to reduce metal-on-metal noise.
NV-6e Provide full acoustical enclosures around the mud pumps. The enclosures shall be factory-assembled
by a manufacturer with a proven track-record of building noise-reducing enclosures for
industrial applications. The total sound power level radiated by the enclosure shall not exceed 77
dBA, including noise contributions from: the access door(s), observation windows, ventilation
openings and ventilation fans (if required).
NV-6f Provide enhanced inlet and outlet silencers for the Hydraulic Power Unit enclosure and
upgrade the walls, roof and floor of the enclosure as necessary to limit the total sound power level
radiated by the enclosure to 77 dBA.
NV-6g The acoustical shroud around the drilling rig mast shall be comprised of acoustical blankets
with a minimum STC rating of 25. The acoustical blankets shall provide continuous coverage of
three sides of the mast and shall cover the uppermost 26-feet of the fourth side.
NV-6h During the drilling portion of Phase 4, implement a “Super-Quiet Mode” of operation between
the hours of 2AM and 5AM, during which time drilling would essentially be suspended to minimize
noise. Super-Quiet Mode would impose the following additional measures and limitations: no pipe-handling
of any kind anywhere on the project site, shakers switched off, top drive and rig floor

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
completely enclosed on four sides by acoustical blankets with a minimum STC rating of 25,
operation of the top drive limited to “exercising” the pipe string only, top drive travel limited to the
bottom half of the drilling rig mast. Super-Quiet Mode shall be implemented from the outset of
drilling work during Phase 4; however, if monitoring shows consistently that noise emissions for
normal drilling operations (with mitigation measures NV6a through NV6g in place) would result in
less-than-significant impact during all or part of the period between 2AM and 5AM, the Applicant
may, at the discretion of the City, be permitted to reduce the hours of Super-Quiet Mode
operations, or eliminate Super-Quiet Mode altogether.
NV.7 Long term
production activity
on the site would
result in a
in ambient noise
levels.
II NV-7a Increase the height of the masonry walls on the north and west sides of the site to a
minimum of 27-feet.
NV-7b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to all available surfaces of the north and west walls that face
the production operations above a height of 10-feet above the ground. The purpose of the
acoustical panels is to control reflection of production noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to
the east and south. The acoustical panels shall offer the following minimum sound absorption
0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72.
NV-7c Well workover rigs shall be powered by electric drive/sources or the use of “ultra-quiet”
generators or engines - either diesel or natural gas-powered - that are capable of operating below
the noise significance thresholds for daytime operation.
NV.8 Demolition and
construction
equipment would
increase noise
levels.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
I NV-8a Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier along the north, west and south
boundaries of the City Yard site. Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material
should be STC-32.
NV-8b Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site.
Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material shall be STC-25.
NV-8c Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to
maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no
holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance
of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier
material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise
barrier.
NV-8d All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV.9 Operational noise
from the relocated
City Maintenance
Yard would increase
II NV-9a Increase the height of the masonry wall on the west side of the Yard (the wall that spans
between the office and shop building) from 6-feet to 12-feet.
NV-9b No noise-producing activity allowed in the City Yard before 8AM or after 7PM on weekdays
and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
noise levels.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
NV-9c For the Parking Option, there shall be no openings in the parking structure enclosure except
for the vehicular entrance/exit opening on the north side. The entrance/exit should be located as
far to the east as possible, to maximize its distance from the homes on Cypress Avenue. Garage
exhaust fans shall be enclosed and fitted with duct silencers on the discharge and intake sides as
necessary to limit noise emissions to less than significant levels at the nearby sensitive receivers.
NV.10 Demolition and
construction
equipment would
increase noise
levels.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
I NV-10a Provide a continuous, 25-foot high noise control barrier on the north, west and south sides of
the site and along those parts of the site boundary adjacent to City Hall. Minimum sound insulation
performance of the barrier material should be STC-32. If visual and light concerns preclude a 25-
foot high noise control barrier close to City Hall - because of visual and light concerns - the noise
barrier here should be as tall as possible.
NV-10b Provide a continuous, 16-foot high noise control barrier along the east boundary of the site.
Minimum sound insulation performance of the barrier material should be STC-25.
NV-10c Access to the site for construction shall be limited to a gate on the east side in order to
maintain the integrity of the noise barrier on the north side. Gates shall be constructed of solid (no
holes) plywood or sheet metal and be designed to deliver a minimum sound insulation performance
of STC-25. Any gaps above the gates must be closed off, by extending the acoustical barrier
material from the sides. The intent is to maintain the acoustical integrity of the STC-25 noise
barrier.
NV-10d All acoustical barriers around the site shall offer the following minimum sound absorption
0.49, 0.72, 0.74, 0.29, 0.21, 0.14.
NV.11 Operational noise
from the temporary
City Yard would
increase noise
levels.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II NV-11a Increase the height of the concrete block Yard wall along the west and south sides of City
Hall from 8-feet to 16-feet.
NV-11b Apply outdoor acoustical panels to the extended wall surfaces facing the Yard above a
height of 8-feet above the ground. The purpose of the acoustical panels is to control reflection of
operational noise in the direction of the sensitive uses to the west and south. The acoustical panels
shall offer the following minimum sound absorption performance: Center Frequency (Hz), 125, 250,
500, 1k, 2k, 4k - Sound Absorption Coefficient, 0.28, 0.68, 0.95, 0.86, 0.89, 0.72.
NV-11c No noise-producing activity allowed in the temporary City Yard before 8 A.M. or after 7 P.M.
on weekdays and anytime on Saturdays and Sundays except during emergencies.
Section 4.12 Public Services
Section 4.13 Transportation and Traffic
TR.1 Trucks activity along II TR-1a For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall fund, through and in consultation with the School District

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
Valley Drive would
cause impacts to
pedestrians or other
vehicles
and Safe Routes to School, an afternoon crossing guard to be stationed at the Project Site area to
ensure pedestrians passing nearby the Project Site have assistance in crossing the streets and the
entrances/exit of the Project Site. Alternately, the Applicant shall ensure that trucks do not travel to
and from the Project Site unless school is in session (i.e. truck travel prohibited on Valley Drive
after 2:48 p.m., on Wednesdays after 1:45 p.m. or on school minimum days after 12:45 p.m.). The
Applicant shall consult with the School District to ensure timing is current.
TR-1b For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall install, subject to the approval of the City Public Works
Department, warning signs and blinking yellow lights one block north and south (if applicable with
possible one-way on Valley Drive) of the Project Site warning vehicle traffic that trucks may be
entering and exiting the roadway. Blinking lights shall only operate when trucks are utilizing the
roadway (not 24 hours per day).
TR-1c The Applicant shall ensure that all trucks accessing the Project Site and utilizing the Pier
Avenue/Valley Drive intersection are less than 65 feet long to prevent safety hazards at the double
intersection on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. If trucks longer than 65
feet are required, then flagger shall be used at the Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore intersection.
TR-1d For Phases 1-3, the Applicant shall, with the approval and coordination of the City Public
Works Department, either 1) restripe Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue to be a southerly directed
one-way street. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Valley Drive between 6th Street and 8th
Street to allow for sufficient line of sight for trucks entering and exiting the Project Site; or 2) restripe
the section of Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo Street to make it two-way and direct all
truck traffic along Herondo Street to approach the project site from the south.
TR.2 Construction of the
pipelines along area
streets could cause
significant traffic
circulation/hazard
impacts.
II TR-2a Pipeline construction activities within the Pipeline right-of-way shall be limited to weekday
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., unless the applicable municipality approves a
specific exception to the time limit for periods of limited duration, subject to measures required by
the municipality to protect the public health and safety. The Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent
jurisdictions throughout the design and construction phase.
TR-2b The applicant shall implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) during
Pipeline construction that includes the following pursuant to the procedures and subject to approval
of the applicable municipality: 1) Require the Pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow street
construction permits in the affected areas (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and
Torrance, and Caltrans facilities - PCH and Hawthorne Boulevard); 2) Develop detour and traffic
management plans consistent with the affected City’s standard roadway plans (e.g., Torrance
Street Standard T603), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the
Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH); 3) Revise Pipeline construction schedules to
minimize access impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; and 4) Ensure that all affected
residences and business have adequate emergency access during all times and phases of
construction. The Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions throughout the design and

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
construction phase.
TR.3 Routing of Proposed
Oil Project truck
traffic could violate
local prohibitions.
II TR-3a The applicant shall be prohibited from routing Proposed Oil Project-related heavy truck
exceeding 20,000 pounds on 190th Street between Anza Avenue and PCH, except during Pipeline
construction. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the applicable city.
TR-3b The applicant shall route inbound and outbound heavy (>20,000 pounds) truck traffic along
PCH and Artesia Boulevard, which are designated truck routes.
TR-3c Applicant shall supply private parking sufficient to meet all parking demands and shall direct
all employees and contractors to park within Applicant’s private parking areas, or to utilize an
alternative parking program approved by the City.
TR.4 The City
Maintenance Yard
could introduce an
impact to safety or
Bicycle/pedestrian
safety.
(Applicable to the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
II TR-4a The City shall design the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard so that it does not
enter/exit directly onto Valley Drive.
TR-4b If the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project affects the sidewalk, then the
design shall incorporate a sidewalk design along Valley Drive which utilizes a landscape buffer to
separate the pedestrians from the street.
Section 4.14 Water Resources
WR.1 The Proposed Oil
Project and the
Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project would
generate sanitary
sewer wastewater
that could exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements of the
applicable RWQCB;
exceed the existing
capacity of
downstream sewer
and wastewater
II WR-1 Prior to approval of demolition and new construction, a Registered Civil Engineer in the State
of California shall evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer line system, beginning at the
proposed tie-ins on Valley Drive for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and 6th Street for
the Proposed Oil Project, and continuing downstream to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County sewer system, prior to any connections. A 7-day capacity performance test shall be
performed, based on Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County average wastewater generation
factors, to determine baseline and peak flows, and to ensure the sewer has adequate capacity in
the downstream areas. The capacity analysis shall be submitted to the City Public Works
Department and the Districts for review and approval.
In the event that existing sanitary sewer facilities are insufficient to accommodate increased flows
from the Project Site, the Applicant shall provide mobile sanitary facilities (i.e., toilet, sink, and
urinal) for onsite personnel, as necessary.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
treatment facilities;
or adversely affect
the existing
wastewater service
provider or the
existing wastewater
facilities by
exceeding current
and future demands
and capacity.
(Also applicable to
the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard
Project)
Project would
generate
wastewater that
could impact surface
water quality and the
Pacific Ocean.
II WR-2 Implement MM HWQ-2a through HWQ-2d.
Project would
generate
wastewater that
could impact
groundwater quality
through injection of
produced water.
II WR-3a The Applicant shall complete a site-specific Area of Review/Zone of Endangering Influence
analysis, per Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements, to determine if oil and
gas wells are present that might serve as conduits for injected liquids to migrate upward to
underground sources of drinking water. In the event that such wells are present, those wells shall
be plugged and abandoned such that underground sources of drinking water (i.e., less than 10,000
mg/L total dissolved solids) are protected. Plugging and abandonment of those wells shall include
zonal isolation plugs outside all casings and shall be completed per current Division of Oil, Gas,
and Geothermal Resources standards.
WR-3b The Applicant shall confine injected fluids into the intended zone of injection in order to
adequately protect underground sources of drinking water. Injection well cement shall be placed at
the base of all underground sources of drinking water, and not just at the base of fresh water, to
protect water with total dissolved solids content ranging from 3,000 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L.
WR-3c The Applicant shall complete step-rate tests, using bottom-hole and surface pressure
gauges, such that maximum allowable surface injection pressures are set at a maximum of 95
percent of the fracture pressure of the formation being injected.

Executive Summary
Impact
No. Impact Impact
WR-3d The Applicant shall ensure that the hydrostatic pressure in overlying West Coast Basin
aquifers is not exceeded during injection over the active life of the disposal wells. To ensure that
this does not occur, the static reservoir pressure shall be monitored on a periodic basis, per
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements, and injection into the receiving zone
shall cease if and when the hydrostatic pressure is exceeded.
WR-3e The Applicant shall meet with Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff annually
to review the status of the waste water injection wells. Any deficiencies identified by Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources staff shall be immediately rectified by the Applicant.
Project would
require new offsite
water supply, but
would not
substantially deplete
water supplies or
require new or
expanded water
entitlements.
III
Section 4.15 Environmental Justice

Executive Summary

Section 1: Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines to assess potential
significant environmental impacts of a proposed Oil Development Project in the City of Hermosa
Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach is the public agency with principal responsibility for review
of the Proposed Project and is therefore the lead agency for preparation of the FEIR. The Project
Applicant is E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (‘E&B’ or ‘Applicant’). As a
consequence of E&B’s Project, if approved, the City of Hermosa Beach’s Public Works
Maintenance Yard (‘City Maintenance Yard’) would be relocated to another site. Various
amendments to the City’s land use codes and plans are necessary for implementation of E&B’s
Project and the City Maintenance Yard relocation. These various components collectively
referred to as the “Proposed Project” are addressed in this FEIR:
1. E&B’s Oil Development Project (“Proposed Oil Project”)
2. City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Maintenance Yard relocation (“City Maintenance
Yard”)
3. Code and Plan Amendments (listed in Section 1.3) (“Amendments”)
E&B’s Proposed Project is the development of a 1.3-acre site located at 555 6th Street, currently
used as the City Of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Yard, for onshore drilling and production using
directional drilling to access oil and gas reserves in both the tidelands (offshore) and the uplands
(onshore) within the Torrance Oil Field. As proposed, the fully-developed Project would consist
of 30 production wells, four water injection wells, liquid and gas separating equipment, a gas
processing unit, and oil and gas pipelines. Drilling and production facilities would be located at
the 1.3-acre site with oil and gas pipelines extending southward offsite within the cities of
Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. During construction, a building located at 601
Cypress Street would be temporarily utilized as a laydown site to store construction materials
and vehicles. A lot immediately west of the Project Site at 636 Cypress Street would be
developed to provide 20 spaces serving E&B employees on weekdays and providing 15 free
remote coastal public parking spaces on weekends and two on-street parking spaces to replace
spaces eliminated by the Project. During the peak construction phase, additional employees
would park at an offsite location(s) to be determined and shuttled to the Project Site.
If approved, the Proposed Oil Development Project would necessitate relocation of the City’s
Maintenance Yard and its functions to another site. The City has identified two primary options
for Yard Relocation involving the Civic Center property located at 1315 Valley Drive/552 11th
Place. The options evaluated in this FEIR are: (a) development of a new Permanent City
Maintenance Yard (including sub-options with added parking of approximately 129 spaces and
no parking.) located on that portion of the site occupied by a self-storage business, south of City
Hall; and alternatively (b) a Temporary City Maintenance Yard may first be developed and
utilized through the exploration phases of E&B’s Project, with a the permanent facility
developed only if E&B fully develops the permanent drill site. The Temporary Yard would be
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

primarily located at 1315 Valley Drive in the areas west and immediately south of City Hall now
occupied by several City buildings, parking for City vehicles, City employee parking, free
remote coastal public parking, and Bard Street which would be closed to public traffic. A
portion of the city employee and city vehicle parking and free remote coastal public parking
would be relocated to a strip of city-owned property on the west side of Valley Drive south of 8th
Street, a portion of the city employee parking would be relocated to the Community Center at
710 Pier Avenue during work hours (Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and
occupy spaces that are allocated as free coastal public parking, and a portion of the free remote
coastal public parking would be located on the north side of Herondo Street. Various
amendments to City of Hermosa Beach land use codes and land use plans listed in Section 1.3
are also required in order for the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard to proceed.
Section 2.0 (Project Description) provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project and its
various components and features.
The decision to approve or deny E&B’s Project and the Amendments associated with Oil
Development will be made by the voters in Hermosa Beach, in accordance with a Settlement
Agreement entered into by the City, the Applicant and Macpherson Oil Company (see
Background, Section 1.8). Decisions on relocation and design of the City Maintenance Yard will
not be part of the ballot measure and will be considered by the Hermosa Beach Planning
Commission and City Council, as necessary.
Details of the Proposed Project are provided below in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Project Planning Information
Project Information
Project Title E&B Oil Drilling & Development Project
Case Number Development Agreement 12-1, Municipal Code Text Amendment 12-2, General
Plan Amendment 12-1, Zoning Map Amendment 12-1.
Lead Agency City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Contact Person Ken Robertson, City of Hermosa Beach, Community Development Department,
(310) 318-0242
oilproject@hermosabch.org
Applicant E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation, 1600 Norris Road,
Bakersfield, California 93308
General Plan
Designation
E&B’s Project Site/Laydown site/Accessory parking: Industrial
City Maintenance Yard relocation: Temporary – Industrial (IND), Open Space
(OS), General Commercial (GC); Permanent – Industrial (IND), Open Space
(OS)
Coastal Land Use
Plan Designation
E&B’s Project site: Open Space; Laydown site/Temporary parking lot: Industrial
City Maintenance Yard relocation site: Temporary – Open Space – Government;
Residential – Medium Density; Permanent - Open Space – Government
Zoning Designation E&B’s Project site/Laydown site/Accessory parking: M-1 Light Manufacturing
City Maintenance Yard relocation site: Temporary- M-1 Light Manufacturing, O-S
Open Space, C-2 Restricted Commercial; Permanent- M-1 Light Manufacturing,
O-S Open Space
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project 1-2 Final Environmental Impact Report

Table 1.1 Project Planning Information
Project Information
Site Size E&B’s Project site: Oil and gas drilling and production site is proposed to be
located on a 1.3-acre City owned property (existing City Maintenance Yard).
Accessory parking site: 636 Cypress Street. Laydown site: 601 Cypress Street.
Electrical and pipeline interconnections would be made to the Southern
California Edison grid, the Southern California Gas Company pipeline, the
California Water Service Company system, and the West Basin Municipal Water
District system.
Oil and gas pipeline connections of approximately 3.55 miles and 0.43 miles,
respectively, would be constructed to transport the processed oil to a valve box
location in the City of Torrance and the processed gas to a tie-in with the
Southern California Gas Company gas line in the City of Redondo Beach.
Relocated City Maintenance Yard: Permanent - approximately 0.79 of 2.5 acre
Civic Center (existing Hermosa Self Storage building location and parking lot).
Temporary – approx. 1.0 acre of 2.5 acre Civic Center site and Bard Street
right-of-way. City employee parking at Civic Center to be replaced at
Community Center and on a strip of land west of Valley Drive south of 8th Street,
and free remote coastal public parking potentially to be replaced along north side
of Herondo Street and a strip of land west of Valley Drive south of 8th Street.
Project Location E&B’s Project: Project oil and gas drilling and production facilities would be
located at 555 6th Street, Hermosa Beach. Temporary laydown site would be
located at 601 Cypress Street. Temporary parking would be located at 636
Cypress Street. Other temporary employee parking would be located offsite at
undetermined location(s).
Oil pipeline would be constructed in the Southern California Edison Utility
Corridor and/or the public right-of-way of Valley Drive, and Herondo/Anita/190th
Street in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance.
Gas pipeline would be constructed in the public right-of-way of Valley
Drive/North Francesca Avenue, extending beneath Valley Drive to a Southern
California Gas Company line east of North Francesca Avenue in Redondo
Beach.
Relocated City Maintenance Yard would be located at 1315 Valley Drive/552
11th Place, Hermosa Beach. Replacement parking may be located at the
Community Center, 710 Pier Avenue and north side of Herondo Street, and on a
strip of land on the west side of Valley Drive south of 8th Street (portion of APN
4187-031-900), Hermosa Beach.
Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers
E&B’s Project site: 4187-031-900; Laydown site: 4187-030-037; Temporary
Parking lot: 4187-031-22.
Pipelines: (R.O.W. Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance)
Relocated City Maintenance Yard site(s): Permanent: 4187-020-907 and 904;
Temporary: 4187-020-904 through 907
Access E&B’s Project Site (555 6th Street): Existing and relocated driveways onto Valley
Drive and 6th Street. Temporary Parking lot: Driveway at 636 Cypress Street.
Laydown site: Existing access to building at 601 Cypress Street.
Relocated City Maintenance Yard: Existing and/or relocated driveways onto
Valley Drive and Bard Street. Bard Street to be closed in conjunction with
Temporary City Maintenance Yard.
Latitude and
Longitude
E&B’s Project Site: 33°51’32.10” N and 118°23’41.09”W
Relocated City Maintenance Yard: 33°51’47.19”N and 118°23’43.97”W

1.2 The Environmental Impact Report Process
1.2.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code sections 21000 et
seq., requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental
consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on
those projects. This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared to satisfy
CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter
3, Section 15000 et seq. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public informational
document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the
environmental effects of a proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid
significant effects, and to describe reasonable alternatives to a project. An EIR must also
disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing impacts,
effects not found to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
As an “informational document” (see Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines) the EIR is
intended to inform the City, other public agencies with discretionary authority over aspects of the
project, the general public, the local community and Hermosa Beach voters, and other
organizations, entities and interested persons of the project’s scope, significant environmental
effects, feasible measures to avoid or minimize the significant effects, and a reasonable range of
feasible alternatives to the project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects.
The environmentally superior alternative is selected as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA.). The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (e) (2), state that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then an environmentally
superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives. While identification
and disclosure of the environmentally superior alternative is required by CEQA, the lead agency
is not required to approve the environmentally superior alternative.
Before any action may be taken on the Proposed Project, the City of Hermosa Beach, as lead
agency under CEQA, must certify that it has reviewed and considered the information in the
Final EIR (consisting of the Draft EIR, comments submitted during the Draft EIR public review
period and responses to all comments) that it has exercised its independent judgment and
analysis, and that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of
CEQA. Certification of the Final EIR by the lead agency does not approve or deny the Proposed
Project.
The City of Hermosa Beach will consider information in the Final EIR and certify the Final EIR
prior to placing a measure on the ballot asking the voters to approve or disapprove the project, as
required under the Settlement Agreement. The decision to approve or deny E&B’s project will
then be made by Hermosa Beach Voters (see Project History, section 1.8.1, below). The
conclusions of the EIR will also serve to inform the voters in their role as decision-makers for
the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to reduce impacts will be
incorporated into the Project (essentially providing conditions which must be met if the project is
approved) and identified for voters on the ballot measure, as part of the Development

Agreement. The ballot measure will include all necessary approval findings and a Statement of
Overriding Consideration.
In addition to approval by Hermosa Beach voters, the ability to develop E&B’s Project requires
discretionary actions by multiple public agencies. Discretionary actions by the City of Hermosa
Beach (should the Project be approved by voters and Coastal Commission) and potential permits
and approvals required from other regulatory agencies are described below and in Table 2-15 and
Table 2-16 of the Project Description.
If the voters approve the Oil Development Project, the Hermosa Beach City Council will make
the ultimate decision about City Maintenance Yard Relocation. City Maintenance Yard
Relocation requires discretionary action by the Coastal Commission. Permits and approvals
required from other regulatory agencies are described below and in Table 2-15 and Table 2-16 of
the Project Description.
1.2.1.1 Local and Regional Agencies
The Los Angeles County Fire Department is a California Environmental Protection Agency
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the entire County, including the City of Hermosa
Beach. The CUPA oversees all programs associated with hazardous materials. This includes the
Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, California Accidental Release
Program, Risk Management Prevention Program and Uniform fire Code (UFC). Inclusive in
these programs is the reporting of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, within
Proposition 65 requirements. The County Fire Department is a Responsible Agency that may
use the EIR to obtain information on the Oil Development Project for changes in the Hazardous
Waste Generator and Business Plan.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 4, is responsible
for establishing wastewater discharge requirements and issue storm water pollution prevention
plan permits. The Los Angeles RWQCB is expected to use the EIR in its review of the Proposed
Project.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for
issuance of a Permit to Construct (PTC) and a Permit to Operate (PTO), both of which will be
required for the Proposed Project if it is approved. To fulfill its obligations as a Responsible
Agency, the SCAQMD will rely on information contained in this EIR as part of the PTO
permitting process.
The Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance will use the EIR in their reviews of construction
permits and/or franchise agreements related to pipelines proposed within rights-of-way of streets
within these two cities.
The City of Redondo Beach will use the EIR in its consideration of a Coastal Development
Permit for installation of pipelines within the Coastal Zone and any permits required for the
construction of the gas metering station.

1.2.1.2 State Agencies
The California Coastal Commission is a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project and will
use the EIR to consider the following:
Oil Development Project
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map
designation from Open Space to Industrial;
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies to regulate oil and gas
recovery as proposed in Appendix P;
• Amend the City’s Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit
CDP 5-84-236);
• Adopt a Development Agreement for the Project;
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the Project.
City Maintenance Yard Relocation
Permanent City Maintenance Yard
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Map from
Residential - Medium Density to Open Space – Government (applies to portion of site
west of the extension of Bard Street encompassed by a portion of APN 4187-020-904 and
907; may also include APN 4187-020-905 and 906 as a clean-up consistent with existing
Civic Center site);
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for demolition and removal of facilities at the
existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street;
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the permanent City Maintenance Yard;
• Amend the City’s Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development Permit
CDP 5-84-236).
Temporary City Maintenance Yard
Residential - Medium Density to Open Space – Government (applies to portion of site
west of Bard Street and its extension encompassed by APN 4187-020-905 and 906 and a
portion of 904 and 907);
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for demolition and removal of facilities at the
existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street;
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the temporary City Maintenance Yard;
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Preferential Parking Program (existing Coastal Development
Permit CDP 5-84-236).
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the agency
responsible for issuance of well permits for production and injection wells and tanks and
facilities per DOGGR regulation AB 1960. DOGGR is expected to use the EIR in its permitting
review of the Oil Development Project.

1.2.1.3 Federal Agencies
The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the federal Department of Transportation
(DOT), is responsible for inspecting hazardous pipelines during construction to ensure they
comply with all DOT regulations. Their inspections would include both the pipelines and the
odorant facilities. The OPS may use the EIR to obtain additional information on the Oil
Development Proposed Project.
1.2.2 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation filed an application with the City of Hermosa
Beach Community Development Department for its Proposed Project on November 12, 2012.
The City deemed the application complete on April 18, 2013 and determined that an EIR should
be prepared. The City’s decision to prepare an EIR is documented in an Initial Study included in
Appendix H of this FEIR. The Initial Study, which consists of a checklist of possible effects on
a range of environmental topics, found that the Project may have significant environmental
impacts related to several topics and that the detailed analysis of an EIR is needed to further
assess potential effects. The Initial Study defined the preliminary scope of the EIR’s analysis,
suggesting which environmental topics should be addressed.
On July 11, 2013, the City, as the Lead Agency, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform
the general public and agencies that an EIR would be prepared for the Proposed Project and to
solicit comments on environmental issues to be addressed in the document. On July 24, 2013,
the City hosted an open scoping meeting for public agencies in the afternoon and a second
scoping meeting for the general public in the evening. The public scoping comment period
closed on August 12, 2013. Comments received in response to the NOP were used to further
refine the scope of the analysis and the technical studies in this EIR. Written comments and
transcriptions of oral comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix H
with an indication of specific EIR sections where topics related to individual comments are
addressed.
1.2.3 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
Based on the findings of the Initial Study and the NOP Scoping Process, the following
environmental topics are excluded from analysis in this FEIR because it was determined that the
Proposed Project would have no potential for environmental effects related to these issues.
Agricultural Resources: The Proposed Project is expected to have no impact because there are
no agricultural resources on or in the vicinity of the project sites (including proposed pipeline
alignments).
Population & Housing: The Proposed Project is expected to have no impact because the
Proposed Project will not induce growth, either directly or indirectly. It does not propose
housing (or infrastructure that facilitates growth or housing development). The Project and its
construction activities will generate employment opportunities (temporary and long-term), but
the number of employment opportunities is not great enough to induce substantial growth. City
Maintenance Yard Relocation will generate employment opportunities but cumulatively

employment generated by the Proposed Project will not be great enough to induce substantial
growth. The proposed uses will not displace existing housing or substantial numbers of people.
1.3 Proposed Project Approvals
Oil Development Project
E&B states its Project has been designed to conform to the parameters established within the
following existing entitlements and agreements (all documents are included as Appendices L, M
and N):
• 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632) for Oil
Development at the City Maintenance Yard and Construction of an Oil Pipeline.
• Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B (assigned from Macpherson Oil
Co.), dated January 14, 1992 and approved by the State Lands Commission on April 28,
1993.
• Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March 2, 2012
setting forth certain responsibilities of the City, E&B, and Macpherson Oil Company.
The ballot measure submitted for consideration by the City of Hermosa Beach electorate will
encompass most or all of the approvals listed below. The specific content of the ballot measure
will be determined prior to ballot publication. The environmental impacts of these actions are
addressed in this EIR.
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to delete Chapter 5.56 (Oil Wells) to lift the
ban on oil drilling, which had been imposed with Proposition E in 1995, and allow oil
drilling in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone in Chapter 17.28 subject to a development
agreement at the Project site located at 555 6th Street. (E&B proposes to utilize the 1993
Conditional Use Permit and the conditions of approval from the Permit will be included
in the development agreement.) Deletion of Chapter 5.56 will also eliminate the
requirement that all funds the City derives from Hydrocarbons Recovery go into the
City’s Park and Recreation Facilities Fund except the first $500 of Business License Fees
and any funds regulated by the State Lands Commission, approved with Proposition L in
1987, to allow oil and gas royalties to be used for other purposes.
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to change the designation of the
Project Site located at 555 6th Street from Open Space to Industrial consistent with the
current use as the City Maintenance Yard and the proposed use as defined for the
Proposed Project.
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to add policies regulating oil and gas
recovery, as proposed in Appendix P.
• Adopt a Development Agreement to provide for the orderly development of the Oil
Development Project, and to provide the Applicant with a vested right to proceed with
the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation Measures in the
certified EIR, conditions of approval from the 1993 CUP, any benefits and commitments
to the City that may be proposed by the Applicant, and other provisions agreed to by
E&B and the City will be incorporated into the Development Agreement.

• Approve a Franchise to allow the proposed oil and gas pipelines within the City of
Hermosa Beach.
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, including the “Oil Production” Code
(Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 21-A), to amend the prohibition on process
operations to allow oil and gas processing and treatment activities. Oil and gas
processing shall be defined as treatment activities that involve the chemical separation of
oil and gas constituents and the removal of impurities. Processing activities would
include oil stripping; hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal systems;
depropanizers, debutanizers, or other types of fractionation; sulfur recovery plants;
wastewater treatment plants; and separation and dehydration of oil/gas/water.
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Oil Production Code, to modify the
definition of “grade” (adjacent ground elevation) to allow for a perimeter wall height of
35 feet. Grade shall be defined as the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface
level of the ground, paving or sidewalk, excluding excavations for well cellars and
storage tanks, within the enclosed area of the privacy wall, to also include the privacy
wall (i.e., the perimeter wall around the Oil Project Site).
• Other permits and entitlements that may be required, but that will not be on the ballot, are
listed in Tables 2-15 and 2-16.
City Maintenance Yard Relocation
The following discretionary approvals or permits are also proposed to allow for relocation of the
City Maintenance Yard at the Civic Center properties. These actions will not be placed on the
ballot but are part of the total scope of the Proposed Project and are thus evaluated in this EIR:
City Maintenance Yard Relocation - Permanent
• Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from Industrial (I)
to Open Space (O-S).
• Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light
Manufacturing (M-1) to Open Space (O-S).
Residential - Medium Density to Open Space - Government.
• Approve a Planned Development permit to develop a City Maintenance Yard in the Open
Space zone.
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and removal of facilities at the
existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street.
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed relocation of the City
Maintenance Yard.
City Maintenance Yard – Temporary:
• Amend the Hermosa Beach General Plan to change the Land Use Map from General
Commercial (GC) to Open Space (O-S).

• Amend the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map from Light
Manufacturing (M-1) and Restricted Commercial (C-2) to Open Space (O-S) zone.
Residential - Medium Density to Open Space – Government.
• Approve a Planned Development permit to develop a City Maintenance Yard in the Open
Space (O-S) zone.
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and removal of facilities at the
existing City Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street.
• Approve a Coastal Development Permit for the temporary relocation project;
If the Oil Development Project is approved by the electorate, both the proposed Oil Development
Project and the Yard Relocation would require other permits and approvals as detailed in Section
2.0 of this FEIR. This would include the California Coastal Commission review of the
amendments to the City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, the Development Agreement,
and Coastal Development Permits for the Proposed Project.
1.4 EIR Contents and Guide for the Reader
1.4.1 EIR Contents
E&B’s Planning Application to the City’s Community Development Department on December
15, 2012 initiated the application process and included a detailed project description and
technical reports. The Application was supplemented by the submittal of responses to comments
from City staff during the review of the Application. Section 2.0 of this EIR provides details of
the Project as proposed by E&B, with clarifications and explanations added by the EIR
consultant in order to provide sufficient information for the analysis of potential impacts.
Section 2.0, Project Description, was reviewed by the Applicant to ensure clarifications and
explanations added by the EIR consultant were accurate prior to completion of subsequent
sections of the EIR, thereby providing the basis for the analysis in Section 4.0, Analysis of
Environmental Issues. In addition, numerous assumptions and design aspects of the Project as
proposed by the Applicant are assessed and verified by this EIR in Section 4.0. The complete
Planning Application is available for review on the City of Hermosa Beach’s website at
http://www.hermosabch.org, and at the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development
Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, 310-318-0242.
The EIR in Section 2.0 also provides details of the relocation and development of the City
Maintenance Yard as proposed by the City of Hermosa Beach that would be necessary as a
consequence of E&B’s Oil Development Project, and evaluates the impacts of that activity in
Section 4.0.

The EIR is divided into the following chapters:
• Executive Summary – Provides an overview of the Proposed Project, a summary of the
significant impacts and associated mitigation measures identified for the Proposed
Project.
• Impact Summary Table – Provides a summary of the identified impacts for the
Proposed Project. The table also provides a summary of identified mitigation measures
for each impact.
• Section 1: Introduction – Provides an overview of the Proposed Project evaluated in the
EIR. The section also discusses agency use of the document, and provides a summary of
the contents of the EIR.
• Section 2: Project Description – Provides objectives stated by E&B for its Oil
Development Project, and a detailed description of the Project including remediation,
restoration, and area development. As a consequence of E&B’s Project, if approved by
the voters, the City Maintenance Yard would need to be relocated. The City’s stated
objectives that should be satisfied when relocating the City Yard are also provided, along
with a detailed description of the City Maintenance Yard relocation.
• Section 3: Cumulative Projects Description – Provides a description of the projects that
have been included in the cumulative projects analysis. The cumulative analysis
contained in this document covers the cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects located in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
• Section 4: Analysis of Environmental Issues – Describes the existing conditions found
in the Proposed Project area and vicinity, and assesses the potential environmental
impacts that could occur if the Proposed Project were implemented. These potential
impacts are compared to various “Thresholds of Significance” (or significance criteria) to
determine the severity of the impacts. Mitigation measures intended to reduce significant
impacts are identified where feasible.
• Section 5: Description of Alternatives/Screening Analysis – Provides descriptions of
the proposed alternatives that were considered and rejected for further analysis, and the
Project alternatives selected to be evaluated in this document.
• Section 6: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives/Conclusions – Provides
an analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project that could lessen any identified
significant impacts while still achieving most of the basic Project objectives. It also
includes the impact analysis for the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. Finally, it
summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives
compared to the Proposed Project, and it identifies the environmentally superior
alternative.
• Section 7: Other CEQA-Mandated Sections – Discusses the significant irreversible
environmental changes which would be caused by the Proposed Project should it be
implemented. The section also discusses the growth inducing impacts that may result
from the Proposed Project and known areas of controversy.
• Section 8: Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program –
Contains a listing of all identified mitigation measures that should be included as
conditions of Project approval for E&B’s Oil Development Project and the relocation of
the City Maintenance Yard. In order for each component to be implemented, their

implementation requirements, verification schedules, and parties responsible for
implementation and verification are also included.
• Section 9: List of EIR Preparers, Agencies and Individuals Consulted During EIR
Preparation – Identifies and presents the qualifications of those who prepared the
document. Lists reference materials used and persons contacted to prepare the document.
• Section 10: References – Includes all the references used in the document.
The EIR also contains a number of appendices that support the EIR and its analysis:
• Appendix A- Project Description Design Data
• Appendix B - Air Emission Calculations
• Appendix C - Risk Assessment Calculations
• Appendix D - Traffic Impact Analysis
• Appendix E - Noise Impact Analysis
• Appendix F - Geology Reports
• Appendix G - Cultural Resources Technical Study
• Appendix H - Notice of Preparation, Scoping Document, Comments, and Responses
• Appendix I - Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation
• Appendix K - Public Notification List
• Appendix L - 1993 Conditional Use Permit (City Council Resolution No. 93-5632)
• Appendix M - Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 between the City and E&B
• Appendix N - Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the City Council on March
2, 2012.
• Appendix O - Aesthetics - Visual Simulations.
• Appendix P - Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan policies regulating oil and gas recovery.
• Appendix Q - Comments and Responses to Comments
These appendices are available in electronic format on the CD attached to the inside front cover
of the paper copy of the EIR notebook. All information is also available at the locations listed in
Section 1.5.
1.4.2 Significance Criteria
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the EIR base its determination of
whether or not a project impact is significant on adopted policies and standards, which serve as
significance thresholds. The policies and standards applied by the EIR to serve as significance
thresholds are derived for the most part from City policies (primarily in the City’s adopted
General Plan) and other adopted standards such as the Municipal Code. For some environmental
issues, the EIR applies standards established by other regulatory agencies, such as the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (in the case of water pollution standards) and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (in the case of air pollutant standards). For impacts related to
certain public safety hazards associated with oil production and transport, this EIR uses the well-established
significance criteria adopted by the County of Santa Barbara. These criteria have
been found to be acceptable and utilized by the California Coastal Commission in particular.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a list of generic questions intended to guide
lead agencies in determining what level of CEQA documentation is appropriate for a given
project (e.g., a negative declaration or EIR). (These questions were used in the Initial Study
presented in Appendix H.) The EIR follows the City’s practice of using those questions as a
framework for addressing project impacts in more detail with careful consideration given to
specific pertinent policies adopted by the City or other relevant agencies. Each analytic section
of the EIR identifies the significance thresholds used to assess impacts related to the specific
environmental issue under consideration. The same significance thresholds are used again when
the EIR evaluates the effectiveness of any mitigation measures or Project Alternatives to reduce
or avoid potential impacts.
1.5 Final EIR Preparation and Certification Process
The DEIR was circulated for public review for a period of 60 days (15 days beyond the 45-day
public review period required by CEQA). Public agencies and members of the public were
invited to provide written comments on the DEIR.
The DEIR (paper copy form) as well as the Final EIR will be available to the general public for
review at these locations:
• City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department, 1315 Valley Drive,
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
• Hermosa Beach Public Library, 550 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
• City of Torrance, 3301 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503.
• City of Redondo Beach, 303 North Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
CD and paper copies of the FEIR may be obtained (free of charge) at the City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department.
The FEIR is also available on the City of Hermosa Beach’s website at
http://www.hermosabch.org, under ‘Spotlight’ select ‘Proposed Oil Production Project.’ All
comments on the DEIR must be received no later than April 14, 2014 and should be directed to:
Ken Robertson
Community Development Director
1315 Valley Drive,
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
oilproject@hermosabch.org
310-318-0242
Upon completion of the 60-day review period, the City reviewed and prepared written responses
to each comment as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. A Final EIR (‘FEIR’) was
then prepared, incorporating all of the comments received, written responses to received
comments on the DEIR, along with any changes to the FEIR that result from the comments
received. During the public comment period a number of public workshops were held on the

Draft EIR to provide the public, the Planning Commission and City Council members with an
opportunity to ask questions about the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission also held Public
Comment Hearings on the Draft EIR on April 2 and April 10, 2014. Appendix Q of the FEIR
contains a copy of all of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR and the responses to
those comments. Appendix Q is provided in electronic format on the CD attached to the inside
front cover of the FEIR. Revision marks are used throughout this FEIR to show where changes
have been made to the DEIR. Areas where the text has been revised are shown by solid vertical
lines on the left margin of the page.
The FEIR will be provided to the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission for public
hearing and recommendation to the City of Hermosa Beach City Council regarding its adequacy
and then presented to the City Council for public hearing and certification. The FEIR will be
available to the public and agencies at least 10 days prior to a public hearing by the Planning
Commission. All public agencies and persons who submitted comments on the DEIR during the
60-day public review period will receive written responses to their comments and be notified of
the availability of the FEIR and the date of the Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings concerning certification of the FEIR at least 10 days prior to the public hearings. The
Planning Commission will consider the findings required by CEQA for certification of the FEIR
and the FEIR must be certified by the City Council (as lead agency) prior to placing the
Proposed Project on the ballot.
1.6 CEQA Findings for Proposed Project Approval
As part of certifying the FEIR, the City Council will determine that the EIR complies with the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and with Public Resources Code Section
21081. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which
identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency
makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The voters will determine whether to approve
E&B’s Project and whether to approve the findings on the ballot. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

1.7 Mitigation Monitoring
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program
(MMRP) for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 (see above). The MMRP is intended to ensure the implementation of all
mitigation measures that are adopted following the preparation of an EIR. This FEIR includes a
Mitigation Monitoring Program (Section 8). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
was prepared as part of the FEIR to reflect any changes to mitigation measures as a result of the
DEIR public review process. For this Project the mitigation measures identified will be part of
the Development Agreement between the City and E&B.
Regarding relocation of the City Maintenance Yard, if the voters approve E&B’s Project, the
City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission will need to consider a Planned Development
permit through a public hearing process. Mitigation measures in the Final EIR would be
incorporated as conditions of approval of the Planned Development permit for the City
Maintenance Yard.
1.8 Background
1.8.1 Project History
The Wilmington-Torrance Oil Field was discovered in the Los Angeles Basin at the turn of the
century. In 1919, the State of California granted to the City of Hermosa Beach, in trust, the
tidelands within the Torrance Oil Field. Oil drilling increased in the Los Angeles Basin into the
1930s. The resulting issues related to the oil drilling practices of that time period caused the
voters in several cities to pass ordinances banning oil drilling. In the City of Hermosa Beach,
where many oil wells had been drilled (including Stinnett Oil Well No. 1 at the City
Maintenance Yard), a citywide oil and gas drilling prohibition was passed in 1932.
In 1984, Ballot Measures P and Q were passed by the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach,
granting exceptions to the drilling ban that authorized oil development on two City-owned
parcels, the City Maintenance Yard and the South School site. Subsequently in 1985, the City
adopted the Oil Code within the City’s Zoning Ordinance (a component of the City’s Municipal
Code) that established terms and conditions governing oil drilling and development in the City,
including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for oil and gas production on the
City-owned parcels.
In 1986, the City selected the Macpherson Oil Company (Macpherson) to develop an oil
production facility to recover oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons from the City Maintenance Yard.
Also in 1986, Macpherson and the City entered into a lease that provided Macpherson with the
right to conduct oil and gas operations within the City. The original 1986 Lease was amended
many times, with an amendment in 1992 becoming the Lease between Macpherson and the City
under which the development of the project was slated to proceed (Oil and Gas Lease No.
2).Under the provisions of the Lease, the City applied to the California State Lands Commission
to allow drilling for oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons in the tidelands area and for approval of the
Lease which occurred in 1993.

The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Macpherson project that was
certified on May 9, 1990 along with the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations. On that
same date, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to make oil drilling a
permitted use with a CUP in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone and to allow an exception to
the 35-foot height limit requirement in the M-1 zone for a temporary period during drilling
operations.
1.8.2 Lawsuits and Settlement Agreement
E&B’s proposed Oil Development Project is the result of a 2012 Settlement Agreement between
the City, E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (Applicant), and Macpherson Oil
Company (for itself and Windward Associates)(“Macpherson”) to resolve a lawsuit by
Macpherson Oil Company against the City regarding oil drilling at the site of the existing City
Maintenance Yard at 555 6th Street. Macpherson was seeking in excess of $750 million in
damages against the City for breach of its lease. As described below, the Settlement Agreement
provided for the dismissal of the lawsuit, limited the City’s potential liability, and provided the
Applicant (Macpherson sold its interests to E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation)
with the potential opportunity to proceed with the oil drilling project conducted from an urban
drill site.
The Settlement Agreement was entered into by the City on March 2, 2012 to allow the city
voters to make a decision on whether the Project should move forward or not. As described
above, the Project has a long history. In 1984 the voters, through initiatives, approved a measure
lifting the ban on oil and gas production. Subsequently, in 1992 the City approved a Lease to
allow Macpherson to “slant drill” at an angle from an onshore site so it could tap into underwater
oil reserves off Hermosa Beach’s shores. Similar to the current Project, the Project at the time
called for up to 30 oil wells and production facilities on 1.3 acres at the City’s Maintenance Yard
located proximate to the Greenbelt, businesses and residences. In 1995, Hermosa Beach voters
approved Proposition E to restore the oil-drilling ban in the city. The City Council, however,
proceeded with the Macpherson Project under its agreement with the oil company entered into
prior to the Proposition E vote.
In 1998, a report presented at a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider approval of a
coastal development permit for the Macpherson Project raised additional safety concerns
regarding the Macpherson Project. In response, an independent expert hired by the City
conducted an integrated risk analysis and found risks to the City from the Project. The Council
voted to halt the Project, and Macpherson Oil Company sued the City. Through a series of
rulings over a number of years, the trial and appellate courts decided that Macpherson could
pursue breach of contract remedies against the City and that Macpherson could be entitled to
damages for a breach of the Lease. The trial on the issue of potential damages was scheduled for
April 2012, with Macpherson seeking $750 million in damages from the City. After the trial
court ruled on several evidentiary pre-trial motions, the discussions between Macpherson, the
Applicant, and the City commenced in an attempt to settle the lawsuit. The City Council voted
to settle the lawsuit resulting in the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, E&B filed an Application
for the Proposed Project.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the City is to place on the ballot, in a manner that complies
with all applicable laws, a measure that asks voters whether or not to lift the ban on oil
development in the City to allow E&B’s proposed Oil Development Project on the site at 555 6th
Street to proceed.
The Settlement Agreement also provided that Macpherson assigns the Project to E&B. E&B
paid Macpherson $30 million for those rights, including Macpherson’s existing Conditional Use
Permit and Lease. E&B also will be entitled to payment from the City up of to $17.5 million
depending on the results of a future election.
At that election, Hermosa Beach voters will review a ballot measure and decide if they wish to
repeal the existing ban on oil drilling in the City limits and enter into a development agreement
to allow E&B to develop an oil drilling project at the City’s Maintenance Yard.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, if the voters reject the ballot measure, the City
will owe E&B $17.5 million. If the voters approve the ballot measure and E&B secures all the
necessary permits to drill, the City will owe the company $3.5 million. Should the electorate
vote to allow the Proposed Project to go forward, and if the Project produces oil, the City would
collect royalty payments on the gross sales of the oil produced by the Project and would use a
portion of its royalties to pay the $3.5 million it would owe E&B under the Settlement
Agreement. The Hermosa Beach City School District would also collect revenues from the
Project if it is approved and produces oil.
If the voters approve the Project, E&B will pursue additional permits and approvals from
different state and regional agencies. The agencies are the California Coastal Commission,
South Coast Air Quality Management District and state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources. Other permits or approvals would also have to be obtained from various
jurisdictions, including the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance, which would be traversed by
the proposed oil and gas pipelines.

Section 2: Project Description
2.0 Project Description
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B), the Applicant, is proposing the E&B
Oil Drilling & Development Project (Proposed Oil Project) on a 1.3-acre site located in the City
of Hermosa Beach (City). The site for the Proposed Oil Project (Project Site), as shown in
Figure 2.1, would be located at 555 6th Street, bounded on the east by Valley Drive and on the
south by 6th Street, approximately seven blocks east of the beach and the Pacific Ocean. Oil and
gas pipelines constructed and used by the Project would extend from the Project Site to one of
four potential valve box locations for the oil line and to a Southern California Gas (SGE)
metering station for the gas line. The Project Site is owned by the City and is currently used as
the City (Public Works) Maintenance Yard. The Applicant has leased the Project Site from the
City for the implementation of the Proposed Oil Project.
The Proposed Project is composed of two parts: 1) the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard
(called the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project); and 2) the development of an oil and gas
facility on the current City Maintenance Yard site (called the Proposed Oil Project). In order to
clear the current City Maintenance Yard site (called the Project Site) for the construction of the
proposed oil and gas facility, the City Maintenance Yard would be temporarily relocated during
Phase 1 of the Proposed Project. If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the
Project Site would be economically viable (Phase 2 of the Proposed Project), construction of the
permanent City Maintenance Yard would be completed once Phase 3 of the Proposed Project
begins. The permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options: a Parking
Option, which would add a net 97 parking spaces with a below grade parking garage, and a No
Added Parking Option, which would have the same amount of parking as is currently available.
This Project Description reflects information contained in the Project Application submitted to
the City of Hermosa Beach by the Applicant, along with supporting information provided in
conjunction with the Project Application (E&B Natural Resources, Planning Application and
Appendices, Volumes 1 – 3, November 14, 2012; Response to
Planning Application Completeness Review, April 11, 2013;
Directional Drilling
Response to Requested Clarifications, June 24, 2013; Quantitative
Drilling wells at
Risk Analysis, July 3, 2013; Errata, July 22, 2013).1Information
multiple angles to
related to the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard and
better reach and
construction and operation of the Proposed City Maintenance
produce oil and gas
Yard is derived from information provided by the City of
reserves.
Hermosa Beach Public Works Department. The description of the
Proposed Project incorporates the essential elements of the Project
Directional drilling
as it is proposed, including all phases and major components as
allows for multiple
well as the locations of all proposed offsite activities (in addition
wells from the same
to those occurring on the Project Site). More detailed information
drilling location.
related to some aspects of the Proposed Project (including
1 Information submitted by the Project Applicant is available for public review at the City of
Hermosa Beach website, www.hermosabch.org (under ‘Oil Production Project’) and at the City
of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department.

proposed operational parameters and design features) may be found within individual sections of
this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), where considered relevant to the discussion of
specific environmental issues and/or effects. In addition, a description of the environmental
setting and current conditions related to the environmental issues is presented in the
Environmental Setting subsection of the individual sections of this EIR.
This section discusses the Project objectives, historical operations on the Proposed Project Sites,
the four phases of the Proposed Oil Project, scheduling, vehicle trip and employee requirements,
and necessary permitting associated with the Proposed Project. A number of technical drawings
related to the Proposed Project design and layout are included in Appendix A to this Draft EIR.
2.1 Project Overview
The Applicant proposes the development of an onshore drilling and production facility site that
would utilize directional drilling of 34 wells (30 oil wells, four wells for water disposal/injection)
to access the oil and gas reserves in the tidelands (pursuant to a grant by the State of California to
the City) and in an onshore area known as the uplands. Both of these areas are located within the
Torrance Oil Field within the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, the Proposed Project would
result in the installation of offsite underground pipelines for the transportation of the processed
crude oil and gas from the Project Site to purchasers, extending through the Cities of Redondo
Beach and Torrance. The Applicant proposes a laydown site for supply staging/storage within
the basement level of the industrial building at 601 Cypress Avenue during the construction
phases. The Applicant also proposes to construct a parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue for use by
some of its construction employees/contractors on weekdays and by the public at other times.
The City Maintenance Yard is proposed to be relocated to a temporary facility to be established
on the rear (westerly) portion of the City Hall site (1315 Valley Drive) prior to and during the
initial phase of the Proposed Oil Project so that the maintenance operations could be moved
when the existing City Maintenance Yard is demolished as part of Proposed Oil Project
activities. The construction of the permanent City Maintenance Yard would be undertaken on the
site now occupied by the Hermosa Self-Storage (552 11th Place) after the Applicant completes
the testing phase of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 2. As indicated below, the permanent City
Maintenance Yard and the oil and gas facility on the Project Site would be constructed at the
same time during Phase 3 of the Proposed Project.
The timeframe from commencement of the Proposed Project until the permanent oil and gas
facility would be operational is estimated to be approximately 3.25 years. The existing lease (Oil
and Gas Lease No. 2) allowing drilling into the tidelands provides for a 35-year period.
Table 2.1 summarizes events in the Proposed Project timeline. Specifics of each of the Proposed
Project components are described in the following sections.

Figure 2.1 Proposed Project Location
Hermosa Beach

Table 2.1 Proposed Project Schedule Summary
Phase
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Temporary City Yard
Oil Project Phase 1
Oil Project
Phase 2
Drill
Test
Permanent City Yard
Oil Project Phase 3*
Oil Project
Phase 4*
Drill
Operate Continuously for 30+ years
Re-drills Average 30 days/year, max 150 days/yr**
Note: * If the test phase is determined to be successful, Phase 3 and 4 would occur. For construction
only. Does not include permitting timeframe. ** These are the maximum proposed by the Applicant. The
150 days per year would occur once every 5 years. Most likely re-drill activity would be lower.
2.2 Proposed Project Objectives
Pursuant to Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the description of the Proposed Project is to contain “a clearly written statement of objectives”
that would aid the lead agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the
EIR and would aid decision makers in preparing findings and, if necessary, a statement of
overriding considerations. The City is the lead CEQA agency which is preparing the EIR,
considering the EIR for certification and placing the Proposed Project on the ballot. Project
approvals will be made by the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach.
As part of the Project Application, the Applicant provided its stated objectives for the Proposed
Oil Project, which consist of the following:
1. Develop the Proposed Oil Project consistent with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and
the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, with the utilization of directional drilling
techniques from the Project Site, which is the current City Maintenance Yard;
2. Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the City’s
jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to the City;
3. Provide an oil and gas development project on the Project Site that utilizes the latest
technology and operational advancements related to safety and production efficiency in
order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet the applicable
environmental requirements;
4. Conduct construction and drilling activities on the Project Site incorporating
technological advancements, operational practices, and design features related to air
quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potential impacts on the
adjacent community and the environment;
5. Provide landscaping, hardscape, signage, lighting, and other design features to minimize
the visual effects of the Proposed Oil Project on the adjacent community; and

6. Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safe vehicular
ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and the ongoing operation of
the Proposed Oil Project.
Pursuant to the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach, E&B,
and Macpherson Oil Co., the City’s primary objective is to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act and place on the ballot a measure allowing the City of Hermosa
Beach electorate to decide whether or not to approve the Applicant’s Proposed Oil Project and a
Development Agreement to vest the Project so that, if approved, the Project cannot later be
invalidated by a vote of the people.
In the event that voters approve the Proposed Oil Project, the City would need to relocate the
City Maintenance Yard. Under those conditions, the City's objectives for relocation of the City
Maintenance Yard would be to:
1. Provide City Yard Maintenance facilities that support provision of high-quality City
services in an integrated and cost-efficient manner;
2. Consolidate City facilities and functions for maximum efficiency and flexibility;
3. Minimize disruption of City functions during relocation of the City Maintenance Yard;
4. Ensure the relocated City Maintenance Yard is compatible with surrounding uses; and
5. Ensure there is no net loss of public and employee parking spaces as a result of both the
Proposed Oil Project and the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard consistent with the
Preferential Parking Program approved by the Coastal Commission.
2.3 Historical and Current Operations
Oil drilling and production in the Los Angeles Basin has a long history. According to the
California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) database, almost 30,000
oil wells have been drilled in the Los Angeles Basin in the last 100 to 150 years. Figure 2.2
shows the location of these wells.
The Proposed Oil Project would drill into the western edge of the Torrance Oil Field (see Figure
2.2). Most of the production from the Torrance Oil Field has been generated from wells drilled
in the City of Torrance, with some drilling in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach.
There have been approximately 1,500 wells drilled in the Torrance Oil Field historically.
Although the Project Site is relatively flat, it is underlain by windblown sand dunes that
previously covered the region, resulting in uneven ground due to natural conditions. In the
1920s and 1930s, the northeastern portion of the Project Site had a large depression that was
mined for sand. Around 1927, the City’s dump and refuse burner were located on the Project
Site, and, by 1947, the depression was filled. The resulting former landfill is approximately 45
feet deep and is filled with glass, porcelain, and ceramic towards the bottom and soils containing
miscellaneous metals, wires, glass, and other materials toward the top (i.e., closer to the ground
surface). Between the depths of 3 feet and 25 feet below ground surface (bgs), the former
landfill contains some soil with lead at concentrations above the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening levels. In addition, soils impacted with
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were found at depths of 25 to 44 feet bgs within the central

portion of the landfill. For a detailed discussion of the soil conditions on the Project Site, refer to
Section 4.7, Geological Resources/Soils.
Figure 2.2 Historical Wells Drilled in the Los Angeles Basin
Source: DOGGR
In 1930, an oil well (Stinnett Oil Well No. 1) was drilled in the western portion of the Project
Site. The oil well was abandoned in 2005, consistent with the then-current standards of the
DOGGR. During the mid-1940s, the first building was constructed on the Project Site for City
maintenance uses, with the last building constructed in the 1980s. Since the 1990s, with the
exception of the addition of trailers, storage containers, and sheds, the Project Site has generally
remained unchanged.

The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard, and the Proposed Oil
Project would require the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard. As indicated in Figure 2.3,
existing development on the Project Site consists of three buildings, two trailers, storage
containers, sheds, trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing, and masonry
walls. In addition, within the boundaries of the Project Site, there is an asphalt parking area in
the southern portion of the City Maintenance Yard that provides 15 parking spaces for
employees (Monday through Thursday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and for the
public after hours (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and on weekends and holidays.
Existing site contamination from historical site uses is also shown in Figure 2.3. According to an
Environmental Site Assessment prepared in 2012 (Brycon 2012), 10 of the 73 soil samples taken
exceeded Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines for total petroleum hydrocarbons, all
within the mid range hydrocarbons (C13-C22). Volatile organic carbons were not present in any
of the samples at concentrations above the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels.
Six of the samples exceeded the EPA Region 9 Industrial Regional Screening Levels for lead. In
addition, a series of groundwater borings conducted in 2013 (Brycon 2013) found the presence
of total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, barium, and arsenic in the groundwater below the City
Maintenance Yard that exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established for
drinking water by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The immediately adjoining properties were sparsely developed into the 1940s, with a few
residential units located to the northwest of the Project Site. Post 1940s, significant development
occurred with industrial buildings being constructed to the south and west of the Project Site by
1953 and to the north of the Project Site by the 1960s. By 1960, the buildings to the west of the
Project Site were identified as containing a building material warehouse, a boat repair shop, and
a contractor’s storage yard.
By 1960, the building to the south was being utilized as a planter mix manufacturing site. Since
the 1960s, the various adjoining buildings have been utilized for multiple small businesses as
industrial/commercial uses. To the east, from the late 1800s, there was a railroad right-of-way
(ROW) that was utilized by the Santa Fe Railway. During the 1960s, the railroad ROW was
converted to a greenbelt/park (Veterans Parkway - Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (Greenbelt)),
followed by a Council initiative in 1987 directing the City of Hermosa Beach to acquire the
Railroad ROW for public use as parkland and open space in perpetuity; the property is zoned
O-S-1 Restricted Open Space.
Currently, other land uses adjacent to the Project Site (on the same block between 8th and
6thStreet and Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive) are commercial/industrial (Cypress Auto Body,
A&B Heating, JB Plumbing, McGivern Surfboard Manufacturing, Buddhist Meditation Center,
NUWORK, a recording studio and other various small commercial/industrial businesses), with
some residential uses along 8th Street to the north. Adjacent blocks include residential uses
located 150 feet to the north of the Project Site, 250 feet to the west and 180 feet to the east (east
of the Greenbelt), with small commercial/industrial uses and the Beach Cities Self Storage
facility located to the immediate south across 6th Street with its required parking lot abutting the
southwest corner of the Project Site. Figure 2.4 shows the southern area of the City of Hermosa
Beach along with land uses.

Figure 2.3 Existing Site Conditions
Source: Applicant Project Application, DOGGR well database, Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments

Figure 2.4 Project Site and Area Land Uses (Zoning Map)
Source: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map, November 2013

Each phase is discussed in the following sections.
The Applicant proposes a facility designed for a maximum capacity of 8,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil and 2.5 million standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of produced gas at
completion of the drilling stage of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4. The operational
parameters of the Proposed Oil Project are summarized in Table 2.2. Prior to the initiation of the
Proposed Oil Project, it would be required that plans be submitted by the Applicant to the City
and other permitting authorities for review and approval. These would include coastal
development permits, oil and gas well permits, demolition plans, grading plans, utility and
electrical plans, cement/foundation plans, landscaping plans, street and ROW
improvement/modification plans, and construction plans, amongst others. Figure 2.5 shows the
Project Site along with the electrical and pipeline connections and the Cypress Avenue parking
lot.
PHASE 1
Site Preparation
6-7 Months
2.4 Proposed Oil Project Phases
The Proposed Oil Project would occur in the following four phases:
• Phase 1: Site Preparation;
• Phase 2: Drilling and Testing;
• Phase 3: Final Design and Construction; and
• Phase 4: Development and Operations.
2.4.1 Phase 1 Site Preparation
The purpose of Phase 1 would be to prepare the Project Site
for drilling and testing as well as for the subsequent phases of
the Proposed Oil Project. It is anticipated that Phase 1 would
occur for approximately six months. Prior to Phase 1
activities, the temporary City Maintenance Yard would be
installed. See Section 2.5, Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project.
2.4.1.1 Phase 1 Construction Activities
Phase 1 would consist of the following construction activities:
• Underground existing overhead utilities;
• Construction of modifications to intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive;
• Relocation of City Maintenance Yard to the temporary site;
• Clearance of Project Site;
• Construction of retaining walls and rough grading;
• Installation of perimeter fencing;
• Construction of well cellar;
• Installation of offsite electrical conduit and onsite electrical equipment;

• Completion of onsite surface and entrance/exit;
• Installation of temporary landscaping; and
• Installation of 32-foot sound attenuation wall.
Table 2.2 Proposed Oil Project Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Crude oil production Phase 2: Up to 800 bpd
Phase 4: Up to 8,000 bpd
Crude oil properties 18 API
Natural gas production Phase 2: Up to 250,000 scfd
Phase 4: Up to 2.5 million scfd
Produced water disposal/injection Phase 2: Up to 1,600 bpd
Phase 4: Up to 16,000 bpd
Maximum number of wells
Phase 2: 4 wells (3 production, 1 water disposal/injection)
Phase 4: 34 total (30 production, 4 water
disposal/injection)
NGL production Up to 1 bpd mixed with crude oil
Pipeline length and tie-in, gas Approx. 0.43 miles + 1.4 miles
Pipeline length and tie-in, crude Approx. 3.55 miles
Water use, during construction
Approx. 2,000 gallons per day during grading and
earthwork (potable)
Approx. 10,000 gallons per day during pipeline
installation (potable)
Approx. 20,000 gallons per month during facility
construction (potable)
Water use, during drilling 130,000 gallons per well (reclaimed water)
(Approx. 4,500 gallons per day)
Water use, during operations and
maintenance
(Landscaping- Reclaimed Water)
(Domestic-Potable Water)
1,300 gallons per day
(1,000 gallons per day for landscaping)
(300 gallons per day for domestic use)
Electrical use, Phase 2 4.5 megawatts (including drill rig)
Electrical use, Phase 3 0.3 megawatts
7.0 megawatts (including drill rig)
Electrical use, Phase 4
3.0 megawatts during normal ongoing operations
Onsite electrical generation of 1 MW
Well workovers, annually 90 days/year
Well re-drills (full sized drilling rig, peak
annually
Up to 5 per year, up to 30 re-drills for the life of the
Project
Notes:bpd = barrels per day; kW = kilowatts; scfd = standard cubic feet per day; NGL = natural gas
liquids; API = American Petroleum Institute; estimated peak values and maximums shown
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices.

Figure 2.5 Project Site and Pipeline/Electrical Connections
Source: E&B Supplemental Application materials, January 2014

Each of these activities is discussed in the following subsections. Figure 2.6 shows the proposed
arrangement of the Project Site under Phase 1. Appendix A provides the conceptual grading
plan, site plan, elevations, and landscape concept plan for the Proposed Oil Project at the
completion of Phase 1.
The laydown area (equipment and supply storage/staging) for the Proposed Oil Project would be
in the basement of the building located at 601 Cypress Street on the northwest corner of Cypress
Street/6th Street (See Figure 2.3).
Underground Existing Overhead Utilities
There are currently overhead power lines and communication lines on poles that run overhead
through the existing trees along Valley Drive. These existing lines would be removed along the
Project frontage and relocated underground adjacent to the Project Site in a location determined
by the utility companies and the City. Appendix A provides drawings showing the general
location where the utility lines would be placed underground.
Construction of Modifications to Intersection of 6th Street and Valley Drive
The Proposed Oil Project would include the construction of modifications to the intersection of
6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for Project-related trucks.
Appendix A provides drawings showing the conceptual design of the proposed intersection
modifications. These modifications would result in:
• Removal of a portion of the landscaped area and entry driveway to the Beach Cities Self
Storage facility;
• Redesign of the sidewalk on the southwest corner of the intersection;
• Relocation of the stop sign and striping for the northbound lanes on Valley Drive to
address the redesign of the southwest corner;
• Removal of a utility pole and underground utilities on the southwest corner of the
intersection;
• Removal of a utility pole and underground the utilities on 6th Street; and
• The removal of two on-street parking spaces on 6th Street.
As a part of the intersection modifications, the stop sign and striping for the southbound lanes on
Valley Drive would be relocated to improve the line of sight to and from the intersection with 6th
Street. This modification would be made concurrently with the addition of the perimeter fencing
on the Project Site (See Figure 2.6). In addition, the curb on the northwest corner along 6th
Street adjacent to the Project Site would be temporarily provided as a rolled asphalt curb for
Phases 1 and 2.
The two on-street parking spaces removed from 6th Street would be provided as part of the
Project’s overall parking replacement program discussed further below.
Relocation of the City Maintenance Yard
Prior to Phase 1, a temporary City Maintenance Yard would be built at the New City
Maintenance Yard location to the rear of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive. At this point, the

maintenance operations would be moved into the temporary City Maintenance Yard. Please see
section 2.5 for a discussion of the City Maintenance Yard Project.
Clearance of the Project Site
Prior to the initiation of the site clearance activities, temporary 16-foot sound attenuation walls
would be erected at the Project Site to reduce noise impacts related to construction. These sound
walls would be designed to be movable and would be relocated within the Project Site as needed
to attenuate noise associated with Phase 1 demolition and construction activities. The temporary
sound walls would be removed from the Project Site after the onsite construction activities in
Phase 1 are completed.
Following the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard (see Section 2.5, Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project, for a description of the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard), the
Project Site would be cleared. The site clearance activities would include the removal of three
existing buildings (one of which would be moved to the temporary site), two trailers, storage
containers, sheds, trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing and masonry
walls. In addition, the asphalt parking area to the west of the City Maintenance Yard would be
removed, resulting in the removal of 15 parking spaces. The building located at 636 Cypress
Avenue would also be demolished at this time (see Section 2.4.5) Prior to the demolition of the
older building on the eastern portion of the Project Site, building materials would be assessed for
asbestos content and presence of lead based paint, consistent with the requirements of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). If asbestos containing materials or lead
based paint are detected, the appropriate abatement process would be implemented. The
building materials removed from the Project Site would be transported by truck to the recycling
facility at Southern California Disposal in Santa Monica, the recycling facilities at Hanson
Aggregates in Long Beach, or another certified facility for recycling or disposal.
The Proposed Oil Project would include an overall parking replacement program that meets the
intent of the City’s Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development Permit requirements.
Section 2.4.5 discusses the parking plan for the Proposed Oil
Project.
Three of the four existing mature trees along the frontage of the
Project Site on Valley Drive would be retained to help screen
construction activities. The Applicant has concluded that the
fourth tree should be removed because it is in poor health, and it
would limit access to the Project Site (See Figure 2.6). The
three remaining trees would be trimmed to keep branches from
hanging over onsite equipment and to help prevent trespassing.
Construction of Retaining Walls and Rough Grading
Once the Project Site is cleared, retaining walls would be constructed along the western
boundary of the Project Site and set back 10 feet along the western portion of the southern
property boundary (See Figure 2.6).
Water Injection
Pumping produced
water back down the
well hole into the oil
reservoir from which it
was originally extracted.

Figure 2.6
6 Propo
Source: A
osed Oil Proj
Applicant appl
Final Env
ication
ironmental Im
mpact Report
ect Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan
2-15
Sect
tion 2: Projec
E&B Oil D
ct Descriptio
Drilling & Prod
on
duction Proje
ect

This page intentionally left blank.

Rough grading would occur to allow for:
• The construction of a well cellar for three test oil wells and a water disposal/injection
well;
• Surface drainage towards a temporary retention basin, which would contain a 100-year
flood event;
• A level area for the set up and movement of the drill rig; and
• The installation of temporary production equipment.
It is anticipated that the rough grading would not require the import or export of fill material.
Appendix A provides the conceptual grading plan that indicates the retaining wall locations and
rough grading at the completion of Phase 1.
Installation of Perimeter Fencing
Following the rough grading, the Project Site would be enclosed by a six-foot temporary
perimeter chain link fence covered with green fabric. The fence would include secured gates for
the entrance off Valley Drive and the exit to 6th Street. The Applicant proposes to include the
appropriate signage consistent with the requirements of the City. Figure 2.6 shows the location
of the fencing and gates at the completion of Phase 1, and Appendix A shows an elevation of the
fencing.
Construction of Well Cellar
A cement well cellar approximately 8 feet wide by 40 feet long by 12 feet deep would be
constructed for three test wells and one water disposal/injection well to allow for the drilling of
the wells in Phase 2. The well cellar would provide containment of any potential oil spillage
during Phase 2. Figure 2.6 shows the location of the well cellar.
Installation of Offsite Electrical Conduit and Onsite Electrical Equipment
Electrical service for the Proposed Oil Project would be provided by Southern California Edison
(SCE). The electrical conduit and onsite electrical equipment for all phases of the Proposed Oil
Project would be installed in Phase 1. The electrical load during Phase 2 and Phase 3 would be
4.5 Megawatts (MW) and 0.3 MW, respectively. During Phase 4, the electrical load during
drilling would be 7.0 MW and during ongoing operations would be 3.0 MW. According to the
Applicant, SCE has determined that the existing 16 kilovolt (kV) circuit running along 8th Street
to the north of the Project Site has the necessary capacity to serve the Proposed Oil Project. To
receive electrical service from SCE, the Proposed Oil Project would provide for the installation
of an underground conduit for a linear distance of 280 feet under Valley Drive from 8th Street to
the northeast corner of the Project Site (see Figure 2.6)
Electrical equipment consisting of step down transformer(s), switchgear, and variable frequency
drive units would be installed in the northeast corner of the Project Site designated as the New
SCE Yard in Figure 2.6. The electricity would be used to provide power for well pumps, the
temporary production equipment, the temporary construction trailer, safety system controls,
onsite lighting, and the drill rig used in Phase 2 and Phase 4 (both drilling and re-drills). An
uninterruptable power supply would be installed for critical systems such as the temporary
production equipment safety systems and security lights. An emergency generator would be

installed to provide power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation in the event of a loss of
power from SCE.
Appendix A provides the general location of the offsite underground conduit.
Completion of Onsite Surface and Entrance/Exit
The surface of the Project Site would be covered with crushed aggregate base material to serve
as a dust inhibitor and driving surface. Temporary berms would be constructed around the areas
where the drill rig and associated equipment would be set up and the temporary production
equipment installed to provide secondary containment. In addition, a temporary berm would be
provided around the well cellar to avoid surface flows from entering the well cellar. The existing
driveway access from Valley Drive and 6th Street would be used. On both sides of the driveway
on 6th Street, a rolled asphalt curb would be provided.
Installation of Temporary Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site to
provide a visual buffer. The plant materials and irrigation would be consistent with the
requirements of the City. The trees and other plant materials would be planted in a manner that
allows for their replanting as a part of the permanent landscaping provided in Phase 3.
Reclaimed water supplied by West Basin Municipal Water District would be used for irrigation.
The reclaimed water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive would be tapped and
extended to the Project Site. Appendix A includes a conceptual landscape plan and plant
materials for the temporary landscaping provided at the completion of Phase 1.
Installation of 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
Upon completion of the Phase I improvements, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be
erected inside the chain link construction fence in order to attenuate noise generated during
Phase 2 drilling and testing. The 32-foot sound wall would stay installed through the duration of
Phase 2.
2.4.1.2 Phase 1 Site Preparation Detailed Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 1 would occur for a period of approximately six months as indicated
in the schedule provided in Table 2.3.
As required by the previous Conditional Use Permit and as proposed by the Applicant, the
construction activities on the Project Site, including the operation of earthmoving equipment,
would be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
(except holidays) and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Offsite construction activities
within the public ROW would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Truck deliveries to the Project Site would be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, except in the case of an emergency and with the prior approval of
the Director of Public Works. The Project-related truck trips would be limited to 18 round trips
per day and limited to the designated truck routes.

2.4.1.3 Phase 1 Site Preparation Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 1 are provided in the detailed
listing in Appendix A. Vehicle trips are summarized in Table 2.4. The Project-related personnel
would utilize parking spaces in an offsite parking area provided consistent with the proposed
parking plan described in detail in attachments of this Draft EIR.
Table 2.3 Phase 1 Project Schedule
Activity
Schedule (Weeks)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819 20 21 22 2324252627
Construction of Temporary City Yard
Underground overhead utilities
6thStreet & Valley intersection
Relocation of Yard
Remove buildings
Remove other site structures
Construct retaining walls
Grade, well cellar, aggregate
Construct chain link fence
Construct well cellar
Install electrical service
Install landscaping
Install 32-foot sound wall
Note: relocation of Yard would only include moving of shop materials and equipment. The Temporary
City Maintenance Yard would be construction prior to the start of Phase 1 and would take approximately 9
months. See section 2.5.
2.4.1.4 Phase 1 Truck Routes
Truck trips would be required in order to deliver and remove construction-related materials and
equipment to and from, respectively, the Project Site. Trucks would utilize roads designated as
truck routes by the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance.
Truck routes are shown in Figures 2.13 and 2.14.
The routes identified by the Applicant as those utilized for all phases of the Project are as
follows:
Inbound Trucks
1. Inbound trucks from westbound Artesia Boulevard
2. Left on to southbound Pacific Coast Highway
3. Right on to westbound Pier Avenue
4. Left on southbound Valley Drive
5. Right into the Project driveway on Valley Drive

Or
6. Inbound trucks from westbound 190th Street (which becomes Anita Street)
7. Right on northbound Pacific Coast Highway
8. Left on to westbound Pier Avenue
9. Left on to southbound Valley Drive
10. Right into the Project driveway on Valley Drive
Outbound Trucks
11. Outbound trucks on to eastbound 6th Street
12. Right on to southbound Valley Drive
13. Left on to eastbound Herondo Street
14. Continue onto Anita Street, then 190th Street to the Interstate 405 (I-405)/ Crenshaw
PHASE 2
Drilling and Testing:
Drilling for 3-4 Months
Testing for 7-9 Months
More
interchange
Or
15. Outbound trucks on to eastbound 6th Street
16. Right on to southbound Valley Drive
17. Left on to eastbound Herondo Street
18. Left on to northbound Pacific Coast Highway
19. Right on to Artesia Boulevard.
2.4.2 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing
The purpose of Phase 2 would be to conduct the drilling
and testing of wells in order to determine the potential
productivity and economic viability of the Proposed Oil
Project. During this phase, up to three test wells and one
water disposal/injection well (a total of four wells) would
be drilled. These wells would be drilled utilizing
directional drilling technology, which enables the wells to
be drilled laterally for long distances, so that the bottom-hole
locations may be located several thousand feet from
the surface location of each wellhead on the Project Site
(see Figure 2.7 and 2.8).
2.4.2.1 Phase 2 Site Geology and Drilling Objectives
The Proposed Oil Project would utilize directional drilling techniques to access the crude oil and
gas reserves in the tidelands (offshore) and uplands (onshore) in the portions of the Torrance Oil
Field within the City’s jurisdiction. The Project Application states that "no hydraulic fracturing
(or “fracking”) of wells will occur because the geologic zones for the Proposed Project are
permeable and capable of yielding oil and gas without hydraulic fracture stimulation."

Table 2.4 Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Summary
Activity Trucks, Maximum
RT/day*
Autos/PU,
Maximum RT/day
Total, Maximum
RT/day
Underground overhead utilities 4 10 14
Construct 6th& Valley intersection 3 8 11
Remove buildings 10 8 18
Remove other existing site structures 15 6 21
Construct retaining walls 5 14 19
Grade, well cellar and aggregate 15 10 25
Construct chain link fence 1 4 5
Construct well cellar 4 8 12
Install electrical service 6 15 22
Install landscaping 1 2 3
Install 32-foot sound attenuation wall 3 12 14
Greatest number of trips in one day 18
(during week 9)
31
(during week 12)
43
(during week 10)
Notes: * According to the 1993 CUP, which is valid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the number of
truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day, except in an emergency.
Trucks are 3+ axle or greater or trucks with trailers. Autos are automobiles or pickups/trucks with 2 axles.
Trips are round trips.
Maximum truck activity occurs during week 9 with the installation of electrical service and the removal of
existing structures.
Maximum auto activity occurs during week 12 with the installation of electrical service and construction of
the retaining wall.
Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occur during week 10.
Truck maximum and auto/PU maximum do not necessarily occur on the same day, so the total maximum
is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix.
See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment for
each week.
The approximate extent of the City’s jurisdiction within the Torrance Oil Field is provided in
Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8 provides a typical well cross section illustrating how wells can reach the
oil reserves, within the tidelands, from the Project Site. The Project Application states the
primary target zones are the Upper Main, Lower Main, and Del Amo Zones with some
production potential within the Schist Conglomerate.
As shown in Figure 2.8, the Upper Main Zone is the uppermost part of the Puente Formation.
The Project Application states that it is expected to be the shallowest oil productive zone in the
City. Of the three known producing horizons in the Torrance Oil Field, the Upper Main Zone is
the most prolific. The Upper Main Zone beneath the Hermosa Beach tidelands and uplands is
expected to be 300 feet thick and composed of inter-bedded thin sands and shales. The shales
are currently fractured and provide both fractured porosity and permeability. The fractures are
critical to the performance of the reservoir in the area due to the fine-grained and thin-bedded
nature of the sands. The Lower Main Zone lies below the Upper Main Zone in the Puente
Formation. The Project Application states that similar to the Upper Main Zone, the shales of the

Lower Main Zone are currently fractured and important for oil production. However, the Lower
Main Zone has fewer interbedded fine-grained sands and is over 500 feet thick.
Figure 2.7 Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas
Source: Project Application

Figure 2.8 Applicant Proposed Oil Project Lease Areas Cross Section
Source: Project Application. Representative figure not to scale or reflective of the exact geology of the region.

The Del Amo Zone lies beneath the Lower Main Zone. It contains the least amount of thin-bedded
sandstone in the Puente Formation. The Project Application states that similar to the
other two zones, the shales of the Del Amo Zone are currently fractured and important for oil
production. The Del Amo Zone varies the most in thickness and could be from 200 feet up to
700 feet thick.
The Schist Conglomerate underlies the Del Amo Zone and is resting on metamorphic basement
rock (Catalina Schist). The Schist Conglomerate could be as much as 400 feet thick and is
composed of reworked fragments derived from erosion of the underlying Catalina Schist. The
Project Application states that although it is unknown if the Schist Conglomerate is productive
beneath the City, it is still a viable exploration target.
The production test wells would target areas to the south-west, the north-west and the north areas
of the lease (see Figure 2.7). The wells for the Proposed Oil Project would be at a true vertical
depth of approximately 3,000 feet and a measured depth of approximately 9,000 feet. The actual
well depth would vary depending on the area targeted.
The Applicant indicates that the wellhead pressures anticipated during and immediately after
drilling would be 0.0 pounds per square inch (psi) and that the wells are not anticipated to be
free-flowing.
DOGGR must review and approve an engineering study conforming to CCR Section 1724.6 and
1724.7 for operations. No Class II injection wells will be permitted prior to review and approval
of the study. A Notice of Intent will need to be submitted for each proposed well. The Notice of
Intent will be reviewed for accuracy and completeness and, if appropriate, a drilling permit
issued.
2.4.2.2 Phase 2 Construction and Drilling Activities
Phase 2 construction and drilling would consist of the following activities and improvements:
• Installation of Temporary Construction Trailer
• Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig
• Installation of Temporary Production Equipment
• Drilling of Wells
• Testing and Operational Systems
These activities are discussed in the following subsections.
Phase 2 Installation of Temporary Construction Trailer
A temporary construction trailer would be installed in the northeast portion of the Project Site
(see Figure 2.9). In addition, the associated utilities, including potable water and sewer, would
be extended from the existing lines currently located along 6th Street that serve the City
Maintenance Yard. Water and sewer service would be provided by the California Water Service
Company and the City, respectively. Electricity would be provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE) as discussed above under Phase 1 construction activities.

Figure 2.9 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan - Project Phase 2
Source: Applicant application

Phase 2 Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig
Automated Drilling Rig
An electric drilling rig and its associated equipment
would be brought to the Project Site on large trucks with
trailers to be permitted by the City and the California
Highway Patrol (CHP). The drilling rig would be an
"automated drill rig" (ADR), which means that many of
the drill rig procedures (loading pipe, etc,) would be done
by mechanical means automatically. The approximately
87-foot high drill rig would be powered by electricity. A
large crane with a 150-foot boom would be used to erect
the drill rig. Support equipment for the drill rig would
include pipe racks, mud and cutting system, pumps,
hydraulic equipment, and an accumulator. In the event of
a loss of power from SCE, a generator, which would be a
non-road portable diesel-fuel generator certified by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), would provide
power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation.
Phase 2 Installation of Temporary Production Equipment
Temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment would be installed on the Project Site. This
temporary equipment would include a well test station, an induced gas flotation/filter skid, a gas
Ground Flare
combustor (enclosed ground flare), fluid handling
tanks, piping, vapor recovery unit, pumps, and
vessels. The production equipment would be
delivered by trucks to the Project Site. The
temporary production equipment would be installed
in the eastern portion of the Project Site within an
area enclosed by a containment berm as shown in
Figure 2.9.
Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project would be
designed as a closed-loop system, with pressure
relief valves venting to a flare and tanks venting to
a vapor recovery system. The control system
would be computerized and would monitor the
closed-loop system, providing warnings, corrective
actions, and shutdowns, if necessary. Corrective
actions could be closing valves, sounding alarms,
shutting down wells or other process related
functions. In addition, according to the Applicant,
redundancy would be built into the system to
provide an extra level of protection, ensuring there would be a backup for each safety device.
All safety devices would be tested on a regular basis as per applicable codes and standards.
Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor all aspects of the
Proposed Oil Project’s production process.

Phase 2 Drilling of Wells
Once the drill rig and associated equipment set up is complete, up to three test wells would be
drilled utilizing directional drilling technology. This would enable the wells to be drilled
laterally for long distances so that the bottom-hole locations may be located horizontally several
thousand feet from the surface location of the well head on the Project Site. All wells would be
permitted, drilled and cemented in accordance with the State Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regulations. Drilling would proceed in the following manner:
• Installation of conductor casing;
• Drilling of wells;
• Placement of casing and cementing of wells (in stages at various depths); and
• Completion of the well, including installation of down-hole pumps and tubing.
Installation of Conductor Casing
The conductor casing is the initial hole drilled into the ground with a large diameter pipe
installed to maintain integrity. The subsequent drilling of the well would take place through the
conductor casing. Conductor casing would be installed with a small drilling rig, referred to as a
dry-hole digger, which would be used to set the conductor casing for all of the intended wells in
the Project Site. A large diameter hole, about 18 inches in diameter, would be drilled to an
approximately 80-foot depth. This type of drilling is similar to boring a hole with an auger.
Usually, no drilling fluid is needed to drill the hole, hence the name dry-hole digger. A large
diameter casing, commonly referred to as “conductor pipe”, typically 13-3/8 inches in diameter,
is lowered to the bottom of the hole and is cemented in place with construction concrete. This
forms the first seal of the near-surface formations and also serves as a steel conduit to allow the
drilling fluid used in the next stage of the well drilling to be circulated to the surface without
washing away the shallow near-surface dirt. All conductors necessary to develop the Proposed
Oil Project test phase would be set at this time and the dry-hole digger moved off before the
drilling rig would be mobilized and brought to the Project Site.
Drilling, Casing and Completion of Wells
The components of the drill rig and all necessary equipment would then be moved onto the
Project Site with large specially equipped trucks. The drill rig height would be 87 feet. The
drilling setup would include three main parts; the drilling structure (i.e., mast, substructure,

catwalk, silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) house, top drive, back-up generator, crown block,
traveling block, iron rough neck, drill pipe, control cabin), the blow out preventer (BOP) system
(i.e., BOP Stack, Shear Ram, BOP Controller, and Accumulator), and the mud system (i.e., mud
tanks, mud shakers, mud pumps, mud return line). The drilling rig would also require other
equipment such as a spare parts house, other tanks, and storage areas as needed to support the
drilling operation. The substructure of the drill rig would be located over the first well conductor
casing, the mast would be raised, and the other equipment would be aligned and connected. The
drill pipe would be laid out on racks convenient to the rig floor so they may be used when
needed. Water tanks would be filled, and drilling fluid additives would be stored on site. The
drill rig for the Proposed Oil Project would be run on electric utility power, so an electrical
hookup would be made at this time. Drilling operations would then begin. The initial
mobilization and rigging up operation is expected to last about seven to ten working days.
“Spudding in” is the term used to begin drilling operations. A large (12 ¼-inch diameter) drill
bit is attached to the first joint of drill pipe (usually 30 feet long) and lowered into the conductor
casing. As the first length of pipe is completely lowered in, another length of pipe is attached to
the end, thereby increasing the length of the drill “string”. When the drill string reaches the
bottom of the conductor casing at a depth of 80 feet, the drilling begins. In order to drill
downwards through soil and rock, the drill bit requires rotation and downward force, which is
provided by the weight of thick-walled pipe on top of the drill bit. A single, 30-foot long drill
pipe for a larger diameter drill bit weighs approximately three tons. As the drill bit drills deeper,
more drill pipe is placed on top, thereby increasing the downward force; this is collectively
known as the drill string. The drill bit turns clockwise as the weight of the drill pipe column
forces it downward. Drilling fluid, called mud, is pumped down the inside of the hollow drill
pipe, through a hole in the drill bit, and flushes the drilled rock cuttings away from the bit and up
the space between the wall of the borehole and the outside of the drill pipe, which is referred to
as the “annulus.” When the mud reaches the surface, it circulates to a mud tank where the rock
cuttings are separated out of the fluid by using a shaker, and the clean mud is pumped back down
the hole in a continuous circuit, constantly circulating the drilled rock cuttings up and away from
the drill bit as it penetrates deeper into the earth. The cuttings are analyzed, stored in 20 cubic
yard bins, and then hauled offsite.
Initially, a large diameter bit is used to drill to a predetermined depth. When the specified depth
is reached, drilling is stopped, the drilling string is removed and a large diameter pipe (a casing
string) is assembled in 40-foot lengths and lowered to the bottom of the well bore. Cement is
then pumped down the inside of the casing, around the bottom of the hole, and up the annulus
between the casing and the well bore. When the cement hardens, it ensures that the entire casing
and well bore are encased in cement, protecting the fresh water aquifers and surrounding
subsurface areas from the production fluids inside of the casing. See Figure 2.10 for a schematic
of the well bore and casing.

Figure 2.10 Typical Well Bore and Casing
Source:Project Application
Next, a piece of equipment known as a blowout preventer (BOP) is attached to the well head.
The BOP is a safety system used during drilling operations in oil and gas fields to prevent the
uncontrolled release of reservoir fluids and to immediately shut off the flow in the event that
abnormal pressure is encountered in the well bore that cannot be controlled by the hydrostatic
head of the drilling fluid when drilling resumes beneath the surface casing. Blow out prevention
equipment shall conform to DOGGR’s publication M07 “Blowout Prevention in California,
Equipment Selection and Testing 2006 edition. If the subsurface pressure begins to cause the
well to flow, the BOP is activated, closing in the well and trapping the pressure until it can be
bled off safely and drilling can continue. A BOP would be placed on each wellhead during the
drilling and removed after the well is completed. A BOP utilizing Blind Shear Rams would be
utilized. Blind Shear Rams are a type of BOP common in the offshore environment that allow
for the shutting off of flow through the well even if drill pipe is in the wellbore. Pursuant to the
requirements of the Code of Federal Regulation on Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the
Outer Continental Shelf(30 CFR part 250), the Applicant indicates that the BOP would be
certified that the shear rams can actually shear the drill pipe prior to drilling.
The surface casing serves three primary functions:
• It isolates fresh water formations from contact with any fluids coming from deeper in the
earth;
• It serves as a mounting place for the blowout preventer; and
• It serves as the support for the production casing that would be placed in the well if oil is
found.
Once the surface casing is cemented in, drilling operations resume with a smaller drill bit. This
smaller hole is drilled to the total depth decided upon by the Applicant’s geologic and
engineering staff. Usually, the only interruptions to drilling operations would be to remove the

drill pipe (also known as tripping pipe) from the well to replace a dull drill bit, and then lowering
the pipe back to the bottom of the well.
In order to achieve the directional aspect of the drill hole, the well bore is bent. The act of
“bending” a well out of the vertical axis typically begins after vertical drilling has progressed
several hundred feet beneath the surface. Although the specifics of each well proposed for this
Project have not been established, it is not uncommon to begin to deviate from vertical at a depth
of about 600 feet and still reach a target formation located at a depth of 4,000 feet, but also
almost 4,000 to 6,000 feet sideways from the surface spot location. This system would be used
on virtually all of the wells drilled for the Proposed Oil Project.
When the well reaches total depth (TD), drilling operations are halted and the drill pipe is
removed from the well leaving mud in the hole to contain any potential production fluids located
at the reservoir depth. A logging tool is then lowered into the hole to record petrophysical data
of the formations through which the rig has drilled. If the well looks like it would produce oil,
production casing is installed in a similar fashion to the installation of the surface casing.
Production casing for the Proposed Oil Project is planned to be 7inches in diameter. Production
casing would be cemented similarly to how the surface casing is cemented, as previously
described. Once the cement has been allowed to fully harden, another electric logging tool,
called a cement bond log, is lowered to the bottom of the well to evaluate the completeness and
effectiveness of the cement on the outside of the production casing. If the cement is found to
have defects, the casing can be perforated and cement forced into the well at a specific location
or the casing can be removed and the well re-drilled. Devices are inserted to ensure any
perforations are sealed.
The well is then “completed”, which is a series of activities that allow for the production fluids to
flow into the well bore inside the casing and to the surface.
Table 2.5 shows a list of chemicals that would be used during drilling operations. The amounts
listed are the estimated quantities consumed per well drilled. These materials are packaged by
the manufacturer for shipping and would be delivered to the job site by conventional delivery or
flatbed trucks.
Drilling each well would require approximately 130,000 gallons (or 0.4 acre-feet) of water. The
water would be reclaimed water provided by the West Basin Municipal Water District from an
existing reclaimed water line serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. The West Basin
Municipal Water District has provided the Applicant with a “will serve” letter.
The drilling process requires the use of drilling mud to circulate drilled rock cuttings out of the
well hole, retain the integrity of the well hole, and control reservoir pressure. The drilling mud
would be collected onsite in Baker tanks (enclosed tanks that are approximately 12 feet tall by 40
feet long and hold up to 500 barrels each). Although most of the mud would be reused on
subsequent wells, some mud would be removed from the Project Site and disposed of each day
by truck at an approved disposal site at Anterra’s Oxnard Licensed Class 2 Disposal Facility or a
similar facility. In addition, all other waste generated by the test drilling would be transported by
truck to the appropriate disposal site at Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill, or a similar facility
if closer to the Project Site.

Table 2.5 Phase 2 Drilling Chemicals
Common/Trade Name Use Container Amount per
Well
Gel Wyoming Bentonite Used to enhance mud
viscosity
100-pound sack 525 sacks
DMA Sodium Polyacrylate Water absorbent mud
additive
Benex Anionic Acrylamide Mud additive 2-pound sack 75 sacks
GEOZan Xanthan Gum Mud viscosifier 25-pound sack 40 sacks
Omniopol Sodium
Polyacrylate Liquid
Water absorbent mud
additive
- 380 gallons
CFR Fatty Acid Liquid Mud additive to
enhance lubricity
- 600 gallons
Bicarb Sodium Bicarbonate Mud additive for pH
control
Citric Acid Mud additive for pH
control
Walnut Hulls Filter medium, used to
reduce torque and drag
of drill pipe and for
plugging of fractures
and high porosity
formations
Cement Bulk-Truck Used for well sealing - 3 bulk trucks
Biotreat 8415 Treatment of water
before injection into the
oil reservoir
Hydrochloric Acid 15%, used for acid
washing during
completion
Bin varies
Hydrofluoric Acid 3%, used for acidizing
muds
Bin varies
The Proposed Oil Project would comply with the 1993 CUP conditions of approval, proposed
operational practices, and proposed design features. The noise reduction methods would include
the following:
• An electric drill rig would be utilized, reducing the need for diesel engines;
• The drill rig would have no draw works or cables resulting in less noise;
• A 32-foot-high acoustical barrier wall would be erected around the perimeter of the
Project Site during all drilling activities. The wall would have a sound transmission class
(STC) rating of at least 32;
• The air inlets and vents of the hydraulic power unit would be fitted with silencers;
• An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of the rig mast to reduce the top drive
noise (if applicable);
• The mud pumps would be enclosed with acoustical barriers having a sound transmission
class (STC) rating of at least 25;

• An 8-foot high acoustical barrier with an STC rating of at least 25 would be installed
around the shaker tables;
• Drilling Quiet Mode Plan would be implemented at the drill site between 7:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m., a plan which would provide for the following: disablement of all audible
mobile equipment and truck backup alarms; minimization of pipe handling; cessation of
cementing operations, maintenance, and tripping pipe; and limits within the delivery
schedule; and
• An automated and remotely managed system to connect/disconnect pipe (Iron
Roughneck) would be used, which would reduce pipe handling;
No processing of gas would occur during Phase 2. The gas separated from the oil and water
would be directed to a gas combustor (enclosed ground flare), where disposal of it would occur
through burning.
The Applicant indicates that low levels of potential “native” hydrogen sulfide (H2S), in the order
of 0.0 to 6.0 parts per million (ppm), may be encountered in the gas produced from the
underlying oil reservoir.
Because the produced fluids may contain some H2S, fixed H2S detection systems would be
installed around the drilling site and continuous monitoring would be present during all drilling,
workover, and well servicing operations. Sensors would be located in areas that are frequently
used by personnel, selected drilling area locations, areas where H2S may accumulate, and any
other areas determined by hazard analysis to pose a potential risk. Personnel would also carry
personal H2S monitors attached to their clothing for immediate H2S detection during drilling.
Figures 2.11 and 2.12 provide an outline of the City’s designated truck route for construction
trucks through the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance.
Phase 2 Testing and Operational Systems
After the completion of the first test well and the water disposal/injection well, the extracted oil
would go through production and testing. The temporary production equipment on the Project
Site would be used to process the production fluid. The oil would be processed to a standard that
would be suitable for sale. The produced water would be processed and re-injected back into the
oil-producing reservoir below the oil water contact. Disposal of the gas produced during Phase 2
would occur through burning in the enclosed ground gas flare. Figure 2.11 shows the steps
involved in processing the oil, water, and gas produced from the test wells in Phase 2.
Processing of Production Fluids
During Phase 2, the Proposed Oil Project is designed to handle up to 800 barrels of oil per day
and up to 250,000 standard cubic feet of gas per day. After the oil is processed, it would be
trucked from the Project Site to an offsite oil receiving facility at 2650 Lomita Boulevard in
Torrance. The route used for crude haul trucks is detailed in Appendix A.

Figure 2.12 Phase 2 Process Flow Diagram
The produced fluids would be sent from the wells to a three-phase separator, which would
separate the fluid into gas, oil and water streams. The gas exits the top of the separator, the oil
exits the middle, and the water exits the bottom of the separator. Each one of these fluids enters
a specific system of treatment as follows.
Oil Treatment System
The produced oil would enter a series of stock tanks after leaving the three-phase separator. The
stock tanks would be used if the oil needs to be further processed to remove excess water. The
water removed from the oil and water mixture would be sent back to the three-phase separator
through a drain system. Once the oil is processed to a standard suitable for sale, the oil from the
stock tank would be loaded into a tanker truck and transported to the purchaser.
Gas Treatment System
The produced gas would be sent directly to a compressor and then to the gas flare for combustion
after leaving the three-phase separator. A vapor recovery system attached to the temporary
Baker tanks would be utilized to capture vapors and to direct them to a vapor recovery
compressor and to the gas system and flare. The vapor recovery, tank and flare system would be
subject to Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit
requirements.

Figure 2.12 Truck Routes from Highway 405 to Project Site
Source:Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
Figure 2.13 Truck Routes to Highway 405from theProject Site
The Proposed Project provides for the disposal of treated stormwater runoff and produced water
from the drilling and production process back into the oil reservoir using water disposal/injection
wells. The injection of untreated water can result in the creation of H2S concentrations in the oil
reservoir above preexisting levels (referred to as the “native” condition). Prior to the injection of
produced water from the oil extraction process, or the injection of surface runoff from
precipitation that collects on the Project Site, the water would be treated by a biocide to eliminate
sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Once wells begin production, the extracted water would be
tested for SRBs to determine if treatment is needed. In addition, the surface runoff water and
any other injected water, would be tested. SRBs are an assemblage of specialized bacteria that

thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by oxidation of organic nutrients,
with sulfate being reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). SRBs are treated by the use of a biocide
and this treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment. There are numerous antibacterial
agents available on the market that could be used for this specific treatment if it is determined to
be needed.
Facility Storm Drain System
The Proposed Oil Project Site is designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the
perimeter fence or wall for a 100-year storm event. All rainwater falling on the site would be
collected and pumped into the water processing system for disposal/injection into the oil
reservoir. In addition, any spills on the site would also be contained, both within process system
walls/berms around equipment and site walls/berms around the site. Process walls/berms would
be designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel plus the precipitation generated
by a 100-year storm event.
Safety Systems
Operators would be onsite 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to monitor the Proposed Oil
Project’s production process during Phase 2.
A fire protection system as required by Federal, State, and local codes, ordinances and
regulations would be installed by the Applicant prior to the drilling and testing activities on the
Project Site. The Fire Protection Plan for Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project would be provided
to the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department for review and approval prior to the initiation of
Phase 2.
The design and operation of the Proposed Oil Project would be required to meet provisions
within the California Fire Code (CFC) and standards of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), including the requirements for the storage of hazardous materials, the installation and
use of fire protection systems and devices, and the implementation of safety measures for
employees and emergency responders.
Onsite personnel and a site security program, including a closed circuit television system, a gate
access system, and an intrusion and motion detection system, would control all access to and
from the Project Site during Phase 2. In addition, temporary lighting would be provided. The
lighting would be shielded/hooded and directed downward, as is consistent with City
requirements.
All tanks would have containment equal or greater in capacity than at least 110 percent of the
largest vessel plus the precipitation generated by a 100-year storm event.
Water Treatment System
The produced water would be pumped into a treatment system, including a gas flotation unit and
a filter unit, to remove excess oil after leaving the three-phase separator. The primary objective
of both units would be to clean the water of oil and solids such as sand. The water would then
enter a water surge tank after leaving the filter unit and would be sent to the water
disposal/injection pumps for disposal/injection into the oil-producing reservoir through the

disposal/injection well. If determined to be needed, before it enters the water surge tank, the
water would be injected with a biocide to eliminate any bacteria that may be in the produced
water.
Electrical Requirements
Approximately 75 kilo-watt hours of electricity would be required to drill each well.
Chemicals
Project operations would require the use of chemicals. These chemicals would be documented in
a required Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Typical chemicals utilized in the temporary
production facility are shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Phase 2 Testing Chemicals
Common/Trade Name Use Maximum Quantity (Gallons)
Emulsion Breaker/Phasetreat 6378 Help separate oil and water 60
Water Clarifier/Floctreat 7991 Water additive 40
Emulsion Breaker/Waxtreat 3610 Help separate oil and wax 50
Corrosion Inhibiter/Cor 7182 Additive to reduce corrosion 400
Surface Cleaner/4U General purpose cleaner 165
Scale Dissolver/Techni Solve 1780 General purpose scale
remover
55
Scale Inhibitor/Techni Hib 7621 Additive to reduce scaling 120
Noise Abatement
The Proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with the 1993 Conditional Use
Permit conditions of approval. In addition, the applicant proposes to incorporate several
operational practices and design features intended to abate noise. The conditions of approval,
operational practices and design features that would be incorporated into the production
operations include the following:
• Heavy/large reciprocating equipment would be mounted on vibration isolators;
• Pipe tripping would be restricted to daylight hours only;
• Loudspeaker paging systems would be prohibited;
• Well workover rigs or any other workover-type rig (not the main drilling rig) that is used
would be operated only between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm during daytime weekday hours
only, excluding holidays, except in an emergency as defined in the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement.
The exhaust and intake of the diesel engine (if used on the workover rig) would be
muffled to reduce noise to an acceptable limit. The operator would use whatever means
necessary, including, but not limited to, enclosing the diesel engine and rig in acoustic
blankets or housing;

• All oil maintenance equipment, vehicles and non-electrical motors would be equipped
with manufacturer approved mufflers or housed in a sound-proofing device;
• Noise monitoring would be conducted under the supervision of an independent certified
acoustical engineer;
• Each well pump would produce a sound power level no greater than 83 dBA. This may
be achieved by fitting sound attenuating enclosures that provide an insertion loss of at
least 15 dB;
• The produced oil pumps, produced water pumps, water booster pumps and variable
frequency drive electrical (VFD) cabinets would produce a sound power level no greater
than 77 dBA;
• The water injection pumps would produce a sound power level no greater than 83 dBA.
• The vapor recovery compressors would produce a sound power level no greater than 83
dBA; and
• The cooler for the compressors would produce a sound power level no greater than 85
dBA.
Decision not to Proceed -Abandonment
If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the Project Site would not be
economically viable, the Applicant would remove the sound attenuation walls, the temporary
production equipment, and the temporary construction trailer and abandon the three test wells
and the water disposal/injection well in accordance with the requirements of DOGGR. The
Project Site would be left as a graded site with site improvements including the retaining walls,
the perimeter chain link fence, and the perimeter landscaping.
As the temporary City Maintenance Yard would already be constructed under the Proposed
Project, the current City Maintenance Yard Site would be empty and would be available for
development within the M-1 Light Manufacturing zoned area of Hermosa Beach. The Project
Site would then be available for City or other development proposals, or for the temporary City
Maintenance Yard to be relocated back to this site. However, any future use would need to be
consistent with the lease agreement with the Applicant. Current site contamination would
remain as part of the abandonment process and would be removed in accordance with the
requirements of any future site use.
2.4.2.3 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 2 would occur for approximately 12 months as indicated in the
schedule provided in Table 2.7. The drill rig would operate continuously for 24 hours per day,
seven days per week, until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for each well has been
reached. It is estimated it would take 120 days for drilling activities, 24 hours a day, which is
approximately 30 days per well for four wells. After the drilling of the three oil wells and one
water disposal/injection well is complete, the drill rig would be removed from the Project Site.
As each well is drilled, the produced fluids from that well would go thorough production and
testing, as described above.

2.4.2.4 Phase 2 Drilling and Testing Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 2 are provided in detail in
Appendix A. A summary of the vehicle trips is shown in Table 2.8. Parking for the employees
would be provided in an adjacent parking area as previously discussed for Phase 1. Since Phase
1 prepares the Project Site for Phase 2, the conceptual landscape plan and elevations provided
above for Phase 1 would also be applicable to Phase 2.
Activity Schedule (Weeks)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617 18 19 20 21 22 2324 thru
54
Install trailer and associated utilities
Deliver and set up drill rig/equipment
Install oil, water, and gas equipment
Drill 3 test wells and water well
Testing of wells
Remove drill rig and equipment
Activity
3-axle Trucks,
Maximum
RT/day*
2-axle trucks,
Autos, Maximum
RT/day
Total, Maximum
RT/day
Install trailer and associated utilities 2 5 7
Deliver and set up drill rig/equipment 7 20 27
Install oil, water, and gas equipment 6 15 21
Drill 3 test wells and water well 9 10 19
Testing of wells 13 5 18
Remove drill rig and equipment 5 20 25
(during weeks 15,
17, 19, 21-24)
25
(during weeks 7-
12 )
37
(during week 7)
Maximum truck activity occurs during drilling and testing of wells.
Maximum auto activity occurs during weeks 7-12 with the installation of oil, water and gas equipment and
the drilling of wells. Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occurs during week 7.
Testing of wells would involve crude transportation by truck, by way of an average of 7 trucks per day/5
days per week or up to 12 trucks in one day (round trip).
is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix A.
each week.

2.4.3

PHASE 3
Final Design and
Construction:
16 Months
Phase 3 Final Design and Construction
If it is determined that the production of oil and gas on the
Project Site would be economically viable, the Applicant
would begin Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project. The
purpose of Phase 3 would be to utilize the production
information from Phase 2 to prepare the final design of the
facility, prepare the onsite area for facility installation,
install the permanent oil and gas production facilities, and
construct offsite Pipelines.
2.4.3.1 Phase 3 Onsite Construction
Phase 3 onsite activities would involve the following construction activities:
• Preparation of final engineering design;
• Removal of temporary production equipment;
• Removal of three remaining trees;
• Removal of 32-foot sound attenuation wall and perimeter fencing;
• Installation of 16-foot sound attenuation wall;
• Implementation of remedial action plan;
• Construction of remaining retaining walls and final grading;
• Completion of construction of well cellars;
• Construction of 16-foot split-face block wall;
• Removal of 16-foot sound attenuation wall;
• Construction of small office building;
• Installation of permanent production equipment;
• Construction of final site improvements;
• Construction of final street improvements along Project frontage;
• Installation of final landscaping;
• Installation of 32-foot sound attenuation wall;
• Setting of conductor pipe; and
• Installation of lighting systems.
Each of these activities is detailed in the discussion that follows. A site plan for Phase 3 is
shown in Figure 2.14. The conceptual grading plan, site plan, elevations (with the 32-foot sound
attenuation wall), and conceptual landscape plan for the Proposed Oil Project at the completion
of Phase 3 are shown in Appendix A.
Prepare Final Engineering Design
The final design of the permanent oil and gas production facilities, to be implemented during the
first few months of Phase 3, would be based on the oil and gas analysis and production results
from Phase 2 activities. Final design would include the sizing and development of the exact
specifications for the oil, gas, and water separation production equipment and the detailed
engineering to prepare the required final construction drawings.

Remove Temporary Production Equipment
The temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment installed on the Project Site during
Phase 2 would be removed. The wells drilled during Phase 2 would be shut in, and steel plating
would be placed on top of the well cellar.
Remove Remaining Trees
The three remaining mature trees along the frontage of the Project Site along Valley Drive would
be removed to allow for the construction of final site improvements including a perimeter wall
and the installation of permanent landscaping.
Remove 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall and Perimeter Fencing
The 32-foot sound attenuation wall and the 6-foot perimeter chain link fencing would be
removed from the Project Site.
Install 16-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
Prior to the initiation of earthmoving activities, a temporary 16-foot sound attenuation wall
would be brought to the Project Site. The sound walls would be designed to be movable and
would be relocated within the Project Site as needed to attenuate noise and dust associated with
the earthmoving activities needed for the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan and the
final grading of the Project Site. The temporary sound walls would be removed from the Project
Site after the onsite earthmoving and grading activities are completed.
Implementation of Remedial Action Plan
The Remedial Action Plan would be implemented to address lead, barium, arsenic and total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil and groundwater within and beneath the former
landfill area in the northeastern portion of the Project Site. It is anticipated that approximately
9,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil would be removed from the Project Site in
accordance with the Remedial Action Plan and hauled to a Class 1 landfill at the Kettleman Hills
Facility, approximately 190 miles from the Project Site. The TPH contaminated soil
(approximately 4,500 cubic yards located deeper than 25 feet) would be treated onsite via vapor
extraction. For a detailed discussion of the soil remediation that would occur prior to final
grading of the Project Site, refer to the Remedial Action Plan provided in Appendix A.
Groundwater contamination attributed to historic use of the site has been documented (Brycon
2013). The RWQCB have indicated that the Regional Water Quality Control Board Site
Cleanup Program reviewed the Report on Groundwater Assessment and indicated the matter
would go on its large backlog of low priority cases.
Construction of Remaining Retaining Walls and Final Grading
Retaining walls (up to 6 feet high) would be constructed 10 feet back from the Valley Drive and
6th Street property lines, along the eastern boundary of the Project Site and along the eastern
portion of the southern boundary of the Project Site (see Figure 2.14). In addition, retaining
walls would be constructed within the Project Site for the containment area associated with the
production equipment. After the completion of the retaining walls, the Project Site would be
graded to allow for the installation of Project equipment and to allow for proper site drainage.
The final grading of the Project Site would not require the import or export of fill material.

Appendix A provides the conceptual grading plan that indicates the location of the retaining wall
locations and the final grading of the Project Site.
Complete Construction of Well Cellars
The cement well cellar constructed in Phase 2 would be extended, and a second well cellar
would be constructed to allow for the drilling of the remaining wells in Phase 4. At completion,
the well cellars would be approximately 8 feet wide by 120 feet long by 12 feet deep, with stairs
at each end and covered with expanded metal grating. The well cellars would be equipped with
storm water collection sumps and pumps to direct the storm water to the drain sump. From the
drain sump, water would be directed into the processing system and injected, by the water
disposal/injection wells drilled in Phase 4, into the oil-producing reservoir below the oil water
contact. Figure 2.14 shows the location of the well cellars.
Construction of 16-Foot Split-Face Block Wall
A 16-foot split-face block wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the Project Site.
The wall would be set back 10 feet from the Valley Drive and 6th Street property lines to allow
for a landscape area. The wall would have a gated entrance off Valley Drive (set back 70 feet
from the sidewalk) and a gated exit to 6th Street. The gates would be metal and motor operated.
The appropriate signage would be provided, as is consistent with City requirements.
Remove 16-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
After the completion of the Remedial Action Plan, final site grading, and construction of the well
cellars and perimeter wall, the 16-foot temporary sound attenuation wall would be removed from
the Project Site.
Construction of Small Office Building
A small office building approximately 650 square feet in size would be constructed in the
northeast portion of the Project Site to house employee offices and control and monitoring
equipment. The building would have a restroom and break room. The improvements extended
to the Project Site in Phase 1 would provide for associated utilities, including water, sewer,
natural gas, and telephone. The California Water Service Company and the City would provide
water and sewer service, respectively. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) would
provide natural gas, and electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE).
Verizon would provide telephone service. Office related solid waste services would be provided
by Athens Services or a future city franchisee.

Figure 2.14 Phase 3 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
E & B Oil Redevelopment Project 2-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-45 E & B Oil Development Project

Installation of Permanent Production Equipment
Permanent oil, water, and gas production equipment would be installed on the Project Site. The
permanent oil production facilities would include tanks, vessels, piping, pumps, filters, and
supporting metering equipment. These are listed in Table 2.9. A retaining wall around all of the
vessels, tanks and other equipment containing oil would provide secondary containment. The
design capacity of the secondary containment would exceed the fluid capacity of the largest tank
by 110 percent plus the precipitation from a 100-year storm event.
In Phase 4, the oil production facility would be used to separate gas, water, and solids from the
oil, after which the oil would be stored in tanks prior to transport via pipeline from the Project
Site. The separated water would be accumulated in tanks, filtered, and then injected into the oil-bearing
reservoir by the four water disposal/injection wells. Gas from each well would be
treated on the Project Site and then sold to the SCGC. The permanent gas production facilities
would have compressors, vessels, a H2S and carbon dioxide (CO2) removal system, a moisture
removal system, and an odorizing system. The use of this equipment is discussed in Section
2.4.4,Phase 4 Development and Operations.
Table 2.9 Phase 3 and 4 Processing Equipment Listing
Equipment Size and Number
Oil Shipping Tanks 40 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 2900 BBLS, 2 tanks
Water Clarifier 40 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 2900 BBLS, 1 tank
Water Surge 30 foot diameter by 16 feet high, 1120 BBLS, 2 tanks
Gas compressors 30 foot by 40 foot - 3 compressors
DEA Skid (acid gas removal) 12 foot by 40 foot, 1 skid
Low Temperature Separation
12 foot by 40 foot, 1 skid
(LTS) skid (propane
refrigerant)
Flare/Gas Combustor 10 foot diameter by 22 feet high
Vapor Recovery Compressor 17 foot by 28 foot
IGF Skid 18 foot by 8 foot, 1 skid
Filter Skid 25 foot by 18 foot, 1 skid
Micro Turbines (five turbines) 200 kw each, 30 foot by 40 foot
3-Phase Separator 7 foot diameter by 35 feet long
Lease Automatic Custody
5 foot by 12 foot
Transfer (LACT) Skid
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices. BBLS=barrels (42 gallons), skid=a pre-fabricated
unit.
Construction of Final Site Improvements
In addition to the areas where the concrete well cellar, the containment area, and the oil and gas
production equipment have been constructed, the ground surface of the Project Site would be
paved with concrete or asphaltic concrete and designed so that no fluids, including rain water up
to a 100-year storm event, would leave the Project Site. Liquids, including rainwater, would be

captured in the containment areas or in the well cellars, processed through the production
facility, and injected into the oil-bearing reservoir via four water disposal/injection wells.
Construction of Final Street Improvements Along Project Frontage
The Proposed Oil Project would include the construction of street improvements along the
frontage of the Project Site on 6th Street and Valley Drive. The improvements would include the
installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Installation of Final Landscaping
Permanent landscaping would be provided along the perimeter of the Project. To the extent
feasible, plant materials used in the temporary landscape plan installed in Phase 1 would be
reused in the permanent landscaping. Reclaimed water supplied by the West Basin Municipal
Water District would be used for irrigation. Appendix A provides the conceptual landscape plan
and plant materials for the permanent landscaping that would be provided at the completion of
Phase 3.
Installation of 32-Foot Sound Attenuation Wall
At the completion of the improvements in Phase 3, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be
erected inside the 16-foot block wall to provide for noise attenuation during Phase 4 drilling.
Appendix A provides the elevations of the Project Site, including the sound attenuation walls
with the block walls, from Valley Drive and 6th Street at the completion of Phase 3.
Set Conductor Pipe
Prior to drilling in Phase 4, a dry-hole digger/auger would be used to set the conductor casing in
the well cellars for all of the intended wells on the Project Site in a manner similar to the setting
of the conductor pipe in Phase 2. A hole approximately 18 inches in diameter would be drilled
to a depth of approximately 80 feet. A conductor pipe would be lowered to the bottom of the
hole and cemented in place. This would form the seal of the near-surface formation and serve as
a steel conduit to allow the drilling fluid used in the next stage of the well to be circulated to the
surface without washing away the shallow near-surface dirt. All conductors necessary to
develop the Proposed Oil Project would be set, and the dry hole digger/auger would be moved
off the Project Site.
Lighting Systems
The permanent lighting for the Proposed Oil Project would be installed as a part of Phase 3. The
lighting,as proposed in the Applicant’s Lighting Plan, would be designed to be directed
downward and shielded in order to avoid obtrusive light spillage beyond the Project Site,
reflective glare, and illumination of the nighttime sky.
2.4.3.2 Phase 3 Offsite Pipeline Construction
During Phase 3, offsite pipelines for oil and gas would be constructed to transport the oil and gas
to markets. Each route is discussed in the following subsections.

Gas Pipeline Route
As it leaves the Project Site, the offsite underground pipeline for the transport of gas would be
constructed for a distance of 0.43 miles in the ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is a one
way street south of 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach to a tie-in to a SCG gas line in the
Southern California Edison(SCE) Utility Corridor east of N. Francisca Avenue in the City of
Redondo Beach. See Figure 2.15 for the proposed pipeline routes. Appendix A contains
detailed drawings of the route and valve box options.
This portion of the gas pipeline would consist of two parallel pipelines, 4 inches in diameter, and
located at a depth of approximately 3.5 to 4 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the road
ROW until it ties into the SCG line at a proposed metering station immediately to the east of N.
Francisca Avenue. The pipeline would be a loop system that allows for the gas to be returned to
the Project Site for further treatment in the event that the produced gas does not meet SCG
standards. The metering station site, which would be provided as a part of the Proposed Oil
Project and is owned by SCG, would be approximately 40 by 60 feet in size and surrounded by
an 8-foot high block wall.
As shown in Figure 2.15, this first portion of the gas pipeline is bounded to the east by the
Greenbelt and Ardmore Park and, further to the east, by Ardmore Avenue and residential
development in the City of Hermosa Beach; to the west by the Beach Cities Self Storage facility,
light manufacturing land uses, South Park, and residential development in the City of Hermosa
Beach; and to the west in the City of Redondo Beach by facilities associated with the AES Power
Plant. The gas line is designed for a maximum operating pressure of 465 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig), but would typically operate at approximately 225 psig of pressure.
Once the proposed gas pipeline from the Project Site ties into the SCG point of receipt at the
proposed metering station, SCG would construct a six-inch gas pipeline that extends northeast
for approximately 1.4 miles to connect to an existing SCG pipeline transmission facility (Line
1170) located on the south side of 190th Street near its intersection with Green Lane, between
Flagler Lane and Beryl Street, in the City of Redondo Beach. After the first portion of the new
six-inch gas pipeline leaves the proposed metering station and continues northeast, it would be
located in an existing SCG easement within the SCE Utility Corridor between N. Francisca
Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The new pipeline would exit the SCE Utility Corridor on
the south side of the intersection of Herondo Street/Anita Street with Pacific Coast Highway,
extend across Pacific Coast Highway, and continue northeast within the ROW of Anita
Street/190th Street to its point of connection with the existing SCG pipeline transmission facility
(Line 1170). If for some reason the first portion of the new pipeline could not be located within
the existing SCG easement within the SCE Utility Corridor between N. Francisca Avenue and
Pacific Coast Highway, it would leave the proposed metering station and continue for a short
distance north within the ROW of N. Francisca Avenue and turn northeast at Herondo Street
within the ROW until it reaches the intersection of Herondo Street/Anita Street with Pacific
Coast Highway. At that point it would continue to the northeast as described previously.
Although SCG would obtain the necessary permits and construct the new gas pipeline, the
Applicant would pay for the associated costs of construction.
The proposed gas line from the proposed metering station to the existing SCG pipeline
transmission facility is bounded to the north by commercial land uses and residential

development in the City of Redondo Beach and to the south by commercial land uses, residential
development, and public facilities including Dominguez Park and Redondo Beach Dog Park in
the City of Redondo Beach.
Oil Pipeline Route
The offsite underground pipeline for the transport of oil to an area refinery via a connection to a
valve location in the City of Torrance would be constructed for a distance of approximately 3.55
miles in one of three potential pipeline scenarios that
would follow a route through the Cities of Hermosa
Pigging
Beach and Redondo Beach and terminate in Torrance.
Passing a device through a
The selection of the pipeline route would occur after
pipeline that cleans or
Project approval. Appendix A shows the pipeline
route scenarios in detail.
inspects the pipeline. A pig
is usually a small rubber
The pipeline would be 8 inches or less in diameter,
device slightly smaller in
located at a depth of approximately 3.5 to 4 feet bgs
diameter than the pipeline.
depending on the grade. At one of four potential valve
The pig is forced through it
box locations, the pipeline would tie-in to an existing
pipeline that transports oil to a refinery. Appendix A
by product flow. Usually
provides the proposed alignments of the three oil
cylindrical or spherical, pigs
pipeline scenarios, the respective jurisdictional
sweep the line by scraping
boundaries, and the adjacent land uses. Appendix A
the sides of the pipeline
provides the four valve box location options that the
and pushing debris ahead
pipeline could tie into. More details are included in
Appendix A.
The oil line would be designed for a maximum operating pressure of approximately 500 psig, but
would typically operate at approximately 100 to 200 psig of pressure. The pipeline would
include pigging stations to send and receive maintenance pigs into and from the pipelines to
clean or inspect the pipelines during ongoing operations. This would occur for the lifetime of the
Proposed Oil Project. Pigging refers to the practice of using pipeline inspection gauges or 'pigs'
to perform various maintenance operations on a pipeline without stopping the flow of the product
in the pipeline (refer to sidebar for more information).

Figure 2.15 Proposed Pipeline Routes
E&B Oil Redevelopment Project 2-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report

As shown in Figure 2.15, the oil pipeline would be constructed for a distance of 0.39 miles in the
ROW of southbound Valley Drive (which is one-way starting at 2nd Street) in the City of
Hermosa Beach to the corner of Valley Drive/N. Francisca Avenue and Herondo Street in the
City of Redondo Beach. At this point, the oil pipeline would turn to the east along one of the
following three pipeline scenarios (see Appendix A):
• Scenario 1 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the
ROW of Herondo Street, Anita Street, and 190th Street in the City of Redondo Beach to
the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance. At this
point, Scenario 1 would continue to one of the four valve box options presented later in
this discussion;
• Scenario 2 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the
ROW of Herondo Street and Anita Street in the City of Redondo Beach and the ROW of
190th Street in the City of Torrance to the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne
Boulevard. At this point, Scenario 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options
presented later in this discussion; and
• Scenario 3 consists of the construction of the oil pipeline towards the east within the SCE
Utility Corridor in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. When the oil pipeline
meets Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance, Scenario 3 would continue to one of
the four valve box options presented later in this discussion.
The function of the valve box is to house the valve on the new oil pipeline to isolate it from the
main oil transmission line and allow for inspection, operation, and maintenance of the valve and
line to be performed as required by Federal and State regulations.
The site requirement for a valve box for the Proposed Oil Project would be approximately six
feet wide by eight feet long by six feet high. The valve box would be a precast concrete box
with walls that are typically eight to ten inches thick. The valve box would be located below
grade and designed to State of California Highway “traffic-rated” standards to allow for vehicle
travel over it. A standard 36-inch or 42-inch manhole cover would provide access down into the
valve box from grade. The manhole cover, the weight of which takes two people to remove and
replace, would be bolted into place with special tools, providing security for the valve box. The
oil pipeline would end at one of the following valve box locations:
• Valve Option 1 – For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would continue from the
Hawthorne Boulevard/190th Street intersection down 190th Street to the Exxon Mobil
Refinery, where it would connect with a valve box location within the refinery site. For
Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would turn north in Hawthorne Boulevard and east in
190th Street to the refinery site;
• Valve Option 2 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would turn south in
Hawthorne Boulevard to the SCE Utility Corridor where it would turn east to the valve
box location. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would continue east in the SCE
Utility Corridor across Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location;
• Valve Option 3 – For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in
Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location adjacent to the Santa Fe Rail Road line;
and

• Valve Option 4 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn north in
Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location northeast of the intersection of 190th
Street/Hawthorne Boulevard.
The oil pipeline would be equipped with a supervisory control and data acquisition system
(SCADA), which would monitor pipeline pressure and flow and, if a leak is suspected, would
notify the operators. The percentage that is set in the SCADA system would notify the operator
of potential oil leak. The detection timeframes set by the Applicant would vary depending on the
crude oil flow rate in the pipeline. When the flow rate is at the maximum anticipated production
rate of 8,000 barrels per day, flowing on a continuous basis, the flow rate would be 5.5 barrels
per minute, and the following would apply:
• 15 minute time interval 5 % or 4.1 barrels
• 1 hour time interval 2 % or 6.7 barrels
• 24 hour time interval 1 % or 80 barrels
If oil production is considerably less than the 8,000 barrels per day, the percentages would be
adjusted upward to maintain essentially the same volume of oil previously noted based on the
reduced flow rate in the pipe.
Pipeline Construction Methods
The gas and oil pipelines would be installed utilizing conventional trenching methods within
either one trench or two separate trenches within the roadway ROW. The construction and
installation process would occur in stages consisting of approximately 237 feet in length each.
Two stages would be constructed per day (a segment of 237 feet would be new construction, and
another 237 feet would be the completion of the construction from the previous day). With the
addition of approximately 126 feet for lane transitions and safety cones, a total of approximately
600 linear feet of roadway would be affected per day. A construction spread would be used to
accomplish most aspects of the gas and oil pipeline construction along the alignments previously
discussed. A construction spread is a clustering of construction equipment that moves along the
pipeline route, sequentially removing asphalt roadway, trenching, laying pipe, filling, re-paving,
and cleaning up. A pipeline construction spread consisting of several units would be organized
to proceed in the following order:
• Pre-construction activities
• Asphalt removal and ditching or ROW grubbing and ditching
• Pipe handling/welding
• Pipe coating
• Pipe lowering, backfilling, and street repair
• Pipe testing and inspection
• Metering, pigging, odorant station installation
If the oil pipeline can be laid within the SCE Utility Corridor (Scenario 3 pipeline route), a
construction spread similar in arrangement, but smaller, would be used since the alignment
would not have asphalt. In addition, if it is determined that existing sleeves under streets
crossing the SCE Utility Easement exist, trenching across some streets may not need to occur.

The following describes the activities that would occur for the construction of the pipelines and
Figure 2.16 depicts a typical pipeline construction spread.
Pre-Construction Activity
The pipeline alignment ROW would include roadways and/or land in existing paved streets and
other property, potentially including private property. Approval to construct and operate a
pipeline would be obtained from or authorized by franchise agreements or permits from the
agency with jurisdiction over the roadways and, if needed, from affected property owners.
The construction requirements in the municipal codes and ordinances of the Cities of Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance allow for the construction on major roadways during the
following weekday hours:
• Hermosa Beach: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday. No construction on Sundays and holidays;
• Redondo Beach: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays. No construction on weekends and
holidays; and
• Torrance: 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. No construction on weekends and
holidays.
Figure 2.16 Typical Pipeline Construction Spread
Note: All activities may not occur simultaneously.
The pipeline construction activities would occur on weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. (as per the CUP requirements), a time frame which is after morning peak commute
hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and before evening peak commute hours (i.e.: 4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.) on the affected roadways. The Applicant proposes no construction activities during

weekends and holidays. The Applicant would prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan
(CTMP) that would include the following:
• Require the pipeline contractor(s) to obtain and follow Street Construction Permits in the
affected Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and Caltrans facilities
(Pacific Coast Highway and Hawthorne Boulevard);
• Develop detour and traffic management plans consistent with the affected City’s
Standard Roadway Plans (e.g., Torrance Street Standard T603), the California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or the Work Area Traffic Control
Handbook (WATCH);
• Revise pipeline construction segments to minimize access conflicts to adjacent residents
and businesses;
• Develop truck route plans to reduce traffic on the street network during peak traffic
commute hours;
• Avoid construction-related traffic to occur during peak travel periods; and
• Implementation of staggered construction worker shifts to minimize Project traffic during
the peak hours.
Underground Service Alert would notify service providers of construction to avoid conflicts with
existing utilities and disruptions of service to utility customers. Because construction would
occur in either paved streets or an existing utility corridor, extensive grading is not proposed.
Asphalt Removal and Ditching
Once traffic control measures are in place, trenching operations would begin. Typically, a five-foot
deep and 18- to 24-inch wide ditch (single pipe) or 36-inch wide ditch (double pipes) would
be excavated (varying depths, depending on the conditions encountered). Backhoes and track
hoes would excavate the ditch. However, hand digging would be necessary to locate buried
utilities, such as other pipelines, cables, water mains, and sewers. Fugitive dust emissions at the
construction site during earthmoving operations would be controlled by water trucks equipped
with fine-spray nozzles. Spoils from cuts, including cuts in the streets, would be saved for
backfill or would be removed, and the ditch would be backfilled with slurry material as approved
by the local jurisdictional agency. Effort would be made to minimize the amount of excess
material. Material unsuitable for backfill and not economically useful for other purposes at the
pipeline location would be disposed of at a landfill according to local jurisdictional guidelines.
When used for backfill, the spoils from the trenches would be hauled to previously disturbed
sites, as determined by the construction contractor.
Pipe Handling
Special trucks would transport the pipe in 40- to 80-foot lengths from the shipment point or
storage yard to the pipeline installation point. Where sufficient room exists, trucks would carry
the pipe along the roadway, and sideboom tractors would unload the joints of pipe from the
stringing trucks and lay them end to end beside the ditch-line for future line-up and welding. A
portable bending machine would bend the pipe to fit the ditch contour both vertically and
horizontally. Construction ROW conditions could occasionally require pipe bends that are not
able to be accomplished in the field. In these cases, manufactured or shop-made bends would be
used, and pipe would be bent prior to the application of coating. While the line-up crew lays the

pipe, line-up clamps would hold the pipe sections in position until approximately 50 percent of
the first welding pass is completed. The welding crew would then apply the remaining weld
passes to comply with API 1104, ASME B31.4, or ASME 31.8.2 All pipeline welds would be
radiographically inspected.
Pipe Coating
Protecting the pipe from moisture and air helps prevent corrosion, thereby preventing cracks,
breaks, and leaks in the pipe. The steel pipeline would be coated externally with fusion-bond
epoxy or a corrosion resistant tape wrap system. Pipeline coating would be applied at the mill
before delivery to the construction site. However, field coating would be necessary on all field
weld joints to provide a continuous coating along the pipeline. After the pipe has been welded
and radiographically inspected, one of the following would be applied: two-part epoxy, heat-shrink
polyethylene sleeves or polyethylene tape and tape primer.
Pipe Lowering, Backfilling, and Street Repair
The pipe would be lifted and lowered into the ditch by one or two sideboom tractors spaced so
that the weight of unsupported pipe would not cause mechanical damage. Cradles with rubber
rollers or padded slings would allow the tractors to lower the pipe without damage as they travel
along the ditch line. Additional welds could be required in instances where the ditch line is
obstructed by other utilities crossing the pipe ditch. These welds would typically be made in the
ditch at the final elevation. In addition to normal welding and weld inspection, each weld would
require pipe handling for line-up, cutting to exact length, coating, and backfilling.
Backfill material in roadways would most likely be slurry material or could be ditch spoils,
according to local agency requirements. Slurry material would be delivered by concrete trucks
and consist of sand and cement. Concrete trucks would be trucks from local commercial
sources. The area would be repaved if it was previously an existing paved street. In areas where
the pipeline would be in previously unpaved areas, the backfill would include topsoil preserved
from the excavation for re-vegetation where needed.
At the time of backfilling, a colored warning tape would be buried approximately 12 to 18 inches
above the pipeline to indicate the presence of a buried pipeline to third-party excavators. The
backfilled earth would be compacted using a roller or hydraulic tamper. The trench would be
filled with slurry where approved or required by local regulations. Steel plates would cover any
open trench at the end of each workday.
Pipe Testing and Inspection
All field welding would be performed by qualified welders that meet the Applicant’s
specifications and in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards,
including API 1104, the Standard for Welding Pipe Lines and Related Facilities, and the rules
and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation found in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
2 ASME ‐ American Society of Mechanical Engineers; API – American Petroleum Institute

All welds would be visually and radiographically inspected. All rejected welds would be
repaired or replaced as necessary and radiographically inspected again. The radiographic reports
and a record of the location of welds would be maintained for the life of the pipeline. In addition
to standard testing of all pipe and fittings at the mill, hydrostatic testing would be performed
after construction and prior to startup. Federal regulations mandate hydrostatic testing of new,
cathodically protected pipelines prior to placing the line into operation. This test involves filling
a test section of the pipeline with fresh water and increasing pressure to a predetermined level.
Such tests are designed to prove that the pipe, fittings, and weld sections would maintain
mechanical integrity under pressure without failure or leakage.
Cathodic protection controls the corrosion of a metal surface by making it work as a cathode of
an electrochemical cell. This is achieved by placing the cell in contact with the metal surface
and another more easily corroded metal to act as the anode of the electrochemical cell. The
cathodic protection system consists of power sources called rectifiers, buried anodes (either
sacrificial or impressed current), and test stations along the pipelines.
Metering and Pigging Station Installation
A gas-metering station would be required at the custody transfer location where the Applicant’s
proposed gas pipeline interconnects with the existing SCG pipeline. The metering station would
measure and record gas volumes, gas quality, and gas characteristics and provide custody
transfer of the gas to SCG. The metering station would be located adjacent to N. Francisca
Avenue, southeast of the intersection of Herondo Street and N. Francisca Avenue. SCG would
then construct a new six-inch pipeline to a tie-in location with the existing SCG pipeline
transmission facility (Line 1170) as previously discussed in Section 2.4.3.2, Phase 3 Offsite
Pipeline Construction.
In addition to the metering station, a pigging station would be installed at the metering station
and Project Site for the gas pipeline, as required by SCG, and at the tie-in point for the oil
pipeline.
An odorant station would be installed at the Project Site consisting of a 500 gallon odorant tank
that would be filled approximately annually. The gas would be odorized before it leaves the site.
2.4.3.3 Phase 3 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials used as part of Phase 3 would be associated with construction activities,
including diesel fuels, lubricating oils, pipe coatings, solvents, etc. No storage of hazardous
materials beyond standard consumer quantities (a few gallons) is anticipated in this phase.
2.4.3.4 Phase 3 Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 3 would occur for a period of approximately 14 months as indicated in
the schedule provided in Table 2.10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 21 22 2324252627 28-
38
39-
53
5455565758596061626364
Remove temporary equipment
Remove trees along Valley
Remove32-foot sound wall
Implement RAP
Construct retaining walls
Final grading
Construct well cellars
Construct 16-foot block wall
Remove 16-foot sound wall
Construct/install facilities
Construct street improvements
Install landscaping
Construct offsitepipelines
Start-up of equipment
Install 32-foot sound wall
Set conductor
Note: Days are weekdaysSource: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-57 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

Activity 3-axle Trucks,
Maximum RT/day
2-axle Trucks, Autos,
Maximum RT/day
Total, Maximum
RT/day
Remove production equipment 6 15 21
Remove trees along Valley Drive 2 4 6
Install 16-foot noise wall 6 8 14
Implement Remedial Action Plan 18 8 28
Construct retaining walls 3 20 24
Final grading (balanced) 4 6 10
Construct well cellars 9 15 25
Construct 16-foot perimeter wall 5 20 25
Remove 16-foot noise wall 5 5 10
Construct/install onsite facilities 18 40 47
Construct street improvements 11 9 20
Install landscaping 1 7 7
Construct pipeline 18 22 54
Start-up production equipment 0 7 7
Install 32-foot sound wall 6 9 16
Set conductor 2 5 7
(during weeks 6-13,
23, 54)
62
(during weeks 39-53)
78
(during week 39-53)
Trips are round trips (RT).
Maximum truck activity occurs during week 6-13 with RAP activities, week23 with construct well cellars,
perimeter wall and onsite facilities and week 54 with construction of onsite facilities, pipeline construction
and conductor setting. However, the majority of the pipeline construction traffic would occur away from the
Project Site except during the installation of the sections of the pipeline located very close to the Project
facility.
Maximum auto activity occurs during weeks 39-53 with the facilities construction.
Maximum activity trucks and autos combined occurs during weeks 39-53, however, the majority of the
vehicles for the pipeline construction would be parked at the contractor’s facilities or near the pipeline
alignment.
is not necessarily a simply addition of the two. See appendix.
each week.
2.4.3.5 Phase 3 Personnel and Equipment Requirements
The vehicles, equipment, and employees estimated for Phase 3 are provided in Table 2.11. The
vehicle trips required to transport employees and equipment for Phase 2 are also provided in
Table 2.11.

2.4.4 Phase 4 Development and Operations
The purpose of Phase 4 would be to maximize oil and
gas recovery from the reservoirs by drilling additional
PHASE 4
wells and operating the permanent facility. To
accomplish this, Phase 4 would involve the drilling of
Development and
wells; the operation of the permanent oil production
equipment; the transport of the oil and gas by pipeline
to their respective destinations; and the ongoing
maintenance of the Proposed Oil Project. The Proposed
Oil Project would be designed for a maximum capacity
of 8,000 barrels of oil per day and 2.5 million cubic feet
of gas per day.
Figure 2.17 provides the conceptual site plan for Phase 4. Elevations and the conceptual
landscape plan for the Proposed Oil Project during Phase 4 are included in Appendix A.
Operations:
2.5 years drilling
program. Operations -
ongoing
2.4.4.1 Phase 4 Drilling
Phase 4 drilling would involve delivery and setup of the drilling rig and the drilling of the
remaining wells.
Delivery and Set Up of Drill Rig
The drilling rig and its associated equipment would be brought to the Project Site by trucks with
trailers permitted by the City and the California Highway Patrol. The approximately 87-foot
high drill rig would be powered by electricity. A large crane with a 150-foot boom would be
used to erect the drill rig. The crane would be removed from the Project Site after the drill rig
and supporting equipment have been set in place. Support equipment for the drill rig would
include pipe racks, mud and cutting system, pumps, hydraulic equipment, and an accumulator.
In the event of a loss of power from SCE, the generator, which would be a non-road portable
diesel-fuel generators certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), would provide
power for the safe shutdown of the drilling operation. The drill rig and its associated equipment
would require the same setup as described under Section 2.4.2, Phase 2 Drilling and Testing.
2.4.5

Drill Remaining Wells
The drilling of the remaining oil wells and water disposal/injection wells, up to a total of 30 oil
wells and four water disposal/injection wells, would involve the same activities as described for
Phase 2. As previously discussed regarding Phase 2, once the drilling of a well is complete, the
cemented casing would be run from the surface to the bottom of the wellbore where the well
penetrates the oil-producing reservoir. The well would be plumbed into the temporary
production equipment and pump system that had been installed. The pump system, installed
below ground, would bring the oil, gas, and water to the surface for processing. In addition, up
to three additional water disposal/injection wells (in addition to the single water
disposal/injection well drilled during Phase 2) would be drilled to allow for the injection of
processed produced water back into the oil-producing reservoir and at below formation fracture
pressure. The drill rig would operate continuously for 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
until the appropriate depth and bottom-hole location for each well has been reached. It is
estimated it would take approximately 30 days to drill each well, including the time for placing
the drilling rig in position and installing rigging. After the drilling of the wells is complete, the
drill rig would be removed from the Project Site. Including set up for each well and removal
from the Project Site, the total drilling time for Phase 4 would be about 30 months (2 ½ years).
Drilling each well would require approximately 130,000 gallons (or 0.4 acre-feet) of water. The
water would be reclaimed water provided by the West Basin Municipal Water District conveyed
via extension of an existing waterline serving the Greenbelt east of Valley Drive. The West
Basin Municipal Water District has provided the Applicant with a “will serve” letter.
The drilling process requires the use of drilling mud to circulate drilled rock cuttings out of the
well hole, retain the integrity of the well hole, and control reservoir pressure. The drilling mud
would be collected onsite in tanks. Although most of the mud would be reused on subsequent
wells, some mud would be removed from the Project Site and disposed at Anterra’s Oxnard
Licensed Class 2 Disposal Facility or a similar facility. All other waste generated by the test
drilling would be transported by truck to Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill or a similar
facility closer to the Project Site.
Noise abatement would be incorporated into the drilling process in the same manner as described
for Phase 2, including a 32-foot high sound attenuation wall. After the drilling of the wells is
completed, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be removed from the Project Site.
Re-Drilling of Wells
Re-drilling of a well occurs if production from a well declines substantially or if problems exist
with the well, affecting the well’s efficiency or viability. The same activities would be required
for re-drills as for initial drilling, except that conductor piping would not have to be installed
again, as the same conductor piping would be used for the re-drill.
Although the Applicant does not expect the need for the re-drilling of wells, the activity may be
required under extraordinary circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, a workover rig
might be able to be used to complete a re-drill. However, for the purpose of providing a worst-case
analysis, the Applicant estimates that up to 30 re-drills could occur over the life of the
Proposed Oil Project, with up to five re-drills occurring during any given year. In the event that

a re-drill would occur, noise attenuation design features, including the use of a 32-foot sound
attenuation wall and acoustical covers, would be implemented on the Project Site. Re-drills
would involve the same activities and equipment as the drilling proposed for Phase 2 and 4.
2.4.5.1 Phase 4 Processing and Operations
During the drilling of the remaining oil wells and water disposal/injection wells, the production
of the extracted oil would occur. Figure 2.18 shows the steps involved in processing the oil,
water, and gas produced from the wells during Phase 4. The permanent production equipment
on the Project Site would be used to process the oil and gas to a standard that would be suitable
for sale. The produced water would be processed and injected into the oil-producing reservoir.
The gas produced would be processed and sold to the gas company. The oil and gas produced
would be transported offsite via pipelines constructed during Phase 3.
Figure 2.18 Phase 4 Process Flow Diagram
Noise abatement would be incorporated into operational practices and permanent production
equipment. The anticipated personnel on the Project Site would be four personnel for a 12-hour
daytime shift, two personnel for an 8-hourgraveyard shift, and two personnel for an 8-hour swing
shift. Therefore, personnel would be present 24 hours per day on the Project Site.

During the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project, active wells would require periodic
routine service. These activities could include the replacement of down-hole pumps, piping, and
cleaning. These maintenance activities would typically be accomplished by utilizing a service
rig, or “workover” rig, approximately 110 feet high. The workover rig would be operated on the
Project Site a maximum of 90 days per year. The workover rig would be operated between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays only (excluding holidays). Only a single
workover rig would be onsite at one time.
In addition, there would be an occasional need for other services such as facilities repair and
solid and liquid waste pick-up. Preventative maintenance would be performed on a routine basis
to ensure the integrity of the operating equipment. The pipelines would be periodically inspected
to ensure their continued integrity.
The permanent production facility would be utilized to separate and treat produced oil, gas and
water. The separation and treatment of these fluids allows for the oil and gas to be sold and
subsequently transported via pipeline and for the water to be injected into the oil-producing
reservoir below the oil water contact line. Figure 2.18 provides a simplified flow diagram of the
flow of fluids through the permanent production facility. The following describes the steps of
production and operational characteristics in Phase 4.
Fluids Piped from the Wellhead to the Production Facility
After a well has been drilled and completed (final down-hole equipment installed), the extracted
fluids would be piped to the permanent production facility on site. The combination of fluids
(i.e., oil, gas, and water mixture) is referred to as an emulsion. This emulsion would be sent via
pipes to a production header, where it is commingled with the emulsion from all the wells in a
gross line before entering a three-phase separator. There is also a test header that allows the
diversion of emulsions from a single well through a well test station before the three-phase
separator. The well test station allows for the testing of each well quality and flow
characteristics. After the emulsion passes through the well test station, it would be directed back
to the gross line where it would be commingled back with the emulsion from the production
header and then enter the three-phase separator. The three-phase separator separates the oil, gas,
and water. The gas exits the top, the oil exits the middle, and the water exits the bottom of the
separator. Each of these fluids enters a specific system of treatment, as is discussed in the
following subsections.
Oil Treatment System
After the produced oil leaves the three-phase separator, it would enter a stock tank, where it may
need to be heated depending on the quality of the crude oil. This heating would allow excess
water to drop from the oil. Heating, if necessary, would be provided by the microturbine exhaust
waste heat recovery system. From the stock tank, the oil would be measured using a Lease
Automated Custody Transfer Unit (LACT) and transported via pipeline to the purchaser. Any
water that drops out of the oil would be routed to the water treatment system. Vapors would be
directed to the gas processing systems through the vapor recovery unit.

Gas Treatment System
During this phase, gas would be treated, sold, and subsequently transported via pipeline to the
SCGC. Treatment of the gas would be required to meet gas pipeline specifications. After the
gas leaves the three-phase separator, it would be sent to the first stage compressor. The first
stage compressor would increase the pressure of the gas for treatment. The first stage of gas
treatment is removal of H2S from the gas utilizing triazine using the SulfaScrub system.
SulfaScrub is a non-regenerative batch process that requires replacement of the SulfaScrub
materials periodically. The SulfaScrub process is a “scavenging” process, meaning it is used to
remove H2S in process gas at low concentrations (up to concentrations of approximately 200
ppm).
After leaving the SulfaScrub system, the gas would be sent through the amine system. This
amine system removes CO2 from the gas. After leaving the amine system, the gas would pass
through the second stage compressor, where pressure is increased prior to the gas’ entry into the
low temperature separation system. The low temperature separation system removes any
remaining moisture (mostly water) and gas liquids from the gas prior to sale. Propane would be
utilized as a refrigerant in the low temperature separation system. Before the gas leaves the
Project Site, it would be odorized using an odorizing substance (mercaptan or equivalent) as
required by law. The gas would then be sent via pipeline through a metering station to a SCG
pipeline constructed in Phase 3 located near the corner of Herondo Avenue and N. Francisca
Drive to the south of the Project Site.
Water Treatment System
After the water leaves the three-phase separator, it would be sent to the clarifier tank. This tank
would allow solids in the water to drop out. From the clarifier tank, the water would then enter
the induced gas flotation unit for the removal of suspended matter, such as oil or solids. The
induced gas flotation unit removes oil by injecting gas bubbles into the water. The bubbles
adhere to the suspended matter, causing the suspended matter to float to the surface and form a
froth layer, which is then removed by a skimmer.
From the induced gas flotation unit, the water would then pass through a filter unit. The filter
unit would be used to clean the water of any remaining oil and solids, such as sand. After the
water has left the filter unit, it would enter the water surge tanks for storage before
disposal/injection.
From the water surge tank, the water would then flow through pumps and be sent to the
disposal/injection wells for injection into the oil producing reservoir.

Figure 2.17 Phase 4 Site Plan with Drilling Rig
Source: Project Application
E & B Oil Development Project 2-64 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-65 E & B Oil Development Project

Vapor Recovery System
Gas from all tanks and vessels not part of the gas processing system (the oil and water processing
tanks and vessels), as well as pressure relief valves, would be gathered through pipes into a
closed-system and directed to a vapor recovery compressor unit. The vapor recovery compressor
would compress the gas and then add it to the gas in the gas processing system (from the three-phase
separator, etc), where it would be processed and sent via pipeline to the metering station
and the SCG system.
Process Drain System
All equipment would be connected to a drain system that would be directed to a drain tank.
Liquids from the drain tank would be sent back to the three-phase separator for reprocessing.
Solids from the drain system may periodically be removed to an offsite approved disposal
facility.
Electrical Generation System
The facility would utilize a Microturbine system, which would consist of five 200 kw Capstone
turbines configured as a single 1,000 kw package. Anticipated NOx emissions would be 4 ppm.
Gas produced on the Project Site would be utilized as fuel for the turbines.
Facility Storm Drainage System
The Proposed Oil Project Site is designed to retain, process, and inject storm water within the
perimeter fence or wall for a 100-year storm event. All rainwater falling on the site would be
collected and pumped into the water processing system for injection into the oil reservoir. In
addition, any spills on the site would also be contained, both within process system walls/berms
around equipment and site walls/berms around the Project Site. Process walls/berms would be
designed to contain at least 110 percent of the largest vessel plus the precipitation from a 100-
year storm event.
Waste
Waste would be generated as part of the facility operations and the production process. Regular
waste would include typical municipal trash such as paper, trash bags, food, and cups. Process
waste would include generic oil field waste such as sandy oil (from the tank bottoms), spent H2S
scavenger, spent filters, oily cloths (i.e., rags), gloves and Tyvek® suits. Intermittently the
facility could generate hazardous waste. These wastes could include empty drums, rinse water,
painting supplies, spilled chemicals, spent media, and hydraulic fluids. The Applicant indicates
that the Project Site would have an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of
Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) Identification Number.
Phase 4 Safety and Security Systems
The Fire Protection Plan for Phase 4 would be provided by the Applicant for review and
approval by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department (Fire Department) and incorporated
into the Phase 4 Site Safety Plan. Emergency access would be incorporated into the design of
the Proposed Oil Project. An additional fire hydrant would be provided adjacent to the Project
Site as a component of the Proposed Oil Project. The location of the hydrant would be

determined by the Fire Department, and installation would occur as a part of the construction
completed in Phase 3.
A fire suppression system for the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4
would be installed during Phase 3. The fire suppression systems would include a foam injection
system and automated detection and annunciation systems. Automated alarm systems would be
installed for the detection of chemicals and fire hazards to notify onsite personnel that an
emergency situation is potentially occurring. If it is determined that a chemical fire or fire
emergency exists, the onsite operator would activate the emergency shutdown system and notify
the Fire Department. The Fire Department and their allied agencies would respond as indicated
in their mutual and automatic aid agreement contracts. The onsite personnel for the Proposed Oil
Projectwould be trained for initial spill response and activation of emergency systems at the site
as per HAZWOPER requirements, but would not be trained for fire fighting and would rely on
the Fire Department for response activities.
The fire detection system would consist of thermal fire detection and optical surveillance
systems that would monitor potential fire zones and activate warning indicators.
The Applicant proposes Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Programs to detect
subsidence as a result of drilling activities. This would ensure that subsidence would not be
tolerated to the degree that it could endanger the facility, offsite structures, and the shoreline.
Also, an Induced Seismicity Monitoring Program would be designed to detect seismic activity
that might result from drilling activities.
The security system for the ongoing operation of the Proposed Oil Project in Phase 4 would be
installed and initiated during Phase 3. Security on the Project Site would be provided by onsite
personnel and a site security program that would include a Closed Circuit Television System, a
gate access system, and an intrusion and motion detection system. The security system would
control all access to and from the Project Site.
During the final design of the Proposed Project and submission of plans to the appropriate
agencies for permits, the following plans and programs would be developed by the Applicant as
part of the facility drilling and operations phases (Phase 2 and Phase 4 activities):
• Odor Minimization Plan;
• Air Monitoring Plan;
• Fire Protection Plan;
• Safety and Environmental Management Program;
• Mechanical Integrity Program;
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan;
• Subsidence and Induced Seismicity Monitoring Programs;
• Noise Monitoring Plan;
• Quiet Mode Drilling Plan; and
• Various plans related to grading, equipment design, electrical design, landscaping, etc.

Safety devices would be installed within the piping, vessels, and tanks in the processing system.
Safety devices would provide early warning, corrective action, or shut down of a specific
segment of the system or the entire facility, if necessary. A number of safety devices are
required or recommended by codes, standards and regulations, including:
• High level warning systems;
• High pressure warning systems;
• Automatic shutdown valves;
• Vessel and pipe design requirements;
• Vapor recovery and component leakage limits; and
• Fuel contaminant limits.
Detailed piping and instrument diagrams would be provided by the Applicant during the detailed
permitting stages, and reviews of the final design would be undertaken at that time. Specific
measures to reduce the risk of hazardous material releases are addressed in Section 4.8, Safety,
Risk of Upset, and Hazards.
Phase 4 Hazardous Materials
The operation would require the use of hazardous chemicals. The chemicals would be stored
onsite with secondary containment. The chemicals would be documented in a required
Hazardous Materials Business Plan and submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department as
the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and the Hermosa beach Fire Department.
Typical chemicals utilized in the permanent production facility and the maximum quantities that
would be onsite at any time are listed in Table 2.12.
Hydrogen Sulfide
The Applicant indicates that low levels of potential “native” H2S, in the order of 0.0 to 6.0 parts
per million (ppm), may be encountered in the gas produced from the underlying oil reservoir. In
order to have the capability to treat higher levels, the Proposed Oil Project has been planned to
treat H2S levels of 15 ppm and has a maximum design capacity to treat H2S levels of up to 100
ppm. After treatment with the SulfaScrub system, the H2S levels of the gas would be reduced to
less than 4.0 ppm. SCG’s specifications limit the H2S concentrations in gas delivered to the
meter from a producer to less than 4.0 ppm.
The Proposed Project provides for the disposal/injection of treated produced water from the
drilling and production process back into the oil reservoir using water disposal/injection wells.
Untreated produced water can result in the creation of H2S concentrations in the reservoir above
the existing levels in the oil reservoir (referred to as the “native” condition). Prior to the
disposal/injection of produced water from the oil extraction process, surface runoff from
precipitation that collects on the Project Site, or any additional injected water, the water would
be treated by a biocide to eliminate sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Once wells begin
production, the extracted water would be tested for SRBs to determine if treatment is needed. In
addition, the surface runoff and additional water would be tested. SRBs are an assemblage of
specialized bacteria that thrive in the absence of oxygen and obtain energy for growth by
oxidation of organic nutrients, with sulfate being reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). SRBs are
treated by the use of a biocide and this treatment could be a batch or continuous treatment.

There are numerous antibacterial agents available on the market that could be used for this
specific treatment if it is determined to be needed.
Table 2.12 Phase 4 Drilling Chemicals
Common/Trade Name Use Maximum Quantity Onsite
(Gallons)
Odorant/Mercaptan Odorize the sales gas 500
H2S Scavenger/Pertrosweet
HSE700
Gas treatment for H2S 9,000
Emulsion Breaker/Phasetreat 6378 Help separate oil and water 60
Water Clarifier/Floctreat 7991 Water additive 40
Emulsion Breaker/Waxtreat 3610 Help separate oil and wax 50
Corrosion Inhibiter Cor7182 Additive to reduce corrosion 400
Surface Cleaner/4U General purpose cleaner 165
Scale Dissolver/Techni Solve 1780 General purpose scale
remover
55
Scale Inhibitor/Techni Hib 7621 Additive to reduce scaling 120
Glycol/TEG Gas treatment for water
removal
55
Amine/DEA Gas Treatment for H2S
removal
110
Methanol For oil treatment 55
Biotreat 8415 Water treatment prior tore-injection
55
Hydrochloric Acid 15%, used for acid washing
during completion
Varies
Hydrofluoric Acid 3%, used for acidizing muds Varies
Note: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices
2.4.5.2 Phase 4 Schedule
It is anticipated that Phase 4 would occur for a period of approximately 30 to 35 years, as
indicated in the schedule provided in Table 2.13. The drilling of the remaining wells would
occur during the first 30 months of Phase 4, with periodic re-drills thereafter for the life of the
project (averaging 30 days per year with a maximum of 150 days in one single year).
The permanent production equipment would operate 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The
Project Site would be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

1 2 3 4 5 through 131 132 133 134 135 Life of Project
Deliver and Set up drill rig
Drill remaining 30 wells
Remove drill rig
Remove 32-foot noise wall
Facility operations and maintenance Continuous
Re-drills Avg. 30 days/yr
Max 150 days/yr*
Well workovers Max 90 days per
year
Source: Project Application, Amendments and Appendices. To re-drill a well, a drilling rig similar to the
one initiallyused to drill the wells would be used with the same setup, drilling and removal procedures.
Workovers would use an 110-foot tall truck mounted drilling rig and would be conducted a maximum of 90
days per year. * This is the maximum number of days per year proposed by the Applicant. The 150 days
per year is predicted to occur once every 5 years. Most likely re-drill activity would be lower.
2.4.5.3 Phase 4 Vehicle Requirements
The number of vehicles estimated by the Applicant to be necessary for Phase 4 operations are
provided in Table 2.14. During drilling, parking for Project employees would be provided as
previously described under Section 2.4.1.1, Phase 1 Construction Activities, under the subsection
Clearance of the Project Site. Parking for Project employees would be provided on the Project
Site after the drilling of all the wells is completed and the drill rig has been removed from the
Project Site.
2.4.6 Parking Requirements
The Proposed Project construction and operation activities would result in increased parking
demand. The elimination of existing parking would also make necessary the replacement of
spaces lost. Parking requirements addressed in this FEIR include the following:
• Temporary parking for a maximum of 40 Project employee vehicles, varying between
approximately 20 and 40 employee vehicles during construction and/or drilling activities
in Phases 1-4, excluding ongoing production in Phase 4;
• Long-term parking for four Project employees during the ongoing operation of the
Proposed Project and four additional spaces for maintenance workers in Phase 4;

Replacement of 15 parking spaces currently located at the City Maintenance Yard that supply
free remote public parking on weekends under the City’s Preferential Parking Program approved
by the Coastal Commission. These spaces are used by:
• Maintenance Yard employees during working hours (i.e., Monday through Thursday
from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. excluding holidays) and by the public at other times; and
• Replacement of two on-street public parking spaces that would be eliminated by
improvements to the southwest corner of 6th Street and Valley Drive. These spaces are
not part of the City’s Preferential Parking Program.
Activity 3-axle Trucks,
Maximum RT/day
2-axle Trucks,
Autos, Maximum
RT/day
Total, Maximum
RT/day
Deliver and Set up drill rig 6 20 26
Drill remaining 30 wells 12 11 23
Remove drill rig 5 20 25
Remove 32-foot sound wall 4 8 12
Facility operations and maintenance 5 13 18
Well workovers/Major Maintenance 4 14 18
(during drilling )
34
(during drilling)
44
(during drilling)
Maximum activity occurs during drilling of wells with facility operations and maintenance.
is not necessarily a simple addition of the two. See Appendix A.
Re-drilling would produce the same level of traffic as traffic produced during drilling activities.
See Appendix A for details regarding vehicles, employees, trucks and construction equipment necessary
for Project operations each week.
In order to comply with the City’s Preferential Parking Program and Coastal Development
Permit requirements and be consistent with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan (titled Local
Coastal Plan) policies,, 17 public parking spaces would have to be generated under the Proposed
Oil Project to replace the 15 parking spaces removed at the current City Maintenance Yard and
the 2 on-street public parking spaces removed from 6th Street, Table 2.15 provides the
Applicant’s assessment of parking demand for each phase of the Proposed Oil Project and the
Applicant’s proposal for the development of the required parking as a component of the
Proposed Oil Project. As indicated in Table 2.15, Phases 1, 2, and 3 and the drilling portion of
Phase 4 would require temporary offsite parking.

Table 2.15 Proposed Oil Project Parking Requirements
Phase and Peak Activities
Peak
Number of
Employees
Number of
Offsite Parking
Spaces Needed
Comments
Phase 1: construct fence, wells cellar and
install electrical service
27 20 Some employees would
park onsite and others
would use temporary
parking lot.
Phase 2: Install equipment and drill test
wells.
22 12 Two 5 person shifts for
drilling, some carpooling
assumed.
Phase 3: Construct wall, remove
soundwall, construct onsite facilities
30-60 40 Peak employees occurs
for constructing onsite
facilities. Assumes
some carpooling.
Phase 4: Drilling and Operations 10 4 5 persons per shift with
2 shifts per day.
Carpooling is assumed.
Phase 4: Operations Only 2-4 0 No offsite parking
needed.
Source: Applicant submittals January 2014
The following information summarizes E&B’s proposal in the Project Application to meet
parking demands.
Cypress Parking Lot: Parking for 20 employees during temporary construction and drilling
activities during Phases 1, 2, 3, and the drilling portion of Phase 4 would be provided in an
offsite temporary parking lot to be developed at 636 Cypress Avenue adjacent to the western
Project boundary (referred to as the temporary parking lot).
The Applicant states it has entered into an agreement with the current owner of the subject
property at 636 Cypress Avenue (Assessor Parcel No. 4187-031-22) for this use. Access to the
parcel is provided from Cypress Avenue. While adjoining the Project Site at 555 6th Street, the
temporary parking lot will not be accessible from the Project Site due to an elevation difference
between the properties and the need for secured points of entry onto the Project Site.
The 6,000-square foot parcel at 636 Cypress Avenue is a relatively level property. Itis currently
developed with a single-story building that occupies approximately 75 percent of the parcel and a
parking lot with approximately 6 parking spaces. The development of the parcel would comply
with all City requirements. Development would require demolition of the existing building,
removal of the current asphalt parking area, and minimal grading. The Cypress Parking Lot
would be completed before the commencement of construction activities to occur under Phase 1
Site Preparation of the Proposed Project.
Improvements that would be made to the new 60-foot by 100-foot parking lot with 20 parking
spaces would include drainage, landscaping with irrigation, lighting, a trash container, and other
elements to comply with the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Details of the redeveloped
parcel are shown in Figure 2-18.

The Applicant has requested that the City supply the required 17 replacement spaces as part of
the City Maintenance Yard relocation. If the No Added Parking option is constructed, then the
17 spaces would be provided on a permanent basis at the proposed temporary parking lot at 636
Cypress Avenue (see section 2.4.5). The City has not agreed to supply any replacement spaces
regardless whether the Parking option or No Added Parking option were to be constructed
Additional 20 Temporary Parking Spaces (Phase 3):During peak construction activities in Phase
3, parking for a maximum of 20 temporary parking spaces, in addition to the 20 temporary
parking spaces provided at the Cypress Parking Lot, would be provided at one or more sites, not
yet identified, that would be leased or rented by the Applicant. Employees would walk to or be
shuttled to the Project Site.
The Applicant proposes to ensure to the City, through the submittal of any required
documentation, that the parking spaces would be available during the temporary construction and
drilling activities for the Proposed Project. If spaces are “remote,” located farther than 5 to 8
blocks from the Project Site as defined by the Applicant, a van pool shuttle service from the
remote parking spaces would be provided to the Project Site by the Applicant. The Applicant
proposes to obtain all required approvals and entitlements from the City and to make any
required modifications to conform with City codes, identified as mitigation measures in the
certified EIR, and any other requirements that may be imposed as a result of the Development
Agreement or ballot measure.
Construction Vehicle Parking (Phases 1-4 excluding permanent operations): The Applicant
indicates that it has an agreement to utilize the below-ground parking area at 601Cypress Street
for non-hazardous equipment storage and parking. Parking for construction vehicles and staging
would be provided both at the Project Site at 555 6th Street and within the building at 601
Cypress Street during Phases 1-4.
Parking for Ongoing Operations in (Phase 4): The long-term parking for a maximum of four
Project employee vehicles during ongoing operations and maintenance will be supplied by four
marked parking spaces on the Project Site at 555 6th Street. Additional parking required for
maintenance activities for ongoing operations would also be accommodated onsite along the
perimeter wall as indicated in Figure 2-18. No additional offsite parking would be required for
long-term Project operations.
Replacement of Spaces Eliminated by the Project: Fifteen parking spaces at the Project Site at
555 6th Street are used by City Maintenance Yard employees during working hours of Monday
through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. excluding holidays. These spaces also supply free
remote public parking on weekends under the City’s Preferential Parking Program, approved by
the Coastal Commission, and are otherwise used by the public when available. The Application
proposes to replace 15 spaces for free remote public parking in the offsite temporary parking lot
at 636 Cypress Avenue and as indicated below. The City would be responsible to supply parking
for its Maintenance Yard employees as part of its City Maintenance Yard relocation plan.
Two on-street public parking spaces would also be eliminated by Project improvements to the
southwest corner of 6th and Valley Drive; these spaces are not part of the City’s Preferential

Parking Program. The Application proposes to replace these two spaces in the offsite temporary
parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue.
The Application indicates potential overlap with onsite employee scheduling during the drilling
portion of Phase 4, requiring four parking spaces at 636 Cypress Avenue to be vacant as one shift
arrives and another shift is leaving. This results in the availability of 16, rather than 17,parking
spaces for a period of approximately one hour.
The Application indicates that relocation of the 17 public parking spaces requires a coordinated
approach between the Applicant and the City and proposes that this relocation be governed by
the Lease Agreement (Section 13). The Applicant proposes the relocated City Maintenance Yard
be developed in a manner which could supply the permanent public parking spaces on weekends
and at night, similar to the way in which the existing parking spaces at the current City
Maintenance Yard are utilized. If the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard does not become
the location for the permanent public parking spaces, then the Applicant proposes to provide 15
replacement public parking spaces as well as the additional 2 public parking spaces, prior to the
commencement of Project operations, at the offsite temporary parking lot at 636 Cypress Avenue
or to provide other suitable public parking spaces consistent with requirements of the City’s
Preferential Parking Program, the California Coastal Act, and a framework proposed by the
Applicant.
2.4.7 Project Life and Decommissioning
Under the Proposed Oil Project, the oil and gas resources would be developed until they are
depleted and developing them is no longer economically viable, for up to 35 years. Currently,
the amount of crude oil that could be produced from the field is unknown, and future crude
prices are difficult to assess. According to the Lease Agreement, the Proposed Oil Project could
operate for up to 35 years. Figure 2.19 shows the estimated crude oil, gas and water production
for the life of the Proposed Oil Project.
If during Phase 2 the Applicant does not consider the level of production from the Project Site to
be economically feasible, then decommissioning of the installed equipment would commence.
Decommissioning would involve the removal of the drilling and temporary testing equipment
and would include abandonment of wells according to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) requirements. The Project Site would be left as a graded site with site
improvements including the retaining walls, the perimeter chain link fence, and the perimeter
landscaping.
At the end of the Proposed Oil Project, when the owner applies to DOGGR and to the City to
abandon the facility, a separate permit process and CEQA environmental review would be
required to evaluate decommissioning of the entire Project Site. Since the timing of the
decommissioning is unknown, the Applicant has not submitted a detailed decommissioning plan,
and therefore any assessment of decommissioning activities would be speculative at this time.

Figure 2-18 Cypress Parking Area
Source: E&B Updated Parking Plan 1/8/2014

Figure 2.19 Estimated Production Levels
Source: Based on Applicant submitted estimates
2.4.8 Project Scheduling Summary
Under the Proposed Oil Project, there are a number of different activities with various
allowances for time of day, day of week and annual limits. These are summarized in Table 2.16.
2.5 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
The current use on the Project Site, the City Maintenance Yard, would be relocated to the City
owned properties located west of Valley Drive occupied by City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive and
by the Hermosa Self-Storage Facility at 522 11th Place. The temporary City Maintenance Yard
would be located at the rear of the City Hall site primarily utilizing the locations occupied by
reserved employee parking and storage buildings utilized by the Police and Fire Department and
Friends of the Library, as well as a small parking lot used by City vehicles and onstreet city and
public parking spaces along 11th Place and Bard Street. Some of these parking spaces are a
portion of the City’s inventory under the City’s Preferential Parking Program approved by the

Coastal Commission. Traffic circulation on Bard Street and 11th Place would also be modified
during the temporary relocation as Bard Street would be closed to through traffic during the
temporary relocation.
Table 2.16 Proposed Oil Project Scheduling Summary
Activity Allowed Period
Annually Days and Hours per Day
Workover Rig Maximum 90 days
per year
8 am - 6 pm weekdays only
Drilling Rig Phase 2 - 120 days
Phase 4 - 30 months 24 hours per day
Re-drills 30 days per year
average, up to 150
per year max
24 hours per day
Phase 1 and Phase 3 Construction Any 8 am - 6 pm weekdays and
9 am - 5 pm Saturdays
Offsite ROW Construction Any 8 am - 3 pm weekdays only in
the City of HB
Truck deliveries Any 9am - 3 pm weekdays or
emergencies
Quiet mode drilling Phase 2 and Phase
4 Drilling, Re-drills
7 pm - 8 am
Pipeline construction activities Phase 3 9 am - 3 pm weekdays.
The permanent City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing with a
portion zoned OS Open Space. The permanent City Maintenance Yard would be located
adjacent to and south of Hermosa Beach City Hall on the site currently occupied by the Hermosa
Self-Storage Facility, which is on a month to month lease, along with 32 parking spaces. The
adjacent land uses are residential uses to the south and west, the Greenbelt to the east, and the
Civic Center (City Hall, Library, and Fire Station) and commercial uses to the north. The 32
parking spaces are reserved for City employees between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday (i.e., work hours) and used by the public at other times without
charge. These 32 spaces are a portion of the City’s inventory under the City’s Preferential
Parking Program.
The proposed temporary City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned M-1 Light
Manufacturing with a portion zoned O-S Open Space and C-2 Restricted Commerical. The
proposed permanent City Maintenance Yard relocation site is zoned O-S Open Space. The
adjacent land uses are residential uses to the south and west, the Greenbelt to the east, and the
Civic Center (City Hall, Library, and Fire Station) and commercial uses to the north.
2.5.1 Construction Phases
The construction of the City Maintenance Yard and the onsite parking spaces would occur in two
phases: the construction of a temporary yard and the construction of the permanent facility. The
temporary yard would be constructed prior to the initiation of any Proposed Oil Project Phase 1
site clearance at the current City Maintenance Yard in order to allow for the maintenance

activities to retain their functionality during the Proposed Project. The permanent yard would be
constructed at the start of Phase 3 of the Proposed Oil Project.
2.5.2 Phase 2 Unsuccessful
If Phase 2 of the Proposed Oil Project is not successful, the yard would be constructed after
Phase 2 is completed. It could be constructed at either the Proposed City Maintenance Yard site
or at the current City Maintenance Yard site, that would be vacated by the unsuccessful Oil
Project.
2.5.3 Temporary City Maintenance Yard
For the temporary City Maintenance Yard, the existing storage building would be removed, and
two temporary metal buildings would be constructed, possibly utilizing one of the metal
buildings on the existing City Maintenance Yard site. Various accessory facilities would be
provided to accommodate the maintenance functions. Construction of temporary buildings
would take place immediately adjacent to the existing storage building (see Figure 2.20).
Demolition and construction of the temporary yard is estimated to take nine months.
The temporary facility at 1315 Valley Drive would displace 30 parking spaces reserved
exclusively for city employees and city vehicles at all times, currently within the rear lot (22
spaces), southerly parking lot (6 spaces) and along Bard Street (12 spaces). Also, 12 on-street
spaces along 11th Place and Bard Street that are part of the City’s Preferential Parking Program
would be lost. The City proposes to address this issue in several ways: (1) participate in a street
improvement program with Redondo Beach which would reconfigure parallel spaces along the
north side of Herondo Street into diagonal spaces thereby yielding a net increase of 9 public
parking spaces that would be available for coastal public parking; (2) create 15 new diagonal
spaces with 15 spaces reserved exclusively for city employee and city vehicles at all times and
with 3 spaces available for coastal public parking on a paved 150 foot by 35 foot strip of city-owned
property abutting Valley Drive (located north of the current City Maintenance yard); and
(3) allocate 18 spaces for city employees on Monday – Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the
parking lot at the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Because the spaces at the Community
Center are currently part of the City’s Preferential Parking Program, utilization of these spaces
for employee parking on Monday to Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would reduce the
required number of public spaces at these time for the duration of the temporary City
Maintenance Yard. The City would continue to explore other options for city employee parking
so as to not impinge on these Preferential Parking Program. These temporary changes to the
City’s Preferential Parking Program would require approval of the Coastal Commission.
2.5.4 Permanent City Maintenance Yard
Two options for the permanent facility were assessed: one with an additional 97 parking spaces
(Parking Option) and one that minimizes the footprint of the facility by not providing any
additional parking (No Added Parking Option). Construction would take 20 months for the
Parking Option and 17 months for the No Added Parking Option with a design and permitting
lead time of 12 months for either options (including Coastal Commission approval). See Figures
2.21 and 2.22.

2.5.4.1 Parking Option
The Parking Option takes advantage of the fact that the majority of the site is already depressed,
by providing a lower level parking area with a structured deck above it to accommodate the
relocated City Yard. The lower level would have parking for a total of 129 vehicles. The
Parking Option would include the 32 parking spaces that would be eliminated (currently next to
City Hall in front of the Hermosa Self-Storage site that are reserved for City employees during
work hours and the public during non-city-work hours under the City’s coastal Preferential
Parking Program). Therefore, while a portion of the 129 parking spaces under the relocation of
the City Maintenance Yard with Parking Option would replace existing parking spaces, the
remainder would be available to serve parking needs as determined by the City Council.
Access to the parking level for the Parking Option is designed to be separated from City Yard
traffic, as the entry would be located on the north side of the facility where it can be reached
from 11th Place and Bard Street. Vehicular access to the City Yard level from Valley Drive has
been incorporated into the design of both the Parking Option and the No Added Parking option.
Facilities in the Yard area have been designed to be constructed along the perimeter to maintain a
clear space in the center, creating efficient and safe traffic flow.
Construction for the Parking Option would consist of building a two level structure to
accommodate the City Maintenance Yard on the upper deck and parking for 129 cars on the
lower deck. The overall gross floor area of the deck is approximately 48,000 gross square feet.
Figure 2.21 shows a proposed layout of the Parking Option. The yard's enclosed facilities would
be set along the southern side of the deck, sharing its southern border with neighboring
residences. The Vehicle Maintenance facility would be placed in the south-west corner of the
City Maintenance Yard past the line of workshops, in front of which impediments to traffic flow
would tend to emanate. These impediments would arise from the ingress and egress of vehicles
being repaired and from parked vehicles waiting for service. Therefore, placement of the
Vehicle Maintenance facility in this location is pertinent to efficient traffic flow within the City
Maintenance Yard.
The City Maintenance Yard offices, restrooms, lockers and kitchen break room would be
situated in a separate structure at the north-west corner of the deck to provide for some distance
from City Maintenance Yard activities. This structure would also accommodate flexible space
on two levels for public use. While the facility would accommodate uses for both the City
Maintenance Yard and the public, each function would exist separately from one another, and
each would have its own entry, with the former's from the deck and the latter’s from grade at
Bard Street.
Appendix A shows a conceptual design of the facility, as presented to the Public Works
Department, along with three dimensional simulated views. The height of the facility varies
from 1/2 level above grade at the 11th Place and Valley Drive edges of the deck structure to
approximately 2 stories at the south-west corner of the Yard.

Figure 2.20 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Temporary Location
Source: City of Hermosa Beach

Figure 2.21 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility Parking Option
Source: City of Hermosa Beach City Yard Relocation Study Memo Dated 19 July 2013 to Public Works Department from RNL

Figure 2.22 City Yard Relocation Conceptual Site Plan: Permanent Facility No Added Parking Option
Source: RNL for the City of Hermosa Beach, Oct 2012

2.5.4.2 No Added Parking Option
The No Added Parking Option is virtually the same as the Parking Option except that under the
No Added Parking Option, the entire facility would be a single story, with the City Maintenance
Yard functions and facilities (vehicle maintenance, offices, restrooms, lockers and kitchen break
room, etc) occupying a reduced 30-40,000 ft2 acreage shared with the retained 32 parking spaces
located along the north and east side of the facility. The building heights of the No Added
Parking Option would be similar to the Parking Option, as the parking garage under the Parking
Option would be below grade. See Figure 2-22. The additional 97 parking spaces would not be
a part of the No Added Parking Option.
2.6 Agency Use of the Document
Section 15124(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly
describing the intended uses of the EIR. This statement includes identifying the ways in which
the Lead Agency and any responsible agencies would use this document in their approval or
permitting processes.
2.6.1 Local and Regional
The City is the Lead Agency for this EIR, which will be used, among other purposes, to provide
information to the voters in determining whether or not to lift the ban on oil production and
approve other specified legislation for the Proposed Oil Project. All feasible mitigation measures
identified in the EIR that is applicable to E&B’s Proposed Oil would be adopted and
incorporated into the Project (which would include a Development Agreement) or made
conditions of Project approval, as appropriate before the ballot measure is presented to the
voters. The adopted mitigation measures will also apply to subsequent Project approvals,
including ministerial permits, if the voters approve the Project. The City would also use the EIR
for permitting related to relocation of the City Maintenance Yard.
The Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance are Responsible Agencies that would use the EIR for
decision-making regarding approval of the portion of the Pipeline proposed within their
respective jurisdictions. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all
public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the
Project. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is a California Environmental Protection
Agency Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the entire County, including the City of
Hermosa Beach. The CUPA oversees all programs associated with hazardous materials. This
includes the Business Plan Program and the Hazardous Waste Generator Program; Underground
Storage Tank Program; the California Accidental Release Program and Risk Management
Prevention Program; Uniform Fire Code (UFC); and Aboveground Storage Tank Program. The
Fire-Hazardous Materials Unit also oversees the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank and Site
Mitigation Unit Programs, which ensure appropriate assessment and remediation of all hazardous
materials releases. Included in these programs is the reporting of unauthorized releases of
hazardous materials, within the Proposition 65 requirements. The Los Angeles County Fire
Department is a Responsible Agency that may use the EIR to obtain additional information on
the Proposed Oil Project for changes in the Hazardous Waste Generator and Business Plan.

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 4, is responsible for
establishing wastewater discharge requirements and issuing storm water pollution prevention
plan permits. The Los Angeles RWQCB is a Responsible Agency that is expected to use the EIR
in its review of the Project.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency responsible for
issuance of a Permit to Construct (PTC) and a Permit to Operate (PTO), both of which would be
required for the Proposed Project. To fulfill its obligations as a Responsible Agency, the
SCAQMD would rely on information contained in this EIR as part of the PTO permitting
process.
2.6.2 State
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the agency
responsible for issuance of well permits for production and disposal/injection wells. DOGGR
may review the EIR in its permitting review of the Project.
The California Coastal Commission would utilize the EIR for its permitting purposes and
consistency review. This would include the California Coastal Commission review of the
amendments to the City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, a Coastal Development
Permit and the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project.
2.6.3 Federal
The Office of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which is part
of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for inspecting
hazardous pipelines during construction to ensure they comply with all DOT regulations. Their
inspections would include both the Pipelines and the odorant facilities. The PHMSA may use
the EIR to obtain additional information on the Proposed Oil Project.
The US Environmental Protection Agency may issue requirements for the Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCC) and may use the EIR to obtain additional
information on the Proposed Oil Project.
2.7 Potential Project Permits
Various permitting requirements must be met prior to implementation of the Proposed Project.
The following section, Discretionary Permits and Approvals, summarizes local, state, and federal
permits that may be required for the Project.
2.7.1 Discretionary Permits and Approvals
The Proposed Project would require discretionary permits and approvals prior to implementation.
These are listed in Table 2.17.
Agencies that may use this EIR are listed in Table 2.18.

Table 2.17 E&B Oil Drilling &Development Project Permits/Approvals
Agency Applicable Permit/Clearance
Local Agencies
City of Hermosa Beach • Development Agreement by Ballot
Measure
• Municipal Code Text Amendment by
Ballot Measure
• Coastal Land Use Plan (text and
Map) Amendment by Ballot Measure
• General Plan Amendment
• Pipeline Franchise Agreement by
Ballot Measure
City of Hermosa Beach Community Development
Department
• Building Permits
• Grading and Excavation Permits
• Demolition Permits
• Oil Well Permit
• Conditional Use Permit and
Development Agreement Compliance
City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department • Business Plan Approval
• Compliance with NFPA Requirements
• Hot Work Permits
City of Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works • Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan
• Encroachment Permits for work in the
public ROW
• Oversized/overweight loads to be
transported on City streets
South Coast Air Quality Management District • Authority to Construct
• Permit to Operate
Los Angeles County Fire Department • Remedial Action Plan
Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Services • Community Action Emergency
Response Plan
City of Redondo Beach • Franchise Agreement; Encroachment
Permit for Oil and Gas Pipelines and
Valve Box; and Building Permit for
Gas Metering Station.
• Construction Traffic Management
Plan
• Department of Public Works Permits
related to Grading Permits, any
pipelines in the public rights of way,
and oversized/overweight loads to be
transported on City streets.

Table 2.17 E&B Oil Drilling &Development Project Permits/Approvals
Agency Applicable Permit/Clearance
City of Torrance • Pipeline Franchise Agreement.
• Department of Public Works Permits
related to Grading Permits, any
pipelines in the public rights of way,
and oversized/overweight loads to be
transported on City streets.
State Agencies
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources • Permits to Drill
• Permit to Conduct Well Operations
• Class II Underground Injection
Control Permit
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, OSPR • Oil Spill Contingency Plan
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall (CSFM)
• Operations and Management Plan.
• Integrity Management Plan.
• Emergency Response Plan, Spill
Response Plan.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control • Hazardous Materials Management
Plan
California Department of Transportation • Encroachment Permit
•
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Wastewater Discharge Requirements
• Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan
California Coastal Commission • Development Agreement Approval
• Coastal Development Permit
• Coastal Land Use Plan (Map and
Text) amendments
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC Rule)
U.S. Department of Transportation • Operations and Maintenance Plan
• Pipeline Structure Permit

Table 2.18 Relocation of City Maintenance Yard Project Permits/Approvals
Responsible Agency Applicable Permit/Clearance
Relocation of City Maintenance Yard
Local Agencies
Department
• Discretionary approvals necessary to
relocate the City Maintenance Yard
(Amendments to General Plan Land
Use Map, Coastal Land Use Plan
Map and Text, and Municipal Code
Zoning Map and Text; Planned
Development
Department
• Non-discretionary permits to demolish
the existing building and prepare,
construct and occupy the new facility
State or Federal Agencies
California Coastal Commission • Coastal Development Permit

Section 3: Cumulative Projects
3.0 Cumulative Projects
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a
project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in section
15065(c). Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines “cumulative impacts” as two or
more individual effects that, when considered together, are either considerable or compound
other environmental impacts.
A typical “project specific” cumulative analysis examines changes in the environment that result
from the incremental impact of development of a proposed project and other reasonably
foreseeable projects that have not been included in the environmental setting. For example, the
air quality impacts of two projects in close proximity may be insignificant when project
emissions are analyzed separately, but could be significant when these emissions are combined
and analyzed together. While these projects may be unrelated, their combined (i.e., cumulative)
air quality impacts would be significant.
The goal of the cumulative project analysis is to identify those reasonably foreseeable projects
that could have spatial and temporal overlaps with the Proposed Project. These projects could
have a potential for a significant cumulative environmental impact. Projects with temporal
overlaps include those that are planned to occur during the same timeframe as the Proposed
Project. Projects with spatial overlaps are those which would have impacts in the same
geographic area or on the same resources as the Proposed Project (e.g., emissions that could
affect the same air basin). The following discussion identifies future projects near the location of
the Proposed Project, including E&B’s Project and the City Maintenance Yard relocation, and
alternatives with a potential for significant cumulative environmental impact.
Cumulative projects are those that, in conjunction with the Proposed Project, can potentially
cause cumulatively significant adverse environmental impacts. The area within which
cumulative impacts could occur depends upon the project activity and type of impact. The
cumulative impact study area is the area surrounding the Project facilities where other projects
could be proposed, including offshore areas.
For this Proposed Project, the cumulative impact study area includes the immediate vicinity
surrounding the Oil Project Site and the proposed crude and gas pipelines in the City of Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance as well as the area around the Proposed City Maintenance
Yard Project. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have cumulative impacts well beyond
the region, and this analysis will consider Project-related GHG emissions relative to those on
both a regional and statewide scale. Under risk of upset conditions and for impacts involving
biological resources, geology, air quality, noise, traffic, and recreation, the cumulative impact
study area would also encompass the communities of the City of Hermosa Beach, the City of
Redondo Beach and Torrance (see Figure 2-1).

3.1 Description of Cumulative Projects
The Project Site is within property owned by the City of Hermosa Beach, as shown in Figure 2-
1, located at the western edge of Los Angeles County, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west.
The oil and gas production and processing facilities will be physically located at a single site at
the current City Maintenance Yard. The Maintenance Yard would be demolished and moved to
a location currently occupied by a self-storage facility in Hermosa Beach on City-owned
property adjacent to City Hall.
3.1.1 City of Hermosa Beach
The City of Hermosa Beach currently has no cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a
location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts.
3.1.2 City of Redondo Beach
The City of Redondo Beach currently has three cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a
location that could cumulatively add to Project impacts. These cumulative projects are:
• Redondo Beach Energy Project;
• Anita Traffic Lane Modification Project;
• Harbor Development Project;
The Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP) is proposed by AES Southland, LLC to construct
and operate a power generation facility located at 1100 North Harbor Drive in the City of
Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County. The proposed RBEP site is southeast of and adjacent to
the North Harbor Drive and Herondo Street intersection and would utilize 10.5 acres of the
existing approximately 20 acre site. The RBEP is a proposed natural-gas fired, combined-cycle,
air-cooled electrical generating facility with a net generating capacity of 496 megawatts (MW),
which will replace, and be constructed on the site of, the existing AES Redondo Beach
Generating Station. The existing power generation facility currently located on the Generating
Station site would be removed. The project is currently under review by the California Energy
Commission.
The Anita Traffic Lane Modification Project would involve removing a traffic lane on Anita
between Pacific Coast Highway and Hermosa Avenue and adding parking with a "back in"
approach. The project would reduce Anita to one lane in each direction and would add 9 parking
spaces in Hermosa Beach. It is planned for implementation in the summer of 2014.
Under the Harbor Development Project, a commercial center would be built on approximately 15
acres adjacent to the harbor in the City of Redondo Beach. The commercial center would be
comprised of 400,000 square feet total, with 200,000 square feet of commercial and 200,000
square feet of hotel and office space. The project is estimated to be implemented in the 2015-
2016 timeframe.

3.1.3 City of Torrance
The City of Torrance currently has no cumulative projects that are of a scale and in a location
that could cumulatively add to Project impacts.

Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting
4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis/Regulatory Setting
This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Each issue
area analyzed in this chapter provides background information and describes the environmental
setting (baseline conditions) to help the reader understand the underlying conditions against
which an impact is evaluated. In addition, each section describes how an impact on those
underlying conditions is determined “significant” or “less than significant.” Finally, the
individual sections recommend mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. Throughout
this chapter, impacts are identified with a letter-number designation (e.g., impact BIO.1, impact
AE.3). Corresponding mitigation measures are connected numerically to their impacts (e.g.,
BIO-1a and AE-3a).
This environmental impact report (EIR) includes many references that have been abbreviated to
acronyms. A list of acronyms is included following the Table of Contents.
4.0.1 Assessment Methodology
The analysis of each issue area begins with an examination of the existing physical setting
(baseline conditions as determined pursuant to Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental
Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) that may be affected by the Proposed Project. The effects of
the Proposed Project are defined as changes to the environmental setting attributable to Proposed
Project components or operation.
Significance criteria are identified for each environmental issue area. The significance criteria
serve as benchmarks for determining if a component action will result in a significant adverse
environmental impact when evaluated against the baseline. According to Section 15382 of the
CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project.”
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the EIR base its determination of
whether or not a project impact is significant on adopted policies and standards, which serve as
significance thresholds. The policies and standards applied by the EIR to serve as significance
thresholds are derived for the most part from City policies (primarily in the City’s adopted
General Plan) and other adopted standards such as the Municipal Code. For some environmental
issues, the EIR applies standards established by other regulatory agencies, such as the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (in the case of water pollution standards) and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (in the case of air pollutant standards). For impacts related to
certain public safety hazards associated with oil production and transport, this EIR uses the well-established
significance criteria adopted by the County of Santa Barbara. These criteria have
been found to be acceptable and utilized by the California Coastal Commission in particular.
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provide a list of generic questions intended to guide
lead agencies in determining what level of CEQA documentation is appropriate for a given
project (e.g., a negative declaration or EIR). (These questions were used in the Initial Study

presented in Appendix H.) The EIR follows the City’s practice of using those questions as a
framework for addressing project impacts in more detail with careful consideration given to
specific pertinent policies adopted by the City or other relevant agencies. Each analytic section
of the EIR identifies the significance thresholds used to assess impacts related to the specific
environmental issue under consideration. The same significance thresholds are used again when
the EIR evaluates the effectiveness of any mitigation measures or Project Alternatives to reduce
or avoid potential impacts.
4.0.2 Oil Project Impact Analysis
Based upon the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping comments, 15 issue/resource areas
were identified where potentially significant impacts could occur from the Proposed Project.
The impact analysis for each of these issue areas is provided in the following subsections of
Chapter 4. The analysis of each issue area has defined the study area for purposes of the impact
analysis. In most cases, the study area is the region that is in the vicinity of the Project.
For each identified impact, the following framework was used:
 Impact Discussion;
 Mitigation Measures; and
 Residual Impacts
The residual impact is the impact classification after any mitigation has been applied. If an
impact is found to be less than significant then the residual impact would remain less than
significant with or without mitigation. All residual impacts identified in this document have
been classified according to the following criteria:
Class I - Significant and Unavoidable: Significant adverse impacts that cannot be effectively
mitigated. No measures can be taken to avoid or reduce these adverse effects to insignificant or
negligible levels.
Class II – Less Than Significant with Mitigation: These impacts are potentially similar in
significance to those of Class I impacts, but can be eliminated or reduced below an issue area’s
significance criteria threshold by the implementation of mitigation measures.
Class III – Less Than Significant: An adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issue’s
significance criteria threshold. Generally, no mitigation measures are required for such impacts,
although they may still be recommended should the lead or responsible agency deem it
appropriate to reduce the impact to the maximum extent feasible.
Class IV - Beneficial: Effects are beneficial to the environment.
If the impact remains at or above the pertinent significance criteria after mitigation is applied, it
is deemed to be significant and unavoidable, Class I. If a “significant impact” is reduced, based
on compliance with mitigation, to a level below the pertinent significance criteria, it is
determined to no longer have a significant effect on the environment (i.e., to be less than
significant with mitigation, Class II). If an action creates an adverse impact above the baseline

condition, but such impact does not meet or exceed the pertinent significance criteria, it is
determined to be less than significant, Class III. An action that provides an improvement to an
environmental issue area in comparison to the baseline information is recognized as a beneficial
impact, Class IV.
4.0.3 Formulation of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program
When significant impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures are formulated to eliminate
or reduce the severity of the impacts and focus on the protection of sensitive resources. The
effectiveness of a mitigation measure is subsequently determined by evaluating the impact
remaining after its application. The impacts remaining after mitigation are considered residual
impacts. The residual impacts can be either significant or less than significant. Implementation
of more than one mitigation measure may be needed to reduce an impact below a level of
significance. The mitigation measures recommended in this document are identified in the
impact sections and presented in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, provided in Chapter 8 of the EIR.
Measures that have been incorporated as part of an Applicant’s Project design are considered
design features and are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. If they eliminate or
reduce a potentially significant impact to a level below the significance criteria, they eliminate
the potential for that significant impact since the “measure” is a component of the action.
However, if the Project is approved, the Applicant-proposed measures would be part of the
conditions of approval and incorporated into the Development Agreement.
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 establishes two distinct requirements for agencies
involved in the CEQA process. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the section relate to mitigation
monitoring and reporting, and the obligation to mitigate significant effects where possible.
Pursuant to subdivision (a), whenever a public agency completes an EIR and makes a finding
pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code taking responsibility for mitigation
identified in the EIR, the agency must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will
ensure that mitigation measures are complied with during implementation of an approved
project.
The City of Hermosa Beach will be responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures
adopted pursuant to this EIR. One important step in monitoring is defining the responsibility of
the Applicant to support this process. Mitigation Measure EM-1 defines this process, and is
required to support all other mitigation measures and Applicant-proposed measures defined in
this EIR. The agencies referred to in the mitigation measure include the City of Redondo Beach
and City of Torrance and the California Coastal Commission, as appropriate.
EM-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading and/or construction permits, the Applicant shall
enter into agreements with the City to provide funding for the implementation and
administration of an environmental monitoring program, including an environmental
monitor, to ensure compliance with each Agency’s environmental Conditions of
Approval. The monitor shall assist the Agencies in condition compliance and
mitigation monitoring for all applicable construction and operational stages of the Oil
Project, as specified in a scope of work, as approved by the Agencies.

The monitoring program shall include a post‐construction program to monitor
measures that extend beyond the construction period (e.g., success of landscaping,
etc.), as well as monitor certain mitigation measures required during the operational
phase.
The monitor will prepare a working monitoring plan that reflects the Agencies
‐approved environmental mitigation measures/conditions of approval. This plan will
include:
1. Goals, responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for verifying compliance
with environmental mitigations;
2. Lines of communication and reporting methods;
3. Daily and weekly reporting of compliance;
4. Construction crew training regarding environmental sensitivities;
5. Authority to stop work; and
6. Action to be taken in the event of non‐compliance.
The environmental monitor shall be under contract to the Agencies. Costs of the monitor,
monitoring program, and any Agency administrative fees, shall be paid by the Applicant.
The Applicant shall also be responsible for funding work required by permit conditions
requiring use of individuals with special expertise (e.g., geologist, noise engineer, etc.).
The Agencies’ environmental monitor will coordinate the monitoring efforts of the
specialist, including communication with the Agencies, reporting and availability (at
appropriate times: prior to issuance of construction permits, or during construction, as
required by applicable permit conditions).
4.0.4 Cumulative Projects Impact Analysis
Each issue area in this chapter includes a cumulative impact analysis, which identifies the
potential impacts of the Proposed Project that might not be significant when considered alone,
but that might contribute to a significant impact in conjunction with the other cumulative
projects. The list and description of cumulative projects is included in Chapter 3.0, Cumulative
Projects.

4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The issue of Aesthetics is relevant to all three major components of The Project: (1) The
Proposed Oil Project (all phases), (2) Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project, and (3) The
Pipelines. Each of these components has the potential to significantly alter the existing character
and quality of the visual environment into which they are planned.
The aesthetics and visual resources chapter of this EIR discusses the environmental setting,
regulatory framework, potential Project impacts on the visual environment in the area, and
mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these potential impacts. The character of the
existing visual environment and potential sensitive aesthetic resources are described to set the
baseline against which impacts may be evaluated. Section 4.1.1 describes the methodology used
to evaluate the potential impacts that may result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation measures are proposed to lessen these impacts.
Information used to prepare this draft section was obtained through aerial photography,
publically-available ground-level photography, digital terrain models, GIS mapping software, a
three-dimensional city massing model, site visits, review of the regulatory and planning
documents which govern the Project area (See Section 4.1.3), and Project-specific materials
submitted as part of the application process.
The Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would
each have the potential for impacts on aesthetics. As the Proposed Oil Project and the Pipelines
would operate together during the operational phases, these have been discussed in the same sub-section.
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has been discussed in a separate impacts
sub-section.
4.1.1 Methodology
Evaluation of aesthetic and visual resource impacts can be subjective in nature, and therefore
requires that an objective methodology be established. The process used in this EIR was adapted
from the guidelines used by the Federal Highway Administration for assessment of visual
impacts (USDOT, 1981). Impact intensity was established based on evaluating the baseline
environmental setting and visual conditions against those depicted in the photo simulations. See
section 4.1.4 for significance criteria under CEQA. The principal steps used to define and
discuss visual impacts in this EIR are described in the following sections.
4.1.1.1 Assessing Existing Visual Environment
The existing daytime visual environment is evaluated in terms of its visual character and quality.
The existing night time visual environment for lighting is also inventoried. The character,
intactness, and unity of the night time visual environment are set as the baseline condition.
Numerous terms are used to assess visual impacts. These are discussed below.
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1 E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project

· Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative which means it is based on defined
attributes that are neither good nor bad. It includes descriptive language related to land
form, land cover and land use. The character of the existing visual environment is
inventoried for pattern elements and pattern character:
· Pattern Elements:
o Form: the mass of shape of an object. This is the strongest pattern element.
o Line: Geometrically, a point that has been extended, or the intersection of two
planes. e.g., a silhouette or a boundary between patterns in the landscape. This is
the second strongest of the visual pattern elements.
o Color: The hue (e.g. red or blue) and value (light or dark) of the light reflected or
emitted by an object. This is the third strongest of the visual pattern elements.
o Texture: The visual or tactile surface characteristic of various elements in the
landscape. This is often the least dominant of the four visual pattern elements.
· Pattern Character:
o Dominance: The degree of visual presence because of prominence of positioning,
contrast, extent or importance of pattern elements.
o Scale: The apparent size relationship between landscape components or features
and their surroundings.
o Diversity: The number of pattern elements as well as the variety among them, and
edge relationships between them.
o Continuity: The uninterrupted flow of pattern elements, maintenance of visual
relationships between immediately connected or related landscape components or
features.
· Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness, and unity present in
the viewshed.
o Vividness is the memorability or visual impression received from contrasting
landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual
pattern.
o Intactness is the visual integrity of visual order in the natural and man-built
landscape and the extent to which the landscape is free from encroaching
elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in
natural settings.
o Unity the degree to which the visual resources of a landscape join together to form
a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity refers to the compositional harmony
or inter-compatibility between landscape elements. It frequently attests to the
careful design of individual components in the landscape.
4.1.1.2 Evaluating Project Impacts
The visual impacts of the Proposed Project and its alternatives are determined by assessing the
visual resource change (from a change in access or quality) due to the project and predicting
viewer response to that change. The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining
the level of resource change with the degree to which users are likely to support or oppose the
change. For the Proposed Project, evaluations of potential visual impacts were based on
information provided in the project planning application and expected impacts resulting from the
E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project 4.1-2 Final Environmental Impact Report

implementation of those plans. These impacts are documented in Section 4.1.5, Project Impacts
and Mitigation Measures.
· Visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual character and change in visual
quality.
o The first step in determining visual resource change is to assess the compatibility
of the Proposed Project within the visual character of the existing landscape.
Compatibility is assessed by comparing pattern elements and pattern character
before and after the project.
o The second step is to compare the visual quality of the existing resources with the
anticipated visual quality after the project is constructed. This includes evaluating
changes to the vividness, intactness and unity of the Project viewshed.
· Viewer response is the sum of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to the project.
o Viewer exposure is assessed by evaluating the potential viewshed, viewing groups
and numbers, view location, distance and positions, and the duration and
frequency of the view. High viewer exposure heightens the importance of early
consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing the
visual resource effects of a project.
§ Viewshed: Areas from which a critical object or viewpoint is seen. This
analysis is done through evaluation of topography and built form. The
screening effects of intermediate vegetation are also considered during
analysis, though it was not included in the mapping process.
§ Viewing groups and numbers: The two basic user groups are users with a
view of the project and users with a view of the surrounding area of the
Project. Consideration is given to the number of residents as well as
visitors.
§ View location, distance and position: the viewers’ physical location as it
relates to the area/s of impact is evaluated in terms of distance zones
(foreground, middleground and background), position (superior/above,
normal/level, inferior/below) and direction of view (north, east, south,
west).
§ View duration and frequency: As duration and frequency increase,
exposure increases. Consideration is given to whether the viewers are
stationary or moving. In general, impacts less than one year are
considered temporary, though significant impacts can still occur in
timeframes less than one year where sensitivity levels are high. Impacts
occurring over the course of one to five years are considered short-term.
Impacts lasting greater than 5 years are considered long-term.
o Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for visual quality and
the viewers’ response to change in the visual resources that make up the view.
The viewers’ activity and awareness, local values, and cultural significance affect
sensitivity level.
§ Activity and Awareness: A viewer’s current activity and past experience
with a landscape can heighten or decrease the ability to perceive the
landscape and its detail. Awareness or receptivity to the visual character
of the landscape can be affected by elements and relationships in the

landscape setting itself, or by expectations about the setting. Areas
considered to have high sensitivity include: public views from road ROWs
that serve to directly access residential or recreational areas, designated
parks and open spaces, culturally and historically significant sites, and
areas in which aesthetic values are protected in laws and public planning
documents.
§ Local Values: Through review of the goals and policies relating to visual
resources in local planning documents, sensitivity levels can be evaluated.
The CUP for the Project and public scoping meeting comments are also
indicators of public values.
§ Cultural Significance: Visual resources may have sensitivity due to
history, scientific or recreational resources, or uniqueness.
4.1.1.3 Assessment of Key Observation Points
As part of the process to assess the Project’s potential impacts on visual resources, identification
was made of representative public view locations called Key Observation Points (KOPs). KOPs
from public locations were selected where viewer exposure and sensitivity are both high, are
listed in planning documents or where prominent ocean views may be compromised. Although
there are conflicting judicial interpretations, the CEQA Guidelines do not limit consideration to
public views. CEQA cases have stated that both “public and private views are properly studied
in an Environmental Impact Report to assess the impacts of a project” (Ocean View Estates
Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004)), however, the lead agency can decide
to address private views and establish the significance criteria as they see fit. While specific
private KOP simulations were not included, the Project Site would be a small area so that
impacts to public views would be the same or similar to impacts from private views. The
number and range of views from public areas was sufficient to allow a determination of
significance.
For each KOP, photo documentation and simulation was conducted to serve as a basis for
evaluating the Proposed Project’s potential effects. A summary of the process and methodology
used to prepare the photo simulations is included below. Key Observation Points selected were
as follows (see KOP Map in Section 4.1.5 for locations).
Views from/near public roads which serve as a primary or secondary access to residential
subdivision areas and/or recreation areas:
· Pacific Coast Hwy 1 (Primary); KOP 12;
· Hermosa Ave (Primary); KOP 9;
· Pier Ave (Primary); KOPs 3 and 4;
· Valley Drive (Primary); KOP 5, 15, 16;
· 6th Street (Secondary); KOPs 10, 13, 14 and 19;
· 8th Street (Secondary); KOP 16, 17, and 18;

Views from Recreation Areas:
· Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (Veterans Parkway); KOPs 2, 15 and 20
· Ardmore Park; KOP 20
· Civic Center; KOP 5
· Community Center (Tennis Court Access); KOP 1
· South Park; KOP 11
· The Strand; KOP 8
· Hermosa Beach; KOP 7
· Hermosa Beach Pier; KOP 6
Photo Simulation
Photo simulations of the Proposed Oil Project (KOPs 6-20) were produced by E&B consultant
Focus 360. The photo simulations in the Planning Application were updated at the request of the
EIR consultant to use a 50mm lens, show the rig in a ‘worst-case scenario’ drilling location for
each view and adjust landscape size depictions per the supplemental landscape information
provided after the original simulations were produced. Additional locations were requested by
the EIR consultant at Hermosa Beach and Hermosa Beach Pier. As discussed in the project
documents, the rig location is variable and could occur at any one of the first four well locations
in Phase 2, or any well locations in Phase 4. The rig is expected to move approximately once per
month during drilling operations.
Photo simulations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 1-5) were produced by
the EIR consultant in coordination with City Staff and the architect working with the City on the
project (RNL). The process for producing the simulations is summarized below.
Photography for Photo Simulation
The camera used was a full-sized CCD (charge-coupled device) digital camera with a fixed
50mm lens. A full-sized CCD camera was used because it records the entire frame of view the
same way the visualization software recreates the image. A 50mm lens is used in photo
simulations because it most closely reproduces the way a human eye sees the world and therefore
provides the most "fair" visual representation of the distance and magnitude of Project impacts.
The fixed 50mm lens is used in the simulations to ensure that the focal length does not change
from image to image. Limitations in photography at this focal length do not always allow all
project elements to be fully captured in a single frame, especially in close proximity to large
elements of great vertical scale. The fact that these elements do not fit within a single frame is
an indication of their potential for dominance within the viewsheds. Therefore, for views where
the drilling rig extend above the frame, simulations at 28mm lens simulation (wide angle) was
also included. A 28mm lens causes the feature of interest (the drill rig) to appear smaller and is
therefore not ideal, but due to the dominance of the drill rig at foreground locations, a 28mm lens
simulation was included.
Camera location and direction of view for each KOP were recorded using a handheld GPS
device with sub-meter accuracy. The camera was adjusted to the eye level of the photographer
for each KOP.

Modeling for Photo Simulation
The process used for modeling the Proposed Oil Project was included in the supplemental
planning information submitted by the Applicant. This information was reviewed during the EIR
process, and where necessary updates and clarifications were made. At the outset of the study,
pertinent Project information was provided: surveyed topographic information, civil and Project
design files, and details. Through the use of computer simulation software, this information was
combined together to create a three-dimensional model of the Proposed Project. The Proposed
Oil Project was “built” in the computer. Potentially visible production equipment, drill and
workover rigs, walls, fences, and landscaping were created and placed according to the civil and
site design plans.
Information and modeling related to the permanent Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project is
still in the preliminary planning stages. A preliminary ‘massing model’ was provided to the EIR
consultant by the City’s architectural consultant for the Project (RNL). In consultation with the
Architect working with the City, preliminary architectural details, materials, and landscaping
were added by the EIR consultant to the base massing model that was provided.
Composite Imaging of Photo Simulation
Within the three-dimensional model, a virtual camera is then placed at the selected viewpoints
using the field data collected at the time of photography (horizontal and vertical geographic
position). The visible elements of the model are exported using the time of day and location of
the original photo to produce shade and shadow conditions consistent with the image.
Adjustments are made to allow the two images to blend together (foreground elements, such as
trees, shrubs and buildings are adjusted to appear in front of Proposed Project elements). The
resulting image is the completed photo simulation.
Viewshed Mapping
Viewshed mapping for the Proposed Oil Project was done to approximate the extents of potential
visibility of major project components including the 87-foot electric drill rig and 110-foot
workover rig (See Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2). This mapping was produced using geographic
information software, digital terrain modeling, and 3D representations of built forms in the
project area. The terrain and three-dimensional buildings of the City were provided by
CyberCity 3D. The model included building massings and roof heights/pitches accurate to
within six inches. The E&B City model was produced based on the built form of the city as of
2006 (CyberCity3D, 2013). Using this analysis tool, potential visibility from public road rights
of way, parks and open spaces was established. It is important to note that the model does not
include the ability of existing vegetation to provide visual screening, nor does it represent built
forms that have been constructed since the model was built.
4.1.1.4 Lighting and Glare Methodology
The level of light that is projected into the environment by the current operations during the
nighttime hours, and the additional light that will be generated by the Proposed Project, are
important in determining the Project’s impacts. If an area is relatively dark, with minimal night
lighting, then the addition of even a single strong light could produce impacts on receptors,

particularly if those receptors are a residential area. However, if the area already has substantial
lighting, and some additional lighting is added, then the impacts would be considered minimal.
Light is generally measured in lumens, which is the total amount of light energy produced by a
given light source. Light levels, or luminance, are measured in terms of the amount of light
falling on a unit area. The measurement is in “footcandles (fc)” or “lux”, which is defined as the
amount of lumens per square foot or square meter, respectively. Light measured by the amount
of lumens given off in a defined angle is called a candela. The light levels of a starry night
without a moon in a rural area is less than 0.001 fc, a mooonlit night 0.1 fc, a parking lot 1-10 fc
and a bright sunny day 10,000 fc.
Reflectance is the ratio of the amount of light leaving a surface to the amount of light incident on
it. Reflectance can be expressed as a percentage or a fraction, and is affected by factors such as
color, finish, and surface texture. Materials are measured by their Light Reflectance Value
(LRV). LRV values are between 1 and 0, with a theoretical perfect white achieving a value of 1,
reflecting 100% of visible light, and a theoretical perfect black achieving a value of 0, absorbing
100%. In practice LRVs will not reach the theoretical limits with white surfaces achieving
values up to 0.85. For example, the reflectance (expressed as a fraction) of concrete ranges from
0.34-0.67.
4.1.2 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting section describes the existing visual resources in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project. The character and quality of these existing visual resources is established here
as the baseline against which project impacts are later measured (see section 4.1.5 Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures). The visual resources in the vicinity of each major project
component are evaluated in terms of different landscape types/units. A landscape type/unit is an
area of landform plus land cover forming a distinct, homogenous component of a landscape,
differentiated from other areas by its degree of slope and pattern of land cover (USDOT, 1981).
The two landscape units for this project are developed/roaded and open space/park. Further
detail on how the existing visual environment is evaluated and described in this EIR can be
found in section 4.1.1 Methodology. Existing lighting and glare are also discussed.
4.1.2.1 Local Setting
Below is a description of the existing visual environment surrounding each of the major Project
component sites/alignments. The Key Observation points in Section 4.1.5 include existing site
photos which depict many of the viewsheds described below.
Proposed Oil Project Site
The Proposed Oil Project Site is located in a densely developed area. The parcel is immediately
surrounded by light manufacturing and open space land uses. One- and Two-family residential
and open space land uses border the light manufacturing district (See Figure 2.4, Project
Description). The built environment is comprised of primarily one to three-story masses with a
relatively high degree of architectural variety and character. Development of individual parcels

has typically been maximized making built form the dominant physical/visual feature on most
parcels. Planted landscape features have been integrated where feasible to complement and
enhance the built environment. City streets, parks, the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley
Greenbelt), and public beach provide the public network that links and provides physical and
visual access to the built environment.
The Project Site sits within a slight depression along Valley Drive between Loma Drive and
PCH, which provide some reduction in views from the beach area, but provides for an elevated
viewing location as the viewer moves east to PCH and beyond.
Views of the Proposed Oil Project Site
The Project Site is in a light manufacturing area within a densely developed area within a mostly
single-family residential region of the City of Hermosa Beach approximately 0.31 miles east of
the Pacific Ocean. The Project Site is located within an approximately 6.2-acre region made up
of light manufacturing uses that contain a variety of small commercial/manufacturing businesses.
The form and scale of these uses are generally of the same size as the surrounding residential
buildings, though their character and quality is of a light manufacturing district. Beach Cities
Self Storage is the largest built mass in the immediate project vicinity. The structure is set back
from Valley Drive approximately 20 feet and a small parking lot sets the mass back from the
corner of Valley and 6th Street. The height of the structure varies with changes in grade, but
generally ranges between 20-25 feet tall. The character and quality of the structure is consistent
with the adjacent light manufacturing land uses. The building incorporates architectural façade
enhancements to break down the scale of its mass. Additionally it includes landscape treatments
along Valley Drive to reduce its mass and provide visual screening.
The Project Site is currently developed as the City Maintenance Yard. The Maintenance Yard
would be relocated for development of the Proposed Oil Project. The most prominent
architectural masses at the City Maintenance Yard consist of two single story rectangular-shaped
storage buildings. The largest building is located along the northern Project Site boundary
oriented in the east-west orientation and measures approximately 145 feet by 50 feet, and is 16-
20 feet tall. The building is light industrial in character with a uniform standing seam metal
panel exterior, shallow hip roof, several large vehicular openings with rolling doors and few
windows. The second largest building is located in the southeast corner of the Project Site
oriented in the north-south direction and measures approximately 95 feet by 44 feet and is
approximately 10-12 feet in height. This building also has a light industrial character but is less
uniform in terms of architectural finishes and forms. It also has several large vehicular openings
but with swinging wooden doors, exposed utility connections and a flat roof form. Architectural
masses occupy approximately 15-20 percent of the Project Site.
Asphalt, gravel, and sand storage areas are located in the northwest corner of the Project Site; a
row of storage containers line the middle of the western boundary (see Figure 2.3). A 15-stall
surface parking lot for City employees is located in the southwest corner of the Project Site. The
maintenance yard includes trash bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt surfacing.
Property edge visual screening features include masonry walls with sections of screened chain
link fencing along the south, west, and northern boundary. A 6-8 foot chain-link fence with
privacy inserts and security wire borders Valley Drive to the east. The fence is partially covered
with a dense deciduous flowering vine which provides additional privacy screening during

months it is in-leaf. A row of approximately 40-foot tall evergreen fig trees line Valley Drive at
the Project boundary. The yard is moderately to highly visually accessible in its immediate
vicinity and has low levels of intactness, vividness and unity.
Views Surrounding the Proposed Oil Project Site
The City Maintenance Yard is located on land zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing and is
surrounded by zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing uses to the immediate north, south, and west.
OS-1 Restricted Open Space occurs to the immediate east. The majority of land immediately
surrounding the City Maintenance Yard is developed with the exception of the land zoned OS-1
Restricted Open Space (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail). Other properties in the vicinity of the
Project Site are zoned R-2 Two Family Residential and R-3 Multiple Family Residential.
Viewshed components surrounding the Project Site generally include a variety of architectural
masses of light industrial and residential character and an approximately 100-foot wide linear
greenbelt. A general viewshed inventory in each direction surrounding the project is as follows
(see Figure 2.5):
· To the north is a row of single-story light manufacturing uses and beyond that R-3 multi-family
residence one- to three-stories in height. Built masses of residential character,
overhead utility lines, and the canopy of few mature trees populate the viewshed.
· To the east are Valley Drive and the Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt). The
Greenbelt is an approximately 100-foot wide linear greenbelt trail planted with evergreen
groundcover (iceplant) and low-lying shrubs and trees which typically range from 10-30
feet in height. Further east, beyond the Greenbelt are views of residential development
with a mix of one- to three-story homes with ocean views (due to the elevated terrain).
Few large mature tree canopies and some overhead utilities are also components of this
viewshed.
· To the south are 6th Street and a two-story light manufacturing building (Beach Cities
Self Storage), which takes up a large portion of the block and limits distant views
surrounding the Project Site in this direction. The building is of a light commercial
character with large architectural masses, façade enhancements, and few windows or
doors. From the southeast corner of the Project Site, there are distant views farther to the
south where the Veterans Parkway, a community park (South Park) and zoned R-2 Two-
Family Residential development with attached garages that stand at one- to three- stories
are visible.
· To the west, viewshed components include a row of light one and two-story
manufacturing buildings, Cypress Avenue, and residential development further west.
These architectural masses combined with a soft topographic ridge generally parallel with
Loma Drive limits views toward the Pacific Ocean immediately surrounding the Project
Site.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site
Relocation of the City Maintenance Yard would occur to a densely developed area of multi-family
residential, Open Space, and restricted open space area in the City of Hermosa Beach
(See Figure 2.4, Project Description). The temporary City Maintenance Yard would be located

immediately adjacent to the City Hall along bard Street and 11th Place. Both are adjacent to
residential and open space land uses.
Views of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site
The proposed site for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard currently houses large single-story
Hermosa Self Storage Facility, along with a surface parking lot on the east side of the lot. The
building footprint is approximately 140 feet by 200 feet and ranges in height from 17-20 feet. It
occupies approximately sixty-five percent of the lot. The building is light commercial in
character with concrete block construction, few windows or doors, little architectural detail or
façade enhancements, and an expansive mostly flat roof. The building is set below perimeter
grade conditions by an approximate range of 2-8 feet, with the most significant grade differential
on the west property boundary.
The City Maintenance Yard Project Site perimeter includes a landscape strip with low iceplant
groundcover to the north, an approximately 4-6-foot (height varies) masonry wall with
landscaping along the east boundary, and combination concrete wall and wood fencing along the
south and west boundaries.
Views Surrounding the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site
The City Maintenance Yard Project Site is surrounded by a mix of land uses including City Hall,
a fire station, a public library, a community theater, residential areas and a public greenbelt for
open space/recreation. A general viewshed inventory in each direction surrounding the project is
as follows:
· To the north are the three-story City Hall, large surface parking areas, single story Public
Library, and the one to three-story police and fire stations, which also include a five-story
concrete tower. These structures are civic in architectural character and quality with a
generally high degree of façade articulation and detail. The concrete tower bears the city
name and by virtue of its location and relative vertical scale is one of the more visible
architectural elements in the community. The tower is approximately 12’x16’ and is
approximately 60 feet tall.
· To the east, Valley Drive and Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail) are
lined with a variety of hedges and trees ranging from 10-40 feet in height. Further to the
east are six tennis courts and The Hermosa Beach Community Center.
· To the south and west are two- to three-story multi-family residential structures of
varying architectural styles and forms. Few large mature tree canopies and overhead
utilities are also components of this viewshed.
The Pipelines (Includes Valve Boxes and Metering Station)
The proposed crude oil pipeline alignment scenarios would traverse the cities of Hermosa Beach,
Redondo Beach, and Torrance, within existing street and utility rights of way (ROW).
Views of the Pipeline Route, Valve Boxes and Metering Station
The views are consistent with those of a large roadway and include expansive areas of pavement,
areas of streetscape enhancement, landscaping, street lighting and traffic signals. The utility
ROW includes large transmission towers, areas of undeveloped grassland (Metering Station site),

an entry monument for the City of Redondo Beach, a container plant nursery and a dog park
(Dominguez Park).
Views Surrounding the Pipeline Route, Valve Boxes and Metering Station
The oil pipeline would be constructed underground for a distance of 0.39 miles in the ROW of
southbound Valley Drive (which is one-way starting at 2nd Street) in the City of Hermosa Beach
to the corner of Valley Drive/N. Francisca Avenue and Herondo Street in the City of Redondo
Beach. One- to three-story residential buildings line Valley Drive to the west and Veterans
Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail) and more one- to three- story residences are located
to the immediate east.
At this point, the oil pipeline would be constructed underground for a distance of approximately
3.55 miles to its valve box locations. From Valley Drive it would turn to the east and follow the
alignment of Herondo Street and Anita Street before connecting with 190th Street. The north
side of Herondo Street is lined with a mix of residence, commercial and residential-professional
uses ranging in height from two- to three- stories. The south side of Herondo Street is lined with
designated right-of-way which supports a high-powered transmission line with transmission
towers that are approximately 90-feet in height. These towers span a commercial plant nursery
which operates in the ROW. The transmission line and commercial nursery continue along the
south side of Anita Street at its connection with 190th Street and take up and area that is
approximately 180-feet wide along its path.
The following pipeline alignment scenarios could occur once the pipeline enters 190th Street:
· Scenario 1 and 2 consist of construction of the pipeline alignment within 190th Street to
the intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance or the City
of Redondo Beach. This area is in a high density built out condition. At this point,
Scenario 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options discussed below. The
area around 190th Street between Anita Street and Hawthorne is characterized by
residential uses ranging from one- to two–stories high on the north side of the street
mixed with a small number of industrial and commercial uses approximately at the
midpoint of the proposed pipeline alignment. The south side of 190th Street from Anita
Street includes a dog park, called Dominguez Park (24 acres); a mix of three-story
medium high residential uses (i.e., apartments) followed by a few blocks of big box
commercial developments, then single family residences one- to three-stories high, more
commercial uses and light and heavy industrial uses up to the intersection of Hawthorne
Boulevard. Scenario 1 and 2 would continue to one of the four valve box options
discussed below.
· Scenario 3 consists of construction of the pipeline alignment within the approximately
190-foot wide SCE utility corridor consisting of a high-powered transmission line with
transmission towers that are approximately 90-feet in height that runs through a
commercial container plant nursery in the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. This
area is in a medium-density built-out condition. The SCE utility corridor is located
parallel to and approximately 300 feet south of 190th Street behind the land uses along
the south side of 190th Street: a mix of three-story medium high residential uses (i.e.,
apartments) east to a few blocks of big box commercial developments, single family
residences one- to three– stories high, more commercial uses and light and heavy

industrial uses up to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard. South of the utility
corridor are low density single family homes. Some existing mature trees occur within or
immediately adjacent the ROW, such as North Prospect Ave, parallel with Agate street
(between Harkness and Flagler), in Dominguez Park, and where residential properties are
adjacent. When the oil pipeline meets Hawthorne Boulevard in the City of Torrance,
Scenario 3 would continue to one of the four valve box options discussed below.
· The oil Pipeline would end at one of the valve box locations discussed below:
o Valve Box Option 1 – For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would continue
from the Hawthorne Boulevard/190th Street intersection down 190th Street to the
Exxon Mobil Refinery, where it would connect with a valve box location within
the refinery site. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would turn north in
Hawthorne Boulevard and east in 190th Street to the refinery site. This area is
dominated by heavy industry uses associated with the Refinery tanks and
facilities.
o Valve Box Option 2 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1 and 2, the pipeline would turn
south in Hawthorne Boulevard to the SCE Utility Corridor where it would turn
east to the valve box location. For Pipeline Scenario 3, the pipeline would
continue east in the SCE Utility Corridor across Hawthorne Boulevard to the
valve box location;
o Valve Box Option 3 – For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn
north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location adjacent to the Santa Fe
Rail Road line; and
o Valve Box Option 4 - For Pipeline Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the pipeline would turn
north in Hawthorne Boulevard to the valve box location northeast of the
intersection of 190th Street/Hawthorne Boulevard.
4.1.2.2 Light and Glare
The Proposed Oil Project Site is located in a densely developed area. The parcel is immediately
surrounded by light manufacturing and open space land uses. One- and Two-family residential
and open space land uses border the light manufacturing district, characterized by low to medium
ambient nighttime artificial light levels. During nighttime hours, the surrounding residential as
well as commercial and industrial areas typically utilize moderate levels of interior and exterior
lighting for nighttime activities, security, parking, and signage. The majority of these light
sources are shielded and directed towards the ground so as to minimize impacts on surrounding
uses. Other exterior lighting sources include pole-mounted street lighting along adjacent streets.
The most significant night time lighting observed in the Project area was from Clark Stadium
where light levels exceeded 35 footcandles (as measured at the tennis courts adjacent to Valley
Drive). Lighting near or exceeding this level is evenly distributed across the active use areas of
the park site. South Park light levels were considerably lower with only occasional low-level
light fixtures along the main path and parking area. The Hermosa Greenbelt adjacent the Project
Site is not lit at night. Interior lighting spill-over from windows and porches of the residential
uses contribute to the ambient nighttime levels. With the exception of Clark Stadium (when in
night time use) the character, intactness and unity of the lit environment is fairly uniform and
consistent with a Lighting Zone 2 (LZ-2) (IES/IDA, 2011). Lower light levels are located on
undeveloped parcels, non-active-use parks and open spaces.

Light levels generated within the Project Site are low to moderate. Light sources include exterior
security lighting on building facades and light poles located in the surface of parking areas. The
buildings and tanks on the Project Site have painted metal finishes and do not contain large
glare-producing windows. Existing fixtures are not full cut-off and some light spill into the night
sky was observed.
Light levels generated at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site are low to moderate. Light
sources include exterior security lighting on building facades and light poles located in the
surface of parking areas on the east third of the site. Existing fixtures are not full cut-off and
some light spill into the night sky was observed.
4.1.3 Regulatory Framework
Various plans and policy documents set forth regulations and guidelines for aesthetics, visual
resources, vistas, light and glare that relate to the development of the Proposed Project. These
include the California Coastal Act, City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, City of Redondo Beach
General Plan, City of Torrance General Plan, and local planning and zoning ordinances.
Objectives, goals, and policies from these documents that are pertinent to the Proposed Project
are listed below.
4.1.3.1 California Coastal Act
Chapter 3 Article 6 Section 30251 Scenic and Visual Qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of
public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and
along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be
visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and
enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such
as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the
Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the
character of its setting.
4.1.3.2 Title 24 – Part 11 – California Green Building Standards Code
Chapter 5 Nonresidential Mandatory Measures
5.106.8 Light Pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed and installed to
comply with the following:
1. The minimum requirements in the California Energy Code for Lighting Zones 1-4 as
defined in Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code;
2. Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) ratings as defined in IESNA TM-15-11; and
3. Allowable BUG ratings not exceeding those shown in Table 5.106.8.

The Proposed Oil Project Site and Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Site have been
determined to be in Lighting Zone 2.
4.1.3.3 City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hermosa Beach General Plan
City of Hermosa Beach General Plan – Urban Design Element outlines policies and objectives
to preserve the scale of the community. It maintains that: “introduction of massive land uses
such as large buildings or new transportation corridors should be carefully evaluated”. It is
concerned with abrupt changes in scale and form resulting in a land use overwhelming another.
But it suggests that this visual shock can be lessened by generous landscaping and limiting the
apparent size of buildings and parking lots near the boundary. To encourage development that
coincides with the City’s urban design goals of scale and form, it offers:
· Policy 1 - Maintain the present scale of the City, but modify those elements which by
their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable.
· Program 1 - Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to
protect surrounding uses and community values.
The General Plan's urban design policies and programs include the following objectives that
must be addressed when design decisions are made:
· Preserve Hermosa Beach as a creative environment where people can live and work.
· Identify and maintain the smaller scale visual features that give character to Hermosa
Beach and its neighborhoods.
· Retain the uniqueness and diversity of Hermosa Beach's neighborhoods.
City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 17.28 (M-1 Light Manufacturing Zone) of the Municipal Code sets forth the following
requirements for building height and landscaping, which effect visual quality of the Project Site
and surrounding area:
· 17.28.010.E. Ensure that the appearance and effects of manufacturing and commercial
buildings in the M-1 zone are harmonious with the character of the area which they are
located.
· 17.28.030.D. Building Height - Any building may have a maximum of thirty-five (35)
feet in height and have a maximum of two stories. Oil and gas operations may exceed
this height for a temporary period of time and to a height as set forth in an approved
conditional use permit pursuant to Ordinance No. 85-803.

Chapter 17.30 (O-S Open Space) of the Municipal Code sets forth the following requirements for
building height, landscaping, and lot coverage, which affect visual quality of the Project Site and
surrounding area:
· 17.30.040 Height - No building shall exceed a height of two stories or twenty-five (25)
feet above the existing or finished grade, whichever is less (Prior code Appx. A, § 9.5-3).
· 17.30.080 Landscaping - All yard or open areas shall be attractively landscaped with the
possible exception of where such areas are used for court games, buildings or parking.
All landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated (Prior code Appx. A, § 9.5-7).
· 17.30.030 Lot coverage - Maximum building coverage of land area in the O-S zone shall
not exceed ten percent (Prior code Appx. A, § 9.5-2).
· 17.30.090 Planned Development Permit required - All new construction within an O-S
zone shall be subject to obtaining a planned development permit under procedures set
forth in Chapter 17.24. Sections 17.30.030 through 17.30.080 may be waived or modified
where in the opinion of the planning commission topography and/or design
considerations warrant such waiver or modification
Local Coastal Plan
In 1972, the people of California passed the Coastal Act which provided the establishment of the
California Coastal Commission and required local coastal communities to develop plans for the
preservation, enhancement and access to the coastal zone areas within each community. The
City of Hermosa Beach completed its Coastal Land Use Plan (called the Local Coastal Plan) in
1981. Policies related to aesthetics are addressed under section VI and in the Coastal Land Use
Plan Appendix G and include goals and policies "To preserve and enhance coastal overviews and
key view point areas (section VI.B.2)." Applicable policies include "that the City should restrict
building height to protect overview and viewshed qualities and to preserve the City's' existing
low-rise profile". Appendix J to the Coastal Land Use Plan includes a map designating a "Scenic
Highways Plan" (dated 1972, and as Amendment 9 to the Hermosa Beach General Plan dated
2/25/75). The Scenic Highways Plan designates Valley Drive from Gould Avenue south to
about 2nd Street as a Scenic Corridor. This would include the Proposed Oil Project Site and the
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site. Appendix G to the Coastal Land Use Plan also contains a
Viewshed and landscape map, Figure XXII.
4.1.3.4 City of Redondo Beach
City of Redondo Beach General Plan
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan – Land Use Element establishes goals, objectives,
policies, and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new development will
occur and existing uses with light manufacturing be conserved in the City of Redondo Beach.
Implementation Program - I1.18 Formulate Architecture, Site, and Landscape Design Guidelines
and Standards promotes the establishment of architecture, site, and landscape design guidelines
for development throughout the City. It encourages development of salient design characteristics
(i.e., for the height, massing, scale, articulation, and setbacks of structures) which are necessary
to ensure that new development and renovation of existing structures attains the high quality

which is desired in the City and does not adversely impact the character of existing districts
which exhibit special design qualities.
Policy 1.57.2 of the City of Redondo Beach – Land Use Element maintains that the onsite
lighting of commercial and industrial uses be unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only
the intended area is illuminated, offsite glare is minimized, and adequate safety is provided (I1.1,
I1.7, I1.18).
4.1.3.5 City of Torrance
City of Torrance General Plan
City of Torrance General Plan – Community Resources Element describes Torrance as a
community of high aesthetic quality. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element are
aimed to focus on the enhancement of community qualities that distinguish Torrance, including
open space resources, community facilities and activities, educational and cultural facilities, and
historic resources. Maintaining, preserving, and enhancing these resources are a priority for the
City and the General Plan. The Community Resources Element combines three elements that
were included as separate elements in the previous General Plan: the Conservation, Open Space,
and Parks and Recreation Elements. With respect to aesthetic qualities, the Community
Resources Element establishes the following objectives and policies:
· Objective CR.18: To preserve significant stands of trees and to establish a comprehensive
plan to protect and enhance the urban forest
o Policy CR.18.1 – Preserve specimen trees whether they occur on public or private
property, and promote the planting of new trees.
o Policy CR.18.2 – Provide, maintain, and encourage appropriate street trees along
all sidewalks and property frontages.
o Policy CR.18.3 - Develop and implement a comprehensive citywide street tree
program that includes sidewalk-appropriate, drought-tolerant, and native species.
· Objective CR.19: To preserve scenic vistas wherever possible
o Policy CR.19.1 - Make the preservation of scenic vistas an integral factor in land
development decisions.
o Policy CR.19.2 - Look for opportunities to create public open space areas with
scenic vistas that all can enjoy.
o Policy CR.19.3 - Coordinate with Southern California Edison and other utilities to
underground utility lines in new developments and to systematically replace
overhead lines with underground facilities, with a priority placed along major
roadways, key commercial areas, and within viewsheds of the beach.
· Objective CR.20: To minimize sources and adverse effects of light pollution.
o Policy CR.20.1 - Establish regulations for private lighting that minimize or
eliminate light pollution, light trespass, and glare (obtrusive light).
o Policy CR.20.2 - Require that nonresidential uses adjacent or near residential
neighborhoods provide shielding or other protections from outdoor lighting and
lighted signage.

City of Torrance Municipal Code
The City of Torrance Municipal Code contains standards addressing the reduction of glare
throughout its design policies related to: building surfaces; lighting in residential areas, the City’s
historic districts, public spaces, pedestrian areas, and recreational open space; sign policies; and
screening and buffering of commercial corridors and industrial areas.
Visual impacts are considered significant under CEQA if one or a combination of the following
apply:
· A substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista;
· Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway;
· Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings;
· Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
4.1.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Included below are general discussions of visual impacts under CEQA (1-4, above). These
impacts have been divided by major project element:
· Proposed Oil Project
· Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project and;
· The Pipeline, (includes Valve Boxes and Metering Station)
The impacts at the Proposed Oil Project Site were found to be dependent on whether or not the
drill rig/s were (1) present onsite or (2) were not present onsite. Accordingly, impact discussions
at the Proposed Oil Project Site have been sub-divided into these two groups.
4.1.5.1 Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Design Features
Phase 1
Design Features and Operational Practices
During Phase 1 of the Proposed Project, there would be demolition and construction activities
with various combinations of construction equipment working on the Project Site. Phase 1
demolition and construction activities, as proposed by the Applicant and assumed in this
analysis, would incorporate the following operational practices related to aesthetics:
· Prior to the initiation of Project Site clearance activities, temporary 16-foot high sound
attenuation walls (acoustical barrier) would be erected around the perimeter of the Project

Site, thereby reducing the views of the onsite demolition and construction activities. The
walls are designed to be moveable depending on the location of the onsite activities.
· Demolition or construction activities would occur on the Project Site between the hours
of 8 AM to 6 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 5PM on Saturdays consistent with the
requirements of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be
provided on the Project Site. The perimeter of the Project Site would be illuminated by
the existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street.
· The Proposed Project would underground the existing overhead power lines and
communication lines on poles that run through the existing trees along Valley Drive. The
lines would be located underground adjacent to the Project Site at a location determined
by the utility companies and the City.
· The electrical service for the Proposed Project would require the installation of
underground conduit in Valley Drive from 8th Street to the northeast corner of the Project
Site. The location of the underground conduit would be determined by Southern
California Edison (SCE) and the City. The areas disturbed would be returned to their
existing condition to the satisfaction of the City.
· Reclaimed water for use in irrigation of the landscape areas and drilling would be
extended from an existing reclaimed waterline in the Veterans Parkway via a six-inch
lateral water line brought across Valley Drive to a location south of the project entrance
driveway to be constructed in Phase 3. The areas disturbed would be returned to their
existing condition to the satisfaction of the City.
· Three of the four existing mature trees along the Project frontage on Valley Drive would
be retained to help screen construction activities. The three remaining trees would be
trimmed to keep branches from hanging over the onsite equipment and avoid trespass
activities.
· After the completion of clearance, construction of retaining walls, and rough grading, the
Project Site would be enclosed with a six-foot temporary perimeter chain link fence
covered in green fabric material. The fence would include secured gates for the entrance
off Valley Drive and the exit to 6th Street. The appropriate signage would be provided
consistent with the requirements of the City.
· Phase 1 would include the construction of a well cellar for the first three oil wells and the
first water injection well. The cement well cellar would be eight feet wide and 12 feet
deep. The below ground well cellar would have stairs at one end that lead down into the
cellar and the top of the well cellar would be covered by metal grating.
· The surface of the Project Site would be covered with crushed aggregate base material to
serve as a dust inhibitor and driving surface.
· Temporary landscaping, including three large trees along 6th Street, would be provided
along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site within the 10-foot landscape
area. A rolled asphalt curb would line the landscape area on 6th Street. The plant
materials and irrigation would be consistent with the requirements of the City.
· The Proposed Project would include the construction of improvements to the intersection
of 6th Street/Valley Drive to provide the necessary turning radius for the project-related
trucks turning southbound on Valley Drive from 6th Street. As a part of the intersection
improvements, the overhead power lines and utility poles on the corner of 6th Street and
Valley Drive would be located underground at a location determined by the utility

companies and the City. The landscape area would be redesigned to allow for the
improvements.
· At the completion of the improvements in Phase 1, a 32-foot sound attenuation wall
would be erected inside the chain link construction fence.
1993 Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
The demolition and construction activities for Phase 1 of the Proposed Project would be required
to comply with the following conditions of approval:
· Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the operation shall be monitored for all conditions of the
approval of which the City has responsibility, which includes (but is not limited to) noise
monitoring and inspection of the Project Site for proper maintenance (CUP Section 1.
General, Condition 6).
· The Project Site shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete wall with solid gates
during all operations, protecting both against public entry, observation and attraction. A
chain link fence to provide security is acceptable only through the exploratory phase
(CUP Section 3. Public Services, Condition 1).
· The entire drilling operation shall be equipped with acoustical treatment for noise to be
within the standards set forth in the City’s Oil Ordinance.
· A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the perimeter of
Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP Section 8.
Noise/Vibration, Condition 1).
· A Detailed Landscape Plan for Phase I (exploratory and testing) and Phase II, indicating
the type, size and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director
for review and approval, and it shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan
reviewed by the Planning Commission, and shall comply with Section 21A-2.9 of the Oil
Code (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 1).
· During Phase I, test facility, landscaping consisting of 24” box, or larger size trees may
be installed without permanent planting (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 2).
· Minimum 24” boxed trees for Phase I and II shall be adequate in size to create a buffer
effect to obscure visibility of oil production activity. Permanent trees planted around the
perimeter of the Project Site for Phase II shall be a minimum sixteen (16) feet high at
planting. (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 3).
· Trees along the lot perimeter shall be provided to create a dense landscape buffer to the
satisfaction and field review of the Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping,
Condition 4).
· Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition (CUP Section 9.
Landscaping, Condition 6).
· A complete automatic sprinkler system shall be provided prior to commencement of
Phase II (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 7).
· All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward of the Project Site (CUP
Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 4).
· Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and intensities necessary for safety and
security purposes (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 5).

· Certain activities which might involve unshielded lighting (i.e., Project Site preparation
and restoration) activities shall be limited to daylight hours and thus not require nighttime
lighting (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 6).
· A split-face block wall maintained graffiti free of a minimum of 12 feet in height shall be
provided; wall materials shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Director. During
test drilling minimum 6’ high fencing shall be provided (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics,
Condition 7).
· Onsite signs shall be limited to those needed for public health and safety (CUP Section
10. Aesthetics, Condition 12).
· Graded surfaces shall be paved or landscaped per approved plan (CUP Section 12.
Grading/Storm Water/Site Runoff, Condition 3).
Phase 2
During Phase 2 of the Proposed Project, four wells would be drilled utilizing an electric drill rig
and temporary production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil,
gas, and water. The processed oil would be removed from the Project Site by truck and
delivered to an offsite location for sale. Phase 2 of the Proposed Project would incorporate the
following design features and operational practices related to aesthetics during drilling activities
and temporary production:
· For the entire duration of Phase 2, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall along the perimeter
of the Project Site and the temporary landscaping along 6th Street and Valley Drive
installed in Phase 1, along with the three existing mature trees, would be in place.
· The drilling of the wells would be conducted by an electric automated drill rig with an
approximately 87-foot high rig mast. An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of
the drill rig mast. The shroud would be a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings.
The color would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
· After the drilling of the wells for Phase 2, the drill rig would immediately be removed
from the Project Site.
· The temporary construction trailer, temporary production equipment, and storage tanks
brought to the Project Site would not be visible above the surrounding 32-foot noise
attenuation wall.
· The Proposed Project would provide temporary nighttime lighting to address Project Site
security and worker safety consistent with the requirements of the City. This would
include the following:
o To address Project Site security, light fixtures would be placed at the entrance and
exit to the Project Site to provide temporary lighting. The light fixtures would be
pole-mounted at a height of approximately 10 feet. The fixtures would have low
energy lights that would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not
create light spill or glare beyond the property line.
o To address Project Site security, lighting would be provided for the temporary
construction trailer. The light would consist of two approximately 150-watt light
fixtures at each end of the trailer. The fixtures would be shielded/hooded and
downcast so that it would not create light spill or glare. In addition, the lights on

the temporary construction trailer would be located behind the 32-foot sound
attenuation wall, which would block any light spill or glare from leaving the
Project Site.
o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig. The drill
rig would have pole-mounted lights on the rig platform (approximately 15 feet
above the ground surface) and on the drill rig mast (starting at a height of
approximately 19 feet above the ground surface and up to the top of the mast at a
height of approximately 87 feet). The drill rig mast would be enclosed within an
acoustical cover on three sides. Within the acoustical cover, there would be LED
lights that run along one side of the mast structure at intervals of approximately 4
feet and on the other side there would be two lights, one located on the top of the
mast and the other where the drill rig “function” would be occurring. These LED
lights, which face towards the inside of the acoustical cover, are for the purpose of
creating an ambient glow within the acoustical cover to provide visibility for the
safety of the workers. Since the lights would be facing inward within the
acoustical cover, the light bulbs would not be visible and no light spill or glare
would be created. In addition, the lights on the rig platform at the base of the drill
rig mast would be shielded/hooded and downcast. The lights on the rig platform
and the lower portion of the drill rig mast would be located behind the 32-foot
sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving
the Project Site.
o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig equipment,
the temporary production equipment, and the shipping tanks. The drill rig
equipment would have pole-mounted lights along a walk platform approximately
19 feet above the ground surface. These lights would be facing downward
towards the drill rig equipment. The lighting for the temporary production
equipment and shipping tanks would consist of an approximately 150-watt
hooded and downward cast flood lights hung where needed to provide visibility
for the safety of workers. The lights for the drill rig equipment, the temporary
production equipment, and the shipping tanks would be located behind the 32-foot
sound attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving
the Project Site.
The drilling activities and operations in Phase 2 of the Proposed Project would comply with the
following conditions of approval:
approval of which the City has responsibility which includes (but not limited to) noise
· Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or appurtenant structures shall
exceed 16 feet in height from grade as defined by the Oil Code (CUP Section 2. Land
Use Development, Condition 5).

o A sound attenuation wall of 30-feet in height shall be provided along the
perimeter of Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP
Section 8. Noise/Vibration, Condition 1).
· The use of architectural lighting beyond safety and security requirements shall be
prohibited (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 2).
· All derricks hereafter erected for drilling, re-drilling or remedial operations or for use in
production operations shall be removed within 45 days after completion of the work
unless otherwise ordered by the Division of Oil and Gas of the state (CUP Section 10.
Aesthetics, Condition 13).
Phase 3
During Phase 3 of the Proposed Project, there would be construction activities resulting in
various vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site, including trucks used in the export of soil
during the implementation of the remedial action plan for the Proposed Project. In addition,
there would be construction activities associated with the installation of offsite pipelines
resulting in short-term road closures in the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and
Torrance. Phase 3 construction activities would incorporate the following design features and
operational practices related to aesthetics:
· The 32-foot sound attenuation wall and the six-foot temporary perimeter chain link fence
would be removed and 16-foot sound attenuation walls (acoustical barrier) would be used
on the Project Site during soil remediation, grading, and construction activities. The
walls are designed to be movable depending on the location of the onsite activity.
· Grading and construction activities would occur on the Project Site between the hours of
8 AM to 6 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 5PM on Saturdays consistent with the
requirements of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be
provided on the Project Site. The perimeter of the Project Site would be illuminated by
the existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street.
· The temporary oil, water, and gas production equipment installed on the Project Site
during Phase 2 would be removed from the Project Site. In addition, the three remaining
mature trees along Valley Drive and the temporary landscaping installed in Phase 2
would be removed from the Project Site.
· The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be implemented to remove the contaminated soil
within the former landfill area on the northeastern portion of the Project Site. It is
anticipated that approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be removed
from the Project Site and hauled to a Class 1 landfill. In addition, total petroleum

hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil would be treated onsite via vapor extraction. The
vapor extraction would be conducted by two to four extraction wells on the northern
portion of the Project Site. The only visible indication that the wells are present would be
a grade level metal cover on the ground.
· Following the completion of the RAP, the construction of the remaining retaining walls
and the final grading of the Project Site would occur. The final grading would not
require the import and export of fill material.
· Phase 3 would include the completion of the first well cellar and the construction of a
second well cellar for the remaining oil wells and water injection wells. The cement well
cellars would be eight feet wide and 12 feet deep. The below ground well cellar would
have stairs at both ends that lead down into the cellar and the top of the well cellar would
be covered by metal grating.
· A 16-foot split-faced block wall would be installed around the perimeter of Project Site.
The wall would be set back 10 feet from the Valley Drive and 6th Street property lines to
allow for a permanent landscape area. The wall would have a gated entrance off of
Valley Drive and a gated exit to 6th Street. The gates would be metal and motor
operated. The wall and gate colors would be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director. The appropriate signage would be provided consistent with the requirements of
the City.
· After the completion of the RAP, final grading, and construction of the well cellars and
perimeter wall, the 16-foot temporary sound attenuation wall would be removed from the
Project Site.
· A small office building consisting of approximately 650 square feet would be constructed
on the northeast portion of the Project Site. The building would be a neutral color to
blend with the surroundings.
· The permanent oil, gas, and water production equipment would be installed on the
eastern portion of the Project Site. This would include storage tanks with a maximum
height of 16 feet. The area on the Project Site with the tanks would have a finished grade
of 6 to 7 feet below the ground surface and be surrounded by a 6 to 7-foot retaining wall
in the interior of the Project Site and the 16-foot split-face block wall around the
perimeter of the Project Site. The storage tanks and any piping for the vapor recovery
system would be below the height of the 16-foot perimeter wall.
· The ground surface of the Project Site would be paved with concrete or asphaltic
concrete. In addition, the construction of final street improvements along the frontage of
the Project Site along 6th Street and Valley Drive would occur. This would include the
installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
· The permanent landscaping, including nine large trees, would be provided within the 10-
foot landscape area along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Project Site. In
addition, landscaping consisting of vines would be provided on the visible portion of the
western-facing perimeter wall. The plant materials and irrigation would be consistent
with the requirements of the City. To the extent feasible, the landscaping from Phase 2
would be reused.
· A 32-foot sound attenuation wall would be installed behind the 16-foot split-faced block
wall to encompass the Project Site.
· During Phase 3, offsite gas and oil pipelines would be constructed to transport product
for sale. The pipelines would be constructed underground within road right-of-ways

and/or within the SCE utility corridor within the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo
Beach, and Torrance. Temporary portable acoustical barriers would be positioned on
either side of the pavers and trenchers, blocking the line-of-sight of the construction area
from the nearest sensitive locations. The barriers would be moved alongside the
equipment as it progresses along the pipeline route.
The construction activities that would occur in Phase 3 of the Proposed Project would comply
with the following conditions of approval:
approval of which the City has responsibility which includes (but not limited to) noise
· The maximum size for any storage tank of any type shall be forty feet in diameter and
sixteen feet in height, appurtenances not included (CUP Section 2. Land Use
Development, Condition 1).
perimeter of the Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP
· A Detailed Landscape Plan for Phase I (exploratory and testing) and Phase II, indicating
the type, size and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director
for review and approval, and it shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan
reviewed by the Planning Commission, and shall comply with Section 21A-2.9 of the Oil
Code (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 1).
· Minimum 24” boxed trees for Phase I and II shall be adequate in size to create a buffer
effect to obscure visibility of oil production activity. Permanent trees planted around the
perimeter of the Project Site for Phase II shall be a minimum sixteen (16) feet high at
planting (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 3).
· Trees along the lot perimeter shall be provided to create a dense landscape buffer to the
satisfaction and field review of the Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping,
Condition 4).
· The aesthetic impact of the exposed masonry walls on the west and northern sides shall
be soften with the planting of climbing vines to the satisfaction and field review of the
Planning Director (CUP Section 9. Landscaping, Condition 5).
· The tanks, acoustical wrap and wall, and production facility shall be painted a neutral
color to blend in with the surroundings; color shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 1).

· The location for drilling equipment and the storage facilities shall be depressed in
combination with walls so that the visual impact is minimized (CUP Section 10.
· Certain activities which might involve unshielded lighting (i.e., Project Site preparation
and restoration) activities shall be limited to daylight hours and thus not require nighttime
lighting (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 6).
· A spilt-face block wall maintained graffiti free of a minimum of 12 feet in height shall be
provided; wall materials shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Director. During
test drilling minimum 6’ high fencing shall be provided (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics,
Condition 7).
· The height of the Project Site’s perimeter wall shall be increased to at least 16 feet if
beam pumping units taller than 12 feet are installed, or if perimeter trees, when planted
for Phase II, are not a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in height when installed (CUP
· Tanks shall be submerged 6 to 8 feet or more below grade and will be adjacent to the 12-
foot high privacy wall (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 9).
· All production equipment and structures shall be painted to blend with the surrounding
environment with review and approval by the Planning Director (CUP Section 10.
· Graded surfaces shall be paved or landscaped per approved plan (CUP Section 12.
Grading/Storm Water/Site Runoff, Condition 3).
· In order to reduce visual impacts and possible safety hazards [during pipeline
construction], storage of pipes and other materials, as well as construction equipment,
shall not be permitted on any street during non-construction hours (CUP Section 13.
Pipeline Construction 11).
Phase 4
During Phase 4 of the Proposed Project, remaining wells would be drilled utilizing an electric
drill rig and production equipment would be installed and used to process the extracted oil, gas,
and water. Phase 4 of the Proposed Project has been designed to incorporate the following
design features and operational practices to address aesthetics:
· During the drilling activities in Phase 4, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall installed in
Phase 3 would be along the perimeter of the Project Site. In addition, during all of Phase
4, the 16-foot block wall and landscaping installed in Phase 3 would remain in place.
· The drilling of the wells would be conducted by an electric automated drill rig with an
approximately 87-foot high rig mast. An acoustical shroud would enclose three sides of

the drill rig mast. The shroud would be a neutral color to blend in with the surroundings.
The color would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
· After the drilling of the wells for Phase 4, the drill rig would immediately be removed
from the Project Site.
· The Proposed Project would provide nighttime lighting to address Project Site security
and worker safety consistent with the requirements of the City. This would include the
following:
o To address Project Site security, light fixtures would be placed at the Project Site
entrance and exit. The lights would consist of an approximately 150-watt light
fixture adjacent to the gate that would be mounted on the perimeter wall at a
height of approximately 15 feet. The light fixtures would be shielded/hooded and
downcast so that they would not create light spill or glare beyond the property
line.
o To address Project Site security, lighting would be provided for the small office
building. The light would consist of an approximately 150-watt light fixture wall-mounted
at a height of approximately 10 feet at the building entrance. The fixture
would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it would not create light spill or
glare. In addition, the light on the office building would be located behind the 16-
foot split-faced block wall, which would block any light spill or glare from
leaving the Project Site.
o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for the drill rig and drill rig
platform as discussed above for Phase 2. The lights on the rig platform and the
lower portion of the drill rig mast would be located behind the 32-foot sound
attenuation wall, which would block any light spills or glare from leaving the
Project Site.
o To address worker safety, lighting would be provided for along the interior of the
16-foot perimeter split-faced block wall and incorporated into the pipe rack and
equipment design. The lighting would be shielded/hooded and downcast so that it
would not create light spill or glare. In addition, this lighting would be located
behind the 16-foot split-faced block wall, which would block any light spill or
glare from leaving the Project Site.
o The maintenance activities on the Project Site that would require the use of a
workover rig would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Therefore, no nighttime lighting would be required.
The drilling and ongoing operations that would occur in Phase 4 of the Proposed Project would
comply with the following conditions of approval:
approval of which the City has responsibility, which includes (but is not limited to) noise
· Except for the drill rig and drawworks [and the workover rigs], no equipment or
appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height from grade as defined by the Oil
Code (CUP Section 2. Land Use Development, Condition 5).

· The Project Site shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete wall with solid gates
during all operations, protecting both against public entry, observation and attraction. A
chain link fence to provide security is acceptable only through the exploratory phase
(CUP Section 3. Public Services, Condition 1).
perimeter of Project Site as shown on plans during oil drilling phases (CUP
· The tanks, acoustical wrap and wall, and production facility shall be painted a neutral
color to blend in with the surroundings; color shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 1).
· If the drill derrick remains idle for more than one year, review and approval by the City
Planning Commission or City Council shall be required, or the derrick with review and
approval by the Planning Director (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 10).
· All derricks hereafter erected for drilling, re-drilling or remedial operations or for use in
production operations shall be removed within 45 days after completion of the work
unless otherwise ordered by the Division of Oil and Gas of the state (CUP Section 10.
· The operator shall diligently and continuously pursue drilling operations until all 30 oil
wells and all five (5) water disposal wells are completed or abandoned to the satisfaction
of the Division of Oil and Gas of the states and upon completion or abandonment shall
remove all drilling equipment from the drill site within 45 days following ordered by the
Division of Oil and Gas (CUP Section 10. Aesthetics, Condition 14).
4.1.5.2 Dimensions of Major Visible City Maintenance Yard Project Components
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Temporary Facility
· New Fleet Maintenance Building:
o Height: 17 feet
o Length:
§ North-South: 30 feet
§ East-West: 75 feet
· Main Building:
o Height: 17 feet

o Length:
§ North-South: 150 feet
§ East-West: 50 feet
· Perimeter Block Wall:
o Height: 8 feet
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Parking Option (See also, Appendix A)
· Main Building
o Height: 15-20 feet
o Length:
§ North-South:
· East end: 50 feet
· West end: 60 feet
§ East-West:
· North End: 230 feet
· South End: 230 feet
· Flex Building
o Height: 20’
o Length: 60 feet by 60 feet
· Perimeter Block Wall Height: Varies, 6 feet to 8 feet
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project No Added Parking Option (See Appendix A)
· Main Building
o Height: 20 feet
o Length:
§ North-South:
· East end: 50 feet
· West end: 144’
§ East-West:
· North End: 60’
· South End: 210’
· Perimeter Block Wall Height: Varies, 6 feet to 10 feet
4.1.5.3 Dimensions of Major Visible Proposed Oil Project Components
The dimensions of the primary components of the Proposed Oil Project are listed below and
were used in the analysis.
· Electric Drill Rig:
o Height: 87 feet
o Mass (with Acoustical Cover)
§ Top 7.5-foot by 8-foot
§ Mid-rig 11-foot by 12-foot
§ Base 14-foot by 15-foot
· Workover Rig:

o Height: 110 feet
o Mass (Extents of open truss): 3-foot by 6-foot
· Phase 1 Sound Attenuation Wall:
o Height: 32 feet
o Length:
§ North: 263 feet
§ East: 232 feet
§ South: 197 feet
§ West façade: 222 feet
· Phase 3 Sound Attenuation Wall:
o Height: 32 feet
o Mass: similar to Phase 1, except the northernmost 50 linear feet of the east edge is
set back approximately 65 feet.
· Phase 4 Perimeter Block Wall Height:
o Height: 16 feet
4.1.5.4 Proposed Oil Project Viewshed Mapping
Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 depict the potential for visibility of the 87-foot electric drill rig and 110-
foot workover rig (respectively) from public viewing areas. The general intent of the viewshed
analysis is to approximate the extent of locations from which the drill rigs may be visible. As
mentioned in the methodology portion of this section, this viewshed map was generated using a
digital terrain model and three-dimensional representations of the buildings only, therefore it has
inherent limitations which are important to recognize. First, it does not take into account the
potential for vegetation to screen views. The screening potential of vegetation in the Greenbelt
and some parks in particular is significant and would reduce the visibility of the rig. Second,
these maps also do not factor in statements of significance and/or assign a level of impact. These
criteria are driven by a number of factors including viewing distance, viewer position and
presence of elements of competing interest. These discussions can be found below in the Key
Observation Points section and individual impact statements. Also, the map does not indicate
‘how much’ of the rig would be visible, so areas that may see a small portion of the rigs are not
distinguished from areas that may see a large portion. .
Based on the analysis conducted during the EIR process, the viewsheds from the foreground and
middleground distances have a higher probably of significant visual impacts versus the
background distance zone. Many of the background distance zone viewsheds would not actually
have visibility because of vegetative screening. The rigs also have a lower potential for
dominance in this distance zone due to a higher potential for dominance of other foreground and
middleground elements. The ability of visual effects such as distance and patterning of the built
environment also have greater potential to moderate impact significance in the background
distance zone. Discussions of Key Observation Points are separated into distance zones below
and include further evaluation of potential impacts.

Figure 4.1-1 Viewshed Analysis- Electric Drill Rig (Areas where the Drill Rig Can Be Seen)
Source: Stantec, 2014

Figure 4.1-2 Viewshed Analysis- Workover Rig (Areas where the Rig Can Be Seen)
Source: Stantec, 2014

4.1.5.5 Key Observation Points View Simulations
Discussion of the selection of Key Observation Points is included in Section 4.1.1, Methodology.
KOP views are presented in this document at the locations in Figure 4.1-3. One before and after
figure was produced for each KOP location for the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project.
Six before and after figures were produced for each KOP location for the Proposed Oil Project to
adequately depict the varying built conditions that the Proposed Oil Project Site would undergo
over its 30+ year lifespan. Each figure is labeled to display which phase of the Project it
represents. Phase Four has three visual conditions.
Based on the distance viewed, potential for common visual impacts of the Proposed Oil Project
became apparent, therefore the KOPs are discussed by distance zone. The Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project Site has very limited potential for visibility outside the foreground
distance zone therefore impacts were evaluated from this distance zone only.
· Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 01-05);
· Background: (greater than 900’): KOPs (6, 7, 8, 9 and 12);
· Middleground: (300’-900’): KOPs (10, 11, 13, 16, and 17);
· Foreground: (0-300’): KOPs (14, 15, 18, 19, and 20);
The following sections summarize the existing visual setting and impact potential within each
zone above. See Section 4.1.2.1 Local Setting for additional descriptions of existing visual
environment of the Project. See individual impact discussions AE.1 - AE.5 for detailed
evaluation of Project impacts.
Numerous photo simulations were developed for the Proposed Project, including many that
provide views that do not show any Project components in order to provide views from each
KOP for each Phase and sub-Phase of the Proposed Project. All views are included in Appendix
O. Only the most important view simulations are shown in this section.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (KOPs 1 through 5)
Existing Visual Setting
Temporary Location: The temporary City Maintenance Yard Project Site is immediately north of
the permanent facility site. The site is primarily paved with asphalt and concrete. Seven mature
trees are located within the area that is anticipated to be affected. These trees range in height
from 15-50 feet. They contribute to the character of the existing site through their capacity to
screen and soften views of continuous paved surfaces. By nature of proximity, other viewshed
components are similar to the permanent facility site discussed below.
Permanent Location Options: Viewshed components include a variety of architectural masses of
public/commercial and residential buildings with diverse mass/color and character. The
Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail is heavily planted with trees and shrubs that create a dense
visual buffer from the Hermosa Beach Community Center tennis courts to the east. The large
mature street trees along Valley Drive helps reduce the scale of the existing structures, cast long
shadows and add vertical dominance with the utility poles. Except along Valley Drive,

surrounding landscaping and trees in the public streets and parking lots are limited but do have
capacity to screen and soften some views. In the foreground, several additional elements that
contribute to the existing visual character and views include overhead utility pole and lines,
street signage, satellite dishes, light standards, and vehicles traveling and parked.
Impacts: Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Temporary Location
The temporary yard would have visibility from the adjacent roadways (Valley Drive, Pier
Avenue, Bard Street and 11th Place), The Greenbelt the Civic Center and nearby residences.
Views from the east (Greenbelt, Civic Center and Valley Drive) would be altered by the removal
of 7 mature trees and the introduction of walls, gates, trash bins and staging areas adjacent to the
Civic Center. 11th Place would terminate into the Main Gate East of the facility. Views from the
north (Pier Avenue and Bard Street) would be altered by the removal of 4 trees and the
removal/replacement of the building at the New Fleet Maintenance Building location. Bard
Street would terminate into the Main Gate North of the facility. Construction is expected to last
9 months and the facility would be in operation until the completion of the permanent facility in
Phase 3 (approximately 2.5 years). Following completion of the Permanent Yard, it is assumed
that the site would be restored to its previous configuration and function, including the removal
of walls, gates, buildings and the restoration of parking and traffic flow on Bard Street and 11th
Place. Demolition and reconstruction of the site to its previous configuration is anticipated last
an additional 3 months. The overall duration of impact at the temporary location is estimated at
3.5 years. The temporary location was not photo simulated.
Permanent Location Options
The permanent yard options would have visibility from the adjacent roadways (Valley Drive,
Pier Avenue, Bard Street and 11th Place), The Greenbelt, the Civic Center and nearby residences.
Views from the east are largely obscured by existing Greenbelt vegetation, though some select
filtered views would be available (See KOPs 1 and 2). The scale and overall mass of the
building at the site would appear to increase since the overall height of the building on the site
would increase and the perimeter wall/deck would be closer to the public rights of way than the
walls of the existing structure (See KOPs 4, 5 and 6). Unobstructed views of the site from
immediately adjacent to the Project Site would experience significant visual changes. The public
spaces are considered to have high sensitivity due to the civic nature of the land use as the City
Hall. Demolition and construction of the permanent yard is expected to last 20 months for the
Parking Option and 17 months for the No Added Parking Option.
Proposed Oil Project – Background (KOPs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12)
Not all KOP are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
The viewshed components in the background viewing distance group primarily include
residential development to the east, north and south. Distant views to the Project Site are
typically limited by the presence of buildings. Where these views exist, they are typically along

roadway corridors or from locations that lack significant built form, such as the Beach, the Pier,
or large parking lots.
KOP 6 represents views from the Pier, which are unique in that it presents expansive city views.
The pier, ocean, beach and beachfront property facades are the primary visual elements that
compose these views. The pattern and character of the City’s built environment are uniform and
consistent. The skyline is defined primarily by taller vegetation such as palm trees and other
large mature trees, as well as structures situated along the east boundary of the City. To the
southeast, the transmission towers leading to the AES Facility break the skyline and become
distant focal elements of the view.
KOP 7 is representative of the views along the beachfront looking inland toward the City and
Proposed Oil Project Site. In these views the sand and beachfront building facades are the
primary visual elements that compose the view. In these viewsheds, the skyline is defined by the
built forms in the foreground of the views.
KOPs 8, 9 (see Appendix O) and 12 are representative of views from City streets in this distance
zone. Built elements, signage, cars parked and in motion, and the roadway in the immediate
foreground are the primary visual elements that compose these views. In these viewsheds, the
skyline is defined by the buildings in close proximity to the viewer as well as whatever overhead
utilities, powerpoles, street lights, and/or taller vegetation project above these buildings.
Impacts: Background Distance Zone
Rigs Present: the 32-foot sound wall has a very low potential to be visible from the distance zone
and would not be dominant in these views. The rigs have a moderate potential to be visible, but
have a low potential to become dominant due to viewing distance, and a high potential for partial
screening by vegetation, structures, and other vertical elements in close proximity to the viewer
(signs, power poles, etc). Where visible, the rigs become elements of the background in most
views, but may still be out of character and/or become distant focal elements at select locations.
Rigs Not Present: Impacts have a low potential to be visible. See Impacts AE.3 and AE.5 for
discussion of impacts and mitigation measures at the Proposed Oil Project Site when rigs are not
present.
Proposed Oil Project – Middleground (10, 11, 13, 16, and 17)
Not all KOP are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
These KOP views are representative of views from City streets and parks in this distance zone
(300’-900’ from the Project Site). The viewshed components in the middleground distance zone
include primarily residential and light commercial buildings, Greenbelt vegetation, and
parks/open space features. Public views to the Project Site in this distance zone are limited in
many locations by buildings and Greenbelt vegetation. Where these views do exist, they are
typically along roadway corridors or from locations that have large areas free of buildings or
significant vegetation, such as South Park, Clark Stadium, or parking areas.

Similar to KOPs 8, 9 through 12 of the background distance zone, the primary visual elements
that compose these views are buildings, signage, cars parked and in motion, and the roadway in
the immediate foreground. In park/open space areas, vegetation plays a more dominant role in
the viewsheds. Also similarly to KOPs 8, 9, and12, the skyline is typically defined by the
buildings in close proximity to the viewer as well as whatever overhead utilities, powerpoles,
streetlights and/or taller vegetation project above these buildings.
Impacts: Middleground Distance Zone
Rigs Present: the 32-foot wall has a moderate potential to be visible but is less likely to be
dominant than in the foreground distance zone because of the visual presence of additional
viewshed elements such as other buildings with mass, street and ballfield lighting poles, utility
poles and lines, and significant street trees. The rigs have a higher potential to be more visible
and become dominant than the background distance zone views due to decreased viewing
distance, and lower potential for partial screening by vegetation and structures. As isolated
elements of significant vertical scale, the rigs (where visible) in this distance zone become
dominant focal elements of the viewshed. They are uncharacteristic in form, line, scale, and
material with the surrounding viewshed. Measures can be taken to select materials that have a
lower potential for contrast against sky conditions, however material choice cannot account for
the complexities of sunlight and shadow, as well as variations in atmospheric conditions (cloud
cover, sky color, etc) throughout the days and seasons.
Rigs Not Present: Impacts have a moderate potential to be visible. Impacts during construction
would be temporary and screened by the movable 16-foot sound wall (Phase 1) and/or permanent
16-foot sound wall (Phase 3).
Proposed Oil Project – Foreground (14, 15, 18, 19, 20)
Not all KOPs are shown in this section. See Appendix O for a complete listing.
These KOP views are representative of views from City streets and parks in this distance zone
(0’-300’ from the Project Site). The viewshed components in the foreground distance zone
include primarily residential and light commercial, buildings, and Greenbelt vegetation. Public
views to the Project Site in this distance zone are in close proximity with fewer obstructions than
in other distance zones since the Greenbelt and public rights of way provide larger areas of open
(unbuilt) viewshed. The visual conditions at the existing City Maintenance Yard are more
visible from the south and east. Buildings obstruct most direct views from the north and west.
Impacts: Foreground Distance Zone
Rigs Present: The 32-foot wall and the rigs have a high potential to be dominant due to
proximity, scale and viewing distance. The potential for screening by topography, buildings and
landscape components is lowest in this zone. The proposed landscaping would enhance the
visual quality but the drill rigs and walls would not be in character with the surrounding visual
environment at this viewing distance. The 32-foot sound wall would become a dominant feature
since its scale and mass are significantly larger than any adjacent structures. It’s uniformity in
line, form and materiality are also uncharacteristic of the surrounding visual environment. The

rigs would become the dominant visual element in the viewshed. They are uncharacteristic in
form, line, scale, and material with the surrounding viewshed.
Rigs Not Present: When the 16-foot wall is present with addition landscape, the visual character
would be enhanced from its current character and wall scale similar to the existing surrounding
massings. The landscaping is the most dominant at this visual distance and does not diminish the
existing visual character. Impacts have a moderate to high potential to be visible but are less
likely to be dominant or out of character or produce substantial degradation.
.

Figure 4.1-3 View Location Map
Note: Only selected simulations are shown in this section, Please see Appendix O for all simulations.
Source: Stantec, Google Earth aerial dated March 7, 2011

Figure 4.1-4a KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: Parking Option
Source: Stantec 2014

Figure 4.1-4b KOP 1: Proposed City Maintenance Yard Permanent Facility: No Parking Option

Figure 4.1-9 KOP 6: During Phase 2 and Phase 4 with Drill Rig
Source: Focus 360, 2014

Figure 4.1-10 KOP 7: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig

Figure 4.1-11 KOP 10: During Phase 2 and 4 with Drill Rig

Figure 4.1-12 KOP 10: Phase 4 with Workover Rig During Maintenance at Well 34

Figure 4.1-13 KOP 11: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig

Figure 4.1-15 KOP 11: Phase 4 During Ongoing Operations

Figure 4.1-18 KOP 13: Completion of Phase 1 Improvements

Figure 4.1-22a KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1
Source: Focus 360, 2014,

Figure 4.1-22b KOP 14: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 1 WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure

Figure 4.1-23a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3

Figure 4.1-23b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE

Figure 4.1-24a KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3
Source: View 14 with workover rig. Focus 360 modified, 2014

Figure 4.1-24b KOP 14: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 3 WIDE ANGLE

Figure 4.1-26 KOP 15: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4

Figure 4.1-27 KOP 15: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 17

Figure 4.1-28 KOP 15: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 17
Notes: View 15 with workover rig, Source: Focus 360 modified, 2014

Figure 4.1-33 KOP 18: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 4

Figure 4.1-37 KOP 19: During Phase 2 with Drill Rig at Well 2 (rig not visible)

Figure 4.1-38a KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34

Figure 4.1-38b KOP 19: Phase 4 with Drill Rig Onsite at Well 34 WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.

Figure 4.1-39 KOP 19: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 34: WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013, This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.

Figure 4.1-41a KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig

Figure 4.1-41b KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig: WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013: This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire drilling structure.

Figure 4.1-41c KOP 20: During Phase 2 or 4 with Drill Rig and Crane: WIDE ANGLE
Source: Focus 360, 2013 with modifications: This shot is taken with a 28mm lens to show the entire
drilling structure

Figure 4.1-42a KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2

Figure 4.1-42b KOP 20: Phase 4 with Workover Rig during Maintenance at Well 2: WIDE ANGLE

4.1.5.6 Proposed Oil Project Impacts
The Proposed Oil Project components would create impacts to aesthetic resources in the
community. These impacts are discussed below.
Impact # Impact Description Phase Residual
Impact
AE.1
The Proposed Oil Project during the drilling phases
(drilling or re-drilling) or with a workover rig present
has the potential to cause a substantial
degradation to the character and quality of the
existing site and its surroundings, including
designated scenic highways and vistas.
Phases 2 and 4,
when rigs are
present on site.
Class I
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impacts on Designated Scenic Vistas and Designated Scenic Resources
The City of Hermosa Beach has a designated Scenic Highways and viewpoints in their LCP. For
purposes of this analysis, representative views from Hermosa Beach/Strand and Hermosa Beach
Pier were also recommended for further analysis as key observation points (See KOP 15 and
KOP 16), though they are not considered scenic viewpoints in the LCP.
The Proposed Oil Project when there is a drill rig present would degrade designated scenic
viewpoints and highways and would be a significant impact (see discussion below).
No designated State Scenic Highways occur in the Project vicinity (Cal Trans, 2013). Although
Hwy 1 is not designated as State Scenic Highway in this segment, a photo simulated view from
Highway 1 was completed as a representative view for sensitive public views in this general
vicinity (See KOP 5).
Impacts On The Existing Visual Character Or Quality
Phase 2 – Drilling and Testing
During Phase 2, the 32-foot sound attenuation wall and temporary landscaping installed at the
end of Phase 1 would stay on site through the beginning of Phase 3. The 87-foot electric drill rig
with three-sided acoustical shield would be installed at the Project Site at the beginning of Phase
2. The installation would take approximately two weeks and include a large crane with 150-foot
boom. The presence of the rig on-site during this phase is expected to last approximately 5-
months (4 months drilling with 2-week setup and 2-week take down). The rig location would
vary slightly as the four wells are drilled. The rig would introduce a visually dominant vertical
feature primarily into the foreground and middleground environments which is distinct in form,
mass, height, material and character from structures in the viewshed of locations which are
considered to have high sensitivity. For the 5-months that it is up during this phase, the rig
would break the skyline and become a dominant focal point. The effects of light, shade and
shadow would produce contrasting geometric vertical planes which would project into a typically
uniform (or otherwise naturally varied) sky backdrop. Removal of the rig would take an
additional two weeks and also includes the use of a large crane with 150-foot boom. Impacts
with the drill rig present would be a significant impact.

Phase 4 – Development and Operations with Drill Rig On-site:
The 32-foot sound wall constructed at the end of Phase 3 is proposed to remain on site during the
first 2.5 years of Phase 4. The intensity and screening capacity of the landscape design is
increased on the west and south boundaries during Phase 4, but temporarily reduced on the east
boundary (due to the removal of the mature trees). The presence of the block wall would help to
divide the mass of the sound attenuation wall, however the overall form, scale and lack of visual
articulation would be uncharacteristic of the surrounding environment (see Phase 1 discussion of
32-foot soundwall impacts below). Over time the landscape would mature and its capacity to
soften the impact of the block retaining wall would increase. At the conclusion of drilling, the
32-foot sound wall and electric drilling rig are proposed to be removed from the site. Impacts
associated with the electrical drill rig are discussed in Phase 2 and are similar for this Phase, with
an increase in duration to 2.5 years. The period with the drill rig onsite would produce
substantial degradation of the existing visual character and would be a significant impact.
Phase 4 – Development and Operations with the Workover Drill Rig
During periods of Phase 4, the 110-foot workover rig could be present on site for up to 90 days
per year. The open truss structure of the workover drill rig introduces a focal element of
industrial character into viewsheds of primarily residential and light industrial character. This
visual element would diverge from the overall visual character to the point of distraction from
viewing areas of high sensitivity, especially those where the rig is an element of the foreground
or middleground of the view (KOPs in Foreground and Middleground zones). The Project
Application indicates the potential for the workover rig to be delivered to the site up to 15 times
per year. Since the workover rig operations have the potential to occur periodically throughout
the year, this introduces the possibility for collective recurring visual impacts (see discussion
below), particularly when the potential for re-drills is considered (see discussion below) over the
30-35 year length of Phase 4. This would be a significant impact.
Phase 4 – Re-drills:
The potential for up to 30 re-drills (average of one annually) over the life of the Project (30-35
years) is identified in the Project Description for purposes of worst-case scenario analysis. Each
re-drill would include the re-installation of the 32-foot sound wall and the 87-foot electrical drill
rig. The Applicant has stated that Phase 4 well re-drills may occur in groups of up to 5, which
would introduce less frequent re-drills, but for longer durations, or could occur annually. Visual
impacts associated with each re-drill are similar to Phase 2 and 4 drilling, with a decrease in
duration of exposure to 24-hour drilling operations to an annual average of 30 days per year
(meaning that some years could have more than 30 days of re-drilling). The overall setup,
drilling time, and takedown of the elements associated with the electrical drilling rig are
summarized in the Project Description section. In addition, workovers would also occur for a
period of up to 90 days per year, totaling a peak of up to 240 days per year with a drilling or
workover rig. The 32-foot sound attenuation wall setup is estimated at 3 weeks, the drill rig
setup time is 2 weeks, drilling time is typically 30-days (~4 weeks) per well, drill take-down is 2
weeks, and wall take down is 2 weeks. This timeframe totals to approximately 7 months per re-drill
if done in groups of 5, or 3 months per re-drill if done individually. As discussed above in
Phase 4, re-drilling has the potential for collective recurring impacts (see discussion below),
particularly when the potential for the presence of the workover rig is considered over the 30-35
year length of impact. This would be a significant impact.

Collective Recurring Impacts
The Project Site includes the installation and/or removal of significant, dominant and
uncharacteristic visual masses and forms throughout its 35+ year lifespan. During Phase 2, the
drill rig and/or boom crane are anticipated to be on site for 5 months and the 32-foot sound wall
is scheduled to be on-site up to 62 weeks (One year, ten weeks). During Phase 4, the drill rig is
anticipated to be on site for 2.5 years and the 32-foot sound wall is scheduled to be on-site up to
2 years 8 months. Although the number of redrills is uncertain, the potential for up to 30 re-drills
(average of one annually) is a worst-case scenario during the lifespan of the project. Up to 5
redrills could occur in any given year.
Collectively re-drills could account for an additional 2.5 years of drilling time. Assuming all 30
re-drills are performed, the collective length of exposure to the drill rig/boom crane and 32-foot
wall (when set-up and take down are factored in) is dependent on whether re-drills are conducted
individually or in six groups of five. Additionally, the workover rig would be permitted to be
installed up to 90 days (3 months) per year, which may be divided up into a maximum of 15
individual installations. Under these parameters, there is a potential for addition and/or removal
of dominant and uncharacteristic vertical features on the site in any given month out of any given
year. Although these are stated as worst case scenario conditions, they present a potential for
collective recurring visual impacts, with substantial degradation of the visual environment,
which would contribute to the significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AE-1a Material choice of electrical drill rig acoustical shroud shall be of neutral sky color
which is selected for its ability to reduce visual impact, in coordination with and
approval by the City Community Development Director.
AE-1b The sound attenuation wall shall be replaced by a permanent wall with design features
installed at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to provide stability of views and
opportunities for positive visual elements that partially mitigate the visual presence of
the walls from the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate
Project vicinity. The permanent wall shall be allowed to be provided in lieu of the 16-
foot block wall. Landscape design shall be allowed to be adjusted to respond to
façade articulations, though quantities and densities shall be maintained. The
permanent wall shall be designed with architectural features in coordination with and
approval of the City Community Development Director.
Residual Impacts
The drilling rig would be covered to provide for sound reduction as well as to create a reduction
in visual impact. Selection of the drilling rig covering material to be a neutral sky color would
minimize the amount of visual impact.
A solution for reducing potentially significant day and night time impacts is a permanent well-designed
architectural façade constructed at the conclusion of Phase 3. See Figure 4.1-44 for an
example of a drill and production site located in Los Angeles at Pico and Doherty. This solution
is proposed in lieu of a permanent16-foot block wall and the potential for periodic set-up and
take-down of a sound attenuation wall (up to 3 months in any given year). This façade would
incorporate variations in form, height, color, architectural detail, fenestration and material use to

blend with the surrounding visual environment. Other drill sites within Los Angeles utilize
permanent structures to integrate architectural details into the drilling site, including Long Beach,
Beverly Hills Oil Field (next to Beverley Hills High School), the Packard Site in Beverly Hills
and Downtown Los Angeles (the Breitburn site) and the Pico Site shown in Figure 4.1-44.
Figure 4.1-44 Example of A Permanent Wall with Façade
Notes: Google Earth Street View. Breitburn Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Site, corner of W. Pico
Blvd and Doherty Dr. in Los Angeles
A permanent wall would allow screening of day and nighttime operations and provide stability of
visual conditions over the lifespan of the project. It would also be designed with features to
soften the vertical facade, such as offsets. Reductions in impacts to other resource areas could
also be achieved (traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) This mitigation is not capable of significantly
mitigating the impacts of the boom-crane, drill rig or workover rig when they are on site.
However creative form, material use, and landscape design integration may provide
opportunities for positive visual elements that modulate the overall intrusive visual effects of
alternating 16-foot and 32-foot walls.

Following the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced but the impacts
of the Proposed Oil Project while the drill rigs are on site are still considered to substantially
degrade the visual environment and would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Impact
AE.2
The Proposed Oil Project when no rig is present
has the potential to cause a substantial
degradation to the character and quality of the
existing site and its surroundings.
All Phases, when
rigs are not
present.
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Phase 1 – Site Preparation
Phase 1 includes the demolition of the current City Maintenance Yard during a six to seven
month construction Phase as well as site preparation activities. A 16-foot sound attenuation wall
is proposed to move around the site and would also have the effect of screening views of active
demolition activities. Overhead powerlines along Valley Drive would be placed underground,
which can be considered an improvement to the visual environment for viewsheds along the
Greenbelt in this vicinity. Visual impacts associated with demolition during this six month phase
are temporary and considered to be less than significant due to their limited duration and limited
degree of departure from existing site development conditions (see discussion of existing visual
environment in section 4.1.2.1).
At the conclusion of this six month phase a 32-foot sound attenuation wall and temporary
landscaping would be constructed in preparation for Phase 2 drilling activities. This wall would
be on site starting at the end of Phase 1 through week two of Phase 3 for a total of approximately
one year and two months, with periods during testing when no drill rig would be present.
For general comparison of mass and scale, it would be approximately 5-10 feet taller than the
Beach Cities Self Storage building located immediately to the south of the Project Site. The
portion of Beach Cities Storage that directly parallels Valley Drive (from the north edge of the
south driveway to just south of the north driveway) is approximately 110’ long and set back
approximately twenty feet from the sidewalk. The portion of the proposed sound attenuation
wall that directly parallels Valley Drive would be just over double that length and set back ten
feet. Three of the four mature trees would be retained during this Phase and would have the
effect of softening the magnitude of this mass. Along the west edge, the wall would be placed
above and just behind an 8-foot block retaining wall (with 6-foot chain link fence), for an overall
height of 40 feet from the downhill side of the slope. The wall would span 228’ along this edge
of the property with a 10’ landscape planter to the south and 2’ setbacks from the west and north
property boundaries. The sound wall would be approximately six feet taller than the tallest
adjacent structure. The sound wall would introduce an element of uncharacteristic uniform mass
and scale to the site and its surroundings. As proposed, the visual articulation of this mass is
minimal; material use, form and color are singular. These visual features are uncharacteristic of
the existing visual environment and would constitute a potentially substantial degradation of the
visual character of its surroundings. Impacts would be significant.

Phase 2 –Testing
The soundwall would be installed at the end of Phase 1 and remain in place the duration of Phase
2. A drill rig would be present during only a portion of Phase 2; the remainder would have just
the soundwall and the testing equipment. During this period, the soundwall would present a
significant impact as discussed above.
Phase 3 – Final Design and Construction
Construction work at the site during this phase consists of the installation of the permanent oil
production facilities during a sixteen month period. During this phase the remaining three large
trees along Valley Drive are proposed to be removed during weeks 3 and 4. A 16-foot sound
attenuation wall is proposed to move around the site and would also have the effect of screening
views of active construction activities. A 16-foot permanent block wall is proposed to be
installed during weeks 6-14. The block wall would screen much of the construction activity
during this phase. Final landscaping is proposed to be installed during week 60 and 61. The
landscape design would soften the visual mass and scale of the block wall and help the facility
blend into the existing visual environment. Since the landscape design is essential to relieving
the scale and mass of the wall, mitigation measures have been proposed to promote the
probability of success to achieve full maturity. The 32-foot soundwall is proposed to be installed
at the end of this phase. The impacts of the soundwall during Phase 4 are discussed in Phase 1
impact above.
Phase 4 – During On-going Operations
The ongoing operations condition occurs when the electrical drill rig or workover rig would not
be present. The block wall with landscaping would buffer sensitive views from view locations
which are inferior (below), normal (level), or slightly superior (greater than 16’ at eye level).
The character and quality of the Proposed Oil Project perimeter condition can be considered
consistent with the character and quality of the existing visual environment from these viewing
angles, due to the increased level of landscaping and screened views of site operations. The
ability of the planting scheme to achieve its full screening potential is reliant on a number of
factors: provision of adequate water, quality and depth of growth medium, installation of quality
nursery stock free of disease and injury, and demonstrated success of the species and variety in
the project vicinity. Failure of the landscaping elements could cause a significant impact.
Mitigation measures have been provided to increase the potential for success of the planting
scheme.
Similar to Phase 3 construction, visual conditions from superior (greater than 16 feet at eye level)
sensitive viewing positions would present viewing angles which are capable of seeing over the
16-foot wall and into the Project Site. The character of these views is anticipated to be industrial
in nature. The duration of this view is for the remaining life of the Project (less re-drill
conditions). However, these views would be more industrial than the current industrial nature of
the site (with the existing City Maintenance Yard) and this visual impact would therefore be
significant.

Mitigation Measures
AE-2a Design of the sound attenuation wall exterior façade shall be required to include
design articulations that are complementary to the character, scale, and quality of the
surrounding environment. The intent is to mitigate the visual impact of the wall from
the Hermosa Greenbelt and other sensitive views in the immediate project vicinity.
The following measures of success shall be met: 1) Articulations of façade decrease
scale and proportion of mass into smaller increments that more closely resemble those
of adjacent buildings; and 2) Colors, detailing and material use are varied to a level
consistent with existing visual environment.
AE-2b Planting area growth medium shall be capable of supporting the long term health and
growth of the landscape design. Requirements shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of
debris and construction waste (asphalt, concrete, etc) to a minimum depth of 3 feet
within all planted areas. Wall footings shall be designed to limit encroachment into
planted areas; 2) Soils analysis report shall be conducted by a certified soil scientist.
Report shall include recommendations to meet the intent of this mitigation measure;
and 3) If soils are determined to be unsuitable to support plant growth, they shall be
amended or removed/replaced to meet requirements of soils analysis for plant pallette
selected.
AE-2c Vine plantings where used shall meet the following conditions: 1) be self-attaching or
structure supported; 2) have demonstrated success in the City; 3) be planted at a
density to achieve full coverage at maturity; 4) be planted at a minimum 5 gallon size;
and 5) be required on the visible portion of the west wall at the temporary parking
facility.
AE-2d All trees shall be required to be a minimum of 20’ in height at installation and meet
the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). If a tree species
alternate is proposed, it shall be required to be an equal to the species proposed in the
Project Application in the following characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen with similar
form and habit; 2) Probability of achieving a minimum of 35-40 feet at maturity; and
3) Comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 and 8.56.
Residual Impacts
Design of the 32-foot wall which includes architectural features would reduces the uniform mass
associated with a 32-wall and reduce the substantial adverse effect. The inclusion of
appropriately sized and maintained landscaping, with appropriate landscaping techniques to
ensure landscaping vitality, would also reduce the adverse effects and reduce the degradation of
views. Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Oil
Project while the drill rigs are not on site is considered less than significant with mitigation
(Class II).

Impact
AE.3
The Pipeline project has the potential to cause a
substantial degradation to the character and quality
of the existing site and its surroundings.
Phase 3
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Pipelines, Metering Station and Valve Boxes:
Visual impacts associated with this area of work occur primarily during construction and are
associated with the presence of construction equipment. These impacts are temporary in nature
(4-months total construction) and would be done in short segments which would further limit
duration of impacts to any given viewshed along the alignment. The pipelines and valve boxes
are proposed to be placed underground beneath existing roadway surfaces and/or within existing
utility corridor rights-of-way in all three options. These impacts should not amount to a
substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the corridor and its surroundings,
since the impacts are temporary and the visual environment would be restored to its original
appearance at the conclusion of construction. Since the exact alignments within these ROWs
have not been determined, and existing trees are known to exist at select locations within these
ROWs, there is a potential that alignment options may be considered which include removal of
trees. Where present along these corridor options, the trees are important elements of the visual
environment which serve to screen and soften the impact of the powerline corridor. Mitigation
measures have been included to limit potential for impacts to existing mature trees that currently
exist within these rights of way.
Pipeline Alignment Options
Scenarios 1 and 2: This alignment includes a portion of the alignment along 190th within the
City of Redondo Beach. Visual impact potential is considered equal in either of these
alignments, though the location varies. These impacts include the potential for removal or
modification of the urban forest’s canopy or root zone and/or streetscape at select locations along
the ROW.
Scenario 3: This alignment reduces the potential for urban forest and/or streetscape impacts
along 190th, but increases the potential for temporary visual impacts to notable community
facilities and features. A gateway plaza for the City of Redondo Beach is located within this
ROW at the corner of Herondo St and Hwy-1. This feature is considered to have a high level of
sensitivity to even temporary visual modification, due to its function as a City gateway. This
alignment also has the potential to impact the Dog Park in Dominguez Park as well.
Valve Box Options
Option 1: This valve box option is in a parking lot at the end of a pipeline alignment which
parallels 190th. The large evergreen hedgerow and stands of mature trees have the potential to
be impacted depending on the selection of the pipeline location and installation method. These
landscape features are critical to screening views of heavy industrial land uses to the south.
Though the location is not publically visible, the potential for impacts to the hedgerow and street
trees make it less preferable from a visual resource standpoint.

Option 2: This valve box option is located in a heavily disturbed area surrounded by non-sensitive
land uses. Visibility of impacts would be minimal. This valve box location is most
preferable from a visual resource standpoint.
Option 3: This valve box option is located adjacent a railroad corridor in a low visibility area
next to a commercial parking lot. This valve box location is moderately preferable from a visual
resource standpoint.
Option 4: This valve box option has the potential to involve the removal of the existing
landscaping and paver turnaround area. Potential for removal/disturbance of a fairly well-articulated
landscaped area with high visibility from major public roads is not a preferred option
from a visual resource standpoint. This location can be considered to have the highest degree of
visual sensitivity and impacts of the four options and is the least preferable.
Metering Station
The metering station site would include a 40-foot by 60-foot site with 8’ high perimeter block
wall. The materials and finishes of the wall and the landscape design have not been provided at
this time. Given the character and quality of its existing setting, its size/scale and the low
number of sensitive views, this station has a limited potential to cause a substantial degradation
to the character or quality of the existing site or its surroundings.
Mitigation Measures
AE-3a Pipeline alignments and valve box locations shall be designed to avoid the removal or
modification of trees, hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to the extent feasible.
AE-3b If landscaped areas, streetscapes, plazas and/or parklands are required to be
temporarily disturbed, they shall be restored to their previous condition following
completion of construction. Avoidance of disturbance shall be the preferred option,
especially where landscape elements act to screen views (hedges, large shrubs, etc) or
where they act as community gateways (Redondo Beach at Hwy-1).
AE-3c Block color/s selection and pattern (if applicable) shall be complementary to adjacent
buildings. A buffer of shrubs and vines shall be planted to match the existing
character and quality of the adjacent properties.
Residual Impacts
Ensuring that minimal loss of mature landscaping occurs during the pipeline installation would
reduce the adverse effects. Ensuring that any features added, such as walls, shall be
complementary to adjacent buildings would also reduce the adverse effects. Following the
implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the pipelines,
metering station and valve boxes is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).

New Sources of Light or Glare
Impact
AE.4
The Proposed Oil Project with the drill rig has the
potential to create a new source of light or glare
that would adversely affect nighttime views in the
area.
Phases 2 and 4
Class I
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Phase 2 and Phase 4 – Drilling – 87-foot Electrical Drill Rig:
During Phase 2 and 4, the 87-foot electrical drill rig would be installed on-site and 24-hour
drilling would occur for approximately 5 months. Per the Applicant Lighting Plan, the 87-foot
electrical drill rig would be enclosed in a three-sided acoustical cover, the inside of which would
be illuminated with in-ward facing LED lights 4-foot on-center to create an ‘ambient glow’ for
the safety of workers. The light levels associated with the statements in the Applicant’s Lighting
Plan are not available at this time. The Applicant has stated that measures have been taken in
this design to minimize potential for light spill and glare from the open side, however the interior
faces of the acoustical shroud and the elements of the mast structure would catch light and would
have the effect of producing a vertical lighted column visible from areas in the foreground,
middleground and background areas. Views of the open (illuminated) side of the drill rig would
be limited to the direction the open side faces. The pattern and scale of this illuminated feature
would be out of character with existing nighttime views. Similar to day time impacts, this
vertical feature would project above the horizontal plane of the existing illuminated environment
and would become a focal element. The duration of exposure, number of sensitive viewers, and
nature of the visual change would result in impacts that would be significant.
During well workovers, the workover rig would not be used at night and would not produce
lighting impacts, or only would during the short periods around dusk. Re-drills would produce
the same impacts as drilling discussed above.
Mitigation Measures
AE-4a Final acoustical cover material selection shall be required to be fully opaque. Fully
opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its
surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing
glare.
AE-4b Colors and finishes of equipment and surfaces within the soundwall (including the
interior face of the soundwall, the interior face of the drill rig acoustical cover, and the
physical structure of the drill rig within the acoustical shield) shall have a reflectivity
rating of 0.3 or lower.
AE-4c All proposed site lighting fixtures associated with the drilling activities shall
demonstrate compliance with the mandatory B-U-G ratings for area lighting as
required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the 7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting
Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be LZ-2.

Residual Impacts
The Mitigation measures provided above would reduce the lighting impacts of the drilling rig
and drilling related area lighting. However, when a drilling rig is present, it would produce a
lighted structure higher than surrounding structures and would be significant and unavoidable
(Class I).
Figure 4.1-45 View Simulation of Drilling Rig at Night
Notes: 4 second exposure, f5.3, 5/10/2014, 9:50 pm. no moon.

Impact
AE.5
The Proposed Oil Project area lighting has the
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area.
Phases 2 and 4
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Phase 1 and Phase 3 – Site Preparation and Final Design and Construction
No nighttime lighting is proposed during these phases. The nighttime views to the site would
experience a reduction in visible light as a result of the removal of the light fixtures currently
illuminating the City Maintenance Yard at night. A 32-foot soundwall is proposed to be
constructed around the site perimeter at the conclusion of Phase 1. The soundwall has the
potential to catch light from existing street lights on Valley Drive and 6th Street, as well as lights
from the adjacent Self Storage. While this would enable the wall to be visible at night, the
reflections levels would be relatively low and these light levels are not anticipated to adversely
affect day or nighttime views. Impacts during this phase would be considered Less Than
Significant.
Phase 2 –Testing – General Site Lighting:
During Phase 2, the 32-foot sound wall installed at the end of Phase 1 would remain on site and
would shield the majority of views of light fixtures and night operations on site. Some private
views would have the potential to see over this wall; however these views would be limited to
approximately the top third of the wall. The wall is proposed to stay on site through the
beginning of Phase 3. Light levels at the facility have the potential to be significantly higher
than those currently on site, since they are being provided for worker safety during a 24-hour
drilling operation. Current Maintenance Yard operations do not require 24-hour lighting for
worker safety. IES Industrial Illuminance Recommendations for Petroleum, Chemical, and
Petrochemical Plants range from 1 footcandle for general area lighting to 50 footcandles for
control panel task lighting (IES, 2010). As a reference, light level readings at the tennis courts at
Clark Stadium were measured around 35 footcandles. The Applicant’s Lighting Plan proposes
shielded, hooded, downfacing fixtures that would not create light spill or glare, however the
potential for sky glow or corona as a result of reflected light over the top of the wall cannot be
ruled out. These impacts would be significant. These impacts would be generated if a drill rig is
on site or not as these impacts would be associated with the operational area lighting.
Phase 4 – General Site Lighting
Additional lighting is proposed associated with the Phase 4 production equipment and is shown
in the Applicant Lighting Plan (Attachment A). Materials, textures and color choices of surfaces
inside the facility can provide mitigation of the potential for reflected light from the visible
interior surfaces. The material surface of the paving in Phase 4 is proposed to change from
crushed aggregate base (CAB) to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or asphalt. PCC, depending
on color and finish, has a higher potential to reflect light that CAB. As in Phase 2, the proposed
gas combustor (enclosed ground flare) is designed to completely conceal the flare flame. Single
shielded wall-mounted fixtures are proposed outside each entrance gate, mounted at 15-feet high.

It is stated that they would be shielded, hooded and downcast so that they would not create light
spill or glare beyond the property line. The potential for sky glow or corona as a result of
reflected light over the top of the wall cannot be ruled out. Some views into the facility may also
occur from private residences. Although current views into the City Maintenance Yard from
elevated private homes are also degraded, additional high levels of lighting would impact these
views as well. This would be a significant impact.
Materials, textures and color choices of surfaces inside the 32-foot soundwall can mitigate the
potential for reflected light from interior surfaces. The proposed gas combustor is an enclosed
ground flare which is designed to completely conceal the flare flame. Single pole-mounted low-energy
fixtures are proposed outside each entrance. These fixtures are pole-mounted at 10 feet
high and it is stated that they would be shielded, hooded and downcast so that they would not
create light spill or glare beyond the property line.
The site lighting proposed has the potential to be of a nature and intensity that is significantly
higher than the existing lighted environment. Mitigation measures above require the installation
of a permanent 32-foot wall that would significantly reduce the potential for sky glow and
corona. Mitigation measures are provided below which can mitigate the site lighting impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AE-5a Colors and finishes of surfaces within the facility, including the interior face of the
soundwall, ground materials (darker or asphalt), wall paints and equipment paints to
the extent feasible shall have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3 or lower to reduce the
potential for glow.
AE-5b Final sound wall material/s selection/s (including gates) shall be fully opaque. Fully
opaque shall be defined as completely blocking all light from passing through its
surface. The exterior finish shall be low reflectivity and not capable of producing
glare.
AE-5c All proposed site lighting, including fixtures outside the wall, shall be fully shielded.
Fully shielded shall be defined as: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a
manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a
diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the
luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaire’s lowest light-emitting
part (IES/IDA, 2011).
AE-5d The LZ-2 parameters of the Model Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011) shall be used
to demonstrate that maximum vertical illuminance for the site are not exceeded. For
site lighting inside the wall, Table B allowances shall be used. Lighting outside the
wall at site entrances shall not exceed that of existing street lighting, which produces a
maximum of 1 footcandle. For the purposes of measuring vertical illumination, the
plane of the property line shall be extended to an elevation equal to the height of the
electric drilling rig.
AE-5e All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory
B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the

7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be
LZ-2.
Residual Impacts
Mitigation measure AE-1b proposes the inclusion of a permanent 32-foot acoustic/visual screen
wall/facade. This additional wall height would serve to reduce potential site lighting impacts
during the Phase 4. Lighting effects at an existing oil and gas production site in Huntington
beach is shown in Figure 4.1-46. Note that the glare and spillover effects at the Huntington
Beach site are comparable to the surrounding street lights and not a substantial source of
spillover or glare. Mitigation measures requiring materials selection and fully shielded lighting
would reduce the operational area lighting impacts to less than significant with mitigation
(Class II).
Figure 4.1-46 Example Oil and Gas Processing Site Night Views
Notes: 2 second exposure at f3.5, 5/10/2014 at corner of Huntington and Toronto, Huntington Beach.
Note tanks and facility illumination at the right.

Impact
AE.6
The Pipeline Project has the potential to create a
new source of light or glare that would adversely
affect views in the area.
Phase 3 -
Pipelines
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Construction activities for the pipeline are restricted to daytime hours per the Project Description
and municipal codes and ordinances for the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and
Torrance. As such, the potential for light or glare impacts are not anticipated related to pipeline
construction. Lighting design plans for the metering stations and/or valve boxes have not been
developed at this time. If lighting is installed that creates a substantial new source of light or
glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in these areas, this could be a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures
AE-6a Any proposed metering station site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall
incorporate permanent features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall incorporate permanent
features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line.
AE-6b Light levels and quantities of fixtures shall not exceed that which is needed for
security and safety.
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the
pipelines, metering station and valve boxes is considered less than significant with mitigation
(Class II).
4.1.5.7 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Impacts
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project components would create impacts to aesthetic
resources. These are discussed in relation to the significance criteria below.
Impacts on Designated Scenic Vistas and Designated Scenic Resources
The City of Hermosa Beach has a designated Scenic Highways and viewpoints in their LCP.
The impacts on scenic viewpoints or scenic highways would less than significant for the
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project as it would comply with applicable City height limits
and would be subject to the mitigation measures under impact AE.7.
No designated State Scenic Highways occur in the Project vicinity (Cal Trans, 2013).

Impacts On The Existing Visual Character Or Quality
Impact
AE.7
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has
the potential to cause a substantial degradation to
the character and quality of the existing site and its
surroundings.
Phase 1 and 3
Proposed City
Maintenance
Yard Project
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Temporary Facility
Construction of the temporary facility is anticipated to last 9 months. The temporary facility
design proposes the demolition of the building located at 1330 Bard Street to accommodate the
New Fleet Maintenance Building. This new building would be approximately 30-feet by 70 feet
and 17 feet tall. Immediately to the south the Main building would be constructed with the
dimensions of 150 feet by 50 feet and 17 feet tall. Obstruction of views to the east from parcels
to the west would occur as a result. A retaining wall would be constructed just north of the
existing self storage facility to provide the grade required to accommodate the new main building
and proposed 15 parking spaces. Bard Street and 11th Place would temporarily be closed to
through traffic for approximately 3.5 years. The alterations to the site would require the removal
of approximately 7 mature trees. The heights of these trees range from 20 to 50 feet. Eight-foot
retaining walls are proposed to define parts of the yard perimeter. These walls would have the
effect of screening views of operations from most viewing locations. Private viewing locations
near to the site that are from an elevated location (to the west and south) may have views into the
site.
The form, scale, and massing of the proposed yard appear generally consistent with the existing
visual context of the site and its surroundings. The design proposes a new significant vertical
mass in the location of the existing parking lot on the west boundary of the site. It also proposes
an increase in built mass at the new fleet maintenance building of approximately 4-5 feet in
height. The overall volume of the built mass on the site would appear to increase since new built
mass would occupy existing open areas, trees would be removed, new 8’ walls would be
constructed and the 11th Place and Bard would terminate into the main gates of the facility. The
nature of operations at the City Maintenance Yard has the potential to lower the visual character
and quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation measures have been proposed to limit the
potential for operations-related visual impacts that degrade the character and quality of the
surrounding visual environment.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Permanent Facility
The form, scale, and massing of the proposed yard appear generally consistent with the existing
visual context of the site and its surroundings. The design proposes vertical masses that are
approximately 8-12 feet taller than the existing self storage structure along the southern
boundary and in the northwest corner. It also proposes an increase in built mass at the parking
lot location of approximately 5-10 feet. The overall volume of the built mass on the site would
appear to increase since the perimeter deck wall would bring built mass closer to the project
boundary and would encompass the parking area which currently appears open. Public views

from Valley Drive, Pier Ave and City Hall are considered sensitive and mitigation measures
have been provided to limit the potential for substantial degradation of the existing visual
character or quality of the site. Obstruction of views to the east and north from private parcels to
the west and south (respectively) would occur.
Materials, colors, finishes and detailing of the built elements have not been determined at this
time, therefore mitigation measures have been proposed to provide guidance in developing
detailed solutions which blend with the character and quality of the surrounding visual
environment.
Landscape design plans have not been developed at this time, therefore mitigation measures have
been proposed to provide guidance in developing detailed landscape design solutions which
blend with the character and quality of the surrounding visual environment.
As required by City Municipal Code Chapter 17.30, the building height would be below 25 feet
and landscaping would be included as per preliminary plans. However, lot coverage may exceed
the allowed 10% coverage in the zoned open space areas. This would most likely require the
issuance of a waiver under the planned development permit under municipal code 17.030.090.
The nature of operations at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has the potential to
lower the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The majority of public
viewing positions identified are either inferior (lower) than the operations area, are screened by
vegetation on the greenbelt, or are screened by existing built forms (See KOPs 1 through 5).
Private viewing locations to the west and south would be directly affected by the structure, but
would not impede sensitive views of the ocean or surrounding. A 6-foot tall perimeter wall is
proposed on the maintenance level, which from inferior (lower) view angles would screen nearly
all operations from view in public rights of way, the Greenbelt, and public spaces outside City
Hall. Private views from nearby residences would allow views into portions of the City
Maintenance Yard. Mitigation measures have been proposed to limit the potential for
operations-related visual impacts that substantially degrade the character and quality of the
surrounding visual environment. Figures 4.1-4a – 4.1-8b show photo simulated views from the
same Key Observation Points established for each permanent option of the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project.
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project: Permanent Facility No Added Parking Option
The impacts for this option are generally similar to the Parking Option (above). In this design,
some materials storage uses are moved to an offsite area and the remaining maintenance yard
uses and parking areas are accommodated on a single level. This allows for the accommodation
of required number of parking stalls at-grade. The overall massing does not change substantially
from the Parking Option design since the deck is still elevated (though 2-feet lower). The 20’
tall mass along the west boundary is filled out to span the property length which is an increased
mass along this boundary. As a result, there is an increased potential for obstruction of views to
the east from parcels immediately to the west under this option. Along the southern boundary, a
5’ tall strip of massing (above the 15’ tall main mass) is eliminated which is a decreased mass
and overall height along that boundary (as compared to the Parking Option). As a result, there is
a slightly reduced potential for obstruction of views to the north from parcels immediately to the
south under this option. The north and east edges of the maintenance yard are pulled in to

accommodate the surface parking and the buffer landscaping area is retained. The design would
require the relocation of some street lights and/or the undergrounding of overhead utilities. The
same mitigation measures and impact levels would apply to this alternative as the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project Parking Option and Temporary Facility.
Mitigation Measures
AE-7a The materials, colors and finishes at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall
be of comparable quality, character and level of architectural detail to those of
adjacent structures.
AE-7b The landscape design at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be of
comparable quality and character to that of the surrounding visual environment.
Incorporation of evergreen trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are recommended for
their ability to provide additional screening capacity of operations areas.
AE-7c The operations yard area of the proposed City Maintenance Yard Project shall be
required to have a 6-foot minimum screen wall around its perimeter (where building
masses do not otherwise define the perimeter). Additional vertical screening at Asset
Disposal and Washdown/Dump areas shall be employed through either increased
screen wall height and/or landscape design.
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the Proposed Project at the
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site is considered less than significant with mitigation (Class
II).
New Sources of Light or Glare
Impact
AE.8
The Proposed Maintenance Yard Project has the
that would adversely affect views in the area.
Phase 1 and 3
Proposed City
Maintenance
Yard Project
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
During construction, the same City Codes that limit the construction to daytime hours for the
other portions of the project would apply to this location. Lighting design plans for the Proposed
City Maintenance Yard Project have not been developed at this time, therefore measures have
been proposed to provide guidance in developing site lighting design solutions which mitigate
the potential for the facility to create a new source of substantial light or glare. The hours of
operation and light levels at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project (both temporary and
permanent) are assumed to be comparable to those at the existing City maintenance yard (basic
security lighting, no nighttime operations). These light levels are of the same character and
intensity as those on and around the existing site. The locations of light sources are anticipated
to be more evenly distributed across the site, rather than concentrated on the east end (parking
lot) and north edge. However, if inappropriate lighting results in direct glare, it could cause a
significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
AE-8a All proposed site lighting shall be fully shielded and shall incorporate permanent
features which prevent light spillage beyond the property line.
AE-8b Light levels and quantities of fixtures at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project
shall not exceed that which is needed for security.
AE-8c All proposed site lighting fixtures shall demonstrate compliance with the mandatory
B-U-G ratings for area lighting as required by CalGreen mandatory measures in the
7/1/2012 supplement. The Lighting Zone used to demonstrate compliance shall be
LZ-2.
Residual Impacts
Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the potential impacts at the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project Site are considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
4.1.6 Comparison to Applicant Studies
Photo simulations of the Proposed Oil Project (KOPs 6 through 20) were produced by the E&B
consultant Focus 360. The photo simulations in the Planning Application were updated at the
request of the EIR consultant from a 28mm lens to use a 50mm lens, show the rig in a ‘worst-case
scenario’ drilling location for each view and adjust landscape size depictions per the
supplemental landscape information provided after the original simulations were produced.
These revised simulations are believed to more accurately depict the perceived distance, scale
and magnitude of the project because the 50mm lens most accurately depicts the way the human
eye sees the world. See further discussion of the process for preparing these simulations in the
Methodology section of this issue area.
4.1.7 Other Issue Area Mitigation Measure Impacts
Some mitigation measures during construction related to noise soundwalls, such as NV-7a and
NV-9a, would temporarily increase aesthetic impacts and degrade the visual environment for
some private views during the construction phase. However, these soundwalls would be equal to
or lower than buildings in the immediate vicinity and would not be substantially out of character
with the existing environment and would therefore be less than significant.
Mitigation measure NV-2a would increase the height of the soundwall used during drilling to 35
feet. As per mitigation measure AE-1b, this wall would become permanent at 35 feet (instead of
the proposed Project 32 feet). The increase in the wall height by 3 feet would not produce
significant impacts.
Mitigation measures in Section 4.6, Fire Protection and Emergency Response, might require the
installation of thermal barriers or the increase of the flare stack height "during drilling". During
drilling, there would be 32-foot high sound barriers. The modified flare stack height would not
exceed the height of the soundwall (as required by the CUP); therefore, the modified flare stack
would not be visible above the soundwall. Thermal shields would also not be visible above the

soundwall. There would be no additional aesthetic impacts from insulating a tank. Therefore,
these measures would not produce additional aesthetic impacts.
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No other cumulative projects would be constructed within the same viewsheds as the Proposed
Project. The AES Project, to remove large portions of the AES Power Generating Station in
Redondo Beach, could provide some increase in visual quality to the area by removing the large
stacks and industrial equipment located next to King Harbor. There would be no other potential
cumulative significant impacts.

4.1.9 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Proposed Oil Project and Pipeline Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Measure Requirements
Compliance Verification
Method Timing Responsible
Party
AE-1a Material choice of electrical drill rig
acoustical shroud shall be of neutral
sky color which is selected for its
ability to reduce visual impact, in
coordination with and approval by
the City Community Development
Director.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and field-demonstration
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-1b The sound attenuation wall shall be
replaced by a permanent wall with
design features installed at the end
of Phase 3. The intent is to provide
stability of views and opportunities
for positive visual elements that
partially mitigate the visual
presence of the walls from the
Hermosa Greenbelt and other
sensitive views in the immediate
Project vicinity. The permanent wall
shall be allowed to be provided in
lieu of the 16-foot block wall.
Landscape design shall be allowed
to be adjusted to respond to façade
articulations, though quantities and
densities shall be maintained. The
permanent wall shall be designed
with architectural features in
coordination with and approval of
the City Community Development
Director.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-2a Design of the sound attenuation
wall exterior façade shall be
required to include design
articulations that are
complementary to the character,
scale, and quality of the
surrounding environment. The
intent is to mitigate the visual
impact of the wall from the Hermosa
Greenbelt and other sensitive views
in the immediate project vicinity.
The following measures of success
shall be met:
1) Articulations of façade decrease
scale and proportion of mass into
smaller increments that more
closely resemble those of adjacent
buildings; and
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
2) Colors, detailing and material use
are varied to a level consistent with
existing visual environment.
AE-2b Planting area growth medium shall
be capable of supporting the long
term health and growth of the
landscape design. Requirements
shall be: 1) Demonstrated free of
debris and construction waste
(asphalt, concrete, etc) to a
minimum depth of 3 feet within all
planted areas. Wall footings shall
be designed to limit encroachment
into planted areas; 2) Soils analysis
report shall be conducted by a
certified soil scientist. Report shall
include recommendations to meet
the intent of this mitigation
measure; and 3) If soils are
determined to be unsuitable to
support plant growth, they shall be
amended or removed/replaced to
meet requirements of soils analysis
for plant pallette selected.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Priorto
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-2c Vine plantings where used shall
meet the following conditions: 1) be
self-attaching or structure
supported; 2) have demonstrated
success in the City; 3) be planted at
a density to achieve full coverage at
maturity; 4) be planted at a
minimum 5 gallon size; and 5) be
required on the visible portion of the
west wall at the temporary parking
facility.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-2d All trees shall be required to be a
minimum of 20’ in height at
installation and meet the American
Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI
Z60.1-2004). If a tree species
alternate is proposed, it shall be
required to be an equal to the
species proposed in the Project
Application in the following
characteristics: 1) Dense evergreen
with similar form and habit; 2)
Probability of achieving a minimum
of 35-40 feet at maturity; and 3)
Comply with Municipal Code
Chapter 8.60 and 8.56.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AE-3a Pipeline alignments and valve box
locations shall be designed to avoid
the removal or modification of trees,
hedgerows, and/or large shrubs to
the extent feasible.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
Cities of Hermosa
Beach, Redondo
Beach and
Torrance
AE-3b If landscaped areas, streetscapes,
plazas and/or parklands are
required to be temporarily
disturbed, they shall be restored to
their previous condition following
completion of construction.
Avoidance of disturbance shall be
the preferred option, especially
where landscape elements act to
screen views (hedges, large shrubs,
etc) or where they act as
community gateways (Redondo
Beach at Hwy-1).
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
Cities of Hermosa
Beach, Redondo
Beach and
Torrance
AE-3c Block color/s selection and pattern
(if applicable) shall be
complementary to adjacent
buildings. A buffer of shrubs and
vines shall be planted to match the
existing character and quality of the
adjacent properties.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-4a Final acoustical cover material
selection shall be required to be
fully opaque. Fully opaque shall be
defined as completely blocking all
light from passing through its
surface. The exterior finish shall be
low reflectivity and not capable of
producing glare.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-4b Colors and finishes of equipment
and surfaces within the soundwall
(including the interior face of the
soundwall, the interior face of the
drill rig acoustical cover, and the
physical structure of the drill rig
within the acoustical shield) shall
have a reflectivity rating of 0.3 or
lower.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AE-4c All proposed site lighting fixtures
associated with the drilling activities
shall demonstrate compliance with
the mandatory B-U-G ratings for
area lighting as required by
CalGreen mandatory measures in
the 7/1/2012 supplement. The
Lighting Zone used to demonstrate
compliance shall be LZ-2.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-5a Colors and finishes of surfaces
within the facility, including the
interior face of the soundwall,
ground materials (darker or
asphalt), wall paints and equipment
paints to the extent feasible shall
have a low reflectivity rating of 0.3
or lower to reduce the potential for
glow.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-5b Final sound wall material/s
selection/s (including gates) shall
be fully opaque. Fully opaque shall
be defined as completely blocking
all light from passing through its
surface. The exterior finish shall be
low reflectivity and not capable of
producing glare.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-5c All proposed site lighting, including
fixtures outside the wall, shall be
fully shielded. Fully shielded shall
be defined as: A luminaire
constructed and installed in such a
manner that all light emitted by the
luminaire, either directly from the
lamp or a diffusing element, or
indirectly by reflection or refraction
from any part of the luminaire, is
projected below the horizontal plane
through the luminaire’s lowest light-emitting
part (IES/IDA, 2011)
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-5d The LZ-2 parameters of the Model
Lighting Ordinance (IES/IDA, 2011)
shall be used to demonstrate that
maximum vertical illuminance for
the site are not exceeded. For site
lighting inside the wall, Table B
allowances shall be used. Lighting
outside the wall at site entrances
shall not exceed that of existing
street lighting, which produces a
maximum of 1 footcandle.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
For the purposes of measuring
vertical illumination, the plane of the
property line shall be extended to
an elevation equal to the height of
the electric drilling rig.
AE-5e All proposed site lighting fixtures
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-6a Any proposed metering station site
lighting shall be fully shielded and
shall incorporate permanent
features (shields, hoods, etc.) shall
incorporate permanent features
which prevent light spillage beyond
the property line.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Redondo
Beach
AE-6b Light levels and quantities of
fixtures shall not exceed that which
is needed for security and safety.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
Cities of Redondo
Beach and
Torrance
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
Party
AE-7a The materials, colors and finishes at
the Proposed City Maintenance
Yard Project shall be of comparable
quality, character and level of
architectural detail to those of
adjacent structures.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AE-7b The landscape design at the
Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project shall be of comparable
quality and character to that of the
surrounding visual environment.
Incorporation of evergreen trees,
shrubs, groundcovers and vines are
recommended for their ability to
provide additional screening
capacity of operations areas.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-7c The operations yard area of the
proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project shall be required to have a
6-foot minimum screen wall around
its perimeter (where building
masses do not otherwise define the
perimeter). Additional vertical
screening at Asset Disposal and
Washdown/Dump areas shall be
employed through either increased
screen wall height and/or landscape
design.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specifications
and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-8a All proposed site lighting shall be
fully shielded and shall incorporate
permanent features which prevent
light spillage beyond the property
line.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specification
s and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-8b Light levels and quantities of
fixtures at the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Project shall not
exceed that which is needed for
security.
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specification
s and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach
AE-8c All proposed site lighting fixtures
Approval of
Construction
Documents
and
Specification
s and
Inspection
Prior to
issuance
of
permits
and
during
constructi
on
City of Hermosa
Beach

4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
The air quality section of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers construction- and
operation-related emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, and
odors that could result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would include site
grading and earth moving, construction, and oil and gas operations and related transportation;
some of these activities would occur only once, while others would occur daily. This analysis
attempts to provide a reasonable worst-case scenario of potential air emissions from construction
(both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project), drilling and
daily operations, and subsequently recommends mitigation to reduce those impacts. Air
emission calculations are shown in detail in Appendix B. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project operational emissions would be equal to the current City Maintenance Yard emissions
and are therefore not assessed. Air emission calculations are shown in detail in Appendix B.
Portions of the construction phases of the Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed
City Maintenance Yard Project would occur simultaneously, particularly during Phase 3. For
example, the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project would be constructed at the same time as
the Proposed Oil Project and the pipelines are being constructed and the emissions from each of
these components must be combined for comparison to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Therefore, all of the components of the Proposed Project are
assessed together under the impacts sub-section. Specific Proposed Project component options
(valve boxes, pipeline and parking) are discussed at the end of the impacts section.
The Proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), which encompasses 10,473 square miles, including the four-county South
Coast Air Basin (the Basin) and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and
the Mojave Desert Air Basin. The Basin, a subarea of SCAQMD jurisdiction, is bound by the
Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the
north and east. The 6,745-square-mile Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
4.2.1.1 Meteorological Conditions
The climate in the Basin is characterized by sparse winter rainfall and hot summers tempered by
cool ocean breezes. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the
cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest
layer of the atmosphere.
The warm upper layer forms a cap, or inversion, over the cool marine layer and inhibits
pollutants released into the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during
summer further limit dispersion.

Sunlight triggers photochemical reactions that produce ozone, and this region experiences more
days of sunlight than many other major urban areas in the nation due to climate, thereby
increasing the potential for ozone formation.
Table 4.2-1 summarizes historical meteorological conditions in the Basin. Data readings were
taken at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at Los
Angeles International Airport from 2001 until 2006.
Temperature and Rainfall
Temperature affects air quality in the region in several ways. Local winds are the result of
temperature differences between the relatively stable ocean air and the uneven heating and
cooling in the Basin from a wide variation in topography. Mean wind speed in the Basin is 7.5
miles per hour (mph). Temperature also significantly affects vertical mixing height and chemical
and photochemical reaction times. Annual average temperatures throughout the Basin range
from the low 40s in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to the high 90s in °F. The coastal areas show little
variation in temperature on a year-round basis due to the moderating effect of the marine
influence. On average, September is the warmest month, while December and January are the
coolest months of the year. Annual rainfall varies from a low of 5 inches to a high of 19 inches.
Table 4.2-1 Historical Meteorological Data
Element Average Range
Highest temperature 93°F 84-101°F
Lowest temperature 40°F 36-43°F
Average temperature 58°F 55-63°F
Mean relative humidity 76% 75-77%
Days with heavy fog (visibility ≤ 0.25 miles) 25 15-35
Days with thunderstorms 3 0-10
Mean wind speed 7 mph 6.4-7.5 mph
Total precipitation 13.1 inches 5.03-18.8 inches
Snow, ice pellets, hail None None
Notes: F = Fahrenheit, mph = miles per hour.
Source: NOAA 2001-2006
Wind Flow Patterns
Wind flow patterns play an important role in transporting air pollutants in the Basin. The winds
flow from off shore and blow eastward during daytime hours. In summer, the sea breeze starts in
mid-morning, peaking at 10 to 15 mph, and subsides after sundown. There is a calm period until
approximately midnight, after which a land breeze commences from the northwest, typically
becoming calm again around sunrise. In winter, wind flows in the same general patterns, except
that wind speeds are slightly lower on average than summer wind speeds. This low wind-speed
pattern is a major contributor to pollutant accumulation in the Basin. Normal wind patterns in
the Basin are interrupted by unstable air accompanying passing storms during winter and
infrequent strong northeasterly Santa Ana wind flows from the mountains and deserts north of
the Basin. Figure 4.2-1 shows a wind rose for the King Harbor meteorological station in King
Harbor, located less than a mile to the south of the Proposed Project Site. A wind rose is a
graphic representation of wind conditions (speed and direction) at a specific location.

Figure 4.2-1 Wind Rose for King Harbor Meteorological Station
Notes: Rose denotes which direction wind is blowing from.
Source: SCAQMD
4.2.1.2 Existing Air Quality Criteria Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
The SCAQMD is responsible for ensuring satisfaction and maintenance of state and federal
ambient air quality standards within its geographical jurisdiction. California and the federal
government established health-based air quality standards for the following air pollutants: ozone
(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10
micrometers in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
(PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (the "criteria" pollutants). These standards were
established to protect sensitive receptors (children, elderly, persons with respiratory illness, etc)

within a margin of safety from adverse health impacts due to exposure to air pollution. In most
cases, the California standards are more stringent than the federal standards. California also
established standards for sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 4.2-2
summarizes state and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each of these
pollutants and their effects on health. The SCAQMD monitors levels of the aforementioned
criteria pollutants at 36 monitoring stations throughout the Basin. Table 4.2-3 presents air
quality data from the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles County Area monitoring station (Area 3,
Station 820) in the SCAQMD, which is the closest monitoring station to the Project area, 6.8
miles to the north of the Project Site.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO
competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, and reduces the blood's ability to transport
oxygen to vital organs in the body. The ambient air quality standard for CO aims to protect
persons whose medical condition already compromises the ability of their circulatory system to
deliver oxygen.
CO was monitored at 26 locations in the SCAQMD in 2012 (the most recent data available) and
no location exceeded the federal or state 8-hour CO standards. The highest 8-hour average CO
concentration of the year was 4.7 parts per million (ppm), measured at Source/Receptor Area
Number 12, South Central Los Angeles County (Station Number 112). No area within the
district has exceeded the NAAQS since 2003.
There were no exceedances of the CO standards in 2011 or 2012 at the monitoring station closest
to the Project area (see Table 4.2-3).
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
NO2 is a brownish gas that is formed in the atmosphere through a rapid reaction of the colorless
gas nitric oxide (NO) with atmospheric oxygen. NO is primarily formed by combustion. NO
and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx). NO2 can cause respiratory
irritation and airway constriction, making breathing difficult.

Table 4.2-2 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air
Pollutant
State Standard
(concentration/
averaging time)
National Standards
(concentration/
averaging time)
Most Relevant Public Health Effects
Ozone
(O3)
0.09 ppm, 1-hour average >
0.070 ppm, 8-hour 0.075 ppm, 8-hour average*
(a) Short-term exposures: (1) Pulmonary function decrements
and localized lung edema in humans and animals (2) Risk to
public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology
and host defense in animals; (b) Long-term exposures: Risk to
public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism
and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term
exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically
exposed humans; (c) Vegetation damage; (d) Property damage.
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
20 ppm, 1-hour average >
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary
heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of
central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to
fetuses.
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
0.18 ppm, 1-hour average,
0.03 ppm annual average >
0.053 ppm, annual arithmetic
mean >
0.100 ppm hourly **
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and
respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public
health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical
and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c)
Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
0.25 ppm, 1-hour. average
>
0.04 ppm, 24-hour average
>
75 ppb 1 hour***
0.5 ppm 3 hour
0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic
mean >
Acute respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty leading to
Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may
include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness,
during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
50 μg/m3, 24-hour average
>
20 μg/m3, annual arithmetic
mean >
150 μg/m3, 24-hour average >
(a) Excess deaths from short-term exposures and exacerbation
of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease; (b)
Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in
children.
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
mean >
35 μg/m3, 24-hour average >
mean >
Decreased lung function from exposures and exacerbation of
symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease; elderly;
children.

Table 4.2-2 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air
Pollutant
State Standard
(concentration/
averaging time)
National Standards
(concentration/
averaging time)
Most Relevant Public Health Effects
Sulfates 25 μg/m3, 24-hour average
>= No federal standard
(a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic
symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d)
Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; (f) Property
damage due to corrosion.
Lead 1.5 μg/m3, 30-day
average >=
1.5 μg/m3, calendar quarter>
0.15 μg/m3, rolling 3 month>
(a) Increased concentrations in people's bodies; (b) Impairment
of blood formation and nerve conduction.
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles
In sufficient amount to give
an extinction coefficient of
0.23 per kilometers (visual
range of 10 miles or more)
with relative humidity less
than 70%, 8-hour average
(10 a.m. – 6 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time)
No federal standard Reduced visibility
Hydrogen
Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1-hour average > No federal standard Odor annoyance at low concentration, acute and potential
fatality at higher concentrations.
Vinyl
0.01 ppm, 24-hour average
Chloride
> No federal standard dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, and giddiness. Known
carcinogen.
Note: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
* Effective May 27, 2008; previous standard was 0.08 ppm
** To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not
exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010)
*** Based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum. In addition, the EPA revoked both the existing 24-hour
SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm effective August 23, 2010.
Source: SCAQMD website 2013

In 2012 the SCAQMD monitored NO2 levels at 26 stations and the maximum annual arithmetic
mean measured was 0.0246 ppm in Area 10 (Pomona/Walnut Valley). The maximum 1-hour
level was 0.108 ppm in Central Los Angeles. The 1-hour state standard (i.e., 0.18 ppm) was not
exceeded in 2012. The district is classified as in attainment for both the state and national
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). There were no exceedances of the NO2 standards in
2012 at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site (see Table 4.2-3).
Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Air Quality Data for Southwest Coastal LA County Sub-Region (Project
Area)
Constituent 2011 2012
Ozone
1-hour (ppm) max level 0.078 0.106
Federal Standard (0) NA
State Standard (0) (1)
Federal Standard (0) (0)
Carbon Monoxide
Federal Standard (0) (0)
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual (ppm) 0.0134 0.0104
PM2.5/10
24-hour (ug/m3) max level 41.0 31
Federal Standard (0%) (0%)
State Standard (0%) (0%)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 21.7 19.8
Lead
30-day (ug/m3) 0.008 NA
Quarter (ug/m3) 0.005 NA
Sulfate
24-hour (ug/m3) max level 5.9 (0%) NA
Notes: ppm = parts per million; (x) = number of days or percent of samples exceeding the standard; -- =
not monitored; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = Less than 12 full months of data; so data may not
be representative. NA = no longer applicable
PM2.5 monitored as PM10
PM10 and Sulfur Dioxide are not monitored at this location.
Source: SCAQMD 2011-2012, Station #820 at LAX
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 or SOx)
SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels. Health effects of SO2 inhalation include acute respiratory symptoms and breathing
difficulty. In 2011 (2012 data was not available), seven locations monitored SO2 levels, and
neither the state nor the federal standards were exceeded.

Particulate Matter 10 (PM10)
PM10 is the coarse fraction of suspended particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in
diameter and includes a complex mixture of man-made and natural substances including sulfates,
nitrates, metals, elemental carbon, sea salt, soil, organics, and other materials. Particulate matter
is produced by wind-blown dust, combustion of wood or other fuels, and a range of other
activities, both anthropogenic and natural, that produce dust or particulates. PM10 may have
adverse health impacts because these microscopic particles penetrate into the respiratory system.
In some cases, the particulates themselves may cause actual damage to the alveoli of the lungs,
or they may contain injurious absorbed substances.
In 2012, PM10 was monitored at 21 locations in the district. There were no exceedances of the
federal 24-hour standard (i.e., 150 micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]), while the state 24-hour
standard (i.e., 50 μg/m3) was exceeded at all but nine monitored locations. PM10 is monitored at
the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, and no exceedances were recorded (see Table
4.2-3).
Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5)
The PM2.5 standard is a subset of the PM10 standard consisting of particulate matter measuring
2.5 microns or less in diameter. In addition to the health effects of PM10, PM2.5 exposure may
also cause increased respiratory symptoms, disease, and decreased lung functions. In 2012,
PM2.5 was monitored at 20 locations in the district. The federal 24-hour standard (i.e., 35 μg/m3)
was exceeded at 13 locations. The federal 24-hour standard was exceeded at seven locations. In
2011-2012, at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, PM2.5 was not monitored (see
Table 4.2-3).
Lead
In 2011 (data for the year 2012 was not available), lead was monitored at 10 locations in the
district. No location in the Basin exceeded the federal quarterly average or the state monthly
average standards. There have been no violations of any lead standard in the district since 1982,
although there were some localized exceedances of the state standard at special monitoring
stations in 1991 and 1994.
Sulfates
Sulfates, or SOx, are a group of chemical compounds containing the sulfate group, which is a
sulfur atom with four oxygen atoms attached. Combustion is the primary source of sulfates. In
2011 (data for the year 2012 was not available), sulfates were monitored at 21 locations in the
district. The 24-hour state sulfate standard (of 25 μg/m3) was not exceeded at any of these
locations. There are no federal air quality standards for sulfates.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Since volatile organic compounds (VOC) are not classified as criteria pollutants, there are no
state or national ambient air quality standards for these compounds. VOC are regulated,
however, because limiting VOC emissions reduces the rate of photochemical reactions that
contribute to the formation of ozone. As a precursor to ozone, VOC contribute to regional air
quality impacts. In addition, VOC also transform into organic aerosols in the atmosphere,

contributing to higher PM10 and lower visibility levels. VOC are produced by combustion,
consumer products, and leaking hydrocarbons from a range of industrial processes.
Ozone (O3)
In addition to primary criteria pollutants, the SCAQMD monitors ozone at various locations
throughout the district. Unlike primary criteria pollutants emitted directly from an emissions
source, ozone is a secondary pollutant. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through the
photochemical reaction of sunlight with VOC, NOx, O2, and hydrocarbon materials.
Ozone is a deep lung irritant, causing pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema.
Ozone levels were monitored at 31 locations in 2012. Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour average
ozone concentrations in 2012 were 0.147 ppm (East San Gabriel Valley) and 0.121 ppm (San
Bernardino and Santa Clarita), respectively. Ozone concentrations exceeded the state standard at
all but four of the monitored locations.
At the monitoring station closest to the Project Site there was one exceedance of the state 1-hour
ozone standard (see Table 4.2-3). There were no exceedances of the federal 8-hour ozone
standard at the monitoring station closest to the Project Site, and there was one exceedance of the
state 8-hour ozone standard in 2012 (see Table 4.2-3).
In 2012, the SCAQMD published its most recent air quality management plan report, which
figuratively compares quality for selected pollutants with the standards. Figures 4.2-2 through
4.2-4 show the extent of particulate levels and ozone in the Basin for 2011. Note that most of the
standards violations occurred inland from the Project Site. Ozone standards are not exceeded in
areas along or near the coast in the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange, due in large part to the
prevailing sea breeze which transports emissions inland before high ozone concentrations are
reached.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled
engines as a toxic air contaminant. Subsequent to this determination, the SCAQMD
initiated an urban toxic air pollution study, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES). The
MATES III program is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the Basin by the
SCAQMD (2008). MATES III includes a monitoring program, utilizing both fixed and mobile
monitoring stations, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling
effort to characterize risk across the South Coast Air Basin. The study focused on the
carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics.

Figure 4.2-2 PM2.5 Annual Compliance Status - 2011
Source: SCAQMD AQMP 2012
The existing carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the South Coast Air Basin, based on the average
concentrations at the MATES fixed-monitoring sites, is about 1,200 excess cancer cases per one
million persons. This risk refers to the expected number of additional cancer cases in a
population of one million individuals exposed over a 70-year lifetime. The MATES III study
estimated that about 94% of the risk is attributed to emissions associated with mobile sources,
and about 6% of the risk is attributed to toxics emitted from stationary sources. The results
indicate that diesel exhaust is the major contributor to air toxics risk, accounting on average for
about 84% of the total. The SCAQMD considers the risk of a Project to be significant if the
increased cancer risk exceeds 10 excess cancer cases per million.

Figure 4.2-3 Ozone Annual Compliance Status - 2011
Source: SCAQMD AQMP 2012
MATES III identified risks in the vicinity of the Project Site due to nearby roadways, freeways
(e.g., Interstate 405), and fixed facilities located in the SCAQMD emissions databases. The
existing carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the vicinity of the Project Site, as per the MATES III
report, is approximately 687 excess cancer cases per one million persons.
The SCAQMD published guidelines for the analysis of diesel emissions from various mobile
source categories (SCAQMD 2003). Guidelines are specified for the analysis of sources such as
truck idling and movements associated with truck stops, warehouse distribution centers or transit
centers, ship hoteling at ports, and train idling. The emphasis of the SCAQMD guidelines is on
reducing operational emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) may be present in oilfield solid or liquid
wastes. NORM is primarily a concern in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf States, such as Florida
and Texas, as well as Illinois and Kansas. The USGA fact sheet shows that California has levels
that are at background or marginally detectable. DOGGR conducted surveys in the 1980s of
California Oil and Gas Fields (DOGGR 1996) indicated that “of the 10,000 measurements taken,
about 93 percent were at background levels. The remaining readings were above background
levels, but low enough that only routine safety measures were considered necessary to minimize
employee exposure and protect human health and the environment.” Subsequent studies have
confirmed these results. OSHA has requirements about testing and exposure of workers to

radiation codified in 29 CFR 1910.96. Generally, the concerns arise when produced water is
disposed of in a manner that could cause environmental or human exposure, such as discharging
to the environment (such as to the ocean). However, the proposed Project would inject produced
water back into the reservoirs. Some NORM can occur in sludges and other wastes, which would
be required to be disposed of properly by existing laws and regulations. NORM is not anticipated
to be an issue for this project.
Basin Emissions
Total emissions of NOx and VOC basin-wide were estimated to be 758 and 593 tons per day,
respectively, in 2008 (as per SCAQMD 2012). Almost 88% of NOx emissions and 57% of VOC
emissions were due to mobile sources. Stationary sources accounted for 12% and 43% of NOx
and VOC emissions, respectively. Two-thirds of mobile sources were due to on-road sources.
4.2.1.3 Existing Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are defined as any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the
atmosphere, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O)
and fluorocarbons, the main contributors to global climate changes (IPCC 2007). These GHGs
lead to the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the earth’s surface, commonly
known as the “greenhouse effect”. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the
earth’s temperature. Without natural GHGs, the Earth’s surface would be cooler (CARB 2006).
Emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated
the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere.
Different GHGs have different global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a
gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a
common reference gas, CO2, is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the
gas emissions, referred to as the “CO2 equivalent” or CO2e. This is the amount of GHGs emitted
multiplied by the GWP. The GWP of CO2 is defined as one, whereas the GWP of methane, for
example, is 21, meaning that methane gas absorbs 21 times as much heat, and therefore has 21
times greater impact on global warming per pound of emissions, as CO2.
Water vapor is the most abundant and variable GHG in the atmosphere. The main source of
water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent). Other sources include
evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow,
and transpiration from plant leaves (AEP 2007).
Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources of CO2 include decomposition of
dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from
oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic (human caused) sources of CO2 include
burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. As stated above, CO2 has a GWP of 1.
Methane gas is the main component of natural gas used in homes, industry and compressed
natural gas (CNG) vehicles. As discussed above, it has a GWP of about 21. Natural sources of
methane arise from the decay of organic matter and from geological deposits known as natural

gas fields, from which methane is extracted for fuel. Sources of decaying organic material
include landfills and manure.
Nitrous oxide is a colorless gas with a GWP of about 310 that is produced by microbial
processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing
nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (nylon production, nitric
acid production) also emit N2O. It is used in rocket engines, as an aerosol spray propellant, and
in race cars. During combustion, NOx (NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides, NO and
NO2) is produced as a criteria pollutant (see above), and is not the same as N2O. Very small
quantities of nitrous oxide (N2O) may be formed during fuel combustion by reaction of nitrogen
and oxygen (API 2004).
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with either chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic,
nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the
earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants,
and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped
as required by the Montreal Protocol. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic man-made
chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs in automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are used in aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. In
general, fluorocarbons have a GWP of between 140 and 11,700.
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It
also has the highest GWP of any gas at 23,900. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in
electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere
is relatively short-lived and therefore is not global in nature. According to CARB, it is difficult
to make an accurate determination of the contribution of ozone precursors (NOx and volatile
organic compounds [VOCs]) to global warming (CARB 2006).
Table 4.2-4 shows a range of gases that contribute to GHG warming with their associated global
warming potential. The table also shows their estimated lifetime in the atmosphere and the range
in global warming potential over 100 years.
The total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,702 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE)
in 2011, of which 84 percent were CO2 emissions (EPA 2013). In 2011, approximately 26
percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation and about 32 percent with
electricity generation (USEPA 2013).
In order to quantify the emissions associated with electrical generation, the “resource mix” for a
particular area must be determined. The resource mix is the proportion of electricity that is
generated from different sources. Electricity generated from coal or oil combustion produces
greater GHG emissions than electricity generated from natural gas combustion due to coal and
oil’s higher carbon content. Electricity generated from wind turbines, solar, hydroelectric dams
or nuclear power is assigned zero GHG emissions. Although these sources have some GHG

emissions associated with the manufacturing of wind generators, solar panels, the mining and
enrichment of uranium or the displacement of forest areas for reservoirs, these emissions have
not been included in the lifecycle analysis, as emissions volumes are assumed to be relatively
small compared to the amount of electricity generated. Estimates of nuclear power GHG
emissions associated with uranium mining and enrichment range up to about 60 lbs/MWh
(pounds per megawatt hour), or about five percent of natural gas turbine GHG emissions (CNS
1998).
Table 4.2-4 Global Warming Potential of Various Gases
Gas
Life in the
Atmosphere
(years)
100-year GWP
(average)
Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1
Methane 12 21
Nitrous Oxide 120 310
HFC-23 264 11,700
HFC-125 32.6 2,800
HFC-134a 14.6 1,300
HFC-143a 48.3 3,800
HFC-152a 1.5 140
HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900
HFC-236fa 209 6,300
HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300
CF4 50,000 6,500
C2F6 10,000 9,200
C4F10 2,600 7,000
C6F14 3,200 7,400
SF6 3,200 23,900
Note: GWP = global warming potential
Source: USEPA 2013. The 100 year timeframe from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) used
for reporting under the UNFCCC values are used in this report as per the IPCC 2007 and USEPA 2013.
These may be revised under the most recent CARB Scoping Plan CARB 2013.
Detailed information on power generation plants, their contribution to area electricity “resource
mix” and their associated emissions have been developed by the Federal EPA in a database
called the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). eGRID is a
comprehensive inventory of environmental attributes of electric power systems and is developed
from a variety of data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy
Information Administration (EIA), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The
most recent version released in 2012 contains information from as recent as 2009.
About half of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal, producing a U.S. GHG
emissions level of about 1,222 lbs/MWh (pounds per mega-watt hour). The GHG emissions rate
is lower for western states, primarily due to the increased use of hydroelectric and natural gas.
The California area has a GHG emission rate of about 661 lbs/MWh due to the contribution of
hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable sources. Table 4.2-5 shows the resource mix and the
nationwide and California GHG emission rates.

The rate used in this analysis was taken from CalEEMod modeling program for Southern
California Edison (SCE) and is 641 lbs/MWh.
The GHG emission rate for electricity obtained from SCE is about 45 percent less than the rate
associated with direct natural gas combustion due to the electricity resource mix which includes
non-GHG emission creating resources (hydroelectric and nuclear power, renewables).
Table 4.2-5 Electricity Generation Resource Mix and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Resource Mixa United
States
Calif Area
(CAMX)
Coal 44.5 7.3
Oil 1.1 1.4
Gas 23.3 53.0
Other Fossil 0.3 0.2
Biomass 1.4 2.7
Hydro 6.8 12.7
Nuclear 20.2 14.9
Wind 1.9 2.8
Solar 0.02 0.3
Geo 0.4 4.4
Other 0.1 0.3
Non-Renewables 69.2 62.0
Renewables 30.8 38.0
CO2 Rate, lb/MWh 1,222 661
a. Resource Mix is the percentage of total mega-watt hours.
Source: eGRID database with modifications and updates, EPA 2012, data for year 2009, USEPA 2012
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The quantification of GHG emissions associated with a Project can be complex and relies on a
number of assumptions. GHG emissions are a global issue because emissions from one location,
although a small fraction, combine cumulatively with emissions from many locations to
potentially affect the entire planet, and they are not limited to local impacts. Therefore, offsite
impacts, such as vehicle emissions and other associated transportation emissions, are included in
this analysis.
Emissions are generally classified as either direct or indirect. Direct emissions are associated
with the production of GHG emissions at the Project Site or the Proposed City Maintenance
Yard Project Site. These include the onsite combustion of natural gas in heaters, the combustion
of fuel in onsite engines and onsite construction vehicles, and fugitive emissions from valves and
connections, as fugitive emissions include methane as a component, and other sources.
Indirect emissions include the emissions from vehicles (gasoline, diesel or CNG) delivering
materials and equipment to the sites, the use of electricity and water use and waste disposal.
Electricity produces GHG emissions because fossil fuels generate some electricity.

This report utilizes the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol and the
CARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to support the Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions as methods to calculate GHG emissions (CCAR 2009, CARB 2007),
which can be found at the California Air Resources Board websites.
Indirect GHG emissions associated with solid waste and other services that might visit the
Proposed Project Site are incorporated through the inclusion of the travel of trucks that would
visit and service the Project Site.
Indirect emissions associated with employees commuting utilizes the CalEEMod factors
(CalEEMod 2014) for average commute distance within Los Angeles County and the
EMFAC2011 (CARB 2014) estimates of vehicle emissions. Vehicle counts are based on
information provided in the Applicant's Application.
Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With a population of over 37 million, California is the most populous state in the United States.
In 2011, California produced close to 456 MMTCE of GHG emissions (CARB 2013). Overall,
over 80 percent of California’s emissions are CO2 from fossil fuel combustion (CARB 2013).
The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of California’s GHG emissions,
producing 37 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions in 2011. In contrast, electrical
generation produced 19 percent. Nonetheless, California ranks fourth lowest of the 50 states in
CO2 emissions per capita. Figure 4.3-4 shows the historical GHG emissions in California.
Hermosa Beach GHG Emissions
The City of Hermosa Beach, working with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments
(SBCCOG), is preparing a climate action plan of actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The five milestones include: conduct a baseline inventory, adopt an emissions target, develop a
local action plan, implement policies and measures, and monitor and verify results. The City of
Hermosa Beach in consultation with the SBCCOG prepared greenhouse gas emissions
inventories for the City and community in 2009 and 2010. Emissions are those generated within
the geographic boundaries of the city (except for electricity). The Municipal Inventory Report
(SBCCG 2009) with year 2005 as the baseline year, found that:
• The City of Hermosa Beach municipal operations and facilities generated approximately
1,508 metric tons of CO2e in the baseline year, 2005;
• There was an overall 2.9% increase in GHG emissions between the baseline year 2005
and the interim year 2007;
• Under a business-as-usual scenario, the City can expect emissions to rise to 1,632 metric
tonnes of CO2e by 2012, equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from 299 passenger
vehicles; and 1,666 metric tons of CO2e by 2015, equivalent to the annual GHG
emissions from 305 passenger vehicles if the city does nothing to reduce its emissions.

Figure 4.2-4 California GHG Emissions 2000-2011
Source: CARB 2013
A community inventory was also generated (SBCCG 2009), also using the year 2005 as a
baseline, and it concluded that:
• In 2005, the City of Hermosa Beach (including municipal operations and facilities)
generated approximately 138,463 MTCO2e. Gasoline combustion represents the largest
source of emissions, producing 76,153 MTCO2e or 55 percent of the total share of 2005
emissions;
• In 2007, the City of Hermosa Beach generated approximately 134,253 MTCO2e
representing a 3 percent decrease from the total emissions in 2005. This decrease can be
attributed to less emissions from electricity consumption and gasoline combustion
sources;
• For both years 2005 and 2007, transportation was the largest sector of emissions (scope 1,
consisting of emissions under control of the community). In 2005, this sector generated
approximately 81,686 MTCO2e, or 59 percent of the total 2005 emissions. In 2007, it
generated approximately 79,383 MTCO2e. The majority of transportation sector

emissions are the result of gasoline and diesel combustion in vehicles traveling to and
from activity centers within the boundaries of Hermosa Beach;
• While short-term trends show a 3 percent reduction in emissions, long-term general
trends in the absence of mitigation efforts project an increase in emissions. It is
anticipated that Hermosa Beach’s community emissions, under a business-as-usual
scenario, will grow 2 percent by 2020, from 134,253 in 2007 to 136,944 MTCO2e in
2020.
Impacts of GHG Emissions
Global climate change is a change in the average climatic conditions reflected in changing
weather patterns of the earth, which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and
temperature. Historical records have shown that dramatic temperature changes have occurred in
the past, such as during previous ice ages. Some data indicate that the current temperature record
differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (AEP 2007). These climate
changes could lead to alterations in weather, rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and increasing
sea levels leading to flooding. The worldwide scientific consensus is that global climate change
is caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC 2007). The issue of how best to respond to
climate change and its effects is currently one of the most widely debated economic,
environmental and political issues in the United States and globally.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently around 392 ppm (based on the NOAA global
annual mean calculated June 2013, NOAA 2013) and concentrations may increase to 540 ppm
by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources (IPCC 2007).
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases
in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising
global average sea level. The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 °C
per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Global average sea level
rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1
mm per year from 1993 to 2003 (IPCC 2007).
CARB (CARB 2008) notes that a warming California climate would generate more smoggy days
by contributing to ozone formation while also fostering more large brush and forest fires.
Continuing increases in global greenhouse gas emissions at "business-as-usual" rates would
result, by late in the century, in California losing 90 percent of the Sierra snowpack, average sea
level rising by more than 20 inches, and a three to four times increase in heat wave days.
Increases in temperature will also lead to increased concentrations and emissions of pollutants in
California.
In the Findings and Declarations for Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, see below), the California
Legislature found that: “The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the
exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in quality and supply of water to the state from
the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal
businesses and residences, damage to the marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an
increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other health-related problems.”

AB 32 addresses the results of studies conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2001, 2007) that examined a range of scenarios and projected an increase in
globally averaged surface temperature of 0.5 to 11.5°F over the period 1990 to 2100 with ocean
rise between 0.6 to 1.9 feet over the same timeframe.
The IPCC Studies (2007) indicate that “In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the
atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization
level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.” The studies also found that
stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at less than 450 ppm would limit temperature
rise to less than 3.6°F by the year 2100 and would require global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
to drop below the year 1990 levels within a few decades (by 2020). If GHG emissions, and
atmospheric CO2 levels, were kept to this “Category I” level (producing increases in global
average temperature of less than 1.8-5.4 °F above 1980-1999 levels) impacts to gross domestic
product (GDP) are projected to “produce market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the
same time, imposing costs in other places and sectors” (IPCC 2007). Higher levels of CO2,
ranging above 700 ppm with corresponding temperature increases of 7°F, could cause a
reduction in global GDP of more than 5%, with regional losses substantially higher. Reductions
in GHG emissions between the year 2000 and the year 2050 would need to be 50-85% in order to
be kept in this "Category 1" level (IPCC 2007 Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1), with global GHG
emissions peaking in the years 2010 to 2015.
Therefore, stabilizing GHG emissions levels at 1990 levels over the next two decades, and
reducing GHG emissions by 50-85% by the year 2050, would reduce the impacts of climate
change to "Category 1" levels that would produce nominal changes in global average GDP and
would be less than significant. The 10,000 MTCO2E threshold has been adopted by three air
quality districts in California as their approach to reducing GHG emissions to less than
significant levels. It was originally adopted as an interim threshold by the SCAQMD in 2008.
The SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2E threshold is based on a goal of a 90 percent emission
"capture rate", meaning that 90 percent of basin-wide emissions that are estimated to be proposed
as new projects in the future would be subject to the GHG thresholds. The emission threshold
was determined by the SCAQMD to be low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future
stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population
and economic growth, while setting the threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will
in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions
(SCAQMD 2008).
The impacts of GHG emissions are worldwide. Climate change could occur at many different
locations throughout the world due to, in very small part, the additional GHG emissions from
this Proposed Project. A lifecycle approach to understanding the effects of this Project on global
GHG emissions is very complex. For example, driving a more efficient automobile would
reduce GHG emissions from automobiles here, with more reductions in GHG emissions at an
area refinery due to processing less crude oil to make the gasoline and fewer emissions of ocean
tankers to bring the crude oil from Saudi Arabia, for example, and fewer emissions from drilling
and production of the crude oil in Saudi Arabia. However, the hybrid automobile might require
special batteries and more manufacturing effort and more recycling efforts, thereby increasing
GHG emissions.

In addition, markets are evolving, with higher crude oil prices increasing domestic production,
regulations requiring cleaner fuels and energy sources that could substantially alter the
environment for fuels in the near future. Producing natural gas and crude oil locally (not having
to transport gas or crude oil from out-of-state or out-of-country) also could reduce the lifecycle
GHG emissions. Although these activities may have some validity, they are not generally
recognized when submitting GHG inventory information to the State or Federal Agencies and
are not included when assessing requirements under the “cap-and-trade” system in California
(see Regulatory section above). From a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
standpoint, generally these types of “out-of-state” credits are not assessed.
4.2.1.4 Existing Site Emissions
The current City Maintenance Yard operations involve the use of a nominal amount of consumer
level solvents and paints, emissions of which would be minimal. Emissions are also associated
with the use of vehicles on the site and offsite for maintenance operations, as well as electricity
consumption, water and wastewater use and treatment and solid waste generation. No other
emissions sources are associated with the operations. The Hermosa Self-Storage facility located
at the site of the proposed permanent City Maintenance Yard, currently uses a nominal amount
of electricity, energy associated with water and wastewater use and treatment, and solid waste
generation.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting includes regulations promulgated by federal, state, and the local
governments for criteria pollutants. This section discusses criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions.
4.2.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Regulatory Setting
Federal Authority
EPA: The EPA enforces the Federal Clean Air Act and the associated National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO, NO2, ozone, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. These air quality
standards are concentrations above which the pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects.
The Project Site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated as "severe
nonattainment" status for the Federal 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard and is required
to achieve the national standard by 2021. For PM10 the Basin was designated as serious
nonattainment for the Federal standard, is now designated as "unclassified" and has met the PM10
standards at all stations and a request for re-designation to attainment is pending with U.S. EPA
(SCAQMD 2012). The Basin is in nonattainment for PM2.5 and had until 2010 to achieve the
national standard, but will be filing a five-year extension to 2015 (SCAQMD 2012). The Basin
is in attainment for NO2. The Basin has met the Federal standards for CO and the SCAQMD
was designated in attainment for CO in May 2007 by the EPA.

State Authority
California Air Resources Board: CARB is the state agency that: (1) establishes and enforces
emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products; (2) establishes health-based
air quality standards; (3) conducts research; (4) monitors air quality; (5) identifies and
promulgates control measures for toxic air contaminants; (6) provides compliance assistance for
businesses; (7) produces education and outreach programs and materials; and (8) oversees and
assists local air quality districts that regulate most non-vehicular sources of air pollution. CARB
approves the regional Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) for incorporation into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and is responsible for preparing those portions of the SIP related to
mobile source emissions. CARB implements the California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
requirements, regulating emissions from motor vehicles and setting fuel standards. The CCAA
established ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, lead, visibility-reducing
particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. California standards are
generally stricter than national standards.
California Health and Safety Code § 44300 (AB2588) requires facilities that emit quantities of
criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants above defined thresholds to provide the local air
district an inventory of toxic air contaminants. Such facilities may also be required to prepare a
quantitative health risk assessment to address the potential health risks involved. The CARB and
the SCAQMD will ensure implementation of these requirements for the oil field through various
permitting, rules, and regulations.
The California Health and Safety Code mandates that the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA) establish safe exposure limits for toxic, non-criteria air pollutants and identify
the best available methods for their control (Sections 39650 et seq.). These laws also require that
the rules for new emission sources for each air district include regulations establishing
procedures to control the emission of these pollutants. The CARB California Toxic Emissions
Factors (CATEF) database lists toxic air contaminants from some oil field operations. Cal/EPA
has developed specific cancer potency estimates for assessing their related cancer risks at
specific exposure levels. For non cancer-causing toxic air pollutants, Cal/EPA established
specific no-effects levels (known as reference exposure levels) for assessing the likelihood of
producing health effects at specific exposure levels. Such health effects would be considered
significant only when exposure exceeds these reference levels.
Local Authority
SCAQMD: The SCAQMD is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement
of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the Basin. The SCAQMD operates
monitoring stations in the Basin, develops and enforces rules and regulations for stationary
sources and equipment, prepares emissions inventory and air quality management planning
documents, and conducts source testing and inspections. The SCAQMD AQMP includes control
measures and strategies to be implemented to attain state and federal ambient air quality
standards in the Basin. The SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to
control or reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment.
In addition, the SCAQMD receives and investigates odor complaints from residents.

The SCAQMD has rules and regulations that would apply to an oil and gas facility. These
include the following along with a brief description of what the rule addresses, :
• Rule 402. Nuisance - A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance,
or annoyance to any considerable number of persons;
• Rule 462. Organic liquid loading emission limits;
• Rule 463. Organic liquid storage emission control requirements;
• Rule 464. Emissions from Wastewater Separators;
• Rule 466. Leaks from valves and flanges;
• Rule 466.1. Leaks from pumps and compressors;
• Rule 1110.2. Emissions From Gaseous- And Liquid-Fueled Engines limits;
• Rule 1134. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from stationary gas turbines limits;
• Rule 1148.1. Oil and gas production wells - addresses emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from the wellheads, the well cellars and the handling of produced
gas at oil and gas production facilities;
• Rule 1148.2. Notification And Reporting Requirements For Oil And Gas Wells And
Chemical Suppliers;
• Rule 1166. Volatile organic compound emissions from decontamination of soil
procedures and requirements;
• Rule 1173. Control of volatile organic compound leaks and releases from components at
petroleum facilities and chemical plants;
• Rule 1176. VOC emissions from wastewater systems limits and required controls; and
• Rule 1178. Further reductions of VOC emissions from storage tanks at petroleum
facilities.
The SCAQMD adopted Regulation XX - Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM),
which changed the framework of air quality rules and permits (SCAQMD 1993). The
RECLAIM program is a pollution credit trading program that applies to the largest sources of
NOx and SOx emissions within SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Rules and regulations applicable to the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would be primarily
associated with construction and fugitive dust emissions.
City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 8.28 addresses nuisance and its intention is to:
...protect the inhabitants of the city against all forms of nuisances ... which is injurious to health,
or detrimental to the public safety, morals or general welfare, or is indecent, or offensive to the
senses or an obstruction to the free use of property to such an extent as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment or life or property by the entire community or neighborhood, or by any
considerable number of persons.

4.2.2.2 GHG Regulatory Setting
International GHG Regulations
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which was signed on March 21, 1994. The Convention was the first
international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the
commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions would be reduced
by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period from 2008 until
2012. However, while the US is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress has not ratified it;
therefore, the US is not bound by the Protocol’s commitments.
Climate Change Technology Program
In lieu of the Kyoto Protocol’s mandatory framework, the US has opted for a voluntary and
incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions. This approach, the Climate Change
Technology Program, is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort, led by the
Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, who are charged with carrying out the President’s
National Climate Change Technology Initiative.
Federal GHG Regulations
Clean Air Act
In the past, the US EPA has not regulated GHG under the Clean Air Act. However, in 2007 the
US Supreme Court held that the EPA can, and should, consider regulating motor-vehicle GHG
emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 states and cities, including
California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations sued to force the EPA to
regulate GHG as a pollutant pursuant to the Clean Air Act (US Supreme Court No. 05-1120;
127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)). The Court ruled that GHG fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of a
pollutant and that the EPA’s reason for not regulating GHG was insufficiently grounded.
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 40 CFR Section 98 specifies mandatory reporting
requirements for a number of industries. The final 40 CFR Section 98 applies to certain
downstream facilities that emit GHG, and to certain upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and
industrial GHG. For suppliers, the GHG emissions reported are the emissions that would result
from combustion or use of the products supplied. The rule also includes provisions to ensure the
accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, recordkeeping and verification requirements.
The mandatory reporting requirements generally apply to facilities that produce more than
25,000 MTCO2e (or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source emissions).

State GHG Regulations and Programs
Executive Order S-3-05
The 2005 California Executive Order S-3-05 established the following GHG emission-reduction
goals for California:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is charged with
coordinating oversight of efforts to meet these targets and formed the Climate Action Team to
carry out the Order. Emission reduction strategies or programs developed by the Climate Action
Team to meet the emission targets are outlined in a March 2006 report (CalEPA 2006). The
Climate Action Team also provided strategies and input to the CARB Scoping Plan.
Executive Order B-16-2012
The 2012 California Executive Order B-16-2012 directed that all State entities support and
facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. The directive ordered state
agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell
Partnership to achieve by 2015 that the State’s major metropolitan areas will be able to
accommodate zero-emission vehicles, each with infrastructure plans and streamlined permitting
and that by 2020:
• The State’s zero-emission vehicle infrastructure will be able to support up to one million
vehicles; and
• The costs of zero-emission vehicles will be competitive with conventional combustion
vehicles; and
• Zero-emission vehicles will be accessible to mainstream consumers; and
• There will be widespread use of zero-emission vehicles for public transportation and
freight transport; and
• Transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions will be falling as a result of the switch to
zero-emission vehicles; and
• Electric vehicle charging will be integrated into the electricity grid; and
• The private sector’s role in the supply chain for zero-emission vehicle component
development and manufacturing within the State will be expanding.
And that by 2025:
• Over 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles will be on California roads and their market
share will be expanding; and
• Californians will have easy access to zero-emission vehicle infrastructure; and

• The zero-emission vehicle industry will be a strong and sustainable part of California’s
economy; and
• California’s clean, efficient vehicles will annually displace at least 1.5 billion gallons of
petroleum fuels.
The Order also directs that California target for 2050 a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent less than 1990 levels, that at least 10 percent
of California's state vehicle fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles be zero-emission by 2015 and
at least 25 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles be zero-emission by 2020.
Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, the legislature declared in AB 1493 (the Pavley regulations) that global warming was a
matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment in the state. It cited several
risks that California faces from climate change, including reduction in the state’s water supply,
increased air pollution due to higher temperatures, harm to agriculture, and increase in wildfires,
damage to the coastline, and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and
insurance prices. Furthermore, the legislature stated that technological solutions for reducing
GHG emissions would stimulate California’s economy and provide jobs. Accordingly, AB 1493
required the CARB to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for
automobiles. The CARB responded by adopting CO2-equivalent fleet average emission
standards. The standards will be phased in from 2009 to 2016, reducing emissions by 22 percent
in the “near term” (2009 to 2012) and 30 percent in the “mid-term” (2013 to 2016), as compared
to 2002 fleets.
Assembly Bill 32
AB 32 codifies California’s GHG emissions 2020 goal by requiring the state to reduce global
warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It further directs the CARB to enforce the statewide
cap that would begin phasing in by 2012. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Key milestones of AB 32 include:
• June 20, 2007 – Identification of “discrete early action GHG emission-reduction
measures.”
• January 1, 2008 – Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions levels and approval
of a statewide limit equivalent to that level. Adoption of reporting and verification
requirements concerning GHG emissions.
• January 1, 2009 – Adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions.
• January 1, 2010 – Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the actions.
• January 1, 2011 – Regulatory adoption of GHG emission limits and reduction measures.
• January 1, 2012 – GHG emission limits and reduction measures become enforceable.
Since the passage of AB 32, the CARB published Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate
Change in California. This publication indicated that the issue of GHG emissions in CEQA and
General Plans was being deferred for later action, so the publication did not discuss any early
action measures generally related to CEQA or to land use decisions.

California Senate Bill 1368
In 2006, the California legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1368, which requires the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) to develop and adopt a “greenhouse gases emission performance
standard” by March 1, 2007, for private electric utilities under its regulation. The PUC adopted
an interim standard on January 25, 2007, requiring that all new long-term commitments for base
load generation involve power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas
turbine plant. That level is established at 1,100 lbs/MWh of CO2. The California Energy
Commission has also adopted similar rules.
Senate Bill 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions stating, “This bill advances a coordinated policy for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by directing the Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency to
develop CEQA guidelines on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary,
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.” Specifically, SB 97 requires the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency
guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as
required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy
consumption. The Resources Agency would be required to certify and adopt those guidelines by
January 1, 2010. OPR would be required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate
new information or criteria established by the CARB pursuant to the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. SB 97 also identifies a limited number of types of projects that would be
exempt under CEQA from analyzing GHG emissions.
On January 7, 2009, OPR issued its draft CEQA Guidelines revisions pursuant to SB 97. On
March 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them
with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The
Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory and Preliminary Draft CEQA
Guidelines Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Consistent with SB 97, on March 18, 2010, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include
references to GHG emissions. The Preliminary Amendments offer guidance regarding the steps
lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents.
According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether GHG may be generated by a project,
and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency
must assess whether those emissions are cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a
Project’s effects on climate change are cumulatively considerable, even though its GHG
contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the Project
when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.
Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project are
potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise
mitigate the impacts of those emissions.

The Amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they
prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. The Amendments maintain
CEQA discretion for lead agencies to establish thresholds of significance based on individual
circumstances.
The guidelines developed by OPR provide the lead agency with discretion in determining what
methodology is used in assessing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of a
particular project. This guidance is provided because the methodology for assessing GHG
emissions is expected to evolve over time. The OPR guidance also states that the lead agency
can rely on qualitative or other performance based standards for estimating the significance of
GHG emissions.
California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, the CARB adopted the Scoping Plan as directed by AB 32 (CARB
2008). The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in
California. The numerous measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the Board are being
implemented in phases with Early Action Measures that have already been implemented.
Measures include a cap-and-trade system, car standards, low carbon fuel standards, landfill gas
control methods, energy efficiency, green buildings, renewable electricity standards, and
refrigerant management programs.
The Scoping Plan provides an approach to reduce emissions to achieve the 2020 target, and to
initiate the transformations required to achieve the 2050 target. The 2008 Scoping Plan indicated
that a 29 percent reduction below the estimated “business as usual” levels would be necessary to
return to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2011 supplement (Functional Equivalent Document) to the
Scoping Plan emission inventory revisions indicated that a 16 percent reduction below the
estimated “business as usual” levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020. This
revision was due to the slowing economy between 2008 and 2010 and to reduction measures that
were already in place (CARB, 2011a, p. 10). An update of the Scoping Plan is currently
ongoing with a release of a Draft Discussion Document in October, 2013. Another update is
required in 2018.
CARB underwent an extensive and rigorous process in developing and approving the Scoping
Plan. (For detailed discussion of this process, see Association of Irritated Residents et. al. v.
State Air Resources Board et. al., 206 Cal. App. 4th 1487; “AIR.”). Among other things, CARB
considered several alternatives to achieve the mandated maximum technologically feasible and
cost-effective reductions in GHGs and submitted its analyses and recommendations for peer
review and public comment on many occasions (AIR pp. 1498-1499). In affirming CARB’s
adoption of the Scoping Plan, the Court of Appeal of California concluded as follows:
“The Governor and the Legislature have set ambitious goals for reducing the level of
greenhouse gas emissions in California and to do so by means that are feasible and most
cost-effective. The challenges inherent in meeting these goals can hardly be overstated.
[C]ARB has been assigned the responsibility of designing and overseeing the
implementation of measures to achieve these challenging goals. The scoping plan is but
an initial step in this effort, to be followed by the adoption of regulations, the first of
which are already in effect, and plan updates no less than every five years. As the plan

itself indicates, there is still much to be learned that is pertinent to minimizing
greenhouse gas emissions. It is hardly surprising that the scoping plan leaves some
questions unanswered and that opinions differ as to [the] many complex issues inherent
in the task. After reviewing the record before us, we are satisfied that the Board has
approached its difficult task in conformity with the directive from the Legislature, and
that the measures that it has recommended reflect the exercise of sound judgment based
upon substantial evidence. Further research and experience likely will suggest
modifications to the blueprint drawn in the scoping plan, but the plan’s adoption in 2009
was in no respect arbitrary or capricious.” (AIR, pp. 1505.)
Executive Order S-03-05 sets a goal that California emit 80 percent less GHGs in 2050 than it
emitted in 1990. CARB's Scoping Plan, including the October, 2013 Discussion Draft, provides
additional direction and insight as to how it anticipates California will achieve the 2050
reduction goal in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05:
"Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent will require California to develop
new technologies that dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a
landscape of new ideas, clean energy, and green technology. The measures and
approaches in this plan are designed to accelerate this necessary transition, promote the
rapid development of a cleaner, low carbon economy, create vibrant livable communities,
and improve the ways we travel and move goods throughout the state." (CARB, 2008, p.
ES-2.)
"[T]he measures needed to meet the 2050 goal are too far in the future to define in
detail." (Ibid.) The CEC and CARB also have published an alternative fuels plan that
identifies challenging but plausible ways to meet 2050 transportation goals. The majority
of the measures identified by the CEC/CARB (renewable power requirements, the low
carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions standards) relate to technology improvements
beyond both the control of the project applicant [or Lead Agency] and the scope of the
proposed project. But these technological improvements would reduce the demand for
crude oil through a reduction in demand for gasoline and diesel fuels.
California businesses are required to report their annual GHG emissions. This requirement is
contained within sections 95100-95133 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations. It
establishes who must report GHG emissions to the CARB and sets forth the requirements for
measuring, calculating, reporting and verifying those emissions. The rule specifies a reporting
threshold of 25,000 MTCO2e or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source emissions.
Scoping Plan 2013 Draft Discussion Document
A Draft Discussion Document Scoping Plan was released in October, 2013, as a preliminary
document to the 2013 Scoping Plan update. The Discussion Document addresses issues such as
a revision to the GWP for gasses (to a 20 year instead of the 100 year timeframe), the
establishment of a mid-term, 2030 goal (of between 33-40% reduction over 1990 levels), and the
development of post-2020 emissions caps related to Cap-and-Trade to reflect the establishment
of a 2030 midterm target.

California Air Resource Board Cap-and-Trade Regulation
The California Air Resource Board has implemented a cap-and-trade type program, pursuant to
the AB-32 directed Scoping Plan, applicable to specific industries that emit more than 25,000
MTCO2e. The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade program as one of the strategies
California will employ to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change.
Under Cap-and-Trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be
established by the Cap-and-Trade program and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade
permits (allowances) to emit GHGs. The program started on January 1, 2012, with an
enforceable compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG emissions for GHG emissions
from stationary sources. The petroleum and natural gas systems sector is covered starting in
2013 for stationary and related combustion, process vents and flare emissions if the total
emissions from these sources exceed 25,000 MTCO2e per year. Suppliers of natural gas and
transportation fuels are covered beginning in 2015 for combustion emissions from the total
volume of natural gas delivered to non‐covered entity or for transportation fuels.
Cap-and-Trade is designed to reduce the emissions from a substantial percentage of GHG
sources (about 80% of GHG emissions will come under the program) within California through a
market trading system. The system would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the available
GHG “allowances” over time up until the year 2020. The program beyond the year 2020 has not
been designed yet, but the program is intended to extend beyond that timeframe.
Facilities are required to obtain an “allowance”, either through purchasing on auction or through
freely allocated “industry assistance” allowances from CARB, for each MTCO2e of GHG they
emit.
CARB issues the “industry assistance” allocations for free for a number of industries. These are
based, in part, on a pre-defined “benchmark” of GHG emissions per unit of production. For the
oil recovery production sector, allowances are provided as a function of the amount of crude oil
produced, thereby establishing, in effect, a level of efficiency in regards to GHG emissions for
that sector. Other sectors are also allocated allowances based on their own respective activities.
If an operation within the sector operates less efficiently than the specified “benchmark”, thereby
receiving an insufficient number of “free” allowances to cover their emissions, they would be
required to implement efficiency improvements or purchase additional allowances from the
CARB auction. Some availability of “offsets” is also included in the program which can be
obtained from specific, allowable offset programs, such as GHG reduction projects related to
forestry, livestock and ozone depleting chemicals. Offsets outside of these three options are not
allowed at this time.
The first group of sectors began trading in allowances in 2012. That group includes the oil and
gas sector as well as most stationary sources. A second group is planned to begin the program in
2015, which would include the transportation fuels sector. CARB auctioned about 23 million
allowances in November 2012 to be used for the 2013 year.
For subsequent periods after the initial 2013 period, allowances are planned to be distributed
freely through the “industry assistance” program or auctioned off. Industry assistance
allowances would decrease each year as per a “cap adjustment factor”. The cap adjustment

factor would be about 2-3% annually through 2020. The total allowances allowed to be allocated
each year (either freely allocated or auctioned) are limited by the defined allowance budget,
which decreases each year through 2020 and is current set at about 163 million MTCO2e for the
year 2013.
An operator is required to participate in the Cap-and-Trade program if its facility emits more
than 25,000 MTCO2e annually. Annual reporting of GHG emissions is required under the
CARB Mandatory Reporting Rule.
California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol
The California Climate Action Registry is a program of the Climate Action Reserve and serves
as a voluntary GHG registry. The California Climate Action Registry was formed in 2001 when
a group of chief executive officers, who were investing in energy efficiency projects that reduced
their organizations’ GHG emissions, asked the state to create a place to accurately report their
emissions history. The California Climate Action Registry publishes a General Reporting
Protocol, which provides the principles, approach, methodology, and procedures to estimate such
emissions.
California Air Resource Board Proposed Mandatory Reporting Regulation
The CARB approved a mandatory reporting regulation in December 2007, which became
effective January 2009 (which appears at sections 95100-95133 of Title 17, California Code of
Regulations), which requires the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for specific industries
emitting more than 25,000 MTCO2e or 10,000 MTCO2e for combustion and process source
emissions.
The City of Hermosa Beach is involved in efforts to reduce its greenhouse gases. Some of these
include:
• Cool Cities Program: The City Council became a participant in the 'Cool Cities Program'
in 2006. The 'Cities for Climate Protection' Campaign helps local governments to adopt
policies and implement changes that reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, improve air
quality, and enhance urban livability;
• International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives: The City is a member of
ICLEI, an international association of local governments that have made a commitment
to sustainable development;
• Carbon Neutral Initiative: The City Council in 2010 declared its intent to pursue the path
to make city operations carbon neutral.
• Hermosa Beach Sustainability Plan: The City’s ad hoc Green Task Force prepared this
plan and it was accepted by the City Council in 2011 and is being implemented. It
proposes ways to meet AB 32 targets.
• City of Hermosa Beach – The City Council adopted a Clean Fleet Policy and Action Plan
on June 11, 2013.
• Energy reduction retrofits: The City is engaged in the SCE Energy Leadership Program
and continues to implement energy reduction programs and retrofits at municipal
facilities.

• City Hermosa Beach Carbon Neutral Scoping Plan (UCLA, 2013): This plan was
prepared as a senior student practicum class project to advise the city on paths to carbon
neutrality.
• Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focused on Sustainability and a
Carbon Neutral Future: The City obtained a Strategic Growth Council Sustainable
Communities Planning Grant to revise and integrate these plans around sustainability and
carbon neutrality.1
• Carbon Neutrality Road Map: The City Council’s Strategic Plan adopted in 2013
identifies development of a carbon neutral road map as a top priority.
• Green Building Codes: The City adopted Tier 1 amendments in 2010 requiring increased
energy reduction measures.
The Sustainability Plan (accepted in 2011) includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions including emission reduction targets. To comply with AB32, the Plan indicates that
municipal emissions must be reduced by 26 MYCO2e annually and community emissions by
1,630 MYCO2e annually by 2020. The major strategies for achieving these goals include energy
efficiency in buildings, increased municipal employee carpooling, conversion of City vehicles to
electricity (Clean Feet Policy adopted June 11, 2013), increased community electric and hybrid
vehicles and bicycling, building retrofits for reduced energy consumption, embedding
sustainability into the City’s General Plan and ‘DNA, among others. The Council’s stated goal
in 2010, Strategic Plan adopted in 2013, and steady progress affirms the commitment to carbon
neutrality, while the target date is under study.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides these key questions to guide evaluation of
impacts related to air quality. Does the Project:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The SCAQMD, in its role as the agency responsible for regulating air emissions locally, has
developed detailed criteria to address air quality issues relevant to the regional air basin and
which establish quantitative thresholds which address the CEQA Appendix G questions listed
above. This EIR applies the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD to determine
whether an impact is significant.
1 The grant title stated ‘low carbon’ future; however, the City Council has indicated its desire to
pursue carbon neutrality.

The SCAQMD makes significance determinations based on the maximum daily emissions
during the Proposed Project construction period, which provides a worst-case analysis of the
construction emissions. Similarly, significance determinations for operational emissions are
based on maximum daily emissions during the Proposed Project operational phase.
To determine whether or not air quality impacts from the Proposed Project are significant,
emissions are evaluated and compared to the SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds (see
Table 4.2-6). If impacts exceed any of the criteria, they will be considered significant and all
feasible mitigation measures will be identified and implemented to reduce significant impacts to
the maximum extent feasible.
The SCAQMD has developed a localized significance threshold methodology to evaluate the
potential localized impacts of criteria pollutants from construction activities (SCAQMD 2007).
The localized significance threshold methodology requires an analysis regarding whether or not
emissions of specified criteria pollutants exceed ambient air quality standards at a sensitive
receptor. SCAQMD defines sensitive receptors as offsite locations where persons may be
exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential,
commercial, and industrial land use areas and any other areas where persons could be situated for
an hour or more at a time. These other areas include parks, bus stops, and sidewalks but would
not include building tops, roadways, or permanent bodies of water such as oceans or lakes.
The localized significance threshold analysis is performed for emissions of CO, NO2, and
particulates, both PM10 and PM2.5, associated with proposed projects. The SCAQMD has
developed localized significant thresholds lookup tables that utilize the allowable concentrations
of pollutants (shown in Table 4.2-6) combined with distances and construction or operational
areas to calculate allowable emission rates.
The lookup tables are specific for the source/receptor area in the Basin as it also includes
pollutant background and meteorological data specific to the area.
Odors are considered significant if they produce a "nuisance". Odor significance for the
SCAQMD is based on creating a nuisance as per Rule 402. Rule 402 states that "A person shall
not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material
which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or
to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the
public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property." The SCAQMD has an established Public Nuisance Investigation Policies and
Procedures to guide the SCAQMD inspectors in determining whether to issue a Notice of
Violation (NOV) for a nuisance. The procedures direct SCAQMD investigators to interview
complainants and observe, identify, or otherwise establish evidence of the emissions complained
of. An NOV is issued if a "multiple complaint condition" is documented, defined as six or more
complainants.
The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 8.28 addresses nuisance and defines a
nuisance as something "… indecent, or offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of
property to such an extent as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment or life or property by
the entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons". The City

Municipal Code does not define the number of complainants or define measures to assess
"nuisance".
In this EIR, the potential to create a release that produces nuisance odors generating more than
six odor complaints would be considered a significant impact.
The Proposed Project would generate air emissions during the following activities:
• Construction of the Proposed Oil Project during Phase 1 and Phase 3;
• Demolition of the Existing City Maintenance Yard;
• Construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project;
• Phase 2 test drilling;
• Phase 2 operations/testing;
• Phase 4 drilling;
• Phase 4 operations; and
• Operations of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project.
Emissions are generated related to criteria pollutants for construction and operations, greenhouse
gasses, and toxics and odors.
Portions of the Proposed Oil Project, the Pipeline and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project would occur simultaneously, particularly during Phase 3. Therefore, all of the
components of the Proposed Project are assessed together under the impacts sub-section.

Table 4.2-6 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 pounds/day 55 pounds/day
VOCs 75 pounds/day 55 pounds/day
PM10 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day
PM2.5 55 pounds/day* 55 pounds/day*
SOx 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day
CO 550 pounds/day 550 pounds/day
Lead 3 pounds/day 3 pounds/day
Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds
(including carcinogens and
non-carcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk > 10 in 1 million
The risk per year shall not exceed 1/70 of the maximum allowable
risk as per Rule 1401(d)(4)
Maximum Cancer Burden >0.5
Hazard Index > 1.0 (Project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402.
Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants(a)
NO2
1-hour average
annual average
In attainment; significant if Project causes or contributes to an
exceedance of any following standard:
0.18 ppm (state)
0.03 ppm (state)
PM10 and PM2.5
24-hour
annual (PM10 only)
10.4 μg/m3 (recommended for construction)(b)
2.5 μg/m3 (operation)
1.0 μg/m3
SO2 1 hour average - 0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th
percentile)
24 hour average - 0.04 ppm (state)
Sulfate
24-hour average 25 μg/m3
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
In attainment; significant if Project causes or contributes to an
exceedance of any following standard:
20 ppm (state)
9.0 ppm (state/federal)
Lead 30 day - 1.5 μg/m3 (state) ,3 month - 0.15 μg/m3 (federal), Quarterly
- 1.5 μg/m3 (federal)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2, N2O, CH4, etc
If the Project’s GHG emissions are less than or mitigated to less
than 10,000 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per year the Project is
presumed to be insignificant for GHG
Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless
otherwise stated.
Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; lbs/day = pounds per day; ≥ greater than or equal to
* Based on SCAQMD 2006 “Final –Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5
Significance Thresholds” regional thresholds, October 2006
Source: SCAQMD CEQA website March 2011 version

4.2.4.1 Design Features
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with a range of air quality measures and
permits, primarily through the SCAQMD, including component monitoring for leaks,
combustion equipment emissions limits, measures to reduce fugitive dust, limits on venting, etc.
The Applicant has proposed several design features in addition to these requirements that would
reduce air quality impacts such as:
• An electric automated drill rig, with an approximately 87-foot rig mast, will be used to
drill the wells thereby eliminating diesel emissions from a drilling rig;
• An Air Quality Monitoring Plan that will provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon
vapors and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on the Project Site during drilling and production
operations;
• An Odor Minimization Plan that will address the potential sources of odors from all
equipment;
• An odor suppressant spray system or vapor capture hood and carbon filter system on the
mud shaker tables and carbon capture canisters on all tanks will be installed during Phase
2;
• Use of a closed-loop system venting all pressure relief valves to the vapor recovery unit
or an enclosed ground flare, eliminating the release of odors associated with gases; and
• Air monitoring will be performed during the excavation activities in which contaminated
or potentially contaminated materials will be disturbed, excavated, or otherwise handled.
4.2.4.2 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the conditions of approval in the 1993
Conditional Use Permit. Applicable requirements for Air Quality are listed below.
• The number of truck trips shall be limited to a maximum of 18 rounds trips per day,
except in an emergency;
• Grading shall not be performed when wind speeds exceed 20 mph. The contractor shall
maintain a wind speed monitoring device on site during grading operations. The
contractor shall continually keep the soil moist during grading operations. At no time
shall any dust be allowed to leave the work site;
• All trucks arriving or departing the drill site shall be washed to prevent spillage of earth
and all routes shall be swept and or washed by the driller as required by the City;
• A vapor recovery system shall be installed to recover 99% of hydrocarbon emissions
during storage and transfer of crude oil;
• Raw gas shall not be allowed into the atmosphere;
• Any flame shall be enclosed;
• Tanks shall be designed and located so that no odors or fumes can be detected from the
adjacent areas outside the exterior walls of the Project;
• Odorless drilling muds shall be used;

• Well tubing and rods shall not remain out of the well during workover operations less
than 8-hours. The tubing will be surface washed with a detergent solution to remove
odor bearing residual hydrocarbons if exposed longer than 8-hours;
• Well cellars shall be maintained in a clean and efficient manner to prevent waste
accumulation and shall be frequently steam cleaned;
• Gas and vapor detection systems shall be installed at appropriate locations;
• The permittee shall monitor drilling mud during drilling on the site for odorous
substances and take such measures to eliminate any odor which could be perceptible
outside the drill site; and
• The permittee shall undertake no refining process or any process for the extraction of
produces from natural gas, except for such minor processing as necessary to make natural
gas acceptable to the City gas mains for domestic use.
• All Project Site activities shall be conducted such as to eliminate escape of gas in
accordance with best available control technology and practices which shall be reviewed
and approved by the City.
• All requirements of AQMD shall be met at all times.
• A state-of-the-art scrubber shall be employed for the exploratory phase to eliminate odors
from waste gases, and any flame shall be enclosed.
• Operators shall not blow lines to the atmosphere, except in an emergency, as defined by
the C.U.P. and reported to the City in accordance with the notification requirement.
• Construction equipment and vehicles shall be maintained in proper tune.
• Odor control will be further enforced by the SCAQMD under Rules 402, 466, 466.1 of
their regulations, and the commercial recovery system shall be employed for the
permanent facility.
4.2.4.3 Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Air emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, VOC, NOx, SO2 and PM) during construction would
result from construction equipment with internal combustion engines (e.g., backhoes, cranes) and
offsite vehicles (e.g., construction employee commuter vehicles and trucks delivering equipment
and materials). Air pollutants would also be emitted from contaminated soil off-gassing and
asphalt paving off-gassing. Soil movement and vehicle movement on exposed soil (via grading
activities or travel on dirt roadways) would also generate fugitive dust emissions. Vehicle travel
on paved roads would also generate fugitive dust emissions.
Air emissions from construction equipment at the Project Site were estimated using the emission
factors from the CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model (CAPCOA 2013) and the assumptions on the
horsepower, duration and personnel detailed in Section 2.0, Project Description. The
construction emissions were tabulated using spreadsheets instead of the CalEEMod program due
to a number of factors, including the difficulty of assessing irregular, non-development type
projects using CalEEMod with different sources, such as soil off-gassing. In addition, due to the
irregular nature of the vehicular trips (soil hauling, oil and gas equipment delivery, etc), the peak
day vehicle trips would be 5-6 times higher than the average day. CalEEMod is not capable of
handling large variations in peak day emissions. Therefore, the CalEEMod emissions equations
were utilized, but were developed and presented in spreadsheets for estimating the construction

emissions from the Project Site. Appendix B includes details on the construction equipment and
periods of operation for each equipment piece.
The CalEEMod program with defaults was used to estimate the construction emissions
associated with the construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard (both temporary and
permanent). Construction emissions associated with the permanent Proposed City Maintenance
Yard parking option, involving more construction, were used as a worst case. Scheduling of
each option construction would be similar, with the parking option taking a bit longer due to the
additional construction requirements. Analysis of the temporary Proposed City Maintenance
Yard assumed a smaller area and shorter duration of construction and would be constructed prior
to the start of the Proposed Oil Project Phase 1. The removal of the temporary yard was included
in the permanent yard construction estimates.
The primary source of criteria pollutants (NOx, CO, VOC, SOx and PM) would be the use of
internal combustion engines associated with construction equipment, such as cranes and
backhoes, as the pollutants are a byproduct of combustion in engines, including on-road vehicles.
A large portion of particulate emissions during construction are produced by pieces of equipment
traveling on disturbed soil and unpaved surfaces, and various earth-moving activities, such as
trenching, grading, clearing, etc (called fugitive dust). The amount of these emissions mostly
depends on the size of the graded area, volume of moved soil, the number of construction
machinery and vehicles, and the duration of construction.
Emission factors were used from CalEEMod model for calculation of the fugitive dust emissions.
Onsite dirt road travel at the Project Site assumed a distance of 250 feet per truck visit, with a
maximum of 18 truck visits per day. Truck loading and soil dumping assumed a total of about
450 cubic yards of material moved for electrical trenching and street work, and about 16,660
cubic yards of soil moved for the pipeline installation. Grading assumed a disturbed area equal
to the Project Site area. The detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B.
Site preparation at the Project Site includes excavation of soils contaminated with lead and some
hydrocarbons. The Applicant's submittals to the City (see RAP in Appendix A) indicate that
some of the hydrocarbon impacted soils would be excavated from shallower soils (less than 25
feet below ground) and the remaining hydrocarbon impacted soils would be "vapor extracted" in
place. The vapor extraction would take place after the facility is constructed. As there is some
uncertainty associated with the exact amount of soils to be excavated, it was assumed as a worst
case that all of the hydrocarbon contaminated soils would be excavated with an additional 25%
contingency factor, totaling 16,875 cubic yards of contaminated soils to be excavated over the 40
day period assigned to that task. Estimates of the VOC emissions from contaminated soils off-gassing
utilized EPA estimates for Superfund sites (EPA 1992) assuming nonane (C9) emission
rate of 1.48 grams VOC/second. The EPA approach assumes that all of the pore spaces of the
excavated soils are saturated with the hydrocarbon and that these vapors are emitted as the soil is
excavated. The average excavation rate over the excavation period was utilized as opposed to
the EPA value of 0.42 cubic meters per second.
Excavation of contaminated soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard would also occur. See
the discussion under impact AQ.2 below.

The use of nonane molecular weight materials was used in the EPA equations to estimate off-gassing
emissions as the material at the site is weathered with the material located less than 10-
15 feet deep composed predominately of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons (carbon fraction
range C13-C40+), with some low concentrations of lighter hydrocarbons (<C13) which would be
approximated with the surrogate of nonane (C9). Historical sampling (Brycon 2012) shows that
the highest concentrations of VOCs (C4-C12) are located between 25 and 44 feet deep with
concentrations of C13+ being located between 3 - 44 feet deep. The highest concentrations of
toxic VOCs (benzene, etc) are located between 25 and 40 feet deep, which is below the 15 foot
deep area that would be excavated as part of the Applicant's Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
However, in order to estimate the potential effects of toxic air contaminants associated with the
contaminated soil excavations, modeling was conducted assuming that all contaminated soil at
all depths contain toxic hydrocarbons as defined by the proposed RAP (see toxics analysis
below).
The Project would also involve the laying of asphalt as part of the construction period in Phase 3
and these emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod emission factor of 2.62 lbs VOC/acre
of asphalt. Crushed aggregate would be used for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 periods.
Offsite emissions during construction would be produced by vehicles visiting the site. The
EMFAC2011 emission factors for vehicles were utilized along with the default commute
distances for Los Angeles County in the CalEEMod program (14.7 miles each way).
The proposed parking area at 636 Cypress Avenue was included in the emissions estimates for
Phase 1 building demolition and asphalt paving, as well as offsite vehicle trips for demolition
material hauling using the CalEEMod default values for demolition waste volumes.
Construction air emissions are summarized in Table 4.2-7.
Table 4.2-7 Construction Criteria Emissions
Activity
Peak Day Emissions (lb/day)
VOC CO NOx SOX PM10 PM2.5
Temporary City Maintenance Yard Construction
Construction Equipment 28.11 8.30 14.38 0.01 1.00 0.92
Fugitive Dust Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.39
Subtotal: Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust 28.11 8.30 14.38 0.01 1.66 1.31
Offsite Mobile Emissions 0.12 1.60 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.01
Total 28.23 9.90 14.97 0.01 1.67 1.32
Phase 1 Construction
Total 4.91 32.12 55.67 0.04 5.49 3.20

Table 4.2-7 Construction Criteria Emissions
Activity
Total 2.04 11.53 29.06 0.01 3.36 1.27
Construction Equipment Pipeline Construction 4.58 22.27 45.43 0.05 2.30 2.14
Fugitive Dust Emissions Pipeline Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01
Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust - Pipeline 4.58 22.27 45.43 0.05 2.34 2.14
Construction Equipment Onsite 7.06 31.07 43.54 0.04 2.93 2.73
Fugitive Dust Emissions Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01
Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust - onsite 7.06 31.07 43.54 0.04 2.96 2.73
Total 12.57 62.44 119.92 0.09 5.96 5.47
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Construction
Total 28.47 21.13 32.68 0.03 7.83 4.80
Total 1.49 13.85 18.89 0.19 0.05 0.87
Peak Day, Onsite 28.2 31.1 45.4 0.2 7.5 4.7
Peak Day, Total 41.0 83.6 152.6 0.1 13.8 10.3
SCAQMD Regional Construction Thresholds
(lbs/day) 75 550 100 150 150 55
SCAQMD Localized Construction Thresholds
Lookup Tables (lbs/day) - 755 103 - 5.9 3.6
Significant Impact Regional? No No Yes No No No
Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables? - No No - Yes Yes
Notes: Local significance impacts compared to only onsite emissions. Peak Day=Phase 3 onsite
construction, Pipeline and the City Maintenance Yard construction. City Maintenance Yard construction
assumes Parking Option. See air quality appendix for detailed calculations
Construction emissions generated during the Proposed Project could exceed the SCAQMD
thresholds for NOx, PM2.5 and PM10.
Several Proposed Project activities would generate construction emissions; including Phase 1
and some Phase 2 construction (Phase 2 construction includes installing equipment and setting
up the drilling rig). Some activities would occur simultaneously, specifically during Phase 3
construction, which would include construction at the Proposed Oil Project Site, pipeline
construction, construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard and offsite emissions
associated with traffic traveling to and from the construction sites. Table 4.1-9 shows each

activity and emissions associated with those activities. Appendix B includes the inputs to
estimate the emissions levels.
Impact
AQ.1
Construction activities would generate NOx and PM
emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality
Management District thresholds.
Construction
Class II Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
The highest emissions levels would occur during Phase 3 when the Proposed Oil Project
construction, pipeline construction, and construction of the Proposed City Maintenance Yard
would be occurring simultaneously. Emissions of NOx would exceed the regional significance
criteria (100 lbs per day) before mitigation. All other pollutant emissions would remain below
the regional significance thresholds.
Onsite emissions of particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed the localized significance
thresholds (5.9 and 3.6 pounds per day. See Table 4.2-7) before mitigation.
Mitigation measures to reduce NOx emissions would include the required use of cleaner engines
(called EPA Tier 3). Reductions of PM emissions could be achieved through the use of fugitive
dust measures, such as watering, and other measures listed below.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1a The Applicant shall submit and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes
SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust mitigation, according to Rule 403, and
SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall
include the following (this mitigation is applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project
and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project):
- Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a
construction site (61 percent reduction).
- Require minimum soil moisture of 12 percent for earthmoving, by using a
moveable sprinkler system or water truck. Moisture content can be verified
by lab sample or moisture probe (69 percent reduction).
- Limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of speed
limits.
- All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be tarped
with a fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height of 12 inches (91 percent
reduction).
- Install gravel bed trackout apron (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per
lane, and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) to reduce mud and dirt
trackout from unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent reduction).

- Water storage piles by hand or apply cover when wind events are declared,
according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour (90 percent reduction).
- Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison
concerning onsite construction issues, such as dust generation.
AQ-1b The Applicant shall implement a NOx reduction program including the following, or
equivalent, measures to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is applicable
to both the Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project):
- All off-road construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained according
to manufacturers’ specifications.
- Any temporary electric power shall be obtained from the electrical grid, rather
than portable diesel or gasoline generators.
- All off-road diesel construction equipment with greater than 100-horsepower
engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx requirements.
- Limit onsite truck idling to less than 5 minutes.
- A copy of the certified tier specification, best available control technology
documentation, or the CARB or SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of
equipment shall be kept onsite during all operations.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of Tier 3 engines reduces emissions of NOx and PM. Fugitive dust would be
reduced through the implementation of the mitigation measures. Emissions would be reduced to
below the regional and localized thresholds for all pollutants. Table 4.2-8 shows the mitigated
emissions with revised emission factors for fugitive dust and construction equipment. Therefore,
the proposed construction would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-8 Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated
Activity
Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day)
Total 1.29 31.95 30.31 0.04 2.37 1.43
Total 0.68 11.24 18.13 0.01 1.53 0.61
Construction Equipment Pipeline Construction 1.22 27.24 22.28 0.05 0.95 0.95
Fugitive Dust Emissions Pipeline Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01

Table 4.2-8 Construction Criteria Emissions: Mitigated
Activity
Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day)
Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive Dust -Pipeline 1.22 27.24 22.28 0.05 0.98 0.95
Construction Equipment Onsite 2.54 29.39 21.43 0.04 1.18 1.18
Fugitive Dust Emissions Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01
Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive Dust -Onsite 2.54 29.39 21.43 0.04 1.21 1.18
Total 4.69 65.72 74.66 0.08 2.86 2.73
Proposed City Maintenance Yard Construction
Total 28.47 16.49 19.84 0.03 3.62 2.43
Total 0.36 3.57 8.12 0.06 0.04 0.09
Peak Day, Onsite 28.2 29.4 22.3 0.1 3.3 2.3
Peak Day, Total 33.2 82.2 94.5 0.1 6.5 5.2
SCAQMD Regional Construction Thresholds
(lbs/day) 75 550 100 150 150 55
SCAQMD Localized Construction Thresholds
(lbs/day) - 755 103 - 5.9 3.6
Significant Impact Regional? No No No No No No
Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables? - No No - No No
As discussed above, the Applicant indicates that some of the hydrocarbon impacted soils would
be excavated from shallower soils (less than 25 feet below ground) and the remaining
hydrocarbon impacted soils would be "vapor extracted" in place. Soil sampling data indicates
that most of the toxic and volatile hydrocarbons would be located below the areas that would be
excavated. However, as a worst case, it was assumed that all soils excavated would be
contaminated with the highest levels of toxic contaminants identified in the Applicant RAP and
that the EPA Superfund emission rate (EPA 1992) assuming a surrogate hydrocarbon level of
nonane of total hydrocarbons would occur. Modeling was conducted with AERMOD using an
area source equal to the area of TPH contamination. The rate of soil excavation conservatively
assumed that all hydrocarbon contaminated soils would be excavated with an additional 25%
contingency factor to address the uncertainties associated with the contaminated area.

Impact
AQ.2 Construction activities would generate emissions from
contaminated soil excavation. Construction
Class III
Less Than
Significant
The concentrations of toxic contaminants in the soil range from a high of 1.9 mg/kg of soil for
naphthalene to a low of 0.015 mg/kg of soil for benzene. TPH ranges in the soil for the lighter
hydrocarbons ranged up to 350 mg/kg soil. It assumed that the toxic hydrocarbon constituent
would vaporize with the lighter hydrocarbons to produce the VOC emissions rate discussed
above.
The primary constituent of concern related to acute impacts would be benzene. The acute
reference exposure level (REL) as defined by the OEHHA (OEHHA 2013) for benzene is 1,300
ug/m3 in the air and the modeled levels at the closest offsite location would be substantially
below this level. Therefore, no acute impacts would be anticipated based on the SCAQMD
thresholds for acute risks.
The primary constituents of concern related to chronic impacts would be benzene (REL of 60
ug/m3), ethylbenzene (REL of 2,000 ug/m3) and naphthalene (REL of 9 ug/m3). The combined
health hazard index (HI, the ratio of the anticipated concentration divided by the REL) at the
closest offsite location would be 0.003, primarily due to the presence of naphthalene. This
would be considered a less than significant impact.
Cancer screening, using the OEHHA cancer potency factors for benzene, ethylbenzene and
naphthalene yield an estimated cancer risk for the peak year (as per the SCAQMD Rule 1401) of
0.13 in a million at the closest offsite location, also primarily due to naphthalene. This also
would be considered a less than significant impact.
The SCAQMD Rule 1166 requires measures that would substantially reduce the emissions of
VOC from the soil excavation activities. These include:
• Monitoring for VOC contamination at least once every 15 minutes commencing at the
beginning of excavation or grading;
• All VOC soils shall be segregated, covered and watered for all periods longer than 1 hour
to reduce VOC emissions;
• All contaminated soils shall be removed from the site at least every 30 days;
• If soils contain VOC greater than 1,000 ppm, they shall be, as soon as possible, but not
more than 15 minutes, loaded into trucks, moistened with additional water, covered and
transported off site.
Implementation of the monitoring and VOC reduction measures required by Rule 1166 would
substantially reduce the emissions of toxic vapors. Therefore, the proposed construction
contaminated soils excavation activity would be less than significant (Class III).
Contaminated soils at the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Site are classified as containing
semi-volatile hydrocarbons and lead. Neither of these contaminants would produce impacts
greater than those identified at the Project Site as the volatility of the materials are lower (i.e. less

would go into the air). SCAQMD Rule 1166 would apply to activities at the Proposed City
Maintenance Yard Site. Therefore, the proposed construction at the Proposed City Maintenance
Yard Site would be less than significant (Class III).
4.2.4.4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Air emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx, CO, VOC, SO2 and PM) during operations would
result from equipment associated with combustion (e.g., microturbines and the flare), fugitive
emissions of VOCs from components and from offsite vehicles (e.g., employee commuter
vehicles and trucks delivering supplies, trucks hauling crude oil, etc.).
Combustion emissions were estimated utilizing the proposed equipment heat/fuel ratings along
with emission factors. During Phase 2, the flare would be used to combust the produced gas
because none of the gas would be used onsite or transported offsite.
During Phase 4, the microturbines would be used to generate onsite electricity by burning some
of the produced gas from the Project wells. The flare would be utilized during emergency
situations or to allow for maintenance of the gas processing equipment and burn all of the
produced gas so that the wells would not need to be shut-in if the gas plant equipment
malfunctions or needs to be repaired. Shut-in of wells involves stopping the pumps and closing
the main valves on each well to prevent flow from the wells. Emission factors for the
microturbines and flares (flare for Phase 2 and Phase 4, microturbine for Phase 4 only) are based
on Applicant submitted manufacturers information for NOx, CO and VOC. PM emission factors
are based on EPA AP-42.
Fugitive emissions are associated with gas leaks from fittings, valves, and tanks. The amount of
gas that leaks from tanks is a function of the amount of crude oil throughput as the level of crude
oil in the tank is raised and lowered, leaving a film of crude oil on the sides of the tank. The
proposed tanks would have fixed roofs. The Applicant has proposed a vapor recovery system
that was included in the air emissions calculations. Calculations utilized the EPA Tanks version
409d emissions model. Crude throughput was assumed to be the maximum throughput identified
in Section 2.0, Project Description for Phase 2 and Phase 4. There would also be fugitive
emissions from valves, compressors, pumps and connections. These emissions are a function of
the number of components and the levels of maintenance. Component counts were estimated
based on the Applicant-supplied information.
Emission factors for fugitive components are based on the SCAQMD Guidelines for Fugitive
Emissions Calculations (SCAQMD 2003) default emission factors for oil and gas production
facilities (Form P1 or P1U). Because these emission factors do not include the use of an
inspection and maintenance program, as prescribed and required by SCAQMD Rule 1173, a
reduction level of 80 percent was applied to these emissions to account for the quarterly Leak
Detection and Reporting (LDAR) protocol as required by Rule 1173 (SBCAPCD 1998). Note
that, using a correlation equation to estimate emissions (the procedure used in the air emissions
study provided by the Applicant), where the number of "leakers" and "non-leakers", and the level
of "leakers", for a facility is known based on historical monitoring data, would not be applicable
in this case as the facility has not been built yet. The SCAQMD default fugitive emission rate

correlates to about a 1.5 percent leaker rate (a leaker being defined as a hydrocarbon value of
greater than 10,000 ppm detected at the valve location) based on the CAPCOA correlation
equations (CAPCOA 1999). EPA estimates a similar leaker rate in industry studies (USEPA
1994).
Emissions associated with drilling have been included in the operational emissions estimates
because drilling could occur over an extended period of time during Phase 4 (2.5 years) and
could continue intermittently for the life of the Project. In addition, because drilling would be
occurring at the same time as facility operations (crude processing and shipping during Phase 2)
and crude processing, shipping and gas processing (during Phase 4), the SCAQMD requires that
these emissions be calculated and compared to the operational emissions thresholds.
Because drilling would be performed using an electric drilling rig, drilling emissions at the
Project Site would be limited to emissions from support equipment used to handle piping and
equipment (a forklift) as well as potential emissions from muds handling. Muds that originate
from areas of the borehole that contain hydrocarbons could come to the surface and release
hydrocarbon vapors ("mud off-gassing"). Emissions estimates for muds off-gassing have not
been well documented in the industry. EPA AP-42 does not address muds off-gassing, for
example. The SCAQMD has begun exploring a potential rule adoption and protocols for
estimating muds off-gassing emissions (SCAQMD 2012). Drillers often monitor the
hydrocarbon levels in the vapors immediately coming off of the muds as they leave the wellhead
in order to assess the potential for increased well pressures and to ensure they have proper well
control.
Due to the large amount of drilling activity in Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality Air Quality Division has published some emission inventories which estimate muds off-gassing
at about 75 pounds of VOC per day (ERGI 2007). For this Project, this was estimated to
occur only during the last 500 feet of well drilling as the wells begin to encounter zones with
hydrocarbons. Well workovers are maintenance activities performed on a well that use a rig
similar to a drilling rig, but are less equipment intensive as an actual hole is not drilled (no muds
used, etc). Workovers would occur for periods of up to 90 days per year for the life of the
Project; this limitation is imposed by the 1993 CUP conditions. Well workovers would utilize a
truck mounted drilling rig that would require a diesel generator and a diesel truck engine to be
operating during the workover operations.
Operational emissions are shown in Table 4.2-9 for Phase 2 with drilling, Phase 2 with testing
only, Phase 4 with drilling and Phase 4 without drilling. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard
operational emissions would not change from the current City Maintenance Yard operational
emissions and are therefore not shown. The Proposed City Maintenance Yard would not involve
combustion sources (beyond vehicle use) and would therefore not produce any localized impacts.
Odors from the site would be associated with normal vehicle maintenance activities and would
not exceed the current operations.
Some potential impacts would be classified as Class III, or less than significant. These include
impacts related to localized exceedances of CO standards "hot spots" and impacts related to truck
traffic and health risk. CO hot spots are created when a substantial amount of traffic is generated
by a project that causes congestion at an intersection. The vehicle emissions of CO can produce

localized exceedances of the CO standards. Generally, the number of vehicle trips needed to
generate enough traffic to contribute to CO hot spots would be more than a few thousand per day
The Proposed Project would not generate enough traffic to generate CO hot spots.
Table 4.2-9 Operational Criteria Emissions
Activity
Phase 2 Test Drilling and Testing
Testing Equipment & fugitives 23.2 3.9 6.0 0.2 1.9 1.9
Drilling Equipment & fugitives 76.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.2
Subtotal: Constr. Equip and Fugitive
Dust 99.3 4.8 7.6 0.2 2.2 2.1
Total 99.7 8.3 21.6 0.2 2.5 2.4
Phase 2 Testing Only
Combustion Equip and Fugitives 23.2 3.9 6.0 0.2 1.9 1.9
Total 23.3 5.2 11.1 0.2 2.1 2.0
Phase 4 Operations and Drilling
Processing Equipment and Fugitives 32.6 278.0 151.6 1.5 18.8 18.4
Drilling Emissions and Fugitives 76.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.2
Subtotal: Stationary Equip, Workovers
and Drilling 108.7 278.9 153.2 1.5 19.1 18.7
Total 108.8 281.5 160.8 1.5 19.2 18.8
Phase 4 Operations Only
Workover Emissions 2.1 11.0 21.7 0.0 1.0 0.9
Subtotal: Stationary Equip, Workovers
and Drilling 34.7 289.0 173.4 1.5 19.8 19.4
Total 34.8 291.3 177.4 1.5 19.9 19.4
SCAQMD Regional Operations
Thresholds (lbs/day) 55 550 55 150 150 55
SCAQMD Localized Operations
Thresholds (lbs/day) - 755 103 1.3 1
Significant Impact Regional? Yes No Yes No No No
Significant Impact Local Lookup
Tables? No Yes Yes Yes
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Truck traffic generating above about 100-200 vehicles per day over a long operational period can
produce localized cancer-related impacts due to diesel emissions. Because cancer risks are based
on lifetime exposure, the truck trips would need to be associated with the long term operational
characteristics of a Project instead of just the relatively short-duration construction activities.

The Proposed Project (Proposed Oil Project and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project)
would not generate enough operational truck trips to cause health risk impacts from diesel
particulate emissions. Note that SCAQMD significance criteria for cancer risk are based on the
incremental increase in cancer risk levels.
Impact
AQ.3
Regional Impacts: Operational activities would generate
Management District VOC and NOx regional thresholds.
Operations
Phase 2 and
Phase 4.
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
During emergency scenarios, the produced gas would be routed to the flare instead of to the gas
processing equipment. The flare operations are limited by the SCAQMD to 200 hours per year.
During a peak day, the flare could operate for 24 hours. If this were to occur, the operational
emissions generated would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx (55 lbs per day)
and would be considered significant before mitigation.
Emissions of volatile organic carbons (VOCs) would also exceed the SCAQMD regional
thresholds (55 lbs per day) before mitigation due primarily to the fugitive emissions from tanks,
valves and components and muds off-gassing during drilling and would be considered
significant.
During a normal operational day, with just the microturbines operating, the SCAQMD regional
thresholds for NOx would not be exceeded but emissions of VOC would continue to be exceeded
before mitigation.
Mitigation would include limiting the operating hours of the flare on the peak day, installing
muds VOC capturing devices and reducing VOC fugitive emissions.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-3a The Applicant shall limit flaring during Phase 4 to a total of 5 hours per day at the full
flaring capacity (or to an equivalent volume of flared gas) during all emergency or
routine flaring events in order to ensure that NOx emissions are reduced below the
thresholds. Lower NOx emission combustors or other equivalent measures can also be
used to satisfy the requirement.
AQ-3b The Applicant shall implement methods to reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least
90 percent through the installation of fully enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control
(either through carbon canisters or vapor recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing
units routed to vapor control systems. The Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor
immediately above the muds exit point from the wellbore and at other areas above the
mud pits where muds may be exposed to the atmosphere in order to ensure that
hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the minimum rate of 90 percent.

Residual Impacts
Implementation of reduced flare daily hours and reductions in the vapor from muds degassing
would reduce the emissions of NOx and VOC from the operations and drilling to less than the
thresholds. Emissions levels are shown in Table 4.2-10. Therefore, the proposed operational
emissions would be considered less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-10 Operational Criteria Emissions: Mitigated
Activity
Phase 2 Test Drilling and Testing
Testing Equipment & fugitives 23.2 3.9 6.0 0.2 1.9 1.9
Drilling Equipment & fugitives 7.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2
Subtotal: Constr. Eq and Fugitive Dust 30.8 4.9 6.6 0.2 2.1 2.1
Total 31.2 8.4 20.6 0.2 2.4 2.3
Phase 2 Testing Only
Combustion Equipment and Fugitives 23.2 3.9 6.0 0.2 1.9 1.9
Total 23.3 5.2 11.1 0.2 2.1 2.0
Phase 4 Operations and Drilling
Drilling Emissions and Fugitives 7.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2
Subtotal: Stationary Eq, Workovers and Drilling 20.4 44.6 24.4 0.2 3.2 3.1
Total 20.5 47.2 31.9 0.2 3.3 3.2
Phase 4 Operations Only
Workover Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal: Stationary Eq, Workovers and Drilling 12.7 43.6 23.8 0.2 3.0 2.9
Total 12.8 45.9 27.9 0.2 3.0 2.9
SCAQMD Regional Operations Thresholds
(lbs/day) 55 550 55 150 150 55
SCAQMD Localized Operations Thresholds
(lbs/day) - 755 103 1.3 1
Significant Impact Regional? No No No No No No
Significant Impact Local Lookup Tables? No No Yes Yes

Impact
AQ.4
Local Impacts: Operational activities would generate PM
Management District local thresholds.
Operations
Phase 2 and
Phase 4.
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Emissions from the microturbines or from the flare would cause the localized thresholds from the
SCAQMD lookup tables to be exceeded for the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions even after the
mitigation for the regional thresholds. Therefore, modeling using the AERMOD program was
utilized to estimate the localized impacts following the guidance from the SCAQMD website
(http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_ModelingGuidance.html).
Modeling parameters are listed below based on Applicant and manufacturers' information.
• For the Phase 2 flare, the exhaust stack diameter: 3.5 feet, the exhaust gas exit
temperature: 2000 deg F and the exhaust gas exit velocity: 15.3 feet/second;
• For the Phase 4 flare, the exhaust stack diameter: 10 feet, the exhaust gas exit
temperature: 2000 deg F and the exhaust gas exit velocity: 15.3 feet/second;
• For the Phase 4 microturbines, there would be 5 separate stacks, one associated with each
microturbine, with the following characteristics each: exhaust stack diameter: 1 foot,
exhaust gas exit temperature: 325 deg F, exhaust gas exit velocity: 10.6 feet/second.
• All stacks would be 16 feet high.
For Phase 4, as the microturbine and flare stacks would be located within an area that has a 16
foot wall (when there is no drilling) or a 32 foot sound wall (when there is drilling), building
downwash effects need to be included. Aerodynamic building downwash is a phenomenon
caused by eddies created by air movement around building obstacles. Wind-tunnel and field
studies have demonstrated that incorporating estimates of wind speed, streamline deflection, and
turbulence intensities in the wake of wind flow over nearby buildings, as related to the location
of the source, are crucial to accurately modeling ground level concentrations of pollutants. For a
given source-building configuration, the dominant effect depends on the wind direction relative
to the building face (affecting the amount of streamline descent) and the wind speed (controlling
the rate of rise of the plume).
Studies by Schulman (Schulman 2000) indicate that, for the parameters of the wall proposed by
the Applicant, the wind "cavity", meaning the area downwind most influenced by the building
downwash effect, would extend from 40 to 70 meters (for the 16 foot and 32 foot walls,
respectively, using the equations from Schulman). The microturbine and flare stacks would be
located within these cavities and, even though shorter than the 32 foot wall, would be
substantially influenced by the downwash effect. Peak offsite pollutant concentrations increase
by 2-3 times with the inclusion of building downwash effects.
The building downwash parameters were estimated using the BPIPPRM program (EPRI 1997)
assuming a 18 inch thick wall surrounding the site at 16 feet high or 32 feet high for the sound
wall. Stack locations were placed based on the plot plans supplied as part of the Application.

For Phase 2, there would not be a 16 foot wall around the site so the building downwash
corrections were not used unless drilling is taking place. Then the 32 foot sound wall was
included with the corresponding downwash effects.
The soundwall would be twice the height of the flare or microturbine stacks and could
substantially influence the flow of wind around and near the site and influence the plume
behavior and the ground level concentrations of pollutants. The AERMOD model building
downwash algorithms was also run assuming a 32 foot wall around the site for Phase 2 and
Phase 4 drilling periods to ensure that the modeling results are accurate.
Modeling was run using terrain data generated from AERMAP and digital elevation files. The
model was also run with the FLAT option (no terrain effects) to ensure that the maximum
impacts were assessed (as per SCAQMD modeling guidance). The urban dispersion modeling
setting was utilized with an urban population of 9,862,049 (as per SCAQMD Guidance).
A near field receptor grid with receptors every 10 meters was used extending 250 meters from
the site, with a grid of every 50 meters used beyond that for a distance of about 1 km. The site
boundary was set with receptors approximately every 8 meters.
Modeling results are shown below in Table 4.2-11. Levels are shown for the peak concentration
at a sensitive (residential) receptor, as per SCAQMD Guidance for localized impacts.
Table 4.2-11 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter
Pollutant Background,
ug/m3
Project
Contribution,
ug/m3
Project +
Background
ug/m3
Threshold Significant?
Phase 2 Flaring
PM 24 hr 31 1.37 32.37 2.5 change No
PM Annual 19.8 0.34 20.14 1.0 change No
Phase 4 Flaring
PM 24 hr 31 3.85 34.85 2.5 change Yes
Phase 4
Microturbines
PM 24 hr 31 4.87 35.87 2.5 change Yes
PM Annual 19.8 1.37 21.17 1.0 change Yes
Note: The flare and the microturbine would not operate at the same time.
Source: AERMOD modeling, see Appendix B
Localized impacts associated with the Phase 4 operations would exceed the thresholds for
particulate matter (PM - 2.5 ug/m3 increment) and would be considered significant before
mitigation.
Localized impacts associated with Phase 2 flaring would be below the thresholds.
Mitigation measures discussed above, including limits on the daily flaring, would reduce PM
emissions associated with the flare. Mitigation requiring microturbines that produce less PM

emissions, or the installation of fewer microturbines, thereby purchasing more electricity from
the grid, would reduce localized impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-4 The Applicant shall limit the microturbine PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an
equivalent reduction in the number and/or size of the microturbines, in order to reduce
emissions to below the localized thresholds. The City shall be responsible for
ensuring that the applicant will be subject to permit conditions that limit emissions
from the set of microturbines, not just individual permit units.
Residual Impacts
Implementation of reduced flare daily hours and reductions in the microturbine PM emissions
would reduce the localized impacts from the operations and drilling to less than the localized
thresholds (see Table 4.2-12). As all of the microturbines are not critical to the functioning of
the facility (additional electrical power could be purchased from the grid with substantially
smaller turbines or heaters to satisfy the minimal heat demands), this mitigation would be
feasible. Therefore, the proposed operational emissions would be considered less than
significant with mitigation (Class II).
Table 4.2-12 Localized Modeling Results for Combustion Source Particulate Matter: Mitigated
Pollutant Background,
ug/m3
Project
Contribution,
ug/m3
Project +
Background
Threshold Significant?
Phase 2 Flaring
PM 24 hr 31 1.37 32.37 2.5 change No
Phase 4 Flaring
PM 24 hr 31 0.60 31.60 2.5 change No
Phase 4
Microturbines
PM 24 hr 31 2.29 33.29 2.5 change No
Source: AERMOD modeling, see Air Quality Appendi

Impact
AQ.5 Operational activities could generate emissions that
produce offsite odor impacts.
Operations
Phase 2 and
Phase 4.
Class I
Significant
and
Unavoidable
An odor is produced by the release of material that contains even small amounts of sulfur
compounds or hydrocarbons. A single odor "release" could cause multiple odor complaints.
Several compounds associated with the oil and gas industry can produce nuisance odors. Sulfur
compounds, found in oil and gas, have very low odor threshold levels. For instance, H2S
(hydrogen sulfide) can be detected by humans at concentrations from 0.5 parts per billion (ppb,
or 0.0005 ppm) (detected by 2 percent of the population) to 40 ppb, qualified as annoying by 50
percent of the population. Above these levels, it would be detected by most people. This
analysis assumed an odor threshold of 2 ppb.
The OSHA allowable limit for 8-hour occupational exposure to H2S is 20 ppm with a 50 ppm
peak over 10 minutes (29 CFR 1910.1000 Z-2 Table). Inhaling 100 ppm of H2S for 60 minutes
can be lethal according to the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (AIHA 2008).
The H2S levels within the produced gas within the piping are estimated by the Applicant to be
less than 6 ppm. However, it is possible that it could range up to 100 ppm in the produced gas
because the gas plant would be designed to process gas with up to 100 ppm H2S. As a worst
case, gas H2S levels of 100 ppm within the produced gas have been assumed. Note that 100 ppm
within the piping does not equate to 100 ppm in the atmosphere at a location where employees or
the public could inhale it at that level due to mixing and dispersion in the air.
Many volatile compounds found in oil and gas (pentane, n-pentane, hexane, ethane and longer
chain hydrocarbons) also typically have a petroleum or gasoline odor with varying odor
thresholds. The most odiferous of these compounds are hexane, which has an odor threshold of
between 68 and 248 ppm, and pentane, with an odor threshold of 2 ppm (CDC 1978, ScienceLab
2013). Other materials used at an oil and gas site, include hydrochloric acid or corrosion
inhibitors, can also produce odors if spilled.
Natural gas contains mostly methane, which is odorless so it is odorized as dictated by law
before entering a distribution pipeline. The compounds used to odorize gas contain sulfur
compounds and have very low odor thresholds and can produce odors if released into the
atmosphere.
During Phase 2 and 4, the facility would inspect components for fugitive emissions as required
by SCAQMD rule 1173 “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from
Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants.” Rule 1173 prohibits: (1) leaks of light
liquids greater than three drops per minute; (2) leaks from gas components greater than 10,000
ppm; (3) leaks from heavy liquid components greater than 100 to 500 ppm; and (4) leaks from a
pressure relief valve greater than 200 ppm. Rule 1173 also requires daily inspection of
compressors, pumps, and pressure relief devices and inspection of all other components at least
quarterly. Any leaks identified greater than 10,000 ppm are required to be repaired within 2 days
and any leaks greater than 25,000 ppm are required to be repaired in 1 day.

Odor releases could occur due to many different situations associated with equipment or drilling
upset conditions. The equipment components could also leak and cause odors. During drilling,
drilling muds, well kicks, and releases from increased pressure up the wellbore could cause odor
releases. During drilling, pockets of gas can be encountered, which can be picked up by the
circulating muds, brought to the surface, and released through the muds processing system (muds
off-gassing, discussed above). During workovers, the well hole is opened and hydrocarbons are
exposed to the atmosphere, potentially causing odors.
There are an estimated 400 oil and gas production facilities operating within Los Angeles County
(as per the SCAQMD Board meeting June 6, 2014). The agency’s current odor complaint
identification and investigation practices are effective but, in some cases, odors are elusive. The
AQMD receives thousands of complaints about odor from the public each year. Odors are the
single largest source of complaints reported by residents of the South Coast Air Basin and
comprise almost half of the total air quality complaints received annually. Facilities frequently
reported as suspected sources of odors include waste transfer and recycling stations, wastewater
treatment plants, landfills, composting operations, petroleum operations, food and byproduct
processes, factories, and agricultural activities, such as livestock operations (as per the
SCAQMD Board meeting June 6, 2014). While many oil and gas production facilities operate
without generating NOVs, NOVs have occurred at oilfields in the Los Angeles area, with two
recent high profile odor releases occurring at the Baldwin Hills Oilfield (which generated a
drilling moratorium, an EIR and the development of a Community Standards District in 2008)
and the Allenco Facility (which generated over 270 odor complaints between 2010 and 2013, as
per SCAQMD).
An MND prepared by the SCAQMD as the lead agency for the Warren E&P Project in
Wilmington, addressed the potential for odors (SCAQMD website, CEQA documents, July 2011
and June 2014). The issue of odors was somewhat controversial as the facility had multiple odor
complaints in the past and was applying to install additional equipment. Numerous comments
received on the MND addressed odors. The SCAQMD concluded that odor would be less than
significant because "the proposed project does not include any new odor emitting equipment
associated with oil drilling or increased production" and that many of the areas around the site
are "developed with industrial, commercial, and oil production uses" with some residential uses.
The MND also indicated that it is possible that oil drilling could cause the release of odorous
compounds. Odor complaints were made (in 2006) that were related to the handling of drilling
muds and cuttings. Warren E&P implemented additional abatement plans and surveillance for
potential odors. Therefore, for existing facilities, where no new odor sources are being installed
and where some separation between receptors occurs, impacts would be less than significant.
The Warren E&P sites closest well is 150 feet and processing equipment is 750 feet from the
closest residence), odors would be a less than significant impact.
There are minimal existing odor sources at the current Project Site and the introduction of new
odor sources at the site would increase the potential for an odor release which generates six (6)
odor complaints (and would violate Rule 402) at some point in the life of the facility.
Any scenario that produces an offsite odor and subsequent odor complaints (six or more as per
SCAQMD Guidelines) and that is confirmed by either City staff or SCQMD staff to be
associated with the facility would be considered a significant impact.

Due to the close proximity of the site to neighbors, businesses and the public (within 100 feet of
businesses, 160 feet of residences, 55 feet of the Greenbelt and 20 feet of the public sidewalks),
numerous other scenarios could cause odors offsite. These could include various maintenance
activities, small spills and "leaker" components. A single component defined as a "leaker" by
Rule 1173 (>10,000 ppm) from a compressor or pump seal, for example, could produce odor
impacts 100 feet downwind and would produce odor impacts offsite (as per AERMOD modeling
assuming a point source, leaking at the SCAQMD pegged emission rate).
Modeling was conducted to predict the potential extent of odor impacts from normal operations
fugitive component leaks and muds off-gassing. The modeling utilized the same meteorological
parameters and air dispersion models as the health risk analysis using the HARP Model and was
conducted using the AERMOD modeling program assuming area sources for gas component
fugitive leaks, muds off-gassing and oil component fugitive leaks. The H2S concentration was
assumed to be 100 ppm as a worst case. H2S in crude oil vapors was assumed to be 10 times
higher as a worst case because vapors above crude oil containing even small amounts of H2S can
have a substantially higher H2S content than the gas. The odor threshold was conservatively set
at 2 parts per billion (ppb) for H2S. The modeling was based on the SCAQMD AERMOD
meteorological files for LAX which cover 5 years of data.
The results of the modeling indicate that fugitive emissions from normal operations could
produce concentrations greater than the odor threshold from the Project equipment without
mitigation, which would reach nearby residences and businesses and public areas offsite.
Concentrations of odiferous materials could be as high as 6 times the odor threshold, primarily
driven by H2S levels. Odor impacts from normal operations would therefore be considered
potentially significant without mitigation.
Because the odor thresholds for materials are very low, in the parts per billion, releases of odor
causing materials creates impacts at considerable distances. Therefore, odor impacts associated
with accidental releases, or unplanned minor releases from the oil or gas equipment, due to the
close proximity of neighbors, could impact surrounding areas and would also be a potentially
significant impact.
The frequency of odor releases can be reduced with systems that direct odor-causing releases to
flare-type systems, the use of odor masking materials, and implementing systems to notify
operators when releases could or do occur. Increased vigilance associated with Rule 1173 also
can reduce emissions from fugitive components. These mitigation measures are frequently
utilized in oil fields in urban areas.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-5a The Applicant shall at all times have a gas buster and SCAQMD-approved portable
flare at the site and connected for immediate use to circulate out and combust any gas
encountered during drilling. The flare shall be capable of recording the volume of gas
that is flared. The operator shall report any flared gas from drilling to the Hermosa
Beach Fire Chief and the SCAQMD.

AQ-5b The Applicant shall install a compressor seal vent collection system. In the event of a
seal leak, vapors shall be collected and sent to the vapor recovery system or flare for
destruction.
AQ-5c The Applicant shall develop and implement an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to
and approved by the City and the SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan shall
address reducing the frequency from potential sources of odors from all site
equipment, including wells and drilling operations, temporary operations such as truck
loading, and measures to reduce or eliminate these odors (e.g., containment, design
modifications, carbon canisters). The Plan shall address issues such as facility
information, buffer zones, signs with contact information, logs of odor complaints, the
protocol for handling odor complaints and odor release investigations and methods
instituted to prevent a re-occurrence. The Plan shall require that all odor complaints
and issues be immediately communicated to the City and that the City shall have the
authority to implement and enforce contingency measures to ensure that any nuisance
odors from the facility are eliminated. The Plan shall also provide for training of
employees/contractors as well as City staff in identifying odors.
AQ-5d The Applicant shall develop and implement an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall
provide for the monitoring of total hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide and total
hydrocarbon vapors at all perimeter locations of the facility as well as at strategic
locations near processing equipment. At all times during operations, drilling,
redrilling and workover operations, the Operator shall maintain monitoring equipment
that shall monitor and digitally record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total
hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors shall provide automatic alarms that are audible
and visible to the Operator of the drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall be
triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm
points shall be set at a maximum of 5 and 10 ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm
hydrocarbons, with the higher level requiring shut-down of drilling or plant operations
and the lower level requiring notification to appropriate agencies, including the
Hermosa Beach Fire Department and SCAQMD. A meteorological station to monitor
wind speed and direction under the guidance and specification of the SCAQMD shall
be installed at the site. The Air Monitoring Plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the City and the SCAQMD.
AQ-5e The Applicant shall use an odor suppressant spray system on the mud shaker tables,
and shall install carbon capture canisters on all tanks (permanent and portable) that are
not equipped with vapor recovery, containing potentially odiferous materials (for
example; the mud baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations so that no odor can be
detected at the closest receptor.
AQ-5f The fugitive component leak detection program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a Leak
Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level of monthly detections with an action level of
100ppm, the installation of bellows valves where applicable (valves 2 inches or
smaller) and the use of IR cameras or equivalent during monthly detections to ensure
that leaking components are minimized at the facility.

Residual Impacts
Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce the frequency of odor releases of the kind
that have resulted in odor complaints and NOVs at other oilfields in urban settings in the past, as
well as other suspected sources of odors associated with the site operations. Although odor
releases generating odor complaints could still occur, with mitigation the number of odor
releases would most likely be reduced. In addition, normal operations leaking components and
muds off-gassing impacts would produce offsite odor concentrations that would be below the
odor thresholds. While the Applicant has proposed the development of air monitoring and odor
minimization plans, the mitigation measures provide a degree of specificity, addressing issues
that are important to include in each plan, and are therefore included as mitigation. Training of
City staff in odor recognition, in combination with mitigation measure FP-1c requiring additional
staffing at the City Fire Department, would assist in ensuring that responding to odor complaints
is prompt and would help to reduce the elusiveness of identifying odor releases.
However, due to the close proximity of residences, business and public and recreational areas,
eliminating odor releases that produce more than six odor complaints would be difficult because
the close proximity means that even small upset releases could generate odor complaints.
Impacts would therefore remain significant.
Using portable flares and odor suppressants during drilling would reduce the odor releases
associated with mud vapors and drilling gasses. Technology to separate the muds from entrained
gasses and utilize flares, or equivalent devices, to combust the gasses would help reduce the
impacts of releases similar to the January 2006 release at the Baldwin Hill Oilfield, where gasses
entrained in the muds were released and detected by oilfield neighbors. However, note that in
the case of the Baldwin Hills Oilfield, neighbors were more than 1,000 feet from the drilling
activities. At the Project Site, activities would occur within 20 feet of the public sidewalks, 55
feet from recreational facilities and 100 feet of businesses.
The flare systems would be required to utilize a de-gassing vessel (i.e., gas buster). When high
gas levels or pressures are detected, the muds would be re-directed to pass through this vessel to
release entrained gasses. These gasses would be combusted in a flare while the liquid muds
would flow to muds processing. The dedicated flare pilot or igniter would automatically and
immediately ignite the flare gasses. The flare would essentially eliminate all of the hydrocarbons
in the gas, and the combustion of gasses would create substantial heat, providing the combusted
products with sufficient buoyancy to rise quickly into the air without producing odors. This type
of flare technology for drilling operations is well developed in the oil and gas industry.
Note that mitigation measures identified for impact AQ.3 would reduce normal operations muds
off-gassing by 90 percent, which would also reduce potential sources of odor impacts.
Engineering analysis of the operations identified tank hatches and compressor seals as a potential
odor source. The Applicant has indicated that tank hatches would be vented to the vapor
recovery system. Compressor seals can also produce substantial leaks. Directing compressor
seals to the vapor recovery system would also reduce the likelihood that a compressor seal vent
would produce an odor release.

There is a degree of uncertainty associated with estimating odor impacts because high variability
in sensitivity and subjectivity exists within the population. There are a number of maintenance
activities and upset activities that could lead to odors, the frequencies of which are difficult to
quantify. The quantification methods used in this analysis were used to establish whether the
facility would produce normal, daily odor releases. It was determined that this would not be the
case. Any nuisance situation would be investigated by the SCAQMD, and the City/Fire
Department, and odor complaints would need to be verified that it was the Project Site
generating the odors. The odor issues would most likely be controlled or managed in a manner
that would reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the nuisance release. However, these releases
could still occur and, due to the close proximity of receptors, impacts would therefore be
significant.
The extent of impacts of odors would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the facility. Odors
beyond 500-1,000 feet would most likely not occur except for an accident scenario (see Section
4.8, Safety and Risk) where a substantial amount of gas could be released. The health risk
assessment indicated that health risks and health problems associated with short term exposure (1
hour), chronic exposure (8 hour) or long term exposure (multi-year), with mitigation, would be
less than significant for normal operations (see impact AQ.7 below). The levels of H2S (the
primary odor component) offsite would not exceed the OSHA permissible levels for 8-hour
exposure (20 ppm) as the H2S levels in the facility piping would not be allowed to exceed 100
ppm. H2S levels in the atmosphere offsite would be substantially less than those within the
facility piping due to mixing with the air and dispersion. The OEHHA Reference Exposure
Levels (REL, the level at which health effects would start to be realized) for H2S are 7 and 29
ppb for chronic and acute impacts (see impact AQ.7 below), both of which are above the odor
threshold of 2 ppb used in this analysis. These levels could be exceeded during an accidental or
unplanned release in the immediate vicinity of the site (nearby receptors along Cypress, 8th
Street, Valley Drive, 6th Street and Greenbelt), but would not be exceeded during normal
operations. Note that H2S levels that can cause odors are below those that can cause health
effects.
By implementing these mitigation measures, the oil operations would reduce the frequency of
odor complaints and impacts to neighbors. However, any of these releases could produce
relatively localized odors impacting close proximity receptors due to the degree of proximity of
operations to neighbors and because many activities at the site could still cause odors, including
maintenance activities such as line, tank or vessel openings; workovers removing well hole
equipment (pumps or tubing), thereby exposing the well equipment to the atmosphere; minor
accident scenarios; and drilling activities including muds handling that could cause short-duration,
intermittent odors, or pump leaks. Therefore, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable (Class I).

4.2.4.5 Potential Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With the addition of combustion and gas processing equipment at the field, and the drilling
operations, emissions of GHG would occur.
Impact
AQ.6 Potential operations and drilling at the Project Site would
increase greenhouse gas emissions. Phase 1 - 4
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
GHG emissions were estimated utilizing the same equipment size and fuel use data that were
used to estimate criteria emissions, along with emission factors as defined by the CARB and the
EPA (see Appendix B for the detailed calculations). GHG associated with operations include
emissions from combustion sources (e.g., flare, microturbines), offsite vehicles (including crude
oil trucking during Phase 2), electrical generation, and fugitive emissions that contain CO2 and
methane. The largest sources of GHG emissions would be the microturbines, the flare, and
offsite electrical generation.
GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.2-13. Emissions associated with stationary equipment,
offsite vehicles and electrical generation would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000
MTCO2e per year during Phase 4, both during drilling and during operations without drilling;
therefore, the impact would be significant. Phase 2 GHG emissions would not exceed the
thresholds. Construction emissions have been amortized over 25 years and added to the Phase 4
GHG emissions.
Mitigation measures could include a wide variety of measures, detailed in a plan and annual
reports from the Applicant, from onsite increased efficiency to offsite programs implemented in
the community, which would reduce GHG emissions. Onsite measures could include: reduced
facility water consumption (by reducing pumping electrical consumption and water treatment
emissions), waste generation, and material use; recycling to the maximum extent feasible; or
equipment changes such as elimination or a reduction in the use of the microturbines. Offsite
measures could include sponsoring solar installation, or methane-capture technology projects,
including methane capture from dairy and agricultural operations, as well as purchasing offsets
from approved sources. All of these activities would reduce emission of GHG.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-6 The Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions generated above the
threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall
be submitted to the SCAQMD and the City detailing the measures to be implemented
to achieve the required reductions, updated annually, and shall include specifications
on the protocol, vintage, and registry for any offsite mitigation. The following
mitigation credits shall not require prior City or SCAQMD approval:

1. Credits generated within Los Angeles County per an approved SCAQMD
protocol;
2. Credits generated within the State of California per an approved SCAQMD
protocol;
3. Credits that are generated and verified under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program;
4. Credits that are generated and verified under the voluntary SCAQMD
Regulation XXVII;
5. Verified credits registered with the Climate Action Reserve or the American
Carbon Registry.
In addition, independently verified GHG credits available through other carbon
registries that follow specific protocols may be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject
to review and prior approval by the City and the SCAQMD. The general criteria for
acceptable credits include:
• Real: emission reduction must have actually occurred, as the result of a project
yielding quantifiable and verifiable reductions or removals.
• Additional/Surplus: an emission reduction cannot be required by a law, rule, or
other requirement.
• Quantifiable: reductions must be quantifiable through tools or tests that are
reliable, based on applicable methodologies, and recorded with adequate
documentation.
• Verifiable: The action taken to produce credits can be audited and there is
sufficient evidence to show that the reduction occurred and was quantified
correctly.
• Enforceable: An enforcement mechanism must exist to ensure that the
reduction project is implemented correctly.
• Permanent: Emission reductions or removals must continue to occur for the
expected life of the reduction project.
Operational/drilling GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources shall be
quantified and reported to the City and to the SCAQMD annually. Emissions
reporting will follow the same reporting format and procedures as required by the
Mandatory Reporting Rule.
Residual Impacts
Mitigation measure AQ-6 requires annual quantification and reporting of GHG emissions.
Mitigation measures associated with criteria pollutants would also reduce GHG emissions by an
estimated 80 MTCO2e per year during Phase 4. The GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan allows
the Applicant to choose the most effective means of providing the necessary reductions or
offsets. Several measures could be implemented to reduce GHG emissions to below the
SCAQMD thresholds, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of the mitigation, including the
following for onsite emissions:
• Reducing energy use, including natural gas and electricity, from existing and proposed
direct sources, which would reduce GHG emissions from fuel combustion and electrical
generation. Reducing water use, raw material use, and waste generation and increasing

recycling would also reduce GHG emissions by reducing the energy used to transport and
pump water, produce goods, and for truck trips.
None of these GHG emission levels would be above the 25,000 MTCO2e per year level that
would require the facility be a part of the California Cap-and-Trade program.
The use of GHG emission credits allows a facility to emit GHG above a certain threshold if the
project sponsor funds programs which would reduce GHG at other sites, either within the City or
at other locations. As GHG emissions do not directly produce localized impacts, reductions in
GHG emissions in other locations would have the same effect as reducing GHG emissions at the
Project Site. Sources of GHG in the community that could be assisted by the Applicant, thereby
achieving reductions, could include the following:
• Planting trees removes CO2 from the atmosphere as the tree grows. Trees remove CO2
from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store, or sequester, the carbon in the tree
trunk, branches, and leaves. Tree carbon calculators indicate that a sycamore, 20 inches
in diameter (at 4.5 feet height) and 50 feet tall, stores approximately 2.2 MTCO2e and
grows at a rate that sequesters approximately 0.1 MTCO2 per year. Protocols for forest
carbon sequestration would be utilized to ensure reductions are legitimate, such as those
developed by the Climate Action Reserve.
• Installation of solar panels at parking lots, for example, or on City buildings or structures,
would reduce the need to generate electricity by area utilities and would therefore reduce
emissions of GHG. The City indicates that it currently has the capacity on its buildings
for about 300 kW of solar panels. The installation of approximately 300 solar panels
could reduce annual emissions of GHG by approximately 100 MTCO2e.
• Sponsoring a solar installation program assisting other entities (such as Hermosa Beach
School District) and/or new or retrofitted private development.
• Obtaining offset credit through the Climate Action Reserve, CAPCOA programs, or
through the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, would decrease GHG emissions
impacts. This offset program establishes standards for the development, quantification,
and verification of GHG emissions reduction projects; issues carbon offset credits known
as Climate Reserve Tonnes generated from such projects; and tracks the transaction of
credits. The CARB participates in the program. The Climate Action Reserve has issued
more than 10 million Climate Reserve Tonnes.
Numerous credit programs have developed over the last few years, including those administered
by the SCAQMD, which allow for projects to fund reductions at other locations in order to
produce "credits" for a project's emissions. A combination of these measures would reduce the
GHG emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Impacts would
therefore be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
As a note, elimination of the microturbines and utilizing entirely grid power could reduce GHG
emissions at the site. This is because electricity generated by SCE relies in part on hydroelectric
and low-GHG sources, thereby producing fewer GHG emissions per MWh than what the
microturbines generate. However, as the site has a need for heat, which would be recovered
from the waste heat from the microturbines under the Proposed Project, this approach would add

emission sources including the heater treater, glycol regenerator and the DEA reboiler.
Therefore, no GHG gains would be realized from this approach.
Carbon Neutral
In order to achieve a carbon-neutral approach to the Proposed Oil Project, as is defined in the
City of Hermosa Beach strategic plan for at least municipal operations, the mitigation measure
AQ-6 would need to require that the Applicant shall provide credits for all GHG emissions
generated above the threshold of zero MTCO2e per year. The carbon-neutral program within the
City would have to provide accounting for the credits to ensure that they are included in the
calculations for carbon-neutrality. Note that the GHG emissions generated from the exploration,
production and refining of crude oil to produce gasoline would be produced whether the gasoline
is produced from crude oil obtained within Hermosa Beach or from other locations. The City's
GHG neutrality calculations do not appear to take into account the emissions associated with
crude oil production and refining to produce the gasoline used by the City's residents or
businesses.
End Use
End use is the combustion of the crude oil products (after refining into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel
and other products) and natural gas by automobiles, trucks, airplanes, residential end users, etc.
End use of the crude oil produced as a part of this Project has not been included in the GHG
emissions. Crude oil is supplied to the region from a number of different sources, both local,
from California, by train from other parts of the U.S and Canada, and by tanker from Alaska and
foreign countries. The demand for crude oil in the region is not a function of supply; if this
crude oil is not produced, it will be supplied by another source, as crude oil prices are set largely
on the global market. CARB and SCAQMD specifications for the calculation of GHG emissions
from a project do not include the end use estimates. Current policies, such as Cap-and-Trade and
automobile efficiency standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, address GHG emissions
from transportation fuels. The end use of fossil fuels will be encompassed by the Cap-and-Trade
program in 2015. However, for informational purposes, the Project would generate, over its life,
an average amount of crude oil that would generate 535,000 MTCO2e per year, from the
combustion of natural gas, and crude oil products.
With the addition of equipment at the field and drilling operations, emissions of toxic air
contaminants would occur. Toxic air contaminant emissions associated with operations would
include the emissions from combustion sources (e.g., flare, microturbines) and fugitive
emissions. Emissions were quantified using toxic air contaminant factors defined by CARB
speciation profiles and the SCAQMD. Appendix B lists emissions quantified by toxic material
for the drilling period and the following period when the only drilling would be re-drills or
workovers

Impact
AQ.7 Potential operations and drilling at the Project Site would emit
toxic air contaminants. Phase 4
Class II
Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
According to AB 2588, health risk assessments (HRA) are required for facilities that emit toxic
pollutants above a threshold criteria level. Based on SCAQMD annual emission reporting
requirements, future operations at the site could exceed the thresholds for equipment that is
covered by the SCAQMD Rule 301 reporting requirements. Although the SCAQMD Rule 301
reporting requirement does not include mobile sources and temporary equipment (e.g., drill rigs
and construction equipment), they have been included to provide a comparison of these
emissions to the reporting thresholds. Table 4.2-14 lists the toxic air contaminants from the
Project Site equipment.
As part of this analysis, a health risk assessment was conducted using the CARB Hotspots
Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model version 1.4f. HARP is a computer software
package that combines the tools of emission inventory database, facility prioritization, air
dispersion modeling, and risk assessment analysis. All of these tools are tied to a single database
allowing sharing and utilization of information. HARP inputs are included in Appendix B.
The State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments outlines the risk
assessment methods and procedures (OEHHA 2013). The following paragraphs discuss the
inputs associated with the model.
Receptor locations were established based on the Project Site boundary, a regional receptor grid,
and the closest residences. The main receptor grid covered a 1.5- by 1.5 miles grid with spacing
every 160 feet. Receptors closer to the facility were spaced about every 30 feet.
Impacts related to pipeline operations would not produce cancer, acute or chronic impacts as the
pipeline related emissions would be nominal. Emissions from the Proposed City Maintenance
Yard Site would also be nominal and would not increase over the current City Maintenance Yard
location and would therefore not generate any incremental risk.
The health risk assessment utilized local meteorological data for worst-case health risk estimates:
SCAQMD meteorological data from the LAX monitoring station was utilized as provided by the
SCAQMD.

Table 4.2-13 GHG Emissions
Activity
N2O,
tons
CH4,
tons CO2, tons MTCO2e
Construction (Phase 1 and 3)
Phase 1 Construction 0.00 0.03 93 84
City Maintenance Yard Construction 0.00 0.06 273 275
Offsite 0.00 0.00 62 56
Construction Total 1,057
Operations - one time (Phase 2)
Drilling Emissions - Testing 0.00 0.00 8.0 7
Testing Emissions 0.01 12.86 5,605 5,290
Offsite Mobile (all Phase 2) 0.00 0.00 87 79
Indirect Electrical Generation 0.04 0.19 4,107 3,711
Operations - one time total, tons 9,087
Operations while Drilling (Phase 4)
Stationary Equipment 0.01 7.31 7,174 6,598
Drilling Emissions 0.00 0.01 24 22
Offsite Mobile Emissions 0.01 0.01 220 200
Water, solid waste, waste water 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.69
Amortized construction 42
Offsite Electrical Generation 0.16 0.76 16,580 14,981
Total 21,845
Operations no Drilling (Phase 4)
Stationary Equipment 0.01 7.31 7,174 6,598
Workover Emissions 0.00 0.03 112.5 102
Offsite Mobile Emissions 0.00 0.01 127 115
Water, solid waste, waste water 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.69
Amortized construction - - - 42
Offsite Electrical Generation 0.06 0.30 6,448 5,826
Total 12,685
Notes: Phase 4 operations no drilling electrical generation includes re-drills at 30 days per year average
Pursuant to SCAQMD Guidelines, terrain elevation heights were included in the modeling
analysis. Digital Elevation Mapping data in the AEMOD AERMAP modeling software were
used to input elevations for all sources and receptors. Digital Elevation Mapping data from four
U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles were required, which included Inglewood, Redondo,
Torrance and Venice. See Appendix B.

The analysis was conducted for cancer, acute and chronic impacts. Acute and chronic impacts
are assessed through a comparison to the OEHHA approved reference exposure levels, which are
the levels at which symptoms would likely occur. This comparison for chronic and acute
exposures is termed the health index, or the HI. An HI greater than 1.0 is considered a
significant impact.
Cancer impacts are assessed relative to the expected number of additional cancer cases per 1
million persons exposed. It was assumed that all offsite individuals would experience a lifetime
exposure (i.e., 70 years under the SCAQMD and OEHHA risk assessment guidelines, which is
the exposure timeframe to be used for long term projects, even if the project life is less than 70
years) for operations and drilling (including re-drilling and workovers). Two emission scenarios
were evaluated in the analysis: a 70-year average emissions profile to estimate lifetime cancer
risk, and a peak emissions year that was assumed to persist for 70 years to evaluate the
SCAQMD’s criteria limiting the risk per year to 1/70 of the maximum allowable risk. Since
drilling would only occur over a 2.5 year period, the maximum emissions scenario represents a
very conservative estimate of potential health risk.
Offsite worker risk (workers at facilities different than the Proposed Project) was also examined
for cancer based on a reduced exposure timeframe and breathing rate, as per OEHHA guidelines
(OEHHA 2013).
Table 4.2-15 shows the results of the HARP modeling for the facility fenceline (for Point of
Maximum Impact, PMI) and for the closest receptor (residence) for the peak year cancer risk.
Based on the health risk assessment modeling results, potential health risks would be considered
significant. Sources that would make the greatest contribution to the increased health risk levels
were emissions from the diesel equipment used throughout the life of the Project, including the
diesel forklift during drilling and redrilling and the diesel equipment used for workovers, as well
as emissions from the crude oil tanks. Due to the close proximity of the facility boundary to
industrial receptors/workers and residences, risks would be above the thresholds for the
unmitigated scenario.
The cancer burden is defined as the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a
population subject to a cancer risk of greater than or equal to one in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6)
resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants.

Table 4.2-14 Phase 4 Equipment Toxic Air Contaminants
Compound CAS
Peak Year,
lbs
Average
Year
lbs
Acetaldehyde 75070 7.33 14.64
Acrolein 107028 0.226 0.226
Arsenic and Compounds (inorganic) 7440382 0.006 0.006
Benzene 71432 155.68 113.22
Butadiene [1,3] 106990 0.181 0.370
Cadmium 7440439 0.003 0.003
Chlorine 7782505 0.003 0.003
Copper 7440508 0.006 0.006
Diesel exhaust particulates 9901 93.51 91.50
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.037 1.346
Formaldehyde 50000 15.33 29.97
Hexane 110543 626.32 444.99
Hydrogen sulfide 647783 0.000 0.000
Lead compounds (inorganic) 7439921 0.001 0.001
Manganese 7439965 0.005 0.005
Mercury 7439976 0.001 0.001
Methanol 67561 0.029 0.058
Methyl ethyl ketone {2-Butanone} 78933 1.409 2.881
Naphthalene [PAH, POM] 91203 0.111 0.200
Nickel 7440020 0.001 0.001
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total, w/o individual
components reported [PAH, POM] 1151 0.139 0.250
Propylene 115071 2.474 5.062
Selenium 7782492 0.001 0.001
Styrene 100425 0.057 0.117
Toluene 108883 93.53 69.07
Xylenes 1330207 2.800 3.507
Zinc 7440666 0.204 0.199
Note: CAS stands for the Chemical Abstract Number. Current Prop 65 listing can be accessed here:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html
The cancer risk contours are shown in Figures 4.2-5, 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 for acute and chronic
impacts health index and cancer cases per one million persons. The results of the HARP
modeling (summarized in Table 4.2-15) show that both acute and chronic impacts are below the
applicable thresholds under the Proposed Oil Project. The cancer risk would be significant and
are driven by diesel particulate matter (96 percent of the risk) from diesel engines (primarily
workover rig engines) followed by benzene from crude oil fugitive emissions. The point of
maximum impact (PMI) is defined as the offsite point of maximum impact which, for this
Project, would occur along the western property boundary (see Figures 4.2-5, 4.2-6 and 4.2-7).

Table 4.2-15 Health Risk Assessment Results: Unmitigated
Criteria Description HRA Result Threshold
Value Significant?
Cancer risk, per million, Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) 689 10 Yes
Cancer risk, per million, peak residential risk 46 10 Yes
Cancer risk, per million, peak worker risk 105 10 Yes
Peak Annual Equivalent Cancer peak residential risk 53 10 Yes
Cancer Burden 0.12 0.5 No
Chronic risk, health index 0.39 1 No
Acute risk, health index 0.38 1 No
Notes: Cancer thresholds are cancer cases per one million persons. Chronic and acute thresholds are
the health index (HI). PMI based on fence line, worker based on closest business, peak annual based on
closest residence (as per SCAQMD HRA Guidance).
Source: HARP model. The PMI occurs at the western property boundary 30 feet from drilling activities.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures have been identified as part of the air quality analysis.
Implementing these mitigation measures, including the mitigation measures identified in the
discussions of impacts AQ.3, AQ.4 and AQ.5, would reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants.
In addition:
AQ-7a All diesel equipment used at the site shall meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and
be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel particulate filter to reduce Diesel PM
emissions. Workover rigs operated at the Project Site shall have cumulative total
DPM emissions below 1.5 lbs/year or shall utilize electric drive/sources.
AQ-7b Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery of
fugitive emissions.
Residual Impacts
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, the HARP model was rerun
using the same approach as was used to evaluate the potential future site development. Table
4.1-16 presents the results of the revised health risk assessment modeling. Worst-case health
risks associated with mitigated Project operations would be below all applicable health risk
criteria.
Mitigation would eliminate or limit most diesel PM emissions at the site, which is the primary
driver of cancer risk. With diesel workover limits on annual PM emissions, cancer risks would
remain below 10 in one million. Remaining health impacts would be primarily associated with
emissions from the crude oil tanks and, to a lesser extent, the fugitive emissions from the facility
and the use of the mitigated forklift during drilling.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, which would meet the SCAQMD Best
Available Control Technology for Toxics requirements, impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation (Class II).

Table 4.2-16 Health Risk Assessment Results: Mitigated
Criteria Description HRA
Result
Threshold
Value Significant?
Cancer risk, per million, Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) 6.2 10 No
Cancer risk, per million, peak residential risk 2.2 10 No
Cancer risk, per million, peak worker risk 0.9 10 No
Peak Annual Equivalent Cancer peak residential risk 2.6 10 No
Cancer Burden <0.01 0.5 No
Chronic risk, health index 0.004 1 No
Acute risk, health index 0.05 1 No
Source: HARP model. Cancer risk at the PMI would occur within the industrial zoned area. These
numbers assume an electric workover rig. With the diesel rig limited on annual emissions, The PMI would
total 10 immediately to the west of the facility site (at the PMI). Peak residential risk would increase to
3.5.
4.2.4.6 Compliance with Area Air Quality Management Plans
The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) includes implementing control measures
and strategies to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Basin. The
SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to control or reduce criteria
pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment. A project would be inconsistent with
the AQMP if it results in population or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in that
AQMP. Projects that do not involve growth-inducing impacts or exceed local or regional
population or growth projections are generally considered consistent with the AQMP. The
Proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD regulations and is not expected to result in
population growth, and it would therefore comply with the goals of the AQMP.

Figure 4.2-5 Acute Impacts Health Index
Notes: HI=Health Impacts, PMI = Point of Maximum Impact

Figure 4.2-6 Chronic Impacts Health Impacts

Figure 4.2-7 Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Unmitigated

Figure 4.2-8 Cancer Impacts Cancer Cases: Mitigated

4.2.4.7 Valve Box Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the location of the valve box for
the tie-in to the crude oil system. Air quality impacts could be realized if leaks occurred from
components, causing localized odors. Therefore, the greater separation distance the better from
populated areas. The valve box options 2 and 4 provide the best separation distance from
populated areas, with the Proposed Project location and option 3 being closer to receptors (a
recreation/softball field and apartments and commercial areas, respectively).
4.2.4.8 Pipeline Route Options
The Proposed Project includes a number of different options for the pipeline route for tie-in to
the crude oil system. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 involve construction in the roadway, which
would require additional construction activities, including asphalt laying, which would generate
more emissions than Scenario 3, which would be installed within the mostly dirt SCE right-of-way.
Scenario 3 would therefore be preferable. However, none of the scenarios produce
4.2.4.9 Proposed City Maintenance Yard Parking Options
The Proposed City Maintenance Yard Project has two options for parking: a No Added Parking
option that would retain the same number of parking spaces as are currently available at
Hermosa Self-Storage; and a Parking Option, that would add 97 parking spaces. Under the
Parking Option, additional construction would be required to construct the lower parking levels,
thereby increasing construction emissions over the No Added Parking option. During
operations, the Parking Option would introduce vehicle emissions into an area that does not
currently have vehicles. However, as no diesel trucks would be used or distribution-type
activities would be taking place, and traffic volumes would be below the levels that could
produce CO Hot Spots, impacts would be less than significant. Otherwise, for operations, the
two options would generate the same air quality impacts.
4.2.5 Comparison to Applicant Studies
The Applicant provided an air quality analysis associated with their Application materials. The
EIR analysis provides general agreement with the criteria pollutant emissions levels as provided
by the Applicant as the same emission factors were used for the combustion equipment. The
EIR analysis was more conservative (higher emissions estimates) on the fugitive emissions as the
SCAQMD default values were used instead of estimating the number of leaking components that
would occur during inspections.
For the modeling and estimates of localized impacts, this EIR produced more conservative
values for ground level concentrations of pollutants as substantial building downwash was
included in the analysis. The Applicant did not perform a health risk analysis, examining cancer
risks, for example.

The GHG emissions estimates in this EIR are in general agreement for onsite emissions from
combustion equipment, with this EIR producing a slightly higher emissions estimate as the AP-
42 GHG emission factor was used for gas combustion, and flaring to the full extent allowed by
SCAQMD (200 hours per year) was assumed. The GHG emissions during operations (not the
2.5 years of drilling on Phase 4) were in general agreement with the Applicant. However, the
EIR also calculated GHG emissions during the 2.5 years of drilling, when substantially more
electricity would be used (for operating the electric drilling rig) and during this period of Phase
4, GHG estimates are substantially higher in this EIR. The Applicant studies did not calculated
GHG emissions for the Phase 4 drilling period.
Some mitigation measures could increase construction requirements associated with the Project
such as the permanent wall (AE-1b) which could increase construction-related emissions.
However, none of these mitigation measures would increase the peak day emissions or
operational health risk emissions. Mitigation measures in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, which require
a permanent wall around the site, might cause the Applicant to increase the stack heights of their
combustion equipment, even though a 32 foot wall (sound wall) that would be in place for at
least 30 months is proposed by the Applicant. If stack heights are increased, the downwind
ground level concentrations would decrease, thereby reducing impacts. Note that the SCAQMD
has limits related to stack height based on equipment size. The other issue area mitigation
measures would not result in additional impacts, and additional analysis or mitigation is not
required.
Localized air quality impacts are generally restricted to an area within a few blocks from a
project site. The localized impacts of the unmitigated Proposed Project would extend about 500
feet. None of the cumulative projects would be constructed near enough to the Proposed Project
area for localized impacts to overlap, so there would be no operational localized impacts
associated with cumulative projects.
The AES project in the City of Redondo Beach, approximately 0.5 miles south of the Project
Site, and the Proposed Project would not overlap localized criteria pollutant impacts since they
are too far from one another to produce cumulative impacts.
Operational regional impacts could be produced, however, as multiple projects would emit into
the same air basin at the same time. However, as the SCAQMD has established thresholds for
individual projects that would protect the air quality and achieve the long term goals of the Air
Quality Management Plan, the mitigated Proposed Project would not produce cumulative
Since none of the cumulative projects would be constructed near the Proposed Project sites, there
would be no cumulative impacts associated with odors or toxic air contaminants.

Emissions of GHG would contribute to global GHG emissions. Since the Proposed Project GHG
emissions would be mitigated to less than significant and, as per CEQA Guidelines section
15130, the Proposed Project would be making a fair share contribution to solving global GHG
impacts, cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation
Party
AQ-1a The Applicant shall submit and implement a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes
SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust
mitigation, according to Rule 403, and
SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust
mitigation measures in the plan shall
include the following (this mitigation is
applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project
and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project):
- Apply water every 3 hours to
disturbed areas and unpaved roads within a
construction site (61 percent reduction).
- Require minimum soil moisture of
12 percent for earthmoving, by using a
moveable sprinkler system or water truck.
Moisture content can be verified by lab
sample or moisture probe (69 percent
reduction).
- Limit onsite vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads to 15 mph and posting of
speed limits.
- All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or
other loose materials are to be tarped with a
fabric cover and maintain a freeboard height
of 12 inches (91 percent reduction).
- Install gravel bed trackout apron (3
inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per
lane, and edged by rock berm or row of
stakes) to reduce mud and dirt trackout from
unpaved truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent
reduction).
- Water storage piles by hand or
apply cover when wind events are declared,
according to SCAQMD Rule 403 when
instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles
per hour (90 percent reduction).
- Appoint a construction relations
officer to act as a community liaison
concerning onsite construction issues, such
as dust generation.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before and
during
construction
Both Oil
Project and
City Yard
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AQ-1b The Applicant shall implement a NOx
reduction program including the following,
or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction
of the SCAQMD (this mitigation is
applicable to both the Proposed Oil Project
and the Proposed City Maintenance Yard
Project):
- All off-road construction equipment
shall be tuned and maintained according to
manufacturers’ specifications.
- Any temporary electric power shall
be obtained from the electrical grid, rather
than portable diesel or gasoline generators.
- All off-road diesel construction
equipment with greater than 100-
horsepower engines shall meet Tier 3 NOx
requirements.
- Limit onsite truck idling to less than
5 minutes.
- A copy of the certified tier
specification, best available control
technology documentation, or the CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit for each piece of
equipment shall be kept onsite during all
operations
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before and
during
construction
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-3a The Applicant shall limit flaring during
Phase 4 to a total of 5 hours per day at the
full flaring capacity (or to an equivalent
volume of flared gas) during all emergency
or routine flaring events in order to ensure
that NOx emissions are reduced below the
thresholds. Lower NOx emission
combustors or other equivalent measures
can also be used to satisfy the requirement.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-3b The Applicant shall implement methods to
reduce the off-gassing of muds by at least
90 percent through the installation of fully
enclosed mud pit areas with vapor control
(either through carbon canisters or vapor
recovery) and/or the use of mud degassing
units routed to vapor control systems. The
Applicant shall monitor the muds vapor
immediately above the muds exit point from
the wellbore and at other areas above the
mud pits where muds may be exposed to
the atmosphere in order to ensure that
hydrocarbon vapors are captured at the
minimum rate of 90 percent.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
drilling
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AQ-4 The Applicant shall limit the microturbine
PM emissions to 0.0035 lbs/mmbtu, or an
equivalent reduction in the number and/or
size of the microturbines, in order to reduce
emissions to below the localized thresholds.
The City shall be responsible for ensuring
that the applicant will be subject to permit
conditions that limit emissions from the set
of microturbines, not just individual permit
units.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-5a The Applicant shall at all times have a gas
buster and SCAQMD-approved portable
flare at the site and connected for
immediate use to circulate out and combust
any gas encountered during drilling. The
flare shall be capable of recording the
volume of gas that is flared. The operator
shall report any flared gas from drilling to
the Hermosa Beach Fire Chief and the
SCAQMD.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
drilling
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-5b The Applicant shall install a compressor
seal vent collection system. In the event of
a seal leak, vapors shall be collected and
sent to the vapor recovery system or flare
for destruction.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-5c The Applicant shall develop and implement
an Odor Minimization Plan, submitted to
and approved by the City and the
SCAQMD. The Odor Minimization Plan
shall address reducing the frequency from
potential sources of odors from all site
equipment, including wells and drilling
operations, temporary operations such as
truck loading, and measures to reduce or
eliminate these odors (e.g., containment,
design modifications, carbon canisters).
The Plan shall address issues such as
facility information, buffer zones, signs with
contact information, logs of odor complaints,
the protocol for handling odor complaints
and odor release investigations and
methods instituted to prevent a re-occurrence.
The Plan shall require that all
odor complaints and issues be immediately
communicated to the City and that the City
shall have the authority to implement and
enforce contingency measures to ensure
that any nuisance odors from the facility are
eliminated.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
AQ-5d The Applicant shall develop and implement
an Air Monitoring Plan. The Plan shall
provide for the monitoring of total
hydrocarbon vapors and hydrogen sulfide
and total hydrocarbon vapors at all
perimeter locations of the facility as well as
at strategic locations near processing
equipment. At all times during operations,
drilling, redrilling and workover operations,
the Operator shall maintain monitoring
equipment that shall monitor and digitally
record the levels of hydrogen sulfide and
total hydrocarbon vapors. Such monitors
shall provide automatic alarms that are
audible and visible to the Operator of the
drilling equipment, and gas plant, and shall
be triggered by the detection of hydrogen
sulfide or total hydrocarbon vapors. Alarm
points shall be set at a maximum of 1 and 5
ppm H2S and 500 and 1,000 ppm
hydrocarbons, with the higher level
requiring shut-down of drilling or plant
operations and the lower level requiring
notification to appropriate agencies,
including the Hermosa Beach Fire
Department and SCAQMD. A
meteorological station to monitor wind
speed and direction under the guidance and
specification of the SCAQMD shall be
installed at the site. The Air Monitoring Plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
and the SCAQMD.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-5e The Applicant shall use an odor
suppressant spray system on the mud
shaker tables, and shall install carbon
capture canisters on all tanks (permanent
and portable) that are not equipped with
vapor recovery, containing potentially
odiferous materials (for example; the mud
baker-type tanks) for all drilling operations
so that no odor can be detected at the
closest receptor.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-5f The fugitive component leak detection
program under Rule 1173 shall utilize a
Leak Detection and Reporting (LDAR) level
of monthly detections with an action level of
100ppm, the installation of bellows valves
where applicable (valves 2 inches or
smaller) and the use of IR cameras or
equivalent during monthly detections to
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 2
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
ensure that leaking components are
minimized at the facility.
AQ-6 The Applicant shall provide credits for all
GHG emissions generated above the
threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. A
GHG Reporting and Reduction Plan shall
be submitted to the SCAQMD and the City
detailing the measures to be implemented
to achieve the required reductions, updated
annually, and shall include specifications on
the protocol, vintage, and registry for any
offsite mitigation. The following mitigation
credits shall not require prior City or
SCAQMD approval:
1. Credits generated within Los Angeles
County per an approved SCAQMD protocol;
2. Credits generated within the State of
California per an approved SCAQMD
protocol;
3. Credits that are generated and verified
under the CAPCOA GHG Rx program;
4. Credits that are generated and verified
under the voluntary SCAQMD Regulation
XXVII;
5. Verified credits registered with the
Climate Action Reserve or the American
Carbon Registry.
In addition, independently verified GHG
credits available through other carbon
registries that follow specific protocols may
be eligible for offsite mitigation, subject to
review and prior approval by the City and
the SCAQMD. The general criteria for
acceptable credits include:
• Real: emission reduction must have
actually occurred, as the result of a project
yielding quantifiable and verifiable
reductions or removals.
• Additional/Surplus: an emission
reduction cannot be required by a law, rule,
or other requirement.
• Quantifiable: reductions must be
quantifiable through tools or tests that are
reliable, based on applicable
methodologies, and recorded with adequate
documentation.
• Verifiable: The action taken to
produce credits can be audited and there is
sufficient evidence to show that the
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
reduction occurred and was quantified
correctly.
• Enforceable: An enforcement
mechanism must exist to ensure that the
reduction project is implemented correctly.
• Permanent: Emission reductions or
removals must continue to occur for the
expected life of the reduction project.
Operational/drilling GHG emissions from
stationary and mobile sources shall be
quantified and reported to the City and to
the SCAQMD annually. Emissions
reporting will follow the same reporting
format and procedures as required by the
Mandatory Reporting Rule.
AQ-7a All diesel equipment used at the site shall
meet EPA Tier 3 emission requirements and
be equipped with a CARB Level 3 diesel
particulate filter to reduce Diesel PM
emissions. Workover rigs operated at the
project site shall have cumulative total DPM
emissions below 1.5 lbs/year or shall utilize
electric drive/sources .
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
AQ-7b Vapor recovery on crude oil tanks shall
achieve a minimum of 99 percent recovery
of fugitive emissions.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before
Phase 4
operations
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach
Mitigation
Party
AQ-1a The Applicant shall submit and implement a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan that includes
SCAQMD mitigations for fugitive dust
mitigation, according to Rule 403, and
SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Fugitive dust
mitigation measures in the plan shall
include the following:
• Apply water every 3 hours to
disturbed areas and unpaved roads
within a construction site (61
percent reduction).
• Require minimum soil moisture of
12 percent for earthmoving, by
using a moveable sprinkler system
or water truck. Moisture content
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before and
during
construction
Both Oil
Project and
City Yard
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
can be verified by lab sample or
moisture probe (69 percent
reduction).
• Limit onsite vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads to 15 mph and
posting of speed limits.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or
other loose materials are to be
tarped with a fabric cover and
maintain a freeboard height of 12
inches (91 percent reduction).
• Install gravel bed trackout apron (3
inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet
wide per lane, and edged by rock
berm or row of stakes) to reduce
mud and dirt trackout from unpaved
truck exit routes (46 to 80 percent
reduction).
• Water storage piles by hand or
apply cover when wind events are
declared, according to SCAQMD
Rule 403 when instantaneous wind
speeds exceed 25 miles per hour
(90 percent reduction).
• Appoint a construction relations
officer to act as a community liaison
concerning onsite construction
issues, such as dust generation.
AQ-1b The Applicant shall implement a NOx
reduction program including the following,
or equivalent, measures to the satisfaction
of the SCAQMD:
• All off-road construction equipment
shall be tuned and maintained
according to manufacturers’
specifications.
• Any temporary electric power shall
be obtained from the electrical grid,
rather than portable diesel or
gasoline generators.
• All off-road diesel construction
equipment with greater than 100-
horsepower engines shall meet Tier
3 NOx requirements.
• Limit onsite truck idling to less than
5 minutes.
• A copy of the certified tier
specification, best available control
technology documentation, or the
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before and
during
construction
SCAQMD
City of
Hermosa
Beach

Mitigation
Party
CARB or SCAQMD operating
permit for each piece of equipment
shall be provided when each piece
of equipment is mobilized.

4.3 Biological Resources
This section describes environmental and regulatory settings related to offshore and onshore
biological resources in the vicinity of the proposed E&B Oil and Gas Development Project
(Project) Site; identifies impacts to these biological resources from the Proposed Project;
identifies cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project and other projects in the region; and
recommends mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
The scope of this analysis includes all sites potentially affected by the Proposed Project, which
include the existing City Maintenance Yard, the new City Maintenance Yard location and the
location of the pipelines. However, the areas potentially affected directly by the Proposed
Project constitute mostly previously disturbed and built out areas with little or no biological
resources that could be impacted. This section also focuses on areas that could be affected as a
result of an oil spill and includes descriptions of the offshore environment and onshore biological
resources such as the Greenbelt. The onshore and offshore areas that could be potentially
affected by an oil spill are described as general Project areas throughout the rest of this section.
This following description of the affected marine and onshore environment is based on a
reconnaissance-level field survey conducted October 23, 2013, queries of the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
Project plans and graphic renderings, the City of Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and
other relevant data sources, including environmental documents that examine the environmental
conditions of the Santa Monica Bay and Southern California Bight (SCB) region (CDFW 2001,
CDFW and CINMS 2001, SMBRC 2008). A MRS senior biologist performed a reconnaissance
survey of the proposed Pipeline route and the Project Site by walking its entire perimeter.
Limited onsite natural resources were identified in the survey. These are described below.
The Proposed Project is bounded by the following: to the east by Valley Drive, the Veterans
Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt/Trail), Ardmore Park and, further to the east, by Ardmore
Avenue and residential development; to the south by 6th Street, the Beach Cities Self Storage
facility, light manufacturing land uses and, further to the south, by South Park and residential
development; to the west by light manufacturing land uses, Cypress Street and, further to the
west, by residential development; and to the north by light manufacturing land uses and, further
to the north, by residential development and 8th Street. The site is fully developed with various
buildings used as part of the Public Works Facility in addition to concrete and asphalt paving.
The Proposed Permanent City Maintenance Yard is located on the site now occupied by
Hermosa Self-Storage (552 11th Place).

4.3.1.1 Onshore Resources
Urban/Landscaped
As depicted on the Proposed Project and Pipeline route map (see Section 2.0, Project
Description), the entire Proposed Project, including the Pipeline route and the proposed
temporary and permanent City Maintenance Yard , is located on and within existing facilities,
paved roads, the existing SCE right of way, and parking areas.
The Project’s subsurface trajectory would extend from the Urban/Landscape communities at the
drilling location, and then under Sandy Beach, and Open Water habitats located in the Pacific
Ocean Figures 2.7 and 2.8.
The habitat adjacent to the Proposed Pipeline route was inspected during the reconnaissance
survey to ensure adequate identification of potential biological resources in the general vicinity
of the Project. All of the vegetative communities surrounding the Project Site and along the
Pipeline route were characterized as urban, disturbed, or developed communities, with the only
open areas consisting of the vegetation located within the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt
(Greenbelt). The Greenbelt runs parallel to the Proposed Pipeline route along Valley Drive for
approximately 2,000 feet. The disturbed or developed vegetation communities, as these terms
are used in standardized habitat classification systems, collectively refer to areas that have been
modified by humans. These include urban, rural residential, and commercial and industrial
landscapes and would include the assortment of ornamental trees and shrubs located within the
Greenbelt.
The Greenbelt was developed in 1986 on an abandoned Santa Fe Railroad spur, which originally
connected Redondo Beach Wharf to downtown Los Angeles. The Greenbelt was initially
planted in the late 1980’s (Veterans Parkway Master Planning Document, Manhattan Beach June
2013) and includes a jogging trail, work out stations, benches, and shade trees. The non-native
trees and shrubs located within the Greenbelt include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), Peruvian
pepper tree (Schinus molle), cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), and acacia (Acacia sp.).
Many of the trees and most of the shrubs show evidence of repeated pruning, which reduces the
amount of cover at ground level. The groundcover consists of non-native grasses, ice plant
(Carpobrotus edulis), and Boston ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata) The only native species
observed growing in the Greenbelt along the Proposed Project pipeline route were approximately
three heavily pruned, California live oak (Quercus agrifolia) saplings.
Although the Greenbelt consists primarily of non-native vegetation, these trees and shrubs do
provide some limited resources for those wildlife species that are accustomed to heavily
urbanized settings. These species, including opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor), may use the accessibility and cover found on the greenbelt for a travel corridor
between urban areas. The heavy human use and repeated vegetation pruning would reduce the
overall value to most wildlife species. The trees and shrubs are also expected to provide canopy
structure and cover suitable for numerous bird species for roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat.
Bird species observed during the reconnaissance survey include mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos),
house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna). Such areas are
important resources for perching, foraging, and nesting for raptor species that are capable of

coexisting in urban areas, including the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American
kestrel (Falco sparverius).
Sandy Beach
The Proposed Project Site is approximately 1,700 feet to the east of the Hermosa Beach
coastline. Several stormwater lines that drain off Valley Drive run perpendicular to the proposed
Pipeline route and outflow onto the sandy beach habitat (see Section 4.8, Safety, Risk of Upset
and Hazards, Figure 4.8-3). Sandy beach habitat is typically found between the intertidal zone
and areas where vegetation becomes established, typically forming foredunes or pioneer dunes.
Several invertebrate species (predominantly crustaceans and worms) are adapted to the wave
action and shifting sands of the intertidal zone and are able to bury themselves quickly or deeply
to avoid predation and displacement due to sand movement. These invertebrates attract
shorebirds that are most abundant during the fall and winter and include willet (Tringa
semipalmata), sanderling (Calidris alba), western snowy plover, (Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus), western (Calidris maudi) and least (Calidris minutilla) sandpipers and various species
of gull (Larus spp.). There was no vegetation observed along the sandy beach habitat or any
signs of any additional vegetative communities in the general area. The entire beach area is
heavily used by people recreating in the area.
Coastal Sage Scrub/Southern Coastal Scrub
Coastal sage scrub and southern coastal scrub communities consist primarily of low-growing,
drought-tolerant native shrubs with an understory of grasses and herbs. These communities
typically occur at lower, drier sites than chaparral assemblages. Southern coastal scrub is a
structurally diverse vegetation community where animals typically have numerous opportunities
to find food and shelter. This community in the Project area is mostly absent and has been
heavily impacted in its range by fragmentation, invasive non-native weeds, and pollution.
Originally, this community would have been the dominant habitat in the Project area; it is now
extremely rare in the general area and was not observed during the reconnaissance survey of the
Project Site and Pipeline route
4.3.1.2 Offshore Resources
The offshore areas that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Oil Project are located in
the south-central part of the Santa Monica Bay near the city of Hermosa Beach, California
(Figure 2.1). Santa Monica Bay is a large, open-water embayment of the Pacific Ocean that is
bordered offshore by the Santa Monica Basin, on each end by the rocky headlands of Point
Dume and the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and onshore by the Los Angeles Coastal Plain and the
Santa Monica Mountains (SMBRC 2008). It is the natural drainage basin for approximately 414
square miles of land within the Los Angeles Coastal Plain.
Santa Monica Bay itself is an integral part of the larger geographic region commonly known as
the Southern California Bight (SCB), wherein the characteristic north-south trending coastline
found off much of western North America experiences a significant curvature or indentation
south of Point Conception. The SCB includes coastal southern California, the Channel Islands,
and the local portion of the Pacific Ocean. The portion of the Pacific Ocean that occupies this
region, from Point Conception in the north to just past San Diego in the south and extending

offshore of San Nicolas Island, is characterized by complex current circulation patterns and a
diverse range of marine habitats. The mainland coast and offshore islands contain rocky shores,
long stretches of sandy beach, and numerous embayments.
The wide variety of habitats found in the SCB encourages a similarly rich and varied marine life.
In particular, the Channel Islands are important breeding grounds for several diminishing
populations of marine birds and marine mammal species. Since the Channel Islands are situated
some distance from a heavily populated coastline in southern California, they also represent the
best examples of pristine environments in the southern California area.
Marine biological resources that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Oil Project can be
described in terms of three major habitat areas: open ocean, seafloor, and shoreline. Within the
SCB, each of these three biological habitats is exceptionally diverse and productive. Marine
resources of the Bay include a rich diversity of migratory and resident species of mammals,
birds, fishes, and invertebrates.
Marine Birds
The SCB supports a rich population of seabirds (Baird 1993), providing a major foraging area for
both residents and migrants. Seabirds can be segregated into two main groups: coastal and
pelagic. Coastal seabirds feed in the pelagic realm but tend to remain within approximately five
miles of the mainland shore. Common coastal seabirds include Western (Aechmorphorus
occidentalis) and Clark’s grebes (Aechmorphorus clarkii), surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata),
cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), loons (Gavia spp.), California brown pelicans (Pelecanus
occidentalis), and gulls (Subfamily Laridae). The highest coastal seabird densities occur in the
SCB during winter months. However, California brown pelican populations generally peak in
the summer months when birds from large Mexican colonies migrate northward.
In contrast, pelagic seabirds spend most of their time farther from shore. As with coastal
seabirds, they spend much of their time on the sea surface or diving into the water column to
feed. Some of the most common offshore birds in the region include: shearwaters (Puffinus
spp.), northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), phalaropes (Phalaropus spp.), jaegers (Stercorarius
spp.), and common murres (Uria aalge). Storm-petrels (Oceanodroma spp.), puffins (Fratercula
spp.), and auklets (Family Alcidae) also frequent the offshore waters of the Project area.
Seasonal population peaks vary among the taxa; most seabird rookeries in the region are located
on offshore islands, predominately the northern Channel Islands; few, if any, seabirds nest on the
mainland coast of the SCB (Carter et al. 1992).
Marine Mammals
Because of its transitional location between the cooler zoogeographic province to the north of
Point Conception and the subtropical province to the south that comprises most of southern
California’s waters, the SCB supports a wide variety of marine mammals. More than 40 species
of marine mammals are reported within the area, all of which are protected under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These include 34 species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and
porpoises) and six species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) (Carretta et al. 2005, Leatherwood
and Reeves 1983, and Reeves et al.1992). Additionally, the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris
nereis), a representative of the weasel family, Mustelidae, is also occasionally observed in the

region. Six species of cetaceans are federally listed as endangered, while two species of
pinnipeds and the southern sea otter are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA).
Marine mammal species in the region can be classified into three categories: 1) migrants that
pass through the area on their way to calving or feeding grounds; 2) seasonal visitors that remain
for a limited time; and 3) residents that remain much or all of the year. Five whale species transit
the potentially affected area during annual migrations, while all but one of the dolphin species
have resident populations within the area.
Marine Turtles
Though uncommon in the region, four species of marine turtles are known to inhabit the
northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, all of which are protected under the
FESA. They are the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys
olivacea), the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) (Hubbs 1977). The green, olive ridley, and loggerhead turtles are listed as federally
threatened species, while the leatherback is listed as a federally endangered species.
Hard Substrate Invertebrates
Natural hard substrate in Santa Monica Bay is primarily limited to areas adjacent to rocky
headlands at the north and south of the Bay, submarine canyon edges, and the short Bank region
(Allen 1982). Hard-bottom habitats have a diverse and abundant assemblage of organisms that
are often unique to their habitat (MBC 1993). These areas provide substrate suitable for
attachment of a variety of plants and sessile invertebrates, as well as shelter and forage for more
motile organisms. Sessile species utilizing hard-bottom substrate include mussels, rock scallops
(Family Pectinidae), barnacles, sponges, sea anenomes, sea fans (Order Gorgonacea), feather
duster worms (Family Serpulidae), wormsnails (Family Vermetidae), and sea squirts (Order
Ascidiacea). Most of these sessile invertebrates feed by filtering plankton and detritus from the
water column. Motile invertebrates, including crabs, octopuses, and shrimp hide in crevices or
are protectively colored. Invertebrates associated with hard bottom substrates are frequently a
food source for birds (in the exposed intertidal zone) and fish (in the subtidal zone).
Nearshore reefs provide substrate for giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), feather boa kelp
(Egregia menziesii), and palm kelp (Pterogophora californica), which provide additional habitat
for a multitude of organisms. Since most hard bottom habitats in the Bay are of low relief, the
presence of kelp often lends a vertical element to the habitat that is otherwise lacking. Because
reefs are diverse and have an abundance of unique organisms, they are also important sites for
recreational diving and fishing (MBC 1993). California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus),
yellow and Pacific rock crabs (Cancer spp.), red and purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus
franciscanus and S. purpuratus, respectively), and spot shrimp/prawn (Pandalus platyceros) are
fished recreationally in the region (MBC 1993). Abalone, another hard substrate organism, was
fished both recreationally and commercially until the 1990s.
Kelp Beds
Rocky subtidal habitats in Santa Monica Bay and throughout much of the SCB are vegetated
with a wide variety of red and brown algae (MBC 1993). Red algae generally form a low turf or

understory of coralline, foliose, and filamentous forms from shore to the edge of the photic zone.
Brown algae are generally larger and form an overstory; locally, feather-boa kelp is dominant
nearshore, while giant kelp dominates deeper areas of reefs, forming large beds at depths of 20 to
120 feet (6.1 to 36.6 m) (CDFW 2001).
Giant kelp is a large, fast-growing, perennial algae that thrives in protected nearshore waters
from Baja California to Santa Cruz. Kelp usually attaches to rock outcrops or large cobbles to
stay in place; however, under calm conditions kelp plants have occasionally established
themselves successfully in sandy subtidal regions as well, generally by attaching themselves to
worm tubes.
Giant kelp beds form an important and distinct marine habitat along the rocky coastal reaches of
the SCB, particularly within the nearshore waters of the Channel Islands. The rocky bottoms
found offshore Leo Carillo State Beach, the Malibu coast, and along the Palos Verdes Shelf
support large kelp stands within the Bay.
Most hard bottom habitats in Santa Monica Bay are of low relief. The presence of kelp in such
areas creates a vertically structured habitat that extends from the seafloor all the way up to the
sea surface. Giant kelp beds provide food, shelter, and nursery areas for a variety of
invertebrates and fishes, some of which are uniquely adapted for life in the kelp beds. Kelp bass,
black perch, rubberlip seaperch, opaleye, kelp rockfish, and olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides)
are all commonly encountered in kelp beds. Topsmelt, kelp pipefish (Syngnathus californiensis),
kelp perch (Brachyistius frenatus), giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus), kelp clingfish
(Rimicola muscarum), and kelp gunnel (Apodichthys [=Ulvicola] sanctaerosae) are fishes known
to frequent the canopy, or upper reaches of the kelp forest (MBC 1993). Lower down in the
water column, where the leafy canopy is not as dense, yellowtail, white sea bass (Atractoscion
[=Cynoscion] nobilis), rubberlip seaperch, halfmoon (Medialuna californiensis), and halfblind
goby (Lethops connectens) can be found. Several of these species are important commercial and
recreational fishery species.
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine seagrass typically found in protected bays and estuaries
from the low intertidal to a depth of approximately 65 feet (19.8 m). Limited eelgrass beds have
also been documented in fairly protected nearshore environments. This habitat functions as an
important structural element in the marine environment, dampening wave and current action,
trapping suspended particulates, and reducing erosion by stabilizing the sediment. In addition,
eelgrass beds provide essential habitat for a variety of marine organisms. Eelgrass beds provide
one of the greatest sources of primary production of any nearshore marine ecosystem, forming
the base of detrital-based food webs, as well as providing a food source for organisms that feed
directly on eelgrass leaves, such as migrating waterfowl. Eelgrass is also a source of secondary
production, supporting epiphytic plants, animals, and microbial organisms that in turn are grazed
upon by other invertebrates, larval and juvenile fish, and birds. Additionally, eelgrass beds
function as nursery areas for many commercially and recreationally important finfish and
shellfish species.
The current distribution of eelgrass in Santa Monica Bay is limited to small patches at Mother’s
Beach at the northern end of Marina del Rey and in King Harbor, as well as several areas
associated with semi-protected habitats in the northern portion of the Bay at Pepperdine, Latigo

Point, and Escondido (Chesney 2005, Stephens et al. ca. 1990). There are no confirmed
observations of eelgrass along the non-protected habitats of the central portion of the Bay.
Soft Bottom Substrate
The soft-bottom habitat of Santa Monica Bay supports a diverse and abundant infauna. As many
as 1,200 infaunal species have been reported from Santa Monica Bay. The abundance and
distribution of infauna varies seasonally and interannually. However, infauna in the Santa
Monica Bay is usually dominated, in both number of species and individuals, by polychaete
worms. Polychaetes play an important role in reworking the sediments and are important
constituents in the diet of many demersal fish. Other important infaunal groups include
crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms (Phylum Echinodermata).
Epibenthic (living on the bottom) invertebrates of the Bay include sea stars, sea cucumbers, sand
dollars, sea urchins, crabs, snails, and sea slugs. These organisms are larger than infaunal
species, generally less common and, therefore, spaced further apart. However, sand dollars and
sea urchins often occur in very dense, single-species patches that limit the abundance of other
species.
Fish
The extensive soft-bottom habitat within Santa Monica Bay supports an abundant and diverse
assemblage of more than 100 species of demersal (living on or just above the bottom) fish.
Flatfishes (Families Pleuronectidae, Paralichthyidae, Cynoglossidae, and Bothidae), rockfishes
(Family Scorpaenidae), sculpins (Family Cottidae), combfishes (Family Zaniolepididae), and
eelpouts (Family Zoarcidae) make up most of the soft-bottom fish fauna in the Bay (MBC 1993).
The inner shelf assemblage is dominated by speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), the
middle shelf by stripetail rockfish (Sebastes saxicola), and the outer shelf by slender sole
(Lyopsetta exilis) (Allen 1982).
Over hard-bottom substrates, fish assemblages generally differ in composition relative to depth.
Common shallow-water families include sea basses (Family Serranidae), surfperches, rockfishes,
kelpfishes (Family Clinidae), sculpins, damselfishes (Family Pomacentridae), and wrasses
(Family Labridae). Important species in Santa Monica Bay include kelp bass (Paralabrax
clathratus), brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus), pile perch (Damalichthys vacca), black perch
(Embiotoca jacksoni), white seaperch (Phanerodon furcatus), rubberlip seaperch (Rhacochilus
toxotes), señorita (Oxyjulis californica), and opaleye (MBC 1993).
Rocky subtidal species found in Santa Monica Bay include woolly sculpin (Clinocottus analis),
opaleye, rockpool blenny (Hypsoblennius gilberti), spotted kelpfish (Gibbsonia elegans), and
California clingfish (Gobiesox rhessodon). In deeper waters, vermilion rockfish, bocaccio,
cowcod (Sebastes levis), and flag rockfish (Sebastes rubrivinctus) dominate (Allen et al. 1976,
Moore and Mearns 1980).
4.3.1.3 Rare, Endangered, and Special Status Species
Species are considered endangered if in imminent danger of extinction, or threatened if they are
likely to be in danger soon, and are, therefore, given special protection under the provisions of

the FESA and California Endangered Species Act (California ESA). Table 4.3-1 summarizes the
Federal and State endangered, threatened, and special status species identified in the CNDDB
search that are recorded as being present or have historical records near the general project area.
Many of the sensitive plant wildlife species identified in the CNDDB query (Redondo and
Venice USGS Quad Summaries 3311874/090C and 3311884/090B) as being recorded in the
project area are currently described as being extirpated from the area. In addition, most of the
sensitive species included in Table 4.3-1 require specific coastal dune or coastal marsh habitat
that is not present in the project area, and are therefore, considered to be unlikely to be present in
the project area. As required by CEQA, species that are considered sensitive resources are
included below. The following discussion includes those species that were identified in the
CNDDB query, have a federal or state status including CDFW “species of special concern” and
plant given status by the CNPS.
Beach Spectacle-Pod
Beach spectacle-pod (Dythyrea maritima) is a low growing, whitish-flowered perennial herb
found in small transverse foredunes within approximately 150 to 1,000 feet of the surf. Beach
spectacle-pod is usually found in areas of these fragile dunes where the sand is relatively
unstable. Although historically present in the El Segundo dunes and Ballona Wetlands, much of
the potentially suitable habitat for the beach spectacle-pod within the region was converted due
to residential development between 1940 and 1974. This species has not been successfully
reintroduced despite revegetation efforts between 1990 and 1994, and it is considered locally
extinct.
Coastal Dunes Milk-Vetch
Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi) is a low, dwarf annual plant in the pea
family (Fabaceae). This plant grows in moist depressions on clay soils in coastal terrace
grasslands and in coastal strand vegetation on sand dunes. Historically, the range of the coastal
dunes milk-vetch was known to include Monterey, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties;
however, it is now presumed extant at only three locations, one in Monterey County and two in
San Diego County.
Table 4.3-1
Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Species in Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat/Occurrence
Plants
Beach
spectacle-pod Dythyrea maritima ST; CNPS
List 1B.1
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Historical records in
Hermosa Beach, El Segundo and Ballona
wetlands; CNDDB (2013) describes this species
as extirpated from area.
Coastal dunes
milk-vetch
Astragalus tener
var. titi FE, SE
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes; recorded
population “probably extirpated” (CNDDB 2013).
Not in project vicinity.
Ventura marsh
milk-vetch
Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var. lanoissimus
FE, SE
Coastal salt marsh; historically observed in Ballona
Marsh; presumed extirpated (CNDDB 2013). Not
in project vicinity.

Table 4.3-1
Southern
tarplant
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
australis
CNPS List
1B.1
Marshes and swamps; historical populations
located in Ballona marsh (CNDDB 2013); no
habitat present in Project vicinity.
Orcutt’s
pincusion
Chaaenactis
glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
CNPS List
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes. Recent
observartions at sand Dune Park in Manhattan
Beach Facility Yard (CNDDB 2013). No coastal
dune habitat in Project fooprint.
Island green
dudleya
Dudleya virens
ssp. insularis
CNPS List
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; Present in Palos
Verdes peninsula on coastal bluffs. No suitable
habitat in Project vicinity.
Invertebrates
Monarch
butterfly Danaus plexippus
Roosts located in wind protected tree groves;
observed in Ballona Wetlands in 1997 and in El
Segundo City park in 1970’s. No roosting habitat
in Project footprint.
El Segundo blue
butterfly
Euphilotes
battoides allyni FE
Coastal dune habitat; host plant is Eriogonum
parvifolium. Present in El Segundo dune habitat
west of LAX and in Chevron refinery and 1990
records in Malaga Cove, just north of Palos Verdes
Peninsula, and in Miramar Park, Redondo Beach
in 2007 (CNDDB 2013). No coastal dune habitat
or Eriogunum parvifolium in Project vicinity,
unlikely to be present.
Palos Verdes
blue butterfly
Glaucopsyche
lygdamus
palosverdesensis
FE
Restricted to seaward Palos Verdes slopes; host
plant is Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus;
record in Malaga Canyon (CNDDB 2013). No
habitat or Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus
present in Project vicinity, unlikely to be present.
Globose Dune
beetle Coelus globosus SSC
Coastal sand dune habitat, most common beneath
dune vegetation, recorded in Ballona Wetlands in
1995 (CNDDB 2013). No coastal dune vegetation
on Project vicinity; unlikely to be present.
Birds
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC
Open dry annual grasslands; extirpated as
breeder, observed in winter (CNDDB 2013). No
habitat present in Project area; unlikely to be
present.
Belding’s
Savannah
Sparrow
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
SE
Coastal salt marsh; recent records in Ballona
Wetlands. No habitat present in Project area;
species not likely in Project area.
Coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila
californica
californica
FT, SSC
Coastal sage scrub. Recent records in Palos
Verdes peninsula, Portuguese Bend, Klondike
Canyon and Coronell Canyon in scrub dominated
by Artemisia Californica (CNDDB 2013). No

Table 4.3-1
habitat present in Project area; unlikely to be
present.
California brown
pelican
Pelecanus
occidentalis
californicus
FP
Abundant along coastal areas. Nests on coastal
islands. Likely to be occasionally present in small
numbers on Beach habitat.
California gull Larus californicus SSC
islands. Likely to be occasionally present in small
numbers on Beach habitat.
California least
tern
Sterna antillarum
browni FE, SE/FP
Present along coastal areas. Historically nested at
Venice Beach site and Ballona Creek. Likely to
forage in small numbers in offshore waters.
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Present in coastal areas. Likely to be present in
small numbers in offshore waters.
Double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax
auritus SSC
islands. Likely to be present in small numbers in
offshore waters.
Western snowy
plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
FE, SSC
Sandy beaches; no recent breeding records
(CNDDB 2013), known to roost on Hermosa
Beach, but likely to be present on beach during
non-breeding season. (CNDDB 2013).
Mammals
South coast
marsh vole
Microtus
californicus
stephensi
SSC
Tidal marshes; recent records in Ballona
Wetlands; no marsh habitat in Project area;
species not present in Project area.
musculus FE Present in low numbers, but increasing in recent
Blue whale Balaenoptera
years.
physalus FE Present in low numbers each year in offshore
Fin whale Balaenoptera
waters.
Humpback
whale
Megaptera
novaeangliae FE Present in low numbers each year in offshore
waters.
North Pacific
Right whale
Eubalaena
japonica FE Present in low numbers each year offshore.
borealis FE Present in low numbers each year offshore.
Sei whale Balaenoptera
F = Federal. FP = Fully Protected.
S = State (California). T = Threatened.
C = Candidate. SC = Species of Concern.
E = Endangered. R = Rare
BCC= Bird of Conservation Concern.
Source: CNDDB 2013
Globose Dune Beetle
Globose dune beetles inhabit foredunes and sand hummocks immediately bordering the coast
from Bodega Bay to Ensenada, Baja California. These beetles inhabit the sand beneath dune
vegetation on which they depend for food. There are no well vegetated coastal dunes on the

beaches in the Project vicinity and therefore this species is not expected to occur in the general
Project areas discussed below.
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
The El Segundo blue butterfly is a small subspecies of blue butterfly that almost exclusively
inhabits dune areas that support its sole host plant, the coast buckwheat. The lifecycle of the El
Segundo blue butterfly is entirely reliant on the coast buckwheat; adults eat nectar, mate, and lay
eggs on the flowers, developing larvae feed on the flowers, and pupae develop in the soil directly
beneath the host plants. Attempts to protect the El Segundo blue butterfly from extinction have
centered primarily around protecting and propagating its host plant.
Following its initial discovery in 1975, the El Segundo blue butterfly was listed as endangered in
1976. The population continued to decline throughout the 1980s. There are no well vegetated
coastal dunes in the Project vicinity and therefore this species is not expected to occur in the
general Project areas discussed below.
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
The Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) is one of 11
subspecies of the Silvery Blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus) whose historic range probably
extended over much of the Palos Verdes peninsula. Development of its dune habitat led to an
endangered listing in 1980. By 1983 it was thought to be extinct; however, during a 1994
biological survey specimens were documented at the southern end of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
on the grounds of the Navy's Defense Fuel Support Center in San Pedro. At that time, the total
count in the wild was estimated at approximately 214 individuals, making it what many consider
to be the world’s rarest butterfly. Despite successful captive rearing of the Palos Verdes blue
butterfly since its rediscovery, the wild population has not grown substantially. In 1999, the
count increased to 646 individuals, but then dropped to 411 adults in 2000 (Mattoni and Powers
2000). The population has continued to fluctuate over the intervening years, with the wild
population in 2007 approximately 220 individuals. The Palos Verdes blue butterfly is dependent
on two known host plants, locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus, also known as Santa
Barbara milkvetch) and common deerweed (Lotus scoparius). It has a single adult flight period
from late January through mid-April. Since the nearest colony is south of the Proposed Site on
the Palos Verdes peninsula, this species is not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Project.
There are no well vegetated coastal dunes in the project vicinity and therefore, this species is not
expected to occur in the general Project areas discussed below.
Western Snowy Plover
After a decade of substantial decline in adult bird numbers (approximately 11 percent), the
USFWS listed the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) as threatened on
March 5, 1993 (USFWS 1993). By 1991, the number of adult birds on the Pacific Coast of the
U.S. had dwindled to approximately 1,200 to 1,900 birds (Lafferty 2000). Critical habitat for
this species was designated in 1999 and updated in 2005 and a recovery plan for the western
snowy plover was finalized in 2007 (USFWS 2007).

Historically, western snowy plovers nested on the Malibu beaches and a stretch of beach
between Santa Monica and Redondo Beach (USFWS 2007). Western snowy plovers nest on
beaches and salt flats that have some vegetation, and they feed on mud flats in the wetlands.
Recent western snowy plover use of beaches in the Project area by winter migrants is expected,
although nesting in the Project area has not been recorded since 1949 (USFWS 2007).
Nevertheless, critical habitat is designated for the species on a series of Pacific coastline beaches
from Washington to Southern California (USFWS 2007). Other nearby sites are Dockweiler
Beach South and Hermosa Beach between 2nd and 6th Streets. The closest breeding colony to the
Proposed Site is Bolsa Chica in Orange County; other colonies are in Ventura County (Santa
Clara river mouth, McGrath Lagoon, and Mugu Lagoon), Santa Barbara County (Coal Oil
Point), and on several of the Channel Islands.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The California coastal gnatcatcher is an obligate and permanent resident of low coastal sage
scrub that is typically dominated by Artemisia Californica, Eriogonum fasciculatum and Salvia
mellifera. This species’ decline is a direct result of habitat loss due to urban development.
Recent records indicate the presence of breeding pairs of gnatcatchers in Palos Verdes peninsula,
Portuguese Bend, Klondike Canyon and Coronell Canyon in scrub dominated by Artemisia
Californica (CNDDB 2013). There is no coastal sage scrub habitat present in Project area;
therefore this species is not expected in the Project area.
California Least Tern
The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) is a summer visitor that breeds in southern
California coastal habitat from late April to September. It builds nests in shallow depressions in
hard or soft dirt, dried mud, or sandy areas, usually on beaches or islands cleared of vegetation.
Least terns utilize the open waters of Ballona Creek and, to a lesser extent, Ballona Lagoon and
the Venice Canals to forage for small fishes. A protected nesting area is on North Dockweiler
State Beach near Marina del Rey.
The California least tern was federally-listed as endangered in 1970 and state-listed as
endangered in 1971. This migratory shorebird species is found along the Pacific Coast of
California, from San Francisco southward to Baja California. Historically, the California least
tern nested in small aggregations scattered among sandy beaches and salt flats all along the coast
(Keane 1999). However, habitat loss in the early 1900s caused a drastic reduction in both
breeding sites and breeding pairs. By the 1940s, the California least tern disappeared from Los
Angeles and Orange Counties (Keane 1999).
Nests consist of shallow depressions in undisturbed open sand, dirt, or dry mud close to estuaries
or a dependable food supply. California least terns are colonial and create loose aggregations of
nests with nests approximately 10 feet (3 m) apart. One to four eggs are laid during each
breeding season.
California least terns are known to have nested on the salt and mudflats at Playa del Rey since at
least 1919, and small numbers remained there into the late 1970s. However, a program
established in the early 1980s to protect least tern nesting grounds, including protective fencing
and predator control on the north side of the entrance to Ballona Lagoon, at nearby Venice Beach

(North Dockweiler State Beach), resulted in a preferential shift to that site. Since then, the Playa
site has fallen into disuse, while the numbers of nesting pairs and fledglings at Venice Beach
have tripled. Nesting pairs at the site increased from less than 100 in the late 1970s, to more than
400 by 2007. Meanwhile, from 1978 through 1994 the site contributed more than 10 percent of
the fledglings statewide. The area currently remains one of only two permanent California least
tern nesting sites in Los Angeles County; the other site is south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula at
the Port of Los Angeles (Pier 400). Additional nesting sites for this species are included on
Figure 4.3-1.
Marine Mammals
Because of its transitional location between the cooler (Oregonian) zoogeographic province to
the north of Point Conception and the subtropical (San Diegan) province to the south that
comprises most of southern California’s waters, the SCB supports a wide variety of marine
mammals. Marine mammals reported within the area are represented by more than 40 species,
all of which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These include 34
species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and six species of pinnipeds (seals and sea
lions). Marine mammal species in the region can be classified into three categories: 1) migrants
that pass through the area on their way to calving or feeding grounds; 2) seasonal visitors that
remain for a limited time; and 3) residents that remain much or all of the year. Five whale
species transit the Project area during annual migrations while all but one of the dolphin species
have resident populations within the area. The Santa Monica Bay is located near the geographic
middle of the SCB. Therefore, marine mammal species whose extreme range limit is the SCB,
such as the northern fur seal and the southern sea otter, are not likely to be encountered in the
immediate Project area. The Point Dume SMR is at the northern end of Santa Monica Bay and is
approximately 35 miles from the project site. The Point Vicente SMCA is at the southern end of
Santa Monica Bay on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, approximately 15 miles from the Project Site.
Pinnipeds
Six species of pinnipeds are found offshore southern California. Four of the species are year-round
residents in the SCB, while the remaining two are uncommon visitors but have previously
maintained substantial populations within the region (CINMS 2005). Only two of the pinniped
species, the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), are
expected to be encountered in the areas directly offshore of the Proposed Project Site with any
regularity, although the resident populations of California sea lions, northern fur seals, and
northern elephant seals all maintain breeding colonies on San Miguel Island, the northernmost of
the Channel Islands.
Cetaceans
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) occur in the in the areas directly offshore of the
Project area year-round, although the species present may vary from season to season or from
year to year. Cetacean population levels are generally at their lowest in spring and their highest
levels during the autumn (Dohl et al. 1983). Although a total of eight species of baleen whales
occur in the SCB, the majority of these whales use the coastal waters of the SCB as migratory
routes or are seasonal visitors (Carretta et al. 2005).

Figure 4.3-1 Sensitive Biological Resources
Source: Area Contingency Plan 5,

Five species, the California gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata scammoni) can be expected to occur
within the Project area (Dohl et al. 1983, Carretta et al. 2005). The remaining three whale
species are only rarely sighted in the SCB, or are generally found far offshore. Five of the
whales are considered endangered under the FESA and the California Endangered Species Act.
These listings were largely in response to worldwide population declines from intensive
commercial whaling.
Dolphins and Porpoises
The commonly encountered delphinids in the SCB include the common dolphin (Delphinus
delphis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), the northern right whale
dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and Dall's porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli). These species vary in their patterns of usage of the area and periods of
peak abundances (Dohl et al. 1983). Common, Pacific white-sided, and bottlenose dolphin are
common, year round residents. The northern right-whale dolphin is common in the winter and
spring, and Risso’s dolphin is common year round with peak population in summer and autumn.
Dall’s and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) are boreal species, which are species found in
cooler waters of the North Pacific, and only occasionally travel as far south as the SCB.
4.3.1.4 Sensitive Habitats
Coastal Dune Scrub Communities
Several habitats (Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, and Southern Coastal Bluff
Scrub) located in the Project general vicinity are included in the CNDDB query as being locally
sensitive habitats. Coastal dune scrub and the associated Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub are found
on the bluffs of Palos Verdes. Southern Coastal Salt Marsh is located at the mouth of Ballona
Creek, and Southern dune scrub is located in the El Segundo dunes immediately west of LAX.
These habitats are surrounded by urban development and therefore, are exposed to the threats of
urban encroachment and habitat fragmentation. The plant and animal species associated with
these habitats are especially important because of the scarcity of other available habitat in the
general area. None of these habitats are present in the immediate Project vicinity.
Sensitive Sites
Section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321 (j)) required the development of a National Planning and
Response System. As part of this system, Area Committees were established for specific regions.
These Area Committees are comprised of qualified personnel from Federal, State, and local
agencies. Each Area Committee, under the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the
area, was responsible for developing an Area Contingency Plan (ACP) which, when
implemented, would be adequate to remove a worst case discharge of oil or hazardous substance,
and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore
facility, or onshore facility operating in or near the geographic area. The ACPs also identified
sites having special ecological sensitivity. The local USCG Sector Los Angeles ACP (2011)

identified these locations as “Sensitive Sites”. The location and description of each of these
Sensitive Sites (Figure 4.3-1) are described below. A narrative and diagram of each site with
specific ecological and operational information has been developed.
Sandy Beach is a habitat included in the ACP as a resource of primary concern due to its support
of nesting and roosting habitat for western snowy plover (federal threatened species), least tern
(Federal and State endangered species), and also due to its importance in providing suitable
spawning area for grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), which inhabit nearshore waters along the
California coast and spawn at night during full and new moons during the spring and summer
months. Grunion leave the water and spawn on beaches at high tides, swimming as far up the
beach as possible. This species is known to spawn as close to the Project Site as the southern
shore of Hermosa Beach.
Malibu Lagoon Coastal Wetland: Coastal lagoon and wetlands complex, entrance to wetlands is
often closed by sand during low rain fall seasons. Primary biological concerns include
California brown pelican, seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, tidewater goby (Federal and State
endangered species), steelhead trout (federal endangered species) and juvenile fish species.
Topanga Creek: Small creek-mouth backed by intermittent lagoon system that forms behind
beach berm after seasonal rains. During the dry season (May - October), a sand berm is present
which prevents creek flow into the ocean. During the rainy season (November - April) the sand
berm is typically breached by creek runoff and/or tidal flows. Primary biological concerns
include California brown pelican, seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, tidewater goby (Federal and
State endangered species), steelhead trout (federal endangered species) and juvenile fish species.
Venice Beach: Sandy beach used by western snowy plover for nesting, foraging, and winter
roosting, and California least tern for nesting and foraging. Fenced nesting site is located on
upper portion of beach north of Ballona Creek entrance. Other biological concerns include
grunion runs from late February to early September.
Marina Del Rey Breakwater: riprap breakwater used by seabirds, including California brown
pelican and double crested cormorant, as a roosting site.
Ballona Creek: A riprap lined channel used by seabird and waterfowl for foraging habitat and
roosting site. Also used as foraging habitat for California least terns.
Ballona Lagoon Wetlands/Del Rey Lagoon: A coastal lagoon and wetlands complex. Primary
biological concerns include California brown pelican, shorebirds, California least tern foraging
habitat, waterfowl, Belding’s savannah sparrow (State endangered species).
King Harbor Breakwater: riprap seawall used by seabirds, including California brown pelican
and double crested cormorant, as a roosting site. Other biological concerns include eel grass and
sea lion haul out.
Cabrillo Beach Wetlands: small 3.2 acre mitigation site wetland adjacent to Cabrillo Beach with
mudflat-marsh ecosystem. Biological concerns include California brown pelican, California
least teen foraging habitat, seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl.

Los Angeles Harbor and Long Beach breakwaters: rocky riprap breakwaters used by seabirds,
including California brown pelican and double crested cormorant, as a roosting site and as a
marine mammal haul out.
Golden Shore Marine Reserve: a tidal saltmarsh, constructed as part of a mitigation project.
Primarily a mud flat, coastal lagoon complex used by resting seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl,
California brown pelican, California least tern, and Belding’s savannah sparrow.
Alamitos Bay/Los Cerritos Wetland: a developed coastal embayment that contains a large area of
sand and mud shoreline. Biological resources of primary concern include California brown
pelican, shorebirds, seabirds, waterfowl, juvenile fish species, and green sea turtle.
Marine Protected Areas
A Marine Protected Area (MPA, Figure 4.3-2) is an area of the ocean where consumptive human
activities such as fishing are limited or restricted in order to protect or conserve marine life or
habitats. Los Angeles Mainland MPAs include Point Dume State Marine Reserve (SMR), Point
Dume State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), Point Vicente State Marine Conservation Area
(SMCA), and the Abalone Cove State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA).
4.3.2.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code 153 et seq.)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, protects and conserves threatened and
endangered species and their ecosystems. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA governs interagency cooperation and
consultation to ensure that activities do not jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered
species or result in adverse impacts, modification, or destruction of their critical habitat.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Secretary of Commerce delegated the
authority to protect all cetaceans and pinnipeds to the NMFS. The Secretary of the Interior is
responsible for protecting sea otters and delegated this authority to the USFWS. The Marine
Mammal Protection Act established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction. Under the Act, “taking” includes hunting, capturing, and killing and
attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. “Harassment” is defined as any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild.

Figure 4.3-2 Marine Protected Areas
Project Site

Clean Water Act
The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its 1977 amendments, collectively known as
the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishes national water-quality goals. The CWA established
minimum water quality standards for effluents entering federal waters, implemented through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Program. It requires states to
establish standards specific to water bodies and designated the types of pollutants to be
regulated, including total suspended solids and oil. The CWA also establishes guidelines for the
discharge of dredged or fill materials to the waters of the United States and for the prevention of
such discharges, individually or in combination with other activities, from having unacceptable
adverse impacts on the environment. Compliance with the CWA is provided by approval of a
NPDES permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Coast Guard Regulatory Authority
Primary responsibility for the enforcement of U.S. maritime laws and regulations falls upon the
United States Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG is responsible for managing and regulating
provisions for safe navigation of vessels in U.S. waters, as well as enforcing environmental and
pollution prevention regulations. As such, the USCG regulates hazardous working conditions on
the Outer Continental Shelf, manages and regulates measures for pollution prevention in
territorial waters, and implements provisions in the Oil Pollution Act and the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act. The USCG conducts pollution surveillance patrols to detect
oil discharges within the territorial sea and contiguous zone and has enforcement authority over
violations. The USCG maintains strike team responsibilities in the event of an oil spill.
Coastal Zone Management Act
In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, all Federal activities must be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the enforceable policies of each affected state’s coastal zone management
program. Each state’s Coastal Zone Management program sets forth objectives, policies, and
standards regarding public and private use of land and water resources in the coastal zone.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a single uniform Federal system of liability and
compensation for damage caused by oil spills in U.S. navigable waters. The Act requires
removal of spilled oil and establishes a national system of planning for and responding to oil spill
incidents.
The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for spill prevention, oil-spill contingency plans, oil-spill
containment and cleanup equipment, financial responsibility certification, and civil penalties
for offshore facilities and associated pipelines in all Federal and state waters.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code 703–711)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended in 1972, makes it unlawful, unless
permitted by regulations, to “pursue; hunt; take; capture; kill; attempt to take, capture or kill;
possess; offer for sale; sell; offer to purchase; purchase; deliver for shipment; ship; cause to be

shipped; deliver for transportation; transport; cause to be transported; carry or cause to be carried
by any means whatever; receive for shipment, transportation, or carriage; or export, at any time,
or in any manner, any migratory bird for the protection of migratory birds or any part, nest, or
egg of any such bird” (16 USC 703).
4.3.2.2 State Resource Regulations
California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.)
Pursuant to the CESA and Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, an incidental take permit
from the CDFW is required for Projects that could result in the take of a state-listed Threatened
or Endangered species. Under CESA, "take" is defined as an activity that would directly or
indirectly kill an individual of a species. An incidental take permit authorized by CDFW under
Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code would be required where a Project could
result in the taking of a state-listed threatened or endangered species. The application for an
incidental take permit under Section 2081(b) requires the preparation of a conservation plan,
generally referred to as a Habitat Conservation Plan.
The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and
reproduction are in immediate jeopardy; a threatened species as one present in such small
numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future
in the absence of special protection or management; and a rare species as one present in such
small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment
worsens. The rare designation applies only to California native plants. Under CESA, CDFW is
authorized to issue permits authorizing incidental take of threatened and endangered species.
California Species of Special Concern is a designation that CDFW uses for some declining
wildlife species that are not candidates for state listing. This designation does not provide legal
protection, but signifies that CDFW recognizes that populations of these species are declining in
the state and may be worthy of targeted conservation efforts to prevent their eventual listing.
California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513)
These sections makes is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any
bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section
3503.5 explicitly provides protection for all birds of prey, including their eggs and nests. Section
3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the
federal MBTA.
California Code of Regulations (Title 14, Division 1 Subdivision 4, Office of Oil Spill
Prevention and Response, Chapter 3)
This code sets forth planning requirements for oil spill prevention and response for marine
facilities in California. The planning requirements specify that the owner/operator of a marine
facility must own or have contracted for on-water recovery and storage resources sufficient to
respond to all spills up to the calculated Response Planning Volume or the defined Daily
Recovery Rate, whichever is less. The owner/operator shall also demonstrate through
contracts(s) or other approved means, the shoreline protection response resources necessary to

protect each type of shoreline and all applicable sensitive sites as outlined in applicable Shoreline
Protection Table listed in Section 790 of Code. Unless otherwise exempt, each owner/operator
of a marine facility shall prepare and submit an oil spill contingency plan for that facility. Oil
spill contingency plans shall be prepared, submitted and used pursuant to the regulatory
requirements for all marine facilities where a discharge of oil could reasonably be expected to
impact the marine waters of California.
A facility would be considered to have potential impact on marine waters based on the
geographical and location aspects of the site. Such aspects include proximity to marine waters or
adjoining shorelines, and contour, and local drainage patterns. The existence of dikes, equipment
or other structures used to prevent a spill from reaching marine waters will not necessarily affect
the determination of which facilities are required to submit a plan.
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) may
require permits (“waste discharge requirements”) for the fill or alteration of “Waters of the
State.” The term “Waters of the State” is defined as “any surface water or groundwater,
including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section
13050[e]). Although “waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human
habitation, the SWRCB interprets this to include fill discharge into water bodies. The SWRCB
and the RWQCBs have interpreted their authority to require waste discharge requirements to
extend to any proposal to fill or alter “Waters of the State.”
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) became law in 1976 to provide a comprehensive
framework to protect and manage coastal resources. The Coastal Act contains policies to guide
local and state decision-makers in the management of coastal and marine resources. The Act
identifies protective measures for nearshore marine resources.
Coastal Act Section 30230 states:
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special
protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic
significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy
populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial,
recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the
protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through,
among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and
entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and
substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation,

maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing
alteration of natural streams.
Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous
substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such
materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided
for accidental spills that do occur.
Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed
within those areas.
Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and
recreation areas.
Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act
Under this Act, the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) was created and the
CDFW became the lead state agency in spill response (Office of Oil Spill Prevention and
Response, OSPR). The Act requires that persons causing a spill begin immediate cleanup,
follow approved contingency plans, and fully mitigate impacts to wildlife. Under an Interagency
Agreement with OSPR, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) operates an oil spill program
and maintains an oil spill staff. Before and after a spill, CCC staff are involved in review and
comment to both state (e.g., OSPR) and Federal (e.g., USCG) agencies on oil spill contingency
plans and regulations related to marine vessels, marine facilities, and marine vessel routing.
This Act details the role of OSPR in spill investigations. OSPR would be the lead investigative
unit for state and local governments. As the lead agency, OSPR would coordinate the
investigative efforts for these government agencies. Government Code Section 8670.7
specifically requires the Administrator of OSPR to determine the cause and the amount of a
discharge. The investigative goals of OSPR are: to take samples and secure evidence relevant to
the spill; conduct interviews of any person with special knowledge as to the facts of the spill and
make arrests, if necessary and appropriate; determine and document the facts related to the cause
of the spill; secure evidence relevant to determining the volume of oil spilled and the amount
recovered; determine if a responsible party exists and whether or not the responsible party will
take financial responsibility for the cleanup and containment of the spill; and, make an initial
determination as to whether or not the facts of the investigation indicate a violation of state or
local laws or regulations, and if they do, initiate criminal or civil actions through the appropriate
legal jurisdiction(s). State authority extends anywhere within the state and out to three miles
from the shoreline. However, "hot pursuit" and other legal principles allow OSPR to operate
outside of this narrow area of authority.

4.3.2.3 Local Regulations
Los Angeles Water Quality Control Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Clara River and Los Angeles River Basins (Basin
Plan) is the primary policy document that guides the LARWQCB. Established under the
requirements of the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Basin Plan was originally
adopted in 1975, and has been updated regularly. The most recent amendments to the Basin Plan
were adopted in October 2009. The Basin Plan assigns beneficial uses (e.g., municipal water
supply, water contact recreation) to all waters in the basin. The Basin Plan also sets water quality
objectives, subject to approval by the EPA, intended to protect designated beneficial uses of water
bodies. The water quality objectives in the Basin Plan are written to apply to specific parameters
(numeric objectives) and general characteristics of the water body (narrative objectives). An
example of a narrative objective in the Basin Plan is the requirement that all waters must remain
free of toxic substances in concentrations causing detrimental effects on aquatic organisms.
Numeric objectives specify concentrations of pollutants that are not to be exceeded in ambient
waters of the basin. The water quality objectives are achieved primarily through effluent
limitations embodied in the NPDES program.
Consistent with Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines, an impact would be considered
significant if the lead agency determines that Project implementation would result in one or more
of the following:
• Substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
• Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
interference with the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• A conflict with any local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• A conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Planning program,
Natural Community Conservation Planning program, or other approved local, regional, or
state Habitat Conservation Planning program.
For the analysis of potential impacts to Biological Resources, it is anticipated that most direct
impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be the result of the Pipeline installation any

future potential spills from those Pipelines, and/or some tree removal activities in the area of the
existing City Maintenance Yard. Drilling activities, the new City Maintenance Yard and the
installation of the entire Pipeline would occur in paved areas, or in areas previously disturbed or
degraded and therefore, the construction phases of the Project are not expected to disturb any
native vegetation and habitats. The impact analysis focuses on the areas surrounding the Project
Site that could be affected as a result of an oil spill. The main areas where biological impacts
could occur are identified as the beach area and potentially affected ocean waters that could be
reached through existing drainages as a result of a pipeline spill.
The following section describes the level of impact for each of the significance criteria described
above in Section 4.3.3.
Sensitive Species: Except for the potential for spills (discussed below under BIO-2), impacts to
all of the biological resources in the Project area are expected to be primarily temporary in
nature. There are no sensitive plant or wildlife species known or expected to be present in the
project disturbance zone (within the existing facility yard and along the proposed Pipeline
alignment), and therefore, the construction phase of the Project is not expected to have adverse
effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by CDFW or USFWS. Due to the industrial and residential setting in which the Project is
located, there is not significant avifauna habitat in the project vicinity, the site (with its proposed
rig lit at night, crane and workover rig) is not located in a significant migratory flight path, and is
too minimal to result in a significant obstruction to movement, nesting or foraging behavior.
Those species inhabiting the marginal habitat surrounding the project area would already be
accustomed to noise and lighting which is already generated from houses, major road ways, and
industrial activities in the area. In addition, any permanent lighting for the Project would be
designed to be directed downward and shielded in order to avoid obtrusive light spillage beyond
the Project Site, reflective glare, and illumination of the nighttime sky.
Subsurface drilling under the marine environment is proposed to occur over 2,000 feet below the
sea floor. Any noise and/or vibrations resulting from the drilling operations would then have to
travel through 2,000 feet of substrate to reach the marine resources, and then some unspecified
distance through the water depending on the location of individual animals. The Proposed
Project does not involve the use of boats, tankers, or any other type of marine vessel. The
potential for any impact to populations of marine mammals or other sensitive marine species
from noise or vibration impacts resulting from subsurface drilling is considered to be very low.
Sensitive Habitats including Federal Wetlands: There are no sensitive wetland habitat, coastal
scrub habitat, federally protected wetlands, or any other sensitive habitat in the general Project
area, nor immediately downstream of the Project Site and therefore, the construction and
operation phase of the Project, which includes potential impacts resulting from increased noise
and lighting, is not expected to have adverse effects on any sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Wildlife Migratory Corridors: Construction activities would be temporary, and would be
followed by some increased traffic along an already heavily used thoroughfare. Disturbances to
any wildlife species attempting to move through the area would either be temporary in nature or

similar to existing conditions and therefore, the construction and operation phase of the Project is
not expected to have a substantial effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
interference with the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Produced gas generated during the operational and test phase would be sent to a compressor and
then to a gas flare for combustion. Figure 2.7 shows a typical rendition of the proposed ground
flare. Although flaring has the slight potential for impacting individual birds flying through the
area, the height of the ground flare would be low enough to have no impacts on migrating
species that fly in large numbers along the Pacific coast line.
Plan Consistency: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of any Conservation
Planning program, Natural Community Conservation Planning program, or other approved local,
regional, or state Habitat Conservation Planning program.
Except for the potential for spills (discussed below under BIO-2), the Project is not expected to
1) substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance, 2) substantially reduce or
eliminate quantity or quality of nesting areas; 3) substantially limit reproductive capacity through
losses of individuals or habitat; 4) substantially fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt
foraging areas and/or access to food sources; 5) substantially limit or fragment range and
movement (geographic distribution or animals and/or seed dispersal routes); or 6) substantially
interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends.
The following analyzes potentially significant impacts to biological resources due to installation
of the Pipeline. These impacts would be temporary, during construction only, and would occur
in previously disturbed areas.
Impact
BIO.1
Pipeline installation near potential avian breeding habitat
has the potential to impact non-listed sensitive species
including avian species protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Phase 3
Class II
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
In general, drilling operations at the facility yard and the Pipeline installation would not result in
a substantial loss of habitat, would not result in a substantial population decline of any native
fish, wildlife or plant species, nor result in an overall reduction in biological diversity in the
Project area.
All of the wildlife species inhabiting the habitat in the Project vicinity are already exposed to
high levels of human activities. Most of the wildlife species utilizing the urban setting and
Greenbelt vegetation are currently exposed to high numbers of people walking through the area,
traffic, traffic noise, pets, vegetation trimming, and regular maintenance. Site preparation at the
City Maintenance Yard and Pipeline installation activities would result in minimal vegetation
clearing and tree removal. It is expected that any Project related impacts to any plant or wildlife
species in the area would be similar to existing conditions. No nests were visible in trees

planned to be removed and/or trimmed near the facility yard during the non-nesting season site
reconnaissance survey. However, vegetation trimming and tree removal could result in nests
being impacted if vegetation removal was to occur during the avian nesting season which
typically occurs between February 15 and August 15. Raptor species typically start breeding as
early as January 15.
Raptor species including American kestrel and red-tailed hawk likely forage within the Project
areas. Foraging for all these species would be temporarily affected by the noise and increased
human presence during construction activities. The CDFW recommends a buffer area of 500
feet from active or occupied raptor nests during the breeding season.
The loss of any active nest would represent a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This
would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, set forth below, would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. Impacts to other non-listed sensitive species would not
represent a substantial loss of a population nor result in the decline of any native wildlife species.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in compliance with
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the
California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial vegetation removal/trimming shall be done
outside the breeding season (breeding season is defined herein as January 15 through
August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all non- raptor species).
If vegetation removal/trimming must be completed during this period, then surveys for
nesting birds must be conducted by a qualified, City-approved Biologist, within 3 days
prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances. If nesting birds
are observed within the project area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from any non-raptor
species and 500 foot buffer from any raptor nest would be established and
maintained for the duration of vegetation removal/trimming activities or until nestlings
fledge from the nest.
Residual Impact
Impacts to all common wildlife and plant species potentially affected by the project would be
temporary, would not result in any substantial effects, and would therefore not require any
additional mitigation. Foraging raptor species are likely to disturbed for only a short duration of
time; significant impacts to breeding birds would be avoided by scheduling construction during
the non-breeding season (MM BIO-1) and are therefore less than significant with mitigation
(Class II).
The only other impact that could occur based on the Biology thresholds is related to a potential
oil spill that could reach the ocean, resulting in adverse effects on native species and habitats.
Those impacts are discussed below.

Impact
BIO.2
A rupture or leak from oil Pipelines has the potential to
result in a substantial adverse effect on native species and
habitats, sensitive species, and biologically important
habitats associated with the Pacific Ocean.
Phase 4
Class I
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Spills and ruptures from the installed Pipelines could result due to geologic hazards, mechanical
failure, structural failure, corrosion, or human error during operations. Future activities at the
new City Maintenance Yard Project site also have the potential for spills through the use,
transport, handling, and disposal of paints, oil, gasoline, solvents, and other materials. However,
these would be similar to the potential risks associated with the current baseline operations of the
City Maintenance Yard. Spills and cleanup activities would potentially result in impacts to
biological resources, with the primary sensitive resources being associated with coastal and
marine habitats. Small leaks or spills that occur within the confines of the drilling area (located
approximately 0.3 miles from the marine environment) which are also the most likely spills to be
observed, contained, and remediated quickly, would result in minor or negligible impacts to
biological resources. In contrast, large Pipeline spills occurring during rain events or seismic
events could result in conditions whereby oil could enter stormdrains and subsequently spread
out into coastal habitats which would substantially degrade their value, and would represent a
potential long-term impact to biological resources.
The volume, location, and seasonal timing of any potential spill would dictate the severity of
impacts to biological resources. The drilling and well location and the main Pipeline alignment
are all located within an urban area or along a paved road and are therefore, easier to contain and
clean up than any spill near native habitats or aquatic habitat where crude oil could be
transported downstream.
A spill outside of the well location would drain into the storm drains. All storm drains in the
area eventually flow to the ocean. Figure 4.8-3 (Section 4.8) shows a map of the storm drain
systems in the area. Storm drains located in the curbs at the corner of Cypress Avenue and 6th
Street flow through storm drain piping and connect to the main storm drain system that runs
down Valley Drive, which connects to the storm drain system that then runs down Herondo
Street and out to the beach area. The storm drain system that runs down Valley Drive has
intermittent street drains for collecting storm water, with drains located near the corner of Valley
Drive and 2nd Street.
A spill at the drilling facility would need to travel through approximately 0.75 miles of storm
drains to reach the ocean.
Impacts on resident biota could be short- to long-term, depending on the amount of oil spilled,
environmental conditions at the time, containment and cleanup measures taken, and length of
time for habitat recovery. Direct impacts on wildlife from oil spills include physical contact with
the oil, ingestion of oil, and loss of food, critical nesting and foraging habitats. Organisms can
be affected physically through smothering, interference with movements, coating of external
surfaces with black coloration (leading to increased solar heat gain), and fouling of insulating
body coverings (birds and mammals). Toxicity can occur via absorption through the body

surface (skin, gills, etc.) or ingestion. Biological oxidation (through metabolism) can produce
products more toxic than the original compounds. Sub-lethal effects include reduced
reproductive success, narcosis, interference with movement, and disruption of chemosensory
functions.
Spills or disturbances resulting from accidents, spills, leaks, and cleanup efforts within the marine,
sandy beach, and foredune habitats have the potential to substantially affect a wide variety of wildlife
discussed below:
Benthos. Oil represents a physical as well as a chemical hazard to benthic organisms, with impacts
occurring through both physical smothering and hydrocarbon toxicity. Sessile species, such as
barnacles, may be smothered while mobile animals, such as amphipods, may be immobilized and
glued to the substrate or trapped in surface slicks. The potential severity of oil spill impacts to
benthic organisms varies according to the degree of weathering of the oil. Fresh, unweathered oil
contains higher amounts of the more-toxic aromatic hydrocarbons that may be readily accumulated
by benthic organisms. The potential impacts of spilled oil to benthic communities are considered to
be significant.
The subtidal benthos of nearshore areas in the Santa Monica Bay is dominated by small infaunal
invertebrates, particularly polychaete worms and crustaceans. An oil spill that results in high
concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons in the water and/or the incorporation of oil into the
sediments would likely result in a species composition shift to invasive and opportunistic benthic
fauna. It is likely that an oil spill would selectively impact more sensitive benthic species, such
as filter feeding amphipods. An oil spill within Santa Monica Bay nearshore and coastal
wetlands, which would occur under most of the prevailing conditions evaluated, would have
significant impacts to the soft-bottom subtidal benthos.
When spilled oil reaches the shoreline or intertidal zone, it becomes concentrated in a narrow zone.
Because of the shallower water depth, hydrocarbon concentrations can reach toxic levels. Thus,
intertidal biota are exposed to higher concentrations of oil for a longer period of time than most other
marine organisms. Similarly, spilled oil that does not evaporate or wash ashore, is eventually
incorporated into bottom sediments where it can be ingested by benthic organisms, or incorporated
by contact with their gill membranes.
Plankton. Laboratory studies, field enclosure studies, and field studies conducted during oil spills
have shown that oil spills have measurable effects upon marine phytoplankton and zooplankton.
Impacts to phytoplankton include mortality, reduced growth, and reduced photosynthesis.
Additionally, early life stages, such as eggs, embryos, and larvae of zooplankton, are considered to be
more susceptible than adults to oil spill impacts because of their higher sensitivity to toxicants and
higher likelihood of exposure to oil at the surface of the ocean. The severity of effects on
phytoplankton will vary with respect to species present in the water column, the time of the year, and
the chemical composition of the oil spilled. Both lethal and sublethal effects of oil on plankton
depend on the persistence of sufficiently high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the water
column.
Fish. The effect of oil on fish species includes histological (tissue and cell) damage, altered
physiological and metabolic patterns, decreased growth and reproduction, and vulnerability to

disease. Adult fish, due to their mobility, may be able to avoid or minimize exposure to spilled
oil. However, there is no conclusive evidence that fish will avoid spilled oil (NRC 1985). Egg
and larval stages would not be able to avoid exposure to spilled oil. The destruction of prey by a
potential oil spill can also have significant impacts to fish productivity. Within the Project area,
particularly vulnerable fish populations would be species that use estuaries or coastal wetlands,
such as Ballona Wetlands and Malibu Lagoon, for part of their early life histories. These
species, including game fishes, would be especially vulnerable because estuarine circulation
tends to trap and recirculate pollutants at the sea water-fresh water interface. Because fish
species can be economically important, are critical to the overall health of Santa Monica Bay,
and are important in the entire food-web of the area, impacts to fish are considered to be
significant.
Marine Birds. Oil spills pose a significant threat to marine birds. Due to the migratory nature of
many bird species, the severity of oil spill impacts on marine birds would depend on the time of the
year, the species present, and their numbers. Oil on a marine bird clogs and damages the fine
structure of the feathers that is responsible for maintaining water repellency and heat insulation. In
addition to coating by oil, marine birds are also subject to chronic, long-term effects from oil that
remains in the environment. For example, small amounts of oil on a bird’s plumage may be
transferred to eggs during incubation. Birds can also consume oil through their diet or through
preening, which results in physiological stress. Effects of ingested oil include acute irritation,
difficulties in water absorption, and general pathological changes in some organs. Ingestion of oil
can also affect reproductive success by degrading yolk structure, reducing clutch size, and decreasing
egg viability.
Shorebirds. Santa Monica Bay is a critical feeding area along the Pacific flyway used by up to one
million shorebirds, including sandpipers, plovers, killdeer, oystercatchers, stilts, avocets and willets
(Baird 1993). Shorebirds are most abundant in winter and generally feed in shallow waters and flats
of bays and estuaries, while some prefer to feed along sandy beaches and rocky shores. Although
shorebirds are able to avoid oiling to some extent by retreating from exposed habitat, both bay and
open coast feeding habitats will potentially be impacted by any Project-related oil spill if that oil was
able to flow from the spill site, down through storm drains, and out into the ocean.
Marine Mammals. Marine mammals that could be impacted by an oil spill include cetaceans (whales
and dolphins), pinnipeds (seals), and fissipeds (sea otters). Animals that are unable to avoid contact
with oil could be impacted by fouling, inhalation, or ingestion that could result in sublethal or lethal
effects. The marine mammal species that occur in the Project area exhibit varying degrees of
vulnerability to oil spills. Impacts can be caused either by oil contact or by ingestion. There is
evidence that some cetacean species may avoid contact with oil at sea; however, pinniped species
and sea otters could potentially suffer lethal and long term sublethal effects resulting in significant
impacts. Onshore cleanup activities, depending on location, could disrupt pinniped haul-out and
rookery areas and could also result in significant impacts. As a result, impacts to marine mammals
are considered to be significant.
Areas of Special Biological Significance: Those areas identified above as Sensitive Areas and
Marine Protected Areas are recognized as biologically important and given a level of protection
indicating that damage causing or contributing to a measurable change in function in these areas
represents a significant impact. The level of impact to each of these areas would be determined by

the amount of material spilled and the distance away from the source area and are described below
under the Probability of Spill discussion.
Probability of Spill. As described in Section 4.8, Safety Risk of Upset and Hazards, the
probability that there would be any sized spill at any point of the Pipeline over the 35 year life of
the Project would be 34%. The probability of any sized spill in the Herondo area, which is closer
to the ocean and sensitive biological resources, is estimated to be 14%. In order for flows to
reach the marine habitats a spill would have to occur during a substantial rain event, on the order
of 0.50 inch of rainfall. The probability of a spill occurring during a 0.50 inch storm event in
the Herondo area would be 0.4%. Therefore, the chance of any spill actually getting to the ocean
and/or any sensitive receptor in the coastal area is exceptionally low. A truck accident during
Phase 2 could also occur, spilling oil into storm drains (see section 4.8, Safety and Risk).
However, although there is a low likelihood of flows from a spill reaching the Pacific Ocean, any
spill occurring during a substantial rain event does have some potential to affect nearshore and
shoreline habitat. A spill occurring under these circumstances would therefore, have the
potential to change the functionality of these areas. These sensitive areas and resources
described above that are known to occur throughout the nearby marine habitat are protected by
Federal, State and/or local regulations and include specialized communities and habitats that
supports the presence of marine mammals, birds, and endangered species. A spill that contacts
the shoreline would also contaminate or increase mortality of invertebrates that are forage material
for some sensitive species in the general area. Impacts to sensitive habitats and protected species
resulting from spills related to from the proposed project would be considered significant.
As described above under the regulatory setting, California Code requires the preparation and
submittal for OSPR Review a California State Oil Spill Contingency Plan for planning requirements
for oil spill prevention and response for any marine facilities in California. The planning
requirements specify that the owner/operator of a marine facility shall demonstrate shoreline
protection response resources necessary to protect each type of shoreline and all applicable sensitive
sites. Oil Spill Contingency Plans shall be prepared, submitted and used pursuant to the regulatory
requirements for all marine facilities where a discharge of oil could reasonably be expected to impact
the marine waters of California. As part of the application, the Applicant has prepared and submitted
to the City, a preliminary California State Oil Spill Contingency plan pursuant to OSPR
requirements. In addition, the Applicant has agreed that the Proposed Project does, in fact, meet the
criteria of a marine facility where a spill would "reasonably be expected to impact marine waters;"
therefore acknowledging the requirement for the preparation, submittal, and approval of an OSPR-approved
Oil Spill Contingency Plan.
Subsurface Release. Any subsurface drilling releases into the Pacific Ocean could result in
potentially significant adverse effects on native species, sensitive species, sensitive marine
mammal, important coastal habitats. Impacts on resident marine biota could be short- to long-term,
depending on the amount of oil released, environmental conditions at the time, containment
and cleanup measures taken, and length of time for containment. However, drilling is proposed
to occur over 2,000 feet below the sea floor. Any fluids would then have to travel through 2,000
feet of substrate to reach the marine resources, the potential for any rupture or leak from
subsurface drilling is considered to be very low frequency and probability.

Impacts from Cleanup. Impacts of cleanup could be potentially more substantial than the effect
of the spilled oil itself. Spill response and cleanup actions, including, but not limited to, the
application of dispersants, pressure washing of intertidal areas, manual removal of oil from
beaches and estuaries, could directly result in toxicity or fouling to biota, crushing of individual
organisms, vegetation removal, and habitat degradation. The level of impact would depend on
the size of the spill, the amount of habitat affected, and the number of individuals and types of
species affected. Most of the habitat in the most likely of access points for spilled material did
not support any native or non-native vegetation.
Mitigation Measure
The potential for oil spills and the associated spill volumes is discussed in Section 4.8: Safety,
Risk of Upset and Hazards and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation measures
identified in Sections 4.8 and 4.9 require procedures and plans that include an Oil Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Pipeline Management Plan; and the requirement
of an Emergency Response Plan; all of which act to limit the potential for onsite spills and
associated significant impacts. If a spill and cleanup were to occur that affected the coastline,
implementing the following measures would reduce impacts on biological resources.
BIO-2: The Applicant shall submit for City approval and shall implement an Emergency
Response Plan that would, in compliance with the California State Oil Spill
Contingency Plan (CDFW, OSPR 2014), address protection of biological resources
and possible revegetation of any areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup
activities. The Emergency Response Plan shall, at a minimum, include specific
measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and animal
species, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas during response and cleanup
operations. The Emergency Response Plan shall include provisions for containment
and cleanup measures and responsibilities. The plan shall contain:
• Definition of the authorities, responsibilities, duties of all entities involved in oil
removal operations, and methods of emergency action agency coordination during
and after an oil spill;
• Agreements and statements from all resource agencies involved in an oil response
and removal operation;
• Procedures and frequencies for regular monitoring and inspections of pipelines
and facilities;
• Procedures for early detection and timely notification of an oil discharge;
• A description of the necessary onsite equipment and details on the placement of
the material required to quickly control, contain, and remove any discharged oil;
• Assurance that full resource capability is known and can be committed following
a discharge;
• A description of sensitive biological resources in the SMB that should be
prioritized for clean-up activities in the case of an oil spill into the marine and
coastal environment;
• Actions for after discovery and notification of a discharge;
• Procedures to facilitate recovery of damages and enforcement measures.

The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR).
When habitat disturbance cannot be avoided, the Emergency Response Action Plan
shall provide stipulations for development and implementation of site-specific habitat
restoration plans and other site-specific and species-specific measures appropriate for
mitigating impacts to local populations of special-status wildlife species and to restore
native plant and animal communities to pre-spill conditions. Access and egress points,
staging areas, and material stockpile areas that avoid specific habitat areas shall be
identified. The Emergency Response Action Plan shall include species- and site-specific
procedures for collection, transportation and treatment of oiled wildlife.
The Emergency Response Plan shall be approved by the City prior to commencing any
construction activities.
Residual Impact
Implementing the proposed mitigation measures, as well as infrastructure preventative
maintenance, structural integrity tests, and routine inspections, would reduce the likelihood and
severity of potential spill and exposure impacts to sensitive biological resources. Small leaks or
spills, which are contained and remediated quickly, are likely to have only minor or negligible
impacts to biological resources. In contrast, large spills, such as those that could be produced
from a Pipeline rupture or a truck accident during Phase 2, could spread to the beach and
potentially to the numerous sensitive habitats and species present in the Pacific Ocean, resulting
in an impact considered to be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation measures proposed for other issues areas in this EIR would not increase impacts to
biological resources if they are implemented. Most of the mitigation measures are designed to
reduce the likelihood of spills and releases which would decrease potential impacts to biological
resources. Therefore, additional analysis or mitigation is not required.
None of the cumulative residential or commercial projects would be constructed near the
Proposed Project area, so there would be no operational localized impacts associated with
cumulative projects. Although additional projects in the Project area could increase the potential
for impacts to biological resources, all of the plant and wildlife species are already exposed to a
high level of human-related pressures and impacts. Operational regional impacts could be
produced, however, as multiple projects would emit pollutants at the same time. As the
Proposed Project would produce significant impacts, cumulative impacts could also be
significant.

The cumulative geographic context for the evaluation of impacts on biological resources is
regional coastal development, particularly within the Santa Monica Bay. Consequently, other
projects considered in the Cumulative Project Impact Analysis could potentially result in
degradations to water quality and biological resources, either through small-scale releases of
contaminants or large-scale spills.
Thus, cumulative impacts to biology are not considered to be significant.

Mitigation
Measure
Requirements
Party
BIO-1 To minimize potential impacts to nesting
native bird species, and in compliance with
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3513 of the
California Fish and Wildlife Code, initial
vegetation removal/trimming shall be done
outside the breeding season (breeding
season is defined herein as January 15
through August 31 for raptors and February
15 through August 31 for all non- raptor
species). If vegetation removal/trimming
must be completed during this period, then
surveys for nesting birds must be conducted
by a qualified, City-approved Biologist,
within 3 days prior to vegetation removal or
other construction-related disturbances. If
nesting birds are observed within the project
area, then a minimum 100-foot buffer from
any non-raptor species and 500 foot buffer
from any raptor nest would be established
and maintained for the duration of
vegetation removal/trimming activities or
until nestlings fledge from the nest.
Plan
review, site
inspections
Before and
during
construction
City of
Hermosa
Beach
BIO-2 The Applicant shall submit for City approval
and shall implement an Emergency
Response Plan that would, in compliance
with the California State Oil Spill
Contingency Plan (CDFW, OSPR
2014),address protection of biological
resources and possible revegetation of any
areas disturbed during an oil spill or cleanup
activities. The Emergency Response Plan
shall, at a minimum, include specific
measures to avoid impacts to native
vegetation and wildlife habitats, plant and
animal species, and environmentally
sensitive habitat areas during response and
cleanup operations. The Emergency
Response Plan shall include provisions for
containment and cleanup measures and
responsibilities. The plan shall contain:
• Definition of the authorities,
responsibilities, and duties of all entities
involved in oil removal operations, and
methods of emergency action agency
coordination during and after an oil spill;
• Agreements and statements from
Plan review Before
construction
City of
Hermosa
Beach,
OSPR

Mitigation
Measure
Requirements
Party
all resource agencies involved in an oil
response and removal operation;
• Procedures and frequencies for
regular monitoring and inspections of
pipelines and facilities;
• Procedures for early detection and
timely notification of an oil discharge;
• A description of the necessary
onsite equipment and details on the
placement of the material required to
quickly control, contain, and remove any
discharged oil;
• Assurance that full resource
capability is known and can be committed
following a discharge;
• A description of sensitive biological
resources in the SMB that should be
prioritized for clean-up activities in the case
of an oil spill into the marine environment; •
Actions for after discovery and
notification of a discharge;
• Procedures to facilitate recovery of
damages and enforcement measures.
The Emergency Response Plan
shall be approved by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
(OSPR).
When habitat disturbance cannot be
avoided, the Emergency Response Action
Plan shall provide stipulations for
development and implementation of site-specific
habitat restoration plans and other
site-specific and species-specific measures
appropriate for mitigating impacts to local
populations of special-status wildlife species
and to restore native plant and animal
communities to pre-spill conditions. Access
and egress points, staging areas, and
material stockpile areas that avoid specific
habitat areas shall be identified. The
Emergency Response Action Plan shall
include species- and site-specific
procedures for collection, transportation and
treatment of oiled wildlife.
The Emergency Response Plan
shall be approved by the City prior to
commencing any construction activities.

4.4 Cultural Resources
This section addresses potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from the Proposed
Oil Development Project. Cultural resources are districts, buildings, sites, structures, areas of
traditional use, or objects with historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific
importance. They include archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic), historic
architectural resources (physical properties, structures, or buildings and hardscape and landscape
elements), and traditional cultural resources (those important to living Native Americans for
religious, spiritual, ancestral, or traditional reasons). Under CEQA, paleontological resources
and unique geological formations are considered alongside cultural resources. A paleontological
resource is defined as a locality containing vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils (i.e., fossil
location, fossil-bearing formation or a formation with the potential to bear fossils of scientific
importance).
In identifying cultural and natural resources and evaluating impacts within the Proposed Project
sites, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Applied EarthWorks) consulted numerous sources including
historical and geological data presented in the E&B Natural Resources and NMG Geotechnical
Inc. planning application. Applied EarthWorks staff then reviewed Converse Consultants’ Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 552 11th Place. Staff undertook independent
literature and records searches at the California Historical Resources Information System at the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), as well as at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Natural History (LACM). They contacted the City of Hermosa Beach Development
Department and reviewed available archival and secondary sources. In evaluating standing
structures staff reviewed the City Assessor’s records. Staff attempted to contact the Hermosa
Beach Historical Society on a number of occasions but was unable to reach archival personnel.
Finally, Applied EarthWorks consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) and requesting a Sacred Land File search. Using all available information, Applied
EarthWorks formulated a historic context for evaluation of cultural resources identified within
the Proposed Project areas of potential effect.
The Proposed Project sites and three pipelines are located along the coastal portion of the Santa
Monica Bay, within the southwestern Los Angeles Basin, approximately 0.4 mile inland from the
Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles Basin is a lowland plain in southern California bounded by the
Santa Monica Mountains to the north, the Elysian and Puente hills and on the east, and the Santa
Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills in the southeast (Norris and Webb 1990). The sites are
underlain by Holocene-age dune sands west of the adjacent older alluvial deposits in the Los
Angeles Basin to the east. These deposits generally consist of dune and drift sands (NMG
Geotechnical 2012:9) and are Holocene coastal sediments that consist of loose dune sand and
drift sand that derive from ancient aeolian (wind-born) deposits (Dibblee 1999; NMG
Geotechnical 2012:9). Immediately east of the Proposed Project sites, the Holocene deposits
grade into stabilized dunes of fine-grained drift sand of Late Pleistocene age. According to
Dibblee (1999), it is likely that these surficial deposits shallowly overlie older Quaternary

deposits known as the San Pedro Sand, a unit within the San Pedro Formation (Woodring et al.
1946). Within the Proposed Project sites, these deposits are covered by extant buildings, paved
roads, and asphalt and concrete surfaces. Little of the original surface of the dunes remains
exposed.
4.4.1.1 Prehistoric Chronology
Several cultural chronologies and archaeological sequences have been proposed for coastal and
littoral southern California since the 1920s. These have attempted to track the development of
terrestrial hunting-foraging and marine resource exploitation adaptations among populations in
the area since at least the beginning of the Holocene. These proposed sequences have generally
been based on changes in artifact types rather than linkage to socio-cultural systems in the
region. In other words, the archaeological materials show cultural continuity for much of the
Holocene, despite population increase, intensification of resource use, and techno-economic
innovations in maritime and terrestrial resource exploitation (e.g., circular shell fish hooks, bow
and arrow, and mortar and pestle). Lacking unequivocal archaeological evidence for major
episodes of cultural change, researchers have proposed a range of different cultural periods for
the region. Variants of the southern California prehistoric chronology include those proposed by
King (1990) for the Santa Barbara Channel, Koerper and Drover (1983) for coastal Orange
County, and Erlandson and Colton (1991) for southern California, and generally reflected the
common use of an essentially tripartite division of early, middle, and late development for
Holocene cultures in the region. Available evidence based on research for the Santa Barbara
Channel region and along the southern California coast suggests that early man occupation of the
coastal regions dates to 10,500 Before Present (B.P.) or earlier (Erlandson et al. 2008; Rick and
Erlandson 2000).
The chronology used in this assessment identifies three periods of prehistoric occupation in the
southern California coastal region and is based on research conducted by Mason and Peterson
(1994) and Altschul and others (2007). This information provides the basis for identifying and
evaluating prehistoric archaeological deposits occurring within the region of the Proposed
Project. The Early period (Millingstone Horizon) is subdivided into three phases: Phase I dates
from 10,500+ to 8000/7500 B.P.; Phase II from 8000/7500 B.P. to 5000 B.P.; Phase III from
5000 to 3000 B.P. This early period is followed by the Intermediate Period dating from 3000 to
1300 B.P. The Late Prehistoric Period is divided into two phases: Phase I dates from 1300 to
700 B.P. and the Late Prehistoric Period Phase II from 700 to 240 B.P.
4.4.1.2 History of Early California and the Los Angeles Region
In 1542, the Portuguese explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led a Spanish expedition from Mexico
to explore the lands of what is now California. It was during this expedition that Europeans first
came in contact with the region’s native peoples. This was followed in 1602 with Sebastian
Vizcaíno expedition to San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands and the mainland near present-day
San Pedro (McCawley 1996:207). Later, in 1769, the Gaspar de Portolá expedition crossed
the Gabrielino homeland twice in his exploration for suitable settlement sites.

The ethnographic evidence suggests that several Gabrielino settlements were located on the Los
Angeles plain at this time. Mission life was highly regimented and contrasted sharply with the
traditional Gabrielino lifeway. As a result, colonization had a dramatic effect on Gabrielino
society. The traditional Indian communities were depopulated and epidemics caused by the
introduction of European diseases further reduced the local Indian population. Sites dating to
this time period could potentially be found in the Proposed Project area.
4.4.1.3 History of Hermosa Beach
The area encompassing present-day Hermosa Beach was originally part of an 1837 Mexican land
grant known as Rancho Sausal Redondo issued to Antonio Ygnacio Avila by then-governor Juan
Alvarado. The 22,458-acre property included present-day Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach,
Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. In 1855, the United States
patented the land grant to Avila, recognizing him as the rightful owner of the property.
When Avila died in 1858, his heirs sold the property to Scotland native Robert Burnett. His
combined holdings were used to raise sheep and cattle and in 1873 he leased a portion to Daniel
Freeman. In 1885, Freeman purchased all of the land from Burnett and in the late 1800s
Freeman sold his property to various real estate developers. Among them was A. E. Pomroy,
who eventually owned most of Rancho Sausal Redondo and sold 1,500 acres to developers,
Moses Hazeltine Sherman and Eli Clark. With this transaction Sherman and Clark gained
controlling interest of the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company (Rhein 1933).
The official survey for the Hermosa Beach boardwalk was completed in 1901, and the
construction of the wood plank boardwalk followed shortly along the 2-mile stretch of the
Strand. In 1904, the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company built the City’s first pier.
Constructed of wood and extending 500 feet into the Pacific waters, it was partially washed away
and replaced in 1913. Following the election for city officers on Christmas Eve of 1906, the City
of Hermosa Beach was incorporated and chartered on January 14, 1907. During this time, the
City acquired its 2-mile stretch of coastal property by deed from the Hermosa Beach Land and
Water Company. The deed included a clause to hold the property in perpetuity as a public place
for recreation and general enjoyment, as it remains today. In 1914, tides had again washed away
portions of the boardwalk; these sections were then replaced with a cement walkway. In 1926,
another 2,000 feet of cement walkway was added to the north end of the boardwalk (City of
Hermosa Beach 2013).
Development of the City came relatively quickly at the turn of the twentieth century. By the end
of the first decade, the City had its first primary school, with plans for another to accommodate
third through ninth grades. The Pioneer and Berth hotels were established by 1907, and by the
end of the second decade, the City had a fully functioning city hall, police and fire departments,
post office, street and sewer maintenance departments, civic club, and library (Rhein 1933). The
current civic center was designed and built between 1961 and 1965 by Savo Stoshitch, a native
of Indianapolis who made his home in Hermosa Beach following service in the Army Corps of
Engineers during World War II. The establishment of a railroad through Hermosa Beach by the
Santa Fe Railway and the Los Angeles Railway cemented Hermosa Beach as a popular
destination on the Pacific Coast.

Oil development played a significant role in early City development. In August 1930, California
Ventura Oil Company’s Well #1 (later Stinnett #1) struck oil, which extended the Torrance
Oilfield into Hermosa Beach. This and eight follow-up wells produced over a million barrels of
oil. Initial 1930 production peaked 22 months later in May 1932 when 205 barrels of oil were
produced per day from a total of five wells (Finken 2013). Following this peak, the rate of oil
production declined steadily until the last well was abandoned in 1988. The last producing well
in Hermosa Beach, Stinnett #7 (originally California Ventura Oil Company well #2) was shut
down in January 1988. By 2005, all Hermosa Beach wells had been plugged and abandoned
(Finken 2013).
4.4.1.4 Proposed Oil Production Site: 555 6th Street
Archival research indicates that this portion of the Proposed Oil Production Project was first
developed in the early 1920s. The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Map Books from 1900–1960
indicate City ownership or lease of the subject property began in 1920 (Assessor’s Map Book
188 p50), and continues until the present day. Cypress Avenue lots, which bound the site to the
west, were developed as early as 1925 and residents of medium income occupied the first
housing. A review of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show that the streets were laid out and
residential neighborhoods were platted in the general region by 1927. Few changes in the street
pattern have since occurred.
The 1924 topographic map depicts what appears to be a large pit or depression west of the Santa
Fe Railroad and within the subject area. By 1927, the Sanborn Map shows the “City Dump and
Refuse Burner” with a structure at the southeast corner of 6th Street and East Railroad Avenue;
one part of the structure is labeled “Waste Storage 1925.” Approximately 100 feet north of this
structure is the “City Dumping Grounds.” The 1934 topographic map depicts the pit or
depression representing the dump, one structure, and one circular feature (probably Stinnett Oil
Well No. 1 which struck oil in August 1930).
By 1946, the Sanborn Map depicts the “City Garage & W. Ho.” and conversion of the former
burner building, at 553 6th Street. A small office is depicted at 541 Sixth Street, in the middle of
Bard Street. West of the office, in the lot labeled 601 (Bard), are “2 steel oil tks” and to the north
an “oil well” (presumably Stinnett Oil Well No. 1). The City dumping grounds are depicted in
the same location as shown on the 1927 Sanborn Map. The 1960 Sanborn Map is largely the
same as the 1947 map; however, the office and the dump are no longer depicted and the dump
area is labeled “City Service Yard” suggesting that the dump had closed.
4.4.1.5 New City Maintenance Yard
Los Angeles County Assessor’s Map books show that the proposed City Maintenance Yard
relocation site was owned between 1906 and 1920 by Bernard Hiss and from 1920–1927 jointly
by Bernard Hiss, the Pacific State Lumber Company, and Olsen Lumber (Map Books
160:2,188:4). In 1925, the City Directory lists Olsen Lumber at 606 Pier Avenue. Between
1927 and 1936, the subject property was owned jointly by Olsen Lumber, the Patten and Davis
Lumber Company, and the Patten Blinn Lumber Company (Map Book 188:49). The 1934
topographic map depicts at least one structure in the subject area, as does the 1938 aerial

photograph. By 1946, two structures remained, identified as a silk mill and a “conc, products”
structure (Sanborn Map). The railroad spur does not appear to extend onto the Proposed Project
site. Aerial photographs between 1953 and 1956 show the building had been expanded to an “L”
shaped structure, then a rectangular structure with associated parking lots. The 1960 Sanborn
Map identifies the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory occupying most of the subject property.
By 1978, the site had been converted to a self storage facility (Converse Consultants 2005, iii, 8-
12).
The Hermosa Beach Civic Center was built across the street from the Imperial Mills Upholstery
Factory between 1961 and 1965. This complex included City Hall, the Public Library, the Police
Station, and the Fire Station buildings. The library was dedicated on August 10, 1962 and City
Hall on January 24, 1965. Construction costs amounted to $328,390. The library faces Pier
Avenue while City Hall is immediate to the north of the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory. The
complex was designed by Savo Stoshitch (1914–1994) who received his graduate degree in
architectural design from the University of Illinois in 1935. After relocating to Hermosa Beach,
he designed other projects in the Greater Los Angeles area for the Los Angeles Unified School
District, Pepperdine College, Los Angeles City public libraries, and Hughes Aircraft. He also
designed a number of Lawry’s restaurants including Tam O’Shanter, Mediterrania, and Five
Crowns in Corona del Mar (Los Angeles Times 1965). The Hermosa Beach Civic Center was
constructed in the New Formalist Style and Stoshitch took an innovative approach when using
heavy glass in place of iron bars in the Hermosa Beach Jail. He was among the first to do so. He
also added pneumatic tubes in City Hall using the newest technology.
4.4.2 Records and Literature Search
Applied EarthWorks conducted two record searches. Staff requested information on previously
recorded archaeological site and cultural resources from the SCCIC at the California State
University, Fullerton on October 11, 2013. They also contacted the LACM of Natural History
on November 12, 2013.
4.4.2.1 Cultural Resources Record Search
A records search at the SCCIC identified previous studies and recorded archaeological sites
within a one-half-mile radius of the Proposed Project sites (including along the proposed pipeline
alignments). In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California
Historical Landmarks (CHL) the California Register of Historic Places (CAL REG), the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)
were reviewed. The following summarizes those findings.
The HRI lists three properties that have been evaluated for historical significance within the
records search area (19-186114, 19-0186751, 19-186927), but no above-ground historic
resources were listed within the Proposed Project sites or along the pipelines. The three
properties are as follows:
• 19-186114 consists of a plaque located at the southeast corner of Harbor Drive and Yacht
Club Way, Redondo Beach. The plaque marks the location of an old salt lake and reads

“This marker locates the site near which the Indians and early California settlers came to
obtain their salt, which at many times was more valuable than gold.” The plaque was
erected in 1955 and is located 0.5 mile south of the proposed E&B Oil Production
facility.
• 19-186927 is the Hermosa Valley (formerly Valley Vista) School built in the 1950s and
located at 1645 Valley Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north of the proposed City
Maintenance Yard.
• 19-0186751, is the Hermosa Beach Community Center a Modernistic/Art Deco building
originally built in 1911 and located at 710 Pier Avenue, approximately 0.15 mile
northeast of the proposed City Maintenance Yard.
The CAL REG lists two historic properties within the records search area. These properties are
the Hermosa Beach Community Center (described above), and the Clark Building constructed in
1937 and located at 861 Valley Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north of the proposed E&B Oil
Production Project. No other properties are listed on the PHI, NRHP, or CHL.
No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the Proposed Project sites and
no sites are listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (DOE) list. One
archaeological site (19-001872) was identified approximately 0.3 mile south of the Proposed
E&B Oil Production Project. It was first recorded by Greenwood and Associates in 1990. They
described the site as a light-density shell scatter containing various chert flakes. A historical
component consists of three 1880s commercial structures. Greenwood and Associates noted that
the site was severely damaged by later railroad and demolition/construction activities and that
the prehistoric component of the site was likely redeposited midden (Greenwood and Associates
1990). This site lies in close proximity to the old Salt Lake (designated an HRI as above) which
lies in the AES Redondo Beach Generating Station.
Thirteen cultural resources studies have been conducted within the records search radius. Of
these, one was a large survey that included the current Proposed Project sites. This project, the
West Basin Water Reclamation Project, resulted in a Phase I Cultural Resources study prepared
by ERA in 1993. The ERA survey covered the entire E&B Oil Development Project currently
being proposed. ERA concluded that the vast majority of the 42-mile-long pipeline route they
were considering was already developed as highways, streets, and urban landscapes. ERA
recommended that a formal archaeological survey be completed at only three small, potentially
undisturbed parcels.
4.4.3 Paleontological Records Search
Applied EarthWorks staff requested a museum records search at LACM which they
supplemented through a review of the University of California, Museum of Paleontology’s
online database (UCMP). This database contains paleontological records for all of Los Angeles
County.
The LACM records show that there are no known localities within the surficial dune and drift
sand. However, according to McLeod (2013), it is likely that the young surficial sediments
shallowly overlie older Quaternary deposits in the Proposed Project sites. These underlying

older Quaternary deposits have yielded vertebrate fossils at localities east of the Proposed Project
sites, sometimes at relatively shallow depth. McLeod (2013) reports three localities within the
vicinity of the Proposed Project sites. Locality LACM 4444 to the east near Crenshaw
Boulevard and 190th Street, yielded fossil specimens of Equus (horse), and Cetacea (whale) at a
depth of 15 feet below the surface. Southeast of the Proposed Project sites, near Crenshaw
Boulevard and 236th Street, locality LACM 1839 produced a specimen of Equus, recovered from
35 feet below the surface. Near Prairie Avenue and 139th Street, northeast of the Proposed
Project sites, locality LACM 2035 produced a fossil specimen of Mammuthus (mammoth) at an
unreported depth.
The UCMP online database for Los Angeles County indicates there are 87 fossil localities within
the San Pedro Formation in Los Angeles County. Recovered fossil specimens include horse,
camel, saber-tooth cat, rodent, rabbit, bird, sloth, bison, dire wolf, mollusk, and microfossils.
The implications of these finds are reported in the technical report prepared for this study
(Warren et al.; Appendix G) and summarized below.
4.4.3.1 Sacred Lands Search
The NAHC was contacted on October 9, 2013, for a review of the Sacred Lands File to
determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering
areas, places of religious or sacred activity, etc.) are present within or adjacent to the Proposed
Project sites (Appendix C). The NAHC responded on October 11, 2013, stating that no Native
American cultural resources are known to exist within the immediate Project vicinity; however,
the NAHC indicates that Native American Sacred Land place(s) exist in close proximity to the
Proposed Project sites and requested that Native American individuals and organizations be
contacted to solicit further information regarding cultural resource issues or traditional concerns
related to the Proposed Project.
Ten individuals and organizations were contacted by email and/or letter on October 21, 2013.
The Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation responded via email on October 21, 2013, and
stated they would review the Proposed Oil Production Project documents. On October 29, 2013,
a representative of the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council reported that they
had conducted an independent survey of the Proposed Oil Production site and had observed a
bivalve shell and rock that might be culturally modified. These items were located beyond the
Proposed Project site boundaries along a pedestrian path, a former railroad grade where the rails
have been removed and hence disturbed. Nonetheless, the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians requested
monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor of all Project-related
ground-disturbing activities.
On November 5, each individual on the NAHC list who had not previously responded was again
contacted; this time by telephone; voice messages were left. On November 6, the Gabrielino
Tongva Nation representative responded via email and requested archaeological and Native
American monitoring of all project-related excavations. No other responses to the voice
messages were received (for further details see Appendix G).

4.4.4 Cultural Resources Survey
On October 28, 2013, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. staff conducted a vehicular survey of the
Proposed Project sites and pipeline alignments. Both construction sites were found to be in
urban areas and heavily built-over, providing zero visibility for the detection of archaeological
resources. Proposed pipeline alignments were found to be in urban areas or along existing utility
rights-of-way and again afforded zero visibility for the detection of archaeological resources. On
October 30, 2013, Applied EarthWorks staff visited the Hermosa Beach Public Works
Maintenance Yard (City Yard) located at 555 6th Street to evaluate the potential for significant
cultural resources to be present on site. Results of this inspection are presented in the technical
report appended (Appendix G; Warren et al. 2013) and are summarized below.
4.4.4.1 Archaeological Resources
Archival research demonstrated that the Proposed Oil Production site was utilized as a City
Dump and refuse processing area from the 1920s through the 1940s. The 1924 topographic map
depicts what appears to be a large pit or depression within this portion of the Proposed Project
site. The pit may have been a natural depression, a sand mining pit, or may have resulted from
the borrowing of fill. The horizontal dimensions of the dump are unknown and the depth of the
deposits, based on available soil boring information appears to be at least 29 feet and possibly as
deep as 45 feet (NMG Geotechnical 2012:10). The deposit contains glass, ceramics, brick,
metal, and concrete near the base and it is assumed to be the result of municipal refuse collection
beginning in the early 1900s. Little information exists about refuse collection in Hermosa
Beach, although it is known that a refuse burner was present during the early years of operation
(1924 to 1946). The former City dump appears potentially to contain archaeological deposits
that may be removed and adversely impacted by the development of the Oil Production site.
This section of the Proposed Project Site is therefore considered to have high potential to contain
historical archaeological remains.
The 1946 Sanborn Map depicts an oil well (presumably Stinnett Oil Well No. 1), and two
rectangular features on the site, presumably above-ground storage tanks. The oil well was
plugged and abandoned in 2005 and the tanks and associated pipes and dispenser equipment
removed in 1989 and 1998 (Brycon LLC 2012:2). All archaeological remains associated with
these oil industrial features (beyond the well shaft) have been removed, so there is low potential
for significant oil industry-related archaeological features to be present.
The City Maintenance Yard is the site of the former Olsen Lumber Mill, an unnamed silk mill,
and the Imperial Mills Upholstery Factory. In 1978, the mill structures appear to have been
demolished when the self-storage facility was added. Subsurface deposits associated with the
earlier land use are likely to be limited to structural remains, which, given the early twentieth-century
date and light industrial nature of the site, are unlikely to yield any new or significant
archaeological data about these operations. The historical archaeological sensitivity of this site is
considered low.
The area bordering the proposed pipelines was developed in the early 1900s and the street grid
established by the 1920s. Archival research did not indicate prior development in these areas.

Further, the proposed pipelines will be placed below city streets in areas likely to already be
disturbed. The archaeological potential, therefore, is considered low.
The records and literature search did not indicate the presence of previously recorded prehistoric
resources within the Proposed Project sites or along the proposed pipelines. The only previously
recorded site was situated 0.3 miles to the south. It was described as a light scatter of chipped
stone flaking debris and shell (Greenwood and Associates 1990). The site was reported to be
heavily disturbed by railroad and later-period construction and/or demolition. Most of the
Proposed Project is located in an urban environment, which has also been extensively disturbed.
However, local Native American groups expressed concern and consider the Proposed Project
sites to be within their traditional use area. Among those contacted, two tribes requested
monitoring of all Project-related ground-disturbing activities by a qualified archaeologist and a
Native American monitor (see Warren et al. 2013: Appendix G).
4.4.4.2 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey
The Proposed Oil Development site is currently occupied as the City Maintenance Yard.
Existing improvements consists of three buildings, two trailers, storage containers, sheds, trash
bins, a propane tank, concrete paving and asphalt, fencing, and masonry walls. In addition,
within the boundaries of the Proposed Project Oil Development site, there is an asphalt parking
area to the south of the Maintenance Yard. Based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps it would
appear that the Maintenance Building, located at 555 6th Street, on the northwest corner of the
intersection formed by Valley Drive and 6th Street was constructed between 1924 and 1927.
Therefore, it is more than 50 years of age. The other two structures are less than 50 years of age.
The maintenance building is oriented slightly northwest-southeast. It is a long rectangular frame
industrial structure measuring approximately 18 feet high with a flat-top roof and an adjacent
open-air service bay situated east of the building. The 45 foot by 90 foot building has undergone
several additions and modifications to its original brick and cement-mortar footprint, which is
primarily composed of a brick furnace room and service bay on the ground level. What appears
to be a basement-level loading dock has since been converted into a garage. Measuring 22 feet
by 45 feet, the northern portion of the building currently contains most of the historical elements
and architectural features of the City Yard refuse burner. Today the upper portions of the brick
and cement-mortar wall construction are unpainted and provide an unobscured view of original
construction elements.
The wood-plank ceiling has largely been replaced, and on the western part of the room, the
ceiling is supported by two parallel I-beam joists running north-south and set into cut recesses of
original brickwork. The I-beams were clearly added later. An arched brick doorway at the
eastern part of the building has been filled in to accommodate a modern wall and door. Close to
the ceiling of the eastern portion of the building is a pair of iron rails separated at a width of 4
feet 6 inches, remnants of a former pulley system that likely transferred items from a loading
dock on the lower level to the furnace room above for incineration. Modern additions to the
building are not considered historically significant, but the brick and mortar refuse
burner/furnace contained within the City Maintenance Building is considered potentially
significant and may yield important information about site operations and refuse disposal

practices associated with the operation of the dump during the early to mid twentieth century.
Because the furnace is surrounded by more modern additions its current condition is not fully
known. However, the original footprint of the furnace is fully subsumed in the larger
maintenance structure. What is visible inside the maintenance building (hearth, chimney, arched
ceiling, and ghosts of the lifting mechanisms) reflect elements of this early 1920s industrial
structure. Removal of later-period additions likely will reveal additional information about the
structure and its function in the incineration and recycling process employed by the City of
Hermosa Beach between 1924 and 1947.
The construction of the New City Maintenance Yard is proposed at Valley Drive and 11th Street
across from (to the south of) City Hall. This building, along with the Fire Station buildings, the
Police Station, and the County Library, were built between 1961 and 1965 and designed by local
architect Savo M. Stoshitch. All buildings were constructed in the New Formalist style with
steel framing and posts, brick veneer, and banks of windows. Brick colonnades adorn the
exterior of the City Hall the front of which faces a parking lot to the east. Additional parking is
provided on the southern and western perimeters. The Civic Center complex has not been
previously evaluated. For the purposes of CEQA and determining project impact, the City Hall
complex is assumed to be eligible for the CRHR on a local level under Criterion 3. While there
will be no direct impacts to the complex, construction of the New City Maintenance Yard across
the street has the potential to cause an indirect visual impact on these historically significant
structures if it detracts unfavorably from the views of the existing City Hall.
Applied EarthWorks’ historian reviewed the City Assessor’s records and other on-line resources
in the evaluation of a third structure which is proposed to be demolished at 636 Cypress Avenue.
When constructed in 1952, this commercial structure was built to contain 3,710 square feet. It
had 0 bath/0 bedrooms. It has a flat roof, a double bay garage door, and is of frame construction.
It is zoned commercial /industrial and no additions have since been made. Other structures
surrounding 636 Cypress appear to be of the same age and function. For the purposes of CEQA,
this building is not considered a historical resource.
4.4.4.3 Paleontological Resources
Based on the literature review and museum records search results, and in accordance with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s (SVP) sensitivity scale, the unconsolidated Holocene dune
sand and drift sand within the Proposed Project sites is determined to have a low paleontological
resource potential. However, the Pleistocene San Pedro Sand, associated with numerous
significant paleontological localities, has a high paleontological resources potential and may
underlie the surficial deposits at varying depths below the Project sites. The depth at which the
San Pedro Sand underlies the surficial sand deposits in the vicinity of the Proposed Oil
Production site is unknown, but may have ranged from approximately 15 feet to 50 feet prior to
the development of the City Dump (Dibblee 1999; McLeod 2013; Woodring et al. 1946). As
previously stated, the former dump is approximately 45 feet deep. Therefore, the likelihood of
Project-related grading and excavations reaching underlying intact San Pedro Sand is considered
low. However, should Project-related excavations exceed 45 feet in depth at the City Dump, or
depths of 15 feet along the pipelines, or otherwise impact intact San Pedro Sand deposits,
scientifically significant paleontological resources may potentially be encountered.

Cultural and paleontological resources have been evaluated to determine if the Proposed Project
will have any significant environmental impacts on these resource types. The CRHR is an
authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify
and evaluate the state’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected,
to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing
resources on the CRHR are based on those developed by the National Park Service for listing on
the NRHP. The CRHR was established to consider a broader range of resources that better
reflect the history of California. Under CRHR, a historical resource is considered significant if
it:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory of
history of the local area, California or the nation.
According to CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall generally be considered “historically
significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The fact that a resource is
not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register
of historical resources [pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code], or
identified in a historical resources survey [meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code] does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a
historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
In addition to the CEQA guidelines, the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.53:
Historic Resources Preservation provides guidance for the evaluation of resource significance at
the local level. The ordinance is intended to identify resource types that are potentially important
to the City and ensure the long-term protection and use of historical resources, such as buildings
and structures, sites, and places within the City that reflect special elements of the City’s
architectural, artistic, cultural, historical, political, and social heritage. The City's General Plan
also includes the City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Map that identifies Potential
Locally Significant Resources, Potential State Historic Landmarks, and designated State Historic
Landmarks (City of Hermosa Beach 2009). No such resources have been identified within the
Proposed Project sites.
Per the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Sections 17.53.070 through 17.53.120, a

Final Certified Environmental Impact Report

Final Certified Environmental Impact Report

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Final Certified Environmental Impact Report (20)

More from StopHermosaBeachOil (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Final Certified Environmental Impact Report