October 3, 2006

Dr. Ralph Appy
Director of Environmental Management
Port of Los Angeles
425 South Palos Verdes Street
Post Office Box 151
San Pedro, CA 90733-0151

Aaron Allen
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
Ventura Field Office
2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110
Ventura, California 93001

RE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS/EIR BERTH 97-109

The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council is an elected body under the Charter of the City of Los Angeles. We represent approximately 20,000 residents and businesses in the area of San Pedro that is directly adjacent to Berth 97-109. Our stakeholders are significantly impacted by the proposed project. Although we are disappointed that we were unable to obtain an extension of the comment period for the Draft EIS/EIR, the Council nevertheless developed and approved the attached comments on the Draft EIS/EIR.

Our comments focus on four key factors:
• Improper baseline
• Air quality
• Aesthetic mitigation
• Traffic

We hope that these comments will be helpful in developing the final EIR. Please feel free to contact me at 310-831-1975 if you have any questions or would like further information.

Diana Nave, President
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council

cc: Dr. Geraldine Knatz

NORTHWEST SAN PEDRO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
COMMENTS ON
Berth 90-109 Container Terminal Project Draft EIS/EIR

[Note: All page notations are to Volume I/II of the Draft EIS/EIR for the Berth 90-109 Container Terminal Project]

I. Comments related to use of improper baseline.

In general, and in several specific places, the draft bases its analysis of impacts on prior use as a container storage yard. The area has been vacant for a considerable period and prior to that was used as a shipyard and/or tank farm. The baseline for impacts of the proposed project should be based on those uses.

Chapter 2 Table 2-1 Page 2-1

CEQA impacts must be based on the prior use as a petroleum tank farm and shipyard, rather than on container storage. At the very least, the tank farm and shipyard use should be included as part of the baseline comparison. The year for the CEQA baseline should be provided.

Section 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Page 3.1-52 AES-4: Would the proposed Project create light or glare?

The draft concludes that lighting from the proposed project would not change the existing levels of ambient light. This conclusion is based on prior use as 27 acres of container terminal. The project should evaluate light and glare against the former land use. Prior to the proposed project, no lights from cranes or backland lighting were present. After analyzing the impacts using the appropriate baseline, appropriate mitigation at the project site and at the adjacent terminal should be provided.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2 -59 thru 3.2 -76 (Figures 3.2-1 through 3.2-9)

The figures showing daily emissions should be compared against the prior site usage. The CEQA Baseline is from 2005 when Phase I of the project was already completed. The baseline emissions should be compared to the original site usage or to a legally appropriate benchmark year, such as 2001.

B. Comments related to Air Quality

In general, the air quality sugar coats the impacts of a huge increase in trucks by characterizing them as individually cleaner. The draft also does not conform to the CAAP Port plans.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2-48 thru 3.2-53 (MM AQ -7 to MM AQ -21)

In addition to using the wrong prior usage as a basis for calculating the baseline, thereby under-reporting impacts, the total emissions from trucks are also under-estimated; mitigation measures 7 through 21 are designed to reduce air quality impacts from operation of the proposed Project. However, the total volume of goods movement equipment proposed for the site will overwhelm any emissions reductions gained through implementation of MM AQ-7 though MM AQ-21. Consistent with the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood comments to the Clean Air Action Plan dated August 2006, the draft EIS/EIR should discuss mitigations within the Port to reduce total emissions.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2-59 thru 3.2-76 (Figures 3.2-1 through 3.2-9)

The draft EIS/EIR should include a table that compares the requirements of the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach Clean Air Action Plan against the Air Quality mitigation measures proposed.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2-37, MM AQ-3

Mitigation MM AQ-3 applies only to Phase II and III of the proposed project. Phase I mitigations were not done. Additional mitigation of construction or daily operational impacts elsewhere in the Port should be included to reduce emissions port-wide and to account for construction emissions from Phase I of the project.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2-37, MM AQ-5

MM AQ-5 states that “LAHD shall implement additional BMPs to further reduce air emissions during construction if determined feasible by the LAHD construction division”. The four emission controls for construction equipment should be required of any contractor retained by the LAHD to construct Phase II and Phase III of the proposed Project.

Section 3.2 Air Quality, Page 3.2-43, Mitigation Measures

Implementation of mitigation measures during construction of the proposed Project will result in significant PM10 for Phase I, II and III. The LAHD should evaluate the ability to reduce PM10 at other construction projects within the port.

C. Comments relating to Aesthetics and Visual Resources

The draft contains a number of mitigations related to aesthetics and visual resources but nearly all of them are presented in non-committal language. It is difficult to say whether any of them will be provided.

Section 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Page 3.1 -35 MM AES -2

Bullet point No. 2 recommends implementing the Northwest Harbor Beautification Plan. We believe this is a reference to the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council’s proposal for China Shipping Aesthetic Mitigation dated July 2003. The boundaries of that plan should be expanded to include landscaping and beautification of Front Street to Swinford Avenue.

Section 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Page 3.1 -38 MM AES -3

The last paragraph refers to removal of a truck resale facility at the northeast corner of Pacific Avenue and Front Street. The truck resale facility is located on Pacific Avenue north of Front Street. An auto repair shop is at Pacific Avenue and Front Street.

The removal is consistent with resolutions of the NWSPNC relating to creating a green buffer zone between Port activities and the community, but it is presented in “maybe” terms, and the Board at its meeting in September 2006 turned down a PCAC recommendation that the Port buy the facility. We note that the truck resale lot appears to be a direct result of increased trucking activity at the terminal and should be mitigated. Further, the appraised value of the site is known. Any equivocation based on the “reasonable cost of mitigation” is known now, and cannot be used as an escape clause from the mitigation commitment.

Section 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Per motions passed by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, the project should include creating a green boundary between the proposed project and the community through landscaping, undergrounding of all utilities and removal of bill boards. We note that the proliferation of unsightly and increased number of crossarms on power poles is a direct result of industrial growth in the Port. We also note that Gibson Boulevard is a designated scenic route. However, the mitigation is presented in “maybe” language. To the extent that the Port’s equivocation depends on the “reasonable cost” of the mitigation, the cost is known. It is therefore inappropriate to use that as an escape clause from its mitigation commitments.

There is an inadequate discussion in the DEIR of the noise impacts.

The results of the noise survey performed by the Port of Los Angeles show that the West Basin Area of the Port of Los Angeles generates the most noise impacts to the community. A portion of this noise is a result of train operations. The noise levels are high enough that they adversely impact the quality of life in the neighborhoods adjacent to the West Basin rail tracks. The DEIR fails to address mitigations for noise impacts from the increased rail traffic. A priority should be placed on the rail and goods movement improvement project within the West Basin. Until the West Basin goods movement and rail improvement project is completed, the hours of train operations within the West Basin area should be restricted from 7AM to 10PM.

There is an inadequate discussion in the DEIR of the light impacts.

Lights from the project area have a direct adverse impact on the Northwest San Pedro. A process of updating the area lighting at the Yang Ming Terminal should be implemented. The updating of the area lights can start as soon as the necessary studies and scopes of work have been completed by Port staff. The lighting improvement project could entail retrofitting and replacing individual light fixtures and elements and possibly changing methods of operation. Considerations for the lighting improvements will be safety, security, energy efficiency and reduction in light impacts to the community.

D. Comments related to Traffic Impacts

The draft analyzes traffic impacts at intersections only along the immediate border of the terminal. It fails to analyze the surrounding community where there are enormous impacts. It also does not analyze compliance with, or impact on, emergency evacuation plans for the Port area.

Section 3.6 Ground Transportation and Circulation, Page 3.6-1 Roadway Baseline

The draft EIS/EIR did not study traffic impacts from the proposed project on any intersection west of John Gibson Boulevard. Given that over 3,500 trucks per day will use the terminal, an impact to the following intersections should be studied as part the EIS/EIR:

•Channel Street and Gaffey Street
•Gaffey Street and Capitol Drive
•Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive
•Gaffey Street and Eastbound On-Ramp to SR-47 at Miraflores

We understand that Channel and Gaffey Street is already at level of service “F” [LOS “F”] at peak hours due to truck traffic from the terminal, largely from increased usage of the Port of Los Angeles Distribution facility on North Gaffey Street as well as increased use of the Channel Street off ramp from the 110 South and the onramp to the 110 North on Gibson Blvd..

Section 3.6 Ground Transportation and Circulation, Page 3.6-34 Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-6

TRA-2 This mitigation calls for two northbound left turn lanes from Harbor Boulevard onto the westbound SR-47 on ramp. Given the volume of truck traffic proposed for this intersection, an additional acceleration in lane for trucks needs to be provided from the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and the westbound SR-47 on ramp to a full merge with northbound traffic on Interstate 110. Without this additional acceleration lane for trucks, traffic will back up on the SR-47 on ramp due to the inability of trucks to accelerate up the grade.

TRA-4 This mitigation calls for an additional southbound through-lane on John Gibson Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp to Interstate 110 from John Gibson should consist of two lanes through the merge with the Interstate 110 traffic. Without the second acceleration lane for trucks, traffic already backs up on the on-ramp.

TRA-5 Our comment on TRA-5 is similar to our comments on TRA-2 and TRA-4. An additional truck acceleration lane needs to be added through the merge with Interstate 110 traffic.

An additional mitigation is needed to provide for a dedicated left turn signal at northbound Gibson Blvd. onto westbound Channel Street. The increase in traffic now requires six or seven cycles to make that turn during peak hours. Many vehicles now proceed north of the intersection and make dangerous U-turns in order to make the turn onto Channel Street as a right hand turn.

Section 3.6 Ground Transportation and Circulation, Page 3.6-34, Mitigation Measures.

The draft EIS/EIR does not include any mitigations for truck traffic on North Gaffey Street. No mention is made of the increase that will occur at the Port Distribution Center at Gaffey and Westmont as the proposed project container traffic increases through 2030. Mitigations as a result of the proposed project should include:

• Routing all truck traffic generated by the West Basin Terminals internally within Port property and then onto and off the freeways directly to and from their terminal properties.

o Evaluating on and off ramps from Interstate 110 directly into the distribution center and terminal.

o Reconfiguring the SR-47 Eastbound on ramp at Miraflores

o Reconfiguring the Channel Street and Gaffey Street Intersection (emphasis on left turn signalized, and left turn lane length from Gaffey Street to eastbound Channel)

o Adding an additional lane to the Channel Street off-ramp from the 110 Freeway

E. Miscellaneous items

There is no provision in the DEIR/DEIS for any means to verify whether predicted impacts were accurate and no provision for determining whether mitigations have been implemented and are effective.

The DEIR/DEIS should discuss the process for providing additional mitigations needed to mitigate unanticipated or miscalculated impacts.

Section 3.14 Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography, page 3.14-24 through 3.14-25 (WQ-5 and WQ-6)

Impacts WQ-5 and WQ-6 evaluate permanent significant impacts to water circulation and changes in the amount of a surface water body. The proposed Project at full build out will result in the loss of 2.5 acres of surface water through the placement of fill. For both potential impacts the draft EIS/EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur and that no mitigation is necessary.

The impact from the loss of surface water view shed and water circulation should be evaluated and mitigated. Among other things, the loss of surface water area has a significant aesthetic impact on views both from vehicles approaching on the 110 freeway or proceeding down the hill on Channel Street towards the harbor and from homes overlooking that portion of the Harbor.

Further, storm water from Peck Canyon and the Flood Control Channel along N. Gaffey flows into the West Basin during winter months. The reduction in water area will result in a potential impact due to the more concentrated flow of storm water runoff, with verifiable pollutants, into a smaller area. To mitigate for this potential impact the draft EIS/EIR should evaluate the storm water quality entering the West Basin and provide storm water improvements to reduce pollutants entering the Basin. One such mitigation could be participation in the current erosion control and water filtration project applications currently in planning for the Peck Park Canyon rehabilitation project.

There is no Analysis of Impacts on Emergency Evacuation Planning and Routes

The Port is engaged in disaster and evacuation planning but there is no analysis in the draft of the impacts of the project on such plans.